Prof. Jack Balkin has made a couple of good posts about freedom of speech, democracy and blogging (What I learned about blogging in a year and Political Organization and Political Discussion on the Internet). The posts are mostly in response to Cass Sunstein's wildly overblown fears of internet-facilitated cultural isolation in Republic.com and a recent article in the New York Times that has a similar thesis (Politics of the Web: Meet, Greet, Segregate, Meet Again).
Frankly, I've never really understood Sunstein's fears. It seems to me that we have far more to fear from the mass media, whether that mass media was the Catholic Church prior to the 95 Thesis or that mass media epitomized in The Triumph of the Will. I think the major conceptual problem with Sunstein's thesis is that he seems to assume that people are mostly passive consumers of information. This is one of the critical elements of the traditional mass media model. In the past, mass media has generally been dependent on top-down control of the means of production and distribution to fill the minds of passive consumers. Today's internet media doesn't eliminate the traditional model directly, but provides a competing means for bottom-up production and distribution that assumes active participation and production by people who aren't merely passive consumers.
In many ways, actually, the top-down and bottom-up means of production and distribution are complimentary, which is why Sunstein's calls for some sort of top-down control over the bottom-up internet strike me as so odd. Sunstein's thesis makes sense only to the extent that the public cannot be trusted (whether for social, technical, economic or legal reasons) to be both consumer and producer, recipient and distributer. If there are problems, the solution seems to be to give more capability to consumers to produce and distribute, rather than attempt to replicate mass media controls.
I'm not giving in. Spammers, such as http://scripts.cpa4.com/main.html/, continue to be annoyances. However, I am not turning off comments. I will, however, disable comments for posts more than a week old, as they are spammed, since few people post new comments after a post is more than a week old.
Now this is cool marketing: Diesel Mix CD Starting Kit.
Mix CDs are fun! Take them with you! Trade them! Impress your friends! To help you satisfy your 'mix fix,' Diesel and Insound have put together a 'Mix CD Starter Kit.' When you spend $25 or more from Insound you get an adorable CD-R in your order to start your mix CD. In case you're having trouble finding the right songs to include on your CD, don't worry. We've got the best new music here on this very page. Songs perfect for first crushes, breakups, lonely hearts, friendships, Bar Mitzvahs. We've got it all. So, simply check out the newest MP3s on this page and start making your playlist. When you're ready, you put your CD-R into your computer, burn your tracks to the disc and you can start impressing people with your good taste. Check back here each month for new music and simply spend $25 to get the free CD-R. It's very cute and pretty fancy.
Check out photos of the kit here: Outside and Inside.
via Not Quite a Blog
Prof. Lawrence Solum has written once again on copynorms, commenting on a couple of articles and providing some anecdotal evidence of his own (Lawsuits and Copynorms). Solum questions whether the RIAA's lawsuit-centered tactics are truly affecting norms. Their impact on copybehavior is disputed, but the issue of their impact on copynorms is hardly addressed. Based on the students in his law classes, Solum sums up one developing copynorm thus:
It is socially unacceptable to take the position that unlawful P2P filesharing is morally wrong.
Frankly, I think that the development of such norms is part and parcel of the RIAA's tactics. The RIAA has taken the strategically foolish position that all filesharing is wrong. To few most people outside of the ABA's IP bar, such an uncompromising approach to all filesharing is clearly incorrect. Most people believe that some sharing (particularly with friends or family) is legitimate, but other sharing is not. To the extent that the RIAA is not willing to compromise its position on filesharing, people will increasingly reject the idea that any filesharing is wrong. This is not a healthy development for those who believe that copyright is worth saving. The only way to save copyright is to reform it.
Reuters has an important story in the DeCSS saga (Supreme Court Unscrambles DVD Decision). Apparently, two weeks ago the Supreme Court of the United States reversed an emergency stay on the Pavlovich DVD case. Pavlovich, a resident of Texas, had successfully contested jurisdiction (as determined by the California Supreme Court) in a trade secrets case brought in California. The DVDCCA had claimed posting DeCSS violated their trade secrets. According to Reuters, "In the latest ruling, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lifted the injunction, saying there was no need to keep DeCSS a secret." This is a major blow to the trade secrets case, though not to the DMCA case (see, EFF's MPAA DVD Cases Archive).
