# It's official - no TivoToGo for S3 (probably ever)



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Hmm. Sounds like TivoToGo will NEVER happen for the S3 and was a compromise needed to obtain CableLabs certification. I expected that for premium and 5C protected content but what about OTA/local channels? I can even extract those via my DCT6416 cable company DVR via firewire right now, so that's a huge minus of the S3. Without capability of extracting shows natively from the box it's no sale for me.


----------



## stevereis (Feb 24, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Hmm. Sounds like TivoToGo will NEVER happen for the S3 and was a compromise needed to obtain CableLabs certification. I expected that for premium and 5C protected content but what about OTA/local channels? I can even extract those via my DCT6416 cable company box via firewire right now, so that's a huge minus of the S3. Without capability of extracting shows natively from the box it's no sale for me.


I hope that we'll eventually get:

- MRV of analog content between S3 <-> S2
- MRV of digital & HD content between S3 <-> S3
- TTG of analog content from S3 (hopefully SD digital, too)

and maybe even:
- TTG of analog contnet to Vista PCs and MCEs that also have CableCARD support


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

How is it official? I don't think you should read to much into anything anyone but TiVo says. I'm pretty sure that CableLabs has no say over what TiVo can or can not do with content grabed from analog or OTA sources. So I would expect that at the very least they would allow TiVoToGo for that.

Dan


----------



## raober (Sep 10, 2006)

I was wavering on whether to keep or sell my lifetime S2 when I got an S3. Now, I'm definitely keeping it. Will use it as a backup to record my "must have" shows (Lost, House, etc.) in case I want to TTG them.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> How is it official? I don't think you should read to much into anything anyone but TiVo says. I'm pretty sure that CableLabs has no say over what TiVo can or can not do with content grabed from analog or OTA sources. So I would expect that at the very least they would allow TiVoToGo for that.
> 
> Dan


The pcmag magazine article spelled it out:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2014608,00.asp


> Unfortunately, the TiVoToGo feature, which enabled TiVo recordings stored on networked Series2 DVRs to be transferred to a PC running the company's Desktop software, has been is indefinitely disabled. This tragic crippling of Series3 hardware is due to content-protection concerns of the Cable Labs group.


I hope I'm wrong but it really sounds like Tivo could not enable that feature in order to pass CableLabs certification. As you said and I stated above, OTA recordings and local broadcasts re-transmitted over cable should be valid candidates but are victims of the Cable Labs restrictions apparently - at least for now.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They're wrong! CableLabs has no say over what they do with analog or OTA recordings, so like I said at the very least we should be seeing TTG for that. My guess is that they couldn't handle TTG yet because they're going to need a complimentry release for the S2 units so that they know how to handle digital recordings which don't fit the normal TiVo profiles and how to ignore HD since they can't play that back. I'm guessing this will be part of the update which is supose to include WPA support, which is rumored to be coming out in the next few months.

Dan


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Then again the gizmodo review gives a positive spin on TivoToGo possibility:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/feat...ith-video-two-cablecards-no-waitin-199936.php



> Another feature that was sorely missed is TiVo2Go, where you can rip programs from the TiVo onto a computer, a mobile device or an iPod. There's no sign of that on this latest TiVo yet, and TiVo officials say they are investigating this and working on getting it certified, but couldn't say when that would happen.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

*Tivo already obtained FCC certification for their MRV/TivoToGo encryption technology for storing and transferring digital content from the local broadcast networks.*

There is nothing stopping Tivo from adding TivoToGo support for DTV/HDTV from the local networks *today*.


----------



## Sepia (Jan 5, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> *Tivo already obtained FCC certification for their MRV/TivoToGo encryption technology for storing and transferring digital content from the local broadcast networks.*
> 
> There is nothing stopping Tivo from adding TivoToGo support for DTV/HDTV from the local networks *today*.


I so love reading your posts bkdtv :up:

- Sepia


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

Has anyone clearly stated that the S3 can, or cannot, do MRV between S3 units?


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Hmm. Sounds like TivoToGo will NEVER happen for the S3 and was a compromise needed to obtain CableLabs certification.


I've talked to TiVo folks about this. They very much wish to offer TTG, MRV, etc, on the S3. For now they've disabled these features until they can determine exactly what is acceptable under the CableCARD restrictions. Basically, better safe than sorry. Odds are good that at least some, if not all, of the functionality will return in the future.

However, if this is a deal breaker for you - then no, you should not get one at this time. Because it isn't certain that you'll get what you want in the future. You'd better wait and see.

If you can accept the risk (as I'm willing to), then get once now and see what updates bring.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

Agent86 said:


> Has anyone clearly stated that the S3 can, or cannot, do MRV between S3 units?


Cannot.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

If TiVo couldn't get all the glitches in MRV, TTG, HME worked out in beta testing, "Cablelabs Restrictions" would be a mighty convenient excuse to disable them rather than push back release date. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

I've talked to the people at TiVo while doing my review, I VERY, VERY much doubt there is any coverup. They've been very open and straightforward.


----------



## painkiller (Jun 23, 2005)

Then my desires for an S3 are put on indefinite hold.


----------



## jshore (Aug 18, 2003)

And here I was holding out hope that there would be some sort of combined Mac/Tivo announcement that TivoToGo for Macintosh would FINALLY be available via the Series 3 and whatever Apple is unveiling today. (sorry, done with my iWish list.)

But just so I'm clear - if TivoToGo is made available, as well as Multi-Room Viewing, this would be a software update, correct? I would hate to drop $800 just to find out that it is a hardware thing....

Also  all other networked functionalities remain, right? Streaming iTunes, iPhoto, and all the other content provided on the Series 2?


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

jshore said:


> But just so I'm clear - if TivoToGo is made available, as well as Multi-Room Viewing, this would be a software update, correct? I would hate to drop $800 just to find out that it is a hardware thing....


Yes, it is software.



> Also  all other networked functionalities remain, right? Streaming iTunes, iPhoto, and all the other content provided on the Series 2?


Yes, that's still there.


----------



## jshore (Aug 18, 2003)

Thanks, megazone! Oh, and thanks to everyone who was up and posting at 12am eastern time. Seeing people even geekier than me makes my wife feel just a tad more comfortable with my Tivo nerdiness.





megazone said:


> Yes, it is software.
> 
> Yes, that's still there.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

Will you be able to transfer programs from an S2 to an S3 or is MRV completely disabled on the S3?


----------



## TechDreamer (Jan 27, 2002)

Tivo had plenty of time to get these details worked out. What the heck have they been doing all this time? So Tivo is basically admitting point blank that this box is still in beta. Same old Tivo. I really thought the Series 3 would be diiferent, but here we go again.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

TechDreamer said:


> Tivo had plenty of time to get these details worked out. What the heck have they been doing all this time? So Tivo is basically admitting point blank that this box is still in beta. Same old Tivo. I really thought the Series 3 would be diiferent, but here we go again.


Yeah, I can buy "we don't have the code ready", but not "we don't have the details worked out on what's permissible".


----------



## sharding (Feb 11, 2001)

I take it you've never been involved with legal negotiations between large corporate entities? That process can take exponentially longer than the software development pieces.


----------



## ITGuy72 (Aug 10, 2005)

My feeling is either the price will have to come down significantly, or the feature set go up to what is available on the S2 for TiVo to get my hard earned $.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

jfh3 said:


> Yeah, I can buy "we don't have the code ready", but not "we don't have the details worked out on what's permissible".


Why? Isn't this entirely new territory? Just how motivated is Cable Labs to help TiVo negotiate this DRM, DMCA, Cable monopoly mine field?


----------



## bobharp (Jan 17, 2003)

Without TTG/MRV or input via S-Video/component/etc there is very little to differentiate the S3 (other than that geat Tivo software) from the Cable companies or that Comcast/Tivo STB DVR. I would throw down the $$ for the S3 with those features and I do very little TTG and no place shifting. Alas, Tivo has left me hanging.


----------



## drosoph (Mar 21, 2000)

Wow, I saw the posts today and got to SUBMIT ORDER -- then went to find out why it only says "Record 2 DIGITAL cable shows at once" ... Why does it say digital .. can it not record two Analog Cable shows at once?

I RELY on MRV for my 7 tivos!!! I CANNOT have a tivo that is incapable of importing from another tivo in the household!

DEAL BREAKER ... And I'm as big a fan as they come ... I need more info ... can you record two shows from ANY SOURCE at once ? Why no MRV INBOUND (that CANT be against ANY sort of Cablelabs rule ... its impossible .. to IMPORT analog shows? Why would this be disabled? 

Can an OTA HD recording be played back via SD outputs w/ Optical Theater sound?

Why will TWC give me ONE CableCard for free, but charge me 6$/month for the second? Can you just yank a CC from one DVR and put it in a S3 TiVo?


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bobharp said:


> Without TTG/MRV or input via S-Video/component/etc there is very little to differentiate the S3 (other than that geat Tivo software) from the Cable companies or that Comcast/Tivo STB DVR. I would throw down the $$ for the S3 with those features and I do very little TTG and no place shifting. Alas, Tivo has left me hanging.


If the worlds greatest UI, online scheduling, expandable storage (soon, I hope!) and a chance to stick it to the cable company are "very little", I guess you're right...

There's stacks of people that'll disagree with that, then...


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

drosoph said:


> can it not record two Analog Cable shows at once?


Yes, it can.



> I need more info


Read the FAQ I posted.



> Can an OTA HD recording be played back via SD outputs w/ Optical Theater sound?


Yes.



> Can you just yank a CC from one DVR and put it in a S3 TiVo?


CCs are activated and tied to the host device with most operators. So you'd have to call them to reactivate it - and they may require a truck roll.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

nrc said:


> Why? Isn't this entirely new territory? Just how motivated is Cable Labs to help TiVo negotiate this DRM, DMCA, Cable monopoly mine field?


...not very. From their website:



CableLabs said:


> Founded in 1988 by members of the cable television industry, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (CableLabs®) is a non-profit research and development consortium that is dedicated to pursuing new cable telecommunications technologies and to helping its cable operator members integrate those technical advancements into their business objectives.


CableLabs, then, is funded and run by the same cable providers that really, really don't like this whole Cablecard thing forced on them by the FCC and kind of wish it would go away.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Hmm. Sounds like TivoToGo will NEVER happen for the S3 and was a compromise needed to obtain CableLabs certification. I expected that for premium and 5C protected content but what about OTA/local channels? I can even extract those via my DCT6416 cable company DVR via firewire right now, so that's a huge minus of the S3. Without capability of extracting shows natively from the box it's no sale for me.


Nothing of the sort is "OFFICIAL".

Stop it.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I have not thought through what I would accept for limitations to TiVoToCome&Go or MRV, but without them I am definitely not buying.

I'm thinking add cable HD-DVR for Football season.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

drosoph said:


> Wow, I saw the posts today and got to SUBMIT ORDER -- then went to find out why it only says "Record 2 DIGITAL cable shows at once" ... Why does it say digital .. can it not record two Analog Cable shows at once?
> 
> I RELY on MRV for my 7 tivos!!! I CANNOT have a tivo that is incapable of importing from another tivo in the household!
> 
> ...


Right. Well, good. But fortunately for TiVo, they decided that some people would rather watch their shows in a prestine HD 1080i picture now and lose the ability to watch overcompressed S-Video 480i shows on their laptop.

Thankfully they did that. Those that say it's a DEAL BREAKER, so what, they should've delayed the releases 6 months to make sure that Tivo2go could be enabled? So then wait six months for it to be enabled!! Not everyone cares about it!


----------



## drosoph (Mar 21, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Right. Well, good. But fortunately for TiVo, they decided that some people would rather watch their shows in a prestine HD 1080i picture now and lose the ability to watch overcompressed S-Video 480i shows on their laptop.
> 
> Thankfully they did that. Those that say it's a DEAL BREAKER, so what, they should've delayed the releases 6 months to make sure that Tivo2go could be enabled? So then wait six months for it to be enabled!! Not everyone cares about it!


Actually, I'm not concerned about T2G at all. I need MRV. Remember, I have 7 tivo's ... placed in different viewing rooms. I need to be able to transfer shows at will. I assume this functionality will be enabled shortly, but for now ... it IS a dealbreaker for me as the units record from a "closet" and all media is shipped via MRV to a very large unit in each media viewing room. Althought this unit would replace the primary unit in the main viewing room, I would need to be able to transfer shows from it to other units, unless I want to continue to schedule duplicate SPs on all units, reducing my ability to record 3,4,5 shows at once. So, a DT unit + an S3 unit can record 2 shows at once in my scenario. That is the flaw for now.


----------



## lawilson2 (Oct 6, 2005)

megazone said:


> Yes, it is software.
> 
> Yes, that's still there.


Will it stream WMA's? I know the S2 can't without hacked software which I don't want to use. Thanks.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

lawilson2 said:


> Will it stream WMA's? I know the S2 can't without hacked software which I don't want to use. Thanks.


Actually there is a plugin for TiVo Desktop which allows playing just about any audio file on the TiVo - it transcodes to MP3 on the fly. It isn't a hack, it uses the API. You can do it on Mac too, using LAME. That works on S2 and S3s.

As for streaming WMA right to the S3 - no, not yet.


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

I have 2 lifetime S2 units right now, and I just "rolled the dice" and picked up a S3. MRV would be a huge win, and would likely convince me to replace the second unit so that I'd have 4 HD tuners at my disposal. I have no vested interest in TTG.

I do most of my watching in one room, though I record on both devices. But since the S3 is a dual tuner box, it will handle most of my recording duty if I can get the drive space increased enough. With at least the eSATA connector, I'm comfortable that will most likely happen.

Do I personally think TiVo will get MRV enabled on the S3 boxes? Yes, I do. Microsoft has been touting that you'll be able to record in HD with a CableCard on a Vista Media Center and watch the recording on your Xbox 360. By using a CableCard, that means that Microsoft (and their partners) would need to go through the same process that TiVo did. So either Microsoft gets their Xbox 360 connectivity and TiVo gets MRV, or neither gets anything.

The optimist in me says both will get their features and we'll all be happy. The pessimist in me won't let me purchase that second S3 yet. <shrug>


----------



## maki (Oct 23, 2003)

I hardly ever use TiVoToGo except to store things. And at 10gb per hd file, I don't think I'd want to.


----------



## Stu_Bee (Jan 15, 2002)

megazone said:


> However, if this is a deal breaker for you - then no, you should not get one at this time. Because it isn't certain that you'll get what you want in the future. You'd better wait and see.
> 
> If you can accept the risk (as I'm willing to), then get once now and see what updates bring.


The other option for me is to wait for the ComcastTivo to arrive. The Tivo2goBack was (in my mind) the distinctive decision factor between the S3 and ComcastTivo. Now with ToGoBack not being on the Series 3, I might as well keep my S2 Lifetime, and await the ComcastTivo, or at least the feature description.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

maki said:


> I hardly ever use TiVoToGo except to store things. And at 10gb per hd file, I don't think I'd want to.


You're missing the point that a lot of us wanted the S3 to do the duty of an S2 it would replace (plus provide some HD channesl), so you won't be able to store the 2 GB files we can now. Yes, HD offloaded to the PC has limited usefulness for me and transcoding it for a DVD burn would probably be slow and give poor results.


