Techdirt. Stories filed under "dvrs"

You Can Take The Company Out Of The DRM Business, But You Can't Take The DRM Business Out Of The Company

Mike Masnick — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:30:16 PST

Rovi is the company that used to be called Macrovision. It got its start as the annoying DRM for VCRs and expanded into all kinds of DRM over the years. In 2008, it bought GemStar-TV Guide and was then in the TV Guide producing business as well. While it eventually sold off the DRM/software parts of its business, apparently it just can't help doing what DRM companies know how to do best: breaking other technology. As reported on Slashdot, Rovi has announced that it's shutting off its TV Guide OnScreen service between now and April 13 of the next year. Apparently a number of devices, including two key Sony DVRs, will no longer work once the service is shut off. Not surprisingly, this is upsetting many owners of those devices:

When other companies decide to stop supporting something, they don't make older systems useless. Worse, Sony never came out with another DVR in the U.S. market. Why do we have to rent them? How do we get Sony or Rovi to provide at least a software patch to set the clock so the DVR can at least retain 1980s VCR functionality? Sony admits there is no fix. A thread on AVS forums has a bunch of information on TV Guide OnScreen. The TV stations who broadcast the data have been ordered by Rovi to disconnect the data inserters and ship them back.

Quite a legacy MacROVIsion has, huh?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Smartphones Make People Ignore Commercials Way More Than DVRs

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 May 2011 01:01:00 PDT

For years, the TV industry has been at war with the DVR, because of their fear that people would just use DVRs to skip over commercials. And, of course, there were the requisite reports about how DVRs were causing massive totally made up "losses." Except, the reality turned out to be completely different. Various studies found that DVRs changed watching habits in that they actually drove more TV watching, and actually increased retention of what was in the commercials viewers did see. Of course, the "fear" from TV folks was totally misplaced -- and they were going after the symptom, not the actual heart of the issue: which is that people don't want to watch TV commercials because the TV commercials suck.

TV commercials worked because people were a captive audience and had nowhere else to place their attention. Yet, when they have other options for their attention, they tend to take them. In fact, the latest study (sent over by Eric Goldman) shows that DVRs were never really a huge threat in terms of taking people's attention away from ads. Instead, it seems the real threat is that everyone has a smartphone now, and when commercials come on, they turn their attention to their smartphone, check their social network/email/etc.:

It was found that simply turning one's head to ignore video ads had far greater impact than DVR fast-forwarding is assumed to have. Magna Global estimates that 35% of U.S. households have DVRs and 10% of their total TV consumption is time shifted, within which 65% of ads are fast-forwarded, meaning 35% x 10% x 65% = 2% of total TV ad impressions are avoided through fast-forwarding. Our study found that 63% of TV impressions were avoided simply by not paying attention to the screen.

To be honest, that 2% number seems crazy low to me, and I wonder how accurate it really is. However, even if it's noticeably higher, it appears that smartphones and other distractions are definitely taking people's attention away. In fact, even when people do fast-forward ads (as we noted in that study years ago) they still seem to see the ads:

When participants did use the DVR to fast-forward TV ads, nearly half of them paid full attention to the screen during that process. Fast-forwarded ads had 12% more attention levels than non-fast-forwarded ads.

Though, this study contradicts the other one from a few years ago concerning retention: saying people don't retain quite as much from fast-forwarded ads.

Of course, you can debate the statistics all you want, the basics are pretty obvious: if your method of advertising relies on a captive audience, and that audience is no longer captive, then you're going to have problems. TV execs were wrong to worry about DVRs, because they didn't really take people's attention away from the TV, and had the other side effect of making people watch more TV. However, there may actually be an issue with things like smartphones, because if people don't like what's on the TV (i.e., the ads suck) they now have a much more entertaining option right in their pocket. The captive audience is dead. Of course, that doesn't mean that there's nothing the TV guys can do. They could start making the ads more compelling such that people actually want to watch them, but I guess that probably sounds like "work."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guess That Bull In Texas Was A Good Investment: EchoStar Agrees To Pay TiVo To Settle Patent Case

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 May 2011 13:56:42 PDT

TiVo and EchoStar have been in a ridiculously long patent dispute over DVR patents that began years ago. TiVo won nearly all of the early rounds, but the tide turned a bit last year, though it looked like TiVo was going to get something out of this. Of course, all of this was happening while the Patent Office itself was expressing doubt about the patents in question.

