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.'"
Hey... (Score:5, Interesting)
Next step - in what way is putting content on the public airwaves not placing it in the public domain?
Re: (Score:2)
This is about "broadcast" networks. They can't have their cake, and eat it, too. In exchange for getting use of public airwaves to make a profit, the public has a right to use what's broadcast.
Difficulty level: Encrypted transmission and subscription required != "Public".
Next step - in what way is putting content on the public airwaves not placing it in the public domain?
Ah, copyright law. Let me explain this quickly... "This previously public broadcast, re-encoded, is now copyright me, all rights reserved for the next 150 years plus however long it takes me to die." Next question please. No really, that's pretty much how it works.
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: (Score:3)
You don't have the right to re-broadcast something your received OTA.
If Dish Network want to re-broadcast something, they need permission. If they want to alter it, creating a derivative work for commercial use, they need further permission.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know how Dish works currently, but when I had their service the receiver hooked up to a antenna for OTA bradcast TV, separate from the satellite dish. Dish Network was not rebroadcasting it.
And if fast-forwarding through a copy of some content that you possess (whatever its origin) is "creating a derivative work", then anyone u
Re:Hey... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression they cut the ads out then rebroadcast it. That's copyright infringement.
Turns out the DVR uses closed captions and other meta data to do the cutting on the DVR. That's protected fair use time-shifting. It's also going to be vulnerable to the networks altering the meta data to trick the DVR into not skipping certain ads - they could charge a premium for those...
Dish have a few patents that describe this.
Re:Hey... (Score:4, Informative)
The hopper doesn't analyze meta data or closed captions or anything like that.
The reason the commercial skip feature doesn't work right after broadcast, is because a human being actually watches the program at Dish HQ, marks the start and end time stamps of each commercial break, and the device then skips those times when you tell it to.
It's not an elegant solution, but it's immune to anything the broadcasters can try to do to muck up an automated solution.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rights" are whatever people can afford to bribe congress to approve.
Re: (Score:2)
"Rights" are whatever corporations can afford to bribe congress to approve.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the intent is to watch it all. Rather, the intent is to capture it all and then get to choose after the fact which shows to watch and which to delete.
That way if someone tells you how great show X was last night you can go home and watch it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the public airwaves they pay millions of dollars to use? Spectrum is auctioned, not given away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They pay for exclusive use of a slice, but there are other conditions attached.
Kinda like you pay rent on your apartment but the lease doesn't grant you the right to open a head shop in your living room.
Re: (Score:2)
They paid for the privilege of using the airwaves. Licensing fees are huge.
But your point becomes moot in the case of cable.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is it placing the content in the public domain?
Or maybe you're unaware of how anything becomes public domain, it's just a buzzphrase to you. You repeat it like a parrot or a three year old without a single clue as to what it actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey... (Score:5, Funny)
Some one Godwin this THREAD NOW.
Don't tell me what to do. You're worse than Hitler!
Re: (Score:2)
Would have been better if you had used the "My name is John and I hate every single one of you..." format.
Re: (Score:2)
> They don't owe you jack
No. They still owe the public something. I realize this is a quaint idea in a world where corporations have nothing but rights and don't have any legal responsibilities at all. But it's true.
It's time to get your head out of Ayn Rand's ass.
FTFY (Score:5, Funny)
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed...
What, that us unwashed masses can still use VCR-like features on modern equipment? Huzzah! So glad our courts are clogged up like a fat southern guy's arteries with pointless legal meanderings. What other landmark rulings can I hope to read soon... books in electronic format can be loaned just like regular books? That linking to a page on the internet shouldn't warrant 10 years in prison under the Computer Fraud Act of... whatever?
Where's a billion dollar frivolous landsuit and contempt of court ruling when you need one, guys? These corporations are killing the court system, and you're dealing with it about as well as that diabetic fat dude I just mentioned is when he neglects to take his shots. You're gonna get tingles at the extremities, and before you know it, you'll be deaf, blind, stupid, and having your bowels cleaned out by orderlies because you can't even shit right in a few years at this rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FTFY (Score:5, Funny)
fat?deaf?blind?stupid? point made at fat.
This is the internet, man. You don't just make points here, you pull out a fucking bat and you beat it into them until they stop twitching. And then hit them a couple more times, move to Florida, and claim the other guy threatened your position and you were just Standing Your Ground.
