TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like
Google.
Pages:1
It's the TiVoGuard Dummy!
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Y-ASK
Another good title for this thread would be "It's the encryption dummy!". I have finally figured out why this whole Home Media Option is bothering me. I've read through most of the threads about the subject and have considered both the positive and the negative. I own several (4) series one Tivos and was really looking forward to the video sharing option. That was the big one for me and of course my boxes are not supported for these new features to my dismay but I do see TivoPony's point on the subject. So why does this issue still bother me? It's the TiVoGuard you dummy!
I am just sick and tired of the industry telling me what I can and cannot do with media content that I pay for in my own home! I pay DirectTV almost $100.00 bucks a month and I have the legal right to record any show that I pay for. I can record to VCR, Tivo or capture to my computer and burn to DVD or CD. It's my right. That has never been against the law and I would like to see what court case, if any, were ever brought to trial. What is all this copyright infringement crap! If I own the DVD or CD I have the right to copy it for my own personal purposes. As long as I don't distribute the content I'm legal. I see no legal reason why Tivo can't just provide a network share or ftp service etc. to the shows on my Tivo and that those shows be kept in a standard file format for my use as I see fit.
I am currently putting together my own Home Media Center that will provide just about every feature that my Tivo currently provides plus much more. It's just an experiment but if it works and works well, "So Long Tivo". My old series one units will be up for sale on E-Bay quicker than you launch a man to Mars (I sometimes procrastinate). I'll be able to move any recorded show to any media center box in my home. I'll be able to archive what I like at any time. Using TitanTV guide data I'll be able to record shows by time and title with no monthly fee. No encryption for me. I'll be able to rip to MP3 and play all of my two hundred music CDs with the added benefit of all those files residing on my computer. They'll be just one or two clicks away. I'll be able to play DVDs either through the Media Center or one of my DVD players which I'm sure will still be hooked up. I'll be able to backup DVDs that I have already purchased using DVDXcopy on the same box. I plan to build one by my self but if you want to see something totally cool (and you have the bucks) check this link out:
http://www.alienware.com/main/syste...vigator-pro.asp
Yes I know the Tivo UI is great but the suck up attitude of Tivo to the Movie and Record industry has me in an uproar. Let's stop selling every product on the market because it may enable someone to break the law. Stop selling guns, cars, cd/dvd burners, vcrs, pantyhose (robber mask), etc. I could go on and on. The TiVoGuard was put into this new feature for the Movie and Record industry and this site will not allow the discussion of video extraction for the very same reasons. Oh and one last thing please don't reply with "Oh, but look how much it cost!" Nobody ever said that freedom came cheap. I'd rather pay $1,000.00 bucks a box (building it myself) and buy two than pay Tivo $300.00 plus a box (not to mention monthly cost or lifetime) and be tied to them for my viewing pleasure forever.
Y-ASK
Posted by: martinp13
Well, you know it's not going to change, so you might as well put your TiVos on Ebay now and get to work. :(
Posted by: grecorj
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
As long as I don't distribute the content I'm legal.
Aye, there's the rub.
The potential for abuse is great once you have something in a digital format. Sorry, the honesty policy doesn't cut it here.
If you can figure out a way to allow people to easily manipulate their media while simultaneously disallowing illegal distribution and do it at a reasonable cost, you've got yourself a multi-million dollar idea.
Sure, the DMA and Copyright laws in general are flawed. But fundamentally they serve a proper purpose in society and are necessary. And since no one has stepped up the plate with a reasonable solution to the problem of copyright in a digital age, we all have the right to complain from time to time. But is TiVo -- as an example you gave -- really part of the problem? Or are they just playing by the rules set before them? Would you rather they go down in flames ala Napster?
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by martinp13
Well, you know it's not going to change, so you might as well put your TiVos on Ebay now and get to work. :(
There's always that chance that my Media Center is going to be a $1,000.00 doorstop. Did I say doorstop? Oooopps I meant Desktop....:D
Y-ASK
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Would you rather they go down in flames ala Napster?
I hear you but it is not against the law to copy content that you have already paid for. I would have liked to have seen Tivo fight the fight not fold under to pressure from the industry. It's time that all the hardware manufactures get together and throw some real money at their own lobbyist who will fight for consumer rights against the Movie and Record lobbyist.
Y-ASK
Posted by: m750
RANT ON
The RIAA is the biggest load of crap to come down the pipe in the longest time. If they spent 1/10 the time they spend on holding onto legacy media, and worked on a means to make money from it we'd have a solution by now. Instead the sue the ass off anyone who dares to use new fangled digatal music / media. My primary bone of contention is the total neglect of fair use, and post copy right.
Certain use is allowed, ie vcr's. And after a said period of time, everything enters the public domain, yet there are no allowances for that.
AO
Posted by: stevel
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
I hear you but it is not against the law to copy content that you have already paid for.
Actually, today, it IS against the law if the content is in digital form and has some form of "protection", according to 1999's DMCA. There are various proposals floating around to relax this, but as it stands now, it is illegal.
TiVo has done well to make it possible for you to have "fair use" of recorded content within your home while at the same time making it difficult to share the content in the original digital format with others. This balances the rights of the consumer and of the content provider.
Posted by: stevel
quote:
Originally posted by m750
RANT ON
And after a said period of time, everything enters the public domain, yet there are no allowances for that.
Not anymore...
Posted by: Fustanella
It's nice to see the original poster note "distribute" as compared to "for profit" - too many people try to argue "but I just gave the stuff away" in copyright cases. Were that the case, here, have a copy of Windows on the house. Microsoft won't mind. ;)
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by stevel
Actually, today, it IS against the law if the content is in digital form and has some form of "protection", according to 1999's DMCA. There are various proposals floating around to relax this, but as it stands now, it is illegal.
I would argue that the Stand Alone Tivo recorded content would not fall under this protection since the source is going to always be an analog signal. So for the purpose of this discussion let's leave the digitally recorded content of a Direct TV unit off the table (yet I still think a case could be made). It is not illegal to extract the analog recorded to digital video from the receiver and Tivo would have every right to enable such an extraction (IE File share or FTP) for it's users. If that were the case then every capture card sold in the US would be in violation of the law. The Home Media Option is only available for the SA S2 and those recordings are from a analog source be it cable box, antenna or Sat. receiver. I have every legal right to use that video content in my home, car, boat, etc. as long as I don't distribute it to anyone who is not a household member.
Tivo should open the system up and let me push or pull any content that I want to my SA box. I would love to push a copy of my daughter's dance recital to my Tivo. I would love to pull a copy of Joe Millionaire and put it on my wife's Tivo so I don't have to watch it twice. I would love to archive all the Jonny Quest cartoons that can be recorded. Would this be such a bad thing?
Y-ASK
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
The potential for abuse is great once you have something in a digital format. Sorry, the honesty policy doesn't cut it here.
Huh? In the US, that "honesty policy" you speak of is more formally known as the first amendment, fair use allowances, and the presumption of innocence. (No, this post is not going to be whining about the first amendment or censorship.)
The "potential for abuse" has never previously been a factor in US copyright law. VCRs were found to be legal because they can serve a valid fair use purpose, regardless of the fact that they also have the potential for illegal use. Products and services have generally been found legal in the US as long as they serve a legitimate purpose. That Russian programmer guy (I'm too lazy to search for references) was just recently found not guilty of distributing security-breaking code. And just last week another one has, too: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-979778.html . In both cases, this is largely because they showed that it served a legitimate purpose. That Princeton professor who was going to publish an academic paper on decryption was only bullied into withdrawing it, but it wasn't outlawed. Yet.
We already have copyright laws in the US. Find someone who violates them? Fine, lock 'em up. But to assume that a technology is going to be used for that purpose, ignoring all other legitimate uses of that technology, and then to ban or criminalize that technology is quite frightening. Hey, let's ban scanners because someone can scan in a book and violate its author's copyright! Ban photocopiers!
That DSS or other lack of digital security/copyright enforcement can lead to abuse is a given. The new thing that is being fought now is the idea that simply because a technology has the potential for abuse is reason for its criminalization and control by government or corporate agencies. Simply showing how something can be abused isn't good enough.
quote:
If you can figure out a way to allow people to easily manipulate their media while simultaneously disallowing illegal distribution and do it at a reasonable cost, you've got yourself a multi-million dollar idea.
Yes, you do. And you deserve those millions, paid by people who wish to implement your invention. However, there's no basis for outlawing the tools of illegal distribution in the absence of that invention.
quote:
Sure, the DMA and Copyright laws in general are flawed. But fundamentally they serve a proper purpose in society and are necessary.
