Services

Canter weighs in on Replay case

The News.com reader (and founder of MacroMind, later renamed Macromedia) is perturbed that the author didn't mention TiVo in the same column as ReplayTV.

 

  
Canter weighs in on Replay case

In response to the Nov. 12 column by Doug Isenberg, "ReplayTV lawsuit: Napster redux?":

Though I agree with your assessment that the Replay case has huge ramifications for all of us, I'm perturbed that you didn't mention TiVo even in passing, which clearly has the brand-name reputation and installed base that Replay doesn't. Is it simply because TiVo's hard drive can only store 32 hours (vs. Replay's 320 hours)?

Or is it the "Send Show" feature in particular? In other words: Can TiVo ship a much larger hard drive and not get sued?

You also didn't get into another particular area of copyright law that has come into challenge lately, which is "fair use" of the copyrighted materials. Many could argue that fair use was completely ignored in the Napster case and that many of us continue to use file-sharing services--like Morpheus or Audio Galaxy--primarily to fight back at the music labels for completely disregarding us, their customers, regarding this built-in right, which they ignore.

The Replay box (I believe) has the LAN networking capabilities to hook itself up to multiple TV sets. As any TiVo owner has noticed, if I pay for a pay-per-view movie (on my DirecTV dish, for instance) I cannot view that movie on any other TV set than the one I recorded it on. Having the ability to network my PVRs (personal video recorders) together is another major feature and advantage of the Replay system.

Is that also a reason why Replay has been sued?

Marc Canter
San Francisco

(Editor's note: Canter founded MacroMind, later renamed MacroMedia.)