New Internet VCR Service 153
owillis writes: "Recordtv.com allows you to choose
what TV shows you want it to record, then come back and play them in
realplayer. Legally, they're probably screwed ... but it's cool
regardless." The site isn't very slick, but claims to have 50,000
regular users. Their FAQ also says they have a grand total of eight (8) "VCRS" (video-capturing PCs), so that's the limit on what can be
recorded at one time right now. This seems even more primed for a lawsuit than iCrave
TV.
Tried their registration option (Score:3)
Then after clicking on click here for status I got a message noting that they had been hacked on the 13th and lost some files. It also said something to the effect that they would be too busy on Sunday to do much because of Something to to with a radio thing on Los Angelas 640 or something. I have not gone back to copy the message due to the /. effect
Poor guys Hacked on Saturday, /.'ed on Sunday. They will probably will get sued on Monday at the rate their luck seems to be going
Re:Alliance with RIAA!?!?!%@*^% (Score:1)
The RIAA is the music industry.
The TV industry is something different.
It's like saying... 'Let's go have the MPAA and Microsoft team up'.. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
Illegal in UK for several other reasons. (Score:1)
- lack of a digital transmission license for the UK or EEA means a minimum £50,000 fine (ouch)
- this could be construed as purveying unauthorised decoders for conditional services which carries a penalty of up to 2 years in prison, and/or a fine.
- using the service without a television license can get you a £1000 fine. This is certainly the case with those Hauppage cards, I think the courts would take a pretty dim view of digital retransmission as well.
The television license stuff doesnt apply for screens below a certain size diagonal (9"?) which might help your cause (slightly) if the quality of retransmission is low.
While people have argued that this isnt broadcast, the white paper that led to the various television Acts in 1998 (Broadcasting, Conditional Services, etc) made it pretty clear that it was intended to cover any point-to-point transmission. The UK already had video on demand trials in Swindon that year so licensing pretty much exactly this service is already handled in UK law, and you dont want any of that on you.
--Baz (ps: IANAL. check http://www.hmso.gov.uk/ for relevant Acts and Statutory Instruments online)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
Re:hmmm, I wonder... (Score:1)
It the case of iCrave, the only reason to put in a bogus area code was to be able to get the service. If you had something where it asked to you to enter a zip code to watch a national show, probably 90% of people would answer this honestly as long as it didn't matter what you put in.
That's the key, that most people will willingly give up a lot of information as long as you produce results no matter the input.
Re:Here's why: (Score:1)
Yet another "Clueless Timmy" post. (Score:2)
Here we go again..
Clueless Timmy,
Cost of this lame RecordTV service: "FREE"
Cost of Hauppauge WinTV Card: $50.00
One bombards you with spam before, during, and after your visit in the form of unsolicited email and endless banner ads. The other puts a minor dent in your wallet, but buys you a top-quality TV tuner card that works great in both Windows and Linux, and allows you to record MPEG or AVI videos off cable, VCR, camcrder, or any other video source in your house direct-to-disk at your leisure. Oh, and by the way, there are a few nice cable descrambler hacks available for it. Not to mention, it comes with a nice remote control you can put on your coffee table and use that nice 17" flatscreen LCD as a normal TV.
"If lameness is measured in units of Gore, cluelessness has to be measured in degrees of Timothy." - Me.
Bowie J. Poag
unencrypted URL (Score:1)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
This is not the place for it. If you must rant and spam us, do it on your own site and provide a link.
thank you.
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
You're being oppressed by immoral laws that prevent you from enjoying someone else's creative work for free.
We feel for you, you're an oppressed victim. Have you written to Oprah yet?
What TV shows? And from where? (Score:1)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
Seriously, though - if I'd seen this thread earlier, I would have written something similar. Probably not as well thought-out and put-together, though.
"What these folks are doing is foolish, yes, particularly in today's witch-hunt atmosphere."
That's the worst thing they are doing - inviting trouble. Too bad, I like them already.
Kris_J said: "If I can get this system to record Buffy from the US, well ahead of the local Australian channels, I'm not going to watch it here (well, with Realmedia quality I might) so local ratings go down, local ad revenue drops and local stations drop the program. This leads to a drop in revenue for the Buffy creators."
He then called that theft. What he's missing is, by that standard, competition is theft. Doing something that inadvertantly, as a side effect, drops someone else's profits, is not theft. It is not wrong. By Kris_J's standards, Slashdot is stealing from ABC, etc, Linux is stealing from Microsoft and Apple, who are stealing from each other, and by the time you add up everyone who's stealing from somebody else, every man, woman, and child on the planet gets 50-to-life in the electric chair.
Re:Banner Adds (Score:2)
Legality (Score:2)
Consider. Suppose I hooked my PC and PCTV card to the net, wrote some code to do much what these guys were doing, then used a web interface to set my VCR from work or catch an episode of The Simpsons during lunch. That would be entirely legal - it's just a VCR operating with a remote that can function from anywhere in the world. However, if anyone else accessed this home page I am suddenly a copyright criminal?
Of course, the underlying problem is that broadcasters are refusing to release material on the Internet until they have a technical solution in place that will allow them to charge again for the same material they have already charged you for or distributing for free over the public airwaves.
We will all have digital VCR's soon (Score:1)
Already we have the products like the ATI-All-In-Woner that let your computer digitally record & playback.
Also, products like TiVo and RePlay TV serve as a 'limited' digital VCR.
It's only a matter of time that we have inexpensive digital VCR's. Likely they will be like TiVO/RePlay, but with the additional feature of allowing one to save the recordings to a standard format and e-mail, http, ftp, sneaker-net, etc. the files to friends and family so that they too can watch.
Regardless of 'legalities' or the will of broadcasters and media conglomerates, this will occur. Media giants may slow the progress of such technology, but they will be unable to stop it.
Maybe someone has a law/proof/theorem/postulate for this. If there is, I'd like to hear it. If not, I'll create one:
"Technological progress can be slowed, but cannot be stopped." -H.Souders
Re:Screw them (Score:1)
Minor Correction (Score:1)
Here's why: (Score:3)
Because: Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder.
___
Like RIAA vs. Diamond RIO (Score:1)
Re:Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:1)
But only one person can use the VCR at a time. Or at least that is the intended design.
>Again, this is a minor quibble over symantecs.
That minor quibble over symantecs means a LOT to the government. Mazda (I think it was Mazda) was able to import their "trucks" because they were classified as cars (they shared the same doors as one of their cars). This reduced their import taxes significantly. Symantecs will work both ways. Chances are you'd be needing to have a giant tape server
Another, more recent example of symantecs meaning everything is the Rio device. The RIAA attempted to prevent it because they said it was a "home entertainment device" (or something similar). Diamond was able to get away with selling it because according to the law it isn't an MP3 player, it is a computer peripheral...