I wonder though, if the emergency stay was lifted Jan. 3, why haven't I heard about it before?
Read about the history of the case on EFF: DVDCCA Case Archive: Pavlovich.
Derek Slater calls it "free use", I call it "normal use." In a post that looks at the new Real Player that plays Apple's proprietary formatted iTunes, Derek notes that people frequently seem to lump all non-infringing uses into the concept of "fair use" (More on Real's Store, and Free Use v. Fair Use). Derek emphasizes that there are many uses of copyrighted works that shouldn't be considered infringing at all, and thus not "fair use" but "free use". I agree that this distinction is important, and it something I tried to emphasize (as "normal use") in my and Joan Feigenbaum's paper: Taking the Copy Out of Copyright [PDF].
C|Net News has published a Reuters wirestory on yet another First Amendment-violating anti-violent games law (Florida city targets computer game violence). Mayor Joe Celestin of North Miami City is apparently offended by the line "Kill the Haitians" in the videogame Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, calling the phrase "incitement" to violence.
Retailers would be fined (up to $500/day for repeat offenders) for renting or selling violent videogames to minors without parental permission (although one wonders why anyone should have access to the games is they are "incitement"). Violent videogames being games in which players kill or cause harm "to a human form." This is sooo not-Constitutional.
There is a great quote in the story:
"Have they ever watched Cartoon Network?" North Miami video store owner Bob Richardson told the Miami Herald newspaper. "It's the most violent network on television."
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was partially inspired by the classic Al Pacino movie Scarface, which had the following quote, which seems apropos.
You wanna waste my time? Okay. I call my lawyer. He's the best lawyer in Miami. He's such a good lawyer, that by tomorrow morning, you gonna be working in Alaska. So dress warm.
Terra Nova has an interesting little article on so-called "rogue servers" that host MMORPGs (Free Rogue Server Achieves Significant Population). Most, if not all (any P2P MMORPGs out there?), MMORPG are based on the client/server model, where each user has a client that talks to a centralized server. The client programs are either sold for a one-time fee or given away. The business model is based on charging subscriptions for the client programs to have access to the server. The issue of rouge servers arises when hackers reverse-engineer or obtain by other means the server software and begin running their own servers.
From a free speech and copyright overreach point of view there are serious legal and policy issues in any attempt to thwart many of these "rogue servers." See, EFF's work on the Blizzard v. BNETD case for some details on some of them.
The discussion on Terra Nova is quite interesting and there is the suggestion of franchising the running of servers. But why not go farther? Compete with these rogue servers by creating server subscriptions. That is, you can have a client and subscribe to the main server farms, or you can run your own server (for you and your friends/clan, perhaps). As a server manager, you subscribe to a service that keeps your server up-to-date with patches and new content (which you use to keep your friends happy).
Last week, Prof. Susan Crawford challenged her readers to send her "samples of what a real cyberlaw course should cover" (What is cyberlaw?). This is truly a fascinating question and one I've thought much about. I've been meaning to write a significant bit on this subject, but just haven't had the time to do it justice. So, herewith are some brief, jumbled and confused thoughts on the subject.
I would take a look at cyberlaw as the law of networks, in the electronic realm. As I've frequently said, I believe that telecomm regulation, many freedom of expression issues and copyright are issues concerning the distribution of information. Distribution is about the network. This is the core of cyberlaw, as far as I am concerned. Therefore, I would study networking and the law, from a technological, economic, social and legal point of view.
Technology would be a major factor shaping all of these other aspects, so I would start with it and sprinkle it throughout the course. I would study the protocol stack, the end-to-end principle, circuit-switching vs. packet-switching, spread spectrum vs. standard broadcast, information theory and similar topics.
There is much that has been written on network economics, such as issues of positive externalities, tipping points, and etc.
Social networks are increasingly an element of study. It is social networks that shape and are shaped by technical, economic and legal networks.
Legally, I would start with some of the history of network law, such as the origin of common carriage for transportation and provision of government networks (such as highways, railroads and the postal service). Telecomm law is obvious, but then one can reimagine much of First Amendment law (particularly, but not limited to time, place and manner issues) as the law of networks. Finally, is not copyright more about distribution and networks of distribution, then copying?
