19 replies to this topic

[logifuse]

http://www.optus.com...al-life/tv-now/

http://www.smh.com.a...0914-1k9qm.html

OK, so Telstra are up in arms because Optus are offering a cloud based FTA DVR where you can watch things back on your mobile (yes, first I've heard of it too). Telstras issue is that because you can time-shift, you can effectively watch things live (2 min delay is what they say), & that means watching the AFL "live" on your Optus mobile - the rights to which Telstra paid hundreds of millions for.

However, to me the bigger question is, if I can record in the cloud & watch it back, why should the cloud end at Optus? Why can't my cloud "DVR" be located in the US or the UK?

Optus are clearly moving the boundaries of your home LAN, which was generally accepted as where within you can record & view things, to the WAN. That's a very large open door.

Justin

[Dean1M]

With the proliferation of online storage in its various forms it is only a matter of time until someone ends up accidentally storing critical data in that business haven west of Oz. The one where the helpful staff always want to deposit 400 mill to your savings account. When it goes bung it will be interesting to see what the courts make of it. Even the "cloud" is a legal vapour at the present time.

My LAN will stay firmly here for the time being. I can see why Telstra is not happy though. Paying 156 mill and then being gazumped, will follow this one with interest.

Deano

[logifuse]

So the first step in the legal system, the Federal Court, agrees with Optus.

http://www.dailytele...9-1226260069376

My question about the location of your cloud PVR still stands.

Justin

[Niall]

well this case will have some very interesting ramifications for the future of both online pvr systems and whether iptv services legally fall under OTA or broadband licensing (which may be a very big issue given I think that's an importantant intentional use of the NBN).

i think the important differentiation point is that I was under impression the optus servers were just basically recording everything and then your recordings were just indexes into this saved video data. (so this is quite different from a device inside your house spushing realtime recording data to a cloud server). I havent seen the tech specs on how this was implented - so unclear who/which system is responsible for recording the data (and hence who is actually doing the streaming or encoding)?

i think that style of pvr is definitely going to be the future (essentially watch on demand but works like a pvr instead as far as user is concerned). I can see it being doable/possible if they ever finish rolling out NBN - making terrestrial or satellite based systems somewhat obselete. It also means substantial reduction in storage costs all round (ie. provider then only needs to store it once rather than once per user that recorded it). Of course you could then watch catchup shows in same way (you browse backward through epg for example). I worked on a system which did this for a client a few years ago (designed for intranet use) - worked a whole lot nicer than what pvr's offered.

[logifuse]

The new beta versions of For The Record have an excellent web based console that allows for remote scheduling & you can play back anywhere on the LAN. Transcoding is just around the corner (& exists for MP TV server & Myth), so there's no reason it can't shift to WAN.

Justin

[davidgol]

It is very interesting indeed.

The key difference of course between a P(ersonal)VR and a P(ublic)VR is the fact that they resell the content. I think that as long as I'm not planning on selling/distributing the contents of my mediacentre, they don't really care about me.

I think the courts could easily settle this one by setting a threshold that defines the difference between rebroadcasting live (say <30 mins delay), and an online PVR facility (> 30 mins delay), and just leave it at that. The question is what should that threshold be?!?

[dgaust]

The way Optus argued it wasn't that it was a 'global' recording, but rather each person had a personalised recording - so even if 100 people wanted to record Sex in the City, there would be 100 recordings made. So essentially it was just a PVR, but located in a located outside the home.

[Niall]

I'd be curious to know if the 100 copies were each individually recorded by the customer and then uploaded back into the cloud from the client stb (in which case this would be considered private storage). If optus did any of this on behalf of customer - then essentially they are making 100 copies on their server and then distributing the content via the internet.

Edited by Niall, 01 February 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[KingHilary]

I'd be curious to know if the 100 copies were each individually recorded by the customer and then uploaded back into the cloud from the client stb (in which case this would be considered private storage). If optus did any of this on behalf of customer - then essentially they are making 100 copies on their server and then distributing the content via the internet.

I find it hard to believe that hundreds and thousands of recordings are being made. I would assume that optus is making one accesible recording of everything, and then cloud users are sending in their request to view it. To me, it looks a lot like rebroadcasting. Particularly since OPTUS does make money out of the fact that it is doing this..... some money as part of the overall service for shich this is an inducement to "go with optus", and also extra money for minutes over the first 45 that you use.

The reason I worry about this, is that giving optus carte blanche to do this adds fuel to content providers in their bid to make things more restrictive. i don't want to lose the right to make private recordings of free to air television for my personal use, (when I am not rebroadcasting or sharing them). If optus is sharing their recordings freely, for commercial advantage, then surely that is more a breach of copyright, than me watching my own recorded free to air TV at a later time.

