# Copy Protection Flags - HBO etc...



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

I have received a letter in the mail today in response to a complaint that I made to HBO in regards to the Copy Protection flag used on their HBO channels. (HD & SD).

The long & short of it is this & is direct from HBO: (Summarized)

--------------------------

HBO isn't putting any "Copy Protection" flags on the content they broadcast from their studios &/or production facilities.

Copy protection flags on content being shown on any of the HBO channels is being put their solely by the Cable/Sat provider.

Some cable/sat providers are doing this, there are few that aren't. Whether or not copy protection flags are being used by your cable/sat provider on HBO channels & it's content are determined soley by the contract that your cable/sat provider has with HBO.

HBO now has a policy for all new contracts that will require cable/sat providers to use Copy Protection flags on all of their channels & for all of the content shown on HBO.

Therefore as old contracts expire & new contracts are negotiated you will find a greater use of copy protection flags being used on HBO.

---------------------

As I have mentioned in another thread about "True Blood" how some episodes that I recorded had the copy protection flag and other episodes did not. This happening on 2 Tivo units (S3 & HD). The reason for this is "Glitches" &/or errrors in the transmission signal of the show.

So there you have it folks.... If your HBO isn't copy protected currently feel lucky. It *WON'T *last long.

I have also written ESPN networks, as well as Sci-Fi (which btw is owned & opperated by NBC/Universal).

HDNET which is partially owned by our own Dallas Mark Cuban has said many times that his channels do not use copy protection from it's production facilities. The management at HDNET as well as Mark Cuban discourages use of Copy Protection, However in the contracts they *DO* give the right for the cable/sat providers to copy protect if they so wish.

My educated guess is the following: That eventually all digital content except for the local digital feeds (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, PBS, etc...) will eventually all have copy protection flags.

So if you don't have copy protection on your favorite cable/sat only networks. Feel lucky!

TGC


----------



## TolloNodre (Nov 3, 2007)

1. That sucks as I currently record a ton off of HBO.
2. What financial incentive would a cable/sat company have to flag it? To force viewers to PPV?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> HBO now has a policy for all new contracts that will require cable/sat providers to use Copy Protection flags on all of their channels & for all of the content shown on HBO.
> 
> Therefore as old contracts expire & new contracts are negotiated you will find a greater use of copy protection flags being used on HBO.


The same is true for quite a few other channels.

By the time it becomes widespread for non-premium channels, hopefully TiVo will have a MRV solution in place that allows streaming without copying, which is permitted on copyrighted content.



TolloNodre said:


> 1. That sucks as I currently record a ton off of HBO.
> 2. What financial incentive would a cable/sat company have to flag it? To force viewers to PPV?


I don't know if you're familiar with p2p or torrents, but HBO and others are currently loosing millions of dollars per quarter as the result of Internet piracy on their original content. Every week, hundreds of thousands of people download these shows (illegally) off the Internet, presumably to avoid the cost of a HBO subscription.


----------



## jcaudle (Aug 16, 2004)

Cox Northern virginia here in Fairfax country puts these flags on all HBO content, but you can transfer Showtime Content to your heart's content. There are no flags on any Showtime content. Doesn't make any sense


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

All the more reason for Tivo to stream between units instead of copy....

[NG]Owner


----------



## jackholexxxx (Feb 6, 2004)

bkdtv said:


> I don't know if you're familiar with p2p or torrents, but HBO and others are currently loosing millions of dollars per quarter as the result of Internet piracy on their original content. Every week, hundreds of thousands of people download these shows (illegally) off the Internet, presumably to avoid the cost of a HBO subscription.


And copy protection flags will do nothing to stop piracy.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080330105714AAdudrv


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

jcaudle said:


> Cox Northern virginia here in Fairfax country puts these flags on all HBO content, but you can transfer Showtime Content to your heart's content. There are no flags on any Showtime content. Doesn't make any sense


Probably has something to do with the contracts & when they were last renewed/updated. Thus HBO was updated and Showtime hasn't. Also possible Showtime has a different policy as well.

TGC


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> I don't know if you're familiar with p2p or torrents, but HBO and others are currently loosing millions of dollars per quarter as the result of Internet piracy on their original content.


Although corporations often make statements similar to this, it's total nonsense. They aren't losing a single penny. By this twisted logic, theya re also "losing" hundreds of millions of dollars to the millions of people who don't subscribe to HBO but also don't illegally download content, not to mention the millions of people who have Showtime, Cinemax, TMC, or Starz rather than HBO. I'm not defending piracy, but the notion vendors such as HBO, Showtime, the music industry, etc. are losing money due to piracy is just horse crap.



bkdtv said:


> Every week, hundreds of thousands of people download these shows (illegally) off the Internet, presumably to avoid the cost of a HBO subscription.


I presume nothing of the sort. The vast majority do so because they want the content. That they prefer not to pay for it is incidental. While it is not completely unlikely that HBO's subscriptions would increase if pirated material were not available, significant fractions - perhaps even most - of those engaged in pirating would either do without or obtain the content from some other vendor if pirating were not an option. Without question, HBO's revenues would not increase by the amount they claim to be "losing" if piracy were not being accomplished.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> I presume nothing of the sort. The vast majority do so because they want the content. That they prefer not to pay for it is incidental. While it is not completely unlikely that HBO's subscriptions would increase if pirated material were not available, significant fractions - perhaps even most - of those engaged in pirating would either do without or obtain the content from some other vendor if pirating were not an option. Without question, HBO's revenues would not increase by the amount they claim to be "losing" if piracy were not being accomplished.


HBO loses money when a customer cancels their subscription.

When users can get the content online for free, they feel less need to pay for it. Why would you continue paying for something that you can get for free online [if piracy doesn't bother you]? I don't think there is any question that HBO loses money due to piracy, although I agree that the amount is difficult to quantify, and probably much less than studios claim.

As a practical matter, I agree that copy protection has little value given the number of hacked boxes out in the market. At best, it would only reduce the number of offenders, potentially delaying the time before a particular program was available online.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

bkdtv said:


> HBO loses money when a customer cancels their subscription.
> 
> When users can get the content online for free, they feel less need to pay for it. Why would you continue paying for something that you can get for free online [if piracy doesn't bother you]? I don't think there is any question that HBO loses money due to piracy, although I agree that the amount is difficult to quantify, and probably much less than studios claim.
> 
> As a practical matter, I agree that copy protection has little value given the number of hacked boxes out in the market. At best, it would only reduce the number of offenders, potentially delaying the time before a particular program was available online.


It is true... when someone cancels their HBO subscription, they have lost revenue.

I have a subscription to HBO, yet sometimes still download "Bootleg" copies of certain shows.

Why do I keep my subscription? Why do I download the bootleg copies still?

I keep my subscription because downloads even in HD transfered back to the TiVo are just NOT the same quality (Audio & Video) that I get directly from the HBO source recorded on my TiVo HD/S3 unit. Many shows I wish to watch on my Plasma.

Now why I do still download bootleg copies? Because HBO is copy protecting their content and I am UNABLE to transfer from my TiVo to a Video device of my choosing. Therefor I must obtain the bootleg copy. I have allready PAID my subscription fees, & should NOT have to pay any additional fee to be able to play the show on additional video devices that I own for my own personal non commercial use.

*MOST* HBO movies & shows are released to DVD/Blu-ray either a short period after airing, or for series after the season ends. As we all know one can *EASILY* "RIP" the video from a DVD/Blu-ray to play on our personal video devices. *SOME* Blu-rays even COME with a "Digital Transfer Copy".

While I agree that HBO loses some amount of possible revenue from pirating. They aren't losing near the amount they claim. HBO hasn't lost anything from someone downloading a show & watching it. Especially if that person will NEVER subscribe to HBO even if they WEREN"T able to watch that show.

*One other point... what difference is it between someone downloading that show & watching it... and me inviting them over & watching it? Hmmmm maybe they shouldn't allow subscribers to allow their guests to watch HBO because their guests haven't paid the subscription fees?*

Therefore... there isn't much difference between an individual downloading that show & watching it, & that person watching it on a freind or family who does have an HBO subscription. Either way he is watching the show & not paying for it.

TGC


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...My educated guess is the following: That eventually all digital content except for the local digital feeds (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, PBS, etc...) will eventually all have copy protection flags...


Guess again.

I've been getting "no dub" flags on a storebought DVR that's hooked up to an antenna.

Repeatedly stuff aired on NBC and The CW (picked up _by ANTENNA_) have been flagged so that while the hard drive will record it, I can't transfer it to DVD.

I've heard of it happening on FOX network shows too.

Royally annoying.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Now why I do still download bootleg copies? Because HBO is copy protecting their content and I am UNABLE to transfer from my TiVo to a Video device of my choosing. Therefor I must obtain the bootleg copy. I have allready PAID my subscription fees, & should NOT have to pay any additional fee to be able to play the show on additional video devices that I own for my own personal non commercial use.