Re:I think this is the most confused post ever (Score:1)
Sorry I confused you - I think I tried to cram far too many arguements into my last post, so I'll try to focus a bit more this time.
As for you distinction between copyright infringement and deprivation of revenue, I understand the difference but I don't understand your claim that one "doesn't factor at all" into the other. Are you saying that I could infringe the copyright WITHOUT depriving of future revenue?
Absolutely. People who copy music, for instance, wouldn't have necessarily bought the music had they not been able to copy it. As a real-life example, when I was a kid I would copy music tapes for my own personal enjoyment. I was poor and my parents were poor and there was no way I could have afforded to actually buy the music, even though I would have liked to. In this case the record companies lost no revenue because I wouldn't have been able to buy the music anyway. There are plenty of other examples I could give of people who have copied music that they wouldn't have paid for had they not been able to copy it (whether because of financial contraints or because they felt the price of a CD is too high). Incidentally, as soon as I turned 14 I got a minimum wage job and poured most of my earnings into CDs, a lot of which I had copied previously and gotten hooked on, so my copyright infringement actually increased the record companies' revenue rather than decreasing it.
My point before was that you are stating that the revenue is what is being "taken" but it is not a felony to deprive an entity of future revenue. The deprivation of revenue is merely a potential side effect of a felenous act and not a part of the act itself. The deprivation needs to be part of the act itself to be considered theft under your original definition as the side effects are not certain (i.e., loss of revenue is not guaranteed).
Do you think that "copyright infringement" is a less appropriate term to use for unauthorized copying than "theft"? I think it fits the bill far better as there is no guaranteed loss with unauthorized copying.
Re:Screw them (Score:1)
How does this make it any better? So now the average person doesn't get healthcare because of the over-populated hospital. (rich people can get healthcare as long as they have they $$$).
Denying basic health care is barbaric (as is death penalty BTW
you're right. when someone gets convicted of killing 10 people, we should 1) keep them in jail and cost the taxpayers millions of dollers. or 2) slap them on the wrist and tell them it will be alright. What do you think we should do with such criminals? let them go free (I bet you think gun control is good, too)
You must also be one of the people who think that stupid people shouldn't breed and reducing excess population by letting people starve or die of curable diseases is a good thing(tm) and very economical indeed.
sorry, not me. I just don't like to pay for people living off the government (when they are perfectly capable of making their own money, but refuse to). Now let me generalize people like you: You are living off of welefare, Bitching about how bad the government is, meanwhile, not taking the time to get a job.
Uh... according to this logic free software shouldn't exist
welefare makes things like this possible...or the hope of Communism
if it were up to you, everything would be free. (you need a reality check)
Re:its nice to know but.. (Score:1)
Re:I think this is the most confused post ever (Score:1)
I was all set to agree that this one case presents a counter-example and then I rethought: What about decreasing prices, inflation, interest and the time value of money? Let's say it was 1985 when you copied CD C. You saved, let's say, $20. 1990 rolls around and you have money to buy the CD, so you do...for $15.
First, clearly you saved (and thus the company/artist lost) $5 right off the bat.
Second, $20 in 1985 was worth more than the same $20 in 1990, even if you had paid that price.
Third, the interest on $20 for 5 years is probably not entirely negligible at the interest rate someone their size can probably swing.
Fourth is the time value of money. I don't claim to totally understand this, not being an accountant. But my wife (the one with the business degree) says that having money sooner rather than later is a benefit all unto itself (divorced from the interest and inflation issues already mentioned).
So did they really make money from you or not?
But wait! There's more: Even if they made money on this one transaction, it doesn't necessarily mean the company/artist was better off. More copies of C mean lower demand which translate to lower prices (assuming constant supply). For instance, if you ever loaned your illegal copies out, that allowed other people to not-pay or maybe convinced them NOT to buy (the reverse of your case).
In any case, while I agree that maybe "theft" isn't the clearest word for this, I don't think it's the howling error the original poster made it seem.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
Everything was illegal before, but was there was no commotion over it for two reasons: .
1. It was still vaguely difficult to amass copyrighted material
2. It was impossible for many reasons to track people and bust them for making a copy of "Master of Puppets" for friend.
With the internet, #1 is no longer true. It's pretty convenient to get whatever you want over the net, and it will only get easier. So the people who profit off distributing information are getting a bit antsy.
The problem is, #2 is still very much true. What can you do about it? Send the police into private residences to confiscate people's computers? Put ads on TV until everyone realises copying is wrong?
Probably the only solution that keeps the sellers of information in business is to develop closed formats that cannot be copied and put onto the internet. It's a shame, because so many of the Industry's solutions run counter to so many good things, like artistic integrity and free exchange of information.
--
Details on interest (Score:1)
Let's assume the company can get 8% compounded monthly (should be easy for them in a money market or something).
8% APR is
5 years is 60 months.
$20 * (1.0066 ^ 60) = $29.60.
So in order to fully reimburse the company/artist for a $20 CD copied 5 years ago, youd have to pay nearly $30 today, counting only interest. Did you pay that much?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Internet cable TV: an idea whose time has come? (Score:3)
Imagine a company that NEGOTIATES broadcast rights with the networks, exactly like a local cable TV station, but does its broadcasting over the Internet. Preferably in MPEG but I could live with Real or QT streaming.
This company would effectively be a "regional cable company" where its "region" is the Internet. Local cable companies (like Time Warner) would probably complain, but it's still perfectly fair.
The company could do other interesting things too, like allow a personal VCR service like this place. Maybe do some shuffling of commercials for such timeshifted rebroadcasts.
I can imagine a "free" usage level, where the picture size is small and there are banners and commercials everywhere, then a "budget" level with a bigger window, no banners, but the usual amount of commercials, and a "premium" level with no commercials (black space during real-time broadcasts, deleted space on 'playback's) that would probably have to cost about $80/month to offset the lack of commercials (since the company would have to pay both the TV producers and advertisers some sort of royalty to cover the deleted commercials). Or maybe have special Internet-only content that doesn't interrupt the show for commercials, but places banner ads all around it in the browser window!
I like the idea of having this in MPEG, so I can download this week's Farscape or the episode of Law & Order where the kid hacked someone's pancreas (well, hacked the hospital and made them mess up a diabetes patient) and watch it again, without having to clog up my connection every time (and so I can just watch the good parts). But fat chance of that happening, even though there would be little risk of piracy - if the service becomes popular, why trade MPEGs if you can go get your own from their archives? Besides, it means more exposure for the advertisers if people DO pirate the shows, though without a means of tracking it; if the Internet cable company is fine with this, the networks shouldn't have a problem either, and the advertisers will CERTAINLY be happy. (Or if the company is worried, they can charge MPEG downloads at 10x the usual advertising rate, on the notion that the commercials will be seen many more times; the 'live' broadcasts could still be in a streamed format and the commercials sold at the usual rate.)