KH

[logifuse]

The way Optus argued it wasn't that it was a 'global' recording, but rather each person had a personalised recording - so even if 100 people wanted to record Sex in the City, there would be 100 recordings made. So essentially it was just a PVR, but located in a located outside the home.

I reckon that will be one of the things probed as the case goes up the chain. As KH says, it's unlikely they'll be making x numbers of individual recordings, rather they'll be recording everything & give you a flag to access a particular recording as you request (via "scheduling"). That way if 20 people watch Sex and the City back, each will watch the same recording, but their virtual link will be deleted once viewed.

Justin

[dgaust]

As KH says, it's unlikely they'll be making x numbers of individual recordings, rather they'll be recording everything & give you a flag to access a particular recording as you request (via "scheduling").

Having read the judgement, however unlikely it may seem, Optus contend they record the content individually for each user - in fact for every user, they make four different recordings.

From the exec summary of the judgement

"Optus has established a complex recording system to operate the TV Now service. If a
user of its service clicks the “record” button for a program in the service’s electronic
program guide, Optus’ equipment records that program individually for each user in
four different formats (i.e. one each for PCs, Apple, Android, and 3G devices). Thus,
Optus’ system made four copies of each broadcast for every user of the TV Now
service who clicked “record” for an AFL or NRL game. These copies were stored in
Optus’ NAS (network attached storage) computer in its data centre. The user can view
the recording in the 30 days following the time of the original broadcast. When a user
clicks “play” on his or her compatible device, Optus’ data centre streams the copy of
the program in the appropriate format to that device so that the user can watch it.

However, the streamed copy is not downloaded to the users’ device. And, users with
Apple iPads or iPhones can watch a program selected for recording “almost live”
within about two minutes of the commencement of the actual free to air broadcast.
Users with other compatible devices (PCs, Android and 3G devices) can only watch a
recorded program after the broadcast had finished."

http://afr.com/rw/20...ad70e_optus.pdf

[Niall]

I think the bit about not being able to watch till recording is finished - or that user has to be signed up to them /or/ have a special stb etc is a moot point (they are still basically encoding a pirated copied of OTA broadcast and streaming them on demand). or in actual fact - it's pretty much the same system as channel BT except that it's not peer to peer and they are making unique files.


I can't get my head around how this is legal - they must have some really good lawyers working for them...

[DDH]

I think its exciting. We've got some big players with big lawyers fighting out part of the copyright conundrum while we all get to watch from the sidelines for free. Is anyone streaming this one online!

Maybe we'll get some answers, or push enough people to ask the right questions, about how we need to interpret copyright law designed for a paper world in the digital age.

The BT question just keeps coming to my mind. While ripping a DVD and putting it out there via peer-peer is clealy illegal, and I think immoral, if Optus can do it, why can't the public use Channel BT for TV shows?

[dgaust]

I can't get my head around how this is legal - they must have some really good lawyers working for them...

I dunno, I reckon any lawyer worth half a bean could argue it. There have also been similar cases in the US and Singapore (according to the judgement) which came to the same conclusion.

1. Optus are providing the infrastructure to record a show. It's just not at your house, it's in their data room. Effectively, they're renting you a virtual PVR. From what I understand, the costs are the same regardless of whether you make zero recordings or one million (therefore, the argument is the cost is for providing the PVR service - just like Foxtel charge you rent for the IQ).

2. You choose to record a show. That choice, means you are the person in control of the recording - and under the exemption (s111) in the copyright act, you may record a television show for viewing at a more convenient time. This does not limit you to viewing it at the place of the recording, so you can extend it to a more convenient time or place.

3. Subsection 3 deals with selling/distributing etc, but since it's not Optus' recording but the customers, Optus are not distributing it and the subsection does not apply.

In all, I see it as a perfectly valid judgement. But it all hinges on who is making the recording, and I think the judge got it right (based on how Optus presented the system's functionality).

[dgaust]

The BT question just keeps coming to my mind. While ripping a DVD and putting it out there via peer-peer is clealy illegal, and I think immoral, if Optus can do it, why can't the public use Channel BT for TV shows?

You need to understand the exemptions in the Copyright Act 1968 to really get it. It is legal to make a recording of a show to watch at your leisure but it is illegal to distribute a recording that you made. So distributing that recording via BT would breach the act.

Relevant section - http://www.austlii.e...68133/s111.html

The whole case hinged on who owned the recording. The Judge found that due to the nature of the offering, and the fact that a personal recording was made when a person chose record, the owner was the person who pressed the record button, and not Optus. Optus merely provided the facility to do so, and charge a fee.

Since the person who pressed record 'owned' the recording, streaming the recording back to them (even in near real time and over the internet) was allowable under the exemption.

The crux of the argument is that Optus are not making the recording. They are providing the infrastructure for someone to make a recording.