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Wow. Unreal. I've been waiting for two years for THIS?!? 

I was already pretty much decided I wouldn't get one thanks to the price-plus no Mac compatibility yet. And no, no Tivo2Go even for Windows!?! Plus my Series 2 has gotten buggy since the last update, which isn't reasuring.

Plus the price is actually worse than it looks, as you've got what, 30 hours recording time? You need external hard drives, and those aren't going to come cheap either. A Netflix subsription is looking better.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

TechDreamer said:


> Tivo had plenty of time to get these details worked out. What the heck have they been doing all this time? So Tivo is basically admitting point blank that this box is still in beta. Same old Tivo. I really thought the Series 3 would be diiferent, but here we go again.


if you read the other thread, once tivo asks permission cablelabs has 180 days to give thumbs up or thunbs down. If they deny then it's to teh fcc for review with a 90 day hearing.

I'm GUESSING tivo asked way back in may when the box got initial approval. 6 months till the knuckdragging slackers at cable labs say no. So that puts us in novemberish. Then TiVO poetitions the FCC and remind the cable oversight division that the broadcast guy down the hall already approved TIVo's security system months (or is it years now?) ago even though the NFL, THe MPAA, and other content providers objected. Seems pretty clear the FCC thinks TiVo's system is secure. Cablelabs has to give an impartial review- I cant see how they can come to a differnt answer then the FCC and have it stand...


----------



## puckettcg (Feb 10, 2006)

MRV is pretty important to me for SD; I use it extensively across my 3 S2 boxes. I initially used TTG for storage - but I have since upgraded to a 400 hour box, and no longer have that problem. 

When it comes to HD however - MRV isn't all that important to me just yet because I would only record HD programming on the HD box for viewing on my 42" Plasma. I have a second HDTV, but its a puny 27" and quite frankly you just don't get the "wow" factor on the smaller screen. But for $800, I want significantly more for my money than a nifty interface for recording shows and 2 weeks of guide data. 

TIVO has an excellent opportunity to really run away this market - and they are blowing it big time. I mean we've been hearing about the great S3 for months; and we've heard glimmers of the ability to order and download movies to the TIVO box. That would be an awesome feature. And, then what's released is a really expensive system that does little more than a $10/month, no upfront charge, COMCAST DVR.

And then there is the little issue of storage capacity. When the fall TV schedule hits full throttle, I'm easily recording 25 HD programs a week. Forget saving up and watching a full season - or God forbid go out of town for a week. At the very least, the option to increase capacity should be there.

Anyone catch the Apple news release? In 1Q07, it looks like they are coming out with a $299 box that attached to your TV to allow you to wirelessly download near-DVD quality videos for direct viewing on your TV. The TIVO is already technically there! And, I hate Apple (for reasons I won't discuss on this board). They could have been way ahead of Apple on this - but they Blew it. 

And ditto the rest of the boards - TIVO's marketing dept is out to lunch.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

sharding said:


> I take it you've never been involved with legal negotiations between large corporate entities? That process can take exponentially longer than the software development pieces.


Actually, I have. These discussions should've been going on with CableLabs the second Tivo got the original FCC approval.


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson (Sep 24, 2001)

Puppy76 said:


> And no, no Tivo2Go even for Windows!?!


Hey, Mac and Windows TTG feature parity at last!


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> Actually, I have. These discussions should've been going on with CableLabs the second Tivo got the original FCC approval.


as posted in the other thread- cablelabs can legally stall 180 days....


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dennis Wilkinson said:


> Hey, Mac and Windows TTG feature parity at last!


made me laugh OUT LOUD!


----------



## m_jonis (Jan 3, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> How is it official? I don't think you should read to much into anything anyone but TiVo says. I'm pretty sure that CableLabs has no say over what TiVo can or can not do with content grabed from analog or OTA sources. So I would expect that at the very least they would allow TiVoToGo for that.
> 
> Dan


Dan,

You'd better go check Tivo Pony's posting then, as he obviously indicates this IS up to Cable Labs to decide.


----------



## rodalpho (Sep 12, 2006)

All of these features are in vista MCE, so I'd honestly expect them to make it to the s3 sooner or later. Probably sooner, since every single OEM vista MCE computer has to be separately certified and the tivo s3 is just one box.


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> as posted in the other thread- cablelabs can legally stall 180 days....


That's from certification ... I'm talking about from when they got FCC approval a year or so back.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

jfh3 said:


> That's from certification ... I'm talking about from when they got FCC approval a year or so back.


Oh- now I get you.

If I had to guess the jerks at cable labs likely said "we'll look at that in good time when you have a device for us to look at"

SO likley cablelabs refused to even look at it untill tivo gave them a box last spring.

Then throw in their 180 day stall to say no.

And that's where we are today.

I suppose the big question will be what does the FCC rule on appeal of the cablelabs denial.

I cant imagine that the FCC won't find for tivo considering they already decided the tivo setup was good enough for them. But since cable seems to be the tale that wags the dog which is the FCC, who knows....


----------



## 2-Wheeler (Sep 13, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> If I had to guess the jerks at cable labs likely said "we'll look at that in good time when you have a device for us to look at"


Not quite. My team is responsible for the technical evaluation. This is complicated and we have to do our due diligence. It simply takes time. I'd be happy to answer questions about this process in person at CEDIA. See my offer on the other thread: 
*Series3, CableLabs, and Sharing Shows, p3*


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

2-Wheeler said:


> *I'd be happy to answer questions about this process in person at CEDIA.*


And I'd be happy to give out hundred dollar bills at next year's E3 expo. Still, that's not really very helpful to the 99.7% of the readers here who have no chance of attending E3, and likewise with your offer at CEDIA. I'm not sure if you mean to come off as evasive, but regardless, you're certainly doing so.

Is there some reason why you can't discuss any details here? It's not like anything you'd say at CEDIA wouldn't get reported back here within an hour. I'd say almost everyone here would like to know more.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

2-Wheeler said:


> Not quite. My team is responsible for the technical evaluation. This is complicated and we have to do our due diligence. It simply takes time. I'd be happy to answer questions about this process in person at CEDIA. See my offer on the other thread:
> *Series3, CableLabs, and Sharing Shows, p3*


How far along in your 180 day period are you?

Can you explain how a system that was already approved by the FCC for protection of broadcast content would NOT be acceptable for cable labs?

Legit question, not starting a brawl.

For me at least, I dont understand how that is almost not patently acceptable. It seems to me that almost you should have a procedure that if the FCC approves then you rubber stamp it.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

rodalpho said:


> All of these features are in vista MCE, so I'd honestly expect them to make it to the s3 sooner or later. Probably sooner, since every single OEM vista MCE computer has to be separately certified and the tivo s3 is just one box.


How can these features be "in" a product that isn't even shipping. Until Vista MCE ships nobody is going to know for sure what is possible. Also note that you will not be able to buy Vista MCE and an external cablecard decoder separately. You'll only be able to buy an off the shelf system with all those pieces that has been certified by CableLabs. So it's entirely possible you'll see Vista MCE that can record OTA HD and have all "these features" while the integrated system you buy with CableCard support has none of "these features."

As I said. Nobody will know until it actually ships. Sometime in 2009 is my bet.


----------



## raygundan (Oct 29, 2003)

GoHokies! said:


> If the worlds greatest UI, online scheduling, expandable storage (soon, I hope!) and a chance to stick it to the cable company are "very little", I guess you're right...
> 
> There's stacks of people that'll disagree with that, then...


How exactly do you get to "stick it to the cable company" with a HD Tivo? Don't you actually have to pay your cable company *more* to get cable HD content?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

raygundan said:


> How exactly do you get to "stick it to the cable company" with a HD Tivo? Don't you actually have to pay your cable company *more* to get cable HD content?


I think he was saying that because you are no longer required to rent their DVR for $10-$15 a month, and instead get two CableCARDs for $0-$8. Although I don't think cable companies really care about that, I think they are more concerned about loss of revenue from the lack of VOD, PPV, and those little banner ads they put in the guide.

Dan


----------



## greenstork (Apr 5, 2006)

puckettcg said:


> Anyone catch the Apple news release? In 1Q07, it looks like they are coming out with a $299 box that attached to your TV to allow you to wirelessly download near-DVD quality videos for direct viewing on your TV. The TIVO is already technically there! And, I hate Apple (for reasons I won't discuss on this board). They could have been way ahead of Apple on this - but they Blew it.


If Apple's lept out so far in front of TiVo, where is their CableCARD certified device that can record HD? Like Cablelabs would ever let that happen, with Apple tossing around files from computer to TV to iPod.


----------



## The TiVo Dude (Jun 9, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> I think he was saying that because you are no longer required to rent their DVR for $10-$15 a month, and instead get two CableCARDs for $0-$8...
> 
> Dan


...or two for $13.90 (Comcast) - $6.95 per device (CableCard, Analog box, Digital box - all $6.95/month) - or so the CSR sez...


----------



## Georgia Guy (Feb 21, 2003)

drosoph said:


> I have 7 tivo's ... placed in different viewing rooms.
> and all media is shipped via MRV to a very large unit in each media viewing room. ....reducing my ability to record 3,4,5 shows at once.


MAN! What exactly have you got going on there?  

I thought I had something....but, including my 6412, I can only record 6 shows at once, but can only transfer 3 of 'em, darn it. I feel so obsolete.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

One thing to keep in mind about cable companies (and so cable labs) is that cable companies really don't want to be in the hardware in your house business. Sure they make money from rentals but the upfront costs of those dvr boxes are very expensive and they have to pay them off. As the security and PPV and VOD issues are settled expect them to go to you own the hardware we just supply the service and maintain it. This won't happen over night but the alternative is to keep sinking more in more money into more advanced set top boxes that take longer and longer to recoup the costs. Getting out of the hardware business is a business model that works. A prime example are on phone companies who got out the leasing equipment business long ago. Cable Co's will go the same way.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jfh3 said:


> Actually, I have. These discussions should've been going on with CableLabs the second Tivo got the original FCC approval.


And you know that they haven't been going on -- *how*?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

raygundan said:


> How exactly do you get to "stick it to the cable company" with a HD Tivo? Don't you actually have to pay your cable company *more* to get cable HD content?


Switching from the Motorola 3412 to a TiVo Series 3 would *reduce *our cable bill $27 per month (due to a variety of subsidiary impacts). That's one of the arguments my wife's used in favor of the S3.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

bicker said:


> Switching from the Motorola 3412 to a TiVo Series 3 would *reduce *our cable bill $27 per month (due to a variety of subsidiary impacts). That's one of the arguments my wife's used in favor of the S3.


My point precisely!!! Anytime that I can give those fine people *less* money makes my day!

(Sorry, Ray, I didn't realize that you'd found an existing TTG thread to post in)


----------



## razor237 (Feb 1, 2002)

its not official untill i see a letter come directly from tvio.


-Mike


----------



## Timber (Apr 28, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Its *official*-no TivoToGo for S3 (probably ever)


With a nod to The Princess Bride:



> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


-=Tim=-


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Agent86 said:


> Do I personally think TiVo will get MRV enabled on the S3 boxes? Yes, I do. Microsoft has been touting that you'll be able to record in HD with a CableCard on a Vista Media Center and watch the recording on your Xbox 360. By using a CableCard, that means that Microsoft (and their partners) would need to go through the same process that TiVo did. So either Microsoft gets their Xbox 360 connectivity and TiVo gets MRV, or neither gets anything.


Assuming CableLabs believes the implementation of both to be identical, then you would be correct.

Unfortunately, the implementation is not the same. Windows Vista will _stream_ content to an MCE. Tivo's MRV is actually _copying_ the show to another Tivo. In which case, you could (theoretically) have all of your buddies' Tivo's on the same account, set up a hardware VPN connection, and "share" shows between them.

The same could probably be done with an Xbox360, but the connection would have to be live - the Media Center PC would have to always be available.

That said, I still the MRV is a good possibility for the S3, but definitely not just because Vista may have it.

TTG (IMO) is never going to happen.

For those of you saying that TTG should be allowed for analog or OTA content, that is only slightly more possible than full TTG, if at all. Your argument is that CableLabs has no control over that content. True. But they do have control over whether the box gets certified, which affects your ability to obtain CableCards.

The only alternative would be to have TTG automatically enabled when there are no cablecards installed, and vice-versa. Any other way, like adding a flag in the show defining how it was recorded, is hackable, and thus, CableLabs (if they have any brains) would not allow it.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

raygundan said:


> How exactly do you get to "stick it to the cable company" with a HD Tivo? Don't you actually have to pay your cable company *more* to get cable HD content?


You don't necessarily have to pay the cable company _anything_ to get HD, if you can receive it OTA. If I didn't watch so many shows on cable, (and if MRV was enabled), I'd just get some S3's and kiss the cable company goodbye. How's that for stickin' it to them?


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

It's ironic that cable card support ends up being one of the reasons I won't get an S3 (the other being no Mac support).


----------



## woodie (Feb 7, 2005)

TTG on S3 is a non-issue for me.

After using TTG, It became clear that anything I intend to transfer to a PC should be recorded
in Medium or Basic quality, otherwise the transfers take way to long, and fill up my drive. Even if 
the S3 was able to do TTG, the new HDTV files will be way too big. My old S2 is still available 
for recordig kids shows, and to handle 3rd-show conflicts. Also, when shows are not in HD, 
I don't want to use up valuable space on my S3, so those are recorded on the S2 as well.

It would be nice to have MRV, but I can handle that with the TV/Input button.


----------



## eisenb11 (Sep 6, 2006)

I don't think it's really the loss of a customer paying DVR service and renting the machine that sticks it to the cable co's.

IMHO, it's the loss of potential sales of PPV material that has them all hot and bothered.

As far as DVRs go, the cable co buys their boxes for around $500 (based on the replacement cost if you lose yours)... it takes quite a while at $15/month for the service + box to pay that off.

Also, in the case of TWC, the S3 can pose problems as far as their intended SDV rollout goes... it'll generate whiners against SDV and can cause some headaches for them down the road!


----------



## herfmonster (Jul 12, 2006)

S3 should have shipped with all the features of the S2 and no one should have had the ability to keep it from shipping with all of the features of the S2. I still don't understand why there has to be all this encryption and flags and copy protection. there should be nothing preventing the general public from recording or archiving anything that can be watched or recorded with television viewing and recording equipment. someone please tell me what is so wrong in creating your own BluRay disc archive of 24 season 6 in HD 7.1 dts (supposing it is broadcast that way) What difference would it make if you obtained the original recordings through OTA or your cableco. Like I stated before... how many of you have recorded a blockbuster movie off of HBO on a VHS tape and never bought a comercial VHS copy of that movie? If you have done that are you evil? How many of you have recorded that movie and given it to your mom because she doesent have HBO and you thought she would like that movie. Oooooh now thats really evil. How many of you have a VHS collection of wrestling pay per views lining a shelf didn't you know they sell them on DVD now. Either HDDVD or BluRayDVD is going to win eventually or multiformat players are going to become prevalent or the multiformat disc that has been developed will gain traction. Either way the technology will eventually become as affordable as an internal DVD burner is ($49.00) or a home stereo DVD recorder (under $100.00 now) Why should any content delivered either OTA or through a cableco. be protected from archiving on a BluRaydisc or even on a homade raid array in someones basement. Just why?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

herfmonster said:


> I still don't understand why there has to be all this encryption and flags and copy protection.


