Will The Court’s Cablevision DVR Decision Give Redlasso A Business Model?

|

redlasso.jpegWhat do a possibly illegal Web startup and one of the country's biggest cable companies have in common? More than you might think.

Redlasso is a company that until recently, operated an Internet based bank of servers that recorded content off of broadcast and cable television, and made it available to bloggers in the form of clips.

The broadcast networks didn’t like this at all. Several networks, after sending ineffective cease and desist orders, filed suit against Redlasso in July for copyright infringement. A few days later, Redlasso caved, and stopped offering the clip service to bloggers.

Separately, Cablevision has been locked in a battle with broadcast networks over a service they created for allowing users to record TV shows, “Tivo-style”, without having a physical DVR in the home. The idea is that Cablevision (CVC) records the TV shows you want to watch on their servers. This has great cost benefits for Cablevision, since it allows them to offer DVR service to customers with older cable boxes. The DVR capable boxes cost several hundred dollars.

As with Redlasso, the broadcast networks don’t like the on-demand DVR concept, and sued Cablevision. The networks won the first round at trial court, but several days ago they lost the second round on appeal.

And this is where the situation gets interesting. The Cablevision case is almost certainly going to be bouncing around the courts for a while. But if Cablevision eventually wins, it may very well open the flood gates to innovation and handed Redlasso a business model.

While Redlasso can almost certainly not operate the type of clipping service they were operating, this may be an opening to a much bigger opportunity. That's becase Redlasso is itself a virtual DVR, just like what Cablevision is offering. Technically, the only difference is that the content is delivered over the Internet. But these days, there is precious little difference between what the cable wire delivers to your TV set and what it delivers to your PC. They are all just digital signals coming from the cloud. It seems to me the courts would have a hard time saying that Redlasso could not compete in this market. That argument would likely raise anti-trust concerns.

Of course the one issue which would have to be worked out is whether the consumer has the *right* to view and therefore record a channel. The cable company has this billing information and Redlasso doesn’t. I think that Redlasso could actually force the local cable companies to provide them with what “rights” a given user has. That would mean that if you were a Cablevision customer, you could tell Cablevision to tell Redlasso that you have rights to certain channels like HBO, TBS, etc.

If Redlasso knew what rights viewers have, they could limit viewers to the recording of shows they do have rights to, but on their PCs instead of just through their cable boxes. If Redlasso opened up their APIs, this would then allow a new platform for innovation around the TV content.

Another service that Redlasso could offer is directly to smaller cable companies that don’t want to set up their own infrastructure. By innovating with their software, Redlasso could carve out a niche as an on-demand DVR service provider to the cable industry. In this scenario, Redlasso wouldn’t have to force the cable companies to do anything, and it would be more like a partnering opportunity where the cable networks get a better PC + TV offering for their on-demand DVR customers.

Interestingly, beyond just being a virtual DVR, Redlasso might ultimately be able to operate as a kind of national cable system, cutting deals directly with cable networks, particularly new ones that have a harder time getting distribution. This of course would be dicey when trying to play nice with the cable companies, but it is an interesting alternate strategy if being nice doesn’t work out so well.

The courts may be providing Redlasso a fascinating opening, and it will be interesting to see what they do with it.

SAI Contributor Hank Williams is a New York-based entrepreneur. He writes Why Does Everything Suck? Exploring the tech marketplace from 10,000 feet.

See Also:
Fox, NBC, Make Good On Threat, Sue Web Clip Service Redlasso

Huffington Post, Other Big Sites Turn Backs On Redlasso
Redlasso: Let's Hope Some Retired Studio Bigs Can Save Us
Redlasso To TV Networks: We've Got Bloggers On Our Side



< Prev. Story
Next Story >

21 Comments

Hank Harris said:
While the ruling isn't unfavorable for Red Lasso type business model, there were some specific aspects to the Cablevision Network DVR service that were important to the ruling and that set the Cablevision service apart from Red Lasso.
First: the Cablevision service has separate partitions on its hard drive for each user, so for example Cablevision might store copies of American Idol thousands of times, once for each user. Red Lasso (as you would expect) stores one (or several) copy of each show and makes it available for streaming to all users.
Second: the Cablevision service only makes a show available to a user who programs the DVR in advance to record the show. If you forget to record the show, you can't go back and watch the show later.

These two factors were critical to the court's determination that the user and not Cablevision was actually making the 'copy'.


Hank Williams (URL) said:
Hank,

I am not really talking here about the red lasso service as it exists today. What I am saying is that their core technology could easily be applied to this different market, and with PC integration could likely do it a lot better than Cablevision did it.

