ReplayTV's New Owners Drop Features That Riled Hollywood
Xarias
of the digital age, but that engineered friendliness is not always
appreciated in Hollywood.
Last month the maker of ReplayTV, a line of digital video recorders that
allows consumers to record and store hours of their favorite television
programs on hard drives instead of tape, agreed to remove two features from
its devices that simplified life for consumers but complicated business for
entertainment providers.
ReplayTV's new 5500 model, which will go on sale next month, will no longer
be able to skip entire commercials automatically without recording them or
to send recorded programming over the Internet to other ReplayTV users
outside a home network. The recorders will, however, still be able to store
large libraries of programming indefinitely and allow users to skip manually
through recorded commercials in 30-second increments.
Sonicblue Inc., the former owner of ReplayTV, was considered the company in
the digital video recording industry that most seriously pushed against the
copyright interests of the entertainment industry. Two years ago, a
consortium of movie and television studios sued Sonicblue for abetting
copyright infringement with ReplayTV's commercial-skipping feature, among
other claims.
Hollywood is becoming more vigilant about digital recording technology
because it fears that skipping commercials and unauthorized sharing of
programs will become widespread as soon as the devices become commonplace.
Like any kind of antisocial behavior, one entertainment company executive
said, "Every system tolerates some amount of it. But when it starts to
overwhelm the business activity, there won't be any more business activity.
That's when we have to take action."
The lawsuit against Sonicblue was stayed when the company filed for
bankruptcy protection in March. In April, D&M Holdings of Japan acquired the
ReplayTV brand from Sonicblue.
Although executives at D&M said the elimination of the two crucial features
was voluntary, the entertainment industry had demanded in its lawsuit that
those features be dropped.
D&M's decision to alter its product represents what some observers consider
a major shift in power toward providers of entertainment content and away
from the manufacturers of devices that deliver that content to homes and the
consumers who ultimately see it. If advertising revenues and program
licensing fees are to continue to support content, entertainment industry
executives argue, their interests must be accommodated.
Critics see this not as accommodation, but as capitulation.
"Companies are under considerable pressure to bow to the wishes of the
entertainment industry. This is unfair and anticompetitive," said Jeff
Joseph, vice president and spokesman for the Consumer Electronics
Association, a manufacturers' trade group. "If advertisers and broadcasters
are seeing their traditional business model threatened, then it would
behoove them to consider alternative business models."
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal
City Studios Inc., the 1984 case that held that the makers of VCR's do not
infringe on copyrights when consumers use the machines to record television
programs for their own use for later viewing, electronics manufacturers have
been improving recording technology, going beyond simple recording, playback
and fast forward. Lawyers for the entertainment consortium contended that
ReplayTV's features were qualitatively different and crossed the line into
copyright infringement.
The new owners of ReplayTV seem eager to find a mutually acceptable
solution.
"The question became, how do we make sure that consumers get to do things
with their personal video recorder without abusing the rights of the
copyright holders," said Jim Hollingsworth, the president of the ReplayTV
division of D&M.
"We did this on our own. There was no coercion," Mr. Hollingsworth said of
the alterations to the digital video recorders. "We will take features out
because we want to be a positive force in the industry."
ReplayTV's rivals - including TiVo, UltimateTV from Microsoft and EchoStar
Communications' Dish Network - have not gone quite as far in offering a
commercial-skipping feature. However, consumers can skip through 30-second
commercials on most other digital recorders. For example, many TiVo owners
have learned that by pressing a sequence of buttons on the remote control,
they can skip forward 30 seconds on a program. The company does not instruct
users about that process, but instead promotes a feature that lets viewers
fast-forward through commercials at up to 60 times normal speed.
"The broadcasters and advertisers are understandably concerned about
commercial-skipping," said Brodie Keast, a senior vice president and general
manager at TiVo. "With our fast-forward feature, some viewers actually go
back and watch the commercials that interest them." NBC and Discovery
Communications, among others, are shareholders in TiVo and have an interest
in having consumers watch commercials.
The 30-second skip feature has long been available, if not widely used, on
standard VCR's as well. But program providers have not taken action against
VCR manufacturers because those devices are generally more difficult to use.
"When things become too easy to do, that changes the legal argument," said
Mike Fricklas, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of
the board at Viacom, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Sonicblue.
"These people are then taking a free ride on the existing economic model."
Program creators have argued that those delivering their copyrighted work,
like makers of recording devices, have no right to distort it or make it
easy for others to do so. "Companies that manufacture hardware must have a
conversation with program providers who want to be assured that their
programming will be handled in a certain way," said Robert M. Schwartz, a
lawyer representing some plaintiffs, including AOL Time Warner, in the
Sonicblue suit.
That is a conversation that some think is not needed. The decision by
ReplayTV's new owner to deactivate certain features shows that the
electronics industry has given up its power, said Cindy Cohn, legal director
of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "ReplayTV's current
actions are a clear indication that the entertainment companies are gaining
de facto control over what is in our homes," Ms. Cohn said. "Why do we, as
consumers, have to prove what features we need on our recording devices? We
should be the ones who decide."