(Removal of commercials from the MPEGs once you download them: is this also a piracy issue? Not much difference in file size, so it's not like it'll be a mad rush to download the decommercialed version - especially if they adaptively compress it so the commercials are small to begin with. Plus the advertiser is already paid at the "ten people will watch it for every one that gets downloaded" rate anyway.)
Only the movie studios might be unhappy, since when Episode One gets shown on the nightly movie, anyone can download it, splice out the commercials (and ignore the 20 minutes that usually gets edited out of any movie to bring it down to length) and put it on Hotline for all and sundry.
Thoughts?
Re:This will happen (Score:1)
Say, the Christmas Islands makes it legal to host sites that offer for-pay DDOS attacks to interests like the MPAA. . . Gonna complain that they're not playing fair??
Re:Reducing Potential != Theft (Score:2)
Re:I think this is the most confused post ever (Score:1)
That is all irrelevant because there is no way I could have bought the CDs in 1985. Forget that I said that I eventually bought the CDs several years down the line - I had the copies during the period that I could not afford to pay for the music. Whether I had the copies or not made no difference to the record companies' bottom lines as there was no way I could have paid for the CDs/tapes. The point at which I had enough of an income to buy the original music and would have paid the asking price if copying weren't available would be the point at which I would have been witholding revenue from the record companies. Some people never reach that point for various reasons.
Here's another concrete example of copyright infringement that doesn't lead to a loss of revenue: somebody who writes a computer program in their spare time and posts it on the web under the GPL has a copyright on the program. If some company were to take said program and incorporate it into one of their products without licensing their product under the GPL they have committed copyright infringement but they have caused the original author a loss of revenue as the original author was not generating revenue off of their program. Yes, the author's rights have been violated, but no revenue has been stolen.
In any case, while I agree that maybe "theft" isn't the clearest word for this, I don't think it's the howling error the original poster made it seem.
The original poster is probably sick of organizations like the RIAA as I am, over statements such as copying a CD that you own to MP3s on your computer solely for your personal use is illegal and theft (yes, they actually state this on their web page). They try to romanticize their cause and villify those that they oppose by referring to them as theives. I am very offended at being called a theif for using something like my.mp3.com where all parties involved have legally paid for the CDs that are being used.
Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:3)
I had a couple consultations with lawyers to review the various legal attacks that might be made on this "Internet VCR" issue. According to the 1984 Betamax decision, the courts have ruled that personal, time-shifted content is legal. So to all those bitching "this is theft": shut up, you don't know what you are talking about. We consumers can tape any shows that we are legally entitled to view. If we live in a region serviced by over-the-air broadcasts, we can record and time-shift over-the-air broadcasts. If we subscribe to cable, the same goes for cable broadcasts. If we subscribe to premium services, etc.
But even though the courts declared time shifting to be legal, it was understood that there was going to be some amount of infrigement going on. Person A would record a show that Person B could watch even though Person B wasn't entitled to view the show. Also, Person A could watch and re-watch a show and thus get sick of it and not watch it the next time it was available, thus hurting ad revenue and premium services (recording a pay-per-view movie to watch many times, for example).
My lawyers are still looking for this exact law/ruling but my understanding is that shortly after the Betamax decisio,n the studios and production companies had a tax or tariff established on all video media sold in the US (or expanded a previous one to cover video cassettes not just audio). This means that for every blank VHS (or Beta or whatever) tape sold, a portion of the price goes to a fund that compensates all of the various studios and companies that produce content for television.
Now, as I said, the lawyers haven't gotten back to me on the exact language, but the theory goes that this type of Internet VCR venture would be perfectly legal if:
A) You are able to restrict content based on right to view...this means both geographically and by service. Someone without cable in the 12345 area code should only be able to "record" and "playback" shows that you can get with an antenna in the 12345 area code. I had toyed around with the idea of having customers fax a copy of their current cable bill to allow/disallow access to cable channels and premium channels. If they did not want to fax in their most recent bill, they would be restricted to over the air content pulled from that area by an agent of the company in that area.
B) For every "two" (assuming SP quality) hours of video recorded, the company would have to purchase and sit on a blank video tape. In this manner, the media companies are being compensated. Cable companies have to pay to rebroadcast over-the-air broadcasts because they are not using the existing mechanism (purchasing recordable media with built in compensation). No one is compensated if you use digital media, hence the studio's resistance to allowing this.
But if one uses the existing compensation mechanisms by buying blank media, the only legal cases would be issues of symantics (is commanding a machine to push a button the same as pushing the button yourself, can VCR be in next room, next house, next state, and so on). Any such arguments would be a waste of court time and dismissed or very short, to the point legal events. I don't see how it should make an ounce of difference where the physical VCR is as long as tapes are being purchased and content is being properly restricted.
Once again, I Am Not A Lawyer, but I have been consulting with several and based on some preliminary discussions, this seems like a valid model for this type of Internet VCR service.
Regarding advertisements... How many people record stuff just so they can fast forward through commercials? On the other hand, how many times have you seen or been sent copies of really good commercials? (the farting SmartBeep commercial comes to mind) If commercials are good, people WILL watch them. But if it is crap like current Pepsi commercial (ugh, did anyone catch that absolute insult to Einstein?) then they WILL and should be able to fast forward or skip them. I don't see any problem with allowing this skip-commercial mechanism. There is no guarantee that just because an ad is airing eyeballs are staring at it. If the ad industry wants to turn this into that scene from A Clockwock Orange and FORCE us to watch commericials against our will...I say to them, good luck trying.
To all those people bitching about extra ads being adding: grow up. It called VAR...value added retail. I provide a service, I charge extra for that service. No one is making money by putting ads on someone else's copyrighted content. They are making money by putting ads on the mechanism that delivers that content. If someone wants to give me a free TV set with ads all over the bezel then, by golly, I'll take it. ABC shouldn't be able to take away that TV set because I'm watching ABC on it the manufacturer didn't compensate them for the ads I'm seeing. Content and delievry are two separate and distinct things and you are a fool if you think otherwise.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is great! (Score:1)
Now I can finally get all the episodes of Murder She Wrote from USA and all the episodes of The Tick from Comedy Central! And lets not forget anything shown on Lifetime!
