I'm sure Charlie has Directv. How else can he see the Rockies, the Avalanche and his Volunteers in HD?
Fox Sues Dish Over Ad-Skipping Auto Hop
- Thread starter legends92
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 283
- Views 30K
I'm sure Charlie has Directv. How else can he see the Rockies, the Avalanche and his Volunteers in HD?
It's also dumb to think they really care in the first place. Like the movie and music industry before them, they see technology as an attack on the principles their revenue is based on. They just know that it's taking money away from them and want to stop it whatever the cost instead of adapting their business models to it. It's the same thing again and again going back a hundred years.
I get the Rockies in HD, channel 414. I don't know about the Avalanche, could care less about NHL.
The law suits are saving face, posturing, chest beating and publicity. The egos are huge, it's about the game of oneupmanship, the money may be secondary. One could argue, Charlie made them look dumb, pissed them off, and they going to raise hell getting even. Or the fix is in, and this is just a way to squeeze the masses a little more.
Or do they?? If the lawsuit press releases stated exactly how the AutoHop works, most folks reading them would probably say "So what".
They probably hope to get more public sentiment on their side instead by using confusing, embellishing statements that are not entirely accurate...
I don't think it really matters exactly "how it works". Anyone with a Hopper knows how it functions without understanding the nuts and bolts.
The point that Fox makes in their complaint is that DISH provides the technology and information necessary to automatically skip the commercials. Fox's beef is not with what the consumers do, it is with what DISH has done.
The point that Fox makes in their complaint is that DISH provides the technology and information necessary to automatically skip the commercials. Fox's beef is not with what the consumers do, it is with what DISH has done.
That's what most people would say who are not involved,but it will be the jury who will get to hear both sides of the argument,then decide,it will be interesting to see what happens to say the least.
Agreed, but these press releases are designed to garner support for their side in the court of public opinion...
Obviously we will see where this goes, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this in the Betamax Case.
"in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to 'time-shift' — to record a television program for viewing at a later time — was a fair use"
Dish cannot be held accountable for creating/selling the Hopper even if it allows users to infringe on copyrights. As has been stated here, the fact that the user must initiate the recording and autohop feature clears Dish of any wrong doing.
"In the case of a VCR, it seems clear . . . 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."
I am sure that the EFF will be weighing in very shortly.
"in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to 'time-shift' — to record a television program for viewing at a later time — was a fair use"
Dish cannot be held accountable for creating/selling the Hopper even if it allows users to infringe on copyrights. As has been stated here, the fact that the user must initiate the recording and autohop feature clears Dish of any wrong doing.
"In the case of a VCR, it seems clear . . . 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."
I am sure that the EFF will be weighing in very shortly.
JPhil said:
Actually, one of Fox's theories of liability is that Dish is enabling consumers to break Fox's copyright. So if they can't hold Dish liable for what it has done, they want to argue that consumers using PTAT, Autohop and sling violate copyright and Dish is liable for enabling and encouraging our actions. Ridiculous, but that's one of the things they're running with.
Yes, Dish, Dish and Dish. They aren't suing the consumers, they are suing Dish for providing the technology. Don't forget that after the Replay case was stayed, replay consumers sued the networks. The case was dropped when the networks promised not to sue Replay consumers.
My point is that many use the arguments that "it doesn't work like that, it works like this," and "consumers are going to do this, that and the other thing anyway" and I say, "that's not really what the case is about." It's about what Dish is doing.
As I read the Fox complaint:
Fox provides a limited license to carriers for retransmission of its broadcast(s).
The limited license does not include VOD rights.
Fox offered (in good faith) an addon license for VOD to DISH.
Dish declined. Dish instead created Prime Time Anytime to circumvent licensing VOD. They don't go so far as to say it was in bad faith, but they do say it was "not in good faith".
Adding insult to injury, Dish made it possible to automatically skip commercials in Prime Time Anytime. This was forbidden in the VOD contract offered to Dish.
The rest is an attempt to support those claims.
In short, Dish didn't like Fox's contract, so they peed in their lemonade.
But Primetime Anytime is not VOD, a user chooses to DVR those shows, they are not automatically recorded on their own.
VOD would also have more then one episode available.
VOD would also have more then one episode available.
JPhil said:
They're not going after consumers, but they're characterizing consumer action as illegal as a means of going after Dish. If their theory is correct, they could decide to go after consumers if they so chose.
But Primetime Anytime is not VOD, a user chooses to DVR those shows, they are not automatically recorded on their own.
VOD would also have more then one episode available.
Fox isn't arguing that it IS VOD, but that it is similar enough to VOD (Dish literature even refers to it as "On Demand"), that it is materially different from standard DVR function, and (IMO, most importantly) that it was created to circumvent licensing VOD.
I'm not trying to argue Pro or Con here, just trying to stay on point. The winner here will be the lawyer with the most compelling argument and I don't think that many of the posters here are addressing those.
I'm not saying that they would go after consumers. But one of their theories is that consumers in using the Hopper and Sling adapter are violating their copyright, so hypothetically, they could seek damages for those actions. I'm not saying it's likely, but implying that time shifting and place shifting is a breach of copyright law is in itself a very significant attack on consumer rights (regardless of whether they go after consumers directly or Dish indirectly based on that).
A few years ago, Dish tried to compare themselves to cable in regards to VOD by calling DVR'ing "VOD" or "Video On Demand". It was like record it first then watch it later, "on demand". If one had never seen cable's version of VOD, they might think it was the same.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
