1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

cablevision has a 10 tuner dvr!

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by celticpride, Jul 24, 2013.

  1. HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,268
    180
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    So let me get this straight;

    The RS DVR does not really have 10 CATV RF tuners, but only the one tuner used for viewing as on any cable box. But it can communicate upstream to remotely located servers which allow for up to 10 simultaneous program recordings or perform other trick play functions on the live channel one is viewing like the 15 min. LB here?

    Also, why in the world should a legal court concern itself over how memory management is done on an electronic server? Why the objection by the content providers to one stored file accessed by a list of subscribers who recorded it, in favor of a totally needless and ridicules duplication of that same file over-and-over again in memory?

    How is each duplication of the file judged to be so "unique" to each subscriber that recorded it to justify that?
     
  2. gov

    gov Legend

    1,101
    50
    Jan 11, 2013
    We are probably lucky the court did not dunk the plaintiff in the case in water to see if he floated or sank . . .


    :eek2:
     
  3. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Actually, there is no live buffer until the sub hits the pause button…and then it’s only a temporary buffer. AAMOF, no matter how long you watch live TV you can’t rewind until you hit pause to start it buffering…and even the buffer is only 15 minutes.

    IIUC, the courts were concerned about how it’s stored because the plaintiffs argued that the way Cablevision was doing it was a “public performance” of their material and violated copyright law. Cablevision argued that since there’s a unique copy for each subscriber who recorded a particular TV program that it doesn’t violate any copyrights; IOW that it wasn’t any different than if the recording was on a local hard drive.

    Even on appeal the plaintiffs argued it didn’t matter if there were unique copies for each sub that recorded something, it was still a violation of copyright. The appellate court disagreed.

    It isn’t as if the court took up the matter on their own. The argument was made to the court so they had to rule on it and in this case they decided that since there’s a unique recording initiated by the sub it doesn’t constitute a “public performance”. I believe that’s the concept but I’m an engineer not a lawyer. Read the decision I linked in post #50 and decide for yourself but that how I understand it.

    As to how it’s “unique” to each subscriber…not sure but I remember reading somewhere that it’s tied to their customer/account number. Which is kind of cool because if their box dies and gets replaced they haven't lost their recordings. That’s what this system has over DIRECTV. Of course there are limitations on how long a sub can keep a recording and can only have 75 hrs of HD. :grin:

    Mke
     
  4. Ed Campbell

    Ed Campbell Hall Of Fame

    1,333
    10
    Feb 17, 2006
    Since what viewer would ever need to view and/or record up to 10 programs at once at a single location?


    Anyone watching the English Premier League + Serie A on a Saturday morning.
     
  5. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,212
    716
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I wasn't suggesting that deduplication was being used in the DVR itself. Deduplication would be a feature of the storage array in the cable company's data center for a "cloud DVR" offering. The customer would record a program, and a separate copy would be dutifully stored by the storage array, each customer would have their own separate file stored on that array. How the array handles it internally should be irrelevant to the court's decision, otherwise the court would be in a position where something is legal one day, but after the storage array's vendor performed a software upgrade on it that caused it to perform deduplication, suddenly that something would be illegal.

    I think it would be quite difficult to argue that the legal definition was not satisfied, since from the point of view of the cable company's software, there would be a separate copy stored for each customer. The "magic" happens in the storage array's software. It would require some pretty tortured logic for a judge to not allow using newer technology. It would similar to saying that home recording is OK if you use video tape, but not a hard drive.

    Legally, deduplication should be viewed as similar to file compression. The array is essentially compressing the data being fed to it, but rather than traditional compression that works only within the data being fed to it at that time, deduplication allows it to look at all data the array has already stored to recognize that it has already stored the data being fed to it. So rather than wasting space by storing it again, it is stored in the form of a link to the original. If the customer who stored it first deletes it, it only deletes a link to that data but the data remains until the last copy of it is removed.
     
  6. yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,768
    173
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    + La Liga
     

Share This Page