The case is now over, with EchoStar agreeing to pay TiVo $500 million (significantly more than the initial jury award). Of course, some will use this to suggest EchoStar should have just paid up early on, and from a financial perspective, they're probably correct. But, really, this once again shows the ridiculousness of the patent system. Many millions of dollars were wasted on this lawsuit, and then a final massive transfer payment is made. All of that money could have gone towards actually innovating and building better products. What a waste.

Of course, this also brings to a close one of the more bizarre side notes to this story. Back when the district court case was being tried in East Texas, TiVo paid $10,000 to buy an award-winning bull in Marshall, Texas... which it renamed TiVo. Pretty much everyone suggests this was a really cynical ploy to influence the jury. I'm curious what ever happened to the bull?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Did Japan And Korea Just Make Life Really Difficult For Any Cloud Service Provider?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:16:17 PDT

For a while we followed the important Cablevision remote DVR case, in which the entertainment industry argued that Cableivision offering a hosted DVR service for its users was infringing on their copyrights, even though DVRs are legal. The entertainment industry strained its credulity by arguing that because the DVR device was on Cablevision's property, rather than in someone's house (even though they functioned nearly identically), it completely changed the rules. They said that Cablevision required separate content licenses to offer such a service. Effectively, they were arguing that the length between the DVR and the TV determines whether or not there's infringement. That, of course, is ridiculous (though even more ridiculous was when they compared a DVR to murder).

Thankfully, the Second Court agreed and put forth a pretty good, if slightly awkward, ruling, which pointed out that it didn't matter where the device was, that time shifting is legal, and this service really seemed no different than a DVR. The entertainment industry (of course) appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the law stands in the 2nd Circuit -- though with such a high profile case, one hopes that other Circuits would tend to defer to this ruling (though, they certainly don't have to).

Separately, we covered a very similar case in Singapore, involving RecordTV, which had trouble at the lower courts, but eventually came to a similar ruling as the US. In that case, the court even noted that allowing remote DVRs seems to provide benefits to society.

However, courts in other areas of the world apparently aren't quite as enlightened. Wonil Chung, an IP lawyer in Korea, recently sent over his excellent review of a number of similar cases from Korea and Japan where the rulings eventually all went the other way. The cases there all have their own specific details, but the general point was that the courts seemed to feel that if the equipment is housed and "owned" by the service provider, then the actions are done by the service provider... even if the end user is the one clicking the button. Effectively, those courts are saying that the length of the cable matters. Chung's analysis is balanced, and he notes that this can be a tricky issue. I agree that it's a complex issue that requires thinking through a variety of issues, but in the end, I have no problem saying that I believe the Korean and Japanese rulings defy common sense, while the US and Singapore rulings make sense.

Where it gets really important is understanding the wider implications of these rulings. Based on the rulings in Korea and Japan, it just became a lot more expensive and risky to set up any cloud-based service in either country. That's because these rulings effectively say that liability is determined by the location of the equipment, rather than the location of the user. Cloud-based services have the equipment hosted far away from the user. But does that really mean that the service providers have now taken on the liability? In Korea and Japan apparently the answer is yes, and that should put a chill through anyone building cloud-based offerings in either country.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Japanese Court Says That Place Shifting TV Overseas Is Infringing

Mike Masnick — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 02:33:55 PST

As you follow the copyright world, you quickly learn how quickly modern technology obsoletes copyright law. For example, when VCRs first came out, the industry thought it was infringing, but courts finally realized that the benefits to such things outweighed the potential costs, and declared that such time shifting was not, in fact, infringement. A similar debate was had when DVRs hit the market. Similar to the debate over time shifting, was the debate over place shifting, with things like Sling box, that allow you to transfer your TV programming away from your TV to a computer or some other device.