The fact is though, your subscription to HBO doesn't legally entitle you to a 3rd party download for free. HBO considers that download a loss, regardless of if you subscribe to their channels.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

gastrof said:


> Guess again.
> 
> Repeatedly stuff aired on NBC and The CW (picked up _by ANTENNA_) have been flagged so that while the hard drive will record it, I can't transfer it to DVD.
> 
> I've heard of it happening on FOX network shows too.


That would suggest that your DVR respects the now defunct broadcast flag. That's not an issue with the TiVoHD, which ignores that flag.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

classicsat said:


> The fact is though, your subscription to HBO doesn't legally entitle you to a 3rd party download for free. HBO considers that download a loss, regardless of if you subscribe to their channels.


HBO neither makes extra money cause someone watched a some specific show on HBO nor pays out money casue someone pirated a show. i agree with the posters who say sub rates would not go up at the same rate as piracy if it was stopped.

Sadly I think the opposite is not true. I think if copies were easier to get for neighbors to pass around then both HBO and the after original airings DVD rentals numbers would decline by small but significant %.

I think the solution is obvious to TiVo as per many examples of Netflix, Hulu, etc.

Stream, baby, Stream


----------



## slude (Feb 9, 2008)

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef :
"...My educated guess is the following: That eventually all digital content except for the local digital feeds (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, PBS, etc...) will eventually all have copy protection flags... "



gastrof said:


> Guess again.
> ...
> Repeatedly stuff aired on NBC and The CW (picked up _by ANTENNA_) have been flagged so that while the hard drive will record it, I can't transfer it to DVD.
> 
> I've heard of it happening on FOX network shows too.


You're confusing cable re-transmissions of OTA signals with the actual OTA signals which your other thread explained why the actual OTA signals will not inevitably have copy protection flags: 


slude said:


> next time you communicate with that "engineer who works at a local TV station", refer him to Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations Part 76 Subpart W Section 1904(a) (I think the lawyers usually cite it as "47CFR76.1904(a)") "Commercial audiovisual content delivered as unencrypted broadcast television shall not be encoded so as to prevent or limit copying thereof by covered products or, to constrain the resolution of the image when output from a covered product." which says that, yes, it is against FCC regs for an OTA station to transmit anti-copy flags over the air and mention that if they don't agree to fix their problem you will report their violation to the FCC. That EFF article I linked to has contact information for some EFF folks who can help you file the FCC report if it comes to that.


As best as I can see from reading 47CFR76, the only thing it has to say about cable operators adding copy protection flags to their re-broadcast of what was originally OTA signals is in 47CFR75.1904(b)(1)(ii) which prohibits them from using the copy-never copy protection flag or the copy-expires flag to such re-broadcasts (if I'm right in interpreting cable re-broadcasts of OTA programming as "free conditional access delivery mechanisms").

Side note -- I find it interesting that the combination of 47CFR76.1904(b)(1)(ii) and 47CFR76.1904(b)(2) appear to prohibit cable systems from applying the copy-expires flag to HBO, Cinemax, etc. unless delivered via VOD or when a specific event is PPV which means recordings of normal HBO programming can't be given the flags that force TiVo to delete them a day or week later.


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Stream, baby, Stream


Tivo's silence on this issue is deafening. 

I'm hoping that they'll be able to upgrade the software in the S2's and S3's to support streaming, but I fear those boxes are too underpowered to do it reliably. I want to upgrade my S2DT to an HD model, but I won't do it until I hear some public commitment from Tivo that they're going to solve this problem with their current boxes.

So, anyone from Tivo care to comment? TivoPony?


----------



## BrianAZ (Aug 13, 2007)

Multi-room viewing is a *great* concept but it's basically worthless if all you can use it with are your local channels. I don't understand why a case can't be made that sharing between Tivo's or CableCo DVRs on the same account and at the same location (surely can be verified by IP address?) is not allowed. Unfortunately it seems like it will be a few years yet before DRM is reworked to make these things possible.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Tivo's silence on this issue is deafening.
> 
> I'm hoping that they'll be able to upgrade the software in the S2's and S3's to support streaming,


streaming really need mpeg4 or it gets out of hand
The S3 line may well see streaming but I doubt the S2 line will ever see it unless it is from some 3rd party that is willing to stream mpeg 2 for TiVo DVRs to make some money.

I think the mpeg 4 needed is the hold up. It would be hard to either take mpeg2 digital and convert it to write to drive as mpeg4 or else take mpeg 2 file and convert to mepg4 for streaming. I can not imagine the hiccups in trying to stream an mpeg2 HD file.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Tivo's silence on this issue is deafening.
> 
> I'm hoping that they'll be able to upgrade the software in the S2's and S3's to support streaming, but I fear those boxes are too underpowered to do it reliably. I want to upgrade my S2DT to an HD model, but I won't do it until I hear some public commitment from Tivo that they're going to solve this problem with their current boxes.
> 
> So, anyone from Tivo care to comment? TivoPony?


 Streaming to Series 3 (S3 & THD) boxes is now unofficially there (since 9.4 release) via HME interface. The biggest problem is that the Tivo is still the bottleneck and it suffers from the TTG/TTCB transfer rate ceiling of around 10 Mbps no matter how good your network is. So with a 10 Mbps ceiling it makes good quality HD mpeg2 streaming pretty worthless as you have to wait quite a while for the buffer to build up long enough on the Tivo to be able to watch without interruption. A solution to that is to re-encode to mpeg4 container with H.264 video & AC3 audio which can be streamed to Series 3 boxes and cuts down the bitrate needed to achieve same quality, but the problem is re-encoding to H.264 is a very time-consuming process.
I really wish Tivo could
1. Improve the network performance for TTG/TTCB/HME streaming (at least make it so MRV type speeds can be achieved)
2. Add streaming capability via HMO

As it is now streaming of SD mpeg2 really works great though so that's at least a step in the right direction. Streaming of mpeg4 (HD & SD) works pretty well as well but the specific requirements of the mpeg4 container are very restrictive and there is not a lot of content ready to go in that format right now so it makes you have to work hard to encode to that format.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

classicsat said:


> The fact is though, your subscription to HBO doesn't legally entitle you to a 3rd party download for free. HBO considers that download a loss, regardless of if you subscribe to their channels.


Of course it isn't legal, technically. They shouldn't still consider it a loss though. They haven't lost anything. Not unless I start selling it. That's the point alot of us are making about loss from pirating in other threads. You can't lose something you never had in the first place.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

BrianAZ said:


> Multi-room viewing is a *great* concept but it's basically worthless if all you can use it with are your local channels. I don't understand why a case can't be made that sharing between Tivo's or CableCo DVRs on the same account and at the same location (surely can be verified by IP address?) is not allowed. Unfortunately it seems like it will be a few years yet before DRM is reworked to make these things possible.


I totally and 100% agree with you. We *SHOULD* be allowed to move shows we have recorded around on the DVR's that we currently own in a houshold on the same network.

Sadly, I think the only thing that will force this to happen is through legislation from our government. Something that won't happen if democrats are in charge. Thats another issue... but I digress.

I posted the original post as to inform people of the way things SEEM to be going. Especially with "Premium" based channels/networks such as HBO.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

NotVeryWitty said:


> Tivo's silence on this issue is deafening.
> 
> I'm hoping that they'll be able to upgrade the software in the S2's and S3's to support streaming, but I fear those boxes are too underpowered to do it reliably. I want to upgrade my S2DT to an HD model, but I won't do it until I hear some public commitment from Tivo that they're going to solve this problem with their current boxes.
> 
> So, anyone from Tivo care to comment? TivoPony?


I love the idea of Streaming. I love the idea of hopefully having steaming be a capability of a TiVo box, either in current units or in future units as well.

HOWEVER... I don't think "hardware" is quite up to the task of doing it well enough yet.

Why do I say that?

I have the netflix/Roku streaming box. There are "*ISSUES*"! I don't know if the issues are with Netflix, the Roku box, my home network, or the internet. But something isn't quite right.

I have a full wired Gigabit home network, Cisco buisness grade mangaged switch & router. My internet is with a TWC cable modem. My cable modem speeds are averaging 20mpbs down, 5mpbs up.

Yet occasionally there are still "Issues". I have the slingbox as well and soon will have the Slingbox pro-hd and the slingcatcher as well. I even have issues with "Slinging" sometimes.

One other point about STREAMING vs Copy.... Streaming would be good from DVR to DVR. Streaming CAN'T work from your DVR to your Ipod, or other video device. You need copy/move for that. Yes, a slingbox can stream to other devices, but to use a slingbox you need either a slingcatcher &/or a device that will run the sling software.

