# TivoToGo Not Under Review by CableLabs?



## robreams (Feb 17, 2003)

I can't vouch for the credibility of the source, but I stumbled across the article below in an RSS reader (from MediaPost Publications), & thought it was worth sharing. Highlights:

_"The company that decides these things, a private nonprofit organization run by the cable companies, is Cable Research Laboratories, or CableLabs. It has not been approached by TiVo about expanding the capability in the Series 3, says Jud Cary, deputy general counsel for CableLabs.

'It's not been put on the table,' Cary asserts. 'We are in discussions about MRV [multi-room viewing], but TiVoToGo has not been submitted to CableLabs for review. We've never seen it.'"_

Here's the link for the full article:

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=49282

Anyone else have any information?


----------



## bferrell (Jun 22, 2005)

Disappointing, to be sure, if it's true, but I'd gladly take the MRV post haste...
B


----------



## DocSavag (Feb 18, 2006)

Not surprising to me since many of us here think TivoToGo is going to be a lot harder to sell to CableLabs than MRV.


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

Man it looks like Tivo's FAQs are written by lawyers. Last line about MRV and Tivo2Go

"TiVo is working with CableLabs and our own engineering team on enabling Multi-Room Viewing and other technologies relating to moving certain digital content around the home environment."

Note: that there is no mention of Tivo2Go. I've got to start reading this stuff more carefully. I thought that Tivo was actually in process with Tivo2Go to try to find something that worked. I wonder if eSata is included in the other technologies.


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

MRV has been around much longer than TiVoToGo. Is it possible that the S3 codebase was branched before TiVoToGo was created? It might be easier for TiVo to negotiate these separately, starting with MRV since it already exists in the S3 codebase and only involves moving programs to other TiVo devices. Later when the S3 codebase is merged back into the main codebase, they can negotiate TiVoToGo.


----------



## razor237 (Feb 1, 2002)

Tivo is Probably gonna try for them one at a time, easier to get them to approve the MRV then TTG so go for that one first hopfully get it approved then submit TTG for aproval


-Mike


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

robreams said:


> I can't vouch for the credibility of the source


Jud Cary is a big-wig at CableLabs ... I'm a bit surprised he would comment (on the record) about whether or not something is "on the table" ... but ... it does happen.

The author of the article definately went to the right sources.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Cable labs gets what 6 months to review each thing. 

MRV
E-Sata
TTG

That's a year and a half at least before all of them have been reviewed if they do it one at a time.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

cassiusdrow said:


> MRV has been around much longer than TiVoToGo. Is it possible that the S3 codebase was branched before TiVoToGo was created?


Nope. If you look at the System Information screen it specifically mentions TiVoToGo.

I'm guessing that either TiVo is not pushing for TTG because they know it wont be approved or they are lumping it in with the MRV functionality and this guy is just not familiar enough with the technical details to realize it. Either way TiVo doesn't have to get CableLabs approval to enable TTG for analog and OTA channels. So if for some reason it doesn't get CableLabs approval it can still be enabled in a limited capacity.

Dan


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

If the article is true then it seems like Tivo was not fully truthful about TTG. Based on TivoPony statements and other comments on lack of TTG I think we were (at least I was) led to believe Tivo had applied for this capability but not received approval yet from CableLabs. What they failed to tell us is they hadn't submitted TTG for approval, so of course it could not be approved!


----------



## minckster (Aug 31, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> . . . Either way TiVo doesn't have to get CableLabs approval to enable TTG for analog and OTA channels. So if for some reason it doesn't get CableLabs approval it can still be enabled in a limited capacity.
> 
> Dan


Dan, Are you fairly certain about that? It makes sense, but I wonder if Cable Labs could dig in their heels, fearing that even limited TTG would be hacked to access cableCARD-protected content. Could they refuse certification due to features that aren't related to cableCARDS?

Here's hoping you're right!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I'm certain that TiVo isn't telling us everything, but what they do tell us is likely true in the most literal of senses. Working on MRV, TTG, Mac support simply means that it's in the pipeline and someone is dealing with it, not that it's going to be here. 

I'll make my previous statement again. If they only introduce one thing at a time and wait for the review process each time it'll take 1-1/2 years to submit three features. They wouldn't wait that long, they'd probably submit one a month to keep them separate, or submit the second one once the first got tentative approval. What's really telling is that there was no mention of e-Sata.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Based on TivoPony statements and other comments on lack of TTG I think we were (at least I was) led to believe Tivo had applied for this capability but not received approval yet from CableLabs.


Please share the post where Pony claimed this. I doubt he did.


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Either way TiVo doesn't have to get CableLabs approval to enable TTG for analog and OTA channels.


I don't believe that is the case.



moyekj said:


> Based on TivoPony statements and other comments on lack of TTG I think we were (at least I was) led to believe Tivo had applied for this capability but not received approval yet from CableLabs.


That wasn't my impression.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

ah30k said:


> Please share the post where Pony claimed this. I doubt he did.


I agree. My recollection is he confirmed it was a Cablelabs issue, but not that TiVo had applied for the capability.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

davezatz said:


> I don't believe that is the case.


Why? S2 units have TTG and they are technically no different then S3 units with regard to how they handle analog channels. The only thing that would prevent TiVo from enabling TTG for analog and OTA recordings independent of digital recordings is if there was some sort of stipulation in the CableCARD certification process that prevented them from doing anything on the box which was not CableLabs approved. And I didn't see anything in the spec like that. Although the actual certification documents could have it..

Dan


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Yeah, CL limiting something like that would be equivalent/tantamount to Microsoft refusing to let you burn ANY files to a DVD or attach anything to an email unless you could PROVE you owned it, or the right to do so, if you were using even one DRMed WMV file on the computer 

Of course, stranger things have happened ...


----------



## davezatz (Apr 18, 2002)

ashu said:


> Yeah, CL limiting something like that would be equivalent/tantamount to


They may not limit that type of functionality (TTG for analog), but they probably reserve the right to certify/approve it anything/everything on that box. I haven't dug through the docs either (they're impossible) so this is purely conjecture on my part. Though... if certification is not required, how come this doesn't exist?

