from the wow dept
It appears they do. Though, the legal arguments are insane.
As you may have heard by now, Fox, CBS and NBC Universal have all sued DISH in California. At about the same time, DISH itself filed for declaratory judgment in New York against those three, and ABC, who hasn't yet filed suit, but perhaps will shortly. I would imagine that all of the cases will be consolidated in one of the courts.
What's scary, however, is that the TV networks appear to be using this lawsuit to claim that skipping commercials is copyright infringement.
Where the filings go really off the wall is in basically saying that skipping commercials is infringement. They do this in the sections on "inducement," wherein they suggest that, even if DISH doesn't directly infringe, it is is inducing infringement by offering the auto commercial skip feature to users. From the CBS filing:
Users of the Hopper's PrimeTime AnyTime feature who record Plaintiff's prime-time shows and use the Hopper's Auto Hop feature to automatically skip commercials otherwise contained in those recordings infringe Plaintiffs' exclusive reproduction rights under section 106 of the Copyright Act,But this makes no sense. Recording the show for later viewing is already deemed legal. So the only difference here is the intent of the user to watch later to skip commercials. Thus, CBS seems to be saying that merely wanting to avoid commercials is, itself, direct copyright infringement. And, given that Auto Hop doesn't work until the day after the shows air, does that mean that it's legal to record the shows if you intend to watch them the same day... but the second your intention is to watch them later, it's copyright infringement? That makes no sense and has absolutely no basis in the law. And, uh, what happens if you record it with the intent to watch the next day and skip commercials... but then watch it the same day with the commercials? The allegation above says merely recording the shows with intent to skip commercials is infringement, even if you don't actually skip the commercials! That makes no sense.
Fox's filing makes similar claims, insisting that DISH is inducing infringement because it "took active steps to encourage its subscribers to use Primetime Anytime to infringe FOX's copyrights." But that's flat out malarkey. It's legal for users to time shift shows. That's established. Yet, these filings seem to want to totally ignore that, and then assume that a user watching a DVR'd s how is automatically infringing on copyright because they might skip commercials.
The argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Effectively, the networks are trying to claim inducement to infringe... but do not (and, indeed, can not) show what or who is actually infringing. Time shifting is legal. Not watching commercials is legal. So, er, where's the copyright infringement, unless you completely throw out the Betamax ruling?
The filings also go down the path of explaining how this disrupts their business model. They honestly seem to be arguing for what some people have amusingly referred to as "felony interference with a business model." They list out all the different ways they get companies and users to pay multiple times for the same content, and use that to suggest this must be illegal, even though DISH has a retransmission license and all the individual parts are legal. I honestly don't understand this argument -- they're just claiming that because they don't like how end users engage with otherwise legal content, it must be illegal. Fox even uses this to claim that DISH's offering is not "enhancing consumer choice." Apparently, in the minds of TV network lawyers, what counts as "consumer choice" is limited to what the TV networks want to count as consumer choice... and any other choices are no choices at all. Or something.
There are a few slight differences in the lawsuits. For example, Fox brings up the fact that DISH also offers the Slingbox to allow users to not just time-shift but also place shift, though fails to explain why that's an issue at all. Fox also includes a breach of contract claim, which also may be difficult to support if all of the other actions prove to be legal.
DISH's declaratory filing gives you a pretty clear sense of that company's argument, pointing out that this is a nice feature that consumers want, that this kind of technology is already widely in use, and that it's not clear how any of this is infringement.
Auto Hop is a more efficient way of achieving what consumers already do with standard DVRs. A 30-second skip feature is already standard on many DVR remote controls. It permits viewers to automatically skip ahead in a recording, at the touch of a button, completely bypassing a typical 30-second television commercial. The remote controls that come with DVRs supplied by Comcast, an NBC affiliate, can be programmed to include this 30-second skip feature. DISH has provided a 30-second skip feature for years. By pressing the 30-second skip button multiple times, a viewer can elect to bypass the full complement of commercials between show segments. Now, DISH allows the customer to opt to use an Auto Hop feature that is just an extension of this 30-second skip function. It avoids the common frustration that occurs when viewers, using the 30-second skip or plain fast-forwarding, overshoot the commercials and fastforward into the television programming content that they really want to watch.DISH also points out that skipping commercials is not illegal:
DISH's Auto Hop feature promotes consumer autonomy. Viewers have skipped commercials for decades. Viewers commonly use the commercial break as a time to get up and momentarily leave the room. Ever since the advent of the remote control, viewers have changed channels or muted the sound during commercial breaks. And, since the advent of the VCR and DVR, viewers playing back a show have fast-forwarded through commercials. DISH is simply making it easier for viewers to refuse to be a captive audience and to exercise the well-accepted choice to skip a commercial.I can't see how the networks' argument can stand very much legal scrutiny at all -- but stranger things have happened when copyright cases hit the court. Still, the arguments here are so bizarre, and so unsupportable, you have to believe a judge will reject them quickly.