# All you have to do is ask nicely



## Jeanesco (Dec 29, 2003)

And your cable provider just might stop copy protecting every channel.

Worked for me on cox anyways.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r26493685-CATV-AZ-Need-help-from-a-cox-employee

Wouldn't have cared in the past (my tivo hd is hacked to ignore the CCI byte) but I just got an hdhomerun prime a few days ago and that one hasn't yet been cracked, so I needed a little help from cox this time around. 

greets from ddb btw.


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Wow...

I will check this later (I'm in Phoenix too), but if true, it is awesome.

Great job for finally finding someone that could get in contact with somebody that knew how to change this.

Now I wonder how long it will last...


----------



## djwilso (Dec 23, 2006)

Checked and confirmed on both of my TiVos. Awesome.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

That's interesting. I never understood their motives for protecting the content anyway. Why do they care? They don't own the content. The content owners are not asking them to do it. It's just one more way of them controlling YOU, the consumer.

I bet someone at Cox either didn't know that it was turned on or they gave someone the ability to turn it off who shouldn't have it.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

aadam101 said:


> I never understood their motives for protecting the content anyway. Why do they care?


If the cable company DVR can stream content, then copy protection gives them a competitive advantage over Tivo, because copy protection disables MRV for the copy protected channel.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

shwru980r said:


> If the cable company DVR can stream content, then copy protection gives them a competitive advantage over Tivo, because copy protection disables MRV for the copy protected channel.


It isn't their fault TiVo doesn't stream.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> If the cable company DVR can stream content, then copy protection gives them a competitive advantage over Tivo, because copy protection disables MRV for the copy protected channel.


I don't think the cable companies care about being an "advantage" over Tivo. Tivo is barely a blip on the radar compared to these gigantic companies.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I don't think the cable companies care about being an "advantage" over Tivo. Tivo is barely a blip on the radar compared to these gigantic companies.


Financially speaking, you are certainly correct. Technologically speaking, however, they are essentially paranoid. I don't really understand it any better than you, and I didn't even when I worked for a CATV company. The only thing I can say is they are practically rabid about people stealing service. For that I don't blame them, but they seem to allow that to engender compulsively obsessive control impulses. Or something. Whatever the source, they are bordering on psychotic when it comes to having 100% control of the system and everything attached to it, even to the extent of costing themselves a considerable amount of revenue by refusing by policy to allow 3rd party devices to deliver VOD and IPPV service.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> That's interesting. I never understood their motives for protecting the content anyway. Why do they care? They don't own the content.


In some cases, they do. Does the name "Warner" mean anything to you... as in "Warner Brothers"? 'Notice any similarity between that name and "Time Warner Cable", who employs the most aggressive copy protection in the industry? The connection is not direct, but it is there and it is deeply ingrained. Note Verizon, who has the least connections to the content owners also has the least restrictive Copy Protection.



aadam101 said:


> The content owners are not asking them to do it.


Actually, they are. The MPAA is lobbying every which way from next Sunday to make it so no one can copy anything. The content providers are not, for the most part, but the content owners are.



aadam101 said:


> It's just one more way of them controlling YOU, the consumer.


Well, that seems to be true, too.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> .......... It's just one more way of them controlling YOU, the consumer.


Imagine that.  Just like your posting complaints here is one of your ways of trying to "control" (influence is a more accurate term) them. If they had their way, you would pay $1,000/mo for their service and have no tech support. If you had your way, you would pay $10/mo. and have 24/7 instant-response free service by highly motivated and competent techs. But we live in the real world. They don't get their way because almost nobody would subscribe with their desired terms, and you don't get your way because they would be bankrupt in a week. (This rant dedicated to the memory of bicker.)


aadam101 said:


> .......... I bet someone at Cox either didn't know that it was turned on or they gave someone the ability to turn it off who shouldn't have it.


That was my thought. This incident resulted more from accident and inattention than anything else.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> In some cases, they do. Does the name "Warner" mean anything to you... as in "Warner Brothers"? 'Notice any similarity between that name and "Time Warner Cable", who employs the most aggressive copy protection in the industry? The connection is not direct, but it is there and it is deeply ingrained. Note Verizon, who has the least connections to the content owners also has the least restrictive Copy Protection.


