# You CAN submit a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd for loss of service



## rwtomkins

Good news for lifetime subscribers who would like to try claiming against TiVo (UK) Ltd for loss of service: TiVo (UK) Ltd is still a fully functioning legal entity in the UK and therefore, for a very small sum of money and with very little effort, you CAN make a claim against the company if you feel this is justified.

I wanted to get this news out while there are still some UK users following this forum. If anyone interested in making a claim would like to say so here or PM me, perhaps we can stay in touch and compare notes even after June 1.

I would like to thank steveroe for posting Tivo UK's address on a previous thread. The address is:

TIVO (UK) LIMITED
5 NEW STREET SQUARE
LONDON
EC4A 3TW

I've established that this is still the company's legal, corporate address. Its communications are actually handled by a firm of lawyers at the same address but I have spoken to them and they confirm that TiVo UK is still fully functioning and that all communications with the company should be sent to that address.

You can easily make a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd by going to the Money Claim Online website, part of Her Majesty's Courts Service, and filling in an online form. The website is here:

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

It costs £25 to make the claim and you automatically get your money back from the defendant if your claim succeeds.

I haven't yet claimed against TiVo (UK) because like most people I had assumed this company was defunct. Instead I wrote a letter to TiVo Inc in the US which was completely ignored and after that I decided to try claiming against BSkyB as a first step.

The hearing hasn't yet taken place but in the meantime BSkyB has entered a defence in which it states that basically my contractual relationship was with TiVo, not BSkyB, and that BSkyB therefore can't be held liable. It says it is "highly unlikely" that it ever had a telephone conversation with me in which it took a card payment of £199 for a lifetime subscription "since a subscription of the type described by the Claimant could not be purchased directly from the Defendant in relation to non-Sky products."

Can anyone say whether this is true or not? Does anyone have any recollection of whether their lifetime subscription was paid to BSkyB or to TiVo?

Now that I know TiVo (UK) Ltd is actually still operating I'm inclined to drop my claim against BSkyB and make a new claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd which would obviously have a far greater chance of success but I want to make sure BSkyB has got its facts right before making the switch.


----------



## LarryDavid

well, good luck. I don't rate your chances, but good luck anyway.


----------



## sjp

if you'd asked me pre April 5th last year I would probably have been able to locate my credit card statement as I hadn't had a paperwork clearout since moving into this house - that weekend cost me a shredder.

while I'm too lazy to do much about it myself I too wish you luck.

if you do get as far as a courtroom I wonder if they'll even bother defending. if they don't show there's a fairly decent chance that the magistrate will rule in your favour - they don't like the defendants not showing up. remember that you can add a bit on for your troubles, last time I did this the magistrate added the max £50.

if granted though, collecting might be a little interesting.


----------



## Richard42

I paid for my lifetime subs by credit card ( in November 2000  ) and being a squirrel I still have the statement. 
Payment was made to TiVo. 
I also have a letter from TiVo thanking me for taking out the lifetime subscription.


----------



## TCM2007

Remind me what exactly you are trying to claim again?


----------



## Pete77

I am all for joining you but think I can only lay my hands on the letter confirming the Lifetime Sub payment but not on a credit card statement from December 2002. Sadly NatWest's online records only go back six years.

Let me know when you file your new action against Tivo and if there is a way for me to be joined as a party to it under the Small Claims procedure. Courts usually take legal actions involving a large number of joint applicants more seriously.

Oh and this is the County Court by the way so it will be a district judge and not a magistrate although confusingly they do also now have those in the magistrates court and bring them in instead of a magistrates bench if they think you have any chance of winning your case.

*EDIT:-* I have just realised I can probably get a copy of the requisite card statement from NatWest if I agree to pay them a fiver, assuming that their offline records still go back this far.

Regarding who you dealt with on the phone it was clearly a Sky customer service centre employee working on behalf of Tivo but without the card statement I can't be sure if the card payment was to Sky or Tivo. However I would think Sky would successfully manage to argue that any residual contractual liability for the Lifetime service lies with Tivo and not with BSkyB.


----------



## Trinitron

I'm with TCM2007 in not being entirely sure what you can claim for here, but if it's financial compensation for the remainder of this undefined 'lifetime' have you thought about a 'section 75' claim under the Consumer Credit Act against the card issuer?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> have you thought about a 'section 75' claim under the Consumer Credit Act against the card issuer?
> 
> http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm


I agree that might be the easier one to win as a card issuer will only be concerned about the cost of the legal action vs the potential refund cost of the transaction so might give in on that basis. Although I'm sure some trading standards legal principles about goods only being expected to be "fit for the purpose" for six years and so on might make for problems at this stage.

Also as I think rwtomkins really seeks to make a political point (with a small p) about Tivo's withdrawal of service he is probably more interested in trying to force Tivo itself to attend court. However as Tivo will probably not be very keen to do so compared to the card company he might be more likely to win his case.

One interesting point to consider is whether Tivo's UK subsidiary also has a current ongoing contractual relationship with Virgin Media or if that arrangement is direct with the US Tivo legal entity given that much of Virgin Media seems to be US based.


----------



## rwtomkins

LarryDavid said:


> well, good luck. I don't rate your chances, but good luck anyway.





sjp said:


> while I'm too lazy to do much about it myself I too wish you luck.
> 
> if you do get as far as a courtroom I wonder if they'll even bother defending. if they don't show there's a fairly decent chance that the magistrate will rule in your favour - they don't like the defendants not showing up. remember that you can add a bit on for your troubles, last time I did this the magistrate added the max £50.


Obviously I'm a bit more optimistic than you, Larry, but thanks very much for the friendly good wishes, both of you! Much appreciated. And thanks for the tip, sjp.



Richard42 said:


> I paid for my lifetime subs by credit card ( in November 2000  ) and being a squirrel I still have the statement.
> Payment was made to TiVo.
> I also have a letter from TiVo thanking me for taking out the lifetime subscription.


That's enormously helpful. Thank you very much indeed.



TCM2007 said:


> Remind me what exactly you are trying to claim again?


Not if you're just going to rubbish the whole idea!



Pete77 said:


> Let me know when you file your new action against Tivo and if there is a way for me to be joined as a party to it under the Small Claims procedure. Courts usually take legal actions involving a large number of joint applicants more seriously.


I will explore this idea and thanks for the suggestion. The alternative is just to use me as a stalking horse and see if I win though if as you say the courts take more notice of claims with multiple signatories, there may very well be merit in it.



Trinitron said:


> I'm with TCM2007 in not being entirely sure what you can claim for here, but if it's financial compensation for the remainder of this undefined 'lifetime' have you thought about a 'section 75' claim under the Consumer Credit Act against the card issuer?
> 
> http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm


Yes, it's mainly about the money paid for the lifetime subscription and thanks very much for the suggestion. It's a very good idea but as Pete rightly guesses, it's not really about the money. I know it sounds corny but it's the principle of the thing. I think TiVo knows it's breaking its agreement with lifetime subscribers but is just trying it on and seeing if it can get away with it. Well, it has, almost, but I don't want to go down without a fight, even if it's only a small one. For TiVo, the stakes are potentially high: if I win, they will be liable to all 12,000 lifetime subscribers who were on the roll last September. So I think they might have to take this quite seriously.


----------



## alek

I can see the headline now.

Class action lawsuit by disgruntled uk tivo users has multinational company on the ropes.




If you can take an action on behalf of many, rather than individually, I will chip in a few quid just for the hell of it.

Alek


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> as Pete rightly guesses, it's not really about the money. I know it sounds corny but it's the principle of the thing. I think TiVo knows it's breaking its agreement with lifetime subscribers but is just trying it on and seeing if it can get away with it. Well, it has, almost, but I don't want to go down without a fight, even if it's only a small one. For TiVo, the stakes are potentially high: if I win, they will be liable to all 12,000 lifetime subscribers who were on the roll last September. So I think they might have to take this quite seriously.


Good man rwtomkins. I feel precisely the same way as you do although I personally feel that the real villain heres are senior Virgin Media marketing people who have demanded that the old S1 Tivo service is cut off on June 30th so that they can get as many sales as possible of the new Virgin Tivo and also so that Tivo is now seen to be a Virgin only product that is not available at all on any other tv platform. Its the same kind of nasty mentality that was involved in only being able to apply for tickets for the Olympic games using a Visa card.

I feel this is shoddy and appalling behaviour as Tivo clearly were an ethical company up until they had their arm twisted by the commercial muscle of Virgin and rightly felt that they should go on supplying a service originally sold to customers as Lifetime. But Virgin clearly told Tivo they they didn't care about this and only cared about their UK exclusive and anyhow if anyone tried to take them on over the issue their experience was that legal spend on their side would always overpower the small private individual.

There is no need for all these perfectly good Virgin S1 boxes to be denied service while they are still working perfectly well and for it to be done just so that Virgin can say "yah boo you can only have Tivo through Virgin" seems stupid in the extreme. Cutting off the S1 boxes in Virgin Media land is I would suggest even more ethically questionable unless Virgin are prepared to supply a new Virgin Media Tivo box free of charge on the customer's existing tv package with no monthly Tivo fee required for existing S1 Lifetime customers.


----------



## Pete77

This thread over on a US discussion forum makes for quite interesting reading in terms of how US Tivo owners might feel if their S1 machines suddenly had Lifetime service cut off:-

www.zatznotfunny.com/2011-02/tivo-lifetime-service-lasts-10-years-uk/

One thing that does strike me though is that Tivo have never yet provided a formal corporate response to the many UK customer complaints sent to it on this issue. This suggests to me that they could still be considering the whole position in conjunction with Virgin and might decide to continue Lifetime service to the S1 units after all if things look like they will get too hot for them if the service is discontinued as originally threatened.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to pursue the issue at the very least sends an email to [email protected] and [email protected] as well as Joshua Danovitz and all the other senior Tivo executives who have their email addresses listed at http://free.salesfuel.com/CoIntell/C...panyID=1998913


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> Not if you're just going to rubbish the whole idea!


Just curious as you have to put a number to your claim, and wondered what it was.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> This suggests to me that they could still be considering the whole position in conjunction with Virgin and might decide to continue Lifetime service to the S1 units after all if things look like they will get too hot for them if the service is discontinued as originally threatened.


Too hot? Things never got beyond slightly tepid and have cooled off since.

In three week's time the service will be turned off. As far as I can see you are the only person left who hasn't accepted tgat.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> As far as I can see you are the only person left who hasn't accepted tgat.


So you think rwtomkins is really interested in getting compensation rather than in keeping official service for the S1 UK Tivos going? I suppose at least you can be commended for the consistency of your defeatist approach.


----------



## TCM2007

I think he's interested in causing a little bit of grief to TiVo to make a point, which I can understand. There are various outcomes of his action, which range from getting £0 to getting the amount of cash he asks for. The S1 service continuing is not one of the possible outcomes.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I think he's interested in causing a little bit of grief to TiVo to make a point, which I can understand. There are various outcomes of his action, which range from getting £0 to getting the amount of cash he asks for. The S1 service continuing is not one of the possible outcomes.


If the S1 service is not discontinued on June 1st then legally his case will collapse. Hence it is a possible option by Tivo for dealing with his legal action.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> I personally feel that the real villain heres are senior Virgin Media marketing people who have demanded that the old S1 Tivo service is cut off on June 30th.


You keep repeating this but haven't produced any evidence to support these potentially libellous statements.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> You keep repeating this but haven't produced any evidence to support these potentially libellous statements.


You think they are going to publicly admit to doing such a thing then. Of course they won't because its not good PR for either them or Tivo.

If we followed your line of reasoning then nobody could ever suggest that Messrs Mugabe, Hussein Quadafi etc had killed loads of their own people unless somebody could produce all the bodies and find an exact DNA match on every single one.

My experience of life is that if Virgin had nothing whatsoever to do with the withdrawal of the S1 Tivo service then they would all be too keen to publicly deny such allegations. The fact that they don't tends to tell its own story.

Then you make ludicrous allegations that I am making libellous allegations. A lot of things can be called libel by internet pedants but the real test of that is whether your allegation is actually serious or damaging enough for somebody to bother starting a libel action against you in which they hope to win a serious amount of damages. As libel actions are expensive and hard to win people don't start them unless you have done serious damage to their reputation.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> You think they are going to publicly admit to doing such a thing then.