Over in Japan they're dealing with this same issue, where Japan's Supreme Court has decided that place shifting Japanese TV shows overseas is infringing (via Public Knowledge). It doesn't sound like this service was sending "pirated" copies -- but instead, had just set up a remote Slingbox-like operation, that would allow someone from overseas to tap into a legit television account. I can understand why a literal reading of copyright law might suggest this is infringement, but it seems like a common sense reading would make you question how that makes sense.

And that's kind of the point in all of these discussions. Copyright law was designed for a different world, and these days, most of what it seems to do is hold back what the technology enables -- especially when that technology is more efficient and useful. Letting people overseas pay to access content that is legally being broadcast simply shouldn't be infringing, but copyright law doesn't deal well with such situations, unless you finally get judges (such as in the Sony Betamax case in the US) who realize that such an end-result is nonsensical. So, in the end, it's left up to the whims of judges to determine whether or not useful technology is even allowed to exist, and that's not exactly a good recipe for innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

On Second Thought... Appeals Court Vacates TiVo's Big Patent Win Over Echostar

Mike Masnick — Fri, 14 May 2010 12:46:21 PDT

TiVo's lawsuit against EchoStar for patent infringement has been a mostly one-sided affair. TiVo appeared to win at every turn, to the point that there were stories suggesting EchoStar would have to start blocking the use of its own DVR. TiVo had celebrated these victories by suing others as well, and demanding ridiculous sums of money from EchoStar. Of course, it seemed odd to us that, while all of this was happening, the US Patent Office was admitting the patents might not be valid. Oops.

Today, however, TiVo got some bad news. Despite initially siding with TiVo, the Federal Circuit has vacated the win, and agreed to rehear the case. Perhaps TiVo needs to buy some local livestock in DC, like it did in East Texas...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How To Get People To Watch TV Ads: Don't Stop The Program While You Show Them

Carlo Longino — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:51:00 PDT

TV broadcasters have long struggled with how to deal with DVRs and how they allow users to skip over commercials. Perhaps the favored approach has been to come up with technological responses to try and prevent people from fast-forwarding; fewer companies have figured out that advertising is content, and needs to be treated as such. Viewers need to be given a reason to watch ads, whether it's simply entertainment or because the content offers some other value. Another idea that's being tested: not stopping the show during ad breaks. On one show on CNN, when the ads start, the studio cameras keep rolling, showing "behind-the-scenes" footage in a small box in the corner. The belief is that if there's still some bit of "program content" going, it will be enough to keep people from flipping channels or skipping ahead, even if it is just paper shuffling and makeup being touched up. It's an interesting proposition, but once viewers realize they're not missing anything of value, won't they switch away or fast-forward? And if the program content actually is valuable, won't people just not pay attention to the ads? The problem here seems to be that this is just an effort to recreate a captive audience. But without offering anything of value to the viewer -- whether it's the ads themselves or this "program content" -- they're not going to stick around and suck up the ads.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Verizon Figures If It's Already Involved In A Patent Lawsuit With TiVo, Why Not Sue Cablevision For Its DVR Too

Mike Masnick — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:05:34 PDT

Ah, the patent wars. As you're probably aware, TiVo spent years fighting a big legal battle with EchoStar/Dish Networks over some patents on DVR technology. TiVo won big, and then immediately turned its patent lawyers on some other companies including Verizon. In Verizon's response to TiVo's lawsuit, it went nuclear back, accusing TiVo of violating Verizon's patents on DVR technology -- including a patent that the world's biggest patent hoarding firm, Intellectual Ventures, gave Verizon for the purpose of being used against TiVo.