I had not even thought of that. Still though, I believe this kind of thinking influences a lot of people to just pirate content. They are not doing themselves any favors. Granted TWC, is big but they are certainly not the only provider in the world. The content is readily available to steal anyway. Implementing these restrictions is doing nothing to keep it from being stolen.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I had not even thought of that. Still though, I believe this kind of thinking influences a lot of people to just pirate content. They are not doing themselves any favors. Granted TWC, is big but they are certainly not the only provider in the world. The content is readily available to steal anyway. Implementing these restrictions is doing nothing to keep it from being stolen.


I tend to agree with you. That doesn't prevent them from thinking they are controlling the situation. The same folks thought VCRs would bankrupt them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> But we live in the real world. They don't get their way because almost nobody would subscribe with their desired terms, and you don't get your way because they would be bankrupt in a week.


Someone (Samuel Clemens?) once defined a compromise as an agreement with which no one is happy.



dlfl said:


> (This rant dedicated to the memory of bicker.)


Whatever happened to him, anyway? There was no notice of his departure, and I don't think he was banned. After 9004 posts, he suddenly quit posting, and we haven't had a peep out of him for over a year. His personal web page is also blank. Maybe someone finally investigated his business practices and Sarbanes-Oxley has him in the hoosegow?

I hope not, actually, and I hope nothing bad happened to him.



dlfl said:


> That was my thought. This incident resulted more from accident and inattention than anything else.


Yeah, probably. 'Ever hear of the "bedbug" letter?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Imagine that.  Just like your posting complaints here is one of your ways of trying to "control" (influence is a more accurate term) them.


Yes, but aadam101 isn't trying to be Big Brother - at least I don't think he is.



dlfl said:


> If they had their way, you would pay $1,000/mo for their service and have no tech support. If you had your way, you would pay $10/mo. and have 24/7 instant-response free service by highly motivated and competent techs.


Yes, but they have gotten their way, at least in part, when it comes to forcing the owner of 3rd party equipment to allow any software they deem useful, including spyware, on the equipment with no way for the user to stop it or even know it is there.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Imagine that.  Just like your posting complaints here is one of your ways of trying to "control" (influence is a more accurate term) them.


I am not sure how my posting on a Tivo website is trying to "control" or "influence" decisions that are made by Cox or any other cable company. As far as I know these companies are not reading my posts and have no vested interest in anything I have to say nor are they under any obligation to listen to me.

I am not even a customer of a cable company who uses copy protection. I am free to copy programs on every one of my channels, including premium channels.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> .......
> Whatever happened to him, anyway? There was no notice of his departure, and I don't think he was banned. After 9004 posts, he suddenly quit posting, and we haven't had a peep out of him for over a year. His personal web page is also blank. Maybe someone finally investigated his business practices and SarbanesOxley has him in the hoosegow?
> 
> I hope not, actually, and I hope nothing bad happened to him.
> .......


His (bicker's) last activity on the forum was over a year ago. I know he was no youngster so ...... 

I respected him and the positions he took here, although he was frequently rather abrasive in style and we locked horns sometimes. I have no reason to suspect his business practices -- don't know where you got that from.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> Imagine that.  Just like your posting complaints here is one of your ways of trying to "control" (influence is a more accurate term) them. If they had their way, you would pay $1,000/mo for their service and have no tech support. If you had your way, you would pay $10/mo. and have 24/7 instant-response free service by highly motivated and competent techs. But we live in the real world. They don't get their way because almost nobody would subscribe with their desired terms, and you don't get your way because they would be bankrupt in a week. ....





lrhorer said:


> Someone (Samuel Clemens?) once defined a compromise as an agreement with which no one is happy.


That was my basic point.


lrhorer said:


> Yes, but they have gotten their way, at least in part, when it comes to forcing the owner of 3rd party equipment to allow any software they deem useful, including spyware, on the equipment with no way for the user to stop it or even know it is there.


The key words there are ".. at least in part..". One also could say we (TiVo users) have gotten our way, at least in part, by virtue of them having to provide Tuning Adapters and CableCARDs so we can have stand-alone DVR's, which is adverse to their business interests.


aadam101 said:


> I am not sure how my posting on a Tivo website is trying to "control" or "influence" decisions that are made by Cox or any other cable company. As far as I know these companies are not reading my posts and have no vested interest in anything I have to say nor are they under any obligation to listen to me.
> 
> I am not even a customer of a cable company who uses copy protection. I am free to copy programs on every one of my channels, including premium channels.





lrhorer said:


> Yes, but aadam101 isn't trying to be Big Brother - at least I don't think he is.