How could anybody think this is a good idea? (Score:1)
It's not a vapor service..but it is pretty lousy.. (Score:3)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:2)
You have the right, under fair use, to make copies of anything for which you have in some sense purchased copyright. It is wholely legal and aboveboard to tape cable TV, pay per view, regular TV, or ANYTHING that comes into your TV set, for your own personal use.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that recordtv merely wants to take this same right, under fair use, and allow someone else to tape it and rebroadcast it for use. Critical in this is that they may not
1) derive revenue from the copyright itself
2) Devalue the copyright compared to a person taping it at home and replaying it for personal use.
I think this will be an interesting case, as it walks a tightrope wrt fair use. Probably it would ultimately be legal, but probably the lawyer fees will overwhelm them.
If we are not careful the copyright moguls (RIAA, TV networks) will completely erode our rights to fair use through intimidation and money. You can see this happening everyday in cyberspace.
What about rented movies? (Score:1)
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
So if I can convince a machine to do it, it's okay, but if a *person* pushes the button, suddenly they're doing something evil. Oh well, I'm just waiting for sentient robots or sane legislation, we'll see which one comes first.
One thing I would consider illegal is using this service to record programs you couldn't normally get, like if I recorded something from Cable when in fact I don't pay for Cable. They don't seem to check this sufficiently. But if this only offered local network programming, I can't see that it would be a problem.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
This is not theft! (Score:5)
While this service may violate some of the more draconian priveleged copy restriction legislation of the last couple of years, and might even be a violation of traditional priveleged copy restrictions, it is not theft.
Nothing is being stolen. If the commercials are left intact, then even the revinue stream of the original broadcasters and advertisers is enhanced, not diminished. Even if the opposite were true, it would still not be theft. A violation of law which allows for priveleged restrictions on copying information, yes, but not theft by any reasonable definition of the word.
To those who keep using such inaccurate terminology as "piracy" and "cable theft", let me reiterate: this is not theft. Piracy is an act of violent robbery on the high seas, involving armed robbery, rape, and murder. Theft and robbery both involve the taking away of property from someone, either by force or by stealth. Making a copy, legal or otherwise, involves none of these actions! The original is left intact, the original possessor is not denied the product which the various media moguls would have us believe was "pirated" away or "stolen."
What these folks are doing is foolish, yes, particularly in today's witch-hunt atmosphere. Their service is probably a violation of so-called "copyright" (what any society not communicating in newspeak would more accurately term priveleged copy restriction). However, this reflects more so on the appalling state of legislation granting priveleged copy restrictions and the overall state of so-called intellectual property law than it does on the ethics of those offering the service or lauding its existence.
It is bad enough entities such as the MPAA, the RIAA, the SPA, and others use their media muscle to inundate us with their propoganda and rhetoric day in and day out. If there is anything the DeCSS and MP3 struggles have taught us, it is that the least those of us who are a little informed could do is refrain from echoing their refrain, by refusing to use the perjerative terminology these propoganda moguls insist in foisting upon us.
Illegal != Unethical. just ask any black man in America last century, any Jew in 1930's Germany, any Mormon in Missouri prior to 1980, or any Muslim in Serbia today.
Unauthorized Copying != Theft
Unauthorized Copying != Piracy
Unauthorized Copying = Crime (Currently)
Being Jewish = Crime (Germany, 1930s)
Being Mormon = Crime (Missouri, until 1980s)
Finally, for those who miss the obvious:
Law != Truth
Law != Justice
Law != Morality
In short, think for yourselves. And please refrain from echoing official party line rhetoric ("piracy", "theft") until and unless you (a) really mean it and (b) can defend that stance with a well reasoned argument.
no research, i'm sure (Score:1)
Neverthless, it is a kick-ass idea. Since I'm not into watching TV on my computer, I probably wouldn't be using it instead of my VCR, but it would come in handy often enough. What is preventing TV networks from rebroadcasting TV on the net right now? If you have to watch the commercials anyway, why not?
On an unrelated note, GeekPress [geekpress.com] has a story on how the Air Force had secret plans to nuke the moon [geekpress.com].
-- Diana Hsieh
Re:Here's why: (Score:1)
Every web browser since the dawn of time either hasn't supported some images, or has had the option to disable them. Also, there are programs which will filter out ads in the first place. (I need to reinstall Junkbuster...)
And on this particular page, the ads are at the bottom to start with. What kind of advertising is that, when no one sees them? And if they're being paid per click-through then I *really* don't see a problem with it, as I never look at the ads.
So, since I don't buy the banner ad argument...
As long as they aren't actually selling the programs, aren't providing any services that anyone couldn't already get for free, and still see their programs with the commercials in them, I don't see why anyone should complain. Then it's just another issue about convenience and control.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Actually... (Score:1)
Re:tsk tsk (Score:2)
Don't worry, they've had some Metallica bootleg videos in rotation for a few weeks now. Apparently Metallica doesn't go after those of us who own such non-copyrighted material...
Seriously though, I wouldn't see any problem with this if they kept fully uncut television on there, with full commercials and all (we wouldn't want another lawsuit involving cutting out banner adds now would we?). But they would probably still need the station's permission to re-broadcast. How this deffers from regular taping of shows on my VCR and passing them to a friend (with all commercials cut before hand, as I rock) I honestly do not know.
eraseme
RecordTV Disclaimer.. (Score:2)
Interesting.. aren't THEY coping and rebroadcasting the shows themselves?
Anyways, I'm a dialup user, so I'm used to super-slow load times, so the Slashdot effect doesn't really get to me much. From what I can see, the site is really well set up -- you say "OK, I want to record a show on.. Sunday!" and they give you a list of shows they can record.
Hrm.. I wonder if I can use it to record pr0n =)
.- CitizenC (User Info [slashdot.org])
GPL != EULA, not even in Washington (Score:2)
The latter requires agreement, as it extends the restrictions normally implied by copyright to such areas as how the product is used.
The former merely places license restrictions on distribution, which copyright clearly implies, and requires no agreement by the end user.
A copyright license is not even close to being an EULA, all MS Fud and propoganda to the contrary.
Re:GPL != EULA, not even in Washington (Score:1)
Freedom isn't a one-way street
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
Re:Screw them (Score:1)
oh, I was just about to make a remark about the beauty of forced-labor economies when I realized you were a troll, and an active one at that...
Silly troll, opinions are for the informed.
--
Re:How could anybody think this is a good idea? (Score:2)
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
First, they *can't* "develop closed formats that cannot be copied and put onto the internet", without making them completely useless. If you can view it on your computer in any way, shape or form, you can copy it *back* onto your computer. Also, open formats will always be more popular because even though any closed format can be hacked, and open format will be more widely used, and therefore more widely distributed.
I remember when I had a CD-ROM drive that could not rip CD's. At the time this was difficult anyhow, because it would generate large files, in excess of 30MB... So of course I wanted to get samples, sound clips, songs, etc., from my CDs to put onto my computer. At first, I just used a patch cord to feed the output back into the line-in, or something similar, and I could record things that way. But once I got a new computer, I just bought a drive that could rip it directly.