Future problems..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
[Preamble: I work in the industry, so this is an informed statement]
Viacom, Disney, etc cannot raise prices just for Dish. All the contracts include a "most favored nation" clause that forces the content provider to offer the same terms to all the distribution networks. It could be that Dish will be the first to see the price raised, but when Comcast's, and DirecTV's contracts need to be renegotiated, they will see the same increase.
Does FOX have standing? (Score:4, Funny)
According to the Fox, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks...
Ummm, This, Discovery, USA and BBC-AM? If the Hopper records only the four major networks, FOX has no standing to sue because they aren't involved.
Re: (Score:2)
PBS was before Fox. Fox is the 5th network (unless you also want to count the former DuMont network).. PBS is a major network in the OTA broadcast arena. Saying "4 major networks" is misleading. Maybe they meant "4 major greedy networks" or something like that.
They can try to defeat te tech (Score:3)
This Ad skipping technology can be defeated by keeping: -
1: Avoiding abrupt volume increases,
2: Avoiding abrupt changes in scene colour saturation,
3: Keeping the network logo on during commercials,
4: Randomly playing commercials. I have come to be in position to predict when a commercial is coming on.
Someone should develop the tech...or even better, patent it.
Re:They can try to defeat te tech (Score:4, Interesting)
None of that would work because Dish technicians actually watch the broadcasts and manually record when the commercial breaks start and stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Madre di dios.
I hope those folks get paid well and have good mental health benefits. It would be like screening for child porn - you'd never be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about how many hours each tech watches on his shift or anything like that, but, I agree, that job sounds horrid.
Unfortunately, Dish is annually named as 1 of the worst companies to work for in America. There was a blurb just a few days ago on that in the Wall St Journal/HuffPo/etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what he said. Dish Network is better for its customers that Direct TV, sure, but Dish Network is the worst company in America to its own employees. Which sucks, since otherwise I've been happy with them for 10 years, but I don't want to support a company that is that bad to its workers. I guess I'll switch to Google TV next year after all.
Wow, it sounds terrible (Score:4, Interesting)
You probably read it this article [businessweek.com].
Or maybe on AOL [aol.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Given a copy of the broadcast on a computer with a jog wheel to control the fast forward and rewind, I doubt it would take long, especially given that most ads are scheduled to occur at more or less standard intervals. It can't be harder than what people with DVRs have to put up with now to fast forward past ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think this would be difficult or time consuming. Assuming they could fast forward through the content they would simply need to timestamp the start/stop times for all commercials. Then they would have something in the Hopper coding to look for the timestamps and skip those minutes.
Or if they invested just a little more time they could edit out the content, perhaps even automatically, again using timestamps.
A proficient tech could probably do the entire network for a day in 15 minutes.
I would like to see proof of this (Score:2)
I say that because for years I have been using an application called BeyondTV by Snapstream and it has a SmartSkip feature that automatically marks the beginning and end of commercials and doesn't require any manual input.
I would find it hard to believe that Dish would actually pay people to do something there was automated technology to do.
Do you have a link or something to verify your statement?
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the opinion issued by the appellate judge, pg 8, last paragraph.
https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/fox.v.dish_.9th.pdf [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Kind of amazing that with technology they have to use people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some good suggestions, but they only protect against the most basic (and generally unreliable) detection techniques.
One of the most powerful methods of commercial detection is to correlate the feed against a database of known commercials. Autocorrelation of the feed is used to find all the repeating commercials across multiple shows (or within a given show). A human could be used to further validate whenever the level of uncertainty exceeds a set threshold. The longer the search period, the more accurate th
What about ACE ? (Score:2)
First of all, someone has already patented a method of preventing the use of a commercial ad skip feature....
However, some 10 years ago (I think.... it's been a while), back when the TIVO was a new piece of technology, someone developed ACE - Automatic Commercial Elimination.
This was made possible by a single piece of "technology" that ALL TV and radio stations MUST use. And that is a signal to determine the beginning and end of commercial blocks.
Sure, they can just remove that, but then the feds will come
Well watch what happens next. (Score:2)
Viacom, Disney and other content owners will start jacking up the prices on Dish for revenue lost from commercials, they'll have those mexican stand offs where Viacom for example ups the rates, Dish refuses to pay and eventually does. Then the consumer gets the bill.