Sorry. As usual, I didn't choose a good example to make my point, which is that both parties to any agreement (which is a compromise per Mr. Clemens) will try to control (or influence) the terms of the agreement. Although aadam101 apparently is not doing this with his posts here, there are others who do, and in general we try to control/infuence the cable cos via the FCC. I think it would be just as logical for the cable cos to say "CableCARD and Tuning Adapters are just another way that TiVo owners control us". In other words there are two sides to the story and I don't see the justification for saying one side has the moral high ground.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> In other words there are two sides to the story and I don't see the justification for saying one side has the moral high ground.


I don't see it as a question of morality. I see it as a question of consumer friendliness. As a consumer, I want companies to be as consumer friendly as possible. Since *I am paying* for a product or service, I want the company to cater to me and make me want to purchase more products and services from them.

With most companies, I have a choice and if I don't like the practices of one company, I can switch to another. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with cable/internet service. While we have gotten more choices over the past decade or so it is still a monopolistic industry.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> The key words there are ".. at least in part..". One also could say we (TiVo users) have gotten our way, at least in part, by virtue of them having to provide Tuning Adapters and CableCARDs so we can have stand-alone DVR's, which is adverse to their business interests.


CableCards are definitely not adverse to their business interests. They are the ones who proposed and defined the spec, remember? They were also instrumental in developing the entire idea of separable security. They weren't entirely happy with all the compromises made - and in some cases forced upon them - along the way, but that's a little different matter. It's true they want to migrate to a downloadable security solution, but they are the ones who haven't been able to make that work, not consumers and not the CE manufacturers.

The TA is arguably adverse to what they believe are their business interests, but it is also arguable their perception is incorrect - just as the MPAA's perception of the impact of VCRs was laughably wrong. You are certainly correct, however, they would rather not have to deal with 3rd party devices. OTOH, don't forget they were the ones who proposed the TA. Of course, it wasn't because they really wanted the TA as a solution. It was because they wanted to forestall the FCC from mandating DCR as a solution.



dlfl said:


> I think it would be just as logical for the cable cos to say "CableCARD and Tuning Adapters are just another way that TiVo owners control us". In other words there are two sides to the story and I don't see the justification for saying one side has the moral high ground.


Well, yeah. I don't think the question here is a matter of morality, per se. It's a matter of what is best for the industry. The thing that many businesses forget is the consumer is every bit as much a part of the industry as the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retailer. The entire system is a partnership between those who provide the product and those who consume it. In the long term, that which is bad for the consumer is usually not good for the producers, either.

In addition, it is also unfortunately true that many people in business, from executives on down, don't really care about the business, either. All they care about is their own profit, and if that profit harms the business or even eventually bankrupts the business, they really don't care.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> His (bicker's) last activity on the forum was over a year ago. I know he was no youngster so ......


Are you sure about that? Sometimes his posts seemed to be those of a very inexperienced individual. They also were sometimes childish, although admittedly some people never leave adolescence.



dlfl said:


> I respected him and the positions he took here


I sometimes did. When he became petty and obtuse I certainly did not. He also was sometimes inconsistent and selectively forgetful. Many times I have seen him accuse others of being argumentative when he was the one who started the argument.



dlfl said:


> although he was frequently rather abrasive in style


Well, that too, but I really had little concerns over that. My issue with him was he rarely supported his statements with facts (and even less often verifiable ones), and almost never addressed the factual statements of others in his replies. The moment someone came up with a cold, hard fact that refuted some aspect of his tirade, rather than counter with a valid explanation or contrary facts, he would almost invariably start a personal attack on the individual.



dlfl said:


> I have no reason to suspect his business practices -- don't know where you got that from.


I certainly have no specific knowledge that he ever indulged in any unethical or illegal practices, so my statement may be unfair, even though it was meant as a bit of a joke. It's just that his attitude reminded me very much of that of the execs at Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, and Hewlett Packard, among others. Arthur Andersen had a large office in the same building as our business office here in San Antonio. Many of them had similar attitudes, and I avoided them for many years prior to the Enron scandal. I was not particularly amused when a number of them came to us looking for a job. I don't think I would care to hire bicker, either, although I would have to meet him personally before I would make such a decision.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I don't see it as a question of morality. I see it as a question of consumer friendliness. As a consumer, I want companies to be as consumer friendly as possible. Since *I am paying* for a product or service, I want the company to cater to me and make me want to purchase more products and services from them.


