Will dish come out with a cloud dvr like comcast is?

Dishsubla:

With regards to point one you made...

They aren't mutually exclusive. A provider could easily offer the cloud option wherever possible and the traditional DVRs where it isn't.

With regards to point 2, terms and agreements can be changed.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
Well when I talked to 2 reps online with comcast they said that it records a backup copy of the show to the cloud. The installer who installed my phone and Internet said something completely different about the cloud. He said you could record as much as you want to it and tuners wouldn't really matter so who knows who to believe. The reps said you could record 4 shows at a time while watching a 5th live.
 
Dishsubla:

With regards to point one you made...

They aren't mutually exclusive. A provider could easily offer the cloud option wherever possible and the traditional DVRs where it isn't.

With regards to point 2, terms and agreements can be changed.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

It is not a term or agreement. It is copyright law regarding the personal use of user recorded content as per court ruling. This has NOTHING to do with VOD or other agreements to provide programming as VOD streaming something like Netflix, just your local MSO or even Dish huge library of movies. However, all the content isn't always available on VOD. That's where each individual using a PERSONAL recording device such as a VCR or DVD Recorder or, as was what was our discussion, a DVR could service. The ONLY LEGAL way an MSO could offer a DVR service with content saved "in the cloud" or on it's servers is limited to each household having to pretty much go through all the same steps we do today--set timers, or in some say INITIATE and select what we want recorded AS IT AIRS OR WILL AIR--then the MSO MUST save that recording to the subscriber's personal space on the server. This means that if 10,000 want to record the 11PM news, there really are going to be 10,000 separate recordings of the 11PM news saved in each of the 10,000 subscribers PERSONAL server space. The point is the copyright owners and providers DON'T want the ONE recording accessible to all for the DVR "in the cloud" service. They are the ones who sued the MSO for this precise model of ONE recording for all that resulted in the above ruling. So, copyright owners have no room for any negotiation there, BUT for VOD, that is different because they love that they have total CONTROL of that content. They can remove content from a provider, like Viacom did from Netflix, with people having to cope with the loss of that programming. DVR owners have tons of that Viacom kid garbage saved on our HDD's and if Viacom channels are removed from Dish, well, Viacom's programming isn't so valuable if we have it saved on our DVR's, but they have us by the chain on the Netflix model. There are quite a few Netflix parents in something of a slight panic because of the Viacom content removal, and Netflix's response with the far LESS kiddie popular 4 or 5 shows based on movies of Dream Works is NOT want mom and dad were thinking, TV shows that DON'T even exist yet. Copyright owner MUST protect or file suits if they view something as a a violation of copyright, or they LOSE that copyright.

One thing I see NOT being consumer friendly is the pricing model the greedy MSO's will surly adopt on top of all the other fees. Now, if you want say, 250MB of space for your recordings, pay this much. You want 500MB? Pay more. Still want more? Pay extra for 1GB. You get the point. Right now the game is to cram the biggest HDD they can, or at least for satellite, OR we can add more storage by attaching an external HDD (MSO's external HDD adds more recording space, not as archival) and pay far less for it than the extra server space PER MONTH never ending. Yes, the MSO's love the whole "cloud" model because it will make them MORE money in the long run.

As for Aero: the ONLY thing that makes it legal is that each subscriber actually has their OWN tiny PERSONAL antenna that receives the OTA broadcasts. This has been upheld by the courts because Aero does NOT use one antenna to feed all, but the terribly INEFFICIENT system of physically taking a tiny antenna and feeding ONLY that antenna to ONLY that subscriber. This is exactly what the MSO's are required to do for their cloud based DVR services: USER initiated and selected; personal and private with each subscriber getting "their own."

Further, this is why Dish requires you to ENABLE the PITA feature, and why it is NOT defaulted ON. Then you have to select which of the big 4 you want recorded. Then upon playback, YOU MUST select that you want the Auto-Hop feature while you watch the recording. The premise is USER initiated, and so far the courts seem to agree with Dish, but that case is not near over, at all. However, the same principal of user initiation for PITA and Auto-Hop is used by Dish to keep both features, in Dish's view and the courts, SO FAR, legal. If either feature had been defaulted open or ON during the time of the first suit filed, the court would have most likely ordered them disabled until the case progresses. However, the court has cited the fact they are user initiated as one reason they won't order the Dish features shut down while the case proceeds.
 
Last edited:
DishSubLA:

For arguments sake, let's say that Apple, Google and Amazon have each sold approximately 5 million copies of Adele's Skyfall. I have no idea what the actual number of copies they've sold, and that is largely irrelevant. They all "store" these for us in their infrastructure. By your logic, to stay in compliance with copyright law they must have 5 million copies of that song in their infrastructure, one for each copy purchased. Flat out, they don't.

Of course they all will have more than 1 copy but they'll have a lot closer to 1 copy than they do 5 million copies.

Once you start viewing the purchase of this song as an RTU (Right to Use). This same model could very easily be extended to a "cloud dvr" where far fewer copies than the number of RTUs are stored.

The smart providers will have a number of copies geographically dispersed to better serve their customers.



