Advertisements Replay TV lost but Dish did not "lose in court". Replay TV lost because of the following: 1. Their "Commercial Skip" allowed commercials to be edited out of the playback. Thou can "Skip" but not Edit Out commercials, and it must be user initiated. I believe the controversy was that Replay TV edited out the commercials as a default, and it may have been a feature added a little later in order to compete with TiVo. This was in violation of copyright protections, at least for a DVR. "Skipping" vs. "Edit Out" is a murky legal question, so what Dish and TiVo do is NOT go there and just SKIP, which is CLEARLY allowed. Several VCR's of that same time of Replay TV (late 1990's into early 2000's) had Commercial Advance features, as well. I still own a number of them (Panasonic and JVC VCR's among them). They were and still are LEGAL. The VCR makers of Commercial Advance were never sued because their feature just "skipped" by way of speeding up the video to the point after the commercial break. One might remember the old TiVo DVD burning DVR's. There was no way to edit out the commercials when burning to DVD, even though it was recorded onto an HDD. TiVo could have gone the DVD Recorder route, but I think TiVo always wanted to be seen as a "partner" with content owners and providers and did not want to alter any recordings the TiVo with DVD burner made. However, other DVD Recorders (some with DVR features) with HDD's were designed to edit out anything they want because it involves a process where the user must initiate and perform the edits, and DVD Recorder makers did not depend upon MSO's or content owners or providers as "partners," and DVD Recorder makers were never sued, even though they can edit out commercials from the HDD recordings and even burn those edited recordings to DVD without commercials. Those DVD Recorders were marketed and functioned as DVR's with program guide etc., but they were never sued. 2. Further, this Replay TV edited without commercial "copy" (or any recording of the Replay TV, for that matter) could be sent outside the premises via internet for other, remote Replay TV DVR's/users to view using the "Share" feature of the Replay TV. One has the right under Fair Use to record content and view it for "Private, Personal Use." We have absolutely no right to provide others with copies of those recordings. This is clearly a violation of copyrights and is outside of "Fair Use." Even today, you can legally rip CD's to an HDD, so long as you OWN or obtained those CD's in a legal manner, and those ripped copies are only for your "private, personal use." However, you MUST still own or posses those original CD's in order for the ripped copies to be legal, so don't auction off those old CD's you've ripped to HDD. Copyright can be a foggy, murky mess. Also: Dish did not lose anything because a trail never took place. The 9th Circuit's ruling upholding the lower court's DENIAL of a preliminary injunction requested by the broadcasters in regards to "Autohop" makes it clear the broadcasters were going to LOSE against Dish. To make this short as possible (it is still gonna be kind of long), the 9th stated that the ONLY chance the broadcasters had of prevailing was the by invoking the clause in the retransmission contract about forbidding "unauthorized recordings" of their--the broadcasters--content. Dish did, in fact, make an "unauthorized" recording as part of the process for Autohop, but only for in-house quality control. However, the 9th Circuit stated that in order for the broadcasters to win on that point, the broadcasters would "have to prove damages, and since only a few Dish employees viewed this copy and only for the purposes of quality control, it would be highly unlikely for the broadcasters to prove loss or damages." stated the 9th Circuit. FWIW, the 9th even cited that the copyrights for the commercials were NOT owned by the broadcasters, and so they could NOT argue that the Skipping of commercials violated the broadcasters copyrights of the programming. Look, in short the broadcasters KNEW THEY WERE GONNA LOSE FROM DAY ONE! Their lawyers must have told them so, as Dish's lawyers told them that Autohop was bullit-proof legal. So why did the broadcasters sue? They sued for LEVERAGE. What ended up happening was that when the next broadcast retransmission contract came up for renewal, the broadcasters wanted Dish to abide by the C3 or C7 period when the playback of the commercial still counted as a "view" by the advertisers. Anything after the 3rd or 7th day of airing, the broadcasters didn't care what Dish did with the commercials because their value was ZERO. Further, if Dish would agree to this, the broadcaster would also agree drop the lawsuit against Dish for Autohop. And that is how it was resolved, out of court for each of the broadcasters one by one at retranmission renewal time. The last hold out was Fox, who did not have a retransmission renewal date until much further into the legal process of the lawsuit, still perusing the suit against Dish, and the trial judge had just finished a hearing with Fox and Dish to determine if a trial should be held regarding one small point of law/claim by Fox, but I've forgotten what that point was (she had thrown out every other claim; this last point was all that was left to possibly litigate), but I do remember even the trial judge had commented that Fox's chances of prevailing were NOT at all good in the very least, but she was prepared to allow a trial so that Fox could have the opportunity to argue their case, however unlikely it was to go in their favor. HOWEVER, right at that point Fox's retransmission agreement with Dish was about to expire, but the renegotiations with Dish went well. Fox dropped their suit against Dish, and Rupert Murdoch still holds Charlie Ergen in high esteem, even though years earlier Dish did sue Rupert's company and Dish won--a lot of money and infrastructure. To be contiued. . .