Should I bring up the Macrovision analogy? Nah, I'll let sleeping dogs lie. 

The Microsoft counter-point is a good one - especially since there will presumably be certified CableLabs certified Vista boxes and not all computer functionality will be subject to their review.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

ah30k said:


> Please share the post where Pony claimed this. I doubt he did.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4361425&&#post4361425


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

davezatz said:


> Though... if certification is not required, how come this doesn't exist?


My guess is that the functionality is currently coded in such a way that it would be hard to diferentiate analog and OTA from digital and that rather then rewrite it right now TiVo decided to try their luck at getting it approved first. If that fails then they can fall back to rewriting it to support the limited functionality.

Dan


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

cherry ghost said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4361425&&#post4361425


If you analyze that statement carefully you'll note he did *NOT* say that they had submitted anything to CL, just that they were working on it. That likely means they are just trying to formulate whatever submission request they have in the best terms possible, talking to people to see what's likely to pass, and even consulting lawyers if they run into road blocks. I wouldn't be surprised at all if when it does become available, you have to pay for it again.

edit: My fingers forget to type NOT very frequently.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> If you analyze that statement carefully you'll note he did *NOT* say that they had submitted anything to CL, just that they were working on it. That likely means they are just trying to formulate whatever submission request they have in the best terms possible, talking to people to see what's likely to pass, and even consulting lawyers if they run into road blocks. I wouldn't be surprised at all if when it does become available, you have to pay for it again.
> 
> edit: My fingers forget to type NOT very frequently.


I read it very carefully too, and nowhere does it say they have applied for anything. They would be foolish to do so, then get denied, and have to go back to the drawing board. My less-than-intelligent assumption is that they want ALL their ducks in a row before making ANY application.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

ah30k said:


> Please share the post where Pony claimed this. I doubt he did.


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4361425&&#post4361425



> MRV and TTG on the Series3 product is just as cool, and we want them just as much, and they definitely make life a little better. But...in this case it's not the FCC that decides, it's CableLabs. *And while we continue to work with CableLabs, and are optimistic they'll allow us to support these features, they haven't for this initial software release.* It's not that we failed to meet a spec, or failed to talk to the right people, or missed a date - rather, we are trying to provide functionality that is unique in the industry, and CableLabs has not been able to give us their blessing yet.


This certainly implies to me (especially phrase in bold) that they submitted *both* those features but were denied for the initial software release. There is certainly no implication that they did not even submit TTG in this phrasing.

I fully realize it's not fair to pick on one TivoPony posting so don't flame me on that. I'm just saying that this combined with other comments from reviewers led me (and I'm sure others) to believe that Tivo was already working with CableLabs on both TTG and MRV. And that still may well be the case as there is nothing concrete to dispute that.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

moyekj said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4361425&&#post4361425
> 
> This certainly implies to me (especially phrase in bold) that they submitted *both* those features but were denied for the initial software release. There is certainly no implication that they did not even submit TTG in this phrasing.
> 
> I fully realize it's not fair to pick on one TivoPony posting so don't flame me on that. I'm just saying that this combined with other comments from reviewers led me (and I'm sure others) to believe that Tivo was already working with CableLabs on both TTG and MRV. And that still may well be the case as there is nothing concrete to dispute that.


I believe your parsing has merit.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

moyekj said:


> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4361425&&#post4361425
> 
> This certainly implies to me (especially phrase in bold) that they submitted *both* those features but were denied for the initial software release. There is certainly no implication that they did not even submit TTG in this phrasing.
> 
> I fully realize it's not fair to pick on one TivoPony posting so don't flame me on that. I'm just saying that this combined with other comments from reviewers led me (and I'm sure others) to believe that Tivo was already working with CableLabs on both TTG and MRV. And that still may well be the case as there is nothing concrete to dispute that.


You can read almost anything into that statement you want....but it's merely speculation until TiVo CONFIRMS they applied for AND WERE DENIED. And they HAVE NOT made any statement to that effect.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> You can read almost anything into that statement you want....but it's merely speculation until TiVo CONFIRMS they applied for AND WERE DENIED. And they HAVE NOT made any statement to that effect.


 True, but it's not in their interests to ever officially confirm this even if that did/does happen. Rather the status quo right now - providing a flicker of hope (or deception) that one day TTG may be enabled sure suits them better. Since it's all speculation anyway I think it boils down to essentially what megazone said in his review: Don't buy the S3 right now if these features are critical to you. The safe assumption right now is that these features will never be there and if they do popup in some shape or form down the road consider it a bonus. At this point I have more faith in getting some version of these via hacking rather than through an official release. Hope Tivo proves me wrong.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> I read it very carefully too, and nowhere does it say they have applied for anything. They would be foolish to do so, then get denied, and have to go back to the drawing board. My less-than-intelligent assumption is that they want ALL their ducks in a row before making ANY application.





TiVoPony said:


> And while we continue to work with CableLabs, and are optimistic they'll allow us to support these features, they haven't for this initial software release.


How can CableLabs not allow a feature unless at some point, that feature was proposed for inclusion and denied? TiVoPony clearly wanted to scapegoat CableLabs and the CL person was trying to deflect the blame.


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

TiVoPony said:


> Getting a dual tuner, high def box out now, and continuing to push forward for CableLabs certification of MRV and TTG is the choice we've had to make today.


Whether this strictly states a submission or not, the obvious _intent_ of this sentence is to make the reader think it's implied. I figure if the _intent_ is for us to think that, then we should oblige. If they didn't _intend_ for us to think that, they should have explicitly said otherwise.

Corporate doublespeak should be a very dangerous tool for corporations to use, not for consumers to hear.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

> they haven't for this initial software release


Haven't = Have not = Have not (allowed) = Denied


----------



## jrock (Aug 27, 2002)

I thought I read in another thread last month that TiVo Pony said ESATA would be enabled in a November Update with a Kidzone update or something like that. I haven't seen anything about it since though.