TGC


----------



## NotVeryWitty (Oct 3, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> streaming really need mpeg4 or it gets out of hand
> The S3 line may well see streaming but I doubt the S2 line will ever see it unless it is from some 3rd party that is willing to stream mpeg 2 for TiVo DVRs to make some money.
> 
> I think the mpeg 4 needed is the hold up. It would be hard to either take mpeg2 digital and convert it to write to drive as mpeg4 or else take mpeg 2 file and convert to mepg4 for streaming. I can not imagine the hiccups in trying to stream an mpeg2 HD file.


If Tivo can do MRV of mpeg 2 SD shows at faster than real-time (and of course they can), there should be no reason why they can't do streaming of mpeg 2 SD shows (both Series 2 and Series 3). Even if they can't do streaming of mpeg2 HD shows with their current hardware, they should be doing it for SD.

Now that there seems to be a Tivo solution to the SDV problem with the Tuning Adapter, I believe this is the next big bugaboo that Tivo needs to fix. It's not sufficient to just throw up their hands and say it's not their fault. Before long, the cable company DVRs will all be doing multi-room viewing via streaming (Fios and AT&T are doing it already), and Tivo needs to stay ahead of them.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Of course it isn't legal, technically. They shouldn't still consider it a loss though. They haven't lost anything. Not unless I start selling it. That's the point alot of us are making about loss from pirating in other threads. You can't lose something you never had in the first place.


HBO makes a killing on DVD sets. This is the source of their concerns about transferring and saving HBO content. Even though people who use MRV aren't looking to make copies, they are just caught in the crossfire of this ugly battle.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

moyekj said:


> So with a 10 Mbps ceiling it makes good quality HD mpeg2 streaming pretty worthless as you have to wait quite a while for the buffer to build up long enough on the Tivo to be able to watch without interruption.


Interesting. I've never seen my transfers be that slow unless I'm transferring from my PC and it is transcoding.

Tivo-to-tivo, I get a little under 30Mbps from my S3 to my THD and about 17Mbps from the THD to the S3. Both of those numbers were when one or both of the units were recording. Either direction is sufficient for realtime or faster than realtime for most HD streams. While the full ATSC bitrate is a little over 19Mbps, it's rare for a single program to use the entire thing.

Now, if you're talking about using pyTivo or somesuch to stream a file from another source, you're right, it would be too slow.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

wierdo said:


> Interesting. I've never seen my transfers be that slow unless I'm transferring from my PC and it is transcoding.
> 
> Tivo-to-tivo, I get a little under 30Mbps from my S3 to my THD and about 17Mbps from the THD to the S3. Both of those numbers were when one or both of the units were recording. Either direction is sufficient for realtime or faster than realtime for most HD streams. While the full ATSC bitrate is a little over 19Mbps, it's rare for a single program to use the entire thing.
> 
> Now, if you're talking about using pyTivo or somesuch to stream a file from another source, you're right, it would be too slow.


 Yes I'm not talking about MRV, I'm talking specifically about TTG=Tivo->PC or TTCB=PC->Tivo and video streaming HME->Tivo. All those mechanisms currently seem to have roughly a 10 Mbps ceiling (perhaps sometimes a little higher for S3s) since they seem to require quite a bit of processing on Tivo side and that processing is apparently given very low priority even if you tune the Tivo to channels you don't receive to minimize the work it's doing at the time.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> That would suggest that your DVR respects the now defunct broadcast flag. That's not an issue with the TiVoHD, which ignores that flag.


I am NOT certain but i thought someone posted that the DFAST agreement that Tivo must abide by to get cablelabs approval on the device says they have to abide by the flag.

if that's true then it might just be a bug that gets "fixed" next software update....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

slude said:


> Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef :
> "...My educated guess is the following: That eventually all digital content except for the local digital feeds (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CW, PBS, etc...) will eventually all have copy protection flags... "
> 
> You're confusing cable re-transmissions of OTA signals with the actual OTA signals which your other thread explained why the actual OTA signals will not inevitably have copy protection flags:
> ...


unfortunately i beleive you are incorrect.

I beleive you are referencing the cable regs not the boradcat regs. the rule i think you are pointing at talks about what cable can do to broadcast. The broadcast reg that was about the broadcast flag was overturned by the courts but if the FCC had their way not only would the flag be allowed but ALL DEVICES would have to respect it. That was overturned by the courts.

Incidently the boradcast flag is part of hte ATSC spec.

and if you read more of the multchannel provider regs I believe it says if the station applies the boradcast flag that cable MUST pass it along.

again- I'm not expert but that's my recollection


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

they needn't stream- they could do a file MOVE if I read the cablelabs rules correctly. As long as only one copy is readable at a time it's ok I think.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

47cfr76 is a big mess and you almost have to read the entire thing to make any judgement

on the broadcase flag

76.1909 (b) says :



> Encrypted retransmission. Where a multichannel video programming
> distributor retransmits unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast
> content in encrypted form, such distributor shall, upon demodulation of
> the 8-VSB, 16-VSB, 64-QAM or 256-QAM signal, inspect either the EIT or
> ...


seems to be saying to me that if they encrypt they need to apply CCI bytes and if they dont encrypt they must pass the flag. And they must not add the flag if it doesn't exist.

the (now voided) regulation about the broadcast flag can be found at 47 CFR 73.9002(b)

the version from 2003 when it had not yet been voided by the courts can be found goverment printing office's website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-30007.htm

had fcc had it's way it says:



> Under this system, broadcasters are not required to, but may use
> the ATSC flag for redistribution control purposes only





> Licensees of TV broadcast stations may utilize the redistribution
> control descriptor described in ATSC A/65B: ``ATSC Standard: Program
> and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable
> (Revision B),'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 73.8000) provided
> ...


so the FCC is all for the broadcast flag, it's only that the courts told them to back off on forcing everyone to respect it.

From memory the fcc said that the broadcast flag doesn't say copies aren't allowed. Only that they had to be made securly under approved methods. If I remember furher tivoguard was an fcc approved method for securing content. It's not clear to me if the currnet mrv uses tivoguard or not- the original version when the broadcast flag respecting reg was alive had a hardware dongle that could get blacklisted if it was compromised (again if my memory is correct).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Sadly, I think the only thing that will force this to happen is through legislation from our government. Something that won't happen if democrats are in charge. Thats another issue... but I digress.


That's a very strange thing to say, with the general belief (I can't quite say 'fact', but I do consider it more than a belief) that Republicans are the ones that side with big business... which most people interpret to mean less freedom for the consumer.

(BTW, I'm very right wing on some issues, very left wing on others..)


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

mattack said:


> That's a very strange thing to say, with the general belief (I can't quite say 'fact', but I do consider it more than a belief) that Republicans are the ones that side with big business... which most people interpret to mean less freedom for the consumer.
> 
> (BTW, I'm very right wing on some issues, very left wing on others..)


Well I am like you as well. Some I swing from right to left depending on the issues as well. I am registered as independant.

However, I do beleive while republicans are more so for big business. Sometimes they do protect the consumer as well. Thats why I beleive republicans in office would be more willing to help us on this copy protection issue than democrats.

TGC


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

The stance on this isssue is unlikely to be a deal maker or breaker for either candidate. Having said that...

I find it hard to believe that a candidate who, by his own admission, doesn't know how to use a computer, would understand what is going on with copy protection let alone do anything about it. With that in mind, I would expect a conservative to reflexively think, "When in doubt, lock it down."


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Also, am I wrong that the current Republican administration has generally appointed very pro-business and anti-consumer members of the FCC? 

Al


----------



## wedenton (Jun 13, 2002)

sinanju said:


> The stance on this isssue is unlikely to be a deal maker or breaker for either candidate. Having said that...
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a candidate who, by his own admission, doesn't know how to use a computer, would understand what is going on with copy protection let alone do anything about it. With that in mind, I would expect a conservative to reflexively think, "When in doubt, lock it down."


I certainly agree with your first statement, but I don't find computer usage and copy protection to be related at all. Two different animals.

And think about this - If the bones in your hands and arms were intentionally broken, and your hands were tied behind your back, and your elbows were then forcefully tied together, and then another rope was tied to the rope around your wrists and you were hoisted up into the air and left to hang for hours until your shoulders dislocated, and you received zero medical attention after you were cut down - Would you be able to use a keyboard? Would it be an "admission" to say you can't use a computer?

Sorry for the harshness, but that is the reality of the NVA's favorite torture.

The depths to which the Liberal political activists will stoop just to win an election sickens me.

Sorry if I've offended anyone. Just wanted to get the facts out there.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

I don't think you can generalize here. Copy protection advocates are found on both sides of the aisle. We have plenty of [pro-business] Republicans that advocate copy protection. We also have a number of Democrats in bed with Hollywood that support copy protection.

Some of the most well-known copy protection advocates are, not surprisingly, from California. And many of those are Democrats, simply because that is a more diverse state that tends to lean left.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> HBO loses money when a customer cancels their subscription.