Just a few brief comments on what I think a cyberlaw course should cover.
The Shifted Librarian is trying to bring more attention to library policy in Illinois, particularly a new plan from the governor to give one book a month free to every child from birth to five years old (Giving a Child a Book Versus Giving a Child an Entire Support Institution). At the same time, however, the governor is cutting funding for existing libraries. I agree with Jenny that the state certainly shouldn't be cutting library funding at the same time it is giving books to children not yet old enough to read. However, I really like the giving books away part.
Why not split the difference?
What if Illinois spent at least part of the $26 million for the book give away program to install book publishing equipment in every library in Illinois? Then, just like the Internet Bookmobile, children would be able to walk into a library and walk out with a book they could keep. Frankly, I think every school and library should have book publishing equipment. Given enough scale it is probably cheaper to print out most public domain books and give them away then deal with the costs of checking them out and restocking. Heck, you could have an option: check the book out and be subject to possible late fees, or pay $1 or so and keep the book. Might work out pretty well.
I think I've written about this story enough (Twenty-one Oscar Screeners on the Internet? and Another Screener on the Internet and A Beam in Hollywood's Eye), so this will be the last post on this subject for a bit (unless something really interesting happens). But, according to an AP wirestory in the Monterey Herald, Hollywood has acknowledge yet another screener on the internet and one on an auction site (Two new copies of movies sent to Oscar voters offered on Internet).
The copies have been traced to a technologist, Ivan Kruglak, president of a wireless data communications company who won Oscars in 1999 "For his commitment to the development of a wireless transmission system for video-assisted images for the motion picture industry" and "For his pioneering concept and the development of the Coherent Time Code Slate." Kruglak proclaims his innocence, "I firmly believe someone at the duplicating house made themselves a copy before the studio sent it to me." If true, it proves that Hollywood's vaunted efforts to protect its films from showing up on the internet is a joke.
This shows that either Hollywood can't keep their own duplication houses in line or the members of the Academy are lying infringers. Nevertheless, Hollywood calls on consumers to be punished with onerous DRM and thrown in jail for bringing a videocamera (such as a cellphone/camera) into a movie theater.
via Techdirt
Late last week Hewlett Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina declared that starting this year all HP digital entertainment products will use software that respects the copyrights of artists. In other words, HP would become one of the leading proponents of DRM (HP Goes Off the Rails).
This week, Fiorina is celebrating the fact that HP raked in the bucks selling Linux-related products and services in 2003, according to a C|Net News article (Linux brings in $2.5 billion for HP). HP is selling Linux-based collections of hardware and software, as well as thin clients that plug into central Linux servers. Revenues for Linux-related products and services in 2003 increased $500 million or 25% over 2002. Sounds like a nice, healthy, growing business to be in.
Apparently, not a business HP really wants to see take off, however. Someone at HP should inform Fiorina that DRM and Linux don't work too well together.
Here's an idea Fiorina: the heck with sucking up to Hollywood; start selling Linux-based digital entertainment products to consumers. Who wouldn't want a central Linux server that sends multimedia to a bunch of thin clients throughout the house?
internetnews.com reports that Sen. Norm Coleman (R - MN) is planning to convene a summit within in the next two months to bring together the various interested parties with regard to P2P (Senator Plans P2P Summit). This summit will not be addressing any specific piece of legislation, but looks to be an attempt to knock some multi-industry heads under a congressional rubric.
Steward [Coleman's communications director] said Internet service providers (ISP), hardware and software executives, P2P companies, entertainment industry leaders, technology experts, privacy advocates, academics and entrepreneurs will be invited to the Washington roundtable to discuss the issue.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has overruled the district court which granted summary judgement to Netscape, which was accused of violating trademark law by selling keywords to advertisers in association with Netscape's search engine. The plaintiff is Playboy which has become to internet trademark law what Scientology is to copyright law.
The decision is an unfortunate extension of Brookfield's initial confusion doctrine beyond URLs and meta-tags to search engine keywords. However, this relatively limited decision merely gets Playboy over the hurdle of summary judgement and does not necessarily mean they will win the case. Read the decision: Playboy v. Netscape [PDF], 00-56648 (Jan 14 2004).
In particular, there is a very nice concurring opinion that attacks the foundations of Brookfield itself, and I highly recommend reading it.
