Court Ruling Shuts Down Australian Cloud TV Recorders 46
joshgnosis writes "In the wake of an Australian Federal Court ruling last month that free-to-air TV recording app Optus TV Now was infringing on the copyright of some of the country's biggest sports broadcasts, two other services — Beem and MyTVR have also been forced to suspend their services. Beem lashed out at the ruling, telling customers that their rights had been 'diminished' by the judgment and rights owners were 'scared' of cloud-based TV recording services in the same way they once were of VCRs."
How serious is this? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They should shut down Schwarzeneggers latest movie (Score:1)
They should shut down Schwarzeneggers latest movie [yahoo.com] instead. So criminally bad it should be suspended, with force.
There goes innovation... (Score:3)
There is no real reason cloud recording isn't a perfectly valid, legal way to record stuff where even the owners could benefit. But no, judges intervene based on old laws and politics take a while to catch up and realize it is not 1980 anymore.
Wake up people, the new world is coming, and floating out of the window before you know it.
Re:There goes innovation... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is called fear and consumption. The way to control; be it media or politics (what is the difference?).
You are only allowed to consume. Consume what we tell you, how we tell you, when we tell you. Or else! The world will come to s standstill and judgement day will be upon us. Do as I tell you when I tell you how I tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
CDs are no longer available? What world are you living in?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So you still haven't gotten "lossless" digital yet? When you do, let me know. I'll be the second to jump on that bandwagon.
Lossy recordings aren't worth $0.05. And that '$' can be in any denomination that carries it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no real reason cloud recording isn't a perfectly valid, legal way to record stuff where even the owners could benefit. But no, judges intervene based on old laws and politics take a while to catch up and realize it is not 1980 anymore.
Wake up people, the new world is coming, and floating out of the window before you know it.
[bigcontent/media+lawyers}
PULL!!
[/bigcontent/media+lawyers}
Strat
weclome to big $$$$ (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Telstra and the AFL, the "big guys", beat Optus, the "little" guys. Both are large telco players: this was a Goliath v Goliath match in court... but only the little guys that the big guys did not feel threatened by, Beem and MyTVR, are going to go out of business as a result.
this is a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no problem with individuals recording stuff. But the moment business profits from creating infringing copies, fuck 'em.
The "cloud" is not innovation. It is regression and loss of control, all the way to IBM '60s mainframes. Although not intended, government measures which make the cloud less attractive and encourage us to decentralise and retain control of information are doing us a favour.
not necessarily infringing (Score:2)
I'm allowed to make a copy in my own home, with my equipment, for my personal use.
Assuming I'm still paying for my subscription, can I pay someone else to make a copy for me using _my_ equipment in _my_ home?
Can I pay someone else to make a copy for me using _their_ equipment in _my_ home?
Can I pay someone else to make a copy for me using _their_ equipment in _their_ building?
If any of these are acceptable, it's hard to see why they aren't all acceptable.
Around here it's like making your own wine. I'm allo
Re: (Score:2)
can I pay someone else to ....
There's the rub.
He didn't ask if it was legal. He asked if it was acceptable. If you claim that it isn't, please, enlighten us.
Re: (Score:2)
"I have no problem with individuals recording stuff. But the moment business profits from creating infringing copies, fuck 'em."
So you are behind the destruction of the TiVo company?
They profit monthly from people stealing copyright at home. In fact some of the peopel at home with tivo's go as far as watching the TV show MULTIPLE TIMES and even skip the commercials.
Utterly vile people, but TiVo makes a tidy profit off of the monthly fees to keep the boxes working. They should be shut down as well!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "opinion before 2000, when the Western world was still sensible and not collapsing in on its own meaningless 'service' economy."
No, the era of the glass walled room populated by priests in labcoats started its long decline the day someone dragged a personal computer into a business's building to do an end run around them. That was long before 2000.
