Court Upholds Ruling On Dish Network's 'Hopper' 248
An anonymous reader writes "The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of Dish Network, allowing the company to continue forward with it ad-skipping "Hopper" technology. From the article: 'Last year, Fox Broadcasting Company, with the support of other broadcast networks, sued Dish for its "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the Fox, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program without ads. As we observed when the it started, this litigation was yet another in a long and ignominious series of efforts by content owners to use copyright law to control the features of personal electronic devices, and to capture for themselves the value of new technologies no matter who invents them.'"
Future problems..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Down the line... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the decision is sensible in that it allows you to use your own gear at least somewhat as you would choose to (certainly they are not letting us use our gear "freely"), still, one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.
One fairly obvious path is "product placement", where the "ad" is in the show with some character brandishing, using, or otherwise making a point about it. That can be subtle... or it could be quite heavy-handed. There are other paths, some of which end with the disruption or even collapse of the broadcast entity -- if the advertising shifts context -- say, to billboards -- then there's no funding going to the broadcast entity, so now what? Or you might find yourself taxed, a' la PBS or the BBC, in order that these entities have operating funds. Some might applaud that, but some will scream bloody murder about the additional levy.
Anyway, since ads do almost entirely support a lot of these entities, if you kill the viability of the ad to any serious degree, you can expect some kind of consequential change on the horizon.
Re:Hey... (Score:4, Insightful)
Difficulty level: Encrypted transmission and subscription required != "Public".
Which of the four major networks are broadcasting an encrypted signal that requires a subscription?
Difficulty level: the four major networks want their signals when carried by Dish Network to be treated differently than what someone can receive OTA. Same content, different rules.
"This previously public broadcast, re-encoded, is now copyright me,
Dish Network is not claiming copyright on the content they "re-encode", the copyright stays with the originator. But the originator is looking for different rights depending on the transmission medium. Almost like trying to say "if you watch this program on channel 13-1 OTA you have the right to timeshift it, but if you watch it on 17-2 OTA you don't."
Re:Down the line... (Score:4, Insightful)
Watching The Walking Dead doesn't make me want to buy a Hyundai SUV.
Re:Well watch what happens next. (Score:3, Insightful)
I subscribe to eztv.it
Re:Down the line... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope your karma is up to this. You're gonna get pounded.
No, he's not going to get pounded, because his point is valid.
The tacit agreement is being changed. The agreement that has held since television was invented, namely that you take the advertising along with the programming, is being renegotiated.
Its not the GP's fault, he is just the messenger.
The producers of the programming will have to find a new source of revenue, because nobody works for free. You can expect them to change the terms under which the programming is provided. You will see embedded advertising, or high fees for all programming. Or some as yet unimagined method of revenue replacement.
But one thing is certain, nobody works for free. Nobody eats for free, except prison inmates. So maybe we can put those guys to work producing content?
I'd like to see the numbers as to how much an episode of your typical tv show costs. From concept through production, and delivery to your TV.
If you could subscribe only to the specific programs that you wanted, and in doing so receive them free of advertising, but pay all costs via your fees, , what would your cost per hour be?
They have already been paid by Dish (Score:5, Insightful)
...one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.
That is certainly the argument Fox used. What they conveniently left out is that Fox collects retransmission fees from Dish [thewrap.com].
In fact, Dish was at one time forced to drop Fox programming [ntca.org] because, according to Dish [shareholder.com] :-
In addition, the broadcast networks including Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC have demanded that its affiliates hand over a percentage of the money they receive from local cable operators that retransmit their signals. [latimes.com]
Basically, its all about the money. The broadcasting networks have already been paid by retransmission fees and are double dipping into advertising fees.
Re:Down the line... (Score:5, Insightful)
The tacit agreement has been broken for a long time as the networks have continued to lower the value of the content and raise the "price" (number of ad minutes per minute of programming) to ridiculous levels. Watching June Cleaver talk about how Palm Olive made her hands soft while doing dishes at the end of the show vs. 3 minutes of ads for tampons, antidepressants, beer, Chrysler, personal injury attorneys, car insurance, pizza snacks, and GEICO before watching another 5 minutes of the newest SyFy shark/bear/icthysaurus hybrid (ick on all levels) are really worlds apart. Oh yeah, and that on top of paying $70/month to Comcast (remember when cable was advertising-free?) for that in the first place!