No, I hoped you could publicly produce some facts to support your allegations. But you clearly can't.



> My experience of life is that if Virgin had nothing whatsoever to do with the withdrawal of the S1 Tivo service then they would all be too keen to publicly deny such allegations.


Have you asked them to? No one is doubting that the VM deal is a significant factor in the decision to drop S1 support but you are putting the blame on Virgin whereas most other people posting here appear to see it as a decision of TiVo, Inc.



> A lot of things can be called libel by internet pedants but the real test of that is whether your allegation is actually serious or damaging enough for somebody to bother starting a libel action against you in which they hope to win a serious amount of damages.


Oh, that's ok then. I stand corrected.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> If the S1 service is not discontinued on June 1st then legally his case will collapse. Hence it is a possible option by Tivo for dealing with his legal action.


They could also declare themselves bankrupt, or take a out a contract on rwtomkins with a hit man. Both about as likely.


----------



## ericd121

Pete77 said:


> I personally feel that the real villain heres are senior Virgin Media marketing people who have demanded that the old S1 Tivo service is cut off on June 30th...





Pete77 said:


> My experience of life is that if Virgin had nothing whatsoever to do with the withdrawal of the S1 Tivo service then they would all be too keen to publicly deny such allegations. The fact that they don't tends to tell its own story...A lot of things can be called libel by internet pedants but the real test of that is whether your allegation is actually serious or damaging enough for somebody to bother starting a libel action against you in which they hope to win a serious amount of damages. As libel actions are expensive and hard to win people don't start them unless you have done serious damage to their reputation.


Maybe Virgin Media are not aware of your allegations, Pete.

One way to be sure would be for you to, anonymously, report yourself to VM as being a potential libeller.

If they did nothing, your allegations would be on stronger foundations.
If they took you to court, your theory, as expounded in the first quote above, would have to be proven by you, would it not?

Either way, you might get closer to the truth.


----------



## Steve_K

Pete is far from alone in believing Virgin are behind the termination of the S1 service. Otherwise why on earth did they sign an agreement with the word EXCLUSIVE in it?

What isn't certain is whether Virgin knew that TiVo couldn't legally do this but they certainly know now and yet all we hear is Branson crowing about how good a deal it is. 

Sue me for libel Virgin, I've got at least 2p I'd pay into court to well cover any damages you'd get.


----------



## Steve_K

Oh and good move Rwtomkins

Now where did I put those old credit card statements. I paid up for lifetime sub on Dec 20th 2000.


----------



## rwtomkins

alek said:


> I can see the headline now.
> 
> Class action lawsuit by disgruntled uk tivo users has multinational company on the ropes.
> 
> If you can take an action on behalf of many, rather than individually, I will chip in a few quid just for the hell of it.
> 
> Alek




Thanks, Alek. I won't be asking for any contributions but if you want to put your name to it, I'll keep that in mind.



TCM2007 said:


> I think he's interested in causing a little bit of grief to TiVo to make a point, which I can understand. There are various outcomes of his action, which range from getting £0 to getting the amount of cash he asks for. The S1 service continuing is not one of the possible outcomes.


Yes, that's a very fair summing up. I'm sorry if I was a bit unforthcoming about what I'm claiming for, TCM2007, but I'm cautious about saying TOO much on a public forum. I'm claiming compensation mainly for the loss of the lifetime subscription but am also inclined to seek a component for the loss of the TiVo machine itself since the withdrawal of the TiVo service renders it useless and inoperable, at least beyond the hobbyist community.

The aim as you say is not to win money but to make a point. I've no idea what Virgin's role may or may not have been in this but I feel TiVo has behaved rudely and arrogantly towards its UK customers throughout this whole affair, not least by ignoring the friendly and polite representations made by forum members here.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Pete is far from alone in believing Virgin are behind the termination of the S1 service. Otherwise why on earth did they sign an agreement with the word EXCLUSIVE in it?


Er, so no one else could sell a TiVo system and they could market the thing as TiVo=Virgin.

A handful of users of a system that's not been sold for a decade is an irrelevance. The tone of some statements suggests that Virgin weren't keen on offering S1 users a special deal, and that was forced on them by TiVo; to me that suggests the opposite - that TiVo wanted a way of closing down the S1 service with a realatively clear conscience.


----------



## TCM2007

By the way rwtomkins, you better hope that TiVo's solicitors can't do a search on this site, as your entitlement to lifetime service ended when your box failed in iirc 2004 and you had it repaired by a non-approved service provider. You've actually been getting far more than TiVo were obliged to give you for seven years, and still you sue them


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> The tone of some statements suggests that Virgin weren't keen on offering S1 users a special deal, and that was forced on them by TiVo; to me that suggests the opposite - that TiVo wanted a way of closing down the S1 service with a realatively clear conscience.


If Tivo and Virgin had any kind of a conscience then all S1 Tivo customers in a Virgin area would have also been offered the £49 500GB box on any existing package level including the legacy M package and they would not have insulted anyone who already had an S1 Tivo Lifetime Sub by making them pay another £3 per month Tivo fee indefinitely when they had already paid for something called Lifetime Service.

Ditto if Tivo had a conscience then they would have absolutely insisted with Virgin that they be allowed to continue to supply the EPG service to the S1 units for all their customers not living in a Virgin cabled area until such time as Virgin can think of a way of offering their service throughout the UK without the cost of digging up the streets to lay new fibre optic cable.

As they didn't do any of those things and the so called Vice President of International at Tivo just hid behind his meaningless PR slogans about "reaching out to people" and would not answer questions about Tivo customer not living in a Virgin cabled this clearly shows they had no conscience. Other people at Tivo who have now left would have had a conscience but unfortunately Mr Joshua Danovitz's CV suggests that he is someone with a very different kind of outlook on what is and is not ethical in business.:down::down::down:

As to people upgrading the hard drives as a get out for Lifetime Service I think this about as much likelihood of succeeding legally as suggesting someone is not entitled to replace a tyre on a car that has worn out. Computer hard drives are well established as consumables and Tivo's own customer service operation repeatedly pointed customers to established third party firms for providing replacement hard drives when they discontinued their own service and support operation in the UK.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> By the way rwtomkins, you better hope that TiVo's solicitors can't do a search on this site, as your entitlement to lifetime service ended when your box failed in iirc 2004 and you had it repaired by a non-approved service provider. You've actually been getting far more than TiVo were obliged to give you for seven years, and still you sue them


Sadly you are right. Lie to any court on this point and you would be in so so much trouble rw.

Awkwardly for TiVo UK, my machine is unmodded and unrepaired (is that a disk drive failing I can hear from afar)

Hadn't thought of claiming for the loss of the £299 machine as well but it's valid to claim for it as the machine and service were concurrently advertised.

And if there are only a few users then far from irrelevant, it means TiVo have no defence for not compensating them.


----------



## mikerr

It will boil down to what is a reasonable lifetime for a consumer device like a video recorder.

It's hard to argue 8-10 years isn't on the outside of that.


----------



## alek

I don't think you can liken the tivo service to a video recorder.


Which is the whole point really.



Alek


----------



## TCM2007

My personal view is that in maintaining the service for so long after it stopped being sold, TiVo are solidly in the good guys camp having gone well beyond what was required or reasonably expected.

To take action against them seems extremely churlish, no matter what the chances of success.

Pete, imho, has it 180 degrees backwards; if TiVo had no conscience then the service would have been shut down years ago.

All this talk of suing would have been reasonable in 2003, in 2011 it's just silly.

If rwtomkins wants to waste time and money to get his annoyance out of his system that's up to him, but it's noticeable that Pete isn't rushing to out his money where his mouth is....


----------



## Trinitron

Does the unfair contract terms legislation work both ways? It is unreasonable to expect 'lifetime' service from a company to go on beyond a defined point in time?


----------



## Steve_K

No it doesn't work both ways Trinitron. The law rightly assumes companies can afford legal and product advice pre contract that wouldn't easily be available to the consumer.

TCM you're making two points so in reverse order

Is RW wasting his money? I don't think so. It's a punt but £25 to possibly get £500 back. The key is we now know Tivo have an office in the UK. 

And of course TiVo have a level of conscience, higher than a fly tipper and less than a litter strewer.

TiVo had a business plan that had an element of a gamble about it. They lost that gamble and now want to renege on the deal. Would you think it fair for a bookmaker to only part pay out if you backed an outsider that won on the grounds that you got a lot more than your stake? Err no.

A parallel is the Equitable Life fiasco. Their directors tried to walk away from a deal saying people got a good deal anyway - they lost too but only big time.


----------



## TCM2007

No parallel with Equitable Life that I can see.

There are a number of defenses that TiVo can use. Here are a few of them:

* "Lifetime" in this context is simply the opposite of "pay monthly" in marketing shorthand; it means you will pay no more for so long as the service exists, not that the service will last forever.

* The T&Cs clearly and explictly give TiVo the right to end the service.

* The "lifetime" in question is that of the box. If your box fails, the Lifetime ends. That includes disk failure, barring a very specific grandfather clause. Pete's "consumables" argument could only conceivably apply to a like for like 40gb replacement.

* Adding an expanded hard disk or making software modifications explicitly invalidates the contract. It would be very hard to get that one struck out as unreasonable. Software license law is pretty clear.

* Someone taking out a lifetime in 2001 has received service valued at £1,200 for thir £199. They cannot reasonably claim to have suffered a loss by making that choice of Lifetime over Pay Monthly.

* The market value of TiVos immediately prior to the announcement of the ending of the service was approximately £50. The maximum claimable would be the difference between that and the market value afterwards. With the AltEPG likely to be live before this came to be considered, the value may actually have increased.

Claiming the whole of the £199 and the whole cost of the hardware, when you've had years and years of value out of it, just strikes me as greedy.


----------



## Steve_K

Consider me greedy then TCM - well in your _humble_ opinion

If I bet £10 at 20:1 on a horse and it won then I'm greedy enough to want the bookie to pay the whole £200. Most of your arguments are that you'd settle for £50 and expect others to do the same. I guess it takes all sorts.

You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement. "Service" is not limited by equipment type. If they were stopping in the UK altogether then they'd have a case. But they're not are they.

As I've posted before, the biggest weakness in suing TiVo is it may well turn out that our contracts were actually with BSkyB. I do not want to end up with a phyrhic victory where I have my money back and no Sky service.

Meantime it's tempting to fork out £12 for a _full report on them _. Before I do has anyone already done this and if so is it a waste of money?


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement. "Service" is not limited by equipment type. If they were stopping in the UK altogether then they'd have a case. But they're not are they.


1. The agreement was issued to S1 owners only.
2. From June 1st, TiVo's only involvement in the UK will be as a third-party provider to Virgin Media.
3. Virgin TiVo customers are subject to the standard VM terms & conditions. AFAIK, there is no specific TiVo service agreement for Virgin TiVo customers.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> If I bet £10 at 20:1 on a horse and it won then I'm greedy enough to want the bookie to pay the whole £200. Most of your arguments are that you'd settle for £50 and expect others to do the same. I guess it takes all sorts.


Your "bet" was that you'd get more than £199 of value from a Lifetime sub, ie more than 20 months service. You won that bet handsomely. Yet you still feel you've been robbed. It does indeed take all sorts.



> You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement. "Service" is not limited by equipment type. If they were stopping in the UK altogether then they'd have a case. But they're not are they.


Yes, they are. Come June 1st, no-one will be receiving service from TiVo. The number will go dead.



> As I've posted before, the biggest weakness in suing TiVo is it may well turn out that our contracts were actually with BSkyB.


You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement.  Our contracts were with TiVo.


----------



## orangeboy

Living in the 'States, I have no stake in the proceedings, but I do think a possibility that a ruling could be made to award either the current value of the TiVo Service: £0 (since TiVo stopped charging a monthly fee), or some amortized value of the TiVo Service: £0 (as mentioned earlier:


TCM2007 said:


> * Someone taking out a lifetime in 2001 has received service valued at £1,200 for thir £199. They cannot reasonably claim to have suffered a loss by making that choice of Lifetime over Pay Monthly.