----------



## TechDreamer (Jan 27, 2002)

I don't care if I get deleted for saying this, but Tivo and Pony Lied to us. I want them to come on this board and tell me otherwise. The fact of the matter is the Series 3 was not going to make the year end deadline and so Tivo released a known Beta product and then lied to us about the missing features. Tivo has apparently been learning about PR from the White House.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I agree they've been talking around the points and using obscure language to avoid committign to anything. There's also the omission of comment on these topics to consider. They certainly didn't discount rumors that MRV and TTG would be available and I believe they touted these features at the CES show this year as well. ( I could be wrong ) I know they touted the e-Sata drives. 

It's probably come down from on high at TiVo to not discuss missing features and only talk up existing ones or suffer great pain. Meanwhile however TiVo's most vocal supporters have become the most vocal detractors. Strange how that happens.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Stormspace said:


> Haven't = Have not = Have not (allowed) = Denied


Um, no.

Not allowed does not equate to being denied.

If you don't ask for permission, you aren't allowed either.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

vman41 said:


> How can CableLabs not allow a feature unless at some point, that feature was proposed for inclusion and denied? TiVoPony clearly wanted to scapegoat CableLabs and the CL person was trying to deflect the blame.


If they have good lines of communication with CableLabs, then they may not have to go through the formal submission process to know whether or not a feature will be approved. I don't know about CableLabs. I've certainly dealt with approval processes in other fields where the most efficient way to proceed is to go back and forth with key individuals on the approval board until they advise you that your proposal is approvable. A formal submission might have to wait for the entire board to convene, and then if they don't pass it you don't get another shout until next meeting date.


----------



## robreams (Feb 17, 2003)

tgibbs said:


> If they have good lines of communication with CableLabs...


They certainly don't seem to be on the same page from a PR perspective. I can't imagine Tivo would be too happy about such a statement that directly contradicts what they've previously implied, or at least what we've inferred...


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

I still don't see why Tivo can't enable MRV or T2G for OTA (over-the air) and analog cable recordings. They should be in process with Cable Labs for this already. Right now the S3 would be better served as a software add-on to a cable box. The hardware is no longer cutting edge and there is little advantage to having a Tivo proprietary box, especially given the problems with cable card.

I'm pretty disappointed that Tivo hasn't been more innovative. I was looking at the comparison that Tivo used on its S3 page between cable and satellite DVRs and the advantages are pretty lame (wow- a backlight remote and advanced display on the box!). I think that people like the S3 because SA and Motorola DVRs have such poor interfaces. Tivo had better hope that these guys dont hire some smart UI guys.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

FWIR, they are "in process with Cable Labs" for MRV, but not for T2G.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

dbtom said:


> I still don't see why Tivo can't enable MRV or T2G for OTA (over-the air) and analog cable recordings.


That may not be an easy thing to do from a code perspective, so they could be waiting until they hear from CableLabs first before putting in the work.

Dan


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

not sure if anyone really knows the answer- but can cablelabs restrict MRV and TTG on non-encrypted content anyhow? 

If they were to deny it and Tivo decided to get adverserial and go to the FCC for an appeal, would the FCC allow cablelabs to block content that isn't encrypted and doesn't have a restictive copy protection flag?


----------



## cassiusdrow (May 21, 2003)

Is it possible MRV and TiVoToGo were submitted together under a single proposal and the person asked (Jud Cary at CableLabs) just doesn't realize that they are two different things? Maybe TiVo didn't distinguish between them or use that terminology.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'm not sure- but i think it's a possibility that Tivo would need to submit their "tivoguard" DRM system to them for approval (if such a hting still exists?)- and that such a system could do either MRV or TTG. 

But maybe they already submitted that and got approval (since I think 'tivogaurd' also is used to protect the content on the hard drives?) but now they need more specific approvals to use it for eSATA, MRV, and/or TTG?


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> not sure if anyone really knows the answer- but can cablelabs restrict MRV and TTG on non-encrypted content anyhow?


My understanding is that CableLabs approves a device in its entirety. Even though CableLabs has no rights with respect to OTA features, they could decide that enabling Tivo2Go or MRV for non-cable content might encourage bad behavior and decide to not approve the entire device for CableCard use. Or they could say just delete these two features and well approve your device (which I assume is what happened). If Tivo subsequently tried to add a non-approved feature, I assume they would be cut-off from future approvals. It wouldn't make sense given how few S3s are currently deployed.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

i know that would be cablelabs point of view. My question is do the current regulations and laws permit that?

If there was an appeal to the FCC what MIGHT the FCC say?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

cassiusdrow said:


> Is it possible MRV and TiVoToGo were submitted together under a single proposal and the person asked (Jud Cary at CableLabs) just doesn't realize that they are two different things? Maybe TiVo didn't distinguish between them or use that terminology.


That was my theory as well. From the perspective of TiVo TTG and MRV are one in the same. There is a single setting on Manage My Account to enable both, and that setting is listed as TiVoToGo in the System Information screen.

Dan


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dt_dc said:


> Jud Cary is a big-wig at CableLabs ... I'm a bit surprised he would comment (on the record) about whether or not something is "on the table" ... but ... it does happen.
> 
> The author of the article definately went to the right sources.


Frankly the fact he would discuss such a thing so publicly does not give me much faith in the professionalism of CableLabs. That could have been strategic information for TiVo and not something for someone outside of TiVo to discuss. I would have expeceted the generic - you will have to ask TiVo.


----------



## dbtom (Feb 14, 2002)

MichaelK,

One of my friends used to work in the FCC commissioner's office and I met the former comissioner a couple of times. My sense is that the organization is built to cater to large companies and the appeal of a little company like Tivo will be futile at best. I wouldn't hold out much hope for a Tivo appeal to the FCC. If Sony, Apple, Microsoft (etc.) was making the appeal maybe there would be a chance.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> If there was an appeal to the FCC what MIGHT the FCC say?


"I know we said we were going to actually enforce our own rules this time, but someone thinks they saw something shiny and vaguely nipple-shaped, so we're going to go deal with that instead"?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Jazhuis said:


> "I know we said we were going to actually enforce our own rules this time, but someone thinks they saw something shiny and vaguely nipple-shaped, so we're going to go deal with that instead"?