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
DishSubLA:

For arguments sake, let's say that Apple, Google and Amazon have each sold approximately 5 million copies of Adele's Skyfall. I have no idea what the actual number of copies they've sold, and that is largely irrelevant. They all "store" these for us in their infrastructure. By your logic, to stay in compliance with copyright law they must have 5 million copies of that song in their infrastructure, one for each copy purchased. Flat out, they don't.

Of course they all will have more than 1 copy but they'll have a lot closer to 1 copy than they do 5 million copies.

Once you start viewing the purchase of this song as an RTU (Right to Use). This same model could very easily be extended to a "cloud dvr" where far fewer copies than the number of RTUs are stored.

The smart providers will have a number of copies geographically dispersed to better serve their customers.



Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4 Beta

What you've said makes sense, but the court was EXPLICIT in NOT expanding DVR services under the same umbrella as your example of Amazon, etc. That, however, is EXACTLY what the MSO WANTED to do and ARGUED (using your good logic) they could do and not violate copyright, but the court ruled that such a model for a DVR service DOES indeed violate copyright. Then later, the model of saving 10,000 separate copies of show was challenged, for each household to access and view was found to NOT violate copyright. This time, the copyright owners LOST and the consumer won something. This also applies to Aero who are streaming LIVE LINEAR broadcasts using ONE antenna per subscriber, and their coming DVR service is based on the 10,000 copies of the same bits per each subscriber. The MSO's are PAST the Amazon model for DVR and accept it as DONE, and have moved on to, and HAPPILY accept the inefficient, but legal model of everyone getting their own separate recording for their DVR service with content save on PERSONAL space on the MOS server.

Your example is NOT a "personal" RECORDING device, such as a DVR, not streaming devices and services. Sorry, but there is NO COMPARISON to any of the other types of methods we access content. Your example of Amazon is not the DVR model. They are totally different animals under the law. The DVR service is more directly linked to Universal Studios vs. Sony than subsequent rulings relating to file sharing sites or peer to peer, specifically, personal RECORDING devices owned or used by individual to record copyright material as they "air" form LINEAR services such as OTA, MVPD services. This does not address purchase of copyright material form iTunes, or Amazon MP3, which function more as retail stores, nor what you do with it subsequently, the ruling is limited to DVR functionality as we know it today: an individual has some from of recording device that they use to record the linear broadcast OTA or MSO.

What may be difficult to get our minds to wrap around is how utterly inefficient and almost silly the ruling is because, for OUR point of view, what't the difference if everyone accesses the same ONE copy of a TV show after having gone through all the hope to program the DVR? The real world result is the same. Keep in mind the content owners are completely averse to the one recording for all in a DVR MODEL SERVICE. In fact, again, that is the very reason they sued the MSO. However, the LAW is a funny thing, and the ruling states that having one recording to be accessed by all in a DVR--REPEAT-DVR "cloud-like" service is considered a VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT. However, the court was pretty explicit in its ruling that in a DVR--REPEAT--DVR "cloud-like" service, the notions or attributes of "PERSONAL" and "PRIVATE", as a TEST (only FAIR USE is guaranteed under the law), such as when our recorded content is stored at home using videotape or an HDD, must be maintained for it NOT to violate copyright. The court explicitly DENIED the use of one recording for access to all (that proposed mode is why the MSO was sued), but in a subsequent ruling found that if each household INITIATED the timer for recording and the MSO saves that recording ONLY on that household's PERSONAL, PRIVATE part of the server to access for playback, and that process repeated for each case of the same program to be recorded by additional households, it was rules as NOT violating copyright. This is NOT MY LOGIC; it is the logic of the court directly addressing the "cloud" DVR service.

OUTSIDE of DVR services, this ruling does NOT apply. There are separate rulings relating to peer to peer and file sharing sites. Of course, in a streaming service model, a single copy or few are accessed by many and that is legal, but those are NOT DVR services. Streaming services and iTunes and other services where you pay to download and save to other devices are more like a RETAIL STORE, and certainly not a personal recording device. If a DVR service, something that acts as a personal RECORDING device--NOT a download from a site to your mobile device or to your personal cloud space, but a linear recording device--used that model, it would be in violation of copyright. I suppose the key term would be "TIME SHIFTING" that a DVR provides. There is no "time shifting" from any of the other non-DVR retail stores on the cloud where we download or stream content. PLACE SHIFTING is something different that courts have ruled we have some rights to exercise.

It is what it is: the LAW, and it doesn't always make the best sense and often can NOT be applied to similar examples that would seem, upon spurious examination, seem to be the same thing, but, of course, it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Let's be honest, the law makes no sense on this topic.

Its not like DVR recordings are licensed to an individual in perpetuity. If you sever the relationship with the content provider you'll lose access to said content. If that's the case (and it is) then where's the ownership?

Then again if the law actually made sense we'd need less lawyers.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
So, what is the difference between Cloud DVR and On Demand?

Because if Clould DVR is anything like On Demand, while it's a great supplement feature, it's no replacement for local DVR. Not even close.
 
Cloud DVR would be anything you record, it just is stored on some server on the Internet instead of on a hard drive in your home. On Demand is a list of programs from a catalog to choose from.
 

Advise on Locals. Move from Evansville, IL

Blockbuster at home...

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)