Copyright laws do, yes. They include fair use provisions. The DMCA guts those provisions. How can two laws be equally justified if one of them negates parts of the other?
quote:
And since no one has stepped up the plate with a reasonable solution to the problem of copyright in a digital age
Sure, lots of people have. Here's the solution: prosecute people who violate copyright laws. What a concept. That's been good enough for 200 years in the US. Can't find those people? Well, tough luck then. You're a capitalist; figure it out. Go invent something. Make security better. Give people incentives for buying your product. Just don't go asking the government to criminalize free speech or technological advances just because they hurt your business.
And don't pull that "digital age" nonsense. Being in the analog age didn't dissuade me from copying friends' VHS or cassette tapes. No one cared that it wasn't a perfect copy. You can buy a Macrovision-defeater on eBay for $20. Why aren't they illegal? Because they serve a legitimate purpose (related to home security video, I think). Same with cable descramblers. Heck, if you can outlaw technology just because it has the potential for abuse, why are guns legal? Or video cameras? Or screen-shot software?
Sorry for the long rant, but I believe that the argument that copyright laws need to be revamped just because of technology advances is utterly specious.
Creators of artistic works are entitled to reasonable protection, not absolute protection.
Posted by: stevel
None of the things you suggest are prevented by TiVo's use of TiVoGuard - they sound like useful future features. Recording your daughter's recital would require re-encoding, I think.
But if you want a general purpose video server, then I suppose you'll need to build it yourself. That's not the market TiVo is going after.
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
Huh? In the US, that "honesty policy" you speak of is more formally known as the first amendment, fair use allowances, and the presumption of innocence. (No, this post is not going to be whining about the first amendment or censorship.)
Oh give me an f'ing break. One of these days, once schools start teaching people history, people are going stop this highbrow invocation of the Constitution and realize that it is there to protect you from the government, not private industry.
If I produce a product, and decide to sell it with various restrictions, you can choose to buy or not to buy. If one of those restrictions is that it's copy-protected, you know that going in. If you don't like it, buy the competition.
IMHO, TiVo has done a fantastic job walking a very fine line between keeping the consumer happy and keeping the industry happy. Could it be better? Sure. But the way things are headed now, I think it's a pretty good compromise.
Posted by: mattack
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
I am just sick and tired of the industry telling me what I can and cannot do with media content that I pay for in my own home! I pay DirectTV almost $100.00 bucks a month and I have the legal right to record any show that I pay for. I can record to VCR, Tivo or capture to my computer and burn to DVD or CD. It's my right. That has never been against the law and I would like to see what court case, if any, were ever brought to trial.
This is not true. Your whole argument is based upon a fallacy.
The famous Universal vs. Sony lawsuit set precedent for people recording *FOR TIME SHIFTING PURPOSES*.
It specifically did NOT set a precedent for "librarying". That was the term used in the case.
I am not saying that what you are saying is illegal.. It has not been determined to be legal nor illegal. I also realize that everyone (including me -- I'm looking forward to getting a Panasonic DMR-HS2 to make good DVD recordings) does it.. Just that it is NOT a legally protected activity.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by mattack
The famous Universal vs. Sony lawsuit set precedent for people recording *FOR TIME SHIFTING PURPOSES*.
It specifically did NOT set a precedent for "librarying". That was the term used in the case.
Well the way I see it I'm time shifting from now until the day I die... I'll just have to make sure I put it in my Will that all my time shifted content be destroyed after my demise.
Y-ASK
Oh one more thought, you also know as well as I do that if you say something enough times the fallacy becomes fact.
Posted by: MighTiVo
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
The potential for abuse is great once you have something in a digital format. Sorry, the honesty policy doesn't cut it here.
That is the craziest darn thing I have ever heard. Of course the Honesty Policy cuts it here. As long as there is a non infringing use it should be allowed. I am sick of having functions that would make my systems work better and easier locked out due to potiential abuse. Bah!
Sorry, you can't do that, it would look too good, or work too well, so we are going to make you use this old technology.. What a bunch of hogwash! Attitudes like this is what is making digital TV is take so long and we still don't have digital radio standards. Much less a standard digital interconnection for A/V gear.
Would you be for a mandatory speed restrictor on all vehicles? Wouldn't want to use the honesty policy to keep people from speeding would you?
Posted by: jasonl99
quote:
Originally posted by MighTiVo
Would you be for a mandatory speed restrictor on all vehicles? Wouldn't want to use the honesty policy to keep people from speeding would you?
Would you want Hollywood Police parked in your driveway pointing a radar gun at your TV?
Posted by: TiVo_Al
And remember... yesterday the Supreme Court held that Congress can keep extending copyright terms as long as they want to. Do you not think that Disney et al will be back again in twenty years for another twenty year extension?
Posted by: BrettStah
I think Y-ASK is getting a couple of things mixed up...
It may be perfectly legal to archive some or all media content that you buy. But Tivo is under no obligation to build a device that allows you to do this to your exact specifications. Of course, I don't see what the big deal is... it's very easy to archive from Tivos right now, using a PC, VCR, or DVD recorder. Just run the A/V outputs from your Tivo into your archiving device of choice, press record on said device, and press play on the Tivo. I plan to get a DVD recorder soon, and will be archiving some things from my Tivos with it. Tivo even added a "Save to VCR" option.
Also, Tivo is making it possible to stream MP3 files over your network (with a Series2 Tivo - the Series1 Tivos don't have the resources to do that along with the other Tivo-related tasks). And you'll be able to stream between two Tivos. And as I said before, you can archive at any time.
No consumer product will have every feature that every single person would like. You are on your way to having a perfect device for you by putting it together yourself. They even have some PVR-style software that you may be able to modify to suit your needs. Let us know how it turns out.
Posted by: austinsho
Well then, let me be the first to say it ... I'd like to thank everyone who decided that "big bidness" (as they say here in Texas) should be running the country. Yea, Clinton/Gore would have been personally bought off as well, but had Clinton been able to appoint federal judges and had Gore been able to appoint people to the SCOTUS who weren't in "bidness"'s pocket, we might have seen less of this in coming years.
Ah Ralph....we barely knew ye! :)
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Would you want Hollywood Police parked in your driveway pointing a radar gun at your TV?
Bad comparison. What I watch from any archive content in my home is just fine. It the distribution that they would be looking for. Nobody cares what I watch unless of course I've hacked something that would give me the content for free (DSS hacking comes to mind). The entire point here is that devices should not be made to keep me from exercising my rights to fair use no matter what the illegal activities the product might have the potential for. The restrictor plate is a good comparison. No panty hose for the ladies because Bank Robbers might use them to cover their faces during a robbery is another.
Y-ASK
Posted by: EdH
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
I am currently putting together my own Home Media Center that will provide just about every feature that my Tivo currently provides plus much more. It's just an experiment but if it works and works well, "So Long Tivo".
Let us know how your experiment works out. I'm also interested in alternatives to Tivo.
I see it as just a matter of time till someone puts together all the hardware and software features needed for a home brew pdr based on the pc platform.
Ed
Posted by: stevel
Slashdot had, yesterday, yet another thread on the quest for an "Open Entertainment Center". Some of the comments in there are worth a read.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by BrettStah
But Tivo is under no obligation to build a device that allows you to do this to your exact specifications. Of course, I don't see what the big deal is... it's very easy to archive from Tivos right now, using a PC, VCR, or DVD recorder.
You are correct, Tivo doesn't owe me a thing but they are trying to conquer the video/media center world with this new approach/features and they could have done a better job right from the start. As to your archive suggestions; I would never archive to a VCR, the tapes just suck and don't last worth a damn - total waste of money. Let's face it most kids like to watch a certain type of TV show over and over again. I had a great tape of nothing but Jonny Quest shows on VHS. It lasted about twenty showings. I already do archive to PC via capture card and then burn to DVD but the Tivo is the center piece of that environment. Everything hangs off the Tivo, TV, DSS Receiver, PC, Stereo etc. If configured correctly the Tivo could be the perfect center piece with everything playing through it and that is what Tivo is trying to do but they are limiting you on what is actually possible. Microsoft is also trying to be the center of all your media content but if what I've read is true the video encoding method of the MPEG2 video is changed and will only work on a Media Center PC. Another bad implementation. Use industry standards and leave the system open for everything to be put or pulled. That would be the perfect media center.
quote:
Originally posted by stevel
But if you want a general purpose video server, then I suppose you'll need to build it yourself. That's not the market TiVo is going after.
I really think that you are wrong on this one. What I want to do is exactly what Tivo is trying to do except they are scared of the movie and record industry. So they lock down their sharing and their systems and pray they don't get sued. I don't know if I am going to be successful but I will at least be able to edit my video files, play my MP3s, show my slide shows, watch my movies and pause live TV. And last but not least I'll be able to move my industry standard files around to any computer or media center in my house that I choose. The only limits that I will have will be network bandwidth or harddrive disk space.