So is it any surprise to hear via Broadband Reports that Verizon is now suing Cablevision, claiming patent infringement on its set top box/DVR offerings as well? Cablevision and Verizon have had a really nasty battle going for years on Long Island, with all sorts of dirty tricks being played by both sides. But patent infringement? Given the odd timing of this lawsuit coming so quickly on the heels of the counterclaims against TiVo, you have to wonder if Verizon "woke up" to the fact that it could use these patents against Cablevision, only after provoked by TiVo.

Indeed, if you look down the list of patents in the Verizon Cablevision spat, you'll see that there's some overlap with those found in the TiVo suit:

5,666,293: Downloading operating system software through a broadcast channel
5,635,979: Dynamically programmable digital entertainment terminal using downloaded software to control broadband data operations
5,608,447: Full service network
6,367,078: Electronic program-guide system with sideways-surfing capability

7,561,214: Two-dimensional navigation of multiplexed channels in a digital video distribution system

6,055,077: Multimedia distribution system using fiber optic lines
5,864,415: Fiber optic network with wavelength-division-multiplexed transmission to customer premises
6,381,748: Apparatus and methods for network access using a set-top box and television

The three in bold are found in both lawsuits. Now, to be fair, before looking at the details, I was guessing that Verizon would also be using the patent it got from IV, but that patent (5,410,344) appears to be the one patent that Verizon is asserting against TiVo, but not against Cablevision. I have no idea if this is because nothing Cablevision does is covered by that patent, or if Verizon has limitations on what it can do with the IV patent. Still, given the overlap here, the timing, and the fact that many of these patents are pretty old, you really have to wonder if the lawsuit from TiVo and the scouring of patents for a countersuit also gave Verizon the idea to sue its arch-nemesis in the Long Island market over the same issues.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Fresh Off Victory Over Dish, TiVo Sues AT&T, Verizon

Mike Masnick — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:22:18 PDT

Why bother competing in the market when you can just sue everyone else? That appears to be TiVo's big strategy these days. Just a month after winning a big court victory over EchoStar/Dish over a patent that the USPTO is not really sure it should have issued, TiVo has moved on to sue both AT&T and Verizon in a nearly identical lawsuit. And, of course, you know exactly how the negotiations on this one start. TiVo will point to the headlines about the millions the the court has told Dish to pay. Whatever happened to the good old days when companies competed in the marketplace rather than in court? TiVo is a great and innovative product, no doubt. While not really the first such product, it did a great job convincing the market of the value of DVRs. But then others innovated as well, sometimes making their product even better. That's called competition and it should drive everyone to make better products. It appears TiVo would rather that the competitors be kept out of the market, rather than bothering to innovate in the market.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

TiVo Goes Dr. Evil On EchoStar: One BILL-ion Dollars, Please

Mike Masnick — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:33:00 PDT

TiVo and EchoStar (DISH) have been involved in a long and convoluted patent battle over basic DVR functionality. TiVo's certainly been winning. Personally, the whole thing is pretty ridiculous to me. The market is better served by competition, and having multiple players focusing on providing better DVR functionality (and, trust me, having used both their DVRs, they could both stand for some significant improvements) rather than spending money on lawyers. Either way, TiVo seems to be shooting for the moon with its latest demand that Dish pay up $1 billion dollars (Dr. Evil laughter inserted here), which is a lot more than the hundreds of millions most folks expected. One doubts they'll actually get that much -- the number is probably more of an effort to get EchoStar to just settle. But, if they do get numbers like that, you have to admit that buying that cow in Texas was a great investment.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Takes Another Crack At Getting Permission To Break Your DVR

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:28:00 PST

The movie studios and the MPAA have been pushing hard over the last year to get the FCC to let them use "selectable output control" to basically block DVRs from recording certain broadcasts of movies. Their somewhat creative (but totally ridiculous) argument is that this would allow more consumer choice. Now, you might ask how limiting what consumers can do with products they already purchased can possibly allow more consumer choice, but this is where the MPAA tries to play a bit of a jedi mind trick. It claims that if it's allowed to block recording of movies, then it would add another window to its windowed release program of movies (i.e., theater -> special locations (airplanes/hotels) -> DVD -> cable TV -> network TV). If they can break your DVR, they claim that they'll also release it to TV before it's even out on DVD.

