TiVo has emerged victorious, with Dish and EchoStar paying $500 million to end all ongoing patent litigation.

TiVo Vs. Dish, Echostar

In 2004 TiVo, then on the up and up, sued EchoStar (which owned Dish at the time) over its DVR patents for ‘multimedia time warping’. TiVo won the case in 2006, but thanks to endless appeals the case kept trudging on.

TiVo won every appeal possible, and in April 2010 a judge ruled that the two companies would not only have to pay damages but also cease their services. It’s taken another year for a settlement to be reached but that has now finally happened. To the relief of everyone concerned, I’m sure.

Final Settlement

The final settlement sees Dish and EchoStar paying TiVo $300 million up front with another $200 million due in six annual payments between 2012 and 2017. This closes out all pending litigation and injunctions on both sides.

TiVo has also licensed its DVR patents to Dish and EchoStar for their remaining lives, ensuring the latter two can remain in business.

Thus begins a love-in between the companies, with TiVo promising to help Dish promote its new Blockbuster digital video service, coming after Dish acquired the assets of the former market leader in video rentals.

Dish CEO Charlie Ergen said:

“We are excited to work with TiVo to help develop our Blockbuster video service. Resolving the patent infringement case allows us to further engage with TiVo on a variety of exciting strategic initiatives, like Blockbuster, where we are uniquely positioned to collaborate.”

Conclusions

You have to wonder whether all of this was worth it in the end. Technology evolves so rapidly these days that what seems cutting-edge today will be old-fashioned tomorrow.

TiVo peaked in January 2007 when it boasted 4.4 million subscribers. It now has just 2 million, with the numbers having more than halved over the last four years. Mainly because online video now fills that void.

Related Ad

Ad: TiVo Deals on eBay

TiVo Premiere Receiver DVR NEW HD 1080P tcd746320 US $57.07   13 Bids Auction Ends: 33m Make it yours…

TiVo Series3 21hrs HD 184 SD Receiver US $140.00   Auction Ends: 42m Make it yours…

Tivo Wireless G USB Network Adapter AG0100 US $14.00   6 Bids Auction Ends: 6h Make it yours…

Does the new TiVo hardware succeed in this mission, or is there still work to do if TiVo hopes to stop the rot?

TiVo

TiVo has revolutionized the way many people in the United States watch conventional TV, enabling the recording, storing, pausing, and playback of live television.

However, there now a multitude of competitors, with each cable company offering their own DVR. And the emergence of online video which, by its very nature, offers viewing options galore, has meant TiVo has struggled to keep up.

But the new TiVo Premiere is the company’s big hope, boasting a new, redesigned user interface and the full integration of selected online video sources.

TiVo Premiere

The most obvious change with the TiVo Premiere is the new Flash-based UI. And while it’s a definite improvement on the one on current models, which hasn’t changed in a decade, it’s still anything but perfect.

The ‘Search’ and ‘Browse’ options now have the ability to include online video options as well as local content. So whether you want to watch a show on conventional TV, stream it from YouTube or Netflix, rent it from Blockbuster, or purchase it from Amazon, you can do with more ease.

The TiVo Premiere has no integrated wireless, which is a big missed opportunity in this increasingly connected world.

Online Video Integration

The Premiere is being referred to as “the One Box” due to the integration of online video. But while the integration is stronger than on previous hardware, it’s still not exactly seamless.

And there are no more content partners this time around than last, with Amazon, Blockbuster, Netflix, and YouTube the main sources for online video.

Other Internet services are promised to be added later, such as Twitter and Pandora. But no more online video sources are likely, which means Hulu is going to remain an obvious and sorely missed omission.

Availability

The basic TiVo Premiere costs $300, with the XL version (which pushes the storage capacity from 45 hours of HD to 150 hours of HD) costing a shopping $500.

The TiVo Premiere will be available to buy from Best Buy stores from Sunday (March 28) and from TiVo.com and Amazon (see below) from Monday.