Of course, the decision itself has some amusing lines. For example, in analyzing the eight Sleekcraft factors, the court determines that pornography is easily substitutable, particlarly graphic pornography:
We presume that the average searcher seeking adult-oriented materials on the Internet is easily diverted from a specific product he or she is seeking if other options, particularly graphic ones, appear more quickly. Thus, the adult-oriented and graphic nature of the materials weighs in PEI’s favor as well.
There is no citation for this admitted "assertion," so one wonders whether this assumption is based on the court's personal experiences. And what do they mean by "graphic" here? If one were searching for graphic pornography, one would be unlikely to be interested in Playboy.
Waxy.org has done a little research on the Oscar screeners available on the internet and has found twenty-one of twenty-two films widely considered likely Oscar candidates to be available in screener format on the internet (Researching the 2004 Oscar Screeners). Those who actually rip movies to the internet aren't always entirely truthful about the provenance of their rips, nor is the terminology quite clear. "Screener" in this case could be from one of the tapes or DVDs sent to an Academy voter, or could be ripped from a version sent to advertising agencies, marketing companies, or other industries that need primary access to the film. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately turned out that there were at least several more Oscar voting screeners on the internet than the two already acknowledged.
If you are interested in digital crime, you are going to participate in or attend Yale Law School's Information Society Project's conference on cybercrime: Digital Cops in Virtual Environment - CyberCrime and Digital Law Enforcement Conference.
The Information Society Project at Yale Law School is pleased to announce its upcoming conference on Cybercrime and Digital Law Enforcement entitled: "Digital Cops in Virtual Environment," which will take place on March 26-28, 2004 at Yale Law School.
This ground-breaking conference will bring together policy makers, security experts, law enforcement personnel, social activists and academics to discuss the emerging phenomena of cybercrime and law enforcement. The conference will question both the efficacy of fighting cybercrime and the civil liberties implications arising from innovations in law enforcement methods of operation.
During this weekend-long conference, a distinguished group of experts will discuss how a shift to a digital environment: (1) changes the crime scene; (2) facilitates the commission of new types of crimes; (3) leads to radical changes in law enforcement methods; (4) equips law enforcement with new tools of surveillance, technological design and risk sorting systems; (5) presents challenges for the legal process; and (6) introduces new forms of social resistance through hacktivism and counter-surveillance.
I'm shocked, shocked, that Hollywood insiders would put recently released movies on the internet. This time it is mediocre Tom Cruise Oscar-bait The Last Samurai, according to an AP wirestory on Salon (Another Oscar screener movie found online). This time, however, there are no names named as the source of the leak. Either Warner Brothers is too dim-witted to use watermarking for its screeners, the watermarking was removed, or Warner Brothers doesn't want to name names, as Sony did. Perhaps the source of the Samurai leak is more highly placed than Carmine Caridi, the 69-yr old character actor whose copy of Something's Gotta Give made it to the internet last week.
According to his agent, Carmine has retained an attorney and is not forthcoming about how the movie was leaked. Interesting.
Thanks to Derek Slater for pointing out an incredible decision in the Italian courts (Mod-Chippers Win in Italian DMCA Case). I'm not terribly familiar with Italian law, so I have no idea how important this decision is, but it is wonderfully drafted, though lacking the copious footnotes of a US decision. The decision, which was first noted by IP Justice, essentially defends mod-chipping of consoles vs arguments based on the European version of the DMCA as well as on copyright grounds (Italian Court Rejects First EU Copyright Directive Seizure). Read the decision (English translation by Electronic Frontiers Italy) here: Tribunal of rehearing of Bolzano. The original Italian here: Tribunale di Bolzano.
The arguments are very straight forward, mostly hinging on the rights of the consumer to make whatever private uses of the device they want. Although it is acknowledged that mod chips can be used for playing infringing versions of games, that is dismissed out of hand in light of the numerous legitimate uses enabled, such as avoiding region coding, allowing third party game developers, making backup copies and using the PlayStation as a computer.
Indeed, the court seemed most enamored of the use of consoles as full-fleged computers. For example, there is this quote (something similar will eventually arise in US courts as well):
Ironically, [it is Sony who first] had supported strongly the thesis that a playstation is a true computer and not just a game console, when asked by the EU to pay for custom duties imposed over the consoles (while computers aren’t subjected to this tax).