Now, it doesn't take much thought to see the logical flaw in the MPAA's plan, but since some politicians are a bit slow, we'll spell it out for them. You don't need to block recording to release the movies early. There's absolutely nothing stopping the MPAA from offering this "consumer choice" right now. The MPAA is simply trying to confuse politicians into thinking that they can't possibly add this other way to get paid for the same content without this DVR-breaking DRM. The simple fact is that (a) selectable output control won't stop the movies from being recorded by some and (b) it won't stop the movies from being offered in unauthorized format online. It won't do a damn thing to stop "piracy." But it will annoy an awful lot of people who bought a DVR to record what they see on TV and are seriously pissed off at why they can't actually make the product they bought work legally.

In other words, it's not at all about "expanded consumer choice." It's about giving the MPAA another way to block legitimate watchers from doing perfectly legal time shifting of the content on their TV.

The good news was that when Kevin Martin ran the FCC, he turned down the MPAA. Though we heard mixed reasons on why (one story is that he tried to do some "horse trading" whereby he would give the MPAA what it wanted if they would side with him on things like a la carte cable), it at least kept the MPAA down. Of course, with Martin gone, it hasn't taken long at all for the movie studios to rush right back up to the new FCC yammering on and on about "expanded consumer choices." Hopefully Michael Copps (the temporary FCC boss) and the rest of the FCC are smart enough to recognize that you don't expand consumer choice by breaking their DVRs.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MPAA Tries Out Its New 'Up Is Down, Day Is Night' Strategy

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:17:57 PST

The MPAA has been pushing the FCC to allow it to basically add a kind of DRM to broadcasts. As it stands, the FCC blocks broadcasters from using "selectable output control" (SOC) to stop people from recording shows broadcast on television. They do this realizing that recording for the purposes of time or place shifting is perfectly legal, and allowing broadcasters to block consumer rights would be tremendously undesirable.

The movie studios, however, are trying to figure out yet another way to get money, and they want to rejigger release windows for movies. The way they're done now, movies are released to theaters, then special locations (airplanes, hotels), then DVD, then cable and finally network TV. What the studios would like to do is charge cable companies a lot of money to show movies on cable after they're in theaters but before they're released on DVD. Their (misguided) fear is that, if they show them on TV, people will record them and make them available via file sharing sites, killing off the DVD business. This is wrong on many levels, especially since high quality versions of the movies are almost always available on file sharing networks long before they are released on DVD, anyway. So, blocking the ability to record the movies on your DVR (which is what loosening SOC restrictions would do) wouldn't actually do anything to stop piracy -- but would piss off an awful lot of DVR owners out there, who want to know why they can't record the latest movies on TV.

The MPAA has been saying a lot of funny things in trying to defend its position, claiming that this form of DRM is necessary to let the studios release the movies early. That's simply wrong. There is nothing stopping the studios from releasing the movies in this manner right now. It's just their own misguided fear of people doing what they're legally allowed to do (record stuff on their TV) that's stopping them.

Yet, now, as a bunch of you have sent in, it seems the MPAA is going even further in this "up is down, black is white" argument in favor of being able to use SOC. It's claiming that it's the movie studios who are being pro-innovation here, and it's the consumer electronics companies (and consumers) who are anti-innovation:

"At its core, the position of CEA is that technology should be frozen in time, and any new services that require advanced technology should be banned," the MPAA told Adelstein on November 25. "This position is quite astonishing, coming from an organization that in the past has advocated in favor of technological innovation."