Actually I remember when Cable first started appearing in neighborhoods and it wasn't all commercials and going to cable meant you weren't inundated with every Billy Mays ad out there. Now every Cable Channel is 20 mins of programming, 10 mins
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I subscribe to eztv.it
lmao (Score:2)
How do they detect commercials now anyways? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I know that they traditionally used audio levels to detect when the commercial breaks start and end, but now there are quite a few networks which do not practice this (which is nice for people that don't want to have to manually turn down the tv volume whenever commercials start when they are watching live programming and turn the volume back up when the show starts again).
Via analytics. I used to have an OTA tuner hooked up to my computer. It would record TV as it came in and after a show was over, it would run a python script that would check the video against known commercials. Within 2 minutes of a show being over, I could watch the entire episode almost completely commercial free. Sometimes it would miss a commercial, or would cut a couple of seconds from the show. The nice thing about that set up was that it didn't actually truncate the video, but mark it. I could
mandatory watching (Score:2)
Advertisers pay to have advert broadcasted only (Score:2)
A similar case in Germany (Score:2)
[Full disclosure: I work on a product like this]
This kind of system is also in operation in Germany. There was a major lawsuit between RTL (huge German broadcaster) and TC Unterhaltungselektronic AG, that very much reflects this lawsuit. Here is a link to the German court ruling as reported by Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/fernseh-fee-bgh-erlaubt-verkauf-von-werbeblockern-a-305779.html [spiegel.de]
I realise this is a bit of a shameless plug, but it is relevant to the interests of this thread:
http: [fernsehfee.de]
Same code litigated to death (Score:2)
This is the same code that has been sued over AT LEAST three times. What a total waste of money and effort. Can't a higher court make a betamax vrs Sony ruling and get this over already?
Christ now the hook is 1 hr after you can forward ads. Good luck, if that's all it takes to make this legit, more power to you, but two (three?) companies have been shuttered trying to keep this code legal & alive. I'd think about that if I were on the board of dish.
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:Down the line... (Score:4, Insightful)
Watching The Walking Dead doesn't make me want to buy a Hyundai SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? The fact that you even knew that means the advertising did its job.
Re: (Score:2)
He burns all Hyundai on sight just incase...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, especially when the message you take from the ads are "I'm not buying that product because of the annoying commercial..."
Re:Down the line... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course not. They're just buying potential access to your attention for a minute or so. It's up to them to figure out how to make an ad that does make you want to buy an SUV. All the show delivers is your ass on a couch in a situation where you are more likely to see their ad. Sure you might go to the bathroom, or get some food, but you might just sit there and listen to how their SUV has features and warranties and all that other stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyundai pay to have the main character vehicle be a Hyundai. I'm not talking about regular ads but product placement.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I never noticed.
I was distracted by all of the Zombies in various states of decay trying to eat the main characters.
Re:Down the line... (Score:4, Interesting)
Watching The Walking Dead doesn't make me want to buy a Hyundai SUV.
Maybe not you personally, but you know what brand of SUV they drive in that show so the advertising worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a conversation I had a while back.
"Why in the hell did they paint their building that bright-ass obnoxious yellow color?!?"
"Do you know what they do there?"
"Yeah - It's a title loans place."
"See, you know what they do there. That's why they painted their building that bright-ass obnoxious yellow color."
Re: (Score:2)
Watching The Walking Dead doesn't make me want to buy a Hyundai SUV.
No, but I do have the urge to buy a shotgun and a crossbow.
Re:Down the line... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I got cable I was upset because I couldn't a-la-carte the channels I really wanted so I was stuck paying for a bunch of shit I had no interest in watching.
That's the real problem with cable - 200 channels but only about one channel's worth of programs that are worth watching.
PPV might work but they normally want to charge you for the 200 channels then pay extra for the good stuff. This business model isn't going to change so long as there's enough stupid people out there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do Comcast and VIACOM know this?
Seeing as cable companies have to pay the providers to air their programming, yes I'd say they do. Next time you wonder why your cable bill keeps going up blame ESPN. They charge an arm and a leg to the cable companies because they know they are indispensable to the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to get monopoly grants to lay cable through small towns across america, cable companies promised ad-free tv. Of course once they got what they wanted they quickly started backtracking on that promise, first introducing limited ads on certain channels, but quickly graduating to the current state where they show more advertising than programming.
Would they charge customers more if they couldnt advertise? No. They already charge the customer every penny the customer will pay, they have experts working
Re: (Score:2)
Putting commercials in the broadcast and then getting to ream cable providers is getting paid twice for the same thing and should be tolerated by no one outside that doesn't own a TV station.