Ooops. Avoid those taxes, create an opening for the argument that the PlayStation is a computer (the use of which should be unrestricted). Later, the decision notes that:
But if the device [Xbox], with a few hacks, may run Linux, why in the world shouldn’t a user be free of use it in all the ways he likes?
Good stuff. Unlikely to be persuasive to a US judge, but great news for the Europeans.
One of the main reasons that Hollywood has been such a proponent of DRM (such as fighting to protect CSS) is not simply to protect against internet movie piracy (which remains a minor irritation at best), but to protect region coding, which allows movie studios to release the same DVD in different markets at different times, or slightly different DVDs in different markets. This form of price discrimination is a traditional means for copyright holders to maximize revenue, but in the digital age requires major restrictions on consumers to make it work. So, for example, if someone from the US buys a DVD while on vacation in Europe, they won't be able to play it back in the US.
Hollywood, of course, would love to have region coding even further mandated by law and international treaty, but if they are successful, they may not like the ultimate results.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has a brief article on efforts by some ministers of culture to have cultural goods exempted from free trade agreements (The New Protectionism). The organization in question, International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP), seeks to help countries "develop strategies to promote cultural diversity," which generally means excluding US cultural products to some degree.
How interesting it would be for the INCP to take up the banner of region coding in order to enforce restrictions on the flow of cultural goods. This is really not that far fetched. DRM is a wonderful tool that governments can use to enforce all variety of censorship.
C|Net News reports that the Supreme Court of the United States has, unsurprisingly, denied cert with regard to the Aimster case (High court turns deaf ear to Aimster). Given the procedural standing of the case (appeal of a preliminary injunction), the fact that similar issues are being litigated in other circuits, and the Supreme Court takes very few cases anyway, the cert request was a major longshot. Nevertheless, this is good news. As noted in previous coverage (Miller to Deep: What Derek Said and Madster Seeks Supreme Court Cert), this would have been the wrong file sharing case to bring before the justices.
Ah, the wonders and intricacies of copyright law. Many of the new "copy-protected" CDs on the market are so-called "double session" CDs that have two copies of a recording on the CD. One copy is in the traditional CD format so that it will play back on traditional CD players, the other copy is generally in a proprietary format for DRM restricted copying onto PCs and other devices.
How this intersects with copyright law is quite interesting. The publishers of music CDs (holders of the copyright in the performance) traditionally have to pay a mechanical license fee to the music publishers (holders of the copyright in the music and lyrics, but not the performance) for use of their songs, which is slightly less than a dime. As C|Net News reports, CD publishers have only been paying the music publishers for one copy of the song on each CD, even though these "copy-protected" "double session" CDs have two copies of the song (Rights issue dogs CD protection). Therefore, although the recordings are identical (except for format), the music publishers are demanding royalties for both copies, which the CD publishers have not been paying. Back payments required could be in the tens of millions of dollars. I think that the music publishers actually have a pretty good legal argument here.
Of course, the irony of engaging in blatant copyright infringement in order to reduce copyright infringement is off the charts.
The C|Net article is actually pretty good at looking how the division of music copyrights is causing problems for the inclusion of music on DVDs as well as licensing to the online music stores. Couldn't happen to a nicer industry.
Once again, Hollywood insiders are to blame for piracy. When will the movie studios take action against the thieves in their own midst, particulary when they hide in such obvious places as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? As the LA Times (reg. req.) reports, at least one screener for the film Something's Got to Give has been copied onto the internet (Screener Ends Up on the Internet).
The investigation (through watermarking, apparently) seems to point to a copy sent to Godfather II actor and NYPD Blue recurring guest Carmine Caridi. The screener appeared on the internet last week, but the Oscar voter being investigated has yet to provide an explanation, although he has been asked to do so.
This, after all those who receive screener were asked to sign a form promising to safeguard the screeners. Shockingly, only 80% of the forms were signed and returned. But have we heard anything from the movie studios about this? Why haven't they taken any action on this blatant disregard for the rights of the copyright holders?