Then that's really the root of your problem. I think the key is coming to accept that creative people deserve our respect and consideration. This is so important to the creative process that our nation has codified this respect and consideration in the law. Not only that, but it is a foundation of our nation's economic system. It may be something you don't particularly _like_ -- everyone wants something for nothing -- but it is reasonable and appropriate to accept that it is for the best, and anti-social to deliberately violate these precepts.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

herfmonster said:


> S3 should have shipped with all the features of the S2 and no one should have had the ability to keep it from shipping with all of the features of the S2. I still don't understand why there has to be all this encryption and flags and copy protection. there should be nothing preventing the general public from recording or archiving anything that can be watched or recorded with television viewing and recording equipment. someone please tell me what is so wrong in creating your own BluRay disc archive of 24 season 6 in HD 7.1 dts (supposing it is broadcast that way) What difference would it make if you obtained the original recordings through OTA or your cableco. Like I stated before... how many of you have recorded a blockbuster movie off of HBO on a VHS tape and never bought a comercial VHS copy of that movie? If you have done that are you evil? How many of you have recorded that movie and given it to your mom because she doesent have HBO and you thought she would like that movie. Oooooh now thats really evil. How many of you have a VHS collection of wrestling pay per views lining a shelf didn't you know they sell them on DVD now. Either HDDVD or BluRayDVD is going to win eventually or multiformat players are going to become prevalent or the multiformat disc that has been developed will gain traction. Either way the technology will eventually become as affordable as an internal DVD burner is ($49.00) or a home stereo DVD recorder (under $100.00 now) Why should any content delivered either OTA or through a cableco. be protected from archiving on a BluRaydisc or even on a homade raid array in someones basement. Just why?


Very simple. Those of us who create your entertainment/informational programming like to make a living. Nobody gives away a car for free, and it has keys to protect you from stealing it. Nobody should be expected to routinely give away entertainment for free. The viewer gets something of value, the viewer should pay (either by direct cash compensation or by watching a sponsor's commercial). Yes, there are ways around both of those scenarios, but that doesn't make it right. In the case of "direct cash compensation" the digital content providers are now placing encryption and keys into the system. In the sponsorship model, the programs now contain product placement in addition to the commercials.

The TiVo/DVR model accepts the fact that the viewer should be allowed to view at his convenience. VHS also accepted that premise. In the case of VHS, the degradation of the analog signal on tape prevented or slowed down the ability to let the programs spread like wildfire. Given the new digital technology, program suppliers are insisting on encryption/copy protection schemes to prevent unlimited copying. I'm sure the folks at TiVo recognize this and are willing to work with the content providers to make sure programming stays within the specific household that purchased it.


----------



## dieman (Sep 21, 2006)

MScottC said:


> Those of us who create your entertainment/informational programming like to make a living.


You made a living before DVR's, you'll make a living after them. The problem is that 'those in the entertainment industry' thought it was a great idea to convince a few in congress that they should defer all decisions about 'digital' anything to them. So, there passed the DMCA that basically said that there isn't any need for interoperable formats (ie: no reverse engineering) and that anything encrypted is allowed to dictate 'law' for the use of such content -- EVEN if the use proposed by the user is 'fair use'.

Time shifting is 'fair use', that was proven back in the 80s. It's up to the user to not copy files willy nilly, but lots of us have Tivo series 1 units with TurboNet cards and didn't flood the world with free TV shows.

The media companies have overstepped their boundaries once again and changed the moral contract with the people of the United States. First it was the endless stream of copyright extensions to ensure that they never lose grasp of anything ever created in the last century, even though it was *already* created with the knowledge that it would no longer be profitable after X years. Now they want to dictate their own laws to us over devices we pay for and someone other than the media companies design. MPAA/RIAA/etc want to control the CE companies from being truly innovative, they want them to relent and design exactly what they want so it creates the most profit for them.

The broadcast flag defeat was a huge win, because it at least means that for now OTA broadcasts are safe. TiVo may enforce macrovision settings, but I can always come up with a piece of hardware at this point that will not. Not true with cablecards, DVDs, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. I can *not* enjoy most of my fair use rights with such mediums without breaking federal law.

I've not yet read Lessig's book on these topics, but he has some great insights on how the media companies are turning code into law, rather than the other way around.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dieman said:


> You made a living before DVR's, you'll make a living after them.


And DRM will ensure that content creators continue to make a living after the conversion from a DVR-free world to a world with DVRs. That's exactly what people have been telling you.



> Time shifting is 'fair use', that was proven back in the 80s.


You don't really have any idea what Fair Use is, do you? You really should look it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.



> The media companies have overstepped their boundaries


On the contrary: This type of enforcement is necessary because viewers have overstepped their boundaries. Lack of respect for the law and lack of respect for the property of others is spreading like a cancer through our society. It's disgusting how things that have degraded so many aspects of our life -- good folks paying the price for the avarice of the bad folks. People should stop being so selfish, and should stop expecting things that aren't explicitly promised to them.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Time shifting is now dead
> 
> You don't really have any idea what Fair Use is, do you? You really should look it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
> expecting things that aren't explicitly promised to them.


The irony is that timeshifting approaching a muted point now. As most television mediums are starting to offer thier shows for free download almost instantly after the show airs. They are also repeating the episodes on subsequently. In effect giving away any time shifting controls.

Now if we get them to give up on placeshifting controls such as not being able to see NY stations in LA, etc.


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

So, just for the record ... I've never downloaded an MP3 or a movie off the Internet without paying for it, and I completely agree that content creators need to be paid for work that they generate. But ...



bicker said:


> On the contrary: This type of enforcement is necessary because viewers have overstepped their boundaries. Lack of respect for the law and lack of respect for the property of others is spreading like a cancer through our society. It's disgusting how things that have degraded so many aspects of our life -- good folks paying the price for the avarice of the bad folks. People should stop being so selfish, and should stop expecting things that aren't explicitly promised to them.


THIS is the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time.

"Viewers have overstepped their boundaries"? What does THAT mean? Things like TivoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing are perfectly legal things (from a perspective of copyright law) that consumers want to do. And there's no _real_ reason that the Worldwide Media Conspiracy -) ) really should care that consumers should do that; it's not impacting their bottom line at all in any measurable way.

The WMC is worried about piracy; after they lost their legal challenge to the VCR, they decided to create a series of licensing restrictions on new media types that effectively restricts legal consumer use, and they got the DCMA passed to make it illegal to reverse-engineer their DRM schemes.

Here are the problems I see with the current situation:

- It's not so much the actual artists that care about DRM, it's the megacorps who want to preserve their current business model.
- The amount of revenue lost from the average "make a copy for a friend" guy is miniscule - where the studios really lose is the guy who burns DVDs en masse and sells them on the streetcorner or whatever. In the process of stopping that guy, the law-abiding consumer loses out.
- The _real_ pirates are going to be the ones who work the hardest to break the DRM schemes (and let's face it, as long as things like analog component out are still permitted from your TiVo/HD DVD player, you can still make a reasonable copy of HD content), and I don't think the studios are going to be effective at stopping them.

I will note that Jack Valenti called the VCR the "Boston Strangler" of the American film producer. Look how wrong he was.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Dark Helmet said:


> THIS is the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time.


Many people who didn't get it said that about "Candide." Not saying this guy is any Voltaire, but it was pretty good.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

DRM is here to stay. It is very important that protections be in place for copyright holders. However, the problem with current DRM implementations is they hurt the average consumer's viewing experience while doing very little to people who want to remove the DRM. Basically, the idea behind the current DRM implantations is completely backwards. If the restrictions are so tight that the average consumer can't use the device legally, but the average hacker can strip the drm in 5 minutes, then what have you accomplished?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dark Helmet said:


> THIS is the biggest pile of crap I've seen in a long time.


I think the same of your perspectives. 



> "Viewers have overstepped their boundaries"? What does THAT mean?


Did you read the message I was replying to? If you did you'll see that I was making an analogy to the hyperbole the earlier poster spewed.



> Things like TivoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing are perfectly legal things (from a perspective of copyright law) that consumers want to do.


And I haven't said *Word One *against those features. Please reply to what I actually do say, and not argue with me against things I didn't say. Thanks.



> - It's not so much the actual artists that care about DRM, it's the megacorps who want to preserve their current business model.


That's because they're the ones who are significantly investing in creating new creative content. Most artists get their payment up-front, and many of those that don't are indeed upset about piracy.



> - The amount of revenue lost from the average "make a copy for a friend" guy is miniscule


You would like us to believe that, but that's not even part of the discussion. The fact is that if you open the door for "make a copy for a friend" that same door can currently be used for "make a copy for everyone else". That's the problem.



> In the process of stopping that guy, the law-abiding consumer loses out.


Ain't it the truth? So rather than railing against good people doing their jobs, why not rail against the criminals who have forced such draconian solutions. *If everyone voluntarily complied with rules, life would be oh so much better.*


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Redux said:


> Not saying this guy is any Voltaire, but it was pretty good.


Gosh, thanks! :blush:


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

Redux said:


> Many people who didn't get it said that about "Candide." Not saying this guy is any Voltaire, but it was pretty good.


I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.

I agree that DRM is here for a while (whether or not it's here to stay for the long term, or it will be overtaken by new technology, I dunno). And I agree that the studios are within their legal rights to impose DRM ... just as I, the consumer, am free to choose to watch or not watch any content that they create. I just think that the fact that I'm restricted on doing what I am legally (within copyright law, I mean) permitted to do with content I receive because they're concerned about piracy, stinks.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

I am not even advocating TTG to be able to archive copy-protected content and somehow circumventing DRM (though I certainly don't agree with all the DRM either). Simply allow me to TTG "copy freely" (5C=0) programs in their native format is all I'm looking for - i.e. mainly the HD locals. I can do that now with my cable company DVR.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

MScottC said:


> Very simple. Those of us who create your entertainment/informational programming like to make a living.


Then why do so many creative people give their work away for free? There is vast amounts voluntarily published free content available through sites like YouTube, Google Video, etc.,

There is no fundamental requirement that the MPAA/RIAA business model remain profitable 
in the face of technological change; I'd really like to see a future world where the distribution channels (major record labels and movie studios) torn to shreds by disintermediation.

But then, DRM systems which make it a hassle to get at the Big Boys content may actually provide the little guys with a competitive advantage...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sommerfeld said:


> Then why do so many creative people give their work away for free?


Why do most people prefer the stuff you have to pay for over the stuff that they give away for free?


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

bicker said:


> And DRM will ensure that content creators continue to make a living after the conversion from a DVR-free world to a world with DVRs. That's exactly what people have been telling you.


Are these the same people that say that the DMCA is necessary and isn't contradictive to copyright law, and that it's actually a good thing? If so, it's no wonder their words fall on deaf ears.



bicker said:


> You don't really have any idea what Fair Use is, do you? You really should look it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


You don't really have any idea that what specifically qualifies as Fair Use is largely decided by the courts, do you? You really should look it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Betamax case sets precedence for legal noncommercial recording for the purpose of viewing at a later time (aka "time-shifting"). Now, what if that later time is in a plane? If you can't take the recording with you, that becomes a violation of fair use rights.

Recording from the TiVo over analog is still possible, and isn't illegal because you're not doing any DRM circumvention to get at the original data (they call it signal degradation... tom_ay_toes, tom_ah_toes). Guess what? TTG as it is intended is legal for exactly the same reason, but it's crippled because those same media companies that despise fair use the most just happen to control CableCARD certification at least at some level. Awfully convenient, isn't it?

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you will. Just because it's (even remotely) possible for you to enter my house illegally and threaten my life, doesn't mean I get to shoot you for that reason if you haven't actually done it. The media companies don't buy into that fact, have the money to enforce their views, and are by consequence turning their own customers (who gave them all of that money) against them.

In my own case, MVR doesn't impact me at all because I only have one TV at home. What does impact me is the blocking of TTG... not so much for HD content (you're bound to lose some detail anyway when it's recompressed into a more portable format like MPEG4), but for SD content it seems like the FCC has already ruled that as being OK and if it comes down to it CableLabs has to abide by that (at least from what I've read). It just takes time to go through all of the red tape.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

rainwater said:


> However, the problem with current DRM implementations is they hurt the average consumer's viewing experience while doing very little to people who want to remove the DRM. Basically, the idea behind the current DRM implantations is completely backwards. If the restrictions are so tight that the average consumer can't use the device legally, but the average hacker can strip the drm in 5 minutes, then what have you accomplished?


From where I stand, truly secure DRM is not a solvable technological problem; the limitations you see in "current DRM implementations" are an artifact of fundmental constraints on all attempts at DRM.

DRM schemes must scale up to small billions of affordable authorized playback devices which are sufficiently resistant to destructive reverse enginering that they can protect content felt to be worth billions of dollars against reverse engineering and extraction for periods of decades...

It's just not going to happen. copy-protection schemes have always been brittle, and always will be; it's an inherent property of the problem space. In most cases, all it takes is a small handful of bored graduate students with access to state of the art hardware labs and a need for a distraction from their ongoing thesis work.

The best that DRM schemes will ever be able to do is be a speedbump to casual copying and redistribution. 
The bulk of individuals who want to do casual copying and redistribution want to do so in order to exercise their legally authorized fair use rights.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

classicX said:


> ... Any other way, like adding a flag in the show defining how it was recorded, is hackable, and thus, CableLabs (if they have any brains) would not allow it.


I disagree- if they approve the tivo system then they approve the fact that it respects flags.

If they dont think it reflects flags then they wont approve it.

But that's JMHO- take it or leave it.

Incidently- somehow the other night the 90 minute flag got sent to my Series3 from Jericho recorded over cable. It was pretty wild- I never saw that before. I happened to stumple intop now playing to watch something and there's a little red blinking flag next to jericho (where the yellow, green, or red dots normally appear in NP). I select the time and it tells me it's going to self distruct in x minutes which just happened to be 90 minutes after the recording. That's a little annoying that the flag was set- but luckiy I have the big 4 at least availible OTA so I just moved all my network recordings to OTA rather then cable. It's interesting to see how TiVo might handle this stuff in the future....


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

why did a media company risk the company on investing 300 million to make the LOTR trilogy? Becuase they saw a potential excellent ROI for it.
part of that ROI was wrapped in DVD rental/sales and PPV sales etc..
Things like Bit-torrent and sharing shows makes the investors apprehensive of making investments.