Related Ad

Buy a new ‘TiVo Premiere’ on Amazon

Sources: All Things D and Gizmodo

Growing Industry

Internet video is an increasingly important part of the way media content is delivered to our homes. More companies than ever are seeing the benefit of at least having a Web video option in their line-up.

Just look at Hulu, which continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. Or the new ‘Game Rewind’ service from the NFL. Or even the increasing amount of deals being set up by Google to get professional content on to YouTube.

The Monetization Issue

But the big problem with all these new initiatives, along with all the other video start-ups you read about, is the question of how to monetize the content.

YouTube has recently made some progress in this field, trying to up its professional content, and increasing the ways in which the company can make money. But the profits still aren’t huge, and that’s with the stupidly huge amount of traffic YouTube receives every month.

TiVo Users Hate Adverts

New research from Starcom USA-TiVo shows that “90% of DVR (Digital Video Recorder) users almost always or always fast-forward through commercials.” This is a higher figure than was previously claimed.

Most of the responders to the survey claimed that skipping through adverts wasn’t the main benefit of owning a TiVo or DVR, that was the chance to record programs for later viewing, but with the option there it’s obvious that most people will choose to take it.

Internet Video Advertising Options

So where does this leave Internet video advertising? At the moment there seems to be three options for companies looking to monetize their videos: pre-roll advertising, post-roll advertising, and inline advertising.

The first option sees an advert appear before the clip plays, but viewers tend to be impatient. Post-roll sees an advert appear after the video, but most people will simply navigate away before the advertiser gets their point across.

Which leaves inline advertising where the advert runs alongside the video for its duration. This normally takes the form of a text-based ad visible under the video, and is a method YouTube has tried.

Conclusions

The DVR study shows that viewers simply aren’t interested in adverts and will do all they can to avoid them. Which is a problem for the burgeoning Web TV industry. Unless a viable solution guaranteed to raise funds is found then the industry may fail to truly take off as it should.

[Via MediaPost]

Related Ad

Buy a ‘TiVo 80 Hour DVR’ on Amazon

Here, Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge discusses the case, the positive decision, and how the result is a victory for digital technologies and common sense.

Victory for Home Recording in Cablevision Remote DVR Case

On August 4, a federal appeals court ruled that Cablevision’s remote DVRs – which worked like off-site TiVos - didn’t infringe copyright. The decision, which overturns an earlier district court opinion, stated that there was no significant legal difference between the remote DVRs and a VCR. An all-too-brief summary of the history and findings follows.

The original case arose out of Cablevision’s creation and marketing of the “RS-DVR,” a service that, like a TiVo, let cable subscribers select different TV shows to be recorded digitally onto a hard drive. Unlike a TiVo, however, the hard drives of the RS-DVR are stored on Cablevision property. 

Content Companies Arguments

The difference between these configurations led to arguments by content companies that Cablevision was infringing the copyrights in their TV shows. Three particular acts were singled out:

• First, as Cablevision received a signal from the content companies, it created a buffer copy of about .1 seconds of the show as the system checked to see if a customer had decided to record the show. Plaintiffs argued this was an infringing reproduction.
• Second, if a customer had picked a show to be recorded, the stream of data representing that show would be copied from the buffer onto a server for that customer to view later. Plaintiffs argued that this recording was another infringing reproduction.
• Third, when a customer decided to watch the show they had recorded, the show would be transmitted from the remote server for viewing in the customer’s home. Plaintiffs argued that this violated their “public performance” right in a show.

Support For Cablevision

Last year, Public Knowledge joined a coalition of public interest, consumer, and industry groups in filing an amicus brief in support of Cablevision’s position, arguing that since the recorded copies are made and transmitted at the direction of the customer, that Cablevision was not the one “doing” the copying and public performing of the shows, and therefore could not be infringing. 

The brief also noted that playing back a recorded show over the RS-DVR wasn’t a public performance, which meant that it wasn’t an infringement. Another amicus brief, filed on behalf of a group of copyright law professors, had argued that temporary buffer copies shouldn’t be considered infringing.