Y-ASK
Posted by: rogben
quote:
Originally posted by stevel
TiVo has done well to make it possible for you to have "fair use" of recorded content within your home while at the same time making it difficult to share the content in the original digital format with others. This balances the rights of the consumer and of the content provider.
I love TiVo, both the product and the company... but c'mon. This is one area where they've willingly and enthusiastically sided against their customers. They're not doing any worse than most companies, and it has kept them out of court so far, but the bottom line is that they've done anything but "well".
Posted by: grecorj
quote:
Originally posted by MighTiVo
Would you be for a mandatory speed restrictor on all vehicles? Wouldn't want to use the honesty policy to keep people from speeding would you?
I would if cars could go 1000MPH all of a sudden. Which is exactly what happens when you take an analog recording and put it in a digital format. It makes rapid, widespread (illegal) distribution possible. And since when do my rights as a consumer supersede those of a copyright holder? I believe they are equal rights. Napster et al create an imbalance.
So the "honesty policy" fails the reasonable copyright protection test. You need something like DRM. Except DRM is anti-consumer. Which I agree is bad.
So I'll say it again: show me a system that protects the copyright holder and gives the consumer control and you've got a billion dollar idea.
As far as TiVo Inc goes, what others have called "cowardice" I call smart. And to say TiVo is "anti-consumer" is just ridiculous.
Posted by: rogben
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Oh give me an f'ing break. One of these days, once schools start teaching people history, people are going stop this highbrow invocation of the Constitution and realize that it is there to protect you from the [b]government, not private industry.
I'd like a break too... for example, from those who can't see obvious connections.
Sure, the Hollywood Mafia has the right to ecrypt all the DVDs it likes. And I have the right to break that encryption as I see fit. Problem is, they want to use the government to shift the balance in their favor and take away my freedom, and that's where all those protections come in.
Or should. In a world where Congress wasn't bought-and-paid-for by Disney decades ago.
Posted by: buzzneon
Y-ASK .. are you really that naive?! Hollywood doesn't care about rights .. all they care about is making as much freaking money as possible. (The music industry is the same way .. blaming MP3s for lower CD sales ... maybe it's because there hasn't been a good song released in the last 4 years!!)
They are totally shooting themselves in the foot, for they fail to realize that this sort of security NEVER works. It only pisses off the 'honest' people, while the 'dishonest' people will just get around everything and copy stuff at will.
Meanwhile, more 'honest' people become 'dishonest' people, simply because they can no longer be bother dealing with all the security nonsense!
Hollywood, in their rabid money grabbing frenzy, have totally forgotten that they make money when people watch films (TV, music, whatever) ... The harder they make it to watch, the less money they will make. (Of course, they'll blame show-sharing..)
Someone needs to go in there with a flame-thrower, clean the whole place out, and start over! :)
[Of course I'm not really suggesting a large-scale act of violence .. it's just a metaphor!]
Cam.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by buzzneon
Y-ASK .. are you really that naive?! Hollywood doesn't care about rights ..
Probably a bad choice of words on my part and you are 100% right!
Y-ASK
Posted by: mjh
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
What I want to do is exactly what Tivo is trying to do except they are scared of the movie and record industry. So they lock down their sharing and their systems and pray they don't get sued. I don't know if I am going to be successful but I will at least be able to edit my video files, play my MP3s, show my slide shows, watch my movies and pause live TV. And last but not least I'll be able to move my industry standard files around to any computer or media center in my house that I choose. The only limits that I will have will be network bandwidth or harddrive disk space.
Have you checked out MythTV? Look at the screenshots. It's impressive. I'm going to try to build a dedicated box based on the guidelines at freeplaytv.org . I've managed to get MythTV working on my desktop PC. Works great. Needs a moderately hefty processor to smoothly watch a program while another one is recording. And it assumes that you have some sort of internet access for the guide data. Other than that, if I decided to replace my TiVo with MythTV, I'd really miss the great search features that TiVo has.
The authors of this project are currently working on decoupling the frontend from the backend so that you could have a single centralized storage device that could feed as many frontend devices as you want. Also has MP3 ripping/playback, and a neat weather module.
Slick program. If you haven't checked it out, you might want to.... but you can't be afraid of linux. If you are, nevermind.
Posted by: grecorj
Ugh! I'm so tired of the "I can build a better PVR with my computer and it won't cost me $X/month for guide listings." Go ahead build it. We'll see how long "free listings" remain available. Just like those "free" WiFi networks. Does anyone remember when Yahoo! was completely free?
Bah! You get what you pay for.
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Oh give me an f'ing break. One of these days, once schools start teaching people history, people are going stop this highbrow invocation of the Constitution and realize that it is there to protect you from the government, not private industry.
Yes, I am quite aware of that, but thanks for the civics lesson. But last I checked, the Congress that is proposing laws to criminalize decryption technology is part of the government. I think that qualifies.
quote:
If I produce a product, and decide to sell it with various restrictions, you can choose to buy or not to buy. If one of those restrictions is that it's copy-protected, you know that going in. If you don't like it, buy the competition.
Again, you missed my point completely. I fully agree with you, and I stated as much in my original post. Companies are free to copy-protect to their heart's content, and I'm free to buy or not buy their products. That has nothing to do with the current issue, though, which is the government trying to pass laws that criminalize the development or dissemination of technology that can potentially be used to facilitate violation of the copyright of a private corporation. It's the government that's doing this, not private companies. And that's the scary part.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Ugh! I'm so tired of the "I can build a better PVR with my computer and it won't cost me $X/month for guide listings." Go ahead build it. We'll see how long "free listings" remain available. Just like those "free" WiFi networks. Does anyone remember when Yahoo! was completely free?
Bah! You get what you pay for.
Well I don't remember stating that I could build a better PVR, in fact I think that I said that I was experimenting with building one. Any way I have yet to see a better user interface than what Tivo provides and I doubt that I will see a better interface but I'm willing to sacrifice that UI in order to be free of all the restrictions. I'm not willing to give up the quality of the video though and as I said before I just might end up with a desktop computer that can do some cool things. I'm willing to spend the $1,000.00 bucks to see if it's possible. Hell I've already spent over $1,500.00 bucks on Tivo alone.
Y-ASK
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Which is exactly what happens when you take an analog recording and put it in a digital format. It makes rapid, widespread (illegal) distribution possible.
So what? "Possible" has never been a valid legal test in the US. Copiers make it possible to copy books. Kinko's may enact a corporate policy to refuse such requests, as is their right. But I don't see any congressional laws pending to criminalize copiers. Why should CD-R drives be legal? They make it possible to copy CDs and software, right?. "Possible" doesn't cut it.
quote:
And since when do my rights as a consumer supersede those of a copyright holder?
They don't. No one ever said you have the right to violate copyright. This is about laws that prohibit technologies. Could someone use those technologies to violate copyright? Sure. Then go prosecute them. Just leave the technology out of it. But you do get points for spelling "supersede" correctly. ;)
quote:
So the "honesty policy" fails the reasonable copyright protection test. You need something like DRM.
If a private company decides that they agree with you, they are free to develop the most secure encryption and rights management algorithms ever seen by Man or God. And if they suck at that task and someone finds a way to evade it, then tough luck. But the government should not be in the business of outlawing the means to evade a private company's business plan.
Radar detectors, cable descramblers, radio scanners... these are all technologies that reasonable people will agree are commonly used to violate laws. But they are all legal to manufacture and sell.
Posted by: brahamt
quote:
Originally posted by mattack
This is not true. Your whole argument is based upon a fallacy.
The famous Universal vs. Sony lawsuit set precedent for people recording *FOR TIME SHIFTING PURPOSES*.
It specifically did NOT set a precedent for "librarying". That was the term used in the case.
I am not saying that what you are saying is illegal.. It has not been determined to be legal nor illegal. I also realize that everyone (including me -- I'm looking forward to getting a Panasonic DMR-HS2 to make good DVD recordings) does it.. Just that it is NOT a legally protected activity.
Actually, I believe the Home Recording Act of 1992 gives us the right to record content. The exact content we can record I'm not certain of, but I believe this was introduced in time for DCC and Minidisc to hit the market.
Posted by: brahamt
It seems the act only applies to audio, but I'll do more checking.
Posted by: MichaelK
relax and read my post before you jump down my throat-
I think the poster who said the DMCA is poorly done but the idea is sound had a point.
although i liked the one about the car going 1000mph-
how 'bout this analogy-
How do you prove that North Korea will only use their little reactor for peaceful purposes? Do you let them go and fire it up and hope they dont make a nice big bomb and heave it on a long dong missle at us. Do you think the government should just sit around and wait for the nuke to hit seattle before they do something about it.