The irony is that well made product such as LOTR deos not suffer from that. Sure there were bit-torrent downloads but most any LOTR fan would want the packaged DVDs vs a burned copy in a plain Jewel case. So it would be the pirate outfits that took a bigger bite out of sales and already in place copyright laws would have nailed any of them that got caught.

what happens though is that the next tier of entertainment gets hurt. People found out they could see Stargate adn Dr. Who long before they aired in USA by using bit torrent adn did not need the channels that aired them here. Drop in viewership means drop in commercial rates means drop in funding for the shows.
Sci-Fi now says Stargate-SG1 shows are too expensive to continue buying them. These two facts in my example may not be directly related but overall I am comfortable in saying that the B tier of content suffers from "fair use gone wild". I had a coworker ask me the other day to copy a CD for them since they had no burner. They thought it fair use to let someone else "borrow" the CD by burning a copy.

as always both sides have a kernel of the truth in their side of the argument but human nature being what it is, if you open up content to make fair use easy then that content will be everywhere and it will effect the bottom line of the people investing in entertainment.
Also if the content providers continue to charge 5$ for a PPV movie or 1.99$ for an episode of a show then people will continue to find ways to circumvent the DRM. The real losers are the forum discussions where people fight from their one perspective is the only right perspective  
PS I did burn the copy for the coworker after first letting them know it was in fact a potential lost sale for the music company and indeed illegal even under fair use standards. I have also downloaded gigs of MP3s that I would not have bought otherwise, but if I really like it and want a "good" copy I buy the CD - Evanessence is one such example.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> Switching from the Motorola 3412 to a TiVo Series 3 would *reduce *our cable bill $27 per month (due to a variety of subsidiary impacts). That's one of the arguments my wife's used in favor of the S3.


Clearly in your case they will get hurt, but -

I think for most people the savings is closer to 10-12 dollars a month/box. I'm not sure that covers the cost of the boxes over their lifetime for the cable people. Assuming they can get them for $500 then it's 48 months at least to get pay back and that doesn't include the cost of money (interest) and the inventory, repair, warehousing, etc issues. So it's probably around 5 or 6 years payback and I doubt the average box lasts that long...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Maeglin said:


> You don't really have any idea that what specifically qualifies as Fair Use is largely decided by the courts, do you?


Idiocy. As if a court needs to explain that a McDonald's is a restaurant and not a gasoline station. 



> You really should look it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


I'm serious, you really should.



> The Supreme Court ruling in the Betamax case sets precedence for legal noncommercial recording for the purpose of viewing at a later time...


And that has *nothing *to do with *Fair Use*.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

bicker said:


> And that has *nothing *to do with *Fair Use*.


Really? That's what they called it, and it stood up in the highest court in the country. That's all that's needed for legal precedence.

Incidentally, what media company do you work for?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Puppy76 said:


> Mindblowing that people are actually defending DRM and the DMCA. I assume you're plants?


Should I assume you're a criminal, because you're advocating the perspective that the criminals in this sphere would advocate. 



> Ha, like you'll admit it.


Indeed.



> I'm amazed they had the gall to pass a blatently anti-citizen law like the DMCA to begin with.


They? Oh yeah -- the vast capitalistic conspiracy. Time to get out the foil hats. 



> And I love these plants comments on consumers "stealing" by recording and watching shows when and where they want.


If anyone did, *I* would be the *first *one to correct them.

This is about the content providers deciding what, if any, license they'll grant you. In all mass-market business transactions, the seller offers and the buyer accepts or declines. The buyer doesn't get to dictate terms.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Since some people are apparently unable to search for information about things they don't know about.... From Wikipedia:


> Fair use ... provides for the legal, non-licensed *citation or incorporation* of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.


Incidently, my quoting of Wikipedia is in accordance with Fair Use.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I don't work for a media company.


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

bicker said:


> Did you read the message I was replying to? If you did you'll see that I was making an analogy to the hyperbole the earlier poster spewed.


Well, I didn't read that one that closely. I went back and read it, and my original comments to you were unfair. My apologies. I don't think there was any moral contract between the media companies and the people of the United States, and I don't think the media company has overstepped it's bounds. Of course, that goes two ways. I don't feel any particular obligation to watch advertisements on broadcast television, even though I suspect the broadcast networks would say that they have an "implied" contract with me. But, moving on ...



bicker said:


> That's because they're the ones who are significantly investing in creating new creative content. Most artists get their payment up-front, and many of those that don't are indeed upset about piracy.


The things I have seen coming from artists is not at all uniform in terms of their concerns about piracy. I agree there is a fair amount of investment in new content, but it seems like most of the money made in the new content space goes to the middleman, for what I think is relatively little value added. But, that's sort of a tangent to the real concern. We both agree artists should get paid. There will probably have to be lots of things that would have to change that would remove the middleman and get the money directly to the artists. Of course, the middleman is fighting that, because they still want their money (and who can blame them). But, let's not focus on some content utopia and deal with the world we're living in now.



bicker said:


> You would like us to believe that, but that's not even part of the discussion. The fact is that if you open the door for "make a copy for a friend" that same door can currently be used for "make a copy for everyone else". That's the problem.


This is, I think, where we fundamentally disagree.

I believe that just because a technology _can_ be used for bad purposes, that doesn't necesarily mean it should be outlawed (the same logic is why I'm against most forms of gun control). Yes, digitally copied shows can be burned illegally to pirated DVDs and sold without the media companies or the artists getting any money. That's wrong. But it can also be used for legal purposes. The key decision behind Sony vs. Universal was that just because the VCR could be used for pirating movies didn't mean that it WAS going to be used for that, so the VCR was fine (and in a bit of irony, even though the movie studios fought it, the VCR generated them assloads of money in the end). The movie studios didn't like the way that turned out, so when things went digital they essentially got the law changed so that they could prevent you from making digital copies. I think that is wrong.

As I interpret your statements, you believe because pirates can make digital copies, the ability for the law-abiding consumer to make digital copies should be limited. I don't think we're going to ever agree on this.

And, to be fair ... you are mostly correct when you say this isn't about fair use (which is generally interpreted as concerning other people's citations and incorporations of copyrighted work into their OWN work). But one of the points made in Sony vs. Universal was that noncommerical home recording and time-shifting fell under fair use, so that's why people bring it up.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

While we're quoting Wikipedia...



> Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is *fair use*.


----------



## PanamaGixxer (Oct 22, 2004)

I know I am only one buyer and will probably get the old - well, go somewhere else then comment from someone, but I can't buy the S3 without MRV (I currently have 4 TIVO's and this is my/our favorite feature). OK, maybe my bigger problem is watching that much TV  Anyway, I have to make a decision in Feb. because I am building a new house and have distributed HD to a few rooms in the house - it might (SADLY) force me to buy another DVR solution - just becuase I would pay the $800 for a few S3's for the MRV feature alone, but I don't think I can justify the expense without the MRV.

Oh well, I will wait with my fingers crossed.


----------



## theevaluator (Jul 13, 2004)

back to the original spirit of this thread, which prior to degrading into a wikipedia based legalese debate, was probably about letting tivo know how crucial these features are to their community.

i don't think anyone here can debate the fact that tivo has failed to execute key strategies and deliverables in the past. this box should have shipped at least a year ago, i think its accurate to say that its feature crippled today. the fact that the UI isn't even properly formatted for high def/ widescreen is one laughable example that many reviewers have noted.

MRV and Tivo to Go are key differentiators that make the Tivo product stand out from my comcast motorola 6412. i travel quite a bit with my laptop, (and various MPEG4 enabled mobile devices) and streaming shows to my bedroom tivo was a much appreciated feature with series 2. i also occasionally rip things to DVD for my mom and girlfriend.

after researching this thread, and as much as i want to support Tivo, i canceled my order and will now wait and see what happens. aside for the UI features and some minor scheduling improvements, my 6412 does almost everything a series 3 does, for 800 dollars less. (sorry tivo, you've failed to execute again, on many levels...)


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

theevaluator said:


> back to the original spirit of this thread, which prior to degrading into a wikipedia based legalese debate, was probably about letting tivo know how crucial these features are to their community.


After all, it's not as if they don't already know this... 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=315850

People talking about it does reinforce that fact, though.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think the key is coming to accept that creative people deserve our respect and consideration.


Don't your CUSTOMERS also deserve YOUR respect and consideration? Let me help you here: treating every single customer like a criminal who will immediately copy and distribute 1 billion copies of your work the first chance they get is NOT respectful. Forcing a problematic DRM scheme onto every single piece of equipment to the point where paying customers can't even access your work anymore is NOT being considerate.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

classicX said:


> For those of you saying that TTG should be allowed for analog or OTA content, that is only slightly more possible than full TTG, if at all. Your argument is that CableLabs has no control over that content. True. But they do have control over whether the box gets certified, which affects your ability to obtain CableCards.


BTW, the TCD648250B (S3 as released) was not verified by CableLabs. The TCD648250A was ... but not the TCD648250B. Once a company has a product verified (by CableLabs) once ... they can self-verify their own products from that point on. They just have to sign / stipulate that their following all the CableLabs requirements / specifications / etc. The TCD648250B was self-verified by Tivo.

CableLabs places no restrictions / requirements that would prohibit TTG (or MRV) for "unprotected" content ... ie, analog OTA, digital OTA, analog cable, unencrypted digital cable. The only restrictions / requirements CableLabs has that would neccesitate their approval for TTG / MRV functionality is for "protected" content ... ie, (any) encrypted digital cable channels (that need the CableCard for unencrypting).

For the conspiracy theorists, sure ... CableLabs could do big, mean, ugly things if Tivo (theoretically) allowed TTG/MRV for unprotected content ... or because TivoIsAliens or Tivo didn't record the last 15 minutes of the Falcons game when it ran a little long.

But anyway, for certification for the TCD648250B, Tivo did not need to get explicit verification from CableLabs ... they just had to stipulate they were following CableLabs' (published and publically available) rules ... and no where in there does it prohibit TTG/MRV functionality for unprotected content.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> Don't your CUSTOMERS also deserve YOUR respect and consideration? Let me help you here: treating every single customer like a criminal who will immediately copy and distribute 1 billion copies of your work the first chance they get is NOT respectful. Forcing a problematic DRM scheme onto every single piece of equipment to the point where paying customers can't even access your work anymore is NOT being considerate.


the customer is ALWAYS right (well until it comes to money...)

LOL

Kidding aside-

Personally I think there is a reasonable middle ground someplace. I think the current DMCA seems ominous, but I dont think it's realistic in this day and age to expect no anti-piracy measures at all- napster and bit torrent et al kind of proves that lots of people will take content that they can without paying. Clearly not all of those people would have paid to buy the products they took for free. But there is some fraction that clearly would have paid if it weren't freely availible and so it costs the content owner something. So yes we dont all steal- but enough do and did that it casues damage to the content people.

I have no problem at all with DRM and flagging content- but I think the governemnt should be involved to make sure things don't get out of hand. That the restictions aren't draconian and that legit users aren't hosed in the crossfire. Seems congress has failed us in that regard...

Thanks just my humble opinion. Not looking to start a huge fight with anyone. I'm no shill of either side- I'm an environmental consultant.

(also locks only keep out the honest people....)


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

sommerfeld said:


> Then why do so many creative people give their work away for free? There is vast amounts voluntarily published free content available through sites like YouTube, Google Video, etc.,
> 
> There is no fundamental requirement that the MPAA/RIAA business model remain profitable
> in the face of technological change; I'd really like to see a future world where the distribution channels (major record labels and movie studios) torn to shreds by disintermediation.
> ...


I, like the vast majority of the the people in the creative media industry can NOT afford to give our work away. Sure there are mega-corps and mulit-millionaire performers who can give away their work, and many who's art or craft is a sideline/hobby (like photography for myself), but we make our living, feed our families, etc on the income derived from sale of the products we help create. And everytime you duplicate our product and give it away to someone else outside the realm of "fair use," "timeshifting" or similar within your own household, you are STEALING out of our pockets.

BTW, I happen to want MRV, TTG, etc. as long as it can be done safeguarding the product of my peers.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> ... they just had to stipulate they were following CableLabs' (published and publically available) rules ... and no where in there does it prohibit TTG/MRV functionality for unprotected content.


Hey, if that were the only stipulation and if TiVo were able to work into a software update the differentiation of that content and selectively allow transfer of unprotected content (and enable transfer of video content from PCs to the TiVo box as well), that would at least be a vast improvement over what's currently there.

Thanks for injecting some sanity into this thread... now to see if it takes.


----------



## CardiacKid32 (Sep 20, 2006)

Is DRM and DMCA a fact of Life?

Congress giveth and congress can take away if mandated by the people. This hasn't become a hot political issue for the general public yet, but I think it will be one in the near future. Especially once the average Joe moves from analog video to digital.

As far as the DVD-HD vs. Blue ray DVD goes, I think highly protected superior formats can be introduced (Super Audio CD, DVD - audio) .. But if the consumers reject them, they will go away as well. 

Of course I could be completely wrong and the consumer may drop digital and return to analog. I recently remember reading a story about how LP's were coming back into vogue.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

MScottC said:


> I, like the vast majority of the the people in the creative media industry can NOT afford to give our work away.


Can you afford to stake your ability to earn a living on inherently brittle DRM technology which increasingly alienates users? Wouldn't you be better off seeking alternate business models which don't depend on user-hostile technology?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

sommerfeld said:


> Can you afford to stake your ability to earn a living on inherently brittle DRM technology which increasingly alienates users? Wouldn't you be better off seeking alternate business models which don't depend on user-hostile technology?


I dont want to get into a brawl or antyhing but isn't that a little hostile?

Sounds like you're telling the guy that the way he makes his living is wrong. He's some kind of author not a muderer or giant corporation dumping toxic chmicals into the water we drink....

Are movie theaters "user hostile" becasue they put doors on their buildings?

There's a sane middle ground somplace....


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> Are movie theaters "user hostile" becasue they put doors on their buildings?


How about when they strip search you to make sure you don't have a video camera on you?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

sommerfeld said:


> From where I stand, truly secure DRM is not a solvable technological problem; the limitations you see in "current DRM implementations" are an artifact of fundmental constraints on all attempts at DRM.
> 
> DRM schemes must scale up to small billions of affordable authorized playback devices which are sufficiently resistant to destructive reverse enginering that they can protect content felt to be worth billions of dollars against reverse engineering and extraction for periods of decades...
> 
> ...


Or, in laymen's terms, digital DRM can never be foolproof, but there is some general concensus as to what's "good enough."

I like laymen's terms. It makes me feel like a layman. 

In all seriousness though, the problem with DRM as I see it is one of ease of use - people don't care that DRM exists if it's nearly transparent to them. Take the universal example - Apple. The general public would rather buy a song or album from Apple for a fee, rather than go out and find it for free illegally, for the simple fact that it's easier to do.

Heck, even *I* buy from iTunes, and before Apple came around I had a ridiculously huge collection of mp3's.

That's got to say something about what consumers want.

And face it - what the consumers want is what drives any market. You can talk about DRM until you're blue in the face, but if enough of the general public complain about it, it will get changed.

The music, movie, and television industries are just trying to save their sinking ship, rather than force themselves to build a better boat. Isn't this what happened when cassette tapes came out? Isn't this what happened when CD's came out? Isn't this what happened when DVD recorders came out?

No one is still talking about these things, and in 10 years, no one will be talking about DRM.

...because TV will have commercials that play DURING the shows, in a little window. I can see it now, just like in the end credits of tv shows now, where the main window is squeezed so they can play a commercial. 