To our great relief, the appeals court mostly agreed with these arguments.

First Buffer Copy

On the issue of the first buffer copy, the court held that buffer copies weren’t infringements because they were too fleeting to be considered “fixed,” a requirement before something is considered a “copy” that can infringe (or otherwise implicate) a copyright. 

Although the entirety of a show would pass through the buffer bit by bit (and thus be “embodied” within it), a fixation needs to be more than just an embodiment—it also needs to be more than “transitory.” 

The court decided that this tenth-of-a-second buffer was too transitory to meet the statutory definition of a fixation, and therefore couldn’t be an infringement.

Stored Copies Of Shows

On the second question of the stored, recorded copies of the shows, the court made a couple of important distinctions. First, it noted that the plaintiffs were alleging direct infringement—i.e., that Cablevision was itself making infringing copies, not secondary liability—which was what Sony was accused of when it was making VCRs, or what Grokster was accused of doing for file-sharers. 

The court then noted that in a case alleging direct infringement, it’s important to see who is performing the action alleged to be infringing. Since here, the individual user makes the decision whether or not the copy is created, they are the ones making the copy, not Cablevision. 

Just as a VCR owner (as opposed to a VCR manufacturer) pressing REC on a box makes a copy, so too is the individual customer (and not Cablevision) the one making the recording here.

Public Performance

On the third question of the public performance, the court, interestingly, didn’t rule on who was “doing” the performance, instead relying entirely on the question of whether or not the transmission was a “public performance” in the first place. In order to be considered a performance “to the public,” a transmission has to be able to be received by different members of the public, whether at the same time or at different times.

Plaintiffs argued that since the same show that was transmitted in realtime (with a license) by Cablevision, and could also be viewed later by any customer who recorded it, that Cablevision was making a public performance with those later transmissions. 

Difference Between Transmissions

However, the appeals court stated that these later transmissions existed separately from the earlier, licensed transmission. In other words, in determining whether or not you have a public performance, the court held that you need to look at whether or not you are passing the same transmission to multiple people; not the same work. 

Although it might be the same episode of “House” broadcast at its scheduled time and later shown to me on my RS-DVR, the transmissions are separate; originating from different signals, and aimed at different audiences: the first is a public transmission, sent by Cablevision to all their subscribers; the second is, well, a private transmission, sent only to me. 

Common Sense Prevails

After all, as the court points out, if transmitting a work that had been previously transmitted to the public was always going to be a “public performance” of the work, than I could be infringing the public performance right by recording a TV show in my living room and then later playing it in my bedroom.

The appeals court’s decision, and its discussion of the merits of the various arguments, goes into far more detail than I can provide in this brief report. However, the upshot of the decision is not only a victory for user rights, home recording, and new digital technologies—it’s a victory for common sense.

Sherwin Siy is an author at Public Knowledge discussing public rights in the emerging digital culture. Post has Some Rights Reserved.

Related Ad

Buy ‘TiVo HD Digital Video Recorder’ from Amazon

The viewing figures during May determine the level of advertising revenue the networks can expect to get for the year ahead, and so all the big shows are débuted at this time.

However, this time there is a slight problem, as the sweeps have shown that prime time television in the States has lost six million viewers in a year.

Joint Reasons

There are two reasons for this, the first being the writers strike from the back end of last year and early this year which saw shows take an enforced hiatus and consequently made viewers make the switch to cable television and beyond.

However, the bigger and more important reason, is the increase of viewing options open to people now. From digital video recorders such as TiVo and on demand Web video, viewers now have more choice than ever before.

Time Shifting & Web Video

Time shifting is an increasingly popular option, with half of the viewership for some shows said to be recording it on a device to watch later, thus condemning prime time to an entry in the history books.

But even more so, the incredible amount of options open to viewers via the Web is thought to be causing concern for the big American television networks.