Shame, shame, Hollywood. Stop whining about the broadcast flag before you clean up your own act.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Things must really be bad at Hewlett-Packard since CEO Carly Fiorina sounds quite desperate in her keynote speech at CES as C|Net News reports (Fiorina calls for defense of digital rights). How strange the spectacle of a major computer manufacturer calling for an all out war on what computers enable:
"[Copyright infringement is] illegal and wrong, and there are things we as a computing company can do" to prevent it, Fiorina said.
The HP chief added that starting this year all HP digital entertainment products will use software that respects the copyrights of artists. The company will actively promote copyright protection and step up efforts with antipiracy and consumer groups [which consumer groups would those be?], she said.
Does Fiorina think that by saying these things it will make her and her company more popular with the beautiful people of Hollywood, with the in crowd? Hollywood has never respected the tech industry; as far as Hollywood is concerned technology exists to increase their profits, period. To the extent that the technology industry has different ideas, Hollywood sues and legislates against it. Would there be PCs or an internet if Hollywood were in charge? Yet this is the group that is now giving Fiorina their approval:
In a show of support for HP's stance, Fiorina was joined on stage by Interscope Geffen A&M Records Chairman Jim Iovine as well as artists Dr. Dre, U2 guitar player The Edge, Sheryl Crow, Alicia Keys, Toby Keith and other music executives.
Such celebrity worship is simply sad. Even worse is the schizophrenia evidenced by the next line of the article:
HP also provided a glimpse of new products that would allow for easier use of digital media.
Since when has DRM made the use of digital media "easier"? All DRM systems that I've worked with have only served to increase frustration. And what is this "allow"? A subtle reference to the fact that DRM "allows" one to do what would otherwise be considered a right?
Apparently, HP will happily be used by Hollywood for some mythical short term gain in the consumer electronics market. Consumer electronics is a viciously competitive market. Yet HP seeks to thrive in this marketplace by ceding control of the future of HPs primary market (computers) to Hollywood. This is the epitome of a sucker's deal, one the shareholder's of HP will regret.
HP sells really nice computers, which are essentially being commoditized. So what do they do? Seek partnerships with content companies. Brilliant strategy - not!
Prof. Larry Solum discusses a recent panel on copyright at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools on Legal Theory Blog (Blogging from Atlanta 05, Association of American Law Schools, Section on Constitutional Law, Copyright and the First Amendment). His brief notes are a good starting point for looking at and discussing various threads regaring the intersection of the First Amendment and copyright law. Of course, his post serves to make the point that right now there is no coherent theory, nor is there a consensus as to how we will move towards one.
Of particular interest is the discussion regarding Originalism and the relation between the First Amendment and copyright law. Taking off on Prof. Neil Netanel's fairly mainstream view that the First Amendment acts as a restriction on a plenary (Solum's word) copyright power, Solum proposes an alternative (with an evocative metaphor), that the copyright power is a an island of power in a sea of liberty. Very interesting, though I am not convinced. Scrivener's Error replies to Solum and has some very good points (Originalism, Copyright, and the First Amendment).
I, of course, remain convinced that telecommunications law, copyright and the First Amendment are related throught the concept of distribution ... that they can all be analyzed through the lense of rights of distribution.
The New York Times (reg. req.) has a short, regurgitated press release on the latest entrant into the personal media recorder wars (VIDEO: Beam Your Favorite Shows to an Expandable Cache). The unfortunately named "Prismiq" is yet another attempt at a converged home media center with oodles of undesirable functionality, such as web browsing and IM through your television. Now your viewing can be interrupted not only by corporate sponsors, but friends and family. Oh, rapturous new world!
However, I write this post not to rag on the continued foolishness of product designers, but to point out something that is neat and useful about the new Prismiq MediaPlayer and which will, hopefully, be a ubiquitous design in the future.
The neat thing about the Prismiq (god, what an awful word to type or read) is that it is fully integrated with a home network. The device itself won't have a hard drive (why not? they're dirt cheap), but will record to storage devices on the local network (such as your PC's hard drive). Thus, easy expandability (and likely, easy portability for the content).
The device is certainly trying too hard to do too much, but the idea that all your local storage devices are accessible to read and write to is a good one. Here's hoping they don't get sued.
Read the original press release (Prismiq Introduces High-End Entertainment Gateway Product, the Prismiq MediaPlayer/Recorder).