Eventually, advertisements will be where the industry wants them - Do you like that pair of sunglasses that <name of superstar> is wearing? Just click on them (or touch them on your touchscreen OLED) and the video is paused (thx Tivo!) and you are taken to a website where you can purchase them.

Eventually, America in the future will look like Japan does now. I wonder what Japan will look like...


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

Maeglin said:


> Hey, if that were the only stipulation and if TiVo were able to work into a software update the differentiation of that content and selectively allow transfer of unprotected content (and enable transfer of video content from PCs to the TiVo box as well), that would at least be a vast improvement over what's currently there.
> 
> Thanks for injecting some sanity into this thread... now to see if it takes.


It doesn't look like it, but I'll do my part 

I think Tivo's line for not doing this is that they would rather wait until they get the thumbs up from CL for the whole smash, rather than devote the time and effort to develop the code required for that to work.

Maybe its just wishful thinking, but I would think that's only a bet that Tivo would make if they genuinely thought that that approval was coming (and soon!).


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

vman41 said:


> How about when they strip search you to make sure you don't have a video camera on you?


Depends on whether they do it in private or in groups, the average attractiveness of those in the group, and whether or not you find the employee doing the strip search attractive.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> I think Tivo's line for not doing this is that they would rather wait until they get the thumbs up from CL for the whole smash, rather than devote the time and effort to develop the code required for that to work.
> 
> Maybe its just wishful thinking, but I would think that's only a bet that Tivo would make if they genuinely thought that that approval was coming (and soon!).


I believe that's what was stated by TiVo reps on here as well in other threads, wasn't it? I agree that it was better to disable it until they could get the results of that decision (imagine the hell they would get from CL if they didn't) to possibly save some work in the long run, but if it comes down to it at least there's a window for limited TTG/MRV functionality. As a developer I'm all for holding off on doing that kind of a change until it's absolutely necessary... it's a complete waste of time otherwise.

Considering I'd love to view video files from my computer on my TV, and at least a lot of the shows I'd like to put into portable devices would fall into the "unprotected content" arena, to me it's much better than nothing.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> But anyway, for certification for the TCD648250B, Tivo did not need to get explicit verification from CableLabs ... they just had to stipulate they were following CableLabs' (published and publically available) rules ... and no where in there does it prohibit TTG/MRV functionality for unprotected content.


Not that TivoPony is always 100% correct in his posts (is anyone?) but this quote below certainly seems to imply (in bold below) that CableLabs specifically denied these features in the 1st release. It also seems to imply they need specific approval from CableLabs should these features be submitted in a subsequent release.



TivoPony said:


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


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

moyekj said:


> Not that TivoPony is always 100% correct in his posts (is anyone?) but this quote below certainly seems to imply (in bold below) that CableLabs specifically denied these features in the 1st release:


Perhaps he was likely talking about *full* TTG/MRV capability, if a limited version is allowable?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dark Helmet said:


> Well, I didn't read that one that closely. I went back and read it, and my original comments to you were unfair. My apologies.


No problem. I can understand why you didn't read that message too closely! 



> The things I have seen coming from artists is not at all uniform in terms of their concerns about piracy.


Of course, people hold different perspectives, even within the same community. The fact that I feel a certain way doesn't negate the validity and importance with regard to how my neighbor feels. It wouldn't be appropriate for someone to cut through our shared backyard just because I was okay with it, if my neighbor was not. That's really a tight analogy to this situation: Two people both have a right; one of them wishes to protect it, the other doesn't.



> I agree there is a fair amount of investment in new content, but it seems like most of the money made in the new content space goes to the middleman, for what I think is relatively little value added.


I disagree. I think that underestimates the value of building a strong distribution channel. Indeed, I think a good distribution operation is far harder to create and manage than most folks are willing to give it credit for.



> There will probably have to be lots of things that would have to change that would remove the middleman and get the money directly to the artists.


There is probably no way a screenwriter will ever be able to film a live action television program like Lost, all by him/herself.



> I believe that just because a technology _can_ be used for bad purposes, that doesn't necesarily mean it should be outlawed


That's not the issue. Rather, the issue is the right of the content owner to have a choice with regard to how he/she wishes to distribute/sell that content. Laws provide a structure that content owners actually *want* to utilize. That's far better than every single piece of creative content carrying with it its own, unique terms and conditions.



> As I interpret your statements, you believe because pirates can make digital copies, the ability for the law-abiding consumer to make digital copies should be limited.


If the original owners of the creative content wish to only sell their property that way, yes. I actually have a very hard time understanding why someone doesn't understand that.

Remember, content creators have the right, from the outset, whether or not to copyright their work. They can elect to put it into the public domain. However, DRM exists to help those creative content owners who wish to enjoy the rights inherent in the copyright laws to do so.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Don't your CUSTOMERS also deserve YOUR respect and consideration?


They have it.



> Let me help you here: treating every single customer like a criminal who will immediately copy and distribute 1 billion copies of your work the first chance they get is NOT respectful.


I disagree, and believe most reasonable customers accept that protections are a necessary evil, made necessary by the criminals in our society. They don't begrudge video surveillance in the casino; they don't begrudge locks on stockrooms.



> Forcing a problematic DRM scheme onto every single piece of equipment to the point where paying customers can't even access your work anymore is NOT being considerate.


Yes it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> How about when they strip search you to make sure you don't have a video camera on you?


No one suggested a strip search requirement for burning DVDs.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> Sounds like you're telling the guy that the way he makes his living is wrong.


I am offended by his sense of entitlement.


> He's some kind of author not a muderer or giant corporation dumping toxic chmicals into the water we drink....


Oh really? Consider the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco, and that, despite the total PR disaster faced by Sony, the amazon "unbox" movie rental software was released containing similar insidious characteristics. We're talking toxic software rather than toxic chemicals, but just as toxic to our computers as dioxins are to people.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

moyekj said:


> Not that TivoPony is always 100% correct in his posts (is anyone?) but this quote below certainly seems to imply (in bold below) that CableLabs specifically denied these features in the 1st release. It also seems to imply they need specific approval from CableLabs should these features be submitted in a subsequent release.


That was the quote I was thinking about - I was hoping that maybe that Tivo didn't even submit TTG for approval on the first pass knowing that it would just slow things down, and wanted to get _something_ out the door ASAP.

I think that TP was being very careful not to say that it had been dissaproved, but just that it had not yet been approved.

But, like I said, I'm probably trying to read too much into it and be optimistic to keep my hopes up


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sommerfeld said:


> I am offended by his sense of entitlement.
> 
> Oh really? Consider the Sony DRM rootkit fiasco, and that, despite the total PR disaster faced by Sony, the amazon "unbox" movie rental software was released containing similar insidious characteristics. We're talking toxic software rather than toxic chemicals, but just as toxic to our computers as dioxins are to people.


Yep, and he's personally responsible for all of those things 

I can't believe that you don't think the guy is entitled to get paid for his work. Not all DRM is as draconian than that, and this isn't what (I think) Bicker is speaking in favor of.

What's wrong with reasonable controls that allow us as consumers to practice fair use, and prevent the kind of wholesale piracy that hurts the content creators? I think that's something that everyone could be able to get behind.

(Damn, I told myself I'd stay out of this debate)!!!


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

bicker said:


> I disagree. I think that underestimates the value of building a strong distribution channel. Indeed, I think a good distribution operation is far harder to create and manage than most folks are willing to give it credit for.


Even 5 years ago, I would have agreed with you in terms of the value of the distribution channel. But I think the Internet has the opportunity to make it easier to not get us locked into a relatively few distribution channels. I don't think we're there yet, though (partially because of DRM).



bicker said:


> There is probably no way a screenwriter will ever be able to film a live action television program like Lost, all by him/herself.


Well, sure ... but if we're using a TV show as an example, I think the production company has value (they're actually hiring people, own equipment, etc etc). It's the television network that in my mind is little more than a pipe.



bicker said:


> That's not the issue. Rather, the issue is the right of the content owner to have a choice with regard to how he/she wishes to distribute/sell that content. Laws provide a structure that content owners actually *want* to utilize. That's far better than every single piece of creative content carrying with it its own, unique terms and conditions.


I don't have a problem with content owners deciding how they want to distribute/sell their content. What I have an issue with is the concept that content holders have the ability to tell me what I can do with their content after I've legally acquired it. That does NOT seem to be a right granted to anyone by my reading of copyright law. I'm talking about private, noncommercial use, of course ... clearly I can't sell Lost DVDs legally. What seems to have happened is that the media conglomerates have set up a situation where they created a framework where they CAN restrict my private, noncommerical content use. Do they have the right to do that? Yes. Do I have to like it? No.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Not that TivoPony is always 100% correct in his posts (is anyone?) but this quote below certainly seems to imply (in bold below) that CableLabs specifically denied these features in the 1st release. It also seems to imply they need specific approval from CableLabs should these features be submitted in a subsequent release.


Pony did not differentiate between protected and unprotected content in hist post. If you read into his post that MRV/TTG functionality needs CableLabs approval for *all* content ... then yes, my post and that interpretation of his post contradict each other.

However, if you don't read anything in to his post ... then no, my post and his don't contradict because yes ... Tivo needs to follow the DFAST licensing agreement for digital outputs and copying, recording, and storage of controlled content.

However, if you'd like, you can simply read the DFAST license and make your own judgement:
http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf

Specifically, the _Exhibit B Compliance Rules_ section ...

it's the following two sections that Tivo is hitting up against:


> 2. Outputs of Controlled Content
> 2.1 General. A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product shall not output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content to any output, except as permitted in this Section 2.
> (...)
> 3. Copying, Recording, and Storage of Controlled Content
> 3.1 General. Unidirectional Digital Cable Products, including, without limitation, Unidirectional Digital Cable Products with inherent or integrated copying, recording or storage capability shall not copy, record, or store Controlled Content, except as permitted in this section.


Note that both of these sections only apply to "Controlled Content":


> Controlled Content means content that has been transmitted from the POD Module with the encryption mode indicator (EMI) bits set to a value other than zero, zero (0,0).


For any Controlled Content, Tivo must use one of the technologies listed ... OR ... apply to get their own technology as an "approved digital output".

Also, don't get certifaction of the S3 (verifaction of a unidirectional CableCard host) and aprroval of a digital output / content protection technology confused. They are distinctly different things / processes.

You can get an overview of the Submission of New Digital Outputs and Content Protection Technologies here:
http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DigitalOutputs.pdf


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> What's wrong with reasonable controls that allow us as consumers to practice fair use, and prevent the kind of wholesale piracy that hurts the content creators? I think that's something that everyone could be able to get behind.


Would be nice but unfortunately there are a more than few implementation details to work out first.

So let's look at what people have done instead..

No current or proposed DRM system gets even close to these goals. Even Apple's user-friendly DRM has created enough fair-use barriers to motivate people to attack it, and they've succeeded; every few months apple changes the protocol and a few months later there's a new break, with no end in sight.

And each one of these breaks potentially enables "wholesale piracy".


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

dt_dc said:


> <snip>However, if you'd like, you can simply read the DFAST license and make your own judgement:
> http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf <snip>


Thanks for the link. This seems to confirm that if Tivo can properly honor the copy protection flags (and can provide enough evidence as such) there should be nothing preventing CableLabs approval. The burden of proof however lies with Tivo however to prove they meet all the requirements in this document, which may not be an easy task.

My interpretation (taking into account TivoPony's post) then is that at least the initial implementation of TTG in the S3 did NOT satisfy these requirements and hence approval was denied. That would mean pretty sloppy work on Tivo side. It seems more likely to me that Tivo knew about DFAST and opted to not include TTG/MRV in the initial release in order to speed up the approval process. But then that seems to contradict what TivoPony stated which implies they did submit those features and were rejected.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

vman41 said:


> How about when they strip search you to make sure you don't have a video camera on you?


exactly- there's unreasonable limits (treating everyone like they are criminals) and then reasonable things like putting in doors and stationing an usher to check for tickets.

Right now the DCMA seems overkill, but a REASONABLE set of DRM rules is fine by me.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

moyekj said:


> Thanks for the link. This seems to confirm that if Tivo can properly honor the copy protection flags (and can provide enough evidence as such) there should be nothing preventing CableLabs approval. The burden of proof however lies with Tivo however to prove they meet all the requirements in this document, which may not be an easy task.
> 
> My interpretation (taking into account TivoPony's post) then is that at least the initial implementation of TTG in the S3 did NOT satisfy these requirements and hence approval was denied. That would mean pretty sloppy work on Tivo side. It seems more likely to me that Tivo knew about DFAST and opted to not include TTG/MRV in the initial release in order to speed up the approval process. But then that seems to contradict what TivoPony stated which implies they did submit those features and were rejected.


my interpretation of TivoPony's post is that cablelabs takes forever to approve such things (i dont think they have ever approved one yet- have they?)- and their agreement with the FCC allows them 180 days to review it - and the 180 days hasn't been used up yet. Since cablelabs takes so much time and tivo wanted to release the box now, they agreed to remove the code last spring inorder to get an approved box in time for beta testing and launch.

After cablelabs has spend all 180 days then they will give TiVo an answer and not a single day before.

There is a bit on oenous on TiVo but there is an appeals process to the FCC. Since part of the FCC has already approved the way TiVO respects flags for boradcast content I would think getting FCC approval during the appeal would be better than 50/50.

TO me the big question is- 
When Cablelabs is done with their 180 days and tells TiVo no what is TiVo's response? (Although TiVopOny posted otherwise and said Cablelabs isn'e evil and there's no reason to blame them, I think it's a given that they reject tivoguard)

Once that happend does TiVo get adverserial and go to the FCC right away? Or do they try to make nice by making changes to satisfy cablelabs or by waiting it out and trying to convince cablelabs they are good to go.

I am afriad there is a certain amount of politics and it's not cut and dry....


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

sommerfeld said:


> Would be nice but unfortunately there are a more than few implementation details to work out first.
> 
> So let's look at what people have done instead..
> 
> ...


Waaay OT, but I can hardly see how AAPL's DRM is over the top - you can listen to the tracks on up to 5 computers, and burn the song to a CD (that can then be reripped as a DRM free song in iTunes). I would wager that the DRM hacks are all coming from youngsters that are really only hacking it for the challenge and the fact that "DRM is evil and must be defeated".

That isn't to say that there are over the top DRM schemes out there (like the Sony fiasco), but the fact that there are bad DRM implimentations out there doesn't make DRM intrinsicly bad.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

moyekj said:


> My interpretation (taking into account TivoPony's post) then is that at least the initial implementation of TTG in the S3 did NOT satisfy these requirements and hence approval was denied.


this is beginning to resemble the ancient art of Kremlinology (determining who was in charge in the soviet union based on who lined up in what order on the viewing stand during parades), but:

my reading was somewhat different and slightly more optimistic.

It would seem that not only does the MRV/TTG software on the S3 need to be reviewed, but so does the TTG software running on general-purpose computers (windows, macs, etc.); such systems are inherently different from embedded systems like the S3, and CableLabs hasn't quite nailed down the ground rules to permit such a review to take place..