Although I wouldn't suggest this as a principle consideration in developing an economy, customer friendliness is an inevitable result of a free market. A free market requires that there be more than enough providers in a sector so that no one provider can have any impact on the sector as a whole, no matter what they do. A single company's fortunes - even going bankrupt - should never have any significant impact on supply or pricing. This means the companies have to be relatively small, and that while the impact of their practices will have no effect on the sector, the loss of even a single client will have a potentially significant impact on the business. In such a case, the business will do everything they can, while still remaining profitable, to make damn sure the customer is happy.

When I was young, there was a maxim in business that is now considered passe`, and rarely even heard: "The customer is always right."



aadam101 said:


> With most companies, I have a choice and if I don't like the practices of one company, I can switch to another. Unfortunately, this is not always the case with cable/internet service. While we have gotten more choices over the past decade or so it is still a monopolistic industry.


Today's economy is massively screwed-up, and in large measure that is because we have allowed it to become a secured economy, not a free one. Giant corporations don't care that you have another choice. The loss of one customer is not an issue for them, and they know that even if you do have one or two other choices, your choices are very limited. They know that the relative handful of pissed-off customers they lose to their competition will be offset by the number of customers who are pissed-off at the competition and come over to them.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer,

I think some of your comments about free markets and your stereotypes of corporate behavior are highly debatable. The definition of a free market quickly leads to the issue of defining a monopoly and arguing whether a monopoly (if you can ever agree on a definition) is always bad or must be accepted as one of the artifacts of a free market. This type of argument was one that bicker used to "bicker" about quite frequently. 

Since I know from past experience that such discussions never settle anything, and just get bogged down in unsettled definitions and disagreements about facts and philosophy, I"m going to resist the urge to reply in detail. (I can hear other forum readers applauding, I think.)

Besides, I'm afraid your next reply might eat up an entire page on this forum.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Are you sure about that? Sometimes his posts seemed to be those of a very inexperienced individual. They also were sometimes childish, although admittedly some people never leave adolescence.


Pretty sure he was no youngster. It was apparent if you looked at his web site and his wife's blog, and I think I remember him saying it in at least one post.


lrhorer said:


> I certainly have no specific knowledge that he ever indulged in any unethical or illegal practices, so my statement may be unfair, even though it was meant as a bit of a joke. ........


Making it obvious that something is a joke is a good usage for smileys. I don't think this was apparent to many readers, in which case it is an unwarranted personal attack on someone you know isn't even around to defend himself. This resembles the kind of behavior you were accusing him of. I will say this is out of character for you.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> ........ It's just one more way of them controlling YOU, the consumer.
> .........





dlfl said:


> ........ In other words there are two sides to the story and I don't see the justification for saying one side has the moral high ground.





aadam101 said:


> I don't see it as a question of morality. ........





lrhorer said:


> ......Well, yeah. I don't think the question here is a matter of morality, per se. ........


Glad to hear the clarification and that I was wrong in thinking your statement was rhetoric intended to demonize the cable cos (which definitely would be about morality, IMO).

I still disagree with the idea the cable cos control us consumers, and the victim mentality it suggests. I'm not thrilled with the cable co/TiVo situation but my transaction with them is voluntary and I have other choices, none of which happen to be cable TV.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I think some of your comments about free markets


Economics 101: A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined exclusively by supply and demand. This can only be the case when no single participant in the market can exert any control over that market.



dlfl said:


> and your stereotypes of corporate behavior are highly debatable.


It is a simple fact that if any person or group has access to influence and control, they will almost certainly take advantage of that influence to their advantage. It's human nature.



dlfl said:


> The definition of a free market quickly leads to the issue of defining a monopoly and arguing whether a monopoly (if you can ever agree on a definition) is always bad or must be accepted as one of the artifacts of a free market.


Whether a monopoly is bad or not is a completely separate issue from whether it is an artifact of a free market. A monopoly may in some cases be the only option, but it is never an artifact of a free market. It is the antithesis of a free market. It is also not a tough definition. Indeed, if one defines a free market, then one needn't necessarily define a monopoly, since a monopoly is simply the polar opposite of a free market. A free market, again by definition, is one where prices are exclusively determined by unfettered supply and demand. A monopoly is a market where supply is completely controlled by one entity.



dlfl said:


> This type of argument was one that bicker used to "bicker" about quite frequently.