)


----------



## ColinYounger

Trinitron said:


> there is no specific TiVo service agreement for Virgin TiVo customers.


Confirmed!


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> Your "bet" was that you'd get more than £199 of value from a Lifetime sub, ie more than 20 months service. You won that bet handsomely. Yet you still feel you've been robbed. It does indeed take all sorts . . .


Did I say "robbed"? Err no. It may come as a surprise to you TCM but there are many many TAM customers out there who don't resent the _*deal*_ the lifetime subcribers got.

And it was a *deal*. That means the bargaining was _*dealt*_ with and that means neither side has the right to unilaterally change the bargain. That they are seeking to do.



TCM2007 said:


> . .Yes, they are. Come June 1st, no-one will be receiving service from TiVo. The number will go dead. . ..


That specific line will go dead yes. But will TiVo still provide wishlists etc as per their definition of the service? Well yes they will, but only through their new friend Branson.



TCM2007 said:


> .You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement.  Our contracts were with TiVo.


That agreement says BSkyB customer in big letters on it, the deal was made with a BSkyB employee at a BSkyB call centre. Not that cut and dried is it?


----------



## rwtomkins

Steve_K said:


> As I've posted before, the biggest weakness in suing TiVo is it may well turn out that our contracts were actually with BSkyB.


I actually found my letter today, dating from 2002, thanking me for taking out a lifetime subscription. It was indeed from TiVo, not from BSkyB - it was from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer, TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB. That confirms what others and BSkyB itself have said, that our contract was definitely with TiVo and not with BSkyB. So I'm going to withdraw my claim against BSkyB and focus on the claim against TiVo UK Ltd.

For obvious reasons I'm not going to discuss the case any further here but I will notify developments as they occur so anyone interested in the outcome or thinking of making a claim themselves, please do check this thread from time to time. Alternatively, sympathisers are very welcome to contact me by PM and it may very well be that I can chat a bit more freely in private about what's going on than I can here.


----------



## spitfires

Steve_K said:


> TCM2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement.  Our contracts were with TiVo.
> 
> 
> 
> That agreement says BSkyB customer in big letters on it, the deal was made with a BSkyB employee at a BSkyB call centre. Not that cut and dried is it?
Click to expand...

The original paper agreement (the one that came with the "Start Here" guide) - _TiVo's Privacy Policy & Service Agreement_ - does not contain the word BSkyB anywhere.

At the top of the paper agreement it states


> This agreement explains the terms and conditions that will apply to your use of the TiVo service and constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc. ("TiVo").


Account enquiries are handled by "TiVo Customer Service". No mention of BSkyB anywhere.

Seems pretty "cut and dried" to me.


----------



## RichardJH

> legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc. ("TiVo").


Are Tivo Inc and Tivo UK the same ?


----------



## Pete77

RichardJH said:


> Are Tivo Inc and Tivo UK the same ?


Richard,

I am somewhat shocked and surprised to find that you do not seem to understand the difference between UK and US corporate structures.

Tivo UK is the UK limited company with a registered office at Companies House in the UK whilst Tivo Inc (or Tivo Incorporated in its not shortened form) is the main parent American company responsible for all of its activities in the USA based in Aviso, California. Where for instance do you think the word corporate comes from.

Tivo UK is the subsidiary set up by the company when it first launched back in 2000. I would imagine it has been kept going up to now for the purposes of the company continuing to take £10 per month payments from subscribers until a few months ago and any other payments and activity related to the company's UK operations.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> That agreement says BSkyB customer in big letters on it, the deal was made with a BSkyB employee at a BSkyB call centre. Not that cut and dried is it?


Yes. The agreement is headed "TiVo Service Agreement for BSKYB customers". The introduction states it "constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc." No other mention of BSkyB except in the recently added contact email address.

The heading is factually incorrect as you didn't need to be a customer of BSkyB to enter into the agreement, but it is just that - a heading. Everyone else appears to have accepted that Sky's only involvement was as an agent for TiVo, so the only practical legal comeback against Sky would be for misrepresentation, e.g. telling you the lifetime sub was for the life of the subscriber not the life of the DVR.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> Everyone else appears to have accepted that Sky's only involvement was as an agent for TiVo, so the only practical legal comeback against Sky would be for misrepresentation, *e.g. telling you the lifetime sub was for the life of the subscriber not the life of the DVR.*


If Sky had made either of the above claims then anyone who is still alive and still has a working unmodified Tivo on which they bought a Lifetime Sub has a cause for making a claim.

Only if Sky had told customers they were buying a subscription for the Lifetime of the Tivo UK Service would they not have been misrepresenting the situation to customers.


----------



## mikerr

So is 8 years from purchase a reasonable lifetime of a unit ?
(last TiVo was sold retail in 2003)


SOGA says 5/6 years for everything, hard drives average 3-5 years...


----------



## Steve_K

Thanks many above on the Tivo Inc v Tivo Uk v BSkyB inputs


IIRC Mikerr that six year limit is not the reasonable life of goods but the reasonable time after which you can litigate for a debt (it's 5 in Scotland)

IMHO the clock starts on that on June 1st 2011.


----------



## spitfires

Pete77 said:


> I am somewhat shocked and surprised to find that you do not seem to understand the difference between UK and US corporate structures.


I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant: is Tivo (UK) Ltd. a subsidiary of Tivo Inc.? Since the contract was with Tivo Inc. then you would only be able to sue Tivo (UK) Ltd. if the latter was a legal corporate subsidiary of the former (and perhaps not even then).

p.s. it's Alviso not Aviso - there's an 'L' in it. (As I'm sure you'd know if you've ever written to them)


----------



## Pete77

spitfires said:


> Since the contract was with Tivo Inc. then you would only be able to sue Tivo (UK) Ltd. if the latter was a legal corporate subsidiary of the former (and perhaps not even then).


Of course it is a corporate subsidiary of the former. Who on earth do you think set it up.


----------



## spitfires

I have no idea. Nor do you. Could be a subsidiary of Tivo Sdn. Bhd. for all I (or you) know.


----------



## Pete77

spitfires said:


> I have no idea. Nor do you. Could be a subsidiary of Tivo Sdn. Bhd. for all I (or you) know.


Some of us have the capability to do analysis and research and are not just lab scientists wearing white coats who require every single deduction in life to be proved again to them from the ground up.

At www.companieshouse.gov.uk the following information on Tivo UK is available for free:-



> Company Filing History Include Allotment of Shares
> Book
> Type Date Description Order
> Document
> CH01 16/11/2010 *DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MATTHEW PERRY ZINN / 16/11/2010*
> 
> Folder
> AR01 30/09/2010 21/08/10 FULL LIST
> 
> Capital Statement Icon
> LATEST SOC 30/09/2010 30/09/10 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 1000
> 
> Document
> AA 29/09/2010 ACCOUNTS OF DORMANT COMPANY MADE UP TO 31/12/09
> 
> Document
> AA 04/11/2009 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/08
> 
> Document
> 363a 21/09/2009 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/09; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> AA 01/02/2009 31/12/07 TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL
> 
> Document
> 288c 28/11/2008 SECRETARY'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / TJG SECRETARIES LIMITED / 24/11/2008
> 
> Document
> 287 24/11/2008 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 24/11/08 FROM:
> GISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 24/11/2008 FROM
> CARMELITE
> 50 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT
> LONDON
> EC4Y 0DX
> 
> Document
> 363a 04/09/2008 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/08; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> 288c 04/09/2008 *DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MATTHEW ZINN / 01/08/2008*
> 
> Document
> AA 01/11/2007 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/06
> 
> Document
> 363a 29/08/2007 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/07; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> AA 06/11/2006 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/05
> 
> Document
> 363a 29/08/2006 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/06; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> 288b 28/04/2006 DIRECTOR RESIGNED
> 
> Document
> AA 01/11/2005 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/04
> 
> Document
> 288a 05/10/2005 NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED
> 
> Document
> 288b 13/09/2005 DIRECTOR RESIGNED
> 
> Document
> 288b 13/09/2005 DIRECTOR RESIGNED
> 
> Document
> 363a 07/09/2005 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/05; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> AA 27/09/2004 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/03
> 
> Document
> 363a 02/09/2004 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/04; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> AUD 22/07/2004 AUDITOR'S RESIGNATION
> 
> Document
> AA 31/10/2003 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/02
> 
> Document
> 363a 03/09/2003 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/03; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> 288c 03/09/2003 DIRECTOR'S PARTICULARS CHANGED
> 
> Document
> 288c 27/09/2002 DIRECTOR'S PARTICULARS CHANGED
> 
> Document
> AA 25/09/2002 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/12/01
> 
> Document
> 363a 19/09/2002 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/02; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> 244 07/06/2002 DELIVERY EXT'D 3 MTH 31/12/01
> 
> Document
> 363a 24/08/2001 RETURN MADE UP TO 21/08/01; FULL LIST OF MEMBERS
> 
> Document
> MEM/ARTS 31/10/2000 MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
> ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
> 
> Document
> 288b 31/10/2000 DIRECTOR RESIGNED
> 
> Document
> 288a 31/10/2000 NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED
> 
> Document
> 288a 31/10/2000 NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED
> 
> Document
> 225 31/10/2000 ACC. REF. DATE EXTENDED FROM 31/08/01 TO 31/12/01
> 
> Document
> 288b 31/10/2000 DIRECTOR RESIGNED
> 
> Document
> (W)ELRES 31/10/2000 S366A DISP HOLDING AGM 05/10/00
> 
> Document
> 288a 31/10/2000 NEW DIRECTOR APPOINTED
> 
> Document
> CERTNM 31/08/2000 COMPANY NAME CHANGED
> LAW 2207 LIMITED
> CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 01/09/00
> 
> Document
> NEWINC 21/08/2000 INCORPORATION DOCUMENTS
> CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
> STATEMENT OF DIRECTORS & REGISTERED OFFICE
> DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE
> MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
> ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION


I therefore took the opportunity to Google Matthew Zinn and Tivo and came across this interesting recent ECFS Filing document dated 14th September 2010 at http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2010/09/21/6016055498.html

This shows that Matthew Zinn either still is or at least until very recently was Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Privacy Officer of none other than Tivo Inc at 2160 Gold Street, Alviso, CA, 95002-2160, USA.

Do you therefore really still maintain your ridiculous position that the UK company was set up by a company named Tivo in Singapore?

I suppose if I am feeling reckless I could also pay £1 to get the latest company appointments report for Tivo Inc or buy some of the other documents on the company listed by Companies House.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> Tivo UK is the subsidiary set up by the company when it first launched back in 2000. I would imagine it has been kept going up to now for the purposes of the company continuing to take £10 per month payments from subscribers until a few months ago and any other payments and activity related to the company's UK operations.


Doesn't look like it from the company accounts (though the information is from a third party source)

Cash at bank history:

2008 - £0
2007 - £0
2006 - £0
2005 - £267,789
2004 - £1,236,351

According to Datamonitor (some of us have access to market information that isn't free  ) TiVo, Inc. have three subsidiaries.

TiVo (UK) Ltd.
GBR

TiVo Brands LLC
Delaware
USA

TiVo International, Inc.
Delaware
USA

TiVo (UK) is wholly owned by TiVo, Inc.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> I therefore took the opportunity to Google Matthew Zinn and Tivo and came across this interesting recent ECFS Filing document dated 14th September 2010 at http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2010/09/21/6016055498.html
> 
> This shows that Matthew Zinn either still is or at least until very recently was Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Privacy Officer of none other than Tivo Inc at 2160 Gold Street, Alviso, CA, 95002-2160, USA.


Yes, he appears still to be there. Paid $1,274,985 in 2010.

PS Did you really have to post every Companies House item just to prove your point?


----------



## RichardJH

RichardJH said:


> Are Tivo Inc and Tivo UK the same ?


Amazing how a simple question fuels the flames 

BTW Pete it was more a comment ref the idea of a claim against a company rather than a question about the company so do not worry further about my understanding of company tie ups between the UK and the US


----------



## Pete77

RichardJH said:


> Amazing how a simple question fuels the flames


I believe that quite often happens on a Friday and Saturday night in the celubrious districts surrounding Hanworth such as Hounslow and Feltham following a few swift halfs down at the local.


