TSN disrupting recording of broadcasts?

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,857
8,110
broadcasting, copyright and whatever laws are what they are, i happen to agree with them and i happen to agree with safe guarding of assets. you dont? well thats not my problem.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled circa 1984 that the use of VCR's to record TV for personal use was not a violation of copyright law. I realize we're talking about Canada here so that ruling means squat up north, but I have to imagine there's something similar on the books.
 

braincramp

Registered User
Mar 10, 2004
1,594
0
While it is not illegal to make one copy of a broadcast for personal use, there is no requirement for the broadcaster to provide broadcasts which are capable of being recorded.
 

Chileiceman

Registered User
Dec 14, 2004
9,863
709
Toronto
I didn't know Lars Ulrich was a hockey fan.

:biglaugh:
Yeah really, Declassified get a life.
For one who would sell a regular season hockey game (when you can get it for free on torrent) . And secondly I think one has a right to record a game in case he missed it.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
It might, there are ways to mess that up also.
Analog Macrovision injects a pulse during the blanking interval (when the TV is not updating the screen). This messes up VCRs with AGC (Automatic Gain Gontrol) - pretty much any VCR made in the last 20 or so years. Try copying a commercial VHS tape and look at what you get. A really old VCR has no problems, or you can get a "picture clarifier" of picture corrector" to take out analog Macrovision.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
While it is not illegal to make one copy of a broadcast for personal use, there is no requirement for the broadcaster to provide broadcasts which are capable of being recorded.

There's a big difference between that and this active sabotage they're doing.

They have no right to prevent a customer's legally purchased piece of equipment from doing the legal task it is designed to do.
 

Senator Stanley

Registered User
Dec 11, 2003
7,582
1,689
Visit site
This type of technology I'll bet will become used by major networks more in the coming years with the rise of internet downloading of shows. A lot of people download their favourite shows each week and never actually watch them on TV, making them a useless market other than for product placing. The sources of the files online are PVR's, so disrupt all of those and the entire system breaks down. I'm surprised that they don't already.
 

Dolemite

The one...the only...
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
43,191
2,115
Washington DC
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled circa 1984 that the use of VCR's to record TV for personal use was not a violation of copyright law. I realize we're talking about Canada here so that ruling means squat up north, but I have to imagine there's something similar on the books.

Having read both the US and Canadian Copyright laws...

They are similar in the sense that they are both the biggest pieces of Duct Taped Legislation I have ever seen in my life. As soon as a loophole is found in the laws they rip the current laws apart with scissors, insert a poorly written update to the laws, use said duct tape to put them back together and then they pray no one else will find any other loopholes.
 

Tokyo Bucks

Registered User
Jul 27, 2005
211
0
tokyo
Some laws legitimately protect people and companies, but other laws are just results of lobby groups efforts to protect very narrow interests and they may actually do disservice to the society as a whole. Some of the extreme clauses in copyright laws seem to be on that end.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
Psst, if anyone wants a copy of a Columbus vs. Phoenix game from a couple years back PM me.

$5. Keep it on the down low.
 

RTWAP*

Guest
There's a big difference between that and this active sabotage they're doing.

They have no right to prevent a customer's legally purchased piece of equipment from doing the legal task it is designed to do.

Not really. If I understand it correctly, they are not allowed to sue someone to prevent the selling of technology (i.e. VCRs) that record shows. They are not required to cooperate at a technical level with the suppliers of that technology.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Not really. If I understand it correctly, they are not allowed to sue someone to prevent the selling of technology (i.e. VCRs) that record shows. They are not required to cooperate at a technical level with the suppliers of that technology.

Again, the distinction is important. Not cooperating is radically different than actively sabotaging. This isn't just some byproduct of the system, since it doesn't affect everything, it's clearly intentionally aimed at only some things.

In effect, it's a denial of service attack on legal equipment that a customer has purchased that has nothing to do with them.

What if the cable company could send a signal that would disable your telephone if you tried to telephone someone they didn't like, such as the phone company to sign up for DSL, or some competing cable service? "Oh, that's ok, they have no obligation to cooperate with the suppliers of telephone service"? That just doesn't wash.

They have no right to interfere with my telephone, my automobile, my pacemaker or my digital recorder.
 

Gord Miller

Registered User
Mar 16, 2004
46
0
I am hesitant to get involved here, but I have checked with people at our office, and they know nothing about this. It's more likely your cable provider, or a glitch with your recorder. I'll check further, but to our knowledge, there is nothing deliberate going on, and no reason to do it.

As for the complaint about unanswered e-mails, we receive thousands per day so answering them all is simply not possible. I answer those that are addressed to me, but only if they come from verifiable addresses (not Yahoo, Hotmail etc.)

Hope that answers some questions.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,857
8,110
Again, the distinction is important. Not cooperating is radically different than actively sabotaging. This isn't just some byproduct of the system, since it doesn't affect everything, it's clearly intentionally aimed at only some things.

In effect, it's a denial of service attack on legal equipment that a customer has purchased that has nothing to do with them.
So ... go to court with that argument and see how far it gets.
Answer: not very far.

What if the cable company could send a signal that would disable your telephone if you tried to telephone someone they didn't like, such as the phone company to sign up for DSL, or some competing cable service? "Oh, that's ok, they have no obligation to cooperate with the suppliers of telephone service"? That just doesn't wash.
That's a poor analogy. Other than the fact that you may not be physically present (which is not the network's fault), there is nothing that prevents you from watching the broadcast in real time ... however, you do not have a legal right to be able to record the broadcast for your own personal use. The broadcast is intended to be watched in real-time; the fact that we've had the capability to record those broadcasts for later consumption is fortuitous but not intentional on the part of the network ... and not a violation of copyright law as the entertainment industry claimed over 20 years ago.

If the major networks did the same thing and offered you the chance to pay $.99 to watch the show elsewhere after its normal broadcast, it would be perfectly legal. You might not be happy, but you don't have a legal right to be happy ... and they'd have a legal right to disrupt recording devices so as to be able to charge for the privilege to watch a show at a time other than the one the network intended.
 

Wolfpack

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
1,036
0
Just throwing out another possibility here, but this situation may not have anything to do with copyrights.

The entire television industry is being hit hard by PVR's and time-shifting (watching a feed from another time zone, mostly prevalent with satellite customers.)

The major networks are doing everything they can to try and get people to watch their programs live, because PVR users generally do not watch the commercials and time-shifting viewers are watching commercials from other markets. This is costing the TV industry bug bucks in advertising $$$.

First we saw more product placement within programs. Now we are seeing programs run past the top/bottom of the hour so that, if recorded, the end of the program (and the preview for the next weeks' show) is cut off.

You will soon start to see show content INSIDE commercial breaks, so that viewers are FORCED to watch the commercials.

It would not surprise me if the originating networks continue to exploit ways to screw with PVR's and other "recording" devices. Advertisers are demanding that something be done.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->