This is a neat bit of intellectual judo. Take your opponents (accurate) argument, and claim that it's actually your argument. The MPAA is lying, of course. They don't need SOC to innovate and release movies however they want. And, the CEA is quite pro-innovation, in letting consumers actually make use of their rights to record content. It's quite a statement for the MPAA to claim that taking away consumer rights is innovation. But, I guess that's what you get from a dying organization fighting for its life.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MPAA Doubletalk On FCC Request To Block DVR Recordings

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:36:19 PDT

You may recall back in June we wrote about the MPAA's petition to the FCC to block DVR recordings of certain movies by removing a restriction on "Selectable Output Control" (SOC), allowing it to set rules that forbid recording. What the MPAA is clearly trying to do here is start releasing movies on TV before they're available on DVD, but wants to do so in a way that users won't be able to record on their DVRs (though, they hardly come out and say that). Matthew Lasar has an absolutely hilarious interview with an MPAA representative where the MPAA guy tries to pretend that this has nothing to do with blocking recordings of movies and everything to do with stopping piracy.

"I can't emphasize this enough," Oster finally exclaimed. "We've hit on this a number of times so you might sense some frustration in my voice. 'Recording'�”take it off the table. Put it out of your mind. This has nothing to do with recording at all in any way."

"Ok. I guess I'm confused," I replied. "What is selectable output control about then?"

"It's in large part, first and foremost, about the fact that our industry has a multibillion-dollar theft problem, which is that billions and billions of dollar's worth of film content is stolen every year," Oster replied.

"How is it stolen? What's the mechanics of its being stolen?" I asked. "What happens?"

"It comes in many forms," Dean Garfield interjected. "It comes in camcording."

"Did you just say the word 'recording'?" I asked.

"No!" Oster intervened. "He said 'camcording'!"

"But isn't that just basically recording?" I begged.

"No!" Oster insisted. "What we want is to offer consumers high-definition content earlier than they can today. That's what we want to do! We want our studios to have the flexibility to put in place business models that allow them to offer high definition content on demand to the home, earlier than they do now. Period! Full stop!"

Let's translate this for everyone. Basically, the MPAA falsely believes that it has a problem with camcording. It likes to come out with all sorts of bogus stats that don't add up. The truth is that camcorded versions don't keep people from going to the movies, and most movies online have studio quality versions leaked from insiders.

So what does that have to do with SOC? Not much, really. But the MPAA wants to change the release window pattern it currently uses for movies. Rather than theaters, video, PPV, cable TV, it wants to be able to put some movies on TV before they're released to video, hoping that it can charge cable channels a lot for showing them. But, if it does that, it's worried that it will undercut its own business model in the video rental space. So, it falsely believes that it needs this "exemption" from SOC to effectively enable DRM on those movies to prevent them from being recorded. It's the same old mistake, believing that DRM somehow enables new business models when the truth is that DRM only restricts opportunities. The content will still get recorded and released. The effective DRM will do nothing to stop that -- and once the content is out there, it's out there. However, this will be a pain for plenty of legitimate viewers who start wondering why their DVRs don't work properly.

It's not about stopping any kind of piracy. This won't do that. It's not about enabling any new business models or new content. It's about a misguided MPAA which thinks it needs DRM to add yet another way for it to make money while pissing off legitimate users. For that, the FCC should not grant a special exemption.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Way To Get Around TiVo Users Fast Forwarding: Really Interrupt Your Shows With Ads

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 Jun 2008 07:08:00 PDT

Reader DEF writes in to point us to an interesting catch from Jason Kottke. At least some broadcasters seem to have taken things to the next level in trying to get people to watch ads without fast forwarding through them with a DVR: they literally have an overlay ad "pause" the TV show. You pretty much have to watch it to understand it, so here it is: These overlay ads have become quite common, but having one (even jokingly) pause the action in the show that you're watching certainly seems like overkill, which is going to annoy a lot more viewers than it convinces to watch the show being advertised.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft: It's Not The Broadcast Flag, It's A Different Flag