No, they just are no longer receiving it. Now if the customer takes a gun and holds up one of HBO's couriers, then they have lost money, but by the logic of the spin doctors who stand in front of congress and the public, the company for which I work is losing some 200 billion dollars a quarter, my company being the little guy in a group of very large companies, our share of the more than 800 billion dollar annual revenue of the sector being only 1 billion dollars. How dare those thieves arrive on the scene more than 100 years before we did and then not go instantly bankrupt the moment we started our business!



bkdtv said:


> When users can get the content online for free, they feel less need to pay for it. Why would you continue paying for something that you can get for free online [if piracy doesn't bother you]?


Well, there are a number of reasons, but it's not really the point. The point is, most consumers who obtain content from pirates are either going to obtain the content "free", or not bother at all. Of the remainder, some would obtain the content from HBO, but others would obtain it from video rentals, used DVDs, or HBO's competitors.



bkdtv said:


> I don't think there is any question that HBO loses money due to piracy, although I agree that the amount is difficult to quantify, and probably much less than studios claim.


That's assuming HBO would recover that differential, rather than it being picked up by alternative venues, or just not being traded at all. The main point, however is that even if HBO would double its profit in the absence of pirating, they still have not "lost" the differential, any more than they "lose" it by the presence of competition. Indeed, in the larger view, piracy is just another form of competition - albeit an illegal one. While many companies speak of "losing" money to their competition, it's nonsense. It wasn't their money in the first place, and the fact the marketplace is competitive is all to the good, regardless of how some corporate executive feels about it.

Again, I am not condoning piracy. The pirate illegally and unethically distributes copyrighted material without paying royalties to the copyright owners, but buy a clue: HBO is not the copyright owner. Of course the pirate distributes his content at a much lower rate than HBO does, which is why consumers are tempted to seek pirated content, but illegal or not, lower overhead or not, HBO still is not losing that money. They are just faced with a competitor who has an unfair advantage. Guess what? Our $10 to $60 billion a quarter competitors have huge unfair advantages over us. That still makes the assertion we are losing $800 billion a year to them totally absurd.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wedenton said:


> I certainly agree with your first statement, but I don't find computer usage and copy protection to be related at all. Two different animals.


Oh, nonsense. In order to understand any issue, one must at least peripherally understand the physical boundaries of the issue. Piracy in its modern form is made possible only by computers. The issues surrounding copy protection are also in part rooted deeply in computing foundations. No one who has no understanding of computing should ever be considering proposed legislation concerning copy protection.



wedenton said:


> And think about this - If the bones in your hands and arms were intentionally broken, and your hands were tied behind your back, and your elbows were then forcefully tied together, and then another rope was tied to the rope around your wrists and you were hoisted up into the air and left to hang for hours until your shoulders dislocated, and you received zero medical attention after you were cut down - Would you be able to use a keyboard? Would it be an "admission" to say you can't use a computer?


Oh for the love of...

That has got to take the cake when it comes to specious, wholly idiotic analogies. The candidate in question is not claiming to be physically incapable of using a computer. He is claiming to be willfully ignorant of computing, and no one, *NO ONE*, who is proud of being willfully ignorant of anything - let alone crowing about it in public - should ever be allowed to hold any office of any sort. I'm having a hard time even coming up with any reasons they should be allowed to continue breathing. In fairness, I have a hard time coming up with any reasons any of them should be allowed to continue to breathe, and it's getting tougher every day.

Unless of course you are claiming the candidate in question suffers from a mental disability which precludes his being able to use a computer? In that case, I can probably come up with plenty of reasons why he should be allowed to continue to breathe, but none why he should be elected to office.



wedenton said:


> Sorry for the harshness, but that is the reality of the NVA's favorite torture.


It's not harsh, just silly. Just because someone has endured torture, even far worse than the candidate in question in no way qualifies them to do anything whatsoever. He could have had all four limbs disarticulated with a rusty butterknife and his gonads burned completely away by a candle and it would neither qualify nor disqualify him for office. It's completely irrelevant.



wedenton said:


> The depths to which the Liberal political activists will stoop just to win an election sickens me.


The depths to which every politician on the ballot ascribe to rise sickens me. There are brain dead accident victims who are far more competenet and qualified than all four candiates put together. It's a given the gorked-out organ donor is far less corrupt and more honest, but do they all also have to be such total morons?



wedenton said:


> Sorry if I've offended anyone. Just wanted to get the facts out there.


If that's so, why didn't you include any facts with your post? You didn't, you know? Not one, or at least not one real fact, and certainly not one pertinent one. The closest you came was to make some non-specific references to tortures sometimes used by the North Vietnamese. It is interesting you did not claim the candidate in question was submitted to the specific torture you describe. I wonder why? 'Not that it matters, of course. He could have been subjected to dental torture, oven torture, water torture, and the death of 1000 cuts, and it's still not relevant. Assuming his alleged past is not a total lie, which wouldn't surprise me, it only means he deserves our respect, consideration, and gratitude as a soldier who did nothing more than his duty, just like millions of others. It doesn't mean he's qualified to be dog catcher, let alone president.


----------



## jmoak (Jun 20, 2000)

bkdtv said:


> Every week, hundreds of thousands of people download these shows (illegally) off the Internet, presumably to avoid the cost of a HBO subscription.


and...

Every week, at least a few of people who _actually subscribe to HBO_ download these shows (illegally) off the Internet, presumably to avoid the copy protection flags and have access to the content they pay for on portable devices.

okok.... this post is a smeek, but it's true. in at least one case i know of anyway.

... and if it makes you feel better to blame this friggin' mess on one evil entity and not the corrupt system that became the law of the land on October 28, 1998, then go right ahead.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Chopping off the head of the monster does not seem to work. Sure it may look and sound different when it grows back, but at it's heart it's still the same old monster no matter what affiliation it claims.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

wedenton said:


> And think about this - If the bones in your hands and arms were intentionally broken, and your hands were tied behind your back, and your elbows were then forcefully tied together, and then another rope was tied to the rope around your wrists and you were hoisted up into the air and left to hang for hours until your shoulders dislocated, and you received zero medical attention after you were cut down - Would you be able to use a keyboard? Would it be an "admission" to say you can't use a computer?
> 
> Sorry for the harshness, but that is the reality of the NVA's favorite torture.
> 
> ...


Um... the fact is that he could use a computer if he wanted to. My best friend's daughter, with profound cerebral palsy -- unable to speak or even feed herself -- does just fine with her pointer. I'm sure she'd be happy to show him how to use email.

I'm grateful for his service, and sorry for his experience, but the injury story as an explanation for not using a computer is a red herring. Those are not facts you've gotten out there, but talking points.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

political discussion is not allowed in these forums. The posts before this show the very reason why.


----------



## sinanju (Jan 3, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> political discussion is not allowed in these forums. The posts before this show the very reason why.


Funny. I'm talking about accessibility technology for the handicapped, not politics. I very specifically avoided responding to the "liberal political activists" comment.

If it bothers you, use the "report abuse" button early and often -- but use it with an even hand.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

sinanju said:


> Funny. I'm talking about accessibility technology for the handicapped, not politics. I very specifically avoided responding to the "liberal political activists" comment.
> 
> If it bothers you, use the "report abuse" button early and often -- but use it with an even hand.


the post*s* before this. I was not just singling yours out alone. 

PS and yes I found yours to be the more even-keeled of the bunch


----------



## DallasFlier (Jan 23, 2003)

sinanju said:


> I'm grateful for his service, and sorry for his experience, but the injury story as an explanation for not using a computer is a red herring. Those are not facts you've gotten out there, but talking points.


Oh, you mean like your earlier red herring, totally devoid of any facts:


sinanju said:


> I would expect a conservative to reflexively think, "When in doubt, lock it down."


As Zeo said, would be nice to see you and the others QUIT talking politics here!


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> they needn't stream- they could do a file MOVE if I read the cablelabs rules correctly. As long as only one copy is readable at a time it's ok I think.


Good point!

I just got a TiVo HD to go with my existing Series 3, and I find that multi-room viewing works, but only for programs that aren't copy protected. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

The TiVo Inc. policy regarding copy protection can be read here.

There seems to be no option to allow a copy-protected program to be moved from one TiVo to another. I'm wondering why not. Perhaps it is feared that a stream could be intercepted and pirated as it is being moved.

I note that this has nothing to do with the so-called "broadcast flag," which appears to be a non-issue. Nor does it have to do with Macrovision. Rather, it has to do with CCI bytes. These bytes contain flag bits such that bit 0x01 means Copy No More and bit 0x02 means Copy Once (but the copy can't be re-copied). TiVo treats both these flags as equivalent. If they are both set (0x01 + 0x02 = 0x03), that means Copy Never. There are some other possibilities, but basically no copying or streaming (much less moving) is permitted unless the CCI flags are 0x00 (Copy Freely).