Some of the requirements in that PDF, including page 27, section 3.2, are rather difficult to comply with inside a general purpose OS on a conventional computer. For instance a process with appropriately elevated privilege on a general purpose OS can generally read all of physical memory, including memory used for the frame buffer.

But on the other hand, a page later there's an interesting surprise: 56-bit DES -- an encryption algorithm generally regarded as laughably weak -- is declared by fiat to be strong enough to protect "copy never" material. I find this astonishing, because in 1998, EFF built specialized hardware for $250,000 which could break DES (recovering the key used to encrypt a message) in 56 hours; by Moore's law, roughly the same budget ought to be sufficient to produce a device which is perhaps 16 or more times faster today.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

GoHokies! said:


> Waaay OT, but I can hardly see how AAPL's DRM is over the top - you can listen to the tracks on up to 5 computers, and burn the song to a CD (that can then be reripped as a DRM free song in iTunes).


Perhaps some of the folks who feel motivated to break it probably have more than 5 computers in their house. Or they use systems other than mac or windows.

In terms of the feasibility of a secure DRM scheme, their actual motivation doesn't really matter -- what matters is that Apple has not yet produced a DRM system which can't be broken by a sufficiently motivated individual or two with relatively limited resources; breaking similar DRM schemes should similarly be well within reach of a sufficiently clever black market bootleg DVD/CD vendor operating in places outside the reach of US law.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

and hence locks only keep out the honest people ...


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

sommerfeld said:


> It would seem that not only does the MRV/TTG software on the S3 need to be reviewed, but so does the TTG software running on general-purpose computers (windows, macs, etc.); such systems are inherently different from embedded systems like the S3, and CableLabs hasn't quite nailed down the ground rules to permit such a review to take place..


 No I don't think it's that complicated. From my admittedly limited understanding (I come from ReplayTV world) TTG functionality is based on http access to Tivo server, so as long as the Tivo server can properly deny access to protected content it doesn't matter who the client is. i.e. it's the server on the S3 that is responsible for honoring the copy protection flags and that's what needs to be approved. The clients should have no influence on that.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

sommerfeld said:


> Can you afford to stake your ability to earn a living on inherently brittle DRM technology which increasingly alienates users? Wouldn't you be better off seeking alternate business models which don't depend on user-hostile technology?





sommerfeld said:


> I am offended by his sense of entitlement.


Excuse me, but I happen to be in a field which creates a good part of what you view on your TiVo. I happen to be a video editor, and I've been practicing my craft for 30 years now. The only thing I'm entitled to is the right find work for a fair wage, the same thing as anyone else in this country/world. If you steal the works of the corporations that employ me, they can't afford to pay me or the thousands of others who work alongside me. If you put companies like those who employ me out of business, the net result is that no one will be around to entertain you.

My employers have as much right to protect their property as you have to protect your home and family. Just because my work product is now an easy to copy digital file does NOT give you or any one else the right to steal it. The entities that create programs certianly understand the idea of making viewing or listening more convenient, and have no problem with our product staying within the virtual household for viewing in a different room or at a different time, but they have the right to draw the line at a third party spreading their programs with NO return of benefit to the originator.

I, sir, am offended by your sense of entitlement to steal the product that I and thousands of others work to create. I certianly hope you purchase (or view on commercial television) our product, but don't think you have the right to it without some cost.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

MScottC said:


> Excuse me, but I happen to be in a field which creates a good part of what you view on your TiVo. I happen to be a video editor, and I've been practicing my craft for 30 years now. The only thing I'm entitled to is the right find work for a fair wage, the same thing as anyone else in this country/world. If you steal the works of the corporations that employ me, they can't afford to pay me or the thousands of others who work alongside me. If you put companies like those who employ me out of business, the net result is that no one will be around to entertain you.
> 
> My employers have as much right to protect their property as you have to protect your home and family. Just because my work product is now an easy to copy digital file does NOT give you or any one else the right to steal it. The entities that create programs certianly understand the idea of making viewing or listening more convenient, and have no problem with our product staying within the virtual household for viewing in a different room or at a different time, but they have the right to draw the line at a third party spreading their programs with NO return of benefit to the originator.
> 
> I, sir, am offended by your sense of entitlement to steal the product that I and thousands of others work to create. I certianly hope you purchase (or view on commercial television) our product, but don't think you have the right to it without some cost.


Bravo, sir!!! :up: :up: :up:


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

> Just because my work product is now an easy to copy digital file does NOT give you or any one else the right to steal it.


If you think I want to steal your work you're sadly mistaken. Moreover, I am deeply offended that you think I want to do this. 


> The entities that create programs certianly understand the idea of making viewing or listening more convenient, and have no problem with our product staying within the virtual household for viewing in a different room or at a different time, but they have the right to draw the line at a third party spreading their programs with NO return of benefit to the originator.


I fully support the right of your employer to use the legal system to recover monetary damages from people who engage in unauthorized redistribution of your work product outside of their "virtual household".

I do not, however, support their efforts to assert absolute technological controls over content after sale. What they seek is, in the long run, fundamentally unenforceable via technological means; moreover, overreaching attempts at such enforcement have a long track record of significant unintended consequences for the reliability and security of other systems.



> I, sir, am offended by your sense of entitlement to steal the product that I and thousands of others work to create.


I feel no such sense of entitlement. I just want the freedom to play back content I've obtained legally on devices and systems of my own design.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

sommerfeld said:


> If you think I want to steal your work you're sadly mistaken. Moreover, I am deeply offended that you think I want to do this.
> 
> I fully support the right of your employer to use the legal system to recover monetary damages from people who engage in unauthorized redistribution of your work product outside of their "virtual household".
> 
> ...


 Bravo, sir!!! :up::up::up:


----------



## drdigital1 (Dec 22, 2003)

bicker said:


> Switching from the Motorola 3412 to a TiVo Series 3 would *reduce *our cable bill $27 per month (due to a variety of subsidiary impacts). That's one of the arguments my wife's used in favor of the S3.


The monthly cost (at Comcast) for an HD set top box with DVR such as 3412 is $10. How can you possibly BUY a S3 PLUS pay Tivo subscription PLUS whatever the cable company charges for cable cards and save $27/month on something that costs $10/month to start with?


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

drdigital1 said:


> The monthly cost (at Comcast) for an HD set top box with DVR such as 3412 is $10. How can you possibly BUY a S3 PLUS pay Tivo subscription PLUS whatever the cable company charges for cable cards and save $27/month on something that costs $10/month to start with?


Hmm. comcast.com just quoted me a DVR charge of $15.00/month for my town, for a DVR with room for "Up to 10 hours of HDTV programming".

Moreover, it's not at all clear from the web site what minimum tier is required to receive HD programming equivalent to what you can get at no charge through an antenna; if you need Digital Classic but would otherwise be happy with extended basic, in my town, that's another $11.00/month, for a net savings of $26.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

drdigital1 said:


> The monthly cost (at Comcast) for an HD set top box with DVR such as 3412 is $10. How can you possibly BUY a S3 PLUS pay Tivo subscription PLUS whatever the cable company charges for cable cards and save $27/month on something that costs $10/month to start with?


clearly he is not talkign about the dvr rental alone.

Might be he can drop the HD tier because he can now get locals OTA with teh s3. Might be he can get one S3 instead of renting 2 dvr's since the drive is bigger, etc , etc.

all my speculation, but now that you asked i'm sur the big guy will respond with the specifics...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dark Helmet said:


> Well, sure ... but if we're using a TV show as an example, I think the production company has value (they're actually hiring people, own equipment, etc etc). It's the television network that in my mind is little more than a pipe.


That's fine, but it isn't the television network that is really concerned about DRM -- it is the production company. They're the ones who are going to try to sell the show into syndication later, who are going to try to make money off the DVDs, etc.



> I don't have a problem with content owners deciding how they want to distribute/sell their content. What I have an issue with is the concept that content holders have the ability to tell me what I can do with their content after I've legally acquired it.


You've derailed. If the content owner decides they want to sell their content in accordance with the current copyright protections (i.e., that you're buying a license to view this copy, and this copy only, etc.) then according to what you just said, they should be allowed to do so. That's exactly the case here. Indeed, they should be allowed to use DRM to enforce whatever provisions they choose to make the sale of their content contingent on. Your choice, as a consumer, is to either accept their offer, or decline it, and do without.



> Do they have the right to do that? Yes. Do I have to like it? No.


Now this makes sense to me. I think it would help the discussion greatly if people would be clearer about "like it" and "don't like it" versus "right/good/true" and "wrong/bad/false". I don't like the cost of the TiVo Series 3, but I've made it clear that that it isn't evil to price it so high.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drdigital1 said:


> The monthly cost (at Comcast) for an HD set top box with DVR such as 3412 is $10. How can you possibly BUY a S3 PLUS pay Tivo subscription PLUS whatever the cable company charges for cable cards and save $27/month on something that costs $10/month to start with?


As sommerfeld indicated, the DVR fee is $15, not $10. Also, with a S3 instead of a 3412, I wouldn't have to have everything backed-up on our second S2, so I can decommission that. That's another $7 per month for the TiVo subscription and $5 per month for the non-HD digital cable box. $15+$7+$5 = $27.


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

sommerfeld said:


> If you think I want to steal your work you're sadly mistaken. Moreover, I am deeply offended that you think I want to do this.


You as an individual might not want to steal our work, however millions of bit torrents show that there are plenty of people who do. It has been estimated that software, music, and video distributors lose Billions of Dollars to illegal file swapping.



sommerfeld said:


> I fully support the right of your employer to use the legal system to recover monetary damages from people who engage in unauthorized redistribution of your work product outside of their "virtual household".


Recovering money after the product has been illegally distributed is impossible. There is no way to collect even a fraction of the Billions of Dollars after the media has been spread all over the world.



sommerfeld said:


> I do not, however, support their efforts to assert absolute technological controls over content after sale. What they seek is, in the long run, fundamentally unenforceable via technological means; moreover, overreaching attempts at such enforcement have a long track record of significant unintended consequences for the reliability and security of other systems.


They most certianly have every right to enforce control over their product. Governments through the ages have seen fit to legislate and enforce copyright law, even in this digital age. In almost all cases, when you purchase any piece of software, music, film or video (or any artistic creation), you purchase a right to use it, not to re-distribute it. Read the license that is attached in one way or another. The only exception is when you purchase the "copyright" for that work, and that is typically at a significantly higher cost.

TiVo is, due to the new technology, beholden to the cable industry. The cable industry has to work with the content providers and creators, and they are insisting that their copyrights be protected. And you can't blame them, given the incredible preponderance of file sharing. The entire chain has no problems with technology that allows you to use that media anywhere within your household and at a time of your convenance. But they are insisting on making sure that that same media can't be hijacked to the rest of the world without the copyright holder getting their fair share.

I'm fully hopeful that TTG and MRV will be enabled fairly soon. But only when its able to do just what it is intended to do, without any risk of the media being hijacked to the bit torrents.



sommerfeld said:


> I feel no such sense of entitlement. I just want the freedom to play back content I've obtained legally on devices and systems of my own design.


As I said, You (and your family/friends) have every right to use what my peers create and my employers sell to you. You do NOT have the right to give copies away for others to use outside your home. And until TiVo can enforce that with TTG and MRV, I fully understand the delay on implementing these features.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

I will respond to just a couple of points:


MScottC said:


> The entire chain has no problems with technology that allows you to use that media anywhere within your household and at a time of your convenance.


Absurdly false. Cable Labs requires devices it certifies to destroy specially-marked content after 90 minutes; I've also seen proposals for similar markings restricting the use of "trick play" features like fast-forward and rewind. And check the other threads: there are multiple reports that the rest of the distribution chain is currently either sloppy or malicious (IMHO more likely sloppy) in how it applies these markings. If they don't clean up their act, expect folks to spend some time reverse engineering the S3 or similar devices in direct proportion to the amount of irritation caused.


> But they are insisting on making sure that that same media can't be hijacked to the rest of the world without the copyright holder getting their fair share.


There is no technology out there now which can prevent a sufficiently motivated individual from taking material off cable or DVD's and "hijacking" it to the rest of the world. Nor is there likely to be in the forseeable future. All current DRM attempts create relatively low barriers to casual or accidental sharing while at the same time significantly interfering with fair use rights and reinforcing monopolies and software monocultures. They do not interfere with large scale piracy and filesharing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Neither of which is an argument in favor of allowing what you're suggesting -- if anything, both are arguments for far more stringent DRM implementations.

I learned something interesting yesterday which I did not know: Failure of Congress to secure the exclusive rights of authors and inventors to their works would be a violation of the US Constitution, not just statute.


----------



## dugbug (Dec 29, 2003)

bkdtv said:


> *Tivo already obtained FCC certification for their MRV/TivoToGo encryption technology for storing and transferring digital content from the local broadcast networks.*
> 
> There is nothing stopping Tivo from adding TivoToGo support for DTV/HDTV from the local networks *today*.


You don't know that. CableLabs may require (per their agreement with tivo) that no copying capability exist on the device, period. The device, not "the encrypted file on the device". So it depends on the agreement and, probably, getting signoff on their implementation.

Too bad for all of this because I would have gone for that lifetime transfer to get a better picture.

-d


----------



## RichB (Apr 2, 2003)

I think we will see this eventually. Isn't FIOS (the mortal enemy of cable providers) providing multi-room viewing via MOXI?

So after all the sound and fury, the market may in-fact decide this issue  

- Rich


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

sommerfeld said:


> I will respond to just a couple of points:
> 
> Absurdly false. Cable Labs requires devices it certifies to destroy specially-marked content after 90 minutes; I've also seen proposals for similar markings restricting the use of "trick play" features like fast-forward and rewind. And check the other threads: there are multiple reports that the rest of the distribution chain is currently either sloppy or malicious (IMHO more likely sloppy) in how it applies these markings. If they don't clean up their act, expect folks to spend some time reverse engineering the S3 or similar devices in direct proportion to the amount of irritation caused.


So?, The people who create media have every right to let it out under the conditions in which they specify. If you want those same rights, than start creating (or purchasing copyrights). OTOH, if mistakes are made by middlemen visa vie turning on some flag innapropriatly, than by all means complain and have it corrected. But do it within the system. Reverse Engineering, while itself is not illegal, is akin to making a copy of someone elses key in order to steal their car, or to break into their house. Simply put, its use in this situation is nothing more than THEFT



sommerfeld said:


> There is no technology out there now which can prevent a sufficiently motivated individual from taking material off cable or DVD's and "hijacking" it to the rest of the world. Nor is there likely to be in the forseeable future. All current DRM attempts create relatively low barriers to casual or accidental sharing while at the same time significantly interfering with fair use rights and reinforcing monopolies and software monocultures. They do not interfere with large scale piracy and filesharing.


As I and others have said, just because it can be done, doesn't mean it is right to do it. The ONLY reason DRM is out there, is because some folks are just not honest. If you saw a BMW sitting out there with a key in the ignition, would you steal it? If I hand you that key for the car I own, and tell you that you can drive it around the block for sometime during this day, than by all means you are doing so legally, but if you take it, and let all your friends drive it and don't return it to me, than you've violated our agreement. And that is theft. Just because you can do it, does not make it right. It's folks like you who force the hands of the industry to try more and more draconian measures. And simply put, it's folks like you who are the reason we don't have TTG and MRV (and perhaps eSata), because you prove you can't be trusted to keep the media within your own home network. So now the creative community demands that the middlemen implement stronger and stronger methods of protecting their product.