Mike Masnick — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:47:00 PDT

After certain NBC TV shows wouldn't record on Microsoft's Vista Media Center a few weeks ago, Microsoft admitted that Media Center includes broadcast flag technology, while NBC Universal admitted that it accidentally set the flag. However, now Microsoft is trying to clarify, claiming that it's not actually the broadcast flag that it included, but an entirely different flag, called CGMS-A. NBC Universal concurs, saying that the mistake it made was in setting the CGMS-A flag. Of course... the real question is why does this matter at all? If the impact is identical (Microsoft willing to let TV networks declare a show un-recordable), then what does it matter which annoying copy protection scheme is used?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ABC Still Excited About DVRs That Disable Fast Forward

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:17:00 PDT

A few months ago, we wrote about how ABC was excitedly testing a new DVR technology that would prevent people from fast forwarding through commercials on their DVR. If this seems dumb and destined to fail, that's because it's dumb and destined to fail. You don't compete with things like a fully functional DVR that has features people want by creating a crappy DVR that doesn't have the features people want. That story got plenty of attention -- which should have made its way back to ABC. But, if it did, the company is ignoring it. As reader Joey writes in to let us know, at ABC's recent "upfronts" where it pitches its latest efforts to advertisers, it's still excitedly pushing the idea of the fast-forward-disabled DVR (in the update at 4:34). The NY Times reporter claimed it was "a fancy way to combat DVR use." Except, that it's not. It's a dumb way to combat DVR use because all it will do is anger a bunch of people and get them to go out and buy a DVR that doesn't do that sort of thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Microsoft's Media Center Let TV Producers Block Shows From Being Recorded?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:49:00 PDT

And here we go again with rumors about questionable DRM tactics involving Microsoft and NBC Universal. Just days after a (later denied, after first being confirmed) report that Microsoft was going to put a "copyright cop" into Zune devices, users of Microsoft's Vista Media Center were upset to find that they were unable to record certain NBC Universal television shows earlier this week. Instead, they received error messages reading: "Restrictions set by the broadcaster and/or originator prohibit recording of this program." That would suggest, at the very least, that Microsoft's Media Center does allow content broadcasters to block shows from being recorded -- even if it turns out that they didn't block these particular shows on purpose. My guess is that this was an accident in this case, because it would be quite surprising to find out that NBC Universal and Microsoft would do this officially without any kind of announcement. However, given that other DVR systems out there do not have any such restrictions, this should serve as yet another reason not to trust Microsoft and its DRM efforts. Update: Some folks in the comments reminded us that TiVo had a similar problem a year and a half ago, which was equally problematic. There are still other DVR offerings out there that do not include these "features."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comcast Tests DVR That Watches You... Literally

Mike Masnick — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:01:00 PDT

Broadband Reports points us to the news that Comcast has been experimenting (internally only) with putting cameras into DVRs in order to determine who and how many people are watching. Comcast lays out the reasons why this might be useful -- such as recognizing if a child is watching, so that child content filters are automatically turned on, or merely recognizing certain preferences based on who's watching. However, the creepiness factor of such an offering is quite high, and I doubt many people would be comfortable with such a camera -- especially coming from a company like Comcast that's been getting blasted for its traffic shaping efforts. Besides, it will be too tempting for marketers to avoid misusing such a technology. Nielsen, for example, has been trying to come up with all sorts of ways to figure out if people are really watching commercials or TV shows, or if they just leave the TV on and are doing something else. Think how tempting it would be to "spy" on people to get a sense of what they're really doing. If such a system was going to work, the homeowner would need to have full control over the camera. If it acted just like a computer webcam, with the individual having full control over how it was used and how it could be accessed, then people might be more comfortable with it (plus, conceivably it could open up the ability for people to do video chat via their TVs). But if it's sending any info back to Comast, it's going to make people exceptionally uncomfortable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DirecTV DVR Will Delete Pay-Per-View Shows