Thats kinda what your asking them to do with no protection for digital media. (The point being you cant prove the copyright holders wont get screwed without protection until it is possibly too late- or so they would argue)
I hate hollywood as much as the rest of you, but by doing nothing, most of the powers that be wont supply any content and will try to destroy anyone who doesnt protect them for years to come.
while i'm rambling-
Its like the people that bitch they dont want any development in theirtown- and protest the farmer who wants to build 10 houses on his land. THe guy gives in and sells out to the home depot and they have 10 lawyers for your 1 and you get the big box in your backyard. You've got to give holloywood something- most would agree the dmca went t0o far but you cant give them nothing because they just wont play nice at all.
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelK
Thats kinda what your asking them to do with no protection for digital media. (The point being you cant prove the copyright holders wont get screwed without protection until it is possibly too late- or so they would argue)
International relations are a different issue. In the US, the government cannot take action against a private citizen because they think that you're going to commit a crime. "Your honor, I arrested the defendant because he looked like he might rob a liquor store. And although I can't prove it, I didn't want to wait until it was too late." C'mon, that would get thrown out of court in an instant. And you might even have wrongful arrest grounds to levy against the state, to boot.
Yes, one of the things that we have to live with in the US is that you can't arrest someone until after they've committed the crime, which is too late to stop it. But I can legally walk the street with a lockpick in my pocket. A criminal's tool? Perhaps. But you have to prove that I was intending to use it criminally. Maybe I just have a habit of locking my keys in the car? Now if you catch me breaking into a house, then that's a real crime. But criminals' tools are not illegal.
quote:
I hate hollywood as much as the rest of you, but by doing nothing, most of the powers that be wont supply any content and will try to destroy anyone who doesnt protect them for years to come.
Are you really suggesting that if copy-protection technology is not mandated by the government that record and movie producers will stop producing?
Posted by: mjh
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Ugh! I'm so tired of the "I can build a better PVR with my computer and it won't cost me $X/month for guide listings."
For me, this isn't an issue of the monthly guide fee. My TiVo + the lifetime sub cost less than it would cost me to build a MythTV box. The issue isn't cost. It's freedom. The freedom to do, within the constraints of the law, whatever the heck I want with the things that I record.
Since TiVo isn't likely to provide some of these features, I have to look elsewhere. And, I'm not, by the way, asking TiVo to do anything different. I understand their position and do NOT want them to go out of biz. I just want to try stuff that TiVo can't do.
Posted by: grecorj
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
Radar detectors, cable descramblers, radio scanners... these are all technologies that reasonable people will agree are commonly used to violate laws. But they are all legal to manufacture and sell.
Radar detectors are illegal in some states. I know that in my state (CT) they were (and may still be) illegal for quite some time.
Cable descramblers which allow you to see anything but analog cable are most certainly illegal.
Radio scanners? I'm not sure how those could be used to commit a crimer per se, but ok, I'll give ya that one just for my personal lack of expertise. ;)
Now my other point: when did I ever say that the government should outlaw technologies?
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Cable descramblers which allow you to see anything but analog cable are most certainly illegal.
I'll take your word for that, but even so it's exactly my point. It's either illegal to manufacture technologies that circumvent encryption, or it's not. It currently is not. Just because the new signals have the magical aura of "digital" doesn't mean it should suddenly become illegal. (Again, the act of doing it is and should be illegal. But the mere invention of the tools to do so should not be.)
quote:
Radio scanners? I'm not sure how those could be used to commit a crime per se, but ok, I'll give ya that one just for my personal lack of expertise. ;)
They allow you to eavesdrop on cordless/cell phone calls. Which is illegal in itself, but the technology to do so is not.
quote:
Now my other point: when did I ever say that the government should outlaw technologies?
When you used the analogy of mandatory speed regulators on cars to indicate that you favor similar technological restrictions on digital data. And when you indicated that you are willing to voluntarily surrender to copyright holders rights that you currently have because you apparently feel that copyright holders are more entitled to those rights than you are.
Posted by: MichaelK
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
Are you really suggesting that if copy-protection technology is not mandated by the government that record and movie producers will stop producing?
Record companies need to figure out how to play nice with the new technology becuase napster already occured. But thats a whole another topic.
The movie poeple wont stop making movies at all- but they wont make them available for ppv or over the air in HD format. THey have already said so much.
CBS too already threatened to stop showing HD content this summer I think- if the fcc doesnt do something before then. I think they are bluffing but they are a network. What are they afraid of- tons of copies of everybody loves raymond on the net?
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelK
The movie poeple wont stop making movies at all- but they wont make them available for ppv or over the air in HD format. THey have already said so much.
The recording industry also fought against VCRs, CDs, and DVDs, claiming that they would destroy their industry and therefore they wouldn't support them. In reality, they were dragged kicking and screaming to satisfy consumer demand, and all three technologies revolutionized their industry and brought them billions in revenue. First one company started releasing on DVD. Then another. Then two more. Now DVDs are outpacing VHS. And all with copyright laws as they currently are.
It's bizarre to me that they haven't learned to embrace new technologies and make even billions more. All they do is threaten and sue. But it's all blather. Ten years from now, digital distribution of media will be standard, and they'll be raking in the money.
Posted by: grecorj
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
When you used the analogy of mandatory speed regulators on cars to indicate that you favor similar technological restrictions on digital data.
Well, it was a bad example. Because cars can kill people, which is why there are specific regulations about what a car can and cannot do. Of course, no one is stopping you from making cars with spiked tires and no seat belts -- but you sure as hell won't be able to register or drive them legally.
Of course the last time I checked, it took more than $12.95 at Best Buy and the click of a mouse to build a car.
But I digress....
Posted by: grecorj
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
It's bizarre to me that they haven't learned to embrace new technologies and make even billions more. All they do is threaten and sue. But it's all blather. Ten years from now, digital distribution of media will be standard, and they'll be raking in the money.
I agree with you 100% on this point.
But change is never easy, especially when you're already raking in billions.
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
Well, it was a bad example. Because cars can kill people, which is why there are specific regulations about what a car can and cannot do. Of course, no one is stopping you from making cars with spiked tires and no seat belts -- but you sure as hell won't be able to register or drive them legally.
Yes, and I want to keep it that way. Imagine if it was illegal to make such a car, and illegal to post the plans for it on a web site! That's what we're currently facing with new legislation concerning digital media. Even an academic paper on the mathematical intricacies of decryption technology was quashed under the threat of legal action. As I've said before... that's the scary part.
Posted by: Otto
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
I agree with you 100% on this point.
But change is never easy, especially when you're already raking in billions.
Nobody said change was easy. But I fail to see where it says that *my* government, using *my* money, has to help them change by restricting *my* abilities to do otherwise *legal* things.
The DMCA makes no distinction between me circumventing a protection measure for fair use purposes (making my own copy for myself is 100% legal), or circumventing such a measure for evil nefarious purposes (such as redistribution). It simply makes the act of circumvention illegal, period.
Furthermore, it doesn't define what a technological protection measure is. In theory, I could use ROT13 encoding to protect it and then arrest anyone who decrypted it, under the DMCA. Nevermind the fact that ROT13 is not a real protection measure that any fool can decrypt. ROT13 is, in fact, encryption. Just weak encryption. CSS turned out to be pretty weak too, but then it obviously had to be weak or the player wouldn't actually be able to play it.
If I have enough access to content to view it, then I have enough access to copy it. Nothing anyone ever does will change this fundamental fact of reality. This is simply the way things are. But the DMCA doesn't accept that. The DMCA makes it illegal for me to decrypt a work in a way other than what the copyright holder intended. In short, if I decrypt a DVD by placing it in a DVD player, I'm fine. If I decrypt it by hand, then I've broken the law. The actions are fundamentally the same, either way, I've decrypted the DVD. But one is illegal and the other is not, and there's no mention of intent between the two.
You cannot protect a work from copyability while still providing access to that work. Until this is accepted as a fundamental law of nature, we'll continue to see stupid s*** like the DMCA.
Posted by: grecorj
I love how people barging into a thread without bothering to read the actual posts in the thread. :rolleyes:
Posted by: MichaelK
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
The recording industry also fought against VCRs, CDs, and DVDs, claiming that they would destroy their industry and therefore they wouldn't support them. In reality, they were dragged kicking and screaming to satisfy consumer demand, and all three technologies revolutionized their industry and brought them billions in revenue. First one company started releasing on DVD. Then another. Then two more. Now DVDs are outpacing VHS. And all with copyright laws as they currently are.
