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

Dish AutoHop vs Networks Commercial Skipping Discussion

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by phrelin, May 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,945
    294
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Chain of events:
    1. Production company produces content - owns copyright.
    2. Auto manufacturer (for example) hires advertising agency to produce ad and the auto manufacturer owns copyright.
    3. National broadcast network assembles content, ads, their own promos, transmits it to local broadcast station - national network thinks it owns copyright of mish-mash of content and ads.
    4. Local broadcast station inserts local ads and station promos, id, etc., and transmits it all to the air, and for a fee to cable/satellite companies, and probably thinks it owns copyright of the mish-mash plus.
    5. Dish transmits via satellite to customer viewers the entire mish-mash plus for fees received from customer viewers.
    6. Customer-viewers pays fees and records mish-mash plus.
    7. Customer-viewers watches mish-mash plus, skipping any portions of content, ads, promos, etc., they choose; apparently according to the networks, by skipping things they don't watch the customer-viewers are violating somebody's copyright, but whose????
    Yeah, it will be an interesting case.
     
  2. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    4a. Dish inserts ads/promos for Dish products, programming and features.
     
  3. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,240
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    This post copyrighted in its entirety.

    :hurah:

    Just because they said so doesn't make it true (though I bet in this case it is). But that still leaves open the question as to just what constitutes the broadcast. And, as you say, who owns it? Or them? (as in multiple parts being owned by different entitities.) As Mike noted, could be an interesting battle.
     
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Normally when "stealing" is applied to copyrighted materials it is when people watch something they have not paid for. I'm not watching commercials ... how is it that I'm violating a copyright by not watching them? It must be in the payment portion of the argument.

    The networks think that I am paying for their content via the commercials. It is OK to watch the programming they provide as long as I am paying for it - and 18 minutes of commercials per hour is the apparent cost.

    But as much as they pretend to be naive about it they KNOW that people skip commercials ... and have been skipping them for many years since VCRs and DVRs have provided the technology to do so. And when they offer their programs online (for free) the forced commercial breaks are shorter. Perhaps because they know we have to watch them and can't skip them (although we can).

    Networks have been annoyed at DVRs since they were VCRs because they allowed the recording of content. Eventually that was expressed as a copyright violation and the networks won limited rights to protect their content. Now it seems that their target is requiring commercial viewing - something they have been after for years.

    In the previous copyright decisions the focus was on the content and whether or not individuals could record it for personal use. Now the focus is on whether distributors can make it easy to remove commercials.

    DISH is still delivering the program WITH COMMERCIALS to every one of their customers - and every DVR is recording the entire program with commercials. There is no editing of the feed on DISH's part (that would be a violation of a current law). All that is new is that DISH is also telling their receivers where to skip to avoid commercials ... information provided only for customers viewing the next day or beyond.

    It should be an interesting case.
     
  5. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not in local programming. The feeds must be retransmitted intact.
     
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is true. Content on this site is covered by the compilation copyright of DBSTalk. All posts made on DBSTalk.Com become property of DBSTalk.Com.

    And while I'm not going to get into an argument over this site's copyright and how it is enforced, the compilation copyright is the one that networks and their stations seem to be leaning on.
     
  7. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    And yet, we're not forced to view all posts, threads or even sections of the board. Tool are provided to omit entire forums (I omit all DirectTV forums and a few others) and to omit all posts by specified users.
     
  8. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,969
    1,015
    Nov 13, 2006
    Dish is editing the program though. If the customer doesn't see the Entire program because dish altered the viewing stream, (not whats recorded) that's editing the program themselves, rather than making the customer do it. What's the difference if they. Do it before it hits the DVR or after? None. There are two question to come from this though since they are doing it at the box and because of the way they implemented it.

    One, since dish is editing what the viewer sees only with permission from the viewer, does that circumvent the copyright violation, because one can assume that if dish wasn't editing it, the viewer would.

    Two, since you can easily manually override dishes edits during playback, does that mean its ok they did it because it can so easily be undone.

    I think in the end, that's the two question that the courts will be deciding this entire case on and if dish is doing anything illegal.
     
  9. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    You haven't been reading, have you? Nothing is edited or removed.
     
  10. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    True, we have different rules from the networks and, in general, treat people better. Non registered users see a lot more advertising than those who simply register. Subscribe to the club and you can choose to see less advertising. The site is trying to stay alive through a balance of an acceptable level of advertising and voluntary subscriptions.

    There are sites that have the level of advertising broadcast networks would like to require. We're not one of those sites.
     
  11. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,240
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    True, but isn't that similar to custom channel lists and FF? Though a closer fit with the HopSkip®, a phrase I've just coined and copyrighted.
     
  12. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    ALL commercial skipping is done at the box ... the same way as it has been done since DISH released their first DVR.

    The customer is doing it. It is their choice. Every time playback of an enabled event is started the customer is given the choice whether they want to see the commercials or not. 100% the customers choice.

    The implementation makes it easy (trivial) to say yes to skipping the commercials ... perhaps only the baby in the Jimmy Fallon Capital One commercials is saying they don't want the feed without commercials. Is that DISH's fault that people want network programming without commercials? Or is DISH to be punished for giving customers what they want (an easier way to choose to skip commercials)?