LOL


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

dbtom said:


> MichaelK,
> 
> One of my friends used to work in the FCC commissioner's office and I met the former comissioner a couple of times. My sense is that the organization is built to cater to large companies and the appeal of a little company like Tivo will be futile at best. I wouldn't hold out much hope for a Tivo appeal to the FCC. If Sony, Apple, Microsoft (etc.) was making the appeal maybe there would be a chance.


I tecnd to agree- clearly the FCC is cable's lap dog all things related to cablecard. But I have to think they woiuld be in a bit of a bind considering that earlier before the broadcast flag reqs were struct down by the courts the FCC itslef approved tivoguard for broadcast content DRM (even against the protests of the MPAA, the NFL, and others).

I think that would essentially make it very difficult for the FCC to come up with an "independent view" that tivogaurd isn't good enough for cablelabs since it's already been found good enough for broadcast.

But I'm curious beyond approving tivogaurd in general if the FCC wouldn't say that cablelabs restrictions can only apply to flagged content because of the regulations at about encryption. I guess since that's less cut and dry they would find for their Daddy (eg cable)


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

The True solution to this is to write your Senator and congress person to have the Congress/Senate Force the issue.

I am in Texas. I have a schedule meeting in December to meet with Senator Kay Bay Hutchinson regarding issues such as MRV, TTNG, HDTV in regards to any DVR/PVR.

I will shortly be "posting" a letter that I would like everyone in Texas to copy & email to Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson. The Senators aide told me that if between now and the time I meet her in December, if they receive over 2500 emails/letters regarding this issue, She might be willing to do something.

In the mean time... Please wait... I will have the letter posted within the next 5 days, so that you may forward a copy to the Senator, or with a few adjustments send a copy to your senator in your state. (The letter is currently under review from my lawyer)

My lawyer advises that the next step is to start a legal petition. I will be providing information on that in a post sometime in the next 14 days.

Any help with this would greatly be appreciated by anyone interested.

Please feel free to email me personally.

Thank you

TexasGrillChef...........


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Oops... I had a typo.... Thats Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson... Not "BAY"

TexasGrillChef


----------



## Craig S (Nov 3, 2002)

It's actually Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Note the 'e' in the middle name, and there's no 'n' before 'son'. Here's her web page:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/

Please, spell her name correctly in any correspondence with her, or your credibility will be shot from the get-go.

Also, hand-written letters are MUCH more effective than e-mails or online petitions.

Finally, I have to end with this (and it's just my opinion, and of course as a citizen you have the right to lobby your representatives on any issue you want): With all the problems we are facing in this country (and our state), I don't know that I want my Senators wasting time on a matter as relatively trivial as this. It's just TV.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

valid thought but they dont seem to give a crap what we think about anythign important. Seems all they want to do is listen to us about stupid crap.


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

Craig S said:


> It's actually Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Note the 'e' in the middle name, and there's no 'n' before 'son'. Here's her web page:
> 
> http://hutchison.senate.gov/
> 
> ...


Actually the issues of information flow, intellectual property, right management and such are very important to both our economy and our freedoms. While by no means should it be the only thing our representatives are working on, I believe striking the right balance on these related issues are very important for our federal elected officials to be working on.

Just my $0.02 worth
sjcbulldog


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sjcbulldog said:


> Actually the issues of information flow, intellectual property, right management and such are very important to both our economy and our freedoms. While by no means should it be the only thing our representatives are working on, I believe striking the right balance on these related issues are very important for our federal elected officials to be working on.
> 
> Just my $0.02 worth
> sjcbulldog


wow-

that sounds like a much more grownup reply than mine.

"what he said" <pointing at sjcbulldog>


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

dbtom said:


> I'm pretty disappointed that Tivo hasn't been more innovative. I was looking at the comparison that Tivo used on its S3 page between cable and satellite DVRs and the advantages are pretty lame (wow- a backlight remote and advanced display on the box!). I think that people like the S3 because SA and Motorola DVRs have such poor interfaces. Tivo had better hope that these guys dont hire some smart UI guys.


I think that TiVo has by far the best UI that I've seen on an electronic device. It is on a par with the best I've seen from Apple, and is certainly the best for control from a remote with a limited number of buttons. The only thing I've seen that came close was a pre-TiVo device for controlling a VCR called "Videoguide" (sadly bought out by Gemstar and discontinued). However, I'm distinguishing the UI from features--I'm talking about such things as the way the "back" button can almost always be used to "back out" of things, the way the "forward" button acts as a synonym for "select" when it is appropriate, and so forth. For most electronic devices, the UI seems to be an afterthought. I always get annoyed when I try to use my XBox 360 because I keep expecting it to have an intelligently designed UI like TiVo's, probably because it looks so slick graphically, but it turns out to be quite primitive. And this is from Microsoft, a company that has its own UI "experts."


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Unsurprising.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

tgibbs said:


> I think that TiVo has by far the best UI that I've seen on an electronic device. It is on a par with the best I've seen from Apple, and is certainly the best for control from a remote with a limited number of buttons.


I agree. Innovation for innovation's sake is wasteful. In this case, I think there is some regret that CableLabs is preventing TiVo from providing all they can provide -- but folks are reticent to take that frustration out on CableLabs because it is a seemingly unassailable entity.


----------



## BigFrank (Sep 21, 2006)

sjcbulldog said:


> Actually the issues of information flow, intellectual property, right management and such are very important to both our economy and our freedoms. While by no means should it be the only thing our representatives are working on, I believe striking the right balance on these related issues are very important for our federal elected officials to be working on.


I absolutely agree with this.

NOT TO MENTION that if congress has time to worry about flag burning and gay marriage, then they have time for things like this.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

TiVo has been on the market now for 8+ years and I've had it since 2003/early 2004. In that time I haven't really seen any UI modifications until recently. Sure everything in Music, Photos, Products, and More is new, but nothing substantial has been added to the main GUI that would have the impact of a Wishlist or Season Pass. Even small changes to those major items haven't been made. For instance the ability to exclude channels on a wishlist, or use exclusion words, or anything really. Since I came on board the focus with TiVo seems to be in content and features that originate outside the box. Maybe this is to show all those people paying 12.95 a month that they are getting something extra, I don't know. 

