Surprise! TV networks sue Cablevision for Network DVR

We sure didn't see this coming at all. Seems the TV networks Fox, Universal, Paramount, Disney, CBS, ABC and NBC aren't really so pleased about the "Network DVR" offering from Cablevision, and have taken the issue up in a lawsuit. Cablevision's plan to have remote storage DVR does blur the line a bit between personal recording use and straight up license-free on demand service, but they think they're in the right with Network DVR, and that the lawsuit is "without merit." As for the networks' thoughts, we haven't seen the exact accusations yet, but we can take a wild guess. Cablevision is banking on a bit of TiVo legitimacy, and we have a small fear that a decision on this issue could spill over and affect the use of traditional DVRs. But if they do manage to pull this one off, it looks like other cable providers are lining up to follow suit.

[Jeff @ May 25th 2006 8:15AM]

I think personal DVR use is safe. This type of solution, however, is probably dead in the water. Obviously, the copyright owners don't want users having free and unlimited access to a central repository of everything that has aired. That almost certainly won't fly. However, they'll probably also attack any precursor to it just to cover their bases.

So, even if Cablevision setup a server farm where every subscriber had separated 80GB shares (which really seems unlikely - how much redundant space will American Idol alone waste?), they'd still be on unsteady legal footing. By taking the storage medium out of the personal domain of the subscriber, that may very well violate "private use" and thus not be considered part of fair use. My guess is that they'll lose this one.

Jeff

[JOe @ May 25th 2006 8:21AM]

Good grief, as consumers all we want is the functionality to record shows to watch later, to have the right to watch our recordings on more than just the box we recorded them on. A little portability would be nice, is that too much to ask. There must be a blance somewhere to ward off the lawyers and copyright issues to allow the average home consumer to have the freedom and choice to manage their recordings. There are a minority of users out there violating copyrights and sharing that are screwing it all up for the rest of us. This is crazy.

[JR @ May 25th 2006 8:42AM]

For the record, every subscriber would have their own dedicated space. And shows are only recorded if the user specifies it. So yes, lots of redundant Idols.

[Scott @ May 25th 2006 9:20AM]

There's no need for redundant storage at all. This is easily solved with a software solution. The basic principle is if someone tries to record a show that already exists on the network, they just get their own "pointer" to that existing recording. So deleting the recording really only deletes the pointer. As far as the user's guide is concerned, they deleted the show. The same thing happens when you delete a file from your computer. The file isn't actually erased, the pointer to that file is.

In fact, you could say a network DVR would massively *reduce* the amount of storage needed altogether for this reason. It's just that the provider would have to house all the drives instead of the customers.

[mwtb @ May 25th 2006 9:23AM]

There's no need for redundant data. You just implement the user's recordings as references to sections of shared storage of the entire broadcast stream or to shared instances of specific programmes if space is an issue for you.

[Jeff @ May 25th 2006 9:40AM]

I would love a service which allowed me to "record" a show after it already aired. All often, I'll be watching something which I TiVo'd off the Discovery channel, and see a commercial for what's "coming up next". Usually, it looks pretty interesting, so I find myself wanting to stick around and watch it only to learn that "up next" was actually about 2.5 days ago.

[Jeff @ May 25th 2006 9:57AM]

The problem with the single copy model is that it definitely violates "private use". If all subscribers are accessing the same source, then it isn't private. It's very much public. So that's why they probably decided to give everyone their own space. It seems like a huge waste though, but they probably figure it affords them better legal protection.

However, I still think they'll lose. The very fact that the storage is offsite from the user's home may make it not private in some technical interpretation of previous rulings. Overall, the idea isn't a bad one as hardware costs are cheaper to centralize storage as opposed to having individual boxes with HDDs in every subscriber's home (you probably also get the benefit of automatic content protection from hardware failure that you wouldn't have on a home unit - RAID arrays, etc). But, it probably won't be upheld as legal.

Jeff

[FX Viewer @ May 25th 2006 10:32AM]

Isn't Disney and ABC attached at the hip now? So they would really be consider one network, Right?

[Chris @ May 25th 2006 10:17PM]

This all says to me that we really need to completely revamp copyright law as it relates to end users. The laws and judicial interpretations we have now are based on the old concept of single-copy physical media. Copyright law needs to be updated to help us deal with living in the digital age, while still being fair to the content producers.

I think the issue is that we're in the middle of a transition. Previously, the major thing preventing mass copyright infringement was that it was physically difficult to do: end users couldn't very easily make hundreds of copies of a book and share them with friends, family and strangers across the globe. Even audio recordings on vinyl, tapes and even CDs were difficult to share. The advent of the Internet and the fundamental shift in social communication methods that have made sharing information thousands of times easier than ever before no longer provide a check on sharing copyrighted material. Eventually, we're going to come to a place where all media are locked or protected somehow--I think that's unavoidable. What we need to do is start looking at ways to ensure that end users can use their media in convenient but fair ways (i.e. on multiple devices owned by the same person, similar to how Apple has implemented FairPlay), but we also need to figure out how to navigate through new distribution channels (i.e. how to deal with electronic delivery, viral marketing and content-spreading channels like YouTube) while being fair to all parties involved.

I think all of this will eventually settle out. Still, we need to all work to ensure that no single entity gets control of how copyright law is determined. Any ideas?

[Perrey Z. @ May 26th 2006 12:56AM]

#8: Disney owns ABC., News Corporation owns FOX and the upcoming new "My TV"., GE owns NBC and Telemundo., Viacom owns CBS and the now defunt UPN and the rebirth C/W which is a joint venture between them and AOL Time-Warner.

[Ken @ May 26th 2006 10:20AM]

Yes. Let Fred decide. Fred's cool

[Paul Memoli @ Jun 7th 2006 1:43PM]

I think it is important to remember that most content providers would like to shut down every public library in America. Most tv content providers think that it is unfair for more than 1 person to watch a premium show at a time for a single fee. In my opinion such attitudes showcase an extreme form of capitalism and greed at the expense of the public good. If all exposure to works of art and culture are available on a "pay per view" basis only, the end result will be a "balkanized" Nation, far worse than the ethnic strongholds that we have today. They used to call America "the melting pot" - I believe that the "Pay per view" mentality works against that philosophy.