----------



## spitfires

Pete77 said:


> Do you therefore really still maintain your ridiculous position that the UK company was set up by a company named Tivo in Singapore?


I didn't say that... You're making stuff up again.... I said based on the information available at that time you had no evidence whatsoever that TiVo (UK) was a subsidiary of Tivo Inc - you were just *presuming* it was (yet stating it as fact - as per usual). Your ability to cut & paste largely irrelevant data from companies house's website (thus breaching their copyright incidentally) proves nothing, but just fuels further speculation on your part, which you subsequently misquote as factual 'evidence'.

Of course now, thanks to Trinitron, we _now_ know this to be true so your offensive waffle is as moot as it pointless.


----------



## Steve_K

Trinitron said:


> . .
> 
> Cash at bank history:
> 
> 2008 - £0
> . . .


Not good, good find though. Might just suggest that they have no funds to defend a small claims judgement. Or to pay out on it.

Still then there'd be the fun and games of TiVo Inc explaining to it's long suffering shareholders why they shouldn't worry that they let a subsidiary go to the wall and that their directors don't dare set foot in Europe. And Virgin wondering just when they'd get a sequester order.

It's almost worth a claim just to think of the sods squirming.


----------



## martink0646

Pete77 said:


> celubrious


??celubrious??


----------



## spitfires

Steve_K said:


> It's almost worth a claim just to think of the sods squirming.


  :up: ROFL


----------



## Steve_K

Well if you want a laugh click this

_Wayback Machine archive of TiVo FAQ_
You have to hit Cntrl A to see the text, don't know why

but . . . .



> What is BSkyB's involvement with TiVo?
> Sky is TiVo's agent in the UK Sky will provide customer service, billing and marketing on behalf of TiVo.


IIRC in consumer law that makes the contract with Sky

and Hey presto:

_the real December 2000 original terms and conditions_ (again use Cntrl A)


----------



## mikerr

Steve_K said:


> IIRC in consumer law that makes the contract with Sky


Not according to this:


> The purpose of an agency agreement is to set out the terms and conditions of the relationship between the business which wants to sell stuff (the Principal) and the intermediary who agrees to sell it on their behalf (the Agent).
> 
> When a sale is made by the Agent, the law deems that a contract is formed between the Principal and the end customer.


http://www.legal-advice-centre.co.uk/agency-agreement.html

Also, from the TiVo contract:


> YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE TIVO SERVICE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. TIVO MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT THE TIVO SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR THAT USE OF THE TIVO SERVICE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE;


Now that looks like a total get out of jail free card to me...!


----------



## RichardJH

martink0646 said:


> ??celubrious??


Just shows the rubbish quality of some of Pete's posts


----------



## TCM2007

TiVo UK is a dormant company. TiVo's lawyers might well argue that your contract is not and has never been with TiVo UK but is with TiVo inc, and a subidiary is not responsible for its parents debts (although the opposite is often true).

Of course it's a moot point as there's no way in god's earth any court is going to award against TiVo on this one.

SteveK - it was indeed a deal. When I took out my two lifetime subs I was very clear what the deal was - it was that I would never have to pay a subscription fee for those boxes ever again. And TiVo kept their side of that deal. I didn't think I was buying a guarantee of continued service for ever and ever, and nor did anyone else. That's obvious when you read the many, many threads on "should I buy a Lifetime" in the early days on this forum. No one ever said " buy a lifetime because you can sue if the service stops in 10 years". No one. People often pointed out you'd have a claim against your credit card company if the service stopped before 20 months, but no-one thought the lifetime ould protect against the service stopping.

It's pure 20:20 hindsight and wishful thinking people claiming that's what they understood the offer to be. I just don't believe that's what they thought at the time.


----------



## RichardJH

Pete77 said:


> Some of us have the capability to do analysis and research and are not just lab scientists wearing white coats who require every single deduction in life to be proved again to them from the ground up.





> *I do try to be helpful in many of my posts
> but on occasion no doubt come across as something of a pompous know it all*.


Pete do you remember this. You said it 
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=4839665#post4839665


----------



## Pete77

I just wanted to report that I have also managed to find my Tivo lifetime subscription letter dated 15th February 2003 confirming my purchase of a *"lifetime subscription for your Tivo recorder"
*
This letter is on letterhead with a Tivo guy image saying "Tivo, Tv your way" with a red section at the bottom saying *"Contact us at: Tivo Customer Services, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7DS" and then also saying "Tivo UK Registered Office, Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, Blackfriars, London EC4Y 0DX. Registered in England number: 4056501"*

It is therefore clear that my contract is with Tivo UK who continue to have their registered office at the same address. The Sky address is there merely for contact with Tivo's currently contracted agent for providing customer support and even there they used the name Tivo Customer Services and not Sky Customer Services.

There is no further qualification of the terms of the Lifetime Service in this letter to say it is available only for as long as Tivo feels like offering it or as long as Tivo UK remains in business or is available only if my S1 Tivo remains unmodified. Nor are any further terms relating to the contract involved in the service attached to this letter and nor were such further restrictive terms quoted to me verybally when I ordered the Lifetime Service by telephone.

In short in my opinion Tivo don't have a leg to stand on and are still legally obliged to provide us with EPG service free of further charge.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> There is no further qualification of the terms of the Lifetime Service in this letter to say it is available only for as long as Tivo feels like offering it or as long as Tivo UK remains in business or is available only if my S1 Tivo remains unmodified. Nor are any further terms relating to the contract involved in the service attached to this letter and nor were such further restrictive terms quoted to me verybally when I ordered the Lifetime Service by telephone.


You can remember the phone call! Gosh. I can't remember what I did yesterday...

Serious point - what did happen re the service agreements? Normally, that sort of thing is supplied with the hardware. I've got the same confirmation letter and my original user guide but no legalese that I can find. The user guide refers to a 'privacy' document supplied with the recorder, which suggests there should have been something. I get my TiVo ex-display though so it's quite possible the shop lost it. Has anyone out there got a paper copy?

The letter is just a simple confirmation of the subscription being set up, the agreement for service is made by paying the sub and downloading guide information (as stated in the T&Cs on the TiVo websites). If the letter doesn't modify the T&Cs then they stand as written, including the disputed clause where TiVo reserves the right to discontinue the service altogether at any time in its discretion.


----------



## spitfires

Trinitron said:


> I've got the same confirmation letter and my original user guide but no legalese that I can find. The user guide refers to a 'privacy' document supplied with the recorder, which suggests there should have been something. Has anyone out there got a paper copy?


Yes, it came with the A4 sized "_Start Here_" guide that came with the TiVo.

Headed "_TiVo's Privacy Policy & Service Agreement_". Contains inter alia:


> In addition, TiVo reserves the right to terminate your account and this agreement for any other reason if TiVo gives you at least 30 days advance notice.


Interestingly for all you oh-so-hard-done-by Lifers out there it also says:


> Definition of Lifetime Service. If you paid a Lifetime Service fee for your Recorder, the TiVo service is guaranteed for the lifetime of that Recorder, even if you give it to a friend or family member.


Now all you have to do is prove that TiVo acted illegally when they replaced _that_ Agreement by either of the two which has followed it (in Aug 2008 and Dec 2010) where "Lifetime _Service_" morphed into "Lifetime _Subscription_"


----------



## Pete77

spitfires said:


> Now all you have to do is prove that TiVo acted illegally when they replaced _that_ Agreement by either of the two which has followed it (in Aug 2008 and Dec 2010) where "Lifetime _Service_" morphed into "Lifetime _Subscription_"


These retrospective changes to the terms and conditions to the detriment of the Tivo Lifetime Service owner will obviously prove to be illegal under the Unfairs Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Not least because Tivo never wrote to me at the time advising me of the amended terms and giving me the right to ask for my Lifetime Service payment back if I did not accept them.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Terms_in_Consumer_Contracts_Regulations_1999

So Tivo now owe me my £200 Lifetime Sub payment back and some percentage of the lost remaining use of the normal lifetime of my Tivo. Case Closed your honour.


----------



## Trinitron

So simple, isn't it. Did you read the Wikipedia article you linked? I'm thinking of the part that says



> Effect of Unfair Term
> 
> Regulation 8 provides that an unfair term "shall not be binding upon the consumer".


That is normally interpreted as making only the affected term(s) unenforceable. If it was serious enough to change the intent of the contract you would at best be able to reject the contract from the date the terms changed, leaving you liable for a reasonable proportion of the fees due prior to that date for services received. Let's say £10 a month for 5 years. So you get your £199 back and pay TiVo £600 for the service you have had up to 2008. Sounds reasonable to me.

PS I'm not sure about the 2008 amendment but the 2010 change was definitely broadcast to all TiVo subscribers. As it was delivered by the same "TiVo service" it relates to you can't get out of it by claiming they should serve notice of changes by letter.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> It is therefore clear that my contract is with Tivo UK who continue to have their registered office at the same address.


Interesting. As a late comer to TiVo, they must have set up TiVo UK by the time you joined. Pretty sure in the early days TiVo UK didnt exist.



> There is no further qualification of the terms of the Lifetime Service in this letter to say it is available only for as long as Tivo feels like offering it or as long as Tivo UK remains in business or is available only if my S1 Tivo remains unmodified. Nor are any further terms relating to the contract involved in the service attached to this letter and nor were such further restrictive terms quoted to me verybally when I ordered the Lifetime Service by telephone.
> 
> In short in my opinion Tivo don't have a leg to stand on and are still legally obliged to provide us with EPG service free of further charge.


It's a welcome letter Pete, the contract is a separate document, which was in the box with your TiVo.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> These retrospective changes to the terms and conditions to the detriment of the Tivo Lifetime Service owner will obviously prove to be illegal under the Unfairs Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. Not least because Tivo never wrote to me at the time advising me of the amended terms and giving me the right to ask for my Lifetime Service payment back if I did not accept them.


The contract which you accepted when you first set up the TiVo included a clause allowing the contract terms to be varied.

You are right that you could legitimately object to a change (but you didn't).

Should you object to the change you could have looked to get some of your money back, that would be legitimate. But it would also be legitimate for the value of the service you actually recived to be taken into account. If TiVo change the contract in 2008 that doesnt entitle you to 5 years of free service.


----------



## MikeC34

rwtomkins said:


> Good news for lifetime subscribers who would like to try claiming against TiVo (UK) Ltd for loss of service: TiVo (UK) Ltd is still a fully functioning legal entity in the UK and therefore, for a very small sum of money and with very little effort, you CAN make a claim against the company if you feel this is justified.
> ..........
> Can anyone say whether this is true or not? Does anyone have any recollection of whether their lifetime subscription was paid to BSkyB or to TiVo?
> 
> For what it is worth I have a letter from TiVo dated 22nd November 2000 thanking me for purchasing a lifetime subscription for my TiVo recorder and quoting my account number 5043. This was on TiVo letter heading, from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer. Letter was sent from TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB


----------



## spitfires

^ You've answered your own question then


----------



## sjp

> This was on TiVo letter heading, from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer. Letter was sent from TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB


that does look like a Sky area PO box address though.


----------



## spitfires

Yes they contracted BSkyB for the call centre operation - doesn't mean your contract was with BSkyB rather than Tivo though. Same as when you ring BT - your contract isn't with the company in India running the customer service centre it's still with BT!


----------



## rwtomkins

MikeC34 said:


> For what it is worth I have a letter from TiVo dated 22nd November 2000 thanking me for purchasing a lifetime subscription for my TiVo recorder and quoting my account number 5043. This was on TiVo letter heading, from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer. Letter was sent from TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB


Thanks MikeC34 - I did subsequently find my own letter and it sounds as though it's exactly the same as yours but I appreciate your taking the trouble to post.


----------



## rwtomkins

Trinitron said:


> If the letter doesn't modify the T&Cs then they stand as written, including the disputed clause where TiVo reserves the right to discontinue the service altogether at any time in its discretion.