Yes.



dlfl said:


> Since I know from past experience that such discussions never settle anything, and just get bogged down in unsettled definitions and disagreements about facts and philosophy, I"m going to resist the urge to reply in detail. (I can hear other forum readers applauding, I think.)


The point of a good debate is not to settle something. It is to bring issues to light and discuss them.



dlfl said:


> Besides, I'm afraid your next reply might eat up an entire page on this forum.


And a page on this forum is a limited or precious resource? The Bill of Rights provides as its very first guarantee the right to freedom of speech. Unlike some of the other rights, it is extremely important that we as individuals exercise that right.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ........ The Bill of Rights provides as its very first guarantee the right to freedom of speech. ........


Thanks, I never knew that! 

I would note that having the right to free speech doesn't mean it's always good to say something.  Brevity is an admirable quality.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Pretty sure he was no youngster. It was apparent if you looked at his web site and his wife's blog, and I think I remember him saying it in at least one post.


No doubt you are correct.



dlfl said:


> Making it obvious that something is a joke is a good usage for smileys. I don't think this was apparent to many readers, in which case it is an unwarranted personal attack on someone you know isn't even around to defend himself.


Your point is well taken - to an extent, and my post may have been less than completely appropriate, especially WRT facts not in evidence. OTOH, neither Alexander, Julius Ceasar, George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Adolph Hitler, nor Harry Truman are around to defend themselves, either. Does that mean we should not speak of them in less than reverent tones? I think not. Certainly I have no issue with anyone remarking upon my public behavior, whether I am there to rebutt, or not, as long as they accurately reflect my actual behavior. It is in that I failed in my post.



dlfl said:


> This resembles the kind of behavior you were accusing him of. I will say this is out of character for you.


I don't think I follow that. I will admit my less than complimentary implications of his actions not in evidence in this forum were not well considered, but his activities in that respect were not evidenced in him that I recall. OTOH, his actions in evidence in this forum were not really similar to mine, either. Indeed, mine were worse in many respects.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Thanks, I never knew that!
> 
> I would note that having the right to free speech doesn't mean it's always good to say something.  Brevity is an admirable quality.


Well, this may shock you, but I disagree. One of the most annoying things with which I must deal continually is inappropriate brevity. One should be succinct, but always thorough and complete. There is little worse than trying to help someone whose entire complaint is, "It doesn't work". Much more important than brevity is the quality of the content.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> ......I will admit my less than complimentary implications of his actions not in evidence in this forum were not well considered, but his activities in that respect were not evidenced in him that I recall. OTOH, his actions in evidence in this forum were not really similar to mine, either. Indeed, mine were worse in many respects.


Now you've crossed the line! Admissions of personal fault are absolutely not tolerated on this forum (and certainly are rare), and I'll have to ask the administrators to ban you!


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Well, this may shock you, but I disagree.........


Yes, as Claude Raines says in "Casablanca" when told there is gambling in Rick's place, "I'm shocked!"


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Glad to hear the clarification and that I was wrong in thinking your statement was rhetoric intended to demonize the cable cos (which definitely would be about morality, IMO).


Well... it wasn't my statement. It was aadam101's.



dlfl said:


> I still disagree with the idea the cable cos control us consumers, and the victim mentality it suggests.


I never said any such thing. They want to control the equipment and our access to information. The only way they want to control the consumer directly, per se, is to prevent them from what the CATV companies perceive as stealing. In that effort, however, they are reaching far beyond that.



dlfl said:


> I'm not thrilled with the cable co/TiVo situation but my transaction with them is voluntary and I have other choices, none of which happen to be cable TV.


I'm not sure if you are talking about something different, or if you misunderstood what I was saying. The specifications for tru2way specifically enforce the CATV company's right to plant any software they like - including spyware - on the consumer's equipment. They can load software that collects account passwords, browsing habits, download activities, and anything else on the consumer's LAN.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Now you've crossed the line! Admissions of personal fault are absolutely not tolerated on this forum (and certainly are rare), and I'll have to ask the administrators to ban you!


I beg your forgiveness. I'll try not to ever let it happen again. From now on I'll never admit I was wrong.

