Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
Cablevision wins appeal on Remote Storage DVR
Posted 04 August 2008 - 08:30 PM
In a move that could have important consequences for cable and satellite distributors and programmers, a federal appeals court threw out a lower court's decision that blocked Cablevision Systems Corp. from introducing a next-generation digital video recorder.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals found in an order Monday that a district judge erred in ruling last year that Cablevision's plans to introduce a remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws.
Posted 05 August 2008 - 06:34 AM
Living Room: HR22-100 w/AM-21 | Samsung HL-S4266W (HDMI) | Ethernet MRV | Pioneer HTS-GS1 5.1 | Yamaha DV-S6160 (Component/Digital Coaxial)
Bedroom: H21-200 w/AM-21 | Westinghouse LVM-42w2 (HDMI) | Ethernet MRV
Home Theatre: HR20-100 | Sanyo PLV-Z60 (Component/Optical) | Flexio 16:9 100" Screen | Ethernet MRV |Yamaha YHT-690 | XBox 360 (Component) | Harmony 880
Posted 05 August 2008 - 08:15 AM
The appeals court, in a written ruling, also said it was sending the case back to the U.S. District Court in New York for further proceedings.
Seen here at Yahoo News
The NY District Court will no doubt review the case, the objections of the Federal Appeals Court, and may place restrictions on the use of a 'network DVR' technology, even if it is ultimately allowed to reach market.
HR20-100 - Sony KDS60A2000 - Onkyo TX-DS787 - MK Sound THX Select Speakers // HR20-100 & R15-500 (for PIP) - Vizio GV42LF // R15-500 - Hitachi SD TV // HR20-700 Sony KDL-40XBR6
Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:26 AM
Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:04 AM
So this is sort of a new concept I guess - Remote Storage DVR. What exactly does that mean ? Sounds like you have an allocated storage area - lets say 400GB just for fun. And this is accessed through internet or coax (some sort of bidirectional deal ?) or how ? And could one go to an aunts house and pull up the DVR or is it tied to a physical address somehow ? Just curious if anyone knows any details ?
From the news bites and articles on-line I could find about it, it looks like CableVision is essentially wanting to have "set-top boxes" that will ACT like DVRs, but are really just "set-top boxes." That would allow them, the way I read it, to be out of the DVR business and everything would essentially be VOD. That doesn't seem like anything special for the consumer, only should cut CableVision's costs while the rates will stay the same and profits will go up.
Anyone else reading it the same way or am I way off base? It seems more like a bunch of stand-alone computers VS. a network or a mainframe, reduced cost per user.
Posted 05 August 2008 - 12:03 PM
Just for comparison I had a Cablevision box a little while ago, a non-DVR box. However it had DVR functions for on Demand shows. Very unresponsive and damn nigh useless.
This would also have to be tied into switched video somehow as it would require every box to have a dedicated feed when the DVR feature was in use. Always?? Would they be buffering it for you so you could always skip back?
Color me not interested.
Posted 05 August 2008 - 01:25 PM
Posted 05 August 2008 - 02:22 PM
I think your all missing the point, the central server will contain every channels feed recorded, you will be able to watch any show, anytime. You won't need to tell it to record anything, it will record everything. You only need to tell it what you want to watch.
I also heard they would disable the ability to skip commercials on certain shows.
Posted 05 August 2008 - 04:11 PM
Posted 05 August 2008 - 04:43 PM
Posted 05 August 2008 - 05:06 PM
Posted 07 August 2008 - 11:55 AM
1. Customers are assigned an average of (you fill it in, 500GB, 2TB?) of storage.
2. Customer 124356 tells the system he/she wants from Monday night's 8 pm prime time slot Terminator, Chuck, Big Bang Theory, Gossip Girl and Dancing With The Stars recorded while the two members of the family watch Dancing with the Stars live in HD in the home theater room so they can vote.
3. Cable company directs a copy of each show from the local channel feed to the customers storage area.
4. Mom, who's working swing shift at Denny's comes home and watches Dancing with the Stars in the kitchen in HD to unwind. Then sometime later, one member of the family watches Gossip Girl in HD in bedroom A while another is watching Big Bang Theory in HD in bedroom B. Several members of the family at different days and times watch Terminator and Chuck in HD in bedroom C and the home office respectively.
That's five shows shown in the 8 pm time slot on Monday. To record those 5 shows and distribute them around the 6 rooms indicated the cable company provides 6 receivers that access the storage in much the same fashion they access the VOD.
At this time, Dish and DirecTV customers would go bonkers trying to accomplish this. But DirecTV customers could. Dish Network does everything in it's power to keep you from having the capacity to do this, but will allow it at a huge cost.
I think that the "centralized network DVR" shouldn't be dismissed by anyone at Dish Network even if we need to wait for a Supreme Court decision. Consider this from Multichannel News:
Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt said that his company would roll out a network DVR product if the courts allow it.
On a conference call with analyst to discuss its second-quarter results, Britt said that the network DVR, championed by Cablevision Systems, is a more elegant engineering solution.
“We’ve said for a long time that a centralized network DVR is a better engineering solution than having hard drives all over everybody’s home,” Britt said. “If this particular court case is upheld, we will deploy that.”
Congratulations to the DirecTV forum members for discussing this intelligently. I'm afraid Dish forum members tend to think like Charlie - they want to fiddle with troublesome hardware. Most of the millions of customers out there would love to get rid of that hardware.
"Always poke the bears. They sleep too much for their own good."
A GEEZER who remembers watching TV in 1951 and was an Echostar customer from 1988 to 2008, now a Dish Network customer.
My AV Setup
My Slingbox Pro HD Experience
My Blog: The Redwood Guardian
Posted 07 August 2008 - 01:31 PM
Posted 08 August 2008 - 08:41 AM
The reason I see giving so much capacity to an account is, if they had to store a program until everybody deleted it from their DVR by using one big VOD type of server they'd be storing things forever. Whereas if they give each account 500Gb then it becomes manageable.
Notice I suspect that it will be so much storage per account not per box such as the DVRs we have do now. So someone with 6 traditional DVRs would most likely have a lot more storage than a cable company with one storage per account.
Pluses for that = view recorded media on any box in the house easily.
Minuses = Anybody could in theory delete something someone else wanted to save.
Posted 08 August 2008 - 10:16 AM
Nor did Cablevision violate copyrights by saving full programs in users' dedicated storage spaces, the panel decided, because the copying was really being done by the users -- Cablevision's "RS-DVR" machines were merely obeying the customers' electronic orders.
In the case of a VCR, it seems clear -- and we know of no case holding otherwise -- that the operator of the VCR, the person who actually presses the button to make the recording, supplies the necessary element of volition, not the person who manufactures, maintains, or, if distinct from the operator, owns the machine. We do not believe that a RS-DVR customer is sufficiently distinguishable from a VCR user to impose liability as a direct infringer on a different party for copies that are made automatically upon that customer's command.
The key here, the court said, is that the Cablevision system is automated. It's like a photocopy shop that lets users make their own copies, rather than Xeroxing books at their request. Finally, the panel ruled that playing back recordings didn't amount to publicly performing a work. Although the service was available to the public, each recording could be seen only by one household.
Because each RS-DVR playback transmission is made to a single subscriber using a single unique copy produced by that subscriber, we conclude that such transmissions are not performances "to the public" and therefore do not infringe any exclusive right of public performance.
Posted 09 August 2008 - 01:00 PM