Yet this is one issue in which electronics manufacturers, who would normally
resist interference in their business, have broken ranks.
"Hollywood does have a role to play in the features we can offer in some of
our products as we are dealing with their content," said Dave Arland, the
director for worldwide trade relations of Thomson, owner of the RCA brand.
"The former owners of Replay pushed the envelope too far. We need a balance
between the industry's legitimate ownership rights and viewer expectations."
Joseph Meehan
longer be able to skip entire commercials automatically without recording
them "
I don't believe that "commercial skip" functions at recording time. It
is an option during playback.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Karl Kaufman
feature just allowed you to automagically skip over commercials on playback
(with varying levels of success).
As a side note, I'm a bit annoyed that ReplayTV was compelled to remove the
Internet Sharing capability, yet other companies are beginning to push out
DVD Recorders -- devices that will provide a far better means of pirating
content than IVS.
"Joseph Meehan" <sligoj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5V6Ta.389$WB2...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Karl Kaufman
and skipping through commercials as "antisocial behavior." From those
bringing us "reality" television. What a schmuck. (Not to mention that
skipping through commercials lets one get through programming faster and
back to actually being sociable.)
Dick Phillips
changed to eliminate commercial skipping and internet sharing? Or, more
importantly, can those features be altered by new firmware?
" Xarias" <Xar...@goawayyoufreakingspammers.com> wrote in message
news:8HudnYs5XP8...@comcast.com...
Gfretwell
>changed to eliminate commercial skipping and internet sharing?
I know this is just anecdotal but I think the CA on the latest version of 4500
code misfires more than the older one. Of course it could just be RTVs idea of
"improvement"
Karl Kaufman
news:0uydnZwlF52...@comcast.com...
> Any rumors that firmware on existing (non-5500) models will be stealthily
> changed to eliminate commercial skipping and internet sharing? Or, more
> importantly, can those features be altered by new firmware?
I've heard nothing to that effect, so far.
And, actually, (to start my own rumor) I'd expect ReplayTV to come back in
the near future with a sharing capability within the home that doesn't rely
on their participation in the process. For example, rather than using
ReplayTV's central servers as a lookup service for connection information,
ReplayTV's on a LAN -- within the home -- could automatically identify each
other and *send* shows back-and-forth, as desired, and not just stream.
As for over-the-Internet sharing, that should become available again to all
users once DVD Recorders have made the issue moot. Of course, ReplayTV
would want/need to change the mechanism in such a way that their central
servers wouldn't be necessary, switching to a peer-to-peer structure. This
would require a bit more knowledge/effort on the part of the user, but would
mitigate much of their responsibility relative to Internet sharing.
Gfretwell
>the near future with a sharing capability within the home that doesn't rely
>on their participation in the process.
Sharing on the LAN (within the home) is totally self contained in the RTV. I
suppose if you lived in a multifamily dwelling with conectivity this could
actually be plenty of homes. I imagine you could have a virtually unlimited
number of RTVs connected to a LAN but you would quickly find out about
"collisions".
It is an interesting concept tho. Imagine living in a condo with several RTVs
and having access to everything everyone in the place recorded. It's only wire.
markjen
the
> Internet Sharing capability, yet other companies are beginning to push out
> DVD Recorders -- devices that will provide a far better means of pirating
> content than IVS.
But the DVD "pirating" typically falls under the "fair use" provisions of
copyright - making a copy for the convenience of a single user, not for
sharing with others. The issue with internet sharing was not the ease of
recording - it was the ease of sharing.
- Mark
Mark Lloyd
<krk...@comNOcastSPAM.net> wrote:
>I especially like how the entertainment exec tries to frame video sharing
>and skipping through commercials as "antisocial behavior."
They seemsd to be using "antisocial" to have almost the opposite to
it's normal meaning.
> From those
>bringing us "reality" television. What a schmuck. (Not to mention that
>skipping through commercials lets one get through programming faster and
>back to actually being sociable.)
>
>> Like any kind of antisocial behavior, one entertainment company executive
>> said, "Every system tolerates some amount of it. But when it starts to
>> overwhelm the business activity, there won't be any more business
>activity.
>> That's when we have to take action."
>
--
Mark Lloyd
has a Replay 5xxx
http://go.to/notstupid
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
64064
made that content recorded onto DVDs may not be copy protected (home movies,
amateur productions, etc.). But with ReplayTV, its designed function is only
to record copy protected material (TV shows, movies, etc.). Like the
difference between a knife and a gun. Both are equally capable of killing,
but a knife can be used to cut things lots of things that are not alive, a
gun's design is to make living things, non-living, that's why guns are
regulated and knives are not.
"markjen" <mark.je...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4aeTa.120554$H17.37177@sccrnsc02...
Karl Kaufman
I "market" the ReplayTV to my friends and family as an excellent way to
digitize their old home videos. Just run a set of RCA cables from inputs on
the back of the ReplayTV and, viola!, you've got MPEG-2.** No different
than a DVD-Recorder, except that you can readily burn the video to disc w/ a
DVD-Recorder.