----------



## Jazhuis (Aug 30, 2006)

bicker said:


> Remember, content creators have the right, from the outset, whether or not to copyright their work. They can elect to put it into the public domain, i.e., no copy protection flag. However, DRM exists to ensure that those creative content owners who wish to enjoy the rights inherent in the copyright laws can do so.


So I finally had to throw my hat in the ring over this comment, because it's quite technically wrong. Ever since the Copyright Act of 1976, everything is inherently copyrighted, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. The copy protection flag has no bearing on this whatsoever; lack of copy protection flag != released into the public domain (i.e. no controlling copyright). Releasing without some sort of copy protection is not an implied release of copyright.

The reason the argument has escalated to this point is, in part, because copyright terms have been extended indefinitely. The original plan for copyright was a limited term of protection as incentive for content creators to continue creating, with the understanding that after a certain point, that content would become public domain, and thus a part of the cultural heritage of the people. With financial interests repeatedly convincing Congress to extend the length of copyright (Eldred vs. Ashcroft: "Forever - 1 day", etc), this isn't happening.

As copyright extensions continue to accrue, the issue will become even worse, as more and more material will become mired in law and rules that are even more convoluted and draconian, in order to continue to protect that material. The question is whether the institution of copyright law (an artificial institution, mind you) is capable of handling the stress of being burdened by such a system.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

bicker said:


> I learned something interesting yesterday which I did not know: Failure of Congress to secure the exclusive rights of authors and inventors to their works would be a violation of the US Constitution, not just statute.


Depends on how read it. Article I section 8 also gives Congress the power to raise taxes, but that is not a requirement that Congress impose taxes. The exclusive right to their works, is to be for a limited time and with intent to promote progress of science and 'useful arts'.


----------



## reh523 (Feb 28, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> They're wrong! CableLabs has no say over what they do with analog or OTA recordings, so like I said at the very least we should be seeing TTG for that. My guess is that they couldn't handle TTG yet because they're going to need a complimentry release for the S2 units so that they know how to handle digital recordings which don't fit the normal TiVo profiles and how to ignore HD since they can't play that back. I'm guessing this will be part of the update which is supose to include WPA support, which is rumored to be coming out in the next few months.
> 
> Dan


They may not but the people who provide the content do. Have you heard about all the do not copy flags from the cable comanies? Well they are on OTA also...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Jazhuis said:


> So I finally had to throw my hat in the ring over this comment, because it's quite technically wrong.


I should perhaps not use the term "copy protection flag" when I really meant just that the content owner could state that the work was in the public domain. I'm sorry for that confusion.



> Ever since the Copyright Act of 1976, everything is inherently copyrighted, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. The copy protection flag has no bearing on this whatsoever; lack of copy protection flag != released into the public domain (i.e. no controlling copyright). Releasing without some sort of copy protection is not an implied release of copyright.


I totally agree. Again, I'm sorry if my earlier comments could have been misconstrued to the contrary.



> The reason the argument has escalated to this point is, in part, because copyright terms have been extended indefinitely.


That's actually not true. The copyright terms are indeed limited. The term is not indefinite. You're wrong about that.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bicker said:


> That's actually not true. The copyright terms are indeed limited. The term is not indefinite. You're wrong about that.


What's happening is that certain interests are repeatedly pushing Congress for extensions to existing copyrights as we get closer to their expirations. And Congress so far has been agreeing. This so far has had the effect of creating an impression their intent is to get copyrights to last indefinitely; certainly that's their desire.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dswallow said:


> What's happening is that certain interests are repeatedly pushing Congress for extensions to existing copyrights as we get closer to their expirations. And Congress so far has been agreeing. This so far has had the effect of creating an *impression* their intent is to get copyrights to last indefinitely; certainly that's their desire.


[Emphasis added.]

"Impression" -- I believe you mean *fear*.

Regardless, this is in no way the reality. In the history of copyrights in the United States, copyright protection has been extended a total of *one* time, in 1998.

Once.​
And that extension was a major win for folks who believe corporations are the most efficient and effective way of keeping a strong and healthy economy, because it recognizes that corporations don't die after 70 or 80 years, but live on. In other words, the ruling majority (support from both parties -- this is not a single-party issue) in this country *support* what the folks you're referring to *fear*.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

bicker said:


> Regardless, this is in no way the reality. In the history of copyrights in the United States, copyright protection has been extended a total of *one* time, in 1998.


I was about to say... had that happened again since Sonny died and I missed it?


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

bicker said:


> In the history of copyrights in the United States, copyright protection has been extended a total of *one* time, in 1998.


False. See http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html

The term of copyright (which in 1790 was set at originally 14 years, plus another 14 if renewed) has been extended in 1831 (to 28+14), 1909 (28+28), 1976 (lifetime + 50 years/75), 1992 (by the "automatic renewal" provision), and 1998 (lifetime + 70 years).


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

MScottC said:


> So?, The people who create media have every right to let it out under the conditions in which they specify..


But earlier you said:



MScottC said:


> The entire chain has no problems with technology that allows you to use that media anywhere within your household and at a time of your convenance.


Since "destroy after 90 minutes" provisions inherently conflict with the ability to view at a time convenient to me, you have just contradicted yourself. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

sommerfeld said:


> Since "destroy after 90 minutes" provisions inherently conflict with the ability to view at a time convenient to me, you have just contradicted yourself. You can't have it both ways.


That's based on the (false) assumption that setting that flag on content that's not PPV or VOD is legal. It's not, but getting the blame finger pointed correctly and getting it resolved are apparently difficult.

Recording for the purpose of viewing later is very legal, and the media companies have no right to interfere with that. The "destroy after 90 minutes" provisions are intended for PPV and VOD content where it's assumed that, because you ordered that content for a specific time, it's already a convenient time to view it and the only reason it keep it for _that_ long is in case you need to pause or want to rewind/replay it (which is redundant for VOD anyway). That's why recording of the content is done at all.


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

bicker said:


> You've derailed. If the content owner decides they want to sell their content in accordance with the current copyright protections (i.e., that you're buying a license to view this copy, and this copy only, etc.) then according to what you just said, they should be allowed to do so. That's exactly the case here. Indeed, they should be allowed to use DRM to enforce whatever provisions they choose to make the sale of their content contingent on. Your choice, as a consumer, is to either accept their offer, or decline it, and do without.


I'm "derailed"? Whatever. But my point is this: I'm allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work under copyright law for personal, nomcommercial use. There's nothing I've been able to find under copyright law that allows a copyright holder to prohibit me from making a few copies of a DVD as long as they're for me only in my home, for example (I'm talking exclusively about the law here). The content owner doesn't have a legal right under copyright law to prohibit this (I'm just talking about the rights a copyright holder has here). I am not a lawyer, but I did look over the copyright act information, so if you can find information to the contrary I'd be interested in reading it.

So right now we have a situation where media companies are using DRM to protect their copyright rights (which I don't have a problem with), but they're also using it to give themselves control over things that are NOT guaranteed under copyright law. Okay, so I as a consumer have the choice of choosing or not choosing to purchase a particular piece of media based on the provisions associated with it; I can choose to purchase a PPV movie on my Series 3 that will delete itself after a few hours, or I can rent a DVD from Netflix that I can view whenever. That's my choice, and that's fine. I think what the media companies are doing with the current reach of DRM is wrong, but I believe they have the legal right to what they are doing (enforcing rights not guaranteed under copyright law), but I think what they are doing is wrong.

Just FYI, I don't believe that because I think the media companies are wrong when it comes to DRM, it justifies me stealing from them. All of the content I have in my house, I've paid for.


----------



## drdigital1 (Dec 22, 2003)

bicker said:


> As sommerfeld indicated, the DVR fee is $15, not $10. Also, with a S3 instead of a 3412, I wouldn't have to have everything backed-up on our second S2, so I can decommission that. That's another $7 per month for the TiVo subscription and $5 per month for the non-HD digital cable box. $15+$7+$5 = $27.


I am confused. My Comcast bill has 2 items:
Digital Premium Channel Package
Dual Tuner DVR
The fee for the latter is 9.99/month.
You are right: without a digital premium channel package there probably is a $5/month fee for digital access but don't you need to pay this even when you have a S3 if you want access to HDTV cable channels?
I don't understand why you need a second S2 when you use a 3412 DVR but don't need it when you use a S3. I assume that the non-HD digital cable box you mention is being used with the S2 you plan to eliminate.
In my case, if I were to use a S3 instead of the 3412 DVR I'd have to pay for the S3, for Tivo service and for cable cards while saving 9.99/month.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

Maeglin said:


> Recording for the purpose of viewing later is very legal


That is correct.


Maeglin said:


> and the media companies have no right to interfere with that.


That is incorrect.

Being legal doesn't mean you have the "right" (or even the ability) to do it.

Media companies _do_ have the right to interfere with your ability to record to view later, granted to them in the DMCA.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

Redux said:


> Media companies _do_ have the right to interfere with your ability to record to view later, granted to them in the DMCA.


Which, in the opinions of many (including myself), should never have been passed in the first place. It's just one more example of media companies vastly overdoing it in trying to prevent piracy, in that case wrongfully allowing those companies to overrule at will any limits to their exclusive rights specified in existing copyright law, including fair use which (according to those whose job it is to interpret the law) covers time-shifting.

Circumventing DRM for those legal purposes is called civil disobedience, not piracy. Unfortunately, it's not bound to change things for the better any time soon, as long as media companies keep shoveling cash into the pockets of politicians.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dark Helmet said:


> Okay, so I as a consumer have the choice of choosing or not choosing to purchase a particular piece of media based on the provisions associated with it


That's really what it boils down to. Agree to the terms and conditions, or don't buy.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

drdigital1 said:


> I don't understand why you need a second S2 when you use a 3412 DVR but don't need it when you use a S3.


3412s are utterly unreliable -- we found that we needed an extra TiVo just to back up every recording we scheduled it to make, to be sure we didn't miss an episode of a serial.


----------



## DocSavag (Feb 18, 2006)

bicker said:


> Sorry, but I find that to be a meritless (and I'm being generous, there) rationalization. I think we're done here.


Way to quote only part of a sentence, changing the meaning of the original author! The quote was: _Just FYI, I don't believe that because I think the media companies are wrong when it comes to DRM, it justifies me stealing from them. All of the content I have in my house, I've paid for._

When viewed in context the meaning is obvious that he DOES NOT believe it justifies stealing.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

Maeglin said:


> That's based on the (false) assumption that setting that flag on content that's not PPV or VOD is legal. It's not, but getting the blame finger pointed correctly and getting it resolved are apparently difficult.


No. Recall that the claim at issue is:


MScottC said:


> The entire chain has no problems with technology that allows you to use that media anywhere within your household and at a time of your convenance.


The restrictions on copy-never were not the idea of the distribution chain, but was a compromise position forced on some content providers, apparently against their will; some content distributors have sought to use these flags on non-PPV/VOD content; for evidence in support of this see:
http://www.allyourtv.com/0405season/news/november/11282004transitional.html

Moreover, if there are no consequences to setting the bits incorrectly, and the bits are set incorectly on a regular basis, then the fact that its illegal/against regulations to set them for most content is a poor consolation. Nor is there any guarantee that the regulations won't change in the future; consider:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html

Now, I'm going to put on my security protocol designer hat, under which I am agnostic about the merits of DRM and worry only about whether it does what it claims to do:

It is claimed that DRM systems will prevent widespread piracy of DRM-restricted content, while protecting fair use rights of legitimate customers. It's clear to me that neither is true of systems fielded today, and moreover, the more I learn about how they're put together, the more clear it becomes to me that the folks building them aren't even trying very hard to accomplish either goal.

A robust mechanism could have been designed which would make it difficult for providers to mislabel PPV/VOD content. For instance, the flag could be in the form of a digitally-signed message bound to the content and its distribution channel & decryption key indicating who was responsible for the flag (and thus who would be liable in the event the label was applied inappropriately).

But it's clear that these systems are designed on the cheap -- recall the absurd assertion (in the spec posted earlier on this thread) that 56 bit DES is strong enough to protect the "copy never" content from disclosure. DES was a reasonable algorithm to use back in the 80's, but it's now really long in the tooth, and I wouldn't use DES today to protect content worth more than a couple bucks. I find it difficult to reconcile the weakness of DES with the claimed value of the content controlled by the system.

In the cryptographic community, there is a term of art for systems like these: snake oil.

Content providers would do well to be extremely skeptical about claims made by purveyors of DRM technologies.


----------



## Dark Helmet (Sep 15, 2006)

DocSavag said:


> When viewed in context the meaning is obvious that he DOES NOT believe it justifies stealing.


Thank you. That's what I meant; my apologies if my words were confusing.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Wow, what a tangent this thread took, any chance to get back on topic? To me it's very simple - enable TTG that respects whatever copy flags are embedded. Nothing wrong/illegal/morally dubious about that. i.e. give me at least the same capability I have now with cable co. DVR for extracting shows with 5C=0 flag (copy freely).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dark Helmet said:


> Thank you. That's what I meant; my apologies if my words were confusing.


No -- I read your message too fast. I've fixed my earlier reply.


----------



## RichB (Apr 2, 2003)

moyekj said:


> Wow, what a tangent this thread took, any chance to get back on topic? To me it's very simple - enable TTG that respects whatever copy flags are embedded. Nothing wrong/illegal/morally dubious about that. i.e. give me at least the same capability I have now with cable co. DVR for extracting shows with 5C=0 flag (copy freely).


Geez, I hope so.

Here is what you can get today if you get FIOS:

http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/dvr/dvr.htm

Obviously, this can be done without copyright infringement.
I do not know why this is being discussed so much. The S2 does it, go have an argument in that forum 

- Rich


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

MScottC said:


> It's folks like you who force the hands of the industry to try more and more draconian measures. And simply put, it's folks like you who are the reason we don't have TTG and MRV (and perhaps eSata), because you prove you can't be trusted to keep the media within your own home network. So now the creative community demands that the middlemen implement stronger and stronger methods of protecting their product.


See? I've been accused of doing something I've never done. We nasty, filthy customers are all the same, and can't be trusted with anything. It's a miracle we're not all already in jail.

Next time, I won't bother to ask you if I can borrow your car. I'll just steal it. If I'm being accused of it and being punished for it anyway, I might as well enjoy all the positives that go with it as well. Respect goes both ways, you know. This has been forgotten by everyone involved.

FYI, parts of the DMCA are illegal and unconstitutional. At a minumum they conflict with existing laws and court decisions. If Congress passed a law that made it illegal to drive a car, this would eventually get overturned. But what would happen in the meantime? As a citizen, do you follow the old laws or the new law? If you're the person who implemented the new law, you'd probably just go after the people who were not willing or able to put up a fight. This would maximize the time the new law would be in effect. The RIAA and MPAA can give you the list of these people if you don't already have it.