The CCI bytes are apparently set by the cable/satellite provider, on a program-by-program basis or for every program on a certain channel. My results suggest it is at least sometimes program-by-program, since some episodes of a given series show up as protected and some don't. How the provider sets the CCI bytes may depend on its contractual relation with, say, HBO or any other cable channel. Apparently the only channels that must have 0x00 CCI bytes are your local over-the-air channels.

I also note that MRV streaming on my wireless network cannot keep up with an HD program. Hence, I don't think streaming-without-copying is the answer to copy-protection woes. Moving (i.e., copying the program and then deleting the original), if doing so is not a violation of the applicable agreements, seems a better option.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> they needn't stream- they could do a file MOVE if I read the cablelabs rules correctly. As long as only one copy is readable at a time it's ok I think.





epstewart said:


> There seems to be no option to allow a copy-protected program to be moved from one TiVo to another. I'm wondering why not. Perhaps it is feared that a stream could be intercepted and pirated as it is being moved.
> 
> I also note that MRV streaming on my wireless network cannot keep up with an HD program. Hence, I don't think streaming-without-copying is the answer to copy-protection woes. Moving (i.e., copying the program and then deleting the original), if doing so is not a violation of the applicable agreements, seems a better option.


MOVE is an interesting idea. Move Mode could make both copies unwatchable until the move is complete. Then it would delete the original. This would solve the problem of making a copy. And as stated, since streaming is nowhere close to being real-time, it would be the only way to have just one recording available at a time (versus the original & a copy).


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

astrohip said:


> MOVE is an interesting idea. Move Mode could make both copies unwatchable until the move is complete. Then it would delete the original. This would solve the problem of making a copy. And as stated, since streaming is nowhere close to being real-time, it would be the only way to have just one recording available at a time (versus the original & a copy).


Hear, hear!

But I don't think the concern copyright holders have is that there might end up being two watchable copies, both marked as non-copyable, one on one TiVo box and one on another. After all, someone with two TiVo boxes could record the same program on both and wind up with the same end result.

I think the worry is that the recorded digital stream might be diverted to a computer where it could have its CCI bits changed. If a computer could be programmed to "pretend" to be a second TiVo -- by hacking the TiVo Transfer software, say -- then copy protection could be eliminated.

Notice that TiVo Transfer won't allow you to transfer exactly the same copy-protected programs that multi-room viewing won't work with.

The problem in a nutshell: a "source TiVo" can't be sure the "receiving TiVo" is really a TiVo!

That's probably why the official policy is that any program on the source TiVo that does not have its CCI byte = 0x00 simply cannot be copied-moved-transferred at all. Period.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

epstewart said:


> Hear, hear!
> 
> But I don't think the concern copyright holders have is that there might end up being two watchable copies, both marked as non-copyable, one on one TiVo box and one on another. After all, someone with two TiVo boxes could record the same program on both and wind up with the same end result.
> 
> ...


Exactly... I couldn't have put it better myself...

The Statement... *"The problem in a nutshell: a "source TiVo" can't be sure the "receiving TiVo" is really a TiVo!"*

Is actually the MAIN reason why they haven't found a solution around the CCI & Copy protection system yet. Oh and anything you have the "Receiving TiVo" say to verify it is a Tivo, you can get a computer to do as well.

If you can get a computer to "pretend" to be a Tivo and transfer/MOVE a copy protected show to your computer, then it would be EXTREMELY easy to remove the CCI bit.

The industry thought HD-DVD & Blu-ray would not get hacked... yet it has. It has become very very wasy to easily and quickly RIP a Blu-ray disk. Ripping a CCI bit is a peice of cake.

In fact... The "Cable Card" TV Tuners that are coming with some of the newer computers and recording copy protected shows have allready been hacked to be able to remove CCI bits. Albeit currently it is still a tedius process.

TGC


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> If you can get a computer to "pretend" to be a Tivo and transfer/MOVE a copy protected show to your computer, then it would be EXTREMELY easy to remove the CCI bit.
> 
> The industry thought HD-DVD & Blu-ray would not get hacked... yet it has. It has become very very wasy to easily and quickly RIP a Blu-ray disk. Ripping a CCI bit is a peice of cake.
> 
> ...


I'm behind the times. I didn't know HD-DVD/Blu-ray has been hacked!

Nor did I know newer computers have "cable card" TV tuners ... nor that it is already possible (if tedious) to strip the CCI bits from the shows they receive.

But TiVo boxes apparently have yet to be hacked(!).

I guess I really can't blame TiVo Inc. for striving to honor copy protection in the industry-approved way ... but it does get in the way of multi-room viewing of protected shows, which ought to be legal and possible. Without a doubt, copy-protection constraints do interfere with customers' "fair use" (a legal term) of the TiVo recordings.

Another aspect of the problem is that some cable companies (mine is Comcast) are slapping copy protection on programs in an erratic way. I find that Doctor Who on BBC America is always protected but on the SCI FI HD channel is never protected. I have one Hex episode from BBC America that is protected and several that are not, so not all BBCA material is protected ... yet all my episodes of Torchwood on BBCA are protected.

Also, episodes of The Closer on TNT HD are protected, while if the same series were running on a broadcast network they would have to be copyable. I don't think much of that -- the distinction seems an arbitrary one.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

epstewart said:


> I'm behind the times. I didn't know HD-DVD/Blu-ray has been hacked!
> 
> Nor did I know newer computers have "cable card" TV tuners ... nor that it is already possible (if tedious) to strip the CCI bits from the shows they receive.
> 
> ...


Thats exactly what I was getting at when I started this thread with my original post with HBO-HD and "Tru Blood".

In my area. All Dr. Who, Torchwood, & Sara Jane are all Copy protected for the most part. Doesnt' matter if it's coming from BBC-A/hd, or Sci-fi/HD, or even HDNET. Thus I have just decided to now wait for the DVD releases. Just easier that way. What they fail to miss now.... is that now they don't get my viewership on any of the commercials they run!

It would probably be possible to Hack a TiVo. Although "How-To" Hackin discussion of TiVo's are not allowed in this TiVo community forum. Also... in regards to hacking the CCI bit on a TiVo it would end up being a very tedius process & therefore probably not even worth the trouble. Especially since you can *NOW* do the following....

With mediamall's play on from themediamall.com and a xbox 360 &/or PS/3 you can watch most anything that is available online from HULU.com and a few others.

In addition... if you have a *SLINGBOX PRO-HD* and a *SLINGCATCHER*.... it bypasses the CCI bit entirely and you can watch whatever you have on your TIVO *ANYWHERE* in the world on almost *ANY *device! Providing of course that you have a decent Broadband internet connection. 5mbps or faster in both directions for the best quality. (Check out slingbox.com)

TGC


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> In addition... if you have a *SLINGBOX PRO-HD* and a *SLINGCATCHER*.... it bypasses the CCI bit entirely and you can watch whatever you have on your TIVO *ANYWHERE* in the world on almost *ANY *device! Providing of course that you have a decent Broadband internet connection. 5mbps or faster in both directions for the best quality. (Check out slingbox.com)
> 
> TGC


But, again, there are issues:

(1) My Comcast broadband Internet connection's upload speed seems to max out at about 2 mbps, according to speedtest.net.

(2) "Hook up a Slingbox to the DVR and a SlingCatcher to another TV. Instantly you can watch and control your DVR and all its programming from that TV too -- with no additional monthly fees." So says the Slingbox site. But that would seem to allow only one-way transfers of copy-protected shows, from the Slingbox to the SlingCatcher, but not the other way. That doesn't seem like a great solution, given that at least in theory two TiVos ought to be able to share all programs in both directions.


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

Getting back to the CCI bits ... The TiVo Inc. policy regarding the use of these bits can be read here.

A possible compromise to the current impasse might be for TiVo Inc. to change its policy for how it handles CCI 0x02 ("Copy Once"). Right now, CCI 0x02 is handled this way: "The DVR can make a recording, but can't transfer it via MRV or TiVo to Go." The way it should be handled: CCI 0x02 should allow transfer-via-MRV by permitting the "receiving TiVo" to make a CCI 0x01 ("Copy No More") copy.

That way, a customer could have a copy on every TiVo in the house. All copies but the original would be "Copy No More" and could not be re-copied. The original would remain "Copy Once."

The TiVo which has the original "Copy Once" copy would be careful to allow only other TiVos to copy the original. Hence, this solution would apply only to multi-room viewing. TiVo transfers to computers would continue to (fail to) work as they (fail to) do today with copy-protected material.

If this solution were adopted, TiVo Inc. would depend on the cable companies to continue to use the "Copy Once" CCI setting rather than "Copy Never" (or "Copy No More").