It's bizarre to me that they haven't learned to embrace new technologies and make even billions more. All they do is threaten and sue. But it's all blather. Ten years from now, digital distribution of media will be standard, and they'll be raking in the money.
your second paragraph sums it up. Why dont theey try to figure out how to use these new things to make more money!
For the record I think they are bluffing about not showing anything and all their other extremist crap. But they have some legitimate points and people refusing to see those points are just as guilty as the mpaa screaming the sky is falling. I seems like we'll wind up with some copy protection eventually- usually do.
OT RANT ->
But i wish everyone would sit the hec down and work out a system now. All this fighting - on both sides - content people wanting iron clad and the opposite wanting no protection at all- just slows the whole process down. I've got 5k burning a whole in my pocket to buy a 36 or 42 inch HDTV of some sort but i'm not getting squat for at least another 6 months or so becuase all these a-holes are still fighting over this nonsense. I cant keep tracke of all the acronyms dvi-a dvi-d dvi-hd hdcp havi 5c hdmi. WHAT THE HELL IS THE FINAL OUTCOME- i'll buy whatever these schlubs decide on but just freakin sit down and work it out already!
Posted by: michaelallroy
quote:
Originally posted by grecorj
I love how people barging into a thread without bothering to read the actual posts in the thread. :rolleyes:
ok then, i'll do some of that ;)
seriously tho check this out. what do you guys think? i'm doubtful. that'd be some kind of asskick if they were really doing it tho. i guess it only sorta relates to this thread, but since this is the techiest forum i read (:P) i thought i'd see how it flew here.
Posted by: alansh
quote:
Originally posted by michaelallroy
seriously tho check this out. what do you guys think? i'm doubtful. that'd be some kind of asskick if they were really doing it tho. i guess it only sorta relates to this thread, but since this is the techiest forum i read (:P) i thought i'd see how it flew here.
There are other people that are dubious of this claim, too.
Posted by: astribli
Whoa!
How is all this different from:
1. The audio Cassette tape (then later the VCR). Years ago this was viewed as the end to all copyrighted material as any consumer could make copies, and "possibly" sell them.
2. Selling movies on video tape for $99. Remember those days ? The movie industries were so worried that they would lose so much money that they charged very high prices. Then some studio realized that if they only charged $19.95, they would sell thousands and make millions of dollars. Wow, another revenue stream. What a concept.
As someone else so wisely stated, we already have copyright laws, period.
If someone has the will to make copies and distribute them for profit, illegally, they will find a way. Preventing the technology just makes it easy for the 99.99% of the population that are honest. A crook is a crook and will always find a way around the system. They should be punished appropriately. Period.
If we are going to start outlawing technology, then maybe we had better outlaw:
Knives - can kill people
Fertilizer - can make bombs
Copiers - can copy books, newspapers, magazines
Graphics software - can copy pictures
Electricity - can be used to listen to poeples conversations on the telephone
bla bla bla
Yes, these are ridiculous examples but all these arguments are no different than the entertainment industry's arguments in years past, period.
Posted by: ToddD
OK, I have a question. Exactly what "right" is it that you have today under US law that TivoGuard is taking away?
Before you say that you have a "fair use right" please do the research. You do not have such a right at this time as it regards TiVo content for the following reasons:
1. There is no guarantee under US law for you to be able to ARCHIVE TV content. You do have a right to archive media that you own...Computer software (that is not encrypted) CD's (if they are not encrypted) ..etc, but you do not own the recording of a TV show so you don't have the right to archive it under this part of the law. No US Court has EVER held that you have such a right. In fact in the famous Sony case that gives you the right to TIME-SHIFT content (and allows TiVo to exist), if you read ALL of the opinions you will find that the question of archiving was not on the table but if it had been, archiving would have been found to be NOT LAWFUL.
2. There's this law called the DMCA. yes it's a stupid law that should be repealed. (not that it's going to be) Some of it will be struck down over time but most of it will I think survive. There's lots about it here and on the Internet as a whole. But the part that is of interest in this discussion is that it makes it illegal to copy ,design a way to copy, possess a way to copy, discuss the ways to copy any encrypted digital data. Please remember that TiVo data is now just that...encrypted digital data.
One last thing....look at the state of Replay when they DID NOT add such a protection. They were sued for allowing the copying of content (the show sharing idea) First it's a stupid idea...to give up massive amounts of your Internet bandwidth for days at a time to share a show with someone else. but it's stupid mostly because it does not recognize the political reality of the US today. Replay is loosing $ , they have massive debt....they will loose this suit. They are looking for someone to come alone and buy them and bail their product and their customers out. This suit I think will not allow this to happen. Who would buy a company pay off their over $300 Million debt and possibly face untold damages to allow the use of a stupid idea in the first place.
Tivoguard is just a recognition of the facts as they are today. It's just being smart. If the rules should change...they can turn it off!!!
Todd
Posted by: MighTiVo
quote:
Originally posted by jasonl99
Would you want Hollywood Police parked in your driveway pointing a radar gun at your TV?
How does that apply? The only violation I am aware of for my personal TV if I use it for public exhibition without paying appropriate license fees. So Hollywood is welcome to check to make sure my TV is not used as a theater for the neighborhood as a money making venture.
The Hollywood police are also more than welcome to monitor any media sales I have on websites such as Half.com to assure I am not selling movies that I copied.
I should be able to do what I want with content I purchase within reasonable fair use guidelines. (Copy to other media, transmit to another device, use excerpts, etc.)
Posted by: MighTiVo
quote:
Originally posted by ToddD
OK, I have a question. Exactly what "right" is it that you have today under US law that TivoGuard is taking away?
Todd
More importantly why is it necessary to create a product that locks out desirable non infringing use because it may allow some infringing use.
Desirable features:
1) Stream/copy digital content to a pc from TiVo for convenience of playback in an office environment without the requirement of installing a TV.
2) Stream/copy digital content from pc to TiVo for convenience of playing back home movies edited from a miniDV camera on a full screen TV.
Posted by: MighTiVo
quote:
Originally posted by MuscleNerd
It is not illegal to eavesdrop on cordless/cell phone calls. However, it is illegal to then communicate what you've heard to anyone, in any form.
Actally the original idea was that anything broadcast on the public airways was subject to reception by anyone. However when Congress and their wealthly contributors (Remember in the 80's cell phone use was very expensive and only used by wealthy) realized that people were eavesdropping on their cell phone conversations with radio scanners available almost anywhere they lobbied for a change in the law. Instead of building encryption technology into the phones, congress criminalized listening to cell phone spectrum with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986
To make matters worse, the FCC made it illegal to manufacture a scanner that could receive cellular frequencies or be "easily" altered to receive these frequencies in 1994.
Posted by: ToddD
quote:
Originally posted by MighTiVo
More importantly why is it necessary to create a product that locks out desirable non infringing use because it may allow some infringing use.
Desirable features:
1) Stream/copy digital content to a pc from TiVo for convenience of playback in an office environment without the requirement of installing a TV.
2) Stream/copy digital content from pc to TiVo for convenience of playing back home movies edited from a miniDV camera on a full screen TV.
As to number 1 if TiVo can figure out a way to allow that to happen with out exposing the content to being archived, I would bet you will see that happen. The HMO will require you to place a TiVo app on your PC so there is a place for them to work to this end. Maybe it will be TivoGuard that ALLOWS this to happen.
For number 2 At the HMO press briefing Mr. Ramsey all but said that this was next on the list.
Todd
Posted by: trubin
All this chatter about sharing and copy violations, and come on. If I were to share a custom video, on lets say on kazza, and said show was 1.5 gig, how long would it take for me to upload it once, at 12kbs upload.
hmmm
125000 seconds.
2083.333 minutes
34.7222 hours
1.44 days
Could take at least weeks:), for a program to make it around, with enough copies, so that someone could get any decent dl speed. As it is, with the video that is shared, it takes days to get one movie, of crappy quality, with Chinese CC. Hell, you could see it on HBO faster, and less frustrating, than trying to D/L stuff, then encode and burn a VCD. Took my system almost 2hrs to burn one disk of some stupid movie, I didn't even watch..... and the second CD failed to burn... what a waste.
I can see it now, you and the girl huddled around the computer watching some show, because you were too cheap, or didn't want to waste the time making a disk... How romantic....
Posted by: MighTiVo
Sounds good but my point is that I don't think it should be the responsibility of the technology to lock out infringing uses at the expense of reasonable non-infringing uses. It is the responsibility of the user to do so.