Mike Masnick — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:32:00 PDT

First we had ABC thinking that not allowing people to fast forward through commercials on a DVR-type product was a good idea, and now comes the news that DirecTV will automatically delete Pay-Per-View shows you record with your DVR after 24-hours. This is apparently at the request of the major Hollywood studios who have decided that the best way to build up an audience is to piss them off by not allowing them to record the movies that they legally paid for via PPV, and then chose to record and time shift. Time shifting is perfectly legal, so there's absolutely no legal reason for DirecTV to ban the practice. As for the Hollywood studios, this is more backwards thinking. One of these days, someone in Hollywood is going to realize that pissing off your loyal customers isn't a good idea.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dear ABC, You Don't Compete With TiVo By Making A Product Worse

Mike Masnick — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:49:43 PST

About a year and a half ago, an executive at Disney-owned ABC-TV talked about how the network was experimenting with ways to block people from fast forwarding through commercials. The exec in question even claimed that commercial-skipping wasn't even a very important feature for most DVR-owners. Despite the widespread criticism of this statement, it appears that ABC is now preparing to test that theory. In association with cable company Cox, it's testing a new video-on-demand feature that won't let viewers fast forward through commercials. We'll be the first to say it: this is dumb. While it may make a few more people watch commercials, it won't make them happy about it. And, given just how many other options there are these days, the end result might be that people just choose not to watch such ABC programming at all, let alone the commercials.

Yet various ABC executives seem to think that by offering this product, they can stop people from buying DVRs. Anne Sweeney, the president of the Disney-ABC television group, claims: "You don't need TiVo if you have fast-forward-disabled video on demand. It gives you the same opportunity to catch up to your favorite shows." Not quite. First of all, you're limited to shows on ABC. Second, who knows if the additional features are as useful. Finally, one of the nice things about TiVo (oh, right!) is that it lets you watch a 30-minute show in 22-minutes, since you can skip the commercials (whoops). So, yes, many people will still want a TiVo because ABC is forcing the fast forward option to be disabled.

Then there's Ray Cole, who owns some ABC affiliates. He says: "As network and affiliates, we both have an interest in slowing down the explosive growth of DVRs. This is about combating DVRs. As we developed this at every stage, there was an agreement that however we put this together, disabling the fast-forward function was key." I'm curious as to how Mr. Cole thinks offering a product that does much less and deliberately takes away a key feature will "slow down" the "explosive growth of DVRs." You don't compete by offering a worse product. You compete by offering a better product. Taking away one of the key selling points of a product is not exactly a major selling point.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Time Warner Cable To Enable Time Shifting... But Without A Fast Forward Feature

Mike Masnick — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:33:11 PDT

Back in 2003, Time Warner began work on what it hoped would be a TiVo-killer. It would be a centralized system that would allow people to time shift TV shows like they would with a local DVR, but all the processing and storage would be at Time Warner itself. Of course, even when this plan was first announced, many were skeptical. Other divisions within Time Warner wouldn't be happy about aiding and abetting consumers potentially skipping commercials. In fact, pressure from others eventually forced Time Warner to drastically scale back the plans and release a much simpler service that would let some users "start over" if they happened to pick up a show after it had started. There was no fast forwarding and no commercial skipping. You could just "start over." Of course, perhaps they were just doing that to avoid the inevitable lawsuit. A few years later, Cablevision decided that it would offer a centralized DVR and was quickly sued for doing so. Amazingly, Cablevision lost that case (though, there's still an appeals process).

Time Warner, then, is obviously being careful as it expands it's "start over" service. It only took the company three years to morph the start over service into the "look back" service, that will basically let you watch any show that was broadcast earlier in the day. Of course, it only goes back one day, and you can't fast forward through the commercials. Apparently, there are still TV execs out there who think that commercial skipping isn't a key feature of DVRs. Rather than trying to prevent popular features, wouldn't these companies be better off coming up with creative ideas that don't involve pissing off customers?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story