Right now, it looks as if the intent of those who devised the CCI scheme to have "softer" and "harder" types of copy protection -- i.e., "Copy Once" vs. "Copy Never" -- is being thwarted. Instead, "Copy Once" is being treated as "Copy Never," while "Copy Never" is supposedly treated in such a way as to allow a 90-minute viewing window on a TiVo -- with no copying -- after which the show is deleted from the Now Playing list. (I have never seen this kind of behavior with actual programming. Accordingly, it looks as if the copy-protected shows we are getting today use "Copy Once," but TiVo Inc. has chosen to count the original recording as the "once" in "Copy Once.")


----------



## muerte33 (Jul 4, 2008)

How can you tell ahead of time from the guide whether the show will end up with the Copy Protection flag enabled?
I know it shows up in the extended INFO section after the fact.
I know you can go to the cable card diagnostic and see if the bit is turned on, but this is a pain. I have to wait for the show to start, then look at the bit, and cancel the recording if it is on?

MRV is about useless now for me.
Almost all digital shows I want to watch are blocked.
One reason why we bought an extra Tivo HD was so we could get around the 2 tuner limit.


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

muerte33 said:


> How can you tell ahead of time from the guide whether the show will end up with the Copy Protection flag enabled?
> I know it shows up in the extended INFO section after the fact.
> I know you can go to the cable card diagnostic and see if the bit is turned on, but this is a pain. I have to wait for the show to start, then look at the bit, and cancel the recording if it is on?
> 
> ...


AFAIK, the guide doesn't have advance access to the CCI byte which sets copy protection. (When you think about it, how could it? The cable provider at least in theory sets the CCI byte at any point in time prior to the actual distribution of the program ... but not necessarily by the much earlier time the guide info is compiled.)

In most cases (but by no means all) I have found that if copying is blocked for a certain show in a series on a non-premium digital cable channel, it will be blocked for all subsequent shows in the same series on the same channel. Likewise, if a premium channel such as HBO blocks one movie or show, it will tend to block them all.

As you say, you can look at "DVR Diagnostics" on the TiVo and see the current CCI byte on each tuner/cablecard combination that is active. If a certain channel is showing CCI 0x02 and not 0x00, it means the current program is marked "Copy Once," not "Copy Freely." TiVo treats that as not permitting MRV.

Also, if 0x02 is in use on a certain channel for multiple programs over the course of, say, a day or two, chances are it will continue to be in use on all programs on that channel.

I agree that it is a bummer that the customer cannot gain any more certainty than that, prior to actually recording a program and then trying to MRV it. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that TiVo Inc. is being overly restrictive in not allowing MRV with CCI 0x02 programs. I think the intent of the copy-protection protocol when originally set forth was to allow "Copy Once" programs, after they have been recorded, to be copied for exactly one subsequent generation, with that generation being marked "Copy No More" (CCI 0x01). TiVo Inc. obviously disagrees.

I think it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility that disgruntled customers such as you, me, and others who have posted to this thread might seek a legal remedy  say, via a class-action suit  to force TiVo Inc. to cease crippling MRV by being over-conservative in how they handle copy protection!


----------



## Austin_Martin (Sep 13, 2006)

> I think it certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility that disgruntled customers such as you, me, and others who have posted to this thread might seek a legal remedy  say, via a class-action suit  to force TiVo Inc. to cease crippling MRV by being over-conservative in how they handle copy protection!


Unfortunately, they are following the cablecard requirements. The problem is that cable companies seem to be setting the bit indiscriminately. Could be to cripple better technology, or could be to avoid any copywrite complaints/suits from the channels/networks.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

epstewart said:


> But, again, there are issues:
> 
> (1) My Comcast broadband Internet connection's upload speed seems to max out at about 2 mbps, according to speedtest.net.
> 
> (2) "Hook up a Slingbox to the DVR and a SlingCatcher to another TV. Instantly you can watch and control your DVR and all its programming from that TV too -- with no additional monthly fees." So says the Slingbox site. But that would seem to allow only one-way transfers of copy-protected shows, from the Slingbox to the SlingCatcher, but not the other way. That doesn't seem like a great solution, given that at least in theory two TiVos ought to be able to share all programs in both directions.


(1)... Yep at 2mbps the Slingbox/Slingcatcher would NOT be an option for you. Not until your provider offers a faster down/up speed for you.

(2).... True it is only One way... from the Slingbox to the Slingcatcher. Although one could easily set it up to move the units back n forth. Although I will agree that can be tedius. I also agree.. I would much prefer it be done all within the TiVo's themselvs and do away with the "copy protection". However sadly that isn't the case. 

TGC


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

Austin_Martin said:


> Unfortunately, they are following the cablecard requirements. The problem is that cable companies seem to be setting the bit indiscriminately. Could be to cripple better technology, or could be to avoid any copywrite complaints/suits from the channels/networks.


My thinking is slightly different ... they may not be following the requirements. There are two possible interpretations of the requirements. Interpretation One: A "Copy Once" program on cable is deemed to have been copied once at the time it is recorded on a TiVo, and so it cannot be copied again via MRV. This is the TiVo Inc. interpretation. I can't confirm it, BTW, but "Copy Once" (CCI 0x02) may be getting changed internally by the TiVo to "Copy No More" (CCI 0x01). Whether it is or not, TiVo boxes definitely won't share the program via MRV.

Interpretation Two (mine): A "Copy Once" program should be recorded as such by a TiVo, preserving the CCI byte at 0x02, under the assumption that a recording of an original program as it is being transmitted is not a "copy" per se. In that the recording is marked "Copy Once," as was the original, it then ought to be able to be copied, in a literal sense of the word, to another device. On the other device, the copy would be marked "Copy No More" and could not be re-copied.

Given that there are two reasonable interpretations, we are in a gray area here. It is not surprising that TiVo has used the more conservative interpretation, as they don't want to get on the wrong side of the rest of the industry and have to fight a lot of lawsuits. At the same time, it seems that there is no copyright violation involved with MRV, since MRV would seem to represent a "fair use" of the original recording. Hence, the conservative interpretation would seem to violate customers' fair-use rights ... possibly opening TiVo to a class action lawsuit by the customers!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

it's never been definitively determined if the copy on the tivo is the one copy or not. Not sure how we could every figure that out or not.

But in any event- there is no reason that tivo couldn't update their MRV to only allow copies or moves ONLY to other tivo boxes. I'm no expert but each box has a TSN and a crypto chip- if that isn't enough to positively identify a box then there probably isn't anything (and the cablecard specs acknowledge that people could do stuff like physically attack the hardware to compromise any system so I'd think a solution that transfers/copied only to tivo's would be approved).

also the spec says that they don't even have to lock the source copy while it is being moved. It says the move basically would be a copy where the new copy would not be enable until the source copy is disabled. Tivo could make a system where the file is copied but locked down. Once the copy is complete and second box confirms the new copy is ready the source box could destroy its copy and then inform the 2nd box to unlock it's version.

it's really not rocket science- with all the neat new things tivo is adding I'm not sure why they haven't addressed this. Especially when every day more and more and more is marked with CCI 0x02. (more analog channels moving to digital, more headends actively setting the bits, more channels getting added to the flagged list, more channel owners adding flag requirements to contract renewals, etc, etc.). I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume the majority (maybe even vast majority) of content will be 0X02 in just a few years making MRV less and less valuable as a differentiator all the time,


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> it's never been definitively determined if the copy on the tivo is the one copy or not. Not sure how we could every figure that out or not.


That's a really key point. Who speaks definitively and authoritatively on these matters?



MichaelK said:


> ... there is no reason that tivo couldn't update their MRV to only allow copies or moves ONLY to other tivo boxes. ... each box has a TSN and a crypto chip ... to positively identify a box ...


A "move" with the original copy erased especially ought to be allowed.

As you say, the following is true:



MichaelK said:


> ... people could do stuff like physically attack the hardware to compromise any system so I'd think a solution that transfers/copied ["moves"] only to tivo's would be approved ...


In other words, you are saying that if someone successfully hacked a piece of computer software to fake a TiVo box into doing a "move" to it, TiVo Inc. ought not to be deemed culpable, as long as ...



MichaelK said:


> ... the move basically would be a copy where the new copy would not be enable[d] until the source copy is disabled. Tivo could make a system where the file is copied but locked down. Once the copy is complete and second box confirms the new copy is ready the source box could destroy its copy and then inform the 2nd box to unlock it's version ...


To which I'd add that the copy would then itself become movable in the very same way.



MichaelK said:


> ... every day more and more and more is marked with CCI 0x02 ... I don't think it's unreasonable at all to assume the majority (maybe even vast majority) of content will be 0X02 in just a few years making MRV less and less valuable ...


That's the nub of the problem, all right.