The analogue, mp3 files, seem pretty popular. I haven't seen that many vqf files lately, and *no* abc, a2b, or whatever-they-are-called-this-week 31337-protected-music-filez, but I'm sure they've all been converted to mp3's.
As it stands, many people don't have the bandwidth to copy this stuff around over a network, but I'm sure lots of people know someone who could burn a CD for them (and soon a DVD) so protection by sheer density of information won't work for long, either.
I think the only real solution is to be economically competitive and attentive to the needs of the customers. If "Master of Puppets" was like $5, (and it should be--it's old!
Notice that the music industry is scared shitless. NO ONE has said "hey, we could have an electronic 'Best of Metallica' collection on one disk, charge $40, sell a CD and a book, and make money", they've just ignored the technology. They're afraid, and they don't know what to do with it.
Remember, folks, mp3's don't skip, and cdparanoia is *excellent* at recovering damaged CD's. It would be far cheaper to buy a used CD, dump the entire CD to disk and burn it onto a blank CD than to buy a new copy; heck, destroy the original and sell the new copy that isn't scratched. I'm sure that's illegal, but I don't know why. Is there no warranty, no rights to the information you paid for? Even a one-user license?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
Well, die-hard fans would probably still want the VHS tapes, but that's a very good point. To comply with the spirit of the law, I think you'd need to make sure that your users could only record programming that they already have access to, and there's no really good way to do that on the internet. (my idea was to use the zip-code on a credit-card billing address, and to only record local programming...)
I doubt it's great quality, but it could be. In this case, it can't be better than VHS, because it sounds like that's how they record shows in the first place. It doesn't matter, though, 'cause RealPlayer 7 doesn't do sound correctly on my Linux box. I need to reinstall it...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
What would be a realistic buisness model (Score:2)
Too bad, I still miss iCraveTV and I would love to see more of this but, its illegal! The first web site to negotiate deals for rebroadcast with the major networks and cable will have a REAL audience, until then, all we will have are fly by night operations.
On the other side of the coin, these guys and iCrave both recognized that content on demand via IP has a REAL audience. iCrave just rebroadcasted whatever was playing but RecordTV.com provided selection and thus improved on the model. The big question is: WILL THE AUDIENCE PAY??
Would you pay for this? If yes, how much per month? My guess is that $5/month/suscriber would be a very profitable set up. Will the network and cable people go for this (~$2/suscriber/month split many ways)?
Who do you think will make the first deals with the network/cable? AOL? YAHOO!? M$? Inktomi?
From the site: update 5/14/00
Happy Mothers Day! We expected some publicity but we didn't know Slashdot would print a front page story about us (www.slashdot.org). At the moment the site is not able to keep up but, by signing up with a valid email address, we can notify you when things are calmer and we have more bandwidth to handle it. We expect our first additional T1 line on Wednesday and another yet in 4 weeks.
update5/13/00
We were HACKED. Lost some web files and shows. Sorry. Also, we will likely get very busy on Sunday since we will be discussed on the Jeff Levy computer show (KFI AM 640 Los Angeles).
update 4/27/00
We were written up in Yahoo Internet Life today which has once again made things overwhelmingly busy today (we did not know this one was being published). We also are doing an interview on CJAD 800 AM today. Things will probably be slow for the next 2-3 days, sorry. updated 4/22/00 I have added a time clock and improved recording priorities.
updated 4/19/00
Well, things are better. also, we are changing the recording so that the most popular shows will get recorded first. This should help satisfy more users. Also SORRY about the annoying banners but this is the only thing that keeps our site up and running! Please click on the Valueclick banners (thats when we get paid) or sign up for the "Joke of the Day" newsletter (again thats the only time we get paid).
Re:I love this (Score:1)
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
If you don't want to break any laws, pretty much, yes.
If it carries a copyright symbol, yes. If it doesn't, certain legal precendents have been set in the US over the past decade saying that material missing the copyright symbol is still protected by it. In other words, everything is copyright. So yes, there must be a notification of release of copyright terms before you can tape it. It's a bummer, I know.
>So why do VCRs have a "Record" button?
(Real reason: For the same reason there are CD-R burners. To make "backups" of stuff and "transfer" to other formats...
What the VCR companies lawyers would likely tell you:
So you can tape your home videos, public access stations, public service announcements and other non-copyrighted/public distrubution material etc... Sounds stupid but here it is, straight from my new JVC VCR (HR-S3600U) manual:
- "It may be unlawful to record or play back copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright owner".
I guess they say "may" because you never know when a copyleft copyright for movies will exist (or if it does already). It is interesting they say unlawful; in the US that means it often isn't a jailable offence (unlawful is reserved for misdemeanors, whereas illegal/illicit is reserved for heavier crimes).
There's one for my RCA VCR too (I don't have the manual handy tho).
And from my ainchent (sp?) VR1820 Zenith VCR manual:
- "Duplication of material that is copyrighted may be illegal. However, it is not illegal to copy home movies and material that is not otherwise copyrighted".
That should clear up the "intended" use of the record button for ya...
>And why give numbers for programs I can't tape?
Because VCR+ doesn't create the numbers for specific programs. They made the system for the numbers. It really isn't much more that an overglorified calendar linked with a channel number. Looking at it like that, you'll see that if VCR+ was illegal, writing "Tape public access channel 5" on your calendar would be an offence too.
I don't know if the TV Guide people do the numbers, or if the broadcasters do them. If the broadcasters do them, you might sucessfully argue with a judge (not that a judge would even bother to accept such a petty crime as time shifting copyrighted material into the courts) that they are giving you the right to make a copy of the material by encouraging you to use those numbers by making them easily availiable. If the TV Guide people do it, I don't think this would count.
I hate the laws the way they stand too. They are vauge and open to interpretation. The only stance you can take if you need to protect yourself nowadays is the defensive. If it "looks" illegal, or was illegal, it still is.
Current copyright laws have to be ammended/changed to have any true effects on the average person at home. Right now, I would be most everyone in a first world country is guilty of breaking copyright in at least some minor way. All I know is I can't change them, I can just guess at them.
Re:Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:3)
In addition, the company is well aware that people would consider using this outside of the state/country that it's in - a use that is a clear breach of copyright - and all they have a pathetic little "I agree" link. MP3.com had a pretty decent verification package and they were (I believe unfairly) shot down in flames.
"Theft" is a pretty simplistic term, but it can be applied to this service. This "Internet VCR" is very much like a re-broadcasting facility - heck in Australia the radio stations cracked down on shops playing the radio to the customers by getting it called "rebroadcasting".