Not only are the networks providing the option themselves due to viewer pressure, there are sites such as Hulu, Veoh and Fancast increasing the range of options by even more.

MTV’s The Hills

The New York Times uses MTV’s The Hills as a prime example of this switch in how people view programmes.

Since March, an average of just 3.7 million viewers have watched the show live on a Monday night. A million more have watched later via DVRs, and then episodes and excerpts have been streamed an incredible 32 million times from the Web afterwards.

Conclusions

The television networks now have a decision to make, as this change in viewing habits is likely to only get worse. They have to now decide whether to embrace it, or try to fight against it, mimicking the stance the music industry has taken in the face of digital file sharing.

Related Ad

Get a Tivo HD Digital Video Recorder at Amazon

The company is best known for Diggnation, a series all about Digg, and the stories which make it on the social bookmarking site, hosted by Rose himself.

The show has always been available on Revision3’s own site, as well as YouTube and iTunes, but will now also be available on Hulu, Joost, TiVo, Revver and Break.com as well.

Scam School

Along with Diggnation, a new show called Scam School, which features magician and comedian Brian Brushwood teaching people fun tricks to show off with in bars, will also be distributed.

Mediaweek are reporting that although Scam School has failed to attract any advertising deals so far, Revision3 plans on expanding the video advertising offerings in the future.

Rose seems to have a golden tough, although Revision3 hasn’t exactly set the Web on fire. At least these newly finalised distribution deals will see the shows it produces getting more potential viewers.

One of the biggest problems with watching television programmes, or movies online however, is the size of the screen you are being forced to watch it on. Unless you are rich, or an early adopter of future technologies, the chances are your PC or laptop screen just isn’t up to the job any more.

You do have an option though, and that is to hook your PC or laptop up to a projector, and have all your favourite video clips, and web episodes, in glorious full screen, home theater sized goodness. But, where’s the best place to begin?

Buying A Projector

First you’ll need a PC or laptop, and a home theater projector. There are plenty of places to find them, but I’d recommend reading through lots of projector reviews before you blindly purchase one which then doesn’t suit your needs.

Prices of projectors can vary wildly, but you’ll be looking to spend between $1,000 and $3,000 for reasonable quality and a good brand.

Be aware that there is a difference between a projector being HD Ready and actually outputting HD. HD Ready simply means it can accept a HD signal, but may output in standard definition so won’t look as crisp as you might expect.

If you want to make sure your new purchase is 100% HD then look at the output. An 800×600 output is not High Definition, whereas 1280×720 (720p) or 1920×1080 (1080i or 1080p) is.

Connecting Your Projector

Connecting your PC up to your brand new projector shouldn’t be all that hard. Windows Vista for instance makes it as easy as plug and play, in most cases, providing you have the right cables to use.

As with every occasion when you are plugging or unplugging something in to your PC or laptop, you should make sure both are switched off first.

Cable Options

The simplest way to connect the two devices is by using a video cable. Simply plug one end of the cable in to the projector’s Computer In port, and the other in to the PC or laptop’s Video port, where you would normally plug an external monitor in.

For a better quality connection however, you’ll need an HDMI or DVI connection instead. Before you go down this route, make sure that your computer is able to handle it, as an up to date video card is at least essential for this type of connection.

Settings for the projector will vary depending on your computer, and the graphics card installed, but you should be able to at least get your projector working in tandem with the PC or laptop to create a home entertainment hub simply by adjusting resolution settings.

Experiencing Technical Difficulties

If you run into any trouble, you can visit the configuration settings to make sure your hardware is working properly.

In Windows Vista open Personalization in the Control Panel and then click Display Settings. In Windows XP open the Display icon in the Control Panel and then click the Settings tab.

Here you will be able to configure projector settings, and use it either as a second display or to display what’s currently being shown on your computer. This second option is usually the default setting.

If you are using a laptop and it is connected to a dock, this may cause problems with the projector being recognized correctly. In this case, disconnect your laptop from the dock before connecting a projector.