Hi Trinitron - just to say I don't think there's any dispute over the "disputed" clause in which TiVo reserves the right to discontinue the service at any time. I think that clause is perfectly fine and I don't have a problem with it at all. If it wasn't there, then TiVo might find itself under an obligation to go on providing the service for all eternity, or at least for as long as there was even just one user still requiring the service to keep their machine in operation. So I think that clause is perfectly reasonable.

However the T&Cs have nothing to say about what happens to lifetime subscribers in the event that TiVo does indeed exercise its right to discontinue the service. If it had ever been TiVo's intention to hang its lifetime subscribers out to dry, the T&Cs should have included a provision for TiVo to terminate the service without compensation to lifetime subscribers. However there isn't anything like this in the T&Cs at all so it seems to me that TiVo's in the very ordinary situation of a company that's taken people's money for something that it's no longer prepared to deliver.

In short, there are two questions, not one.

1. Does TiVo have the right to terminate the service? Answer: yes.

2. If TiVo exercises its right to terminate the service, does it need to compensate lifetime subscribers? Answer: well, obviously!


----------



## Steve_K

Trinitron said:


> . . . leaving you liable for a reasonable proportion of the fees due prior to that date for services received. Let's say £10 a month for 5 years. So you get your £199 back and pay TiVo £600 for the service you have had up to 2008. Sounds reasonable to me. . . ..


Or if it was £50p a month that'd be £199 to me and £30 to them.

Why do some TAM subscribers always think their contract is the only definition of a reasonable deal? No trace of bitterness over the deal the lifers got of course.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> Or if it was £50p a month that'd be £199 to me and £30 to them.
> 
> Why do some TAM subscribers always think their contract is the only definition of a reasonable deal? No trace of bitterness over the deal the lifers got of course.


So you think a lifetime sub should equate to 400 months? Wow. Or that TiVo made £9.50 a month from monthly subscribers?

As for your other question I don't know, having had a lifetime sub from the outset.


----------



## Trinitron

rwtomkins said:


> In short, there are two questions, not one.
> 
> 1. Does TiVo have the right to terminate the service? Answer: yes.
> 
> 2. If TiVo exercises its right to terminate the service, does it need to compensate lifetime subscribers? Answer: well, obviously!


Consider this: It is a payment covering the 'lifetime' of the box. If TiVo no longer provide the service then the box is effectively 'dead'; its lifetime is ended.


----------



## Steve_K

Trinitron said:


> So you think a lifetime sub should equate to 400 months? Wow. Or that TiVo made £9.50 a month from monthly subscribers? . . .


Did I say either? No. Just very irritated at the default several here take to always value the service by what TAM people paid.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Why do some TAM subscribers always think their contract is the only definition of a reasonable deal?


Because it was the choice you were offered at the time - £10 a month or lifetime. It was explicitly the amount you were judging the value of the lifetime against.


----------



## Steve_K

And just how does that mean it was accepted as a fair value? FWIW I (and I'd bet others) would never have bought a TiVo if the only deal was TAM.


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> 2. If TiVo exercises its right to terminate the service, does it need to compensate lifetime subscribers? Answer: well, obviously!


Yes, but a judgement of your losses has to take into account the value of the service received. Your loss cannot be the full £199 when you've had years of service as promised.

The issue for the court would be, have you had 80% of the value, with 20% cut off because the service ended early, so £40 to you. Or, would it calculate that you've been the net beneficiary of taking out the contract to the tune of £1,000, so you are quids in and no compensation is due.

We'll only know for sure if you try it.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> And just how does that mean it was accepted as a fair value? FWIW I (and I'd bet others) would never have bought a TiVo if the only deal was TAM.


It was the cost of the service, and was therefore the going rate for the value of the service.


----------



## spitfires

Steve_K said:


> And just how does that mean it was accepted as a fair value?


Because a judge will compare what the equivalent monthly subscription rate was for *exactly the same service* and therefore conclude that your LS was worth £10 a month. That is how much he/she will value your service at.



Steve_K said:


> Why do some TAM subscribers always think their contract is the only definition of a reasonable deal? No trace of bitterness over the deal the lifers got of course.


Absolutely none at all. It was my choice - I judged that the Tivo service wouldn't last 20 months so I decided to start off with TAM. As time passed it became even more unlikely that the service would continue for much longer (with Tivo dropping the UK market) so I stayed with TAM. The rest is history. No bitterness at all - I made a wrong guess and you people gained. I have had fair service for my £1,000 and I'm happy with that.

What I DO find astonishing is that Lifers, who have had £1,000 worth of service for £200 are the ones who feel themselves hard done by and are making all the noise about demanding ALL their money back!! Incredible.


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> Hi Trinitron - just to say I don't think there's any dispute over the "disputed" clause in which TiVo reserves the right to discontinue the service at any time. I think that clause is perfectly fine and I don't have a problem with it at all. If it wasn't there, then TiVo might find itself under an obligation to go on providing the service for all eternity, or at least for as long as there was even just one user still requiring the service to keep their machine in operation. So I think that clause is perfectly reasonable.


So you admit that even when you took out the Lifetime, you knew it didn't literally mean forever, but simply for as long as it was commercially viable for the service to continue.

Given that, the issue then can only be, did you receive £199 of value from your sub, which you clearly did.


----------



## rwtomkins

I just don't get this argument that it's OK for TiVo to break the lifetime service agreement because lifetime subscribers have supposedly had their money's worth. The lifetime service agreement says lifetime subscribers will receive the TiVo service for the lifetime of their box - it doesn't say they will receive the TiVo service until at least two members of the unofficial TiVo Community Forum reckon they've had their money's worth and then they'll be screwed.

Even if it did, it's irrelevant what perceived value lifetime subscribers have had from their subscriptions in the past. The relevant figure is what perceived value lifetime subscribers will now no longer get from their subscriptions in the future. It's not possible to put an exact figure on that because nobody knows how long anyone's box would have lasted. But if you're telling me that the lifetime subscription is worth £10 a month, and if we then took the example of someone who reckoned their box had a good three years' life left in it, then the lost value of their lifetime subscription would be £360.

See? That £10 a month figure cuts both ways.


----------



## TCM2007

Indeed it does; you'd have to calculate the value of the lost service, the value of the received service and the amount paid. From those things you can work out your loss.

I can't see any way to arrange those numbers so that you end up being owed money ; you disagree, a judge could decide.

BTW you'd also have to ask what the reasonable expectation of "lifetime" was in 2001. Speaking purely for myself, I would not have said 10 years!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> BTW you'd also have to ask what the reasonable expectation of "lifetime" was in 2001. Speaking purely for myself, I would not have said 10 years!


However as one of the creators of T3 magazine I am sure you are hardly a typical case as probably no electrically powered device in your house is more than five years old and many are probably replaced almost annually.

Whereas speaking personally all my domestic appliances (fridge, freezer, dishwasher and oven) are 20 years old and my television is 13 years old. Even my Notebook PC is now six years old.


----------



## Automan

I just got a PC lifetime version of Vipre anti Virus (on sale at under £12.00).

It expires in 2031.

http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/19177...0&searchstring=vipre+lifetime&urlrefer=search

Automan.


----------



## Pete77

Automan said:


> I just got a PC lifetime version of Vipre anti Virus (on sale at under £12.00).
> 
> It expires in 2031.


I was originally going to suggest to TCM2007 that 20 years was possibly a reasonable expected time for the survival of a Tivo and its associated Lifetime Service based on the typical longevity of a traditional CRT television or white goods appliances that does not process water (i.e. fridge, freezer or oven rather than a dishwasher or washing machine). However I knew such a suggestion to TCM would be likely to fill him with fears of years of western economic stagnation (which I personally think is eventually inevitable given all the forces at work with the oil price and being out competed on labour rates in almost all areas by China and India) and the eventual closure of T3 magazine.

However your example is useful. I must look for other examples of Lifetime services involving the regular supply of electronic data feeds.

I do tend to wonder though if Vipre AntiVirus or their successors will actually be in business in another 20 years time at these kinds of prices. Personally if I was going for such a paid Lifetime service in addition to the free Microsoft Security Essentials (for Windows XP) and free Spybot I would probably go for the paid version of MalwareBytes (which costs a similar amount to the Vipre AntiVirus Lifetime).


----------



## mikerr

Reasonable lifetime of a _hard drive based_ unit ?

Tivo in standalone use is already obsolete in many areas with the analogue switch off - to be completed by April 2012.
Recording from an external device like a sky box was offered as a feature from the beginning though.


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> Reasonable lifetime of a _hard drive based_ unit ?


Originally Tivo offered hard drive replacement as a return to base service both in and out of warranty. However when they withdrew from the UK they withdrew this service and actively pointed customers to Tivoheaven and Tivoland via their customer service line (sorry Mike but there was no Tivocentral in those days) instead.

I think an argument could almost certainly be successfully made in court that a new hard drive in a Tivo is only equivalent to new light bulb or new oil filter and plugs in a car or indeed buying some new video cassettes for a VCR and that needing to replace that item does not means the Tivo recorder is life expired. Even if Tivo has tried to impose such a restriction in its Lifetime Service contract it is almost certainly an Unfair Contract Term.



> Tivo in standalone use is already obsolete in many areas with the analogue switch off - to be completed by April 2012. Recording from an external device like a sky box was offered as a feature from the beginning though.


I purchased my Tivo with an intention of using it only with a Freeview box and have never used it in analogue only channels recording mode. You say that the analogue signal switch off makes the Tivo redundant in many areas but the only area it becomes redundant is in its ability to work standalone and no Tivo recording features are affected. Since many customers including myself never used the unit standalone from the outset this seems to me a total red herring in terms of a Tivo's expected Lifetime.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete, use your amazing powers of assumption about TiVo if you must, but please don't use them about me. I find it offensive.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I think an argument could almost certainly be successfully made in court that a new hard drive in a Tivo is only equivalent to new light bulb or new oil filter and plugs in a car or indeed buying some new video cassettes for a VCR and that needing to replace that item does not means the Tivo recorder is life expired. Even if Tivo has tried to impose such a restriction in its Lifetime Service contract it is almost certainly an Unfair Contract Term.


There isn't the slightest case for that being an unfair contract term. What is the least unfair about it? They defined lifetime as being as long as the hardware lasts. If the hardware breaks, that's that.

You might just be able to make a case for changing the hard disk not being an automatic breach of contract, but only if you replaced it with a 40Gb disk with unmodified software. (Actually the idea of a hard disc as a consumable in a sealed box is ludicrous, but hey, let's play along)


----------



## aleks

I think the point is that 
1) Our lifetime sub was a gamble - TiVo might have turned out to be rubbish - but we expected to acually get the data for the lifetime of the company (especially as they said they would open source the software if they went broke). TiVo seem to be reneging on that.

2) The data that TiVo are no longer supplying is available - for example Virgin have it for their service, so it's no big deal to keep it available for the existing users. It looks like Virgin / TiVo are knowingly giving the lifetime users a hard time.

3) TiVo know that there is a risk associated with cutting off our service - it's in their annual report.

So - is it worth taking TiVo to court? At best we get the service continued, maybe we just get the cost of the replacement service from Virgin. More likely a judge would give us a refund of some or all of the purchase cost of the TiVo - so we would be no worse off than if we hadn't bought a TiVo in the first place. 

TiVo at the moment seem to be keeping their heads down and hope the problem will blow over. With people moving to Virgin and AltEPG it probably will.

I must admit that I think that TiVo's approach to its UK user base has been shoddy and would like to get some recognition of that, but don't hold out much hope for keeping the service going.


----------



## mikerr

aleks said:


> 2) The data that TiVo are no longer supplying is available - for example Virgin have it for their service, so it's no big deal to keep it available for the existing users.


Lol - no big deal?

Yes, it's still available - for a price - from Tribune, which to TiVo Inc may well be in excess of 10k per month(*)

Just because VM is now paying that directly to Tribune, 
and is also a *customer *of TiVo Inc doesn't mean they should or even would be allowed to give it to TiVo Inc's own previous customers ?!

In order for TiVo to continue to provide S1 users with data - TiVo will have to pay Tribune, and I suspect that contract ends in June.
This stuff isn't free in the commercial world - far from it.

I could see some merit in all this legalese if TiVo had cutoff in 2003 when they stopped selling new units, but 8 years later ?