Oh, wait! I know the real solution. From now on I will never BE wrong.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> Glad to hear the clarification and that I was wrong in thinking your statement was rhetoric intended to demonize the cable cos (which definitely would be about morality, IMO).


I actually don't think about "demonizing" anyone. I think of cable companies like I think of the music industry 10 years ago. They were reluctant to adapt and give customers what they wanted and lost huge sums of money due to pirating. It is a similar situations with cable companies. Implementing copy protection just serves to piss consumers off. The content is out there being pirated anyway. They are not doing themselves any favors by restricting copying. All they are doing is giving people a reason to try to find it illegally.

I remember when I first discovered bittorrent. In the decade that I have owned a Tivo, NBC has never been able to follow a proper schedule. The shows always cut off at the end. I was tired of it so I went to the internet to find another way of getting the show. I didn't want to pay since I recorded most of it for free. I don't even think there was a way to pay for it at the time. I stumbled upon Bittorrent and never looked back.

Had NBC just been a liittle more consumer friendly, I never would have been looking for an alternative in the first place.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I actually don't think about "demonizing" anyone. I think of cable companies like I think of the music industry 10 years ago. They were reluctant to adapt and give customers what they wanted and lost huge sums of money due to pirating. It is a similar situations with cable companies. Implementing copy protection just serves to piss consumers off. The content is out there being pirated anyway. They are not doing themselves any favors by restricting copying. All they are doing is giving people a reason to try to find it illegally.
> 
> I remember when I first discovered bittorrent. In the decade that I have owned a Tivo, NBC has never been able to follow a proper schedule. The shows always cut off at the end. I was tired of it so I went to the internet to find another way of getting the show. I didn't want to pay since I recorded most of it for free. I don't even think there was a way to pay for it at the time. I stumbled upon Bittorrent and never looked back.
> 
> Had NBC just been a liittle more consumer friendly, I never would have been looking for an alternative in the first place.


Yours is a serious response, which I appreciate, and please understand I am not trying to demonize you in my response. However what I get from it boils down to "I violated copyright law but I was morally justified in doing so, and furthermore the stupid behavior of the copyright holders means they deserved it." I realize this is the position of many (perhaps a majority) of serious-thinking people. I also think there is a sizable portion of people who don't do any serious thinking about their stealing at all -- they just do it.

I have no sympathy for the copyright holders and I agree it would have been better for all if they had realized and more quickly adopted the business model that works best.

But I believe in the rule of law. Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't justify stealing it. I do believe in civil disobedience a la MLK and Ghandhi, but it doesn't apply in this case. It applies when basic human freedoms and rights are being denied by the law, not when you just don't like how much your entertainment costs.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> what I get from it boils down to "I violated copyright law but I was morally justified in doing so, and furthermore the stupid behavior of the copyright holders means they deserved it."


I didn't say it was morally right. What I said is that the copyright holders drive people to find other ways of obtaining content. I wouldn't have been looking for another way if NBC could have just started/stopped their shows on time. It's not asking much and most other networks can handle it without a problem.

Do they deserve it? Probably not. Did they create a reason for me to look elsewhere? Yes.

I had a similar issue with Fox recently. They aired an episode of Terra Nova after a baseball game that ran over. Tivo only caught the last 15 minutes of it. It was a dumb programming decision for Fox to make. I had a choice to make. I can either purchase a show for $2.99 (for HD from Amazon) that I should have got for "free" via my Tivo or I can go looking for a torrent. I want to watch it on my TV, not my PC. (which is something that FOX prohibits from devices like GoogleTV).

My point is that copyright holders have created the world of bittorrent. If they were more friendly to their customers, there wouldn't be a demand for bittorrent.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> ........My point is that copyright holders have created the world of bittorrent. .......


To me that's like a robber holding a gun on his victim and saying "Don't make me shoot you".  But then you didn't say it was morally right.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> To me that's like a robber holding a gun on his victim and saying "Don't make me shoot you".  But then you didn't say it was morally right.


Exactly. I never mentioned morals. I am only stating that copyright holders decisions have made bittorent popular. Copyright holders could all get together and make bittorent go away almost overnight if they wanted to. It's often easier to get a video on my Tivo via Bitorrent than it is to get it the way the copyright holders want me to get it.