A service like this will only work with the full support of the copyright holder, and I don't think this one has it.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
It's not _local_, surely. (Score:1)
Because most of the local advertising is primed to feed me to local programs, so that's what I'm (mostly) interested in watching. The size of the local economy keeps the buying power of the local station down, so most of the US/UK made programs screening down here are ~2 years old.
Besides, I want to see the Dr. Who that a local program is screening, from approx the beginning (for those episodes that haven't been destroyed/lost)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
/. Crashes . . HARD ! 500 Internal Server Error (Score:2)
500 Internal Server Error. Am I alone?
___
Re:Alliance with RIAA!?!?!%@*^% (Score:1)
ACTUALLY, that doesn't sound so screwy.
Just think; did AOL and Time Warner getting together make any sense either?
--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:This is not theft! (Score:1)
Does a TV station sell you the rights to their programs, or simply lease the program for the time it is on the air? I would doubt a TV station would even have the authority to sell you the rights to most of the TV programs they air.
As far as a lease goes, fair use doesn't apply in the same way. It applies for the time the material is leased. IE: If you lease a computer program for a week, you can make a copy and keep it for that week. At the end of that time, it must be destroyed.
Well, the way I see it, the TV station leases you their program for the time it is on the air. Once the program ends, so does the lease. This means when the program ends, your VCR has to quickly backpedal and erase the material to have legally used the broadcast material... Not at all useful.
Now, as far as purchasing goes, since when did you pay money for TV? I don't. I have an antenna. Of course, there is cable, but cable isn't broadcast. It is a different animal... and there are SPECIAL exceptions to most copyright laws to allow rebroadcasting On-Air TV stations to other mediums in RealTime (only).
So if I record the TV station I didn't pay for, there aren't ANY fair use rights to argue about. And can I use RecordTV if I don't have cable? (I don't know... their site sucks to hard to use). If so, then I HAVE violated the law, as I have no right to cry "fair use".
And even cable users lease their service, along with many satellite users. Unless you have a lifetime purchase of a station, I think once your lease runs out you will have no choice but to destroy your tapes...
>It is wholely legal and aboveboard to tape cable TV, pay per view, regular TV, or ANYTHING that comes into your TV set, for your own personal use.
Now that has to be the biggest crock I have ever heard. Do you mean that if I take screenshots of The Simpsons and print them out and stick them to my cubicle, Fox can't bust me? Uhhh, hello, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. So many websites have been busted for this (taking screenshots of The Simpsons), there is even a special Fux-Hate website: http://nerd.simplenet.com
Whether it is taking a 1 frame screenshot, or taping the whole show doesn't matter - even if the whole world has access to the station.
>If we are not careful the copyright moguls (RIAA, TV networks) will completely erode our rights to fair use through intimidation and money.
I'd say they are eroding the spirit of copyright, but what the heck.
Re:How could anybody think this is a good idea? (Score:2)
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
Thank you, that actually clears things up a lot in my mind.
I guess the short answer to my question is, everything is unlawful, but if you do it on the Internet, it's probably illegal too, and then you're a malicious pirate, profiteering on the backs of others...
I suppose some other new technology will appear for people to hate and fear soon enough, and then we can all record our movies in peace once again.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:1)
This site (http://www2.awa.com/artnet/artnetweb/iola/journa
And this is ONE-TIME use only. This means you have to tape a copy of the program for each person, on a separate casette. Another roadblock (imagine the cost of supporting users if you had to tie up a tape and VCR for each and every user).
Of course, IANAL, but hey, this bill only seems to protect the right of a non-commercial entity to record a program to watch once, on their own personal equipment. Unless you wanted to lease space for the users equipment (or lease your equipment to users), I think you'd still be hard up for legal support... Of course, that's just my opinion.
Re:This is not theft! (clearing things up) (Score:1)
So here's my modified (and MUCH easier to understand argument):
You still have to destroy/erase the tape once you have watched the show once. I don't think you are going to be technically allowed to pause, fast forward, or rewind, either, since that differs from the original broadcast. And, like I said, RecordTV doesn't get the same protection as a home non-commercial user. This one-time-taping deal is the only fair use of TV shows I have seen yet. So you are still not allowed to keep what you have recorded. This is the only personal use allowed. You can't keep the recordings after you have watched them for the personal convenience of having them.
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:2)
If you don't want to break any laws, pretty much, yes.
Not true. Taping for later viewing is considered fair use (dealyed viewing). Strictly speaking you have to erase the tape after you watch it.
Re:How could anybody think this is a good idea? (Score:1)
Some cablecompany's supply 50 channels and charge around Fl 14,95 (+/- $ 7 )a month for it.
Others only give you only 25 channels and ask Fl 29,95 a month for it (around $ 13).
Let me clear my statements up too... (Score:1)
Still, you are not allowed to keep it, and doing so would violate various laws.
This really doesn't give you the legal freedom you'd need to run RecordTV, or to do most anything useful with your VCR (ie: Record movies from Pay-Per-View).
Ah well, you learn something everyday.
I'm still not sure if taping copy protected shows is allowed (ie: Scrambled cable channels). We'll see...
>then we can all record our movies in peace once again
Since most people tape movies from TV for keeps, I think you'd still be violating laws.
The problem with commiting a crime on the internet is that unlike giving away copies of stuff to freinds and family, you are giving it away to many MILLIONS of people. So a small crime becomes a huge crime as fast as your T1 can overflow with connections...
>I suppose some other new technology will appear for people to hate and fear soon enough
I'm working on it -- I'll trade you my prototype for a piece of new technology that people love and enjoy.
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
Ok. I just found that out (as did, I'm sure, most of the other slashdot users). The ruling was 16 years ago...
And it doesn't apply to RecordTV because they are commercial/for-profit. The law excludes people in that situation from benefiting from it.
Re:Let me clear my statements up too... (Score:1)
I guess if I wanted to keep a copy of a show, I'd have to use more than one tape?
When it comes to technology, people seem to love and enjoy anything that seems useful or cool provided they don't have to think about it. I'd suggest the "Web-Zapper": a DOOM-like interface to web censoring; if you see something on the web you *never* want to see again, shoot it! (But be careful, if you don't use a powerful enough weapon, it might re-spawn!) Great for ads, Java pop-up windows, goatse.cx, (don't go there!) or just a tough day at work...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
I emailed them and look what I got. (Score:2)
*SNIP*
Your probably right we will get a lawsuit, but we also probably fall under
the VCR legal exemptions to the copyright laws. However, right or wrong, we
need financing to fight a lawsuit or we lose by default.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ryan"
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:39 PM
Subject: I smell a lawsuit.