----------



## TCM2007

aleks said:


> I think the point is that
> 1) Our lifetime sub was a gamble - TiVo might have turned out to be rubbish - but we expected to acually get the data for the lifetime of the company (especially as they said they would open source the software if they went broke). TiVo seem to be reneging on that.


I agree that when we took out lifetime, for the most part the lifetime we were gambling on the lifetime of TiVo. But TiVo pulled out of the UK in 2003; everything since then has been a bonus. We've been lucky that the service continued for 8 years after the end of TiVo UK's lifetime.


----------



## Heuer

Seems to me there has been no quantifiable loss in the withdrawal of the Tribune sourced EPG. If you went to court you would have to prove you have mitigated any claimed losses as much as possible which would include taking up the offer of a free alternate EPG source. TiVo Inc could justifiably claim you have suffered no loss of service as they have done nothing to prevent owners from subscribing to the the alternate EPG source and have taken no action to inhibit the development of said source. Your only "cost" is in changing the dial code from the set-up screen and simple instructions are available; pulling HDD's and installing cachecards invalidate your warranty anyway (remember the little sticker preventing the lid opening?) so the courts will have no sympathy for the hackers.

Basically the boys behind AltEPG have scuppered any possible success of a legal recourse against TiVo Inc or anyone else for that matter. Live with it, move on.

P.S. If TiVo Inc are reading this they may consider making a suitable open donation to AltEPG to make the chances of a legal challenge even more untenable


----------



## orangeboy

Pete77 said:


> ...Even if Tivo has tried to impose such a restriction in its Lifetime Service contract it is almost certainly an Unfair Contract Term...


Then you should not have agreed to the TOS, and not purchased the box.


----------



## rwtomkins

TCM2007 said:


> I can't see any way to arrange those numbers so that you end up being owed money ; you disagree, a judge could decide.


That's right, I disagree with your thinking but we could debate this for ever and life's too short. Hopefully a court will decide.


----------



## rwtomkins

OK, here's an update, not of much interest I'm afraid but I did promise to post developments. Before filing a claim against Tivo (UK) Ltd I felt I had to write to them to give them the opportunity to settle voluntarily. Needless to say they've simply ignored my letter, which was sent by recorded delivery and wasn't returned, so today I filed my claim with Money Claim Online which took 15-20 minutes and cost a small sum of money which I'll get back if I win. The defendant has two weeks from the date the papers are served to say whether they want to contest the claim so the next update will probably be in about two weeks' time.

All those interested in making a claim, please do check back here even after June 1 to see what happens or you can PM me if you like and I'll try to get a mailing list organised.


----------



## rwtomkins

Just to keep you in the picture, I had a letter from the court last week letting me know that the claim had been issued and that the defendant, TiVo (UK) Ltd, had until the 15th of June to reply. That's Wednesday of next week, as I write.

The letter said the defendant had the following options:

1. Pay the claim.

2. File an acknowledgement of service, which would give the defendant another two weeks "to file a defence or contest the court's jurisdiction."

3. Dispute the whole claim and file a defence. "The court will send you a copy of the defence."

4. Admit that the all the money is owed. "The defendant will send you a completed admission form and you may ask the court to enter judgment."

5. Admit that only part of the claim is owed. "The court will send you a copy of the reply form and you will have to decide what to do next."

6. Not reply at all. "You may ask the court to enter judgment."

To pass the time until Wednesday, would anyone like to predict what TiVo will do?

Obviously you're at a disadvantage because you don't know what I've claimed (and I'm not going to tell you). But it's only a game!

Edit: I've just noticed I wrote 15th of July instead of 15th of June and have corrected this. Sorry.


----------



## Pete77

I'm tempted to believe that they won't enter a defence and the court will simply award judgment in your favour although they must be worried about the precedent angle of 1,000 other Tivo owners then making a claim on the same basis as yours.

But I still think they will just ignore it because it hasn't suited them up to now to either explain or further justify their actions in terminating UK Series 1 Service. That is that they have not responded to any letters to senior management and turning up in court would force them to explain their actions.

In days gone by they might have sent a Sky lawyer to represent them but I can't see that happening now for fairly obvious political reasons.


----------



## TCM2007

I'd go for 6. I don';t think that means it goes in your favour though; it's still up to the court to decide.


----------



## spitfires

And of course even if you win judgement you've still got to then actually get the money out of them (and I recall their companies house accounts said their bank balance was £0).


----------



## steveroe

rwtomkins said:


> 15th of July


July or June?


----------



## sjp

i hope it's june, if not i'll be a year older sooner than i care


----------



## orangeboy

3. Dispute the whole claim and file a defence, citing: "TiVo also reserves the right to discontinue the TiVo service altogether at any time in its discretion."


----------



## rwtomkins

Very sorry, I meant June, not July, and have now corrected this.

I would bet on 6. too for the reasons Pete77 cited. The problem is, they'd then have to pay up and that could even mean that the company would not be dormant any more because they'd have to start flushing some cash through it. It's true that they could just ignore an order to pay up but the judgment would be entered against TiVo in the public records that are checked for example by credit rating agencies and things would look even worse if they then failed to pay.

I think they may be in a bit of a quandary because none of the options looks attractive to a company that seems to want to avoid at all costs being called to account for its actions. But we'll see - perhaps they'll pull a surprise out of the hat. Are teams of incredibly expensive lawyers working round the clock to come up with a solution? Or is TiVo just crossing its fingers and hoping I'll drop dead by next Wednesday?


----------



## Steve_K

I so hope it'll be option 6 and that makes the case simpler. You may never see your money but you might then be able to get TiVo UK declared bankrupt. That might cause TiVo Inc some serious difficulties with credit rating, freedom of execs to travel in Europe and getting monies from Virgin.

All power to you pursuing your case.


----------



## TCM2007

If they want to respond they can just copy and paste from some of the threads here! My guess is they'll gamble on silence and the court thinkinging you're pushing their luck.

If they do respond I suspect their strongest argument is "We promised service for the lifetime of the hardware, you artifcially extended the lifetime of your TiVo in direct breach of the clause in the SA. Your TiVo is therefore not on its original lifetime and so we owe you nothing".


----------



## LarryDavid

rwtomkins said:


> Very sorry, I meant June, not July, and have now corrected this.
> 
> I would bet on 6. too for the reasons Pete77 cited. The problem is, they'd then have to pay up and that could even mean that the company would not be dormant any more because they'd have to start flushing some cash through it. It's true that they could just ignore an order to pay up but the judgment would be entered against TiVo in the public records that are checked for example by credit rating agencies and things would look even worse if they then failed to pay.
> 
> I think they may be in a bit of a quandary because none of the options looks attractive to a company that seems to want to avoid at all costs being called to account for its actions. But we'll see - perhaps they'll pull a surprise out of the hat. Are teams of incredibly expensive lawyers working round the clock to come up with a solution? Or is TiVo just crossing its fingers and hoping I'll drop dead by next Wednesday?


Or was the letter signed for by a security guard at an address with no TiVo staff actually there and they are still, in fact, blissfully unaware.


----------



## Pete77

LarryDavid said:


> Or was the letter signed for by a security guard at an address with no TiVo staff actually there and they are still, in fact, blissfully unaware.


I very much doubt they are blissfully unaware of it in view of the existence of this discussion thread. Also they would have periodic stuff from Companies House in the UK to deal with and somebody at that address will be paid to deal with their formal correspondence. Also senior members of staff at Tivo Inc are directors of the UK subsidiary so their neck is on the line on this one.

One point that does concern me a little over rwtomkins claims is that he has started it before Tivo have actually withdrawn the service (even though they threatened to do so from June 1st) so if it comes to court without Tivo yet having discontinued the Lifetime Service he potentially has no case.

Is this I wonder why they are still carrying on providing the UK Tivo service........

Also has rwtomkins made efforts to keep Neil Berkett, Sir Richard Branson and others in the loop over his claims as they potentially seem to have as much to lose in PR terms as Tivo does.


----------



## orangeboy

Some thoughts on the matter: While I agree that it is doubtful that TiVo is blissfully unaware, I DO doubt it is because of this forum thread. I would imagine that TiVo's legal team takes any type of litigation claims seriously, from the recent $500,000,000 settlement from Dish/Echostar down to this £100 (or however much) case. Why would they take this case seriously? As someone mentioned earlier: precedence. Having a loss on the books that can be used for citation leaves the door open for more successful cases against TiVo. Does TiVo want to spend their time and resources on tens or hundreds of cases? I think not; there are much bigger litigation issues with AT&T, Microsoft, and Verizon, concerning far larger sums of money. No, I believe TiVo's only _reasonable_ response is to dispute the whole claim and file a defence, citing: "TiVo also reserves the right to discontinue the TiVo service altogether at any time in its discretion.", which appears to have been present in the Terms and Conditions at the time of retail sales in the UK. If TiVo can get a ruling in their favor on the books for this case (or others filed prior to this one), it would go a long way to stem the tide of similar cases.


----------



## Heuer

TiVo Inc, like all big companies, will have an in-house team of lawyers who are on the payroll playing cards, games or responding to claims, it matters not. Like all good litigators they will seek to make the plaintiff's cost rise to a point where they will fold. So TiVo dispute the claim on the basis they can discontinue service as per the T&C's and throw it back to the plaintiff to disprove it. The only way forward will be to seek professional help and that costs.


----------



## Steve_K

I'd agree with that

Also can you submit a claim for loss of a service that hasn't actually been lost yet - even if TiVo said it would have by now? 

So hopefully they'll not respond in time.


----------



## Heuer

That is the really big flaw in rwtomkins action - you can't seek compensation for the threat of loss some indeterminate time in the future. You have to suffer a loss and then proceed to court. 

If TiVo Inc were to send out a system message saying they were changing their EPG provider to AltEPG with a link and instructions I am guessing that would weaken any action even further. They may even upload the new dial prefix when there are enough lines and modems and could be the reason they have not yet discontinued the service. If that happens there are going to be large slices of humble pie to be eaten by some!


----------



## orangeboy

Heuer said:


> If TiVo Inc were to send out a system message saying they were changing their EPG provider to AltEPG with a link and instructions I am guessing that would weaken any action even further. They may even upload the new dial prefix when there are enough lines and modems and could be the reason they have not yet discontinued the service. If that happens there are going to be large slices of humble pie to be eaten by some!


I don't see that happening. Any action on TiVo's part to alter the dial prefix to use AltEPG would seem to go against the VM agreement where VM would be the exclusive provider of the "official" TiVo Service. An action by TiVo to change the dial prefix may be construed as an "official" TiVo act. TiVo looking the other way and allowing the AltEPG project to exist in an "unofficial" capacity seems pretty generous on TiVo's part. I just don't see TiVo endorsing AltEPG, or even publicly acknowledging it's existence.


----------



## rwtomkins

Lots of good points here but just quickly on this one:



Heuer said:


> Like all good litigators they will seek to make the plaintiff's cost rise to a point where they will fold.


It may sound fanciful but the way I see it is that it's a case of asymmetric risk. I've spent almost no time or money on this and have nothing to lose by going to court except my time, which I wouldn't count as a cost because I'd enjoy it, and the very small court fee that I've already paid. TiVo on the other hand can lose a lot: in a worst case scenario it could be ordered to pay this claim and could then face other claims and/or the possibility of a claim on behalf of all UK lifetime subscribers who I believe numbered 12,000 as of last September (source: BSkyB.). That is just a worst case scenario and the risk of it occurring may not be high but nevertheless you would think that TiVo would probably need to take legal advice on ways of limiting or eliminating that risk and that in itself will represent a cost in legal fees that will be far greater than mine. The asymmetry arises from the fact that it matters to me relatively little whether I win or lose this claim but it could matter to TiVo quite a lot.

On the other points: yes, I would think my case would look pretty weak if TiVo were still operating the service but then I'd just renew the claim the moment they withdrew it. If they changed their minds and undertook to continue the service, then obviously I'd have no claim at all and would be absolutely delighted! The same applies if they formally moved us over to another provider but I wouldn't count an unofficial service that was just being done for fun by hobbyists and that could disappear overnight even assuming it was legitimate and worked properly. (No offence to AltEPG intended - I haven't looked into AltEPG and don't know anything about it.)