So what I think I agree with you on  now; I didn't think this way before  is that CCI 0x02 ("Copy Once") material ought not to be copyable, such that there ends up being two copies, one on each TiVo. But it should be movable, such that the original copy goes away after the "move" is finished (though it could be re-established on the originating TiVo by doing the "move" again in the reverse direction, with the result of the first move then being deleted).

This all seems very logical. Unfortunately, I have yet to encounter any "official" acknowledgment from TiVo Inc. or any other authoritative source that "move" (as opposed to "copy") might conceivably be elevated to the status of an acceptable operation for "Copy Once" material, as long as it is done under the control of two handshaking DVR boxes on a single local area (or "home") network.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> But in any event- there is no reason that tivo couldn't update their MRV to only allow copies or moves ONLY to other tivo boxes. I'm no expert but each box has a TSN and a crypto chip- if that isn't enough to positively identify a box then there probably isn't anything (and the cablecard specs acknowledge that people could do stuff like physically attack the hardware to compromise any system so I'd think a solution that transfers/copied only to tivo's would be approved).


A Computer can easily be programed to "Ghost" or appear as another TiVo giving off a TSN & even duplicating the capabilities of a crypto chip. Yes, the physical hardware of a TiVo can be physically hacked as well. Cable card companies, Cable companies, & even content providers realize this. They are worried about it.

However, like you said it isn't a major concern because the average person can't do this easily & quickly.

The thing one has to keep in mind. That for every "Copy Protection" scheme out there, there is always a way around it or will soon be hacked if it hasn't allready been.

Where the happy medium is and what the solution is, is anyone's guess.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Not really a computer sort of guy- just a user- but is it really possible for normal people to duplicate a crypto chip with just software? if so then what's the point of putting them in tivo's and laptops and the like? I'm sure the NSA can do it, and Chinese pirates, but would the amount of people who could do it in sofware be more then the amount of people that would just solder on the board or the chips to do what they want.

The cablelabs docs say something like things should be software secure but they acknowledge a real thief is literally going to rip off the cover and start soldering and that there's nothing they expect licensees to do about that. 

Also the move is specifically spelled out in what is allowed if you dig through the cablelabs docs.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

here's the cablelabs dfast license which tivo has to comply with- it'sthe thingie that spells out what they can or can't do with copies:

http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf

it says on page 29 secsion 3.5.2


> A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product that makes a copy of content marked in
> the CCI as "Copy One Generation" in accordance with this Section 3.5 may move
> such content to a single removable recording medium, or to a single external
> recording device, only when (a) the external recording device indicates that it is
> ...


reading it again for like the 50th time got me to remembering a question i have- did tivo's encryption ever get approved? It's not listed in the dfast agreement and I forget where the other approved things are listed (for example i know real's helix and windows drm go approved in another document at some point)

the document also talks about "robustness"- Basically dont make it easy but they get you cant stop a pro- here's an example:



> Be designed such that attempts to reprogram, remove or replace hardware
> elements in a way that would compromise the security or content protection features of
> DFAST Technology, Referenced Technology, the Agreement or in Unidirectional Digital
> Cable Products would pose a serious risk of damaging the Unidirectional Digital Cable
> ...


I guess that says "hey dont socket the crypto or bios chips but if someone unsolders them they we realize you made a reasonable attempt to stop the pirates"


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

It would be great if TiVo could implement the move function described above. TWC sets the CCI on all digital channels (except local HD). We have to record some shows on multiple boxes just because we're not sure where we'll want to watch a show. What a waste of capacity.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Not really a computer sort of guy- just a user- but is it really possible for normal people to duplicate a crypto chip with just software? if so then what's the point of putting them in tivo's and laptops and the like? I'm sure the NSA can do it, and Chinese pirates, but would the amount of people who could do it in sofware be more then the amount of people that would just solder on the board or the chips to do what they want.


Like I said....



TexasGrillChef said:


> However, like you said it isn't a major concern because the average person can't do this easily & quickly.


This being the case with either brute force software, hacking the hardware or any combination.

In most cases since TV shows are now being released rather quickly in DVD &/or Blu-ray it is just easier to rip a DVD/Blu-ray than to bother with hacking the copy protection on a TiVo.

Of course you do have to wait till the end of the season for the DVD's 

TGC


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> A Computer can easily be programed to "Ghost" or appear as another TiVo giving off a TSN & even duplicating the capabilities of a crypto chip. Yes, the physical hardware of a TiVo can be physically hacked as well. Cable card companies, Cable companies, & even content providers realize this. They are worried about it.
> 
> However, like you said it isn't a major concern because the average person can't do this easily & quickly.
> 
> ...


TGC,

My hope is that TiVo Inc. could be convinced that the happy medium is to allow "move" operations via MRV for copy-protected shows with CCI byte 0x02 ("Copy Once"). In a "move," the "receiving TiVo" would create a duplicate "Copy Once" recording and the "source TiVo" would delete the original "Copy Once" recording.

Faking a TiVo-to-TiVo "move" operation for purposes of copyright violation, should "move" operations be allowed, is not inconceivable. The "receiving TiVo" could actually be a computer running, say, hacked TiVo Transfer software that would strip the CCI byte off the "moved" recording.

The only absolute way to prevent that is (under the assumption that TiVo boxes will themselves remain un-hacked) the present situation: the source TiVo won't allow a move, much less a copy, for CCI 0x02.

But that makes MRV useless for an increasing number of channels and programs. MRV is a major selling point for "second TiVos." TiVo Inc. surely wants a better "happy medium" than that.

I think TiVo Inc. should enable "move" operations and accept the risk that they might be hacked.


----------



## [NG]Owner (Dec 19, 2006)

For all of the thought and effort you guys have put into the MOVE operation, you are forgetting one thing that is sure to be a great irritant for a lot of us.

One can't watch the file being moved while it's in the process of being moved. The immediacy of MRV is lost. Granted it is better than not being able to get content from one TivoHD to another TivoHD at all, but it isn't optimal.

Streaming is the only way to do MRV with CCI bits that preserves the immediacy of MRV, especially for those of us who have invested in wired networks. Personally, I'd rather have Tivo work on increasing the network throughput speeds on the Series 3 boxes and overlay streaming to that effort as the solution to MRV with CCI bit enabled.

[NG]Owner


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

[NG]Owner;6816750 said:


> For all of the thought and effort you guys have put into the MOVE operation, you are forgetting one thing that is sure to be a great irritant for a lot of us.
> 
> One can't watch the file being moved while it's in the process of being moved. The immediacy of MRV is lost. Granted it is better than not being able to get content from one TivoHD to another TivoHD at all, but it isn't optimal.
> 
> ...


I for one don't see any reason at all why a "move" type of MRV operation would eliminate the immediacy of watching the recording from the receiving TiVo while the recording is being moved. The copy that is being created on the receiving TiVo would be just like the original program: marked with CCI byte 0x02, for "Copy Once." It could be watched "in progress," just as you could have watched the original program as it was being recorded.

True, the original recording would probably be rendered unwatchable during the move operation. After the move, it would be deleted, and the only copy would be the one on the receiving TiVo.

So, [NG]Owner, I'm not sure why you worry that a move operation would impact on the immediacy of watching the moved program.


----------



## TexasGrillChef (Sep 15, 2006)

epstewart said:


> I think TiVo Inc. should enable "move" operations and accept the risk that they might be hacked.


Here are a few following things to consider... Taking first the point of view of TiVo.

1) The legality of providing a Move operation. Legality in terms of contracts, laws regarding making the Move operation.

2) The "COST" in actually making this feature available on our TiVo's. Keep in mind it takes money to add software features. They always do a Cost/Benefit analysis. Will providing this feature actually increase the sales on TiVo & by what amount.

3) The actual feasability to make this feature work without causing "issues" in the rest of the TiVo software. Can it be done and keep everyone happy in regards to item #1 & Item #2, & still not cause other issues in our software.

I think everyone understands and knows that *any system can be hacked.* TiVo and other content producers are trying to keep hacking to a minimum or at least not make it easy enough for the averae everday "Joe Shmoe" to do it.

*I do beleive TiVo is "WORKING" on a way around this CCI bit problem. Either through "Moving" &/or "Streaming".*

I took a little over a year before MRV was available at all for the S3 after it was originally relased. At that time the copy protection flags weren't heavily used yet. At least when MRV was first available I was able to MRV everything. Now all I am left with MRV'ing is the Broadcast channels.

Current TiVo's do have the capability of streaming, & will shortly be doing just that when Netflix becomes available. Although some want to say Neflix is downloading. Netflix will be buffered. But the entire movie from Netflix will *NEVER* entirely reside on the TiVo, & you won't have to wait for it to download completely before viewin. It will also never appear in your NPL.

I still beleive the answer is through legislation through congress. God only knows what the hell Obama and his socialist ideas will effect Copy protection laws. We will see.