For additional troubleshooting, there are a number of resources on the web. Type the specific problem you are having in to your favourite search engine and you will likely find several solutions, so keep trying one until you find one that works.

A World Of Online TV Opens Up

Now that you’re up and running, what to do with your integrated home theatre? The most obvious answer is to watch High Definition content online from places such as Joost, Stage 6, and Miro.

The wealth of streaming videos on these resources should mean that you’ll never get left with nothing to watch.

There is also the option to connect your projector up to other devices such as your PS3 or Xbox 360, which now offer the ability to allow online viewing of movies, as well as playing graphically high quality games.

Then there is TiVo, which you can use to download movies via the Amazon Unbox service, meaning you’ll never again have to pay the extortionate prices being asked to watch films in cinemas or theatres.

Conclusions

Buying a projector can be an expensive business, but the benefits make it a very worthy purchase indeed.

From watching videos online, playing games, or downloading new movies to the comfort of your own home, you’ll soon wonder how you lived without it.

It’s similar to the iTunes TV shop in that it provides easy access to professionally-produced material both new and old – albeit with one great distinction: most of the stuff is free.

Making Headlines

Fairly recently, Vuze made a few headlines through the issuance of a petition to the FCC to investigate and halt ISPs’ practices of throttling bandwidth and network access to restrict the proliferation of data sent across the Internet via the BitTorrent protocol. 

It has demanded a stop to such selective restriction for the fact that it’s business model is wholly reliant on the technology, and stated that any blocks would shackle its business plan to the point of inoperability and out-and-out failure.

Attracting Further Investment

That said, the company is nonetheless maintaining a rosy look on the future, and even just yesterday divulged to the press its success in attracting further investment ($20m) from a selection of venture capitalists, including: New Enterprise Associates, Redpoint Ventures, Greycroft Partners, BV Capital, and Jarl Mohn. 

Furthermore, Vuze managed also to recruit Mike Ramsay, a founder and former CEO of TiVo, the popular digital video recorder manufacturer and service provider, to its Board of Directors. 

Surely such developments bode quite well for the business. If nothing else, they will prove a collective boost to its corporate and public relations campaigns.

Faster Progress

Of course, both the cash infusion and Ramsay’s addition likely don’t portend phenomenal growth or anything of that sort in the months ahead. Vuze will probably continue on the path it’s chosen, albeit with a touch more haste. 

One shouldn’t expect any surprises or momentous changes as a result of the abovementioned gains, but perhaps it will show itself to be a bit more energetic as a result and more quickly expand its library.

Also, having a former head of TiVo join the ranks, if only to participate in board-level discussions and deliberations – rather than, say, exercise executive powers – could rightly be interpreted as a sign of confidence in Vuze’s efforts. Which, too, may prove a notable propellant. 

Conclusions

The fact that the company has in a short time established ties with a great litany of partners, some more well-known than others (BBC, A&E, and G4, to name a few), is no small feat, and Ramsay’s affiliation could add fuel to the fire, as they say, and nudge Vuze forward a significant degree.

All in all, Vuze appears well en route to the next round of the IPTV wars (if one can call them so). Whether it survives in the long run is far too difficult to foretell, but if it manages to retain and steady grow its resources throughout 2008, it’s bound to make an exceptional name for itself. That is if it maintains its independence, anyhow.

Paul Glazowski is a contributing author discussing the social networking world, his work can be found on Profy.com

As an analogue cable subscriber, before I buy-in, I’ve been considering the freedom that “going digital” should give me compared to the old analog world. 

The primary reason I haven’t “upgraded” to digital cable up to this point comes down to TiVo, it and the freedom that devices like it that connect to an analogue coax cable give me. 

Digital technology is supposed to deliver more, not less freedom, isn’t it? It’s not clear that upgrading to digital cable gives me the freedoms I’m used to.

Diving into the digital cable world looks to be a kludge of coax, daisy-chained set-top boxes (STBs), and IR repeaters. 