Oh yes, and LarryDavid, was there no one in when the letter arrived? Good point but I did check and TiVo UK's registered address is a firm of lawyers who handle all communications on the company's behalf. They can't ALL have been hiding behind the sofa when the postman arrived!

I'm really baffled as to what TiVo will do. They can't risk losing this claim but they certainly won't want to be dragged into court to defend it. So I think, if those highly-paid lawyers are going to earn their fees, they will have to pull something unexpected out of the hat - contesting the court's jurisdiction, maybe?


----------



## Trinitron

I would go for ignoring you as favourite, they could always appeal if the court came up with a possible precedent in your favour. Look at the meanderings of the bank charge challenges - some banks just ignored early cases because it was cheaper to pay up.

Jurisdiction could well be the next likely challenge, but that is very shaky given that the original agreements were under E&W law and it was only changed to California later. The problem there would be how easy it is to challenge correctly without proper legal representation.


----------



## Pete77

Heuer said:


> Like all good litigators they will seek to make the plaintiff's cost rise to a point where they will fold.


If a matter is handled in the County Court as a Small Claim then if you lose your claim you only lose your application fee and do not have to bear the other side's costs.

I do however think it would have been wise not to file the claim until Tivo had actually discontinued Lifetime Service, although we don't know for sure that the Service being discontinued is not directly due to this claim being filed.


----------



## rwtomkins

Trinitron said:


> I would go for ignoring you as favourite, they could always appeal if the court came up with a possible precedent in your favour. Look at the meanderings of the bank charge challenges - some banks just ignored early cases because it was cheaper to pay up.
> 
> Jurisdiction could well be the next likely challenge, but that is very shaky given that the original agreements were under E&W law and it was only changed to California later. The problem there would be how easy it is to challenge correctly without proper legal representation.


Agreed, though in your last sentence, I'm not sure if you mean the problem for them, or whether you mean the problem for me would be challenging their challenge (!) without proper representation.



Pete77 said:


> If a matter is handled in the County Court as a Small Claim then if you lose your claim you only lose your application fee and do not have to bear the other side's costs.


Yes, it would have been a lot clearer if I'd said that! Thank you.



Pete77 said:


> I do however think it would have been wise not to file the claim until Tivo had actually discontinued Lifetime Service...


That's certainly true, but I couldn't have known they weren't going to end the service on the promised date and I wanted to get the claim going while this forum still had an audience.



Pete77 said:


> ...although we don't know for sure that the Service being discontinued is not directly due to this claim being filed.


I suppose it's a very remote possibility but honestly, I think the most likely reasons have already been explained in other threads.


----------



## martink0646

Hi Guys,

You're all overthinking this. They will do absolutely nothing!!! AIUI & IANAL, the plaintiff will be awarded the amount he claimed for & then it's up to him to chase it. TiVo UK will then be sent a letter from the court & given a set time to respond, 28 days I think. If they do not respond within this time frame a county court judgement will be issued against them. The plaintiff will then have a judgement in his favour & this will enable him/her to chase the money, usually by sending letters, from himself and/or from a solicitors giving TiVo UK a reasonable time to pay the money.

If they don't respond within the time laid out, the next step will be to appoint bailiffs to recover the money. The bailiffs will turn up at the registered address & try to gain entry. If no-one is there then that is that! Full stop! The next step would be to use a solicitor to issue a winding up petition but it will never get that far due to the enormous cost.

The main reason TiVo UK will do nothing is because when the judgement is entered it isn't entered as any form of precedent allowing 'all' the other TiVo users to sue, it will be entered as a no contest judgement. Every claim starts at zero. The only time any precedents will be set is if TiVo UK DO respond. That is why, IMO, they won't.

I used to be in a position to see Credit Records including CCJ's of all incorporated companies. You wouldn't believe how many judgements companies like BT have registered against them........hundreds! Unlike you & me, a CCJ means very little to larger companies because their credit score is decided by ratings agencies & they are not going to be downgraded for any number of small judgements against them. Anyone who is particularly tenacious will quietly have the judgement paid but a lot of them, I am sure, do not.

Martin


----------



## martink0646

TCM2007 said:


> I'd go for 6. I don';t think that means it goes in your favour though; it's still up to the court to decide.


Hi Stuart,

I'm pretty sure that the court won't 'decide' i.e. look at the facts & make a judgement. If TiVo UK don't respond, a no contest judgement will be entered & the full amount of the claim awarded. The plaintiff then has the problem of collecting (see my previous post).

Martin


----------



## shwru980r

If the court does consider the facts, then they will have to define the duration of 'lifetime'. I doubt the court will decide that lifetime means forever. Since the major point of failure on a Tivo is the hard drive, the court could look for literature from the hard drive manufacturers that details the life expectancy of a hard drive from the period your Tivo was manufactured. The court could easily say that the lifetime of your Tivo has expired.


----------



## TCM2007

martink0646 said:


> Hi Stuart,
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the court won't 'decide' i.e. look at the facts & make a judgement. If TiVo UK don't respond, a no contest judgement will be entered & the full amount of the claim awarded. The plaintiff then has the problem of collecting (see my previous post).
> 
> Martin


Thanks Martin, I didn't realise that.


----------



## rwtomkins

martink0646 said:


> If they don't respond within the time laid out, the next step will be to appoint bailiffs to recover the money. The bailiffs will turn up at the registered address & try to gain entry. If no-one is there then that is that! Full stop! The next step would be to use a solicitor to issue a winding up petition but it will never get that far due to the enormous cost...


Very interesting post. However, as you say, if I ask for a warrant of execution the bailiffs will be sent to the registered address to collect. You say "If no one is there..." but someone is there - it's a firm of lawyers who represent the company. While I suppose they could simply refuse to pay up they would be getting themselves deeper and deeper into a situation where many people would consider they were in danger of looking disreputable. This is only hypothetical of course since hopefully it won't come to this.

It's interesting to compare the case of BSkyB. Initially I made my claim against BSkyB because I didn't know TiVo (UK) Ltd was still a registered company in the UK. BSkyB evidently believed it had a strong defence against the claim and accordingly entered a defence in which it denied liability. A date for the court hearing was set and no doubt BSkyB would have attended and argued its case. But then I discovered that TiVo (UK) Ltd was still a registered company in the UK and dropped the claim against BSkyB to claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd instead.

The point is, if a company thinks a claim is unjustified and is confident that it can show this to be so, you would expect it to do as BSkyB did and defend the claim. Just ignoring a claim may not be quite the same as an admission of liability but it certainly carries that implication.

For both these reasons, I think there's still a possibility they may fight this. But they have expensive lawyers and I don't, so it's still a hard one to call.


----------



## Superdon

I'm not professing any knowledge other than what I just googled.

From the government's own website about bailiff's rights, it seems they can force entry for an unpaid magistrates' court fines but as a last resort (doesn't say what they can or have to do beforehand).

Link to Government Website

I would guess though that the bailiffs can't force entry to the solicitors' offices as the debt is nothing to do with the solicitors. Presumably TiVo UK has nothing but a "brass plaque" on the front door and no office space, so nothing to enter and nothing to take away.

As posted earlier, TiVo UK will just have an unpaid CCJ against its name.


----------



## Steve_K

Well now that they have cut off the service, at least that uncertainty has been removed from your claim rw

To me the best hope now is they don't defend, don't appeal within the (14 day?) limit, then realise just what a winding up order would do to their share price on the Nasdaq, cough up, realise too late that word spreads on t'internet and get really worried.


----------



## Trinitron

If anyone is serious about wanting to get some answers from TiVo, Inc. they should buy some shares (one is enough) and get over to the next shareholders meeting.


----------



## martink0646

rwtomkins said:


> Very interesting post. However, as you say, if I ask for a warrant of execution the bailiffs will be sent to the registered address to collect. You say "If no one is there..." but someone is there - it's a firm of lawyers who represent the company. While I suppose they could simply refuse to pay up they would be getting themselves deeper and deeper into a situation where many people would consider they were in danger of looking disreputable. This is only hypothetical of course since hopefully it won't come to this.


The bailiffs will have a warrant to enforce against TiVo UK, not, a firm of solicitors. They will just say "it's not us" & there won't be a thing they, or you can do about it sadly. It's not that they will refuse to pay, they will just do nothing about it! The solicitors will send the letters off to Alviso (probably charging them more for that legal service than your claim) where it will be filed in all likelihood in the bin.

They won't be getting themselves "deeper & deeper" into anything as it will be a total non-issue for them. The only way they could look disreputable is if someone (probably you) can get it publicised, but I really don't think there enough interest out there. As I mentioned in my previous post, v.well known companies such as BT who are very much in the public spotlight have plenty of ccj's against them & their reputation doesn't suffer.



rwtomkins said:


> The point is, if a company thinks a claim is unjustified and is confident that it can show this to be so, you would expect it to do as BSkyB did and defend the claim. Just ignoring a claim may not be quite the same as an admission of liability but it certainly carries that implication.


It doesn't really matter whether they feel the claim is unjustified or not. In this case they actually have more to lose by contesting it. If they do contest it then they have the possibility (probability?) of losing. If they don't contest they lose nothing. let's not forget, this is for all intents & purposes a shelf company that's doing the minimum possible as per the regulations to stay incorporated. They could wind it up at the drop of a hat with no loss to them.



rwtomkins said:


> For both these reasons, I think there's still a possibility they may fight this. But they have expensive lawyers and I don't, so it's still a hard one to call.


As above, don't hold your breath. I will be absolutely amazed if they contest this. It will be a coin toss as to whether they ignore it completely or just pay you off. If they pay you off within the set timescale (28 days?) the judgement isn't even entered against them.

I actually think that if they do contest it you will probably be awarded your claim. I am not getting into the argument over the rights & wrongs, I just think the local magistrate would probably award your claim. Let's be honest, TiVo aren't going to send any expensive lawyers to contest anything in small claims court. They'll send a written defence & the magistrate will decide one way or the other.

From reading your previous posts I am assuming that this action is more about the principle than the money. Unfortunately for you, the route you have taken in using the small claims court means that you are unlikely to get satisfaction i.e. your day in court. The way to ensure that was to claim an amount large enough that they couldn't ignore, but that would be next to impossible because in the UK 'Exemplary Damages' (Punitive Damages) "cannot be awarded in respect of breach of contract in any circumstances" http://legal-directory.net/english-law/contemptuous-aggravated-and-exemplary-damages.htm

I hope you get some satisfaction from all of this, just don't spend too long chasing it. Good luck.

Martin


----------



## rwtomkins

martink0646 said:


> I will be absolutely amazed if they contest this. It will be a coin toss as to whether they ignore it completely or just pay you off.


Well, prepare to be amazed because today there's been the first big development - they have issued an acknowledgment of service! This apparently means they are actually going to contest the claim and have asked for more time to prepare their defence. In effect they get another two weeks by the end of which they are required to either "file a defence or contest the court's jurisdiction," according to the letter I received from the court.

So now we're back into waiting mode again. By all means try to guess what will happen next. However, I'm going to be even more cautious about discussing the case from now on - I know it's only a small claim but I don't know whether the _sub judice_ rules apply and I'm not going to take the chance.



martink0646 said:


> I hope you get some satisfaction from all of this, just don't spend too long chasing it. Good luck.


Thanks very much, Martin, I really appreciate that. Don't worry - the only thing that's taken any time at all so far is writing these posts!


----------



## TCM2007

Sub judice comes in once a court date is set, however it's hard to see how anything you post here could be prejudicial to the court hearing.


----------



## CouchPotato

> Well, prepare to be amazed because today there's been the first big development - they have issued an acknowledgment of service! This apparently means they are actually going to contest the claim and have asked for more time to prepare their defence. In effect they get another two weeks by the end of which they are required to either "file a defence or contest the court's jurisdiction," according to the letter I received from the court.


I think this is actually good news as it means hopefully the issue gets settled once and for all. And I also think you summarised it quite well in an earlier post. The terms of service quite clearly stated that Tivo could end service at any time. From what i gather you don't dispute this:



rwtomkins said:


> [snip]
> 
> In short, there are two questions, not one.
> 
> 1. Does TiVo have the right to terminate the service? Answer: yes.
> 
> 2. If TiVo exercises its right to terminate the service, does it need to compensate lifetime subscribers? Answer: well, obviously!