Just as there should be no legislation that books be able to be printed in some special ink and copy machines and scanners be required to not register that color or images be able to have a special watermark and all editors not allow access to images with that mark. There should be no requirement that audio or video content be restricted from access because of its storage format or embedded codes.
We know that the publishers want to lock out almost any use even though they don't provide alternatives. I am sick of buying CDs that don't work in some players or are a hassle to move the songs to my portable player. Yet I can not purchase any music I want online to install on my portable player. It has gotten easier to d/l from someone else who has already done it than to do it myself. Just the opposite effect of what should be happening. The easier it is for me to use content that I purchase the more likely I will be to purchase it. For goodness sake, MP3 has been in wide use for almost 6 years and I still can not buy a CD with MP3 files professionaly compressed on it. Sites exist like emusic to purchase mp3 content but the selection is minimal.
For number 2 I look forward to watching all the AP news stories I get with Kontiki on my TV with TiVo instead of my PC!
Posted by: Y-ASK
So far it's been a great discussion but now for an additional two cents from myself. I do think Tivo owes the Series One community better than what they are currently doing which is nothing on new features. They have taken all the profit cash from the Series One users pockets in monthly and lifetime fees and applied it to the development of the Series Two system. There are quite a few new features that could be applied to the S1 buts that's another thread.
Tivo is free to make their product any way they like and if the RIAA scares them that much then so be it. Replay's approach on the other hand was flawed at the begining. They should have never advertised the ability to transfer video files over the Internet. IMO what they should have done is setup a FTP site on the Replay where the video files reside. The files that are put there should all be standard video files. Leave it up to the customer to decide how best to deal with these files. Sure they could include a small program to move the files from replay to replay or PC but leave it up to us to decide. The whole idea of TivoGuard is totally against fair use in my home. The lawsuit against Replay, while costing them a lot of money, is bogus. I hope Replay wins and is awarded some serious cash for almost putting them out of business.
I am still working on my own PVR and will be releasing the details soon. Not that there are too many people who care but I'll just post for those that do.
Y-ASK
Posted by: malfunct
I think I wouldn't care about video sharing so much if Tivo would put in a batched save to VCR. I don't want to baby sit my tivo once every 30 minutes to record off a days content, I'd rather kick of 5 or 6 hours of recording and then split the video up later. I see Tivo's point of not allowing video extraction but they don't stop archival. I think the people that have mentioned that the stand alone unit has analog recordings anyways have a big point. Tivo hasn't slowed down archival any, its still done, they just made it painful enough that people are looking for a way to get rid of thier tivo for something that works better. They might want to rethink who pays thier bills.
Posted by: MichaelK
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
... They have taken all the profit cash from the Series One users pockets in monthly and lifetime fees and applied it to the development of the Series Two system. ....
Y-ASK
are you serious- or is that a joke?
I dont havea clue but the information is out there if you care to get the exact numbers, but my guess would be they spent 10 GRAND per box developing the series one features. SO I think you still owe them a 8 or 9 thousand before you can make statements that they are taking series 1 profits to subsidize series 2.
I'm not enrtirely positive but i believe the 3 dollar increase in monthly cost just allowed them to break even for their operating expenses- maybe they make a buck a month- so whats that $500,000 a month they can use to pay back all the development ont the original. It'll be years at that rate to pay back- never mind the cost of the money in the first place.
who paid to develop series 1- the series 0 owners?
Posted by: dbrower
Like most here, I'd prefer Tivos and DTivos to have the capabilities of the Replay TV. I also accept Tivo's desire to let Sonic Blue be the sacrificial legal lamb for that stuff.
I also understand that DTV owns the DTivo, and is unlikely to *EVER* do anything that lets people get access to the digital stream in a useful way. Their relations with their program suppliers are far more important than that.
For those reasons, I can accept that HMO with crypto to local network and tivo->tivo only operation is the best possible compromise available at present. And even that may have legal problems for content providers.
At the same time, those wanting archival stuff can feel free to use their "copy to vcr" options to put shows on VHS, DVHS, or vidcap it to a CD or DVD.
No, it won't be as convenient as a native capability, but that is the way things are.
The thing to be very scared of are the pressures to eliminate "the analog loophole" by which this is possible. The coming of digital TV will lead that way. Our only hopes are to get effective repeal of the most onerous aspects of the DMCA, and to pressure your elected representatives for sanity. This will only happen if you contribute and vote that way instead of for some other narrow interest you may have.
I'm about to contribute/vote against a Senator I've more or less supported for 20 years because of this.
-dB
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelK
are you serious- or is that a joke?
who paid to develop series 1- the series 0 owners?
Well,,, Am I serious?,,, Kind of. I mean 1st it took investors to take the box from the garage to the masses so that is your series 0 owners. Then it took both more investors and Series One owners to get them through the last couple of years. After a while it was mostly (notice the word mostly) the Series one folks who were footing the bill because let's face it, Investors have been some what hard to find these days. During that time the Series Two was developed and that money for R&D had to come from somewhere right? Look let's be reasonable about this, it doesn't take a great deal of people (IE Money) to run the Tivo the way it is currently setup. Heck World Comm has to deal with most of the network traffic. They (Tivo) probably has about 200 dial-in modems with about 8 T1's to carry the load. I could put that together in my basement using one rack and US Robtics rack mounted modems.
It would be my guess (just an educated guess) that the Tivo guide data support cost are less than half the charged monthly cost and that includes the out sourcing of the support lines. The rest of the money goes for R&D since the company is not making a profit yet. Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out where that money has been spent for the last year or so. They did the big upgrade around Oct, Nov 2001 and then some minor updates since then but the majority of the work went toward the Series Two. Since there weren't that many Series Two owners last spring where do you think that development money came from?
Look I'm not saying what Tivo did is wrong. I'm just saying that is what they did and I'm sure they felt they needed to from a strictly business point of view. It was a business decision. They changed the service agreement so Series One users could have that thrown back in their faces if they complained.
Y-ASK
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
After a while it was mostly (notice the word mostly) the Series one folks who were footing the bill because let's face it, Investors have been some what hard to find these days. During that time the Series Two was developed and that money for R&D had to come from somewhere right?
Yeah! And Windows 95 was developed on the backs of all those Windows 3.1 users! And then the Windows 98 users stepped all over Windows 95! And Windows ME practically ripped the dollars from the hands of Windows 98 users! And now Windows XP is stealing the money paid by Windows ME users!
It's called "companies make money from selling products, use that money to develop new products, and eventually shift development away from older products, which they eventually discontinue". So what's your point?
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
Yeah! And Windows 95 was developed on the backs of all those Windows 3.1 users! And then the Windows 98 users stepped all over Windows 95! And Windows ME practically ripped the dollars from the hands of Windows 98 users! And now Windows is stealing the money paid by Windows ME users!
So what's your point?
What Kind of LAME comparison is this! I don't remember Microsoft charging it's customers a monthly fee to use the product. According to your theory the cost of the unit alone should have paid for the R&D so where's the rest of the money going genius?
So I don't have a point. I didn't start this thread to discuss some ridiculous analogy or compare Tivo with another product that is structured totally different. And I understand how business works but I've seen this before. Business people get caught up in the "I do everything for the stockholders" mentality and they forget what got them to a certain point of success. I watched a company with several hundred employees go down the tubes because they went public and then did everything for the stockholders. They shoved every cut in benefits down our throats with them having the best interest of the stockholders in mind. Over half of the employees left in about a two year period and I mean the best and brightest left. The only saving grace for that dumb CEO was that they sold the company before it completely fell apart and basically stuck the buyer with a shell of the company that it once had been. Tivo's saving grace is that they sell an excellent product and have very few competitors.
Now my point is that if you take good care of your employees the stock price will take care of itself. Same with customers, if you take good care of your customer base they will take good care of you and of course your Stock will see the results.
But That's not what this thread is about. It's about the freedom to choose how you, as a consumer, use the video or audio content that you have purchased from some source. And how companies are taking those freedoms away because of ground less lawsuits.
Y-ASK
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
What Kind of LAME comparison is this! I don't remember Microsoft charging it's customers a monthly fee to use the product.
OK, I didn't realize that you were specifically targeting the monthly fee. In which case I would have expressed indignation at my cell phone company, which keeps charging me a monthly fee for my old service while they're using that money to build web services for the new phones! Or my cable company, which keeps charging me for analog service while funneling that money into new digital features!
I say again... what's your point? That a services company is continuing to charge you for using their service, all the while they're developing advanced new services that you need to upgrade hardware to take advantage of? Nothing new there. Feel free to cancel your service, and your TiVo will become as useful as an old cell phone or cable box without service.