> I think you better announce your IPO, get lots of money, and then prepare
> for a legal battle because you're almost providing the same resource as
> iCrave did and they got blocked. Good luck!
Hacked... (Score:1)
4/11/2000 1734 PST
We just updated our servers to Windows 2000 Advanced Server... (Note that it is REALLY bold like it's a HUGE selling point).
Fast forward...
5/13/2000
We were HACKED... (Not quite as bold text).
--
Quantum Linux Laboratories - Accelerating Business with Linux
* Education
* Integration
* Support
Re:Like RIAA vs. Diamond RIO (Score:1)
With the RIO, there's at least a chance that you downloaded mp3's that were taken from CD's that you actually own. With these mp3.com and this service there's no chance at all.
This will happen (Score:1)
...................
Re:This is more similar to my.mp3.com (Score:1)
Re:its nice to know but.. (Score:1)
Exactly! (Score:1)
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:1)
Also, if you can't find South Park on RealVideo, you haven't been paying attention.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Ad pay/ Subscriber pay? (Score:2)
Does this make the service legal?
It's a new and innovative service. People have been sued for less, just on the basis of FUD
The content they're "misappropriating" if any isn't that of the channel, but of the content author. Perhaps the channel and advertisers would be happy for this service to exist, simply because (as you imply) an eyeball is still an eyeball. OTOH, the makers of "The Zippy the Pinhead Show" are paid for the original broadcast by the channel, but not this rebroadcasting - I bet they'll have issues with that.
I think they want to be sued. Get a TV company interested in them, then roll straight over and sell out immediately. Given the state of the stock market these days, that's probably the best path to geek riches.
Re:This is not theft! (Score:2)
The revenue stream for the channels is the ads, but the revenue stream for the programs is the channels - by re-broadcasting one local signal outside of its normal footprint you're boosting the local broadcaster at the cost of all the others, thus the program creators get nervous that other stations might drop the programs being offered.
I'm not explaining this well, so here's an example. If I can get this system to record Buffy from the US, well ahead of the local Australian channels, I'm not going to watch it here (well, with Realmedia quality I might) so local ratings go down, local ad revenue drops and local stations drop the program. This leads to a drop in revenue for the Buffy creators.
Admittedly a lot of this is an artificial revenue structure created by the segredation of populations and the control of what each group has access to, thus artificially raising "prices", but even though this looks like price fixing it's legal and is backed by BIG corporations with deep pockets.
I'd prefer that the studios released their stuff directly to the public, like Alien Nation, but it's a major uphill battle that no one wants to fight at the moment...
Re:This is theft! (Score:3)
Has recordtv.com [recordtv.com] has already gone to CBS, ABC, NBC and AOL/TimeWarner to get the rebroadcast rights?
Have they signed a deal with the NFL, NHL, and the NBA to pay for the rights to show their games?
If the answer is yes then you are correct in every detail.
___
Region Issues for non-US users... err viewers (Score:2)
Given this, TV companies over here are going to feel their product is being diluted by the availability of these shows to Australian viewers well before their air on TV.
Sure NBC, CBS et al. might not give a damn, but they'll have a lot of pressure on them (as will the production houses) from outside the US to stop this site.
And just think what kind of salary rise the Friends stars are going to be asking for now!
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Anyway, what I wanted to reply to was that you use the claims at the end of the NFL broadcasts to back up your argument. What they say is probably true, but just because they say it, doesn't make it more true. It's like the small businesses that put up stupid signs saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody." As if. Does that mean they have the right to refuse service to you because of your skin color? Can they point to the sign to prove it? Hell no.
Re:But advertising is local! (Score:3)
BUUUUUUUUUT...
that's not gonna happen. First of all, there's about 1000 unforseen issues with doing that... for example, making the video stream available on the net means someone can do the VCR thing, except cut out commercials and send it around IRC... or hackers can edit in a big black mustache onto Kathie Lee Gifford's face, and the local affiliates are STILL getting ignored, and even if you say that the network can distribute on the net, then who's to stop indie producers to hop on the bandwagon with new networks, or who's to stop production companies to be their own networks? (Kinda like if MP3 takes off, and the artists can just post directly on the net, they don't need a record contract, so the RIAA best not encourages online distribution) Second, they don't need to do it because the market is admittedly small right now (good enough excuse for them) and there's too many risks against their total control right now.
Hell, they FORCE us to buy a TV set if we want to watch at all (instead of having public TV viewing shops or allowing us to pipe it over the net), and pay for subscription cable (if we want cable channels that each wouldn't know the difference if we got them through any other means), and to buy a VCR (if we wanna watch "ER" any time other than 10pm Thursday). TV is not about empowerment at all - it's about control that you get lured into by entertainment. Prime time TV is basically infomercials with acting and news inbetween.
I seem like I'm going off the radical end of the cliff here, but here's my point: this is a new distribution method. They could try it out and see if they'd make money on it - and judging from the way a lot of people are, they probably could with some effort. Or, they could swat it down and keep doing things they way they currently are. Of course it's unethical to use intellectual property legislation to eliminate innovation at the expense of the consumer for the sake of corporate laziness and ignorance. But do you expect anything different from these people?
Personally, I wouldn't really make this issue a big deal. I'd rather be more concerned with those non-existent HDTV standards that everyone refuses to get taken care of. They're dragging their feet on that one too - luckily the FCC is gonna kick their asses if they don't get it taken care of on their own. In the meantime, online TV distribution is kinda looking like a bad idea just because it's simply not close enough to perfect yet. Seeing how MP3 turned out to be "perfect" for online music distribution, I'd be worried if I were the TV people. Or for that matter, the MPAA or the RIAA or any of the book/magazine publishers out there...
Don't hold your breath. (Score:2)
Well, imagine what would happen to TV when everyone has broadband. People wouldn't tune in anymore, they'd wait for reviews or word of mouth before they sit down to invest 30 mins to network or cable programming via the net. Like tonight's simpsons, I'm better off watching a classic episode or a different highly rated show.
Advertisers would probably complain about how banner ads run continously and they only get 30 seconds of time for their money. Networks would lose money as they don't have the realtime presence that advertisers crave. What good is commercial if the audience gets to see it 2 months after its been released or that their CGI crawling roach didn't look convincing on the smaller screen?
This idea is too much 'power to the people' for the media moguls to pick up on. Maybe people will get a taste for it from this new site and its possible imitators and demand it. Would be nice.
Reducing Potential != Theft (Score:2)
Potential revinue is not the same as money in the bank. If I have a business, or hobby, which denies your business some of its potential revinue, either by competing with your service or making it obsolete, that is not theft.
It may make you angry, and given the abysmal state of current legislation even entitle you to artificial remedies through legal thuggary, but I have in no way taken a single possession away from you, and whatever else I may have done I have not committed any act of theft or piracy.