As for the recent changes, we now have a recently deleted folder and KidZone. KidZone in itself is a major GUI overhall, I just wish it had been done for everyone since my children are all beyond the need to be policed. My biggest concern at the moment is whether my youngest teen is posting inappropriate content to myspace, hardly something that TiVo can address.  Guru guides to me are useless. When I look at them I wonder who would use them and whether they my impact my carefully configured season passes on my TiVo's. Instead of Guru guides I would have liked better conflict resolution via multiple boxes, others call it cooperative scheduling.

Aside from the S3 confusion TiVo is really doing a good job and even with all the S3 issues who could have foreseen some of the issues that are surfacing? TiVo could have controlled the issues that they had access to better however, by making certain the S3's worked with existing product, especially since the S2DT is still a currently offered item. Even if transfers couldn't have been allowed communication between the two platforms for scheduling could have been built in, or the ability to pull shows from S2 boxes, just not send.

In reading the S3 forum it's looking like a real CLUSTER for some people and I hope it all works out ok for them. I do know however that if even 10% of the TiVo installs have issues once the early adopters are done, it's going to be bad for TiVo. TiVo can't afford the negative press and consumer feelings about a premium product with so many potential issues.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

Both TTG and MRV are specifically listed by TiVo as in-plan for the S3.

Can't post URLs yet, but if you look at the featured threads on the TiVo support forum, you'll find a link.

"We expect that a version of TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing features will be made available for the TiVo Series3 HD DVR in the future."


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

My bad... I am not the greatest typist around...

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's aide advised me personally that she much prefers FAX's and E-mails.

All "snail mail" sent to her office either in Texas or Washington D.C. Takes *3 weeks * to process before *ANY* of her staff have the chance to read it.

This is becase all "Snail mail" is now scanned & checked for anything that could be considered dangerous. Example the possibility of Anthrax, or any other deadly harmfull chemical or biological agent.

I would also probably make and make a guess too that other Senators & Congressmen have the same policy.

At one time hand written letters did have more powerfull inpact on those we sent them too. Things have changed since post 9/11. Email & Fax's tend to be the safest form of communication.

As far as my typing/spelling go. The letter that will be posted in the near future not only will be checked for typo's, spelling errors, grammatical errors, but like I said is also currently under review by a lawyer for legality issues as well.

What I would like to know, is how many out there are willing to support me?

TexasGrillChef


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> TiVo could have controlled the issues that they had access to better however, by making certain the S3's worked with existing product, especially since the S2DT is still a currently offered item. Even if transfers couldn't have been allowed communication between the two platforms for scheduling could have been built in, or the ability to pull shows from S2 boxes, just not send.


Agreed with the first part, although, that will probably take some major coding (and assuming the necessary computing power is in the S3). As far as the ability to pull shows from the S2 boxes, I think they would still need to prove to CableLabs that having that code in there wouldn't allow someone to make a hack to allow full capabilities. Hence the complete shutdown of those capabilities for now just to get the S3 to market.



Stormspace said:


> In reading the S3 forum it's looking like a real CLUSTER for some people and I hope it all works out ok for them. I do know however that if even 10% of the TiVo installs have issues once the early adopters are done, it's going to be bad for TiVo. TiVo can't afford the negative press and consumer feelings about a premium product with so many potential issues.


I have to believe an easy 95% of the S3 install issues have been either cablecard installation (bad cards, authorization, programming) and some small percentage has probably been bad cable signal. The S3 itself hasn't actually been proven to have any high number of serious defects.

Anyways, that is my 2¢


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Leo_N said:


> I have to believe an easy 95% of the S3 install issues have been either cablecard installation (bad cards, authorization, programming) and some small percentage has probably been bad cable signal. The S3 itself hasn't actually been proven to have any high number of serious defects.


Whether you are correct or not, it doesn't change the fact that installation can be a barrier to adoption. If people perceive that the installation issues are troublesome and not worth it for the money they are paying, then adoption will slow.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Whether you are correct or not, it doesn't change the fact that installation can be a barrier to adoption. If people perceive that the installation issues are troublesome and not worth it for the money they are paying, then adoption will slow.


Agreed, but I think the cable companies are only going to get better at cablecard installs from here on out. We have so many threads on this board about installers doing either their first cablecard installs or not having any luck with previous (i.e. cable cards in TVs) installs. This Series3 rollout is probably a hell of a crash course in cablecard installs throughout the country. And while the S3 penetration is relatively small, there are going to be alot more capable after this first month or two. And I might add more importantly, the people on the other end of the phone who plug in the numbers and send out the hits on the cards are going to be much better also.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

I'm afraid there is no incentive for cable to work out the cablecard issues untill they are foced themselves to use cablecards. Hopefully the June 2007 deadline sticks...


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I'm afraid there is no incentive for cable to work out the cablecard issues untill they are foced themselves to use cablecards. Hopefully the June 2007 deadline sticks...


There is some incentive when they are charging a nominal truck roll fee, and having to have their techs out their for hours on end. That is losing a decent bit of money. Plus even if they do nothing, the cable installers are going to get better out of sheer practice.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Leo_N said:


> There is some incentive when they are charging a nominal truck roll fee, and having to have their techs out their for hours on end. That is losing a decent bit of money. Plus even if they do nothing, the cable installers are going to get better out of sheer practice.


I agree about the practice bit but you are giving them waayyyy too much credit to run their businesses effectively.

A good percentage of cablecard installs equals writting down numbers plugging cards in writting down more numbers calling the head end and having them hit the card. Rather rinse repeat with card 2. If they cared about thir labor costs they would allow 1 attempt at self install and if you couldn't do it then send a truck with a "professional" to try it. The installers do NOTHING at the customer premises since it's a unidirectional thing. They basically physically plug cards in and read numbers to the head end. It's totally idiotic to pay someone to do that when the customer will do it for free- even if you are only paying your people $6 or $8 an hour.