    I don't see it as a violation of copyright. If AutoHOP is ruled a violation of copyright for allowing the customer to skip recorded commercials then ALL commercial skipping is a violation of copyright - including skip/slip on DirecTV boxes, Tivo boxes and other DVRs.

    Just because DISH does it better does not make it any more illegal.
     
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,579
    374
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yeah, in that sense I guess DBSTalk is more like FTA and a PI channel than Subscription satellite (Dish) and subscribed channel.

    Of course, there might come a day (please note I do NOT speak for ownership of DBSTalk here, this is just an example for purposes of discussion) where the costs of running DBSTalk outweigh the voluntary subscriptions... and then the owners might have to decide what to do in order to keep the site running.
     
  14. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,969
    1,015
    Nov 13, 2006
    But thats the point. This is not at all the same as any other skipping of programing done on dishes dvrs, much less anyone else. the customer is not choosing what to skip, dish is, even if it is something that everyone thinks those people would skip anyway. What happens when dish starts not skipping just their ad as one single 30 second spot but still skips all of the other commercials? Would they have the right to do that? To actively choose what commercials or part of the broadcast that the programers are providing them to pass on to the customer to show and which to not show? If they allow the customer to say, skip all commercials except dish ones? Would that be legal? No they don't have the right to do that, so why should they have the right to choose to skip all your commercials for you even if you give them permission to. Dish isn't the copyright holder, and only the end user is allowed to change what is viewed, not the middle man. And no matter how you spin it, dish is the one choosing the starting points and end points of the programing to skip, not the customer.

    It's 100% the choice of the customer to let dish skip the commercials and thus alter the broadcast that they actually see, true, but that does not mean that overrides the rules that say dish can't alter the content of the broadcasters. Again, Only the viewer has that right under current laws to actually do the altering.

    I am not saying dish should be punished, but they are altering what the customer sees actively, rather than letting the customer do it actively. That's a whole new ball game, and until they win a court judgement stating otherwise, they are breaking the laws.

    And since when is it ok to do it just because the customer wants it? That's the most terrible argument there could be. "But Ma, his parents let him do it!"

    Also, where the skipping is done is arbitrary, it's that dish is doing it for the customer that is in question.

    No other provider except replaytv tried to make the decisions on what should be skipped for the customer, so it's not at all the same thing as the other forms of skipping that dish does, much less than anyone else.

    Dish does it better? That's not really an argument for legality in either direction either. It's your sentiment. And they are doing it different, not necessarily better. Better wouldn't pose the potential problems long term that this is, for all of us.
     
  15. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,969
    1,015
    Nov 13, 2006
    The viewing stream is edited by dish, they are the ones choosing the starting point and ending point and altering what the viewer sees without their active interaction. They ask the viewers for permission thinking that overrides the copyright laws saying they can't alter what the broadcaster provides. This is a whole other world from ffwd or skip forward, etc.
     
  16. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,321
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They are not doing that. Why all the straw man arguments and false descriptions of what the feature does?

    The AutoHOP feature operates just the way the subscribers who CHOOSE to use it expect it to operate. There is no need to add fear, uncertainty and doubt to the equation to stir up more trouble than the actual feature is.

    I'm sorry, what kountry is this? Amerika?

    We have "innocent until proven guilty" in America. DISH is not "guilty until proven innocent".

    So if no one does it no one should be allowed to do it? No one provided whole home DVRs until someone figured that out ... I suppose that should be illegal until proven in court that it is not illegal, the same standard you claim AutoHOP should be held to.

    There is an innovation killer ... we can't do this because no one else does it. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Mike Bertelson

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

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that in order to make an argument against AutoHop they’re gonna have to show that it’s somehow different than the standard skip/slip or FW. Otherwise, I don’t see how the courts could rule in the Networks favor.

    I’m not sure how the Network lawyers can make the argument that it’s different but then I’ve never understood how lawyers think anyway. :grin:

    When our neighborhood took the city to court over our sewer assessments I did hundreds of hours of research into the case law and I learned three things:
    • What’s right and what’s legal are two different things.
    • Even when you win it’s not likely to come out the way you expected.
    • There’s nothing black & white in the law.
    I’m an engineer. When I read the statute it seemed pretty cut and dry to me. When we went to court none of it worked liked we expected.

    I expect there’s gonna be a whole lotta weirdness in the AutoHop battle and we’ll all be surprised how the decision is reached.

    Mike
     
  18. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,259
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    Thing 4: No two courts/judges are the same. What works in one courtroom fails in another.

    I would imagine the NetSuits have done a bit of court shopping to find one more likely to rule in their favor.
     
  19. RasputinAXP

    RasputinAXP Kwisatz Haderach of Cordcuttery

    3,145
    11
    Jan 23, 2008
    To prove that the claim was irrelevant, and for commentary and example in her class, a law professor excerpted the NFL's copyright banner:
    She put it on YouTube, got a pair of takedown notices, and then it was allowed to remain up because she was, in fact, correct. Valid Fair Use rules always apply for purposes of commentary or education. There's a lot of discussion about it, but her blog is probably the best place to check it out.
     
  20. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,456
    88
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    They are not asking the viewers for permission. The viewers are telling them to do this. Small distinction yes, but one none the less.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page