TGC


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

I have been advocating in this thread that TiVo Inc. allow a "move" operation between two TiVo boxes via MRV. This operation would be equivalent to a doing a copy followed by deleting the original. The copied recording would be marked as copy-protected in the same way as the original recording was: using CCI byte 0x02, for "Copy Once."

Meanwhile, a straight "copy" operation would continue to be disallowed.

In "Who Killed TiVoToGo?" the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote (in footnote 22):

Note that "copy once" permits a recording to be made and then moved off of a recording device onto another compatible medium, but the original recording device's copy must be rendered "unusable" ...​
That would seem to permit the "move" operation I advocate. In not actually implementing a move operation, TiVo Inc. seems to be imposing a restriction that the EFF, at least, finds in violation of the original intent of the copy-protection agreement imposed on digital recorders by CableLabs.


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

TexasGrillChef said:


> Here are a few following things to consider... Taking first the point of view of TiVo.
> 
> 1) The legality of providing a Move operation. Legality in terms of contracts, laws regarding making the Move operation.
> 
> ...


TGC,

Please see my immediately prior post about the legality issue.

Cost: TiVo Inc. bears a "hidden" cost of foregone sales of "second TiVos" because MRV is of increasingly lower utility as more and more programs and channels are copy protected.

Untended consequences with respect to messing up the existing software: As a computer programmer (retired) I realize this is always a consideration. Yet I imagine the impact would be minimal, in that a "move" would consist basically of a "copy" (which the software already knows how to do) followed by a "delete" of the original recording (ditto). The trickiest part would probably be to render the original recording unwatchable during the "move" - which I don't think is strictly necessary, anyway.

Potential for hacking: Yes, allowing a "move" would open an avenue for hacking. This is the strongest objection to a "move." "Joe Shmoe" probably couldn't do it, but "Super Hacker" could, and then sell the software to Joe. I contend TiVo Inc. should bear this risk, since a "move" is apparently legal (see prior post) and not implementing it discourages sales of "second TiVos."

Netflix streaming: Sounds good to me! But it's really a different issue ... (EDIT: Whoops! I see I missed your main point ... You're saying TiVo Inc. could "stream" an existing recording from one TiVo to another, just as it could stream a Netflix movie across the Internet. True! But in my case, I find that trying to watch, from the receiving TiVo, a recording that MRV is copying from a source TiVo just has too many pauses when the recording is HD. My wireless network can't keep up with HD MRV, so I doubt it could keep up with HD "streaming.")

Obama, socialism, etc.: Though I don't think he's a socialist at all, I figure that if he were he'd oppose copy protection as an unjustified privilege for fat cats in the entertainment industry!

Congressional legislation protecting our "fair use" rights: Bring it on!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

[NG]Owner;6816750 said:


> For all of the thought and effort you guys have put into the MOVE operation, you are forgetting one thing that is sure to be a great irritant for a lot of us.
> 
> One can't watch the file being moved while it's in the process of being moved. The immediacy of MRV is lost. Granted it is better than not being able to get content from one TivoHD to another TivoHD at all, but it isn't optimal.
> 
> ...


not really at all-

if you want to make it immediate then just lock the file onthe source tivo as soon as the transfer starts.



> before the Move is completed, the originating
> Unidirectional Digital Cable Product recording is rendered non-useable and the
> moved content is marked Copy No More and


so if that was the concern (and i think you have a great point)- all they need to do is make the originainat recording non usable and then copy it over to the new box.


----------



## epstewart (Mar 1, 2003)

I have been researching CableLabs' "DFAST Technology License Agreement for Unidirectional Digital Cable Products," which sets forth the copy-protection constraints applying to CableCARD-enabled TiVos. (CableLabs is an organization whose members are the various cable TV companies. DFAST refers to the scrambling technology used to scramble the signals of encrypted digital cable channels.)

The key part of the CableLabs agreement for purposes of TiVo multiroom viewing (MRV) is a series of exhibits beginning on p. 18. Exhibit A contains the definition of the crucial CCI byte on p. 20. Exhibit B, starting on p. 23, gives the key compliance rules. Starting on p. 28 are the rules pertaining specifically to "Copy One Generation" (COG) programs. MRV does not currently work for these programs, whose CCI byte is 0x02. This CCI value corresponds to the value of the "EMI bits" shown on p. 20 as (binary) 10, meaning "One generation copy is permitted."

COG programs can legally be treated in any of several ways. They can be treated as "Mere Buffer for Display," such that they can be viewed, but no permanent copy is stored. They can be treated as "Copy Never"  which means a DVR would refuse to copy or play them (thankfully, TiVo doesn't do this). Or a permanent copy could be made, subject to several provisos. One is that "the copy is scrambled or is otherwise made secure using one or more of the following methods," where a list of approved methods for scrambling/securing the copied content then follows:

One method is to use a CableLabs-approved scrambling protocol.
Another is to use some other encryption protocol "which uniquely associates such copy with a single device so that it cannot be played on another device or, if stored to removable media, so that no further usable copies may be made thereof."
And there are a few other listed possibilities.
TiVo is taking advantage of these listed methods to allow a copy of the COG content to be made. The copy is scrambled or encrypted in such a way that it must be decrypted using the media access key (MAK) of the recording TiVo.

Now we come to the crucial section 3.5.2, starting on p. 29, which begins:
A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product that makes a copy of content marked in the CCI as Copy One Generation in accordance with this Section 3.5 may move such content to a single removable recording medium, or to a single external recording device, only when ...​This is the language which pertains to the possibility that MRV could legally move copy-protected COG content from one TiVo to another.

For that to happen, the receiving TiVo would need to be able to "indicate that it is authorized to perform this Move function in accordance with the requirements [stated herein]." That is, the receiving TiVo would need to be able to establish that it is exactly what it claims to be.

The content would then have to be "output over a protected output [of the source TiVo] in accordance with [earlier sections of Exhibit B]." The applicable section is 2.4, which lists the kinds of digital outputs which could be used, along with the pre-approved copy protection/scrambling/encryption methods that go with them. Notably missing is any reference to Ethernet or WiFi-via-USB. But section 2.4.4 allows CableLabs to sign off on other methods that may be proposed by a requester (such as TiVo Inc.) if CableLabs finds those methods suitable.

If TiVo Inc. could get CableLabs' approval for its encryption method, it would also have to ensure that:before the Move is completed, the originating ... recording is rendered non-useable and the moved content is marked Copy No More.​The bottom line: a TiVo-to-TiVo "move" operation for COG content would be legal, subject to certain provisos, but CableLabs would have to approve the method used to copy-protect the content that is being moved, during the time while the move operation is still in progress.

I imagine that gaining CableLabs' approval for the method used for copy protecting a TiVo-to-TiVo move operation for COG content is the main sticking point. The pre-approved encryption methods are things like HDCP on HDMI/DVI and DTCP on IEEE-1394 FireWire connections. These are elaborate, robust methods ... but does TiVo Inc. want to implement them for simple Ethernet and WiFi/USB transfers? Probably not. (Sigh!)


----------



## matstars (Feb 26, 2008)

This is so frustrating...


----------



## matstars (Feb 26, 2008)

this is completely confusing!


----------



## skelm (Aug 23, 2001)

[NG]Owner;6733807 said:


> All the more reason for Tivo to stream between units instead of copy....
> 
> [NG]Owner


Agreed, the current setup is silly.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Not really a computer sort of guy- just a user- but is it really possible for normal people to duplicate a crypto chip with just software?


No, but that's attempting to use a siege gun to kill a gnat. There are vastly easier ways to circumvent the issue.



MichaelK said:


> The cablelabs docs say something like things should be software secure but they acknowledge a real thief is literally going to rip off the cover and start soldering and that there's nothing they expect licensees to do about that.
> 
> Also the move is specifically spelled out in what is allowed if you dig through the cablelabs docs.


CableLabs is not a government agency and their rules are not legal regulations. Unfortunately, the point may be moot since no CATV company is going to support a CableCard ready device not approved by CableLabs. Allowing CableLabs to set recording limitations and handle CableCard certifications is one of the stupider ideas the FCC has had in the last few decades (among a really large number of really stupid ideas the FCC has had).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> ...
> CableLabs is not a government agency and their rules are not legal regulations. Unfortunately, the point may be moot since no CATV company is going to support a CableCard ready device not approved by CableLabs. Allowing CableLabs to set recording limitations and handle CableCard certifications is one of the stupider ideas the FCC has had in the last few decades (among a really large number of really stupid ideas the FCC has had).


EXACTLY- the FCC has basically given cable labs the authority to regulate the whole set of 3rd party standards. Id I recall at the time PILES of players complained that was idiotic. The FCC basically said "well we dont want to get involved and cablelabs is further along then anyone else- so we'll just hope they do the right thing"- I think we all see how that played out.


----------