That aside nothing else cable does makes sense for their labor costs. I switched from directv to cable's triple play the day my tivo S3 arrived. I wanted to get my old phone number ported. My local dink telco wont give up the numbers for 15 days. So they had to give me a cable phone number and then later get my old number ported at least 15 days later. They insisted upon scheduling a tech to come to my house to port the number. Again the guy did nothing but call dispatch and tell them to port the number. He did nothing at all in my home since the original installer already but in the modem and hooked up the phone. (well he did have me call his cell phone to confirm the new ported number came up on his caller id-LOL) They totally just threw away the cost of a service call here.

I'm sure some of the cable companies are run like efficient businesses but I've just never seen one myself.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

Heres some interesting news.

Even though Blu-Ray recorders ARE available for computers. Thereby allowing you to make a blu-ray dvd of your home movies.

There is a DELAY on the releasing of stand alone blu-ray recorders. I have a freind on the "inside" and Samsung, as well as Sony, & Pioneer have delayed release of their Blu-Ray recorders.

Why you ask? It falls along the same scope as why we don't have TTNG & MRV & eSata (External storage) on our Tivo's or anyone elses Cablecard DVR and to a certain extent even DVR's that are provided by cable &/or satallite companies.

*Content providers do not like the idea of consumers recording HD content that could easily be pirated or shared with users that have not PAID for the content.*

That my freinds is the ONLY reason we are having issues with MRV, TTG, External storage, or saveing to Blu-Ray DVD.

It isn't up to TIVO. Its currently what CONTENT Providers are pressureing CableLabs Inc.

Until Content providers get some sort of reasurance that "pirating" can be prevented. We will continue to have issues "Sharing" recorded HD content. In ANY format!

Think about that.

I would love to hear others views on this thought.

TexasGrillChef


----------



## kbs (May 15, 2004)

This other thread:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=316588

Has an interesting dicsussion of future CableCard2.0 OCAP set-top boxes, which basically run the software from the cable provider. (Seems like a way for the cableco to claim compliance with the letter of cableCard law, while still maintaining a monopoly over the experience of using the cable service).

Anyway, they listed this link to a PVRWire interview with a Motorola exec:
http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/10/07/motorola-talks-ocap/

In it, he basically says that Motorola OCAP boxes are aiming to have multi-room viewing and allow transcoding to cellphones and the like (basically TTG).

So, if the cableCo's own settop manufacturer (Motorola) is pushing for MVR and TTG, in future OCAP STB's, then maybe Tivo has a chance of getting their MVR and TTG through cableLAbs as well....

-kbs


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Leo_N said:


> The S3 itself hasn't actually been proven to have any high number of serious defects.


Defects aren't the issue -- robustness is the issue. That's often the case with high technology which interacts with external systems.


----------



## DCXTivoGuy (Feb 6, 2005)

Ok I have a questions. If they gave us MRV and we still have a Series 2 Tivo unit, wouldn't you be able to transfer the content to the series 2 from the series 3 and then download it with Tivo2Go?

Just a thought.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

TexasGrillChef said:


> *Content providers do not like the idea of consumers recording HD content that could easily be pirated or shared with users that have not PAID for the content.*


that has been the battle line for more than a year now. It is also a large part of why I stay in the SD world that they have given up on. Also why I give pirates or "fair use" people who say it extends to giving HBO show copies to friends a hard time. If that practice was not so prevelant then the concern over HD would not be so great. Of course Human Nature dictates that we will have to endure a battle over HD and the real Fair Use of watching a show we paid for how we wnat, when we want and where we want


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

DCXTivoGuy said:


> Ok I have a questions. If they gave us MRV and we still have a Series 2 Tivo unit, wouldn't you be able to transfer the content to the series 2 from the series 3 and then download it with Tivo2Go?
> 
> Just a thought.


This would be one way to get unprotected content off the S3. If the content is protected as copy once or copy never there would need to be a way to prevent this from occurring. They could prevent unauthorized distribution of protected content by either 1) not allowing protected content off the S3 or 2) certifying that the content can only go to an S2 and that S2 is certified to properly protect the content. Since the S2 is not likely under review by CableLabs, I would bet my money on 1. Note I am only referring to protected content. This verification of proper content protection is precisely why CableLabs needs to give their blessing to MRV before it is allowed.


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

Even one way transfer of shows from Series 2 to Series 3 would be useful to me.


----------



## Bighouse (Sep 3, 2004)

DCXTivoGuy said:


> Ok I have a questions. If they gave us MRV and we still have a Series 2 Tivo unit, wouldn't you be able to transfer the content to the series 2 from the series 3 and then download it with Tivo2Go?
> 
> Just a thought.


I have a Series 1, 2 and 3 now...I've never been able to use MRV and was looking forward to being able to use it with my S2/3 units. I don't really care about TTG. How does MRV work though? It would seem to me that you're not really tranferring data from one unit to another, but simply accessing the data across your home network...or is this NOT the case? I really don't' want to duplicate my data on two hard drives.


----------



## Bodshal (Jan 4, 2005)

Bighouse said:


> I have a Series 1, 2 and 3 now...I've never been able to use MRV and was looking forward to being able to use it with my S2/3 units. I don't really care about TTG. How does MRV work though? It would seem to me that you're not really tranferring data from one unit to another, but simply accessing the data across your home network...or is this NOT the case? I really don't' want to duplicate my data on two hard drives.


It duplicates it - it's kind of like "recording" the show from the other DVR the way it's implemented.

Chris.


----------



## Bighouse (Sep 3, 2004)

Bodshal said:


> It duplicates it - it's kind of like "recording" the show from the other DVR the way it's implemented.
> 
> Chris.


Is it possible to push that kind of content across a LAN? Seems like they could eliminate any concerns about "duplicating" or "copying" for MRV and DRM if you didn't actually write the data to anyplace other than ONE location.

What kind of bandwidth would an HD show streaming across a network require???


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Bighouse said:


> Is it possible to push that kind of content across a LAN? Seems like they could eliminate any concerns about "duplicating" or "copying" for MRV and DRM if you didn't actually write the data to anyplace other than ONE location.
> 
> What kind of bandwidth would an HD show streaming across a network require???