Clyde McPhat said:
On a red lasso type service makes money how exactly? I know Cablevision makes it from subscriptions and advertising and a lot of it.

dean collins (URL) said:
I’m surprised no one has commented on the potential wider ramifications and that this opens the way to the ‘Cloud’ification of your entertainment content.
http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/cloudification-of-your-content.html


Regards,
Dean Collins
http://www.Cognation.net

Creekster said:
"Technically, the only difference is that the content is delivered over the Internet. But these days, there is precious little difference between what the cable wire delivers to your TV set and what it delivers to your PC. They are all just digital signals coming from the cloud."

What a goofy notion. "Technically" the *biggest* difference is that RedLasso doesn't pay for content, while Cablevision does.

Content creators aren't "the cloud".

Joseph Weisenthal (URL) said:
One area where I think this gets tripped up is the idea of the viewer having the "right" to view certain content, just because they happen to subscribe to a particular channel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the key question in the MP3.com case? MP3.com felt that if you could prove you owned a Nine Inch Nails CD, then you should be able to get that same record streamed from anywhere courtesy of MP3.com. The labels (obviously) and the courts ended up disagreeing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com#My._MP3.com

Perhaps the connection between that case and this post tenuous. It's also possible that there's been caselaw since than that changes the equation (I don't know).

Hank Williams (URL) said:
Creekster,

I think you missed the point of this piece.

The idea is that, just as the cable companies charge consumers and pay channel providers, so too would a provider like redlasso in the alternate partnerning model. Of course, many cable channels are not paid. It has become harder and harder to get on networks, and while viacom others have lots of leverage, smaller channels don't. So I think over time this leverage that content providers have over carriers is going to get weaker and weaker.

Hank Williams (URL) said:
Joseph,

I think the big difference is the anti-trust issue. There are limited ways to get signals into the house, whereas there are lots of ways to buy a song. I think this is conceptually more analagous to the idea of there being alternate energy providers. In my area, time warner still owns the pipe (monopoly there) but others can still sell me energy. This I think ultimately is a competitive issue, though I agree one could argue it the way you are, and I am sure that is the way the cable companies might try to argue it. Of course I think that argument weakens their overall position as to the validity of the on-demand DVR.

Clyde McPhat said:
Hank Williams....you state that many cable channels are not paid for their content. That is completely and utterly false. Wrong. If it wasn't for subscription revenue the cable industry (read content) would cease to exist.

Hank Williams (URL) said:
Clyde,

You are right domestically, and so my statement is inaccurate as it relates to this market. However in many internationally, the dynamic is, as I understand it, reversed, where channels pay operators. What I am thinking about is that the power dynamic is going to shift here.

hehateme said:
cablevision gets the right to innovate. but not napster. if your not in the fortune 500 or 1000 you cannot brake copyright law.

wow gold (URL) said:
Farming for WOW GOld isn't easy,but you can buy cheap wow GoLd,
WOw golDpower leveling on sale. Looking to buy woW gOld,
or wOw Gold sell,Items or Accounts ? Please look here WOw gold,
wow gold, WOw GOld, woW goLD
WoW gold, WOw gold.

gerfweq (URL) said:
Written in a very wonderful ah, we provide all world of warcraft goldservices. for the precise analysis of wins, you can buy world of warcraft gold cheap world of warcraft gold here ! I think there will be many people concerned about this article, we provide all wow goldservices.and look forward to an equally exciting you can buy world of warcraft gold cheap wow gold here ! under the emergence of hope not waited too long

Will The Court鈥檚 Cablevision DVR Decision Give Redlasso A Business Model?70-631Shooting two birds with one stone. Get two birds with one stone. Go with the flow.

jenessa (URL) said:
640-802 You don't need to interrupt. I'm kidding.

neville (URL) said:
Play dumb. Don't play dumb. You know about that. That's an exaggeration. 640-802 / 156-215.1 / 642-445 / 70-290 / 642-105 / 70-271

John Smith said:
The premier seller of air jordans and buy jordans and information on acne.



klingeltöne said:
Thanks, greate and useful article
good job!
Bei uns finden Sie über 50.000 Real Klingeltöne, Polyphone, Video Klingeltöne,Handy Logos, Handy Spiele, Handy Programme...Sie können die aktuellsten Klingeltöne auf Ihr Handy per sms herunterlden.
klingeltöne
handy spiele
handy videos
video klingeltöne
freizeichentöne
Handy Themen

seslichat (URL) said:
seslichat, Sesli Chat, Sohbet, görüntülü chat, sesli chat paneli, kameralı chat, sesli sohbet, cet, chet, sopet, chet, sohpet, kameralı sohbet, muhabbet

Join the discussion