This is contrary to the way the loss prevention world works. In a retail store, it is usually more difficult to steal something than it is to just go to the checkout and purchase it. With media downloads, it is the complete opposite. In many cases, it is much easier to steal a video and make it available on my Tivo than it is to purchase the video and make it available on my Tivo. This industry has things backwards and they will continue to pay the price until they catch up.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> Exactly. I never mentioned morals. I am only stating that copyright holders decisions have made bittorent popular. ........


Yeah and high prices and unemployment have made robbery more popular. 

I think you're missing the important point, which is a moral one -- theft is wrong (and illegal). This is like discussing a robbery where you minimize the core fact that a theft occurred and all you want to talk about is how the store owner provoked the robbery by not pricing his goods low enough to fit the robber's budget.

I agreed with your point that the content owners acted stupidly many posts ago. No need to keep repeating it. But that doesn't justify stealing the content.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

dlfl said:


> Yeah and high prices and unemployment have made robbery more popular.
> 
> I think you're missing the important point, which is a moral one -- theft is wrong (and illegal). This is like discussing a robbery where you minimize the core fact that a theft occurred and all you want to talk about is how the store owner provoked the robbery by not pricing his goods low enough to fit the robber's budget.
> 
> I agreed with your point that the content owners acted stupidly many posts ago. No need to keep repeating it. But that doesn't justify stealing the content.


The core problem this argument always boils down to is do you consider copying as theft. If you do and he other person doesn't, this is almost always an argument that goes in circles.

This is also why a vast majority don't consider it wrong since they don't see it as theft. My mom wouldn't steal, but she wouldn't think twice about asking me to burn her a copy of a song or a CD if I have it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

innocentfreak said:


> The core problem this argument always boils down to is do you consider copying as theft. If you do and he other person doesn't, this is almost always an argument that goes in circles.
> 
> This is also why a vast majority don't consider it wrong since they don't see it as theft. My mom wouldn't steal, but she wouldn't think twice about asking me to burn her a copy of a song or a CD if I have it.


This seems to imply that the vast majority don't accept copyright law, doesn't it? I believe the basic principle behind copyright protection is that making an unauthorized copy is theft. You might argue semantically to the effect that the law doesn't actually use words like "theft" or "steal" but isn't that just sophistry? Whether it's precisely theft or not, it's doing something you have no legal right to do. Sad that we have laws that most people won't abide by (if you are correct that most don't). If the vast marjority don't like copyright laws, it should be easy to get the laws changed. Or could it be that the Supreme Court would uphold the principle that intellectual property does deserve protection?

Occasional copies for a friend are really a moot point in this discussion for two reasons: (1) the volume of lost sales is too small to be of concern, and (2) the laws will never be enforced for such small-potato stuff. Copyright issues should be of concern only for the larger-volume cases. Internet traffic statistics indicate bittorrent is definitely large volume. There is a valid argument that many of the copies don't reduce sales because the recipients would never have purchased even if they couldn't get a free copy. However, there is still some fraction of the copies that don't fall in that category. Maybe it's a small fraction like 20%, but if you were selling something how would you like to be told that you've only lost 20% to theft?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

dlfl said:


> This seems to imply that the vast majority don't accept copyright law, doesn't it? I believe the basic principle behind copyright protection is that making an unauthorized copy is theft. You might argue semantically to the effect that the law doesn't actually use words like "theft" or "steal" but isn't that just sophistry? Whether it's precisely theft or not, it's doing something you have no legal right to do. Sad that we have laws that most people won't abide by (if you are correct that most don't). If the vast marjority don't like copyright laws, it should be easy to get the laws changed. Or could it be that the Supreme Court would uphold the principle that intellectual property does deserve protection?
> 
> Occasional copies for a friend are really a moot point in this discussion for two reasons: (1) the volume of lost sales is too small to be of concern, and (2) the laws will never be enforced for such small-potato stuff. Copyright issues should be of concern only for the larger-volume cases. Internet traffic statistics indicate bittorrent is definitely large volume. There is a valid argument that many of the copies don't reduce sales because the recipients would never have purchased even if they couldn't get a free copy. However, there is still some fraction of the copies that don't fall in that category. Maybe it's a small fraction like 20%, but if you were selling something how would you like to be told that you've only lost 20% to theft?


I try to leave the morality side of this discussion. I honestly think it's a very gray area.

I pay for cable TV. I pay for Tivo. If I forget to record a show or it doesn't get recorded for some reason, isn't it in the best interest of the provider for me to "steal" it? Isn't it better that I "steal" one episode (or even a couple) if it gets me to watch the show on a regular basis and help the ratings for the show?

