Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by celticpride, Jul 24, 2013.
Well that's a backward ruling.
Agree. It seems petty and spiteful on the studios' part that they're forcing them to do it that way. Just my .02.
Can you imagine a book library needing to have individual books on hand for each person that wanted to read a copy?
Not a good analogy, IMO, because the cloud DVR service is not a VOD service. It's a "replacement of a home DVR" service, which is what FOX successfully argued in court. If you have the time or inclination, read through that doc link I posted above.
Even with libraries, BTW, there's often a waiting period for e-book and audiobook downloads, at least from the Westchester County library system that I use. They're only allowed "n" amount of simultaneous downloads out at the same time, where "n" probably equals the amount of original digital copies they paid for.
I thought that lawsuit was over turned on appeal. The initial court decision sided with the content providers but I seem to remember that Cablevision won on appeal. Cablevision had some argument about remote storage being indistinguishable from a DVR and the appellate court agreed. IIRC the Supreme Court refused to hear the case after the appellate decision.
I can’t do that kind of search here at work but I believe Cablevision won this one. They called the unit a network DVR or a remote storage DVR…something like that.
Edit: Found it. It was over turned and Cablevision is free to use remote storage...
I don't know how a single hard drive(assuming sata/NLSAS) could keep with all I/O if people starting Rewind/Fast Forward that many shows at once. Wouldn't it make sense for performance if DVRs with 4 or tuners have multiple drives to keep up with the I/O by using RAID 10?
This is a cloud based DVR service, it doesn't use a physical DVR in the house or any of your tuners. It's likely using the same infrastructure they already use for VOD delivery, the content is recorded remotely and stored in servers at one of Cablevision's facilities and delivered as if it's a VOD session.
The did win an appeal. But, in that case, they were also storing individual copies. I believe that, early on, they realized that by storing a single copy and sending to everyone who requested it would be considered a "public performance" and would absolutely be a copyright infringement. This is essentially the same reason that Aereo is using thousands of micro antennas rather than a single large antenna in their operatation.
Ya. That's correct. IIRC, the initial decision would have prevented them from offering the service at all, but the appeal allowed them to offer it storing unique copies for each customer.
Yeah, since each recording was unique to the subscriber that requested it, it wasn’t a public performance.
I wonder how hard it will be to keep up with the customers storage needs.
Do they need to stored it immediately when requested or can they delay until they get a request to view it?
If I understand what I've read correctly, it has to be requested by the viewer.
Their initial plan (years ago) was to store a single copy of everything and give their customers a given amount of time to request it. They had to back off of both of those plans due to copyright laws.
That's not correct. The mass storage was shot down very quickly. I don't believe that one ever even went to court. When the initial court decision was made, Cablevision was already planning on storing unique copies for each customer who had requested that a copy be stored. From the case Wikipedia article that Mike referred to earlier, in the background section describing the service that Cablevision was proposing "Notably, content requested by a particular user was stored separately and independently for that user and replayed only to the user who requested it."
Th dvr can use an external USB drive. You can select the drive to record too. The DVR interface is one of the worst. My brother has it and it is not worth the aggregation.
That's actually irrelevant these days. Modern storage arrays can do something called "deduplication", which basically works such that if you stored 100,000 copies of the same file it would only store the file once in the array, but as far as the server storing the file knows there would be 100,000 separate copies.
Thus, the legal view that there needs to be a separate copy of the file for each customer would be satisfied, but there wouldn't be any need for the cable company to buy the ridiculous amount of storage that would be required to store the same programs many many many times.
You may be called as an expert witness......
I’m not so sure it would satisfy the legal requirement of the appellate court decision (see the link in post #50).
On the appeal Cablevision argued that since there a unique copy for each subscriber who “recorded” a program and not a single copy of TV program it doesn’t constitute a “public performance” of copyrighted material.
The plaintiffs argued that it was “wholly irrelevant, in determining the existence of a public performance, whether ‘unique’ copies of the same work are used to make the transmissions.” The appellate court disagreed.
One of the reasons the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision was...
Based on what I’ve read it seems to me deduplication is not being used for this device. A unique individual recording also explains why there’s low recording capacity per subscriber.
There is no buffer with the RS DVR. You can pause for up to 15 minutes.
The in home DVR has a normal buffer like an HR or TiVo. I think it is 1 hour.
Ya. I was thinking 15 minutes is kind of short for a conventional DVR. I see now they used it as an example.