And I bet you could get a high-quality movie DVD from point A to point B a
whole lot quicker with a DVD-Recorder than you could with ReplayTV Internet
Sharing.
I expect ReplayTV will bring back sharing once they've found a way to
differentiate between copyrighted material and home content -- or once the
envelope has been expanded through other technologies.
Regs,
Karl
** p.s. In fact, I just made a 4508 <=> 5040 ReplayTV trade just so that I'd
be able to share HOME video content over the Internet with my remote family
members. We're 4 households, each w/ a 5040 ReplayTV, and grandkids and
pets that we're nuts about. Really, Internet Video Sharing is more
practical for this purpose, since home video clips would likely be much
shorter & smaller than anything you'd record off television.
"64064" <64...@apci.net> wrote in message news:3f1d7ca9$1...@queeg.apci.net...
Gfretwell
>made that content recorded onto DVDs may not be copy protected (home movies,
>amateur productions, etc.). But with ReplayTV, its designed function is only
>to record copy protected material (TV shows, movies, etc.).
That is clearly covered in the 2 decade old Betamax decision. The Beta machines
were designed to copy broadcast TV shows, nothing else at that time. (and they
were ruled as "fair use")
MegaZone
>That is clearly covered in the 2 decade old Betamax decision. The Beta machines
>were designed to copy broadcast TV shows, nothing else at that time. (and they
>were ruled as "fair use")
The recording for timeshifting purposes is covered, yes, but not the
sharing of said recorded content.
It is open territory, and until either a new law is passed and it is
spelled out, or a case goes to court and a precedent is set, then it
will be uncertain.
I was hoping the RTV case would make it through trial because I wanted
it settled one way or the other. Even though I expected the studios
to win.
-MZ, CISSP #3762, RHCE #806199299900541
--
<URL:mailto:mega...@megazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me..
"A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 508-755-4098
<URL:http://www.megazone.org/> <URL:http://www.eyrie-productions.com/> Eris
Gfretwell
>sharing of said recorded content.
>
>It is open territory, and until either a new law is passed and it is
>spelled out, or a case goes to court and a precedent is set, then it
>will be uncertain.
I don't see how the Betamax decision is not directly on point. The only
differenve between a VCR and a DVD based DVR is media. What you do with the
recorded media may be illegal but simply manufacturing/selling the machine is
clearly covered in the decision.
Internet sharing is a different issue, more correctly addressed by the Napster
decision.
Karl Kaufman
"Gfretwell" <gfre...@aol.comGreg> wrote in message
news:20030723215554...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> What you do with the recorded media may be illegal but simply
> manufacturing/selling the machine is clearly covered in the decision.
> Internet sharing is a different issue, more correctly addressed by the
Napster
> decision.
Which is why I thought Sonicblue's main problem was that they provided the
support infrastructure enabling sharing. If they'd changed the technology
such that their lookup service (associating a ReplayTV device's IVS Identity
with its public IP address/port pair) was not needed, I thought they'd have
more ground to stand on. In that case, it's wholly up to the end-user what
they do with their content.
It's perfectly legal to share personally-created video over the Internet,
and now customers are losing that option -- and ReplayTV that technological
edge.
I repeat my opinion that I think it is easier** to share copyrighted
content via an entertainment center DVD Recorder than ReplayTV Internet
Video Sharing
(as measured by time to deliver a high-quality video of a movie from TV A to
TV B). And the market for the DVD Recorder pirated content is much greater
(comparing the number of DVD players out there to ReplayTVs); not to mention
that this advantage multiplies as you begin to "share" a given recording
with multiple users. (Assuming that ReplayTV doesn't multicast a "sent"
show simultaneously to all destination units.)
I remain hopeful that DNNA will bring back IVS at some point in the near
future, once DVD Recorders have opened the barn door.
Gfretwell
reference.
Personally I still think this is much ado about nothing. If the TV shows are
copied on DVD with the commercials intact I can't see how anyone's ox is gored.
I also don't see this as being any bigger than bootleg tapes. In the end
Hollywood made record profits through all of the tape bootlegging. People still
want to go to the movies and the ancillary profits from TV, rentals and sales
of junk is still there. As long as you can get the movie at blockbuster (or
PPV) for $3 or so I don't see a lot of incentive to bootleg DVDs on any small
scale. Hong Kong will still be kicking your ass and delivering flawless
couunterfeits.
Internet transfers are more troubling but bandwidth is still a problem for most
people. The biggest problem is usually in places where the taxpayers are buying
the portal, like schools. Those are the folks who have the fat pipes. They
should be able to control that as a "stealing from the government" problem and
not touch the MPAA/RIAA issue at all.
I listened to Jack Valenti tonight and it sounds like he understands the issue
a whole lot better than RIAA. He implied that if Hollywood can't beat'm they
may join'm and offer cheap downloads of LEGAL films. He made it very clear that
they were going to try to hit the right price point. That is something RIAA
ignores when they want to charge virttually the same for a download as they do
for a CD when their real costs are a fraction of that.