Anyway, steering hard back to the OT, Verizon FIOS does offer MRV for SD only. They say they'll have HD MRV later this year. I think it's a bandwidth problem more than anything -- there's more data to stream with HD vs. SD. The delay is due to Tivo submitting the S3 late (shocking, I know) and Cablelabs dragging their feet (another total shock).

Same thing with T2G. I hope it's a lot faster than it was on the S2. Can you imagine how long it would take the S2 to transfer an hour-long HD show? The 24 hour viewing period might expire first. Not to mention the virus the show put on your PC to format your hard drive the second you were done watching it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> See? I've been accused of doing something I've never done. We nasty, filthy customers are all the same, and can't be trusted with anything. It's a miracle we're not all already in jail.
> 
> Next time, I won't bother to ask you if I can borrow your car. I'll just steal it. If I'm being accused of it and being punished for it anyway, I might as well enjoy all the positives that go with it as well. Respect goes both ways, you know. This has been forgotten by everyone involved.
> 
> ...


I think you are spot on about why it's not here- tivo and cablelabs being slow.

But I'm not sure you are correct about the DMCA and driving cars. Hopefully someone will challange the thing as unconstituitional and it could get tossed, but i'm nto sure that's a given. (although apparently the silly lexmark case did get a lower court to say that fairuse trumped DMCA and the supreme court refused to hear an appeal- IANAL but i think that means the current interpretation by the courts is that the DMCA cant limit fair use rights?)

Also I'm not sure it's even illegal- laws all the time are passed that are in conflict with other laws- the new one wins. You better follow the new law or you are breakign the law. In the early 1970's speedlimits were over 55. Then they changed the national speed limit to 55- limiitign your ability to do somethign you used to be able to do. I dont think that you could argue to a judge that your speeding ticket was invalid since you were folowing the old law. And I'm unaware that driving a car is a right mandated by the constitution so I think if congress wanted to they could in fact outlaw driving a car.

I think the DMCA certainly has some evil stuff in it, but I am not sure the courts will ever toss it. We may have to hope that some sane people in congress pass yet another law that fixes the issues.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> (although apparently the silly lexmark case did get a lower court to say that fairuse trumped DMCA and the supreme court refused to hear an appeal- IANAL but i think that means the current interpretation by the courts is that the DMCA cant limit fair use rights?)


That's a good point... if that case was enough to set precedence, then yes, the current interpretation would seem to be that fair use rights are protected. That would certainly be good news.

As for the comparison to the new speed limit laws, though, I'm not sure that it's that fair of a comparison, as that was probably done for safety reasons more than anything else and could potentially be "for the greater good". Stifling innovation and ignoring limitations on exclusive rights built into existing copyright laws I don't think would fall even close to that same category.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Maeglin said:


> That's a good point... if that case was enough to set precedence, then yes, the current interpretation would seem to be that fair use rights are protected. That would certainly be good news.
> 
> As for the comparison to the new speed limit laws, though, I'm not sure that it's that fair of a comparison, as that was probably done for safety reasons more than anything else and could potentially be "for the greater good". Stifling innovation and ignoring limitations on exclusive rights built into existing copyright laws I don't think would fall even close to that same category.


I dont think a law needs to be for the greater good to supersede anopther law. You can change a law with a new law all you want- I think (as above IANAL). (if that were not the case then probably half the approprations laws with their porkbarrel BS would be illegal)

I think such tests only apply to the constitutionality of things. If the thing is found to be unconstitutional that's a whole 'nother issue- and probably the way things need to go to fix this. But if the fairuse part of the lexmark case is a precedent to be followed (I really am not sure how that works- I think it matter what court found that way to decide if it is a precedent or not???) then I think it quickly fixes itself. Seems that would say that when the invariable hacks start to come that as long as they are not meant to steal that they would be legal. (again no lawyer but i'd hope that's how it would work out)

got me to think- is fairuse a concept based on the constition? It seems like it is and thats how fair use trumps all? (and the fact that it's describes frequently as "fair use rights")


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

MichaelK said:


> got me to think- is fairuse a concept based on the constition? It seems like it is and thats how fair use trumps all? (and the fact that it's describes frequently as "fair use rights")


That's a good question.

Technically, though, "fair use" is less about rights for the consumers and more about limtations of exclusive rights for copyright holders. That's not the only limitation... there are quite a few others in there.

The DMCA (or the idea that spawned it) is effectively the effort of companies to not only protect the rights that they have (which makes it redundant, since they were protected by existing laws), but apparently also to *take back the ones that they don't*. All someone has to do is put the simplest DRM scheme in place and, if you get around it, you're breaking the law no matter what your intentions were. The Lexmark case is proof that that doesn't always work, and strengthens the argument that those exclusive rights were meant to stay limited.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> is fairuse a concept based on the constition?


While copyright protection is (casually) mentioned in the Constitution, Fair Use is not.


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

bicker said:


> While copyright protection is (casually) mentioned in the Constitution, Fair Use is not.


Copyright is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution by name; article I section 8 of the constitution says in part:


> The Congress shall have power ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Seems to me that the "to promote the progress" bit limits what rights Congress can grant to authors and inventors, and strongly implies most forms of fair use; one cannot use copyright to prevent others from criticizing or competing with you.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

found this:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html



> One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of fair use. Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.


not sure why the courts originally invented it (if they were saying it was a constitutional thing or not)- but sounds like it is part of the current law.

Luckily it sounds like the courts have found (at least in regards to the lexmark case) that the copyright law trumps the DMCA in regards to fair use.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

wow what a mess-

it might take a week of reading and analysis to figure out the current copyright lawas and the DMCA.

But it appears the DMCA added to the copyright laws all the restictions, but apparently all the new bits say that nothing in them can restrict fair use.

found this "summary" at the copyright webnsite:
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf#search="dmca"

my favorit quote:


> since the copying of a work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measuer that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unautjorized acess to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measuer in order to gain access is prohibited


sound like they say it's your fair use right to circumvent technology that prevents copying "but on the other hand " ciurcumventing such measuers is prohibited.

Well which is it?

Can you or cant you?

gotta love government legalese...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

sommerfeld said:


> article I section 8 of the constitution says in part:


Yes, that's what copyright is all about.



> one cannot use copyright to prevent others from criticizing


That's precisely what Fair Use is about -- facilitating constructive criticism and analysis. Not making personal copies.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Well which is it? Can you or cant you?


You can't. Read the laws thoroughly, and you'll find the explicit statutes that allow for exceptions, allowing certain entities to make copies for specific purpose -- educational institutions, libraries, etc. Again, the point is really that the content creator has the right to impose whatever requirements they want on the sale of the content or license to use the content. That can include standard copyright protections, can except copyright protections, can go beyond copyright protections. Its their property -- they make the rules. Your option is to either accept their rules, or not purchase their stuff.


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> sound like they say it's your fair use right to circumvent technology that prevents copying "but on the other hand " ciurcumventing such measuers is prohibited.
> 
> Well which is it?


As I read it, you can circumvent the technological measures to copy something you already have the rights to view (e.g. back up a movie or move it to hard drive). However, you cannot circumvent measures that keep you from viewing something you do not have the rights to view (e.g. PPV you haven't paid for).

Unfortunately, they're generally the same measures, so it's a bit dicey.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Aiken said:


> As I read it, you can circumvent the technological measures to copy something you already have the rights to view (e.g. back up a movie or move it to hard drive). However, you cannot circumvent measures that keep you from viewing something you do not have the rights to view (e.g. PPV you haven't paid for).
> 
> Unfortunately, they're generally the same measures, so it's a bit dicey.


ahhhh thanks for explaining- that makes sense now.

you can circumvent to copy but you cant circumvent to view in the first place.....


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I'm just wondering if it is still "*Official*?"


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

HDTiVo said:


> I'm just wondering if it is still "*Official*?"


On which part, the "not yet" or the "never"? 

I don't think it was ever officially a "never", as the last word I saw from Pony was that they were working on certification for it (which may or may not involve changes to satisfy CableLabs).


----------



## thefrog (Oct 3, 2006)

Before I read all of this information about Cable Labs, etc., I called TiVo support (9/28). I told them MRV wasn't working on the new S3. They indicated that the S3 would need to download new software which should be available in a few weeks. I asked why it didn't ship with the SW since the it's been available on the S2s already. He didn't respond to that comment.
I was pretty content that it would be coming shortly based on his response. However, now I'm very skeptical that this information was accurate. I think they may need to do some training of their network support personnel if that's the case.
Can anyone comment on this?


----------



## Puppy76 (Oct 7, 2004)

Darn, wish that was true. I bet I would have jumped on an S3 if it had Tivo 2 Go, possibly even without Mac support...

Although my S2 Tivo has gotten super-buggy since 7.3.1, which isn't making me real enamored of Tivo.


----------



## Maeglin (Sep 27, 2006)

thefrog said:


> Before I read all of this information about Cable Labs, etc., I called TiVo support (9/28). I told them MRV wasn't working on the new S3. They indicated that the S3 would need to download new software which should be available in a few weeks. I asked why it didn't ship with the SW since the it's been available on the S2s already. He didn't respond to that comment.


There is a November update, but as far as I know it doesn't include enabling MRV or TTG. If it did, it would be odd for none of the TiVo staff on here to have mentioned it yet... unless they're keeping it as a surprise for the update message: "Oh, by the way, you've got MRV and TTG now!"


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

off to update my beta questionaire....

maybe someone I can get picked.....

<fingers crossed>


----------



## Leo_N (Nov 13, 2003)

Maeglin said:


> There is a November update, but as far as I know it doesn't include enabling MRV or TTG. If it did, it would be odd for none of the TiVo staff on here to have mentioned it yet... unless they're keeping it as a surprise for the update message: "Oh, by the way, you've got MRV and TTG now!"


It might not be odd if they are not sure about CableLabs certification yet. They could easily have 2 versions of software ready to roll in November, one with MRV and TTG (although I doubt TTG for a while, at least for cablecard protected channels) and one without. There is no way they would want to tell us that, because there is also no way, someone wouldn't misquote or misinterpret any statement they made like that.

Then again it could also be possible they are nowhere even close on the certification process. All this speculation, and calling anything "Official", is damn near a waste of our time. Not that I have anything against wasting time.


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

Leo_N said:


> Then again it could also be possible they are nowhere even close on the certification process. All this speculation, and calling anything "Official", is damn near a waste of our time. Not that I have anything against wasting time.


 My use of the term "It's Official" I believe was and still is quite appropriate. Before the S3 release there were rumors of no TTG & MRV. With the initial public release of the S3 it was confirmed for sure - no TTG or MRV - hence use of the term "It's Official". The part in brackets (Probably Ever) was pure speculation on my part and why I put it in brackets and included the word Probably.


----------



## sjcbulldog (Jul 13, 2004)

I would be happy if they just opened it up so the S3 could view content from other Tivos and PCs in the house. I could live with just this capability for now and it would get me 90% to what I want.

I just want the ability to have all of the videos I have of the kids accessible via the Tivo like they are on the S2. For the time being I have the S2 and the S3 side by side so I can still show the kids video to relatives visiting. Same thing with the photos but the S3 supports Galleon which I use for photos.

Just my $0.02 worth
Sjcbulldog


----------



## gibby (Feb 26, 2002)

sjcbulldog said:


> I would be happy if they just opened it up so the S3 could view content from other Tivos and PCs in the house. I could live with just this capability for now and it would get me 90% to what I want.
> 
> I just want the ability to have all of the videos I have of the kids accessible via the Tivo like they are on the S2. For the time being I have the S2 and the S3 side by side so I can still show the kids video to relatives visiting. Same thing with the photos but the S3 supports Galleon which I use for photos.
> 
> ...


I would agree with this statment !!! Tivo is all about sharing from one tv to another 
also can we use the usb port at all ?
My brother has a comcast dvr and it has a firewire port that he recorded a football game for me sent the game to the firewire port and sent me the game ?? if you can do this with the comcast dvr why cant we do this with TIVO !!!!


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

gibby said:


> Tivo is all about sharing from one tv to another


While I think no MRV or TTG is dispicable for an $800 DVR, whereas these features are available for their "free" and "cheap" dvrs, I feel the need to interject.

For the record, MRV and TTG are relatively new features in Tivo Inc.'s history - Tivo has not historically been about "sharing from one tv to another."


----------



## hookbill (Dec 14, 2001)

gibby said:


> I would agree with this statment !!! Tivo is all about sharing from one tv to another
> also can we use the usb port at all ?
> My brother has a comcast dvr and it has a firewire port that he recorded a football game for me sent the game to the firewire port and sent me the game ?? if you can do this with the comcast dvr why cant we do this with TIVO !!!!


Yeah, I know someone who says the SA 8300 has an active firewire too, though they have yet to try to record anything to their computer. TiVo should make this feature available to us.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

While the Firewire output is good and all on my Adel-mCast 6412 Motorola, it has two serious flaws:
1. My DVR is tied up playing back the show at real time to permit the capture
2. After a capture session, the DVR looses ALL Fwd/Rewind/Pause capability. Completely. Requiring a hard reboot (and the ensuing 2+ hour guide reload).

As can well be imagined, I've only bothered capturing a nett total of two shows and a varied assortment of 4-5 ads/snippets in the 6 months I've leased it. Just not worth it!

Of course, it'll be interesting to see if the implementation smooths out when TiVo software downloads to the DVR. Hmmmm ...


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Maybe the OP actually heard something like: 



> My name is Jim Denney, I am in Vice President of Product Marketing for TiVos retail products. Tom Rogers forwarded your message to me. I wanted to thank you for your email and apologize for the delay in TiVoToGo for the Mac. I am sorry that you feel we have not paid attention to the Mac community. That is certainly not our intention. We are aware of our subscribers desire to get TiVoToGo on the Mac. Believe it or not, we are actively working on the project and have been for the past year in various forms. Unfortunately, developing on the Mac platform has been a little more difficult because of its closed nature. We are working through the issues we have encountered. They are not simple to solve given the needs that we balance in TiVoToGo. We dont have a release date for the feature yet.
> 
> *We have gotten ourselves in trouble in the past when we estimated it would be out by mid year this year, we obviously missed that date. * In the interest of setting the right expectations this time we want to wait until the feature is actually ready. We are not ready to make that announcement yet. That is why our customer care representatives have been instructed to give the answer they gave you.
> 
> We can let you know when the feature is ready for launch. We are listening to you. Until it is ready, we appreciate your patience.


http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-10/mac-tivotogo-non-update/#comments


----------



## moyekj (Jan 24, 2006)

ashu said:


> While the Firewire output is good and all on my Adel-mCast 6412 Motorola, it has two serious flaws:
> 1. My DVR is tied up playing back the show at real time to permit the capture
> 2. After a capture session, the DVR looses ALL Fwd/Rewind/Pause capability. Completely. Requiring a hard reboot (and the ensuing 2+ hour guide reload).
> 
> ...


 Actually the firewire capture capability is provided by the underlying Motorola firmware not the PVR software that sits on top of it. That's why different markets with completely different software on the DCT64xx (Iguide, Passport Echo just to name 2) have firewire enabled and operate identically with regards to firewire capture. I expect the Tivo software to sit on the same or similar Moto firmware and thus the behavior not to be any different.


----------