You are entitled to possession of that which is already yours. You do not have a God given right to whatever potential earnings your (hypothetically) outdated business model implied, until my (hypothetically) better solution came along. In fact, you have no inherent right to potential earnings regardless of how sound your business model may be.
Current copy-privelege legislation has created a form of corporate welfare and government enforced monopoly at the expense of the consumer and the culture (how many of our "cultural" icons - e.g. Micky Mouse - remain private property? Imagine if the same were true of Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.)
Again, I reiterate. Just because the law says something is so doesn't make it right, ethical, or even defensible. It just means that the notion, however misguided, is backed by the Guns of Government, pointing at you.
tsk tsk (Score:3)
Woe to thee who crosses the annoying mullet-man!
Seriously tho - this is a COOL idea! Too bad this is probably about as illegal as re-selling warez!
Re:How could anybody think this is a good idea? (Score:2)
Re:This is not theft! (Score:2)
Now that has to be the biggest crock I have ever heard. Do you mean that if I take screenshots of The Simpsons and print them out and stick them to my cubicle, Fox can't bust me? Uhhh, hello, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. So many websites have been busted for this (taking screenshots of The Simpsons), there is even a special Fux-Hate website: http://nerd.simplenet.com
Now, there is a substantial difference between taping something so you can watch it later, and taping something to put it on your website. Within the realm of fair use, this would fall under the category of "use of the copyright, in particular whether is it commercial or nonprofit use."
The US copyright laws are posted on the web in pdf format, so that if you are really interested you may educate yourself.
Re:Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think this is legal. Not positive, but I think taping and distributing is illegal under any circumstances.
In situations like the one you described, the law will never be enforced and was never designed to be enforced -- it's in nobody's interest to prevent you from doing that. But what if your friend decides to make a few more copies and gives them out to other people he knows? What if he sells the copies at the mall? That's what this situation is -- this company is taping things then redistributing them for profit.
Banner Adds (Score:4)
___
its nice to know but.. (Score:3)
_joshua_
Stop, and ask yourself... (Score:2)
Let's say I record a program. I record a baseball game, Murder She Wrote, it doesn't matter. I watch it for my own personal use. It's all legal so far.
I like TV, but I don't know how to program a VCR, so when I'm out of town I ask my friend to tape shows for me. When I get back, he gives me the tape, I watch my show, no media execs were harmed in the making of this tape, etc., etc. Sounds pretty legal still.
Then my friend moves away, and since the Internet is my last remaining friend:
I go to recordtv,
tell them what I want to see,
and they tape it for me,
so now I'm happy...
Nothing really destructive or subversive going on yet, not the downfall of civilization as we know it...
Okay, at one point there might be *two* copies of a show, but that's legal too, right? "For Archival Purposes"? After all, the real tape is just a backup, and I'm sure it will get written over. The copy *I* want to see is a RealVideo file, and that's *my* copy, that my friend recordtv made for me.
So, before you all start pointing fingers, first tell me:
1) How is this illegal?
2) If so, *WHY* is this illegal?
3) Why isn't VCR+ illegal?
4) What makes the Internet so special, that once the same thing is done there, everything is suddenly illegal, patentable, etc., etc.?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
more primed for a lawsuit! (Score:4)
Why not? they say there's no such thing as bad PR!
Ad pay/ Subscriber pay? (Score:4)
9.We currently do not support Pay per view or pay channels (HBO etc.)for legal reasons, only commercial supported channels.
Does this make the service legal? If they are recording shows with Ads, Isn't it the advertiser that is paying for the content to get eyeballs looking at their product? From an advertiser point of view I imagine something like this would be a good thing(tm).
I guess this brings up the question- If you are watching a cable channel that is antenna broadcast, but not in your area, are you paying the cable provider for the content or for the service?
-
Re:Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:2)
There is no difference between running a coaxial cable from a VCR in CA to a customer in NY or running a fiber cable and then using coaxial-to-fiber coverters on each end (at least there is no court decision to say there is such a legal distinction). That's what the computers are doing. They are converting the coaxial (RF) signal into a form that can travel much faster and much further. It is still a point-to-point transaction. It is renting a VCR that happens to be a lot farther away than traditional tecnology would allow.
The problem with MP3 was they were making the copies onto digital media (hard drives). I strongly believe that if they had put the copies on standard audio cassettes (or purchased audio cassettes) and then described it as a "rental" service, they would have had a stronger argument for fair use.
MP3 also got into trouble because they made copies of everything...even stuff that perhaps hadn't been requested by users. If no one requested a copy of a really bad show and I still had a copy of it...I could buy a possible argument that the copy is infringment. But I would be sure to wait for a customer to indicate they wanted a show before it was actually captured and thus eliminate this issue.
This is about renting physical devices. The customer is free to use them for personal, fair use purposes. My companies, and companies like it, would be profitting from the rental of such devices (no different than Rent-To-Own or most video stores who allow VCR rentals).
The only difference is that my VCR has an additional output port that allows the customer to watch the content on his or her computer without having to buy a TV capture card.
And, it is a service that people really, really want. I am always forgetting or messing up my personal fair-use recordings. TiVo et. al. have the right idea but are horribly expensive and do not allow consumers to upgrade capacity. A service like this gives them a limitless TiVo that they can rent instead of buying.
In fact...if I succeeded with the tape approached, renting TiVo over the Internet was going to be my next plan. That way I could stop buying blank VHS tapes and offer video in full MPEG-2 (not VHS) quality.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re:Correct! How to make this work legally better: (Score:2)
Remember, this is a service, not content. Whatever the customer does with his or her rented VCR is personal, non-profit, and fair use.
Please see my reply to the previous post for a more detailed response to this argument.
I do not believe I have to have a copy of the program for each person on a separate cassette. Again, this is a minor quibble over symantecs. There exists VCRs with more than one playback mechanism (GO brand, for example) not to mention commercial tape servers that can access and sort through hundreds of cassettes. For any conceivable input/output scenario, it is possible to construct a physical device to imitate that. Also, I eventually plan to move to renting TiVo devices which already break the digital barrier. I will leave it to my lawyers and the courts to iron out the exact makeup of the backstage hardware...but if I have to buy a giant tape server with a robot to swap tapes around on demand and rent that to the users...so be it.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Comment removed (Score:4)
Actually... (Score:2)
No one would ever prosecute your friend -- but that's a matter of discretion and ignorance, not a matter of law.
--
This won't last (Score:2)
Plugging a VCR into a wide area network (in this case:the internet) in order to seek revenues from banner advertisements amounts to redistibution with comercial intent without the expressed writen consent of the copyright holder.
___