Battle over network DVR stalls in court

Hello guest,
default
To benefit from all extra features you need to log in or sign up.
14 Jan 09 03:21 by Jared Newman in category Uncategorized To news archive

The U.S. Supreme court declined to hear a case that could ultimately affect how much people pay for cable DVR service, instead asking the Department of Justice to weigh in.

Cablevision’s Mystro TV, first introduced for testing in 2003, has hung in legal limbo for three years. Instead of recording programs onto a device in viewers’ homes, the network DVR stores and accesses recorded programs through the cable provider itself.

Hollywood studios and TV networks argue that this practice is a form of copyright infringement because it resembles video on demand, and they’ve claimed during the years-long legal battle that Cablevision should pay licensing fees to copy the programming. Cablevision counters that subscribers are technically the ones copying the shows. Other cable companies, interested in launching their own network DVRs, are watching the case.

In the end, this fight over what seems like a minor technicality could have a major impact on customers. Cablevision says each set-top DVR costs $100 and customers foot the bill by renting them. Marguerite Reardon at CNet points out that a centralized service would either shrink or eliminate these boxes, doing the same to the attached cost.

Still, there doesn’t seem to be any difference in actual service between networked and local DVR, which makes this excruciatingly long court affair seem like a petty argument over semantics. In both instances, customers will be able to record live television and play it back at their leisure.

Without being privy to the details of the court proceedings, it’s hard to know what nefarious acts the movie studios and TV networks are conjuring when they get all hot and bothered about these devices. But given the possibility of more affordable DVR, one could go on a limb and say this is a last-ditch effort to control increasingly fickle consumers.

It’s not clear when the case will be resolved. The Justice Department could either make a decision or give the case back to the high court. If that happens, it won’t be heard again until the fall.

5 Comments

ferd
Posts: 244
Posted on: 14 Jan 09 14:13
"...a petty argument over semantics." Sounds like music to a lawyer's ears!
Blu-rayFreak
Posts: 228
Posted on: 14 Jan 09 15:39
Sounds like network storage powered DVR service would be awesome. You wouldn't need a dedicated DVR in each room (just a digital cable box) and you would still be able to record shows from any of those rooms!
A_Trac
Posts: 12
Posted on: 14 Jan 09 16:36
I agree with Blu-rayFreak. If you could access all your recorded shows from any of the TVs in your home then that would be great, and none of that sounds like copyright infringement to me. I remember way back when there were arguments about taxing VHS tapes and VCRs. It sounds like a similar debate to me, and the TV networks are not going to win.
JaredNewman
Posts: 560
Posted on: 14 Jan 09 17:35
@ferd:

Pure conjecture! That's not jurisprudent!
Chuckwagon
Posts: 163
Posted on: 14 Jan 09 18:33
Hmmm....I think this technology has one glaring short-coming...bandwidth. The cable companies are already bitching and moaning about bandwidth usage, and they want to introduce a technology that will consume enormous amounts of additional bandwidth? All it will take to shut this technology down is for an average viewer to time-shift a couple minutes any of the major shows on in primetime. The cable company would then be stuck re-broadcasting each individual stream, since it's unlikely all viewers would time shift in exactly the same way so caching would get overwhelmed. Then add in the viewers who want to catch up on yesterday's shows today, while a bunch of today's shows are time shifted, and it gets to be quite a mess. It's easy to foresee that 1000's of different shows are going to be watched in addition to shows that are live. And the more customers that do it, and the longer they do it, the worse it will get. And HD signals only make it worse.

Then add in storage requirements. As much as 4-8GB per hour depending on signal and quality, for at least 4 hours a day, on most of the popular channels out of the 150+ channels available, would consume upwards of several TB every day. The storage management would quickly become a nightmare.

I just don't see how this could possibly be successful in the long run.

Post a comment

Most popular headlines

Modders already fixing banned Xbox 360s (4)

  • Thursday 19 November 01:02 by JaredNewman
  • Game Consoles, Piracy

It takes a bit of technical know-how to modify your Xbox 360 for unintended purposes, so it's not surprising that modders have already devised ways to stop Microsoft's anti-piracy measures.

Warner starts DVD to Blu-ray trade-ups (8)

The problem with being a movie enthusiast and upgrading to Blu-ray is that you're stuck with an entire library of DVDs, but Warner Home Video is now offering incentives to help boost your Blu-ray catalog.

The Pirate Bay shuts down its tracker (2)

The slow dismantling of The Pirate Bay continues, deactivating what was once the largest torrent tracker on the Internet.

Blockbuster to close additional stores (1)

  • Tuesday 17 November 22:47 by Randomus
  • Movies, Online Video

Blockbuster plans to close an additional 525 to 600 more stores in 2010 and beyond, adding to the 950 stores that are expected to close next year, Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter noted.

See all headlines

Active Commenters