As for when the Western world was sensible, that's relative. I liked the Sixties, and I like Michelangelo and Galileo and Archimedes and the wheel and fire, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Panasonic and Sony profited from selling tapes as well. It's the same old argument recycled.
This will of course simply move more well-intended people to torrenting, sans ads. Media companies should finally realize that the days of dictating when people enjoy content are over.
Re: (Score:3)
The "cloud" is not innovation. It is regression and loss of control, all the way to IBM '60s mainframes. Although not intended, government measures which make the cloud less attractive and encourage us to decentralise and retain control of information are doing us a favour.
I'm no fan of cloud computing, for the same reasons you state, but you're stretching it with this. If you were consistent, you'd say nobody should be able to hire anyone to do anything for you. Make your own music, reno your own kitchen, do your own plumbing, ...
That's just foolish. Infringing copies? It's over the air broadcast. How dare anyone stick their nose into how I deal with an over the air broadcast?!? If I can make a copy of it on a VCR, why can't I save it to a remote hard drive that I rent
Stupid (Score:3)
Asking a website (example: hulu) to record a show for you is no different than asking your VCR or DVR to record a show for you. In fact it's probably better (for ABC, NBC, etc) because you can't fast-forward through the commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. And the rule forbidding the company from same-time broadcasting local TV over cellphones is even more stupid.....
Ah fearing VCRs (Score:3)
It would seem that argument is long dead. Looks like they were right to fear VCRs. It may have taken quite a while, but a this point, the VCR certainly did lead to DVR, PVR, and ad skipping in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but they also led to a huge home-based industry for current and old movies. Just to pick a random studio: MGM made a bundle off sales of VHS tapes of its long-forgotten, rarely-seen 1930s,40s,50s titles. If Hollywood had succeeeded in outlawing VCRs, they'd all be a lot poorer.
Re: (Score:3)
If Hollywood had succeeeded in outlawing VCRs, they'd all be a lot poorer.
Nonsense. You don't have the proper perspective.
Outlaw VCRs. Mandate VCPs (Videocassette Players). Sell pre-recorded videos. Never let anyone record anything over-the-air or tape-to-tape.* Profit!
*Yes, this means that the only kind of video recording authorized in the hands of the little people would be home video cameras, and those would be prohibited from any technical capability to record anything except what comes through the le
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that when they first came out, home video recorders were very expensive by modern standards, and in part it was probably the mass market that helped to drive the price down in the first place. Chicken and egg. A playback-only machine, even if marginally cheaper, w
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's wrong with the idea at all. Many early VCRs didn't record, they were VCPs... because for many years a VCR head was the most complex device in the average household, and the VCR therefore by far the most complex device — even a VCP was. And DVDs were effectively read-only for quite a while, as far as the average public is concerned, and while many old people bought DVD recorders on the assumption that they would want to treat them like a VCR, in practice the cable companies gave them
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what's wrong with the idea at all. Many early VCRs didn't record, they were VCPs...
I might be wrong, but I'm not aware of player-only machines having been a significant percentage of the market, at least not when the mass market was taking off in the late 70s. I'd have thought that- aside from the fact that the mechanics would be almost the same- that the technology required to create a playback-only head would be only marginally less complex than one that could record.
DVD players aren't as good a comparison because they were *much* cheaper than late-70s/early-80s VCRs (in real terms) d
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am going against conventional wisdom, but what if Sony had lost the crucial case, but then gone on to produce a VCPlayer? There might have been a chicken-and-egg problem -- without the content (recording OTA broadcasts), there would be no reason to buy such a player and without a maket for the cassettes, there would be no reason to offer the content on cassettes.
The counter example is the DVD player, which did not have the same
Re: (Score:2)
70s-era videorecords (CEDs) were not really successful either. People wanted to record primetime shows when away from home.
justin.tv (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia sucks. Your women are welcome to venture over to the USA, though
The USA's media barons are the ones exporting this insanity to other countries. I'll be happy to spit in your face for allowing that to happen. Fix your government.