I have a few favorite movies that I own on DVD and watch often. I'm too lazy to deal with physical DVD's so I "stole" them via bittorent and keep the file handy so I can transfer it to Tivo whenever I feel like it. Is it really stealing since I actually did pay for a DVD? I think I asked this question once before and someone had a great answer. I'll see if I can find the thread. This is also an area where Tivo, Amazon and the providers could make this easier for customer and offer access to my Amazon library via the Tivo box instead of having to go to my PC.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> ........I have a few favorite movies that I own on DVD and watch often. I'm too lazy to deal with physical DVD's so I "stole" them via bittorent and keep the file handy so I can transfer it to Tivo whenever I feel like it. Is it really stealing since I actually did pay for a DVD? .......


Technically yes, but as I just said in a previous post:

"Copyright issues should be of concern only for the larger-volume cases."

It is a gray area, and I think there is a reasonable case to be made that your usage is morally acceptable. How ironic it is to me that the very first time I encountered bicker and locked horns with him was when I took essentially the same position you just did and he flat out condemned me as condoning breaking the law!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

As adam said, you can hardly call it theft when a) it's broadcast for free OTA, over public airwaves, and b) you're paying for a cable sub to the channel anyway, so all you're doing is getting the copy that you should have recorded in the first place before Fox SNAFU'd the schedule.

I don't see anything wrong with BT'ing Terra Nova in this case, morals or not. But I believe the same holds true for any show broadcast in the clear OTA, personally.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> .... The content owners are not asking them to do it. ....





lrhorer said:


> I...
> 
> Actually, they are. The MPAA is lobbying every which way from next Sunday to make it so no one can copy anything. The content providers are not, for the most part, but the content owners are.
> ....


They frequently tag things that NO ONE has asked them to do. Many times even things the content owner would have no problem with like _cable in the classroom_. What good is _cable in the classroom_ if you can't make a copy to bring it to the school to show it to your students?

Even if the content owners cared at all to have the flags inserted- they could put the finger on the channels themselves to inject the flag at their uplink. Way back when the S3 came along and the CCI flags came to light, they was a head end engineer (or the like, and I actually think he was from Texas...) who posted. He explained that the systems not only allow the flags to be added at the head end but also pass through any more restrictive flags added upstream. So the content owners could set the flag at HBO and Viola- every downstream system would respect the flag. It's stupid to expect thousands of different head ends to have the settings enabled when you can ask HBO to just set it once and it covers the whole country.

So why if Warner cares about their content do they only turn the flag on at their owned head ends and not just inject the bits at HBO HQ?

The content owners are not the drivers.

But I completely agree it's the paranoia at the cable companies. They just flip the switches to "be sure" and that's that. I'm no lawyer but I'd say it's even dumb for cable as a middle man to get involved. If Warner wanted the flag set on their content and I was Comcast (or whatever middle man) I would tell them I didn't want the liability of 1,000 head ends being set up right so they better add the flag to HBO themselves. Then if someone copies something that came off my system it's either HBO that forgot the flag or Moto or Cisco who didn't respect the flag but nothing that the I as the middle man had any control of.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

aadam101 said:


> I bet someone at Cox either didn't know that it was turned on or they gave someone the ability to turn it off who shouldn't have it.


Copy Freely was short lived, Back to 0x02.


----------



## jshore (Aug 18, 2003)

Time for someone to ask nicely again. Copyright protection is back on with Cox in Phoenix.


----------



## jshore (Aug 18, 2003)

I posted on Cox Arizona's FB page, asking why copyright protection was turned back on. Here is the response i was given:

Good morning Jon, I wanted to let you know that we had some maintenance to our system being done and now that it has been completed, all channels have returned to their proper settings. I do apologize for any inconvenience. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thank you.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

jshore said:


> I posted on Cox Arizona's FB page, asking why copyright protection was turned back on. Here is the response i was given:
> 
> Good morning Jon, I wanted to let you know that we had some maintenance to our system being done and now that it has been completed, all channels have returned to their proper settings. I do apologize for any inconvenience. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Thank you.


I get the feeling they don't know what they are doing.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> I get the feeling they don't know what they are doing.


Isn't that pretty much a requirement to own and operate a cable company?


----------