I think by just pushing the straight content, that would make it easier to pirate the content. As you would just need something at the other end grabbing that feed. With the regular transfer method, it still has any encryption TiVo places on it intact when it reaches its new destination.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bighouse said:


> What kind of bandwidth would an HD show streaming across a network require???


More then most wireless networks have. The reason TiVo implimented the system the way they did is because it allows for slower networks to still be capable of accessing the feature. If they went for a streaming approach then they would need a guarantee of at least 20Mbps for an HDTV stream. Add in the fact that it actually possible to be sending and receiving a stream simultaneously, and making a daily call, and you would be hitting the top of the practical throughput of a 100baseT network. (real world performance of a 10/100 network is about 48Mbps)

Dan


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Bodshal said:


> It duplicates it - it's kind of like "recording" the show from the other DVR the way it's implemented.
> 
> Chris.


I'm curious if they might make a change to comply with cable flags. Rather then copy the file, maybe they will make an option to 'move' it.

Such a system would give you more options with copy resticted flags.


----------



## snathanb (Sep 13, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> More then most wireless networks have. The reason TiVo implimented the system the way they did is because it allows for slower networks to still be capable of accessing the feature. If they went for a streaming approach then they would need a guarantee of at least 20Mbps for an HDTV stream. Add in the fact that it actually possible to be sending and receiving a stream simultaneously, and making a daily call, and you would be hitting the top of the practical throughput of a 100baseT network. (real world performance of a 10/100 network is about 48Mbps)
> 
> Dan


Dan, from my experience that number is not correct. While I will openly conceed that the actual throughput of a wireless network is roughly half the rated speed (for example roughly 25 Mbit on a 802.11g network), I consistenly get throughput on my 100BaseT network of just over 90 Mbs, particulary when streaming video using UDP.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's aide advised me personally that she much prefers FAX's and E-mails.
> 
> All "snail mail" sent to her office either in Texas or Washington D.C. Takes *3 weeks * to process before *ANY* of her staff have the chance to read it.
> ...


I have sent my Rep several emails about technology issues and I always get a response saying "give me an written letter so I can forward it to the FCC." But his office is not ... ahem.. technologically driven.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I'd tend to agree with that throughput estimate ... Almost always over 60/70MBPS on a wired connection in 100MBPS duplex mode. I rarely see 90+, but then again i have all cheap/commodity/on-sale hardware


----------



## bown (Nov 4, 2006)

I've been thinking about MRV for a bit now, and the usefulness seems questionable, at least going ffrom S3 to S2.

A normal non-hacked Series 2 is either 40 or 80 gigs. A normal one hour HD recording is around 10 gigs. Is it even worth taking up that much of the hard drive for the convience of whatching it on a different unit.

Is the Series 2 even capable of playing a series 3 HD broadcast? I just wonder if the hardware and software is up to it.

Also the transfer time is going to be just rediculous. Right now a transfer takes a little more than realtime. ~1:20 to transfer a 1 hr show. That means that an HD broadcast will take around 10 hours to transfer.

I think the only part of this that may be useful is to 1. transfer ONLY S2 to S3 and 2. transfer S3 to PC for shows that you really like to burn to DVD.


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

bown said:


> I've been thinking about MRV for a bit now, and the usefulness seems questionable, at least going ffrom S3 to S2.
> 
> A normal non-hacked Series 2 is either 40 or 80 gigs. A normal one hour HD recording is around 10 gigs. Is it even worth taking up that much of the hard drive for the convience of whatching it on a different unit.
> 
> ...


Well there is also transfer from S3 to S3. Also your transfer times seem pretty slow for even an S2 and I'd imagine the S3 might even be quicker (at least over wired). I know my S2 to S2 transfer times were much faster than realtime (i.e. I could easily watch a recording while being transferred and even start skipping commercials a bit into the program.) This is with a wired setup though, no experience with a wireless setup on my S2, so I suppose YMMV.


----------



## snathanb (Sep 13, 2006)

bown said:


> Is the Series 2 even capable of playing a series 3 HD broadcast? I just wonder if the hardware and software is up to it.


I seriously doubt it. However, I would mind being able to transfer my S2 stuff to the S3.


----------



## bown (Nov 4, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> This is with a wired setup though, no experience with a wireless setup on my S2, so I suppose YMMV.


yeah, sadly I have to use a wireless setup, and the signal strength isn't ever great. Perhaps someday wireless N will work with Tivo and my setup will be better.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

snathanb said:


> I seriously doubt it. However, I would mind being able to transfer my S2 stuff to the S3.


For me getting an S3 will entirely depend on how well it integrates with my existing S2's. We use MRV all the time to handle conflicts and we have just been able to eliminate these by adding the two tuners on a S2DT. We record in three rooms and watch from any other depending on where we have to be at a given time. My wife working while I'm cooking, we transfer to the computer room where the line is split to show in the Kitchen as well. Turning in early, we transfer to the bedroom. Want to watch one of our shows in the Den, transfer from the Bedroom. Ideally an S3 in any of these rooms would need to be able to play back the S2 content and vice versa. Realistically though, getting S3 content to play on an S2 might not be possible unless their was some type of analog filter you could run the HD show through before it transferred. I'd be ok with this even if it tied up one of the tuners in the process.

Otherwise transferring HD shows on a wireless LAN would require some planning, so restricting HD transfers probably wouldn't be a big deal since most people wouldn't want to wait 8 hours to watch a show in another room.

On another note: We transfer so many shows back and forth between TiVo's that in my house I've had to set up my old Wireless B router as an access point with a separate SSID so that my son's PS2 games don't lag out because of WLAN saturation. In effect I'm running two wireless networks.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

An interesting letter was filed with the FCC on November 7, 2006 proposing an alternative to the Cablecard 2.0 proposal for how interactive services shall be supported in third party devices. The letter was signed by Intel, Sony, Microsoft, Dell, Sharp, Pioneer, JVC, Toshiba, Philips, Hitachi... basically all the heavyweights in the CE area interested in Cablecard devices.