Posted by: Y-ASK
A much better comparison except the phone company sells hardware that are by nature are very limited in what upgrades can be done. Their service agreements do not include feature upgrades as part of the service, like Tivo once provided and usually cost extra. The Series One platform is far from dead and is actually a wonderful device.
My point is that if you are collecting money on a monthly basis and your previous service agreement stated that you would keep giving out enhancements to your most popular unit and you change that agreement so that you can move those collected funds from the Series One development to the S2 R&D you are doing a dis-service to your user base. Most people have Series One units. I'm not saying that they shouldn't add these features, what I'm saying is that they should have also developed and offered some of the requested features to the Series One units at the same time. I've had my four units for about a year and a half now and I don't think their lifetime has come and gone. My bank account sure doesn't think that.
Now my big question to you is do you believe you have the right to record any content, video or audio, that you have paid for.
Y-ASK
Posted by: MighTiVo
For those that question what the service includes, visit the TiVo sales training center:
http://tivo.com/resources/rc_instoresalestools.htm
Review this document
http://tivo.com/resources/images/ti...ainingguide.pdf
and you will see
TiVo service always keeps you up to date on the latest features with periodic software upgrades.
Posted by: dr_mal
Same document:
With TiVo, you're always up-to-date with the latest software (emphasis mine)
Posted by: BrettStah
Right... assuming you have paid for the Tivo service (and you're able to connect in successfully), you should always have the latest software for your Tivo. Other, newer, Tivos may have different software. (For example, DirecTivos don't have quality settings, have slightly different guide data, etc.)
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
A much better comparison except the phone company sells hardware that are by nature are very limited in what upgrades can be done. Their service agreements do not include feature upgrades as part of the service, like Tivo once provided and usually cost extra. The Series One platform is far from dead and is actually a wonderful device.
So now I'm not sure what your position is. That software upgrades are to be expected on some hardware platforms but not for others? That any platform that can be updated should be updated, possibly indefinitely? I used to have a cell phone that I could take to the local retail outlet and have them upgrade the software. I have no idea if my contract listed such upgrades as a guarantee, though.
Or does it have nothing to do with the hardware, and you are just calling on TiVo to follow through on what they promise in their contract?
quote:
My point is that if you are collecting money on a monthly basis and your previous service agreement stated that you would keep giving out enhancements to your most popular unit and you change that agreement
I'd agree that any company should honor their agreement. Though a well-written agreement will state that such updates will continue until such time as the company announces that they will no longer continue. In which case, they're still abiding by their agreement.
quote:
so that you can move those collected funds from the Series One development to the S2 R&D
OK, let's just be realistic here. TiVo isn't funneling S1 service money into S2 development. They're using all income to run the whole company! Much of that service revenue goes into advertising, trade shows, rent, partnerships, a kitchen stocked with soft drinks, etc. And yes, much of it goes towards development of future products. But they way you phrase it makes me picture a snarling VP rubbing his hands together and cackling about how those foolish S1 users are funding his evil plan to develop S2. Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
quote:
what I'm saying is that they should have also developed and offered some of the requested features to the Series One units at the same time.
Yeah, that would be nice. Perhaps if enough people ask for it, they'll throw a feature or two back to the S1 units. But perhaps not. They'll put their resources towards what brings them the most revenue.
quote:
Now my big question to you is do you believe you have the right to record any content, video or audio, that you have paid for.
Gee, this thread seems to be hitting lots of topics. :) But I think I have to answer your question from two angles. I do not believe that content providers are required to provide their content in a format that allows me to copy it. If they want to implement copy-protection, they are free to do so. I also believe that it should be legal for me--if I'm able (which may mean circumventing protection schemes)--to use content within the fair use provisions described by the Supreme Court.
In other words, I believe (as does the Supreme Court) that I have a right to copy available content for fair use purposes, but producers are not required to make that content easily available to me. But here's the part that's in contention in the courts now: I also believe that there should be nothing illegal about circumventing that copy-protection, as long as my intention is fair-use purposes.
Posted by: Polcamilla
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
\Now my big question to you is do you believe you have the right to record any content, video or audio, that you have paid for.
Hmmm....I went to see The Lion King (the stage show in a theater, not the movie) and I paid *quite* a bit for it. Not only did they not allow to bring in a videocamera so I could archive it for future viewing, but they didn't even allow me to take photographso of it with a still camera. Is this fair? I mean, I *paid* for that content!
IMHO, I think TiVoGuard very much falls under fair use. Why? Because it allows me to watch *any* program I record at *any* time on *any* TiVo in my house (heck, if I *really* want to watch it somewhere else, I can transfer it to a TiVo and hook that TiVo up to a TV at a different house---sure, I'd have to carry the whole TiVo with me and spend the time hooking it up, but that's how TiVo works). This is definitely an improvement on what I have now (I can watch any program at any time, but only in one place). This is completely fair.
Fair use does NOT mean that I have a right to transport any content to any conceivable medium in my house for my enjoyment or that it is the job of the content provider or holder of the technology by which the content is distributed (because, really, TiVo isn't even a content provider) to do everything they can to facilitate my ability to move the content to a medium other than the one it is released in. I buy a lot of books and every single one of those books uses technology that makes it extremely difficult for me to upload it to my computer for archive purposes. If I wanted to do it, I'd have to manually scan each and every page, which is tedious and time consuming. Is that fair? Don't I have a right to have every book I purchase come with a copy already burned to CD so I can upload it to my laptop and read it as a PDF on an airplane? How unfair is it that my phone book comes this way, as it'd be *much* easier for me to be able to extract it into a series of individual entries for each person/business in the phone book that could then be uploaded to Outlook. The way it is now, I have to hand-type each entry that I want access to. Is this fair? I pay the phone company good money each month to have access to a complete listing of all the people on my area who have phones. And, of course, no PVR company yet has made it possible for me to print screenshots of a TV recording directly to photo quality paper so I can display it as art in my home! How can they deny me this feature if I really want to preserve the content I paid for by hanging it on the wall? And not *once* has my freezer allowed me to extract a TV dinner directly to my microwave, not even when I'm really hungry.
At some point, a line has to be drawn. TiVo is saying that you're allowed to watch anything YOU record on any TiVo YOU own at any time. How is this unfair?
Posted by: MighTiVo
Polcamilla, I think you are off base. I really don't think the argument here is that it should be required to make these things easy. The argument is that it is unreasonable to make these things artificially difficult when the technology is available to make it easy.
Say your book came with a Windows CE based ebook format but your portable computer (say Palm perhaps) can't display this ebook format. It is (IMHO) a reasonable and fair use to utilize your own technology to convert that to a Palm compatible format. Unfortunately that is not reflected in the DMCA or any other legislation and that is what we need to as consumers pressure congress to change.
Posted by: rseligman
quote:
Originally posted by Polcamilla
Fair use does NOT mean that I have a right to transport any content to any conceivable medium in my house for my enjoyment
Actually, it does. It just doesn't guarantee--as you later point out--that the content provider has to make it easy for you to do so.
And note that "fair use" is a concept that describes rules under which you can legally use copyrighted material. Although it uses the same word, it really doesn't have anything to do with whether something is "fair" (i.e., equitable) or not.
Posted by: rogo
The fact is that Betamax is the *only* law that clearly establishes your right to timeshift. Thanks to that decision, as noted above, Tivo can exist and absent any overturning of it, will continue to exist (or a successor will).
It is equivalently and correctly noted above that the right to keep a permanent copy of broadcast content *does not exist* and will probably never. Yes, you can today archive anything to VCR (at least I think so, unless there is some Macrovision-ed stuff out there). But no one needs to provide you that right and -- by making the content digital and securing it -- they can explicitly deny you that right.
Is this good? Is this "right"? I don't think so, but it is what is. I, for one, would go ballistic if the timeshifting right is ever taken away. I would lose a lot less sleep if I couldn't archive digitally. I can archive to analog if I must (never do it, but, hey it's there) and that's fair in my mind.
If you want a digital archive right, understand there will be loads of copy protection on top of that (Copy Once, a la 5C, with no redistribution rights). In fact, check out Pressplay and Musicnet for ideas on how this will work in the future. Wholesale stealing -- or as the rationalizers call it, "sharing" -- of copyrighted content is going to come to an end soon.
Mark
Posted by: Crrink
quote:
Originally posted by rogo
Wholesale stealing -- or as the rationalizers call it, "sharing" -- of copyrighted content is going to come to an end soon.
Mark
I respectfully disagree with this statement.
If Microsoft, and all the other big software developers out there haven't been able to find a way to stop pirating of software, nobody will.
They may find a way to force stealing of copyrighted material more underground than it currently is, but they'll never end it.
What they will end up doing in the process is making it a lot more difficult for all of the honest consumers out there to have the freedom and flexibility they ought to have with the products they buy.
