about the order to SonicBlue (a digital TV recorder outfit) to track ReplayTV users’ viewing choices. The idea behind the order is to give the media companies who are suing SonicBlue more information. Sort of a high-tech discovery process, really, on the principle that both parties in a trial should have access to legitimate evidence.
I’m missing a fundamental concept though. What does the question of whether or not a viewer looks at ads or not have to do with copyright? I can’t see any connection between them. If I buy a book, no one can force me to read the whole thing. If I buy a magazine, no one can force me NOT to draw moustaches on all the models faces with my (copyright-circumventing) Sharpie.
For copyright to be an issue, then, takes three steps, all extremely tenuous. First of all, it would seem to me, networks have to successfully argue that a program with the specific ads they show, when they show them, together forms one copyright (or, I guess, an anthology). Second, that in every TV program there are implied terms of service that we viewers automatically agree to each time we turn on the box. And third, that the network (or whoever controls the head end) can force those who agree to the terms of service embedded in a program to watch the entire program from beginning to end.
