Cablevision loses networked DVR case
By Erik Hanson 
posted Mar 23rd 2007 1:13PM
posted Mar 23rd 2007 1:13PM
Cablevision once had dreams of keeping all your recorded shows on a network-based DVR system, which would have kept them from having to send boxes to all their subscribers. Then Hollywood and the TV networks stepped in with the lawyers last May, and here we are today, with a ruling that this would have broken copyright rules by effectively "rebroadcasting" the programs. The cable operator is considering an appeal, although Scientific Atlanta, Motorola, TiVo, and other DVR manufacturers are likely relieved that their revenue streams are firmly intact.
Couldn't they just charge them royalties for the repeats? TV on demand is the way of the future anyways, it's about time they got on board with the idea!
-
http://sendmeaeuro.awardspace.com/
PS, the word is looses, not loses!
are you serious? lol! look it up, the word is definitely "loses"
U B Trippin.
looses would be to release something. like the hounds.
loses is to lose, which is what they did.
I think you loost it. :P
What does this mean for Joost? Aren't they essentially rebroadcasting via P2P?
So...since the Cablevision DVR was basically a remote host for MY files that I've paid for once already....
Does this mean they will now go after services like ORB that allow me to access MY content remotely as well....
Can of worms now open.
Short answer? Yes! There are Mega-corporations that believe content remote access activities (like Orb and Sling) should come with a monthly fee. So get your Orb and Sling on before they get crushed under the weight of corporate greed. Don't walk RUN!!!
Its a bad decision and a sign that modern technology is not understood by the courts or new media. All cablevision was planning to do was centralize the hard drive capacity so you didn't have the cost/burden associated with 100,000 people having DVR'd desperate housewives on their local DVR.
The user would have to choose in advance what they wanted to store/record, but technically the program would only have been recorded once at the server level. There really was no major difference in the end user experience. The networks could have probbly struck a compromise to limit FF of commercials to preserve ad revenues.
Man these companies are stupid. Virgin have been doing this for a year now and its great.
I am really angry about this, it seems to me like the judges that here these cases have no idea what’s going on or they don’t care about the consumer’s interest. Whether it’s a dvr set top box or a server storage device it all does the same thing so it should be considered the same thing and if o0ne isn’t illegal the other one shouldn’t be illegal either, this makes me wonder who is looking out for our interest? The interest of the consumers themselves.
The UK has something like this already with Virgin Cable services.
They have a contract with BBC and another Channel to have the rights to record and rebroadcast selected content. This is normally free, where as with older stuff we have to pay a small fee like £1 or 40p