You might as well tatoo your ass with a "please abuse me sign".
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: (Score:2)
Basically, its all about the money.
...and we'll have to put up with this so long as there's enough gullible people out there (ie. forever).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Hawaii 5-0 the product placement is ridiculously heavy. A character can't walk 2 feet without needing to hold up their windows phone and make an unnecessary skype call, and it's apparently impossible to catch a bad guy in anything but a chevy. They are how to do it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You remember the prodcuts, so they were successful. Advertisers don't care if your memories are associated with negative opinions. It has been shown not to matter what a consumers feels are regarding the advertisement, as long as they remember.
Re: (Score:2)
they should care, because it makes me even less likely to get a windows phone or give money to the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
If it happens that we rid ourselves of commercials AND get something like another PBS or BBC, then I can tolerate a lot of screaming from some people.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If it happens that we rid ourselves of commercials AND get something like another PBS or BBC, then I can tolerate a lot of screaming from some people.
Hallelujah, PBS is a welcoming oasis in an ocean of network mediocrity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if you kill the viability of the ad to any serious degree, you can expect some kind of consequential change on the horizon.
Collapse of the broadcast entity? Why would I have a problem with this? The “broadcast entity” is the favoured medium of the copyright cartels, who’re doing their best to make the interaction between artist and audience as painful as possible so they can continue on in their role as intermediary. At the same time like any business they want to maximise their profits and minimize their risk. Only “risk” here takes the form of investing in new content, meaning that originality an
Re: Down the line... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're suggesting that this could lead to the disappearance of Fox?
Bring it on!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are watching live TV you will get the adds. I had a Tivo and I hacked it to skip adds. And you know what I still watched adds on TV, because I didn't want to watch TV with my hands on the remote every time.
Also with the Prerecorded stuff, we tend to watch more TV. (That is why I got rid of the TiVo because I had so much stuff recorded that I spent too much time watching TV) So there was more adds for me to try to skip, and failed.
Re: (Score:2)
> still, one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash
That's not the court's problem.
Heinlein has a very nice quote along these lines from 1939.
Although the best stuff already seems to be coming from those channels that already have an ad free subscription model.
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?
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone else seems to always forget that cable used to advertise itself as one of the advantages is that there were no commericials.
Now the cable companies rape you for more money than ever and all the channels have tons of commercials...
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. I am no longer young but I remember well the days when commercials were five to seven minutes total for a half hour program. The Rifleman, for instance, now must be re-editied to be shown because the ads are so much longer. I, for one, am commercialed out. If I was forced to watch them I would buy DVDs and only watch content on that medium. We are so bombarded with commercials on radio and TV that I refuse to listen any longer. If they need the revenue, let them offer commercial free shows
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody eats for free, except prison inmates. So maybe we can put those guys to work producing content?
Have you seen MSNBC's post-prime-time programming?
Re: (Score:2)
> The tacit agreement is being changed.
There was never a "tacit agreement". There was only just wishful thinking.
Anyone attempting to make apocalyptic pronouncements simply hasn't been paying attention. There have been alternate payment models going back to the 70s.
What's going to get squeezed out (if anything) will be all of the mediocre crud that sits between PBS and HBO.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much an episode costs, but it is very expensive. People need to operate the lights, the cameras, the microphones, build and tear down sets, write and proofread the scripts, direct the thing, do the makeup and clothing, do all the post-production work, and then you have to pay the actors, and advertising for the show. On top of that, there's the standard cost of the building itself, maintenance, electricity, water, etc., etc. I'm sure I've left out a ton of stuff.
That said, when some (note:
Re: (Score:2)
THIS.
If the actors/actresses didn't get these ridiculous salaries there'd be no need for so many ads.
Re: (Score:2)
PBS gets a vanishingly small minority of it's funding from taxes.
This gets continually chopped away by noisy Republicans.
PBS now gets about 10% of it's budget from federal support.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Hicks had a good bit about advertisers you might like-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo [youtube.com]
And for my opinion of the biggest marketer hypocrisy going on lately-
https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4 [medium.com]
headline: FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint; Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator
Re: (Score:2)
A few reasons - 25 million subscriber base for the BBC against a Sky subscriber base of 10 million, as well as the fact that Sky has more premier programming like Battlestar Galactica, The Newsroom, Game of Thrones etc etc.