Luring Me In To Digital

I’ve resisted—even when my cable provider was so bold as to remove programming away from my analog line-up to lure me into digital. Digital satellite television can be just as bad—you’re generally tied into the provider’s hardware. 

I’ve even considered foregoing cable altogether, throwing up an antenna, buying a device like an AppleTV to download shows via iTunes over the Internet just to avoid this mess, but I’m not sure my TV watching habits could adjust to the lack of mindless channel-surfing.

Some might say, well, just take the plunge, lots of people are using 3rd party devices like TiVo with digital cable providers. 

The problem is, there doesn’t seem to be a guarantee that the cable provider won’t somehow disable the connection. 

For example, up in New England, some cable subscribers that have to kludge together a STB to their TiVo via a serial cable just to get the channels to change in unison have had the rug pulled out from under them by an (arbitrary?) software update to the STB by the cable provider.

CableCARD

Well that’s okay, CableCARD fixes that. 

It was supposed to, but those who have bought-in are receiving letters from their cable providers saying those devices will be rendered useless as the cable provider upgrades its network to switch digital and more bandwidth conserving technologies (and we now know it needs the bandwidth). 

And what’s the cable providers’ solution? Back to the kludge: the subscriber’s 3rd party devices will need to somehow attach to a STB to continue to receive programming. 

And who knows if those STBs will continue to function, as the New Englanders are finding out the hard way?

The thing is, a user has to be pretty dedicated to want to go through all of this trouble to get their cool 3rd party device to work on the closed and often-changing cable network. 

Incentives

The cable providers know this, and further, have a financial incentive to prevent TiVo-like devices from working. That incentive comes from a number of sources and revenue streams:

• Monthly rental fees for STBs and DVRs;

• Deriving revenue from on-demand video (both from consumers and the content providers); and

• Advertisers that embed ads in program guides or other interactive applications.

Cable has a real financial interest in subscribers using their boxes—and because of that would far prefer to implement technologies to maintain its gatekeeper / monopoly status. 

Does Open Mean Open?

Even though it calls its newer technology “OpenCable,” it’s “open” in name only. Cable doesn’t open up its standards for switch digital and other two-way services, and allow anyone to build to those standards.

Instead, historically its solution for everything is to drop a closed and proprietary STB between the network and the innovative 3rd party device, and then even limit that functionality until consumers give up.

Cable maintains a walled garden in the realm of content delivery and has slowly been expanding its reach into technology, by only allowing its own devices to access all the content it has to offer. 

Old AOL

It’s like the old AOL that had private content you could only access over the Internet with its proprietary software, instead of a traditional web browser. 

AOL gave that model up when it realized in long run it could make more revenue by being open. 

Of course, AOL had to open up because it had literally thousands of ISP competitors and millions of content competitors at the time; cable has only a handful of competitors, and too often zero in a consumer’s local market.

Sticking With Online Sources

3rd party devices compete with cable’s revenue making STBs and STB-only content. If you haven’t made the connection with net neutrality yet, what is the most convenient way to receive content outside the walled garden? 

The Internet—that is, unless cable figures out a way to limit your access to other online sources. Or has it already?

And so this holiday season (if I can convince my wife), I’m going to do my best to “stay open” and rely on technologies that deliver and share content without unreasonable restrictions, and hope that in the near future cable opens up (or the FCC forces them to).

Alex Curtis is a contributing author discussing matters relating to the broadband video and IPTV industry. His work can be found on Public Knowledge. Post has Some Rights Reserved.

TiVo lists on its site that you need to use TiVo branded gear for the unit, which is a bit of a shame although at least the company is being forward in informing you, the consumers, about it.

It seems that seeing as the new TiVo HD unit runs Linux, there are only very few drivers for wireless adapters included in the OS, meaning that third-party devices won’t work. Makes us wonder why TiVo didn’t just build their own wireless adapter into the unit in the first place. *harrumph*