Posted by: rogo
Honest consumers do suffer due to the actions of thieves, yes.
Honest, non-hijacking airline passengers also suffer due to the actions of terrorists.
Honest credit seekers also suffer due to the actions of identity thieves.
Etc. etc.
When I meant wholesaling stealing, I meant super-easy, login, get everything, logoff stealing is coming to an end.
It's just a matter of time before *all* CDs are copy protected. That sucks, but it's going to happen. Ditto video content.
It means that a lot of manipualtion on the computer done for perfectly legal uses will become harder or -- in some cases -- impossible.
Who's fault is this? The record companies? Napster? Well...
Mark
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
Now my big question to you is do you believe you have the right to record any content, video or audio, that you have paid for.
Even though I do think I have the right to copy paid for DVDs and CDs for my own private use, my words above were meant to describe the fact that I pay Direct TV a monthly fee for a certain set of channels. The out put of that DTV receiver is in analog form and my Tivo is converting and recording that source to a digital format. So DMCA cannot come into play here. I see no reason why Tivo can't provide me with the ability to move those video files any where I want and provide them to me in a standard format. Come on any one can purchase a capture card and capture then burn a movie in excellent quality to a DVD then sell it. In fact I'm sure that is the preferred method instead of using a Tivo.
Consumers have the same problem with some capture cards. I recently purchased a TV Tuner Card and was in the process of setting up my new PVR when I ran into problems. The pause live TV wouldn't work and the record wouldn't work. The only source that I had for Video at the time in my home office was a DVD player so I was just playing a movie. It appears that the capture cards detected the macrovision crap and stopped working. Again big brother trying to protect RIAA while stopping me from using the device for legitimate purposes.
Oh well, It's been a long day and I'm sure that I'm just rambling on and on. Sorry, maybe I'll make better sense tomorrow.
Y-ASK
Posted by: BrettStah
Tivo might very well be legally able to provide you with the ability "to move those video files any where I want and provide them to me in a standard format", but they are certainly under no obligation to do so.
Posted by: Y-ASK
quote:
Originally posted by BrettStah
Tivo might very well be legally able to provide you with the ability "to move those video files any where I want and provide them to me in a standard format", but they are certainly under no obligation to do so.
Agreed 100%, As my nemesis Dr. Zinn would say "You are correct! Dr. Quest."
Y-ASK
Posted by: rseligman
Here's an article that makes some excellent points. I've excerpted a few of them below:
quote:
What will some of those principles be?
One is the idea that we should have the right to control our own individual experience of creative works. When we're in the privacy of our own homes, and we're using DVDs or CDs that we own on the computers that we own, that Hollywood doesn't have a right to tell us how we can use that media. It's our property and our rights as global citizens to receive and express and impart information without the interference of the copyright holders.
How about another one?
We have the right to make personal private copies of lawfully acquired works. So if I buy a CD, I should have an affirmative right to make a personal-use copy of that without breaking any laws by attempting to make a copy. Unfortunately, the United States has a very dismal track record right now for protection of freedom in this area. It's truly ironic that the United States has such an international reputation as being the leader in freedom of speech, but when it comes to intellectual property, it's actually one of the most restrictive regimes in terms of what people can do with their intellectual property.
...
What about intellectual property holders such as the movie studios, the record labels and the software makers--don't they have a right to exert more control over their digital works when it's so easy to duplicate and transmit them to vast amounts of people?
You've only pointed out one half of the way that digital technology changes the picture. Sure, it makes it easier for people to copy and share works, but digital technology also makes it easier for copyright holders to restrict what people can do with their works. So it's not fair to say that this technology is...very harmful to these industries because it's actually providing them with more power than they've ever had before to control what people can do with their works. That point is often overlooked--that they're controlling it to the point that they're taking away from the public side of the copyright bargain.
So while it's not fair for consumers to copy and distribute copyright works in a fashion that doesn't compensate the creators, it's also not fair for the creators to use digital technology to take away the rights of the public. For example, making sure these works fall into the public domain at some point, or making sure that consumers are able to exercise their fair-use rights. It's simply not fair for the copyright holders to take all of the rights and have none of the responsibilities associated with copyright law.
http://news.com.com/2008-1082-981663.html?tag=fd_nc_1
Posted by: physics
quote:
Originally posted by stevel
Actually, today, it IS against the law if the content is in digital form and has some form of "protection", according to 1999's DMCA. There are various proposals floating around to relax this, but as it stands now, it is illegal.
TiVo has done well to make it possible for you to have "fair use" of recorded content within your home while at the same time making it difficult to share the content in the original digital format with others. This balances the rights of the consumer and of the content provider.
The illegal part is the action of circumventing the protection scheme. By encrypting the data, TiVo has created a situation whereby any extraction is indeed, technically illegal. The problem is that they are encrypting something that YOU now own. The exact same video stream, sent down the exact same path, minus the TiVo device, can be recorded using any means you want, all legally.
Fact is, we do have the right to copy this data for our own personal use and TiVo, as great as their product is, is denying us this right. I for one have no problem with attempting to extract the video stream, since as I see it, TiVo is denying me a right which has already been granted in the video and audio arena for years. Blank video tapes, audio tapes, VCR's, tape recorders, and MP3 ripping software are all legal. The core issue is that TiVo is saying, "you can't have this (ability to extract the stream), because you might do something illegal with it (share it out publicly)". That is a week argument which has failed miserably in the past when used. Guns? Licensed, but you can get 'em. Beer/Alcohol? Legal, but under restrictions. Cars? Get a license and go. Just don't speed, drive drunk, pass on the shoulder, etc. Most laws pertaining to "items" apply to the illegal application of legal "stuff" (i.e. guns, alcohol, cars). However in none of my examples are you denied your legal right because you might break the law if permitted to exercise that right. TiVo imposes the law rather than helping to enforce it, and that is where I have a problem with them.
Suggestion to TiVo. HELP me to extract my video. Provide a utility in TiVo to make this easy. Embed this video with all my personal TiVo and acct info. Put it everywhere, and lock it to the file. Now, I have my video, on my PC, and if I share it, everyone will know where it came from. Now you are helping to enforce copyright law without restricting my right to fair use. Knowing that anything you share out would have all your personal info embedded and viewable (maybe not easily, but viewable somehow) should be enough to deter most people from sharing files. And now you create a clear legal line as well. People who do share, blam... nailed due to their info being available. People who develop app's and/or methods of removing or obfuscating the personal information, whammo... guilty of circumventing digital copyright protection. It's not hard, and can be accomplished within the existing Series 2 framework. Hopefully TiVo will give it some real thought and do something about this.
Also,... why can I stream audio and pictures from my PC to my TV, but not video?
That's a whole 'nother rant :-)
Posted by: smojo
How about this - let TiVo keep it's encryption, just allow us to export the encrypted content to a network share or something so that it can be written to DVD or CD.
Then the only way the content can be viewed or played back would be to tune TiVo to a 'decryption' channel that will act like a cable box and descramble the signal. Pop the DVD or CD into a dvd player and watch the content, thru TiVo...
I think this is a reasonable solution and should please most everyone. As far as I can tell, the only people who wouldn't be pleased with this solution are people who want to violate copyright laws.
Can you think of any reason why this wouldn't be a good solution?
Posted by: drewman
Wow, an 8 month old thread back from the dead!
Umm, about the playing the DVD or other archival method through the TiVo to remove copy protection.
Wouldn't that require use of the input jacks on the TiVo? So now you have to rewire whenever you want to watch archived stuff. Also, no recording new stuff while you are doing it?
No thanks....
Andrew
Posted by: cenotaph
quote:
Originally posted by rseligman
In the US, the government cannot take action against a private citizen because they think that you're going to commit a crime.
If only that was true.
Tell that to the Japanese-American survivors of the internment camps.
Or tell that to the detainees in Quantanomo Bay.
Or how about Mike Hawash - whom many believe pled guilty simply to end the nightmare of being detained illegally.
Every day that passes proves to me that our government cares not one iota about the LAW, but about being beholden to big business.
Posted by: cenotaph
quote:
Originally posted by Y-ASK
I do think Tivo owes the Series One community better than what they are currently doing which is nothing on new features.
I don't. I don't want TiVo messing with my S1 units. (Ok, I'd love to have the group folder listings of recorded shows, but that's it.) I don't want TiVo adding features as that'll probably lead to locking down things like the TiVoWeb Project, plus all the other neat hacks that have been implemented (including those neat things that won't be mentioned in this forum...)
If you want S2 functionality, sell your S1 on Ebay.
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009,
Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009
- Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser
Modified by Adam J. de Jaray