They state that any future standard is unacceptable if it does not meet a set of principles they outline in the letter. The very first principle is:

"Consumers should be able to view, move, store, and access cable content that they legally obtain without restriction, other than as necessary to protect theft of service, electronic or physical harm to the network, and in accordance with reasonable content protection requirements."​
So it is not just Tivo driving this principle of video fluidity.

TTG and MRV on S3 is inevitable. Resistance is Futile.

Source: The filing is available on the Internet from the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)-go to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and enter 97-80 (this is the docket number of the proceeding) into box 1 ("Proceeding"), and 11-07-2006 in the Date recieved from and to dates.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

Unfortunately, the "reasonable" in "reasonable content protection" could be taken several ways by different people (say, the media cartel vs. consumers). If the FCC wanted to help with that statement, they could be a little more specific.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

MichaelK said:


> I'm afraid there is no incentive for cable to work out the cablecard issues untill they are foced themselves to use cablecards.


This is the sad truth.



> Hopefully the June 2007 deadline sticks...


Me too. It's very important to the adoption/success of CableCARD technology. For whatever it's worth, I'm planning on submitting my dissatisfaction if the date is extended.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

Well, this sounds great, but we still don't know what the FCC will do with this. There are still movie studio lobbyists and cable lobbyists out there and money talks.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Whoops, editted this post because I quoted a 2 month old one.

Good news.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Maeglin said:


> Unfortunately, the "reasonable" in "reasonable content protection" could be taken several ways by different people (say, the media cartel vs. consumers). If the FCC wanted to help with that statement, they could be a little more specific.


Nope. The letter is pretty interesting really. The first is a cover letter, the second goes into a little more depth. The two attachments have the details of the proposal. In the brief summary of proposals in the second letter, the CEA and these companies ask that the FCC immediately require Cablelabs to modify the cablecard host agreement (CHILA) to allow all current and future output protection formats approved by DNLA. DNLA is a CE industry controlled entity and takes into consideration the content protection concerns studios and has approved both DTCP/IP (intel's) and WMDRM (microsoft's)... Various folks here have speculated that the processor and memory available in the S3 is capable of supporting DTCP. Interoperability with S2's is a persuasive reason for remaining with Tivo's output protection format.

The interesting question then becomes not what Tivo has submitted to Cablelabs but whether Tivo has submitted their protection format to DNLA for approval.

Anyway, the "reasonableness" judgement would be taken out of the hands of the cableco's. According to the letter, the CEA and big gun companies propose that "output protection technologies should be approved or not approved by CableLabs only on the basis of their ability to protect against physical harm to the cable network and the theft of cable service."

Heck- you have the largest software company, the largest chip provider, dominant CE companies like Sony and Philips.

Cablelabs does not have a good hand to play.


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Since when has that ever stopped the content providers? You can't even legally backup a DVD no matter what, due to the DMCA. You've got the Broadcast flag, etc. Just because a bunch of CE companies don't like it, doesn't really mean anything. We'll probably end up with an MS "play for sure" where you CAN move it around ---provided the "whatever" you move it to supports the nasty DRM they put in play on it. You SHOULD be able to watch your Blue Ray or HDVD via component without downgrading the resolution (you currently can) but that didn't stop the content providers from putting something in there that'll let them do this.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Their content; their rules. In the end, all this stuff, DCMA, DRM, etc., are just tools they can use to enforce the terms of the sale of license to view their content, but they can legitimately put any tenets into the contract they wish, and our only legitimate option as buyers would be to simply not buy their product. If we want what they have to sell, we morally have to comply with their terms and conditions. Live without content if you wish to have full control over what you view.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

Three words for you bicker.

Betamax. Fair Use.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

bicker said:


> Their content; their rules. In the end, all this stuff, DCMA, DRM, etc., are just tools they can use to enforce the terms of the sale of license to view their content, but they can legitimately put any tenets into the contract they wish, and our only legitimate option as buyers would be to simply not buy their product. If we want what they have to sell, we morally have to comply with their terms and conditions. Live without content if you wish to have full control over what you view.


Once again you've used several irrational responses including statements no one has even questioned.

Let's break them down:

1. "Their content, their rules". False. Proven numerous times in case law.
2. "They can legitimately put any tenets into the contract they wish". While technically true, any tenets that violate the law have no bearing and sometimes render the whole contract void. So they can put them in their contract, but we don't have to obey them if they violate the law.
3. "If we want what they have to sell, we morally have to comply with their terms and conditions". See above. I am not morally obligated to comply with a contract's terms and conditions if they violate public policy. For example, if my employer had me sign a non compete when I joined that said I can't work for any client they have or any client in the state for 20 years, I do not have to comply with that, because it is a violation of state law regarding non-compete. And by definition is it immoral for them to put it in there since it is illegal.
4. "Live without content..." aka "My way or the highway". Nice try. That argument never works. "If you don't like unsafe, parasite-riddled, contaminated, rotten meat, then don't buy our meat. You have a choice. If you don't like it, eat only vegetables".

Regardless of all of the above, even if they were all true instead of all false, it wouldn't change the fact that we as customers do not like this situation and therefore are discussing it. So the entire basic point you are raising, which is, "shut up, it's their content", makes no sense and has little bearing on this entire conversation. Please move on. We get it... you think they can do whatever they want.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Justin Thyme said:


> Three words for you bicker. Betamax Fair Use


Three words for you Justin: George W. Bush. Another three: Democratic Leadership Council.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> So the entire basic point you are raising, which is, "shut up, it's their content", makes no sense and has little bearing on this entire conversation. Please move on. We get it... you think they can do whatever they want.


And you can think whatever you want. I won't move on as long as transgressive behavior is advocated on the forum. Disrespect for the rights of others is rampant enough in our society without such self-serving nonsense having an unrebutted soapbox.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Mar 29, 2005)

The links in my note provide information about why your arguments are mistaken. Placing your faith in political heroes is also mistaken- especially if their interests do not coincide with yours on the issue you are discussing. Are you on the side of the red coat representative from Redmond, or the blue coat legislator from Los Angeles? You gotta ask yourself who the major industry players are, and which politicians represent their interests. 

Are they for data fluidity in the home or not?


----------