First point I'd make is that to me it's not obvious (on any legal basis) why there's a need for compensation. No such was mentioned in the TOS which we all agreed to.

However, even if compensation is payable, then surely the amount must be decided by comparison with what you would have paid for comparable service in monthly subscription mode. Any purchaser of Tivo was making a decision - do I pay £200 up-front and hope that the company doesn't go out of business; or do I pay £10 a month for as long as it remains in business.

[Full disclosure - I chose the latter and have paid my £10/month since late 2002 (and the corresponding $10/month when I lived in CA prior to that)]

So,if you've had more than 20 months' worth of service then you're not entitled to anything if and when the company decided to cease service (which you agree they're entitled to do).

Seriously, you made a bet and you won - congratulations! I'm really struggling to see what you're so upset about...

(And please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not having a go at you, just really struggling to see why you feel hard done by and what you feel entitled to...)

cp


----------



## martink0646

rwtomkins said:


> Well, prepare to be amazed because today there's been the first big development - they have issued an acknowledgment of service! This apparently means they are actually going to contest the claim and have asked for more time to prepare their defence. In effect they get another two weeks by the end of which they are required to either "file a defence or contest the court's jurisdiction," according to the letter I received from the court.
> 
> So now we're back into waiting mode again. By all means try to guess what will happen next. However, I'm going to be even more cautious about discussing the case from now on - I know it's only a small claim but I don't know whether the _sub judice_ rules apply and I'm not going to take the chance.
> 
> Thanks very much, Martin, I really appreciate that. Don't worry - the only thing that's taken any time at all so far is writing these posts!


I am actually very surprised. I think it's a bit of a daft move on their part but good news for you, you'll now be able to get the satisfaction of an answer. I still don't see them actually sending solicitors to court but it would be fun to see if they do!

I'm not going to get into the rights & wrongs of this as I have a foot in both camps, i.e. I think TiVo have served us incredibly well down the years & I don't think they have done anything wrong legally & it seems a bit of a shame for them that it has ended up with them being sued. But f*** me, they could have handled it sooooo much better with a few simple e-mails & forum posts, explaining the whys & wherefores. I almost want to see them lose in court because of the incredibly amateurish way they have handled their PR.
*
Speculation Alert*

I'm going into Pete77 mode a bit here but I can think of a couple of reasons why they would contest this; there have been quite a few claims made or it may be something of a dry run for stopping S1 service in the US. Again, please don't bite it's pure speculation.

Martin


----------



## Trinitron

CouchPotato said:


> So,if you've had more than 20 months' worth of service then you're not entitled to anything if and when the company decided to cease service (which you agree they're entitled to do).
> 
> Seriously, you made a bet and you won - congratulations! I'm really struggling to see what you're so upset about...
> 
> (And please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not having a go at you, just really struggling to see why you feel hard done by and what you feel entitled to...)


You're entitled to your say (and FWIW I agree with you) but everything you have said has been debated ad nauseum in this and other threads. I suggest you read them then sit back and wait for the next step in the court action.

I for one don't want to wade through pages of arguments again from both sides!


----------



## Steve_K

CouchPotato said:


> I think this is actually good news as it means hopefully the issue gets settled once and for all. And I also think you summarised it quite well in an earlier post. The terms of service quite clearly stated that Tivo could end service at any time. . .


(we've done this before) yes but they are not ending service as it was defined in those very same T's and C's.

They are arbitrarily ending it for selective subscribers while providing same service to Virgin TiVo. That's breaking the contract.

Still I think that TiVo contesting this at this stage is bad news, I'm not going to help them by posting up why.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> (we've done this before) yes but they are not ending service as it was defined in those very same T's and C's.
> 
> They are arbitrarily ending it for selective subscribers while providing same service to Virgin TiVo. That's breaking the contract.


That's the weakest of all the arguments; no Virgin customer gets a service from TiVo at all, let alone the same one that S1 owners used to get. They get a service from VM, not TiVo.

Plus, there T&S very explicitly says that the service on one platform does not have to be the same as the service on another.


----------



## Steve_K

It's Virgin that are receiving the service, that they are then selling it on is irrelevant. 

Would have to go back to the 2001 T's and C's to be sure on your second point (link blocked on work PC) but IIRC service was very well defined and was platform agnostic


----------



## Trinitron

2001 agreement:


> Changes to TiVo Service. TiVo may, at its discretion, from time to time change, add or remove features of the TiVo service or change the terms and conditions of this agreement. Such changes shall be effective upon notification by TiVo. You are responsible for viewing any new terms and if you are dissatisfied with any such changes to the TiVo service or this agreement, you may immediately cancel your subscription as provided in the "Termination of Service" paragraph below. TiVo also reserves the right to discontinue the TiVo service altogether at any time in its discretion.



2010 agreement:


> 6. Changes to Your TiVo Service. TiVo may at its discretion and from time to time change, add, or remove features and functionality of the TiVo service or the TiVo DVR without notice. If you are dissatisfied with any such changes to the TiVo service, you may cancel your use of the TiVo service as provided in Section 15 ("Termination of Service"). TiVo reserves the right to discontinue one, some, or all of the features of the TiVo service you receive at any time at its discretion. TiVo may at its discretion discontinue the provision of software updates to certain TiVo DVRs. This means that while other TiVo DVRs may receive continued software updates and functionality; TiVo is not required to provide such updates to your TiVo DVR. Additionally, the level of service TiVo provides may not be the same on each TiVo DVR; a given TiVo DVR may support different features and functionality, and TiVo is under no obligation to provide all features and functionality to your TiVo DVR.


There are no equivalent clauses applying to Virgin Media TiVo subscribers as they are subject to the standard VM contract, of which "TiVo Inc. is an intended third-party beneficiary". Whatever that means.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> It's Virgin that are receiving the service, that they are then selling it on is irrelevant


In your view perhaps a corporation contracting to receive data and individuals buying a similar but different service are the same, but that's what makes it the weakest of the arguments.


----------



## Steve_K

No Trinitron that's actually the 2010 T's and C's but anyway lets look at it:

First, as we've done to death before, all those "we can change what the hell we like to your detriment" clauses have no legal meaning in the UK for such use against the consumer. The changes have to be necessary and reasonable. Terminating the service altogether would have been arguable, selectively moving it to a higher bidder very likely not.

So what is "service"? On that 2010 document


> 3. The TiVo Service. The TiVo service consists of program guide information and the following features: (a) Season Pass® recording  automatically finds and records every episode of a series all season long; (b) WishList® search  finds and records programs that feature your favorite actor, director, team or even topic; (c) Smart Recording  automatically detects program line-up changes for your satellite provider and adjusts recording times so you don't have to worry about the details; (d) TiVo Suggestions  TiVo can be programmed to suggest and auto-record programs that may match your interests; and (e) Parental Controls  lock channels or set ratings limits based on content. Each of these features is part of the "TiVo service." The "TiVo service" means these features and any additional features and functionality of the TiVo DVR that TiVo may, at its discretion and from time to time, offer


Nothing in there lets them say that moving it to VM is terminating the service altogether.

*BUT*

that "your satellite provider" phrase could be dodgy


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> No Trinitron that's actually the 2010 T's and C's


Eh? Quote 1 - the bit headed 2001 - is from the 2001 T&Cs; Quote 2 - the bit headed 2010 - is from the amended 2010 T&Cs. Follow the links if you don't believe me.

Edit: Actually, the 2001 doc is your old link, the earliest one is here, from 11 Dec 2000. Same wording. No mention of other TiVo DVRs (not really surprising, as the S1 was the only show in town at the time), and no definition of "TiVo service", that was added later.


----------



## rwtomkins

martink0646 said:


> But f*** me, they could have handled it sooooo much better with a few simple e-mails & forum posts, explaining the whys & wherefores. I almost want to see them lose in court because of the incredibly amateurish way they have handled their PR.


Me too! (Except, delete "almost"!) The reason I'm doing this is because of the way they're treated UK lifetime subscribers and indeed all UK users with what seems to me not so much amateurishness as contempt. I'm really thrilled that they've acknowledged the service of the claim because to my knowledge, despite all the letters and petitions and e-mails and blogs, it's the first time since announcing the end of the service that TiVo has actually had the decency to admit that its UK customers exist - and it's taken a legal action even to force that basic courtesy out of them. Win or lose, everything that happens from now on is just icing on the cake because it forces the company to stop ignoring us.


----------



## Steve_K

Trinitron said:


> Eh? Quote 1 - the bit headed 2001 - is from the 2001 T&Cs; Quote 2 - the bit headed 2010 - is from the amended 2010 T&Cs. Follow the links if you don't believe me. . .


 apologies.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> In your view perhaps a corporation contracting to receive data and individuals buying a similar but different service are the same, but that's what makes it the weakest of the arguments.


Well lets look at TiVo's own words on the matter



> If you want to keep enjoying the Tivo service swap to Virgin Media and upgrade to the new Virgin Media TV powered by TiVo box.


"*the* TiVo service" not "*a *TiVo service" or even "*the new* TiVo service"

They're moving the core of the service, not terminating it so that clause of the T's and C's does not help them.

So we're back to the Darth TiVo clause "we can change the agreement any damn way we like" - err no, consumer protection applies this side of the water (as it probably does their side as well).

or

"the box should have failed by now" - well why didn't you put a 10 year limit on the "lifetime" definition then? Could it just have been it wouldn't have looked as good as a marketing ploy. So you took the risk, you lost except you're trying to deny it.

or the last resort

"no one will actually sue us" - well let's see. More like I can't be bothered in my case but if rwtomkins wins maybe I can be.


----------



## TCM2007

When it suits you you put reliance of the precise wording of communications down to a single word, yet you then ignore multiple paragraphs which contradict you!


----------



## Steve_K

so that's how you admit I've got a point is it?

(like drawing hens teeth)

Have now got round the firewall here and downloaded the T's and C's from 2001. There's no satellite provider clause.

TiVo have never advised me of any change in the T's and CV's so it's English Law and "If you paid a Lifetime Service fee for your Recorder, the TiVo service is guaranteed for the lifetime of that Recorder," as far as I'm concerned. That was the deal, that is still the deal

So while I may never take them to court, just please no one tell me they're "good guys"


----------



## TCM2007

On a punt of fact you had a notification of terms change around six months ago. There are Thursday on here discussing it.


----------



## TCM2007

Predictive text ftw


----------



## mikerr

I checked, half hoping it would have been a Thursday 
but alas a Friday:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=462594


> Subject:	Notification of Updated TiVo Service Agreement
> From:	The TiVo Team
> Date:	Fri 7th Jan 2011
> Expire:	Wed 26th Jan 2011
> 
> An updated TiVo Service Agreement is available online. To view, please visit
> http://www.tivo.com/bskybserviceagreement
> 
> Sincerely,
> TiVo Inc.


----------



## Steve_K

Thanks

A notice that expires in under 3 weeks might be dubious as to whether it meets the terms in the original agreement for "notification by TiVo".

But even taking it on it's current content (which looks unlawful under consumer legislation by introducing US law ie an unreasonable term) it does not enable them to transfer the service from S1 to Virgin,

That would require a further amendment which they haven't given (and of course would also have to comply with the consumer regs)


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> But even taking it on it's current content (which looks unlawful under consumer legislation by introducing US law ie an unreasonable term) it does not enable them to transfer the service from S1 to Virgin


You misunderstand unfair contract law. It makes *only* the unfair terms unenforceable, not the entire agreement. So, no, they probably can't change jurisdiction from E&W to California but that doesn't in itself invalidate the rest of the agreement.

I don't understand your point about transferring service. The latest agreement states only that different TiVo DVRs may have different features (e.g. US and UK machines). As no Virgin subscriber is subject to a TiVo service agreement and none have been supplied with TiVo hardware, I don't see the relevance. Nor do I particularly care.


----------



## rwtomkins

OK, there's a been another big development. TiVo is taking this far more seriously than I'd ever dared hope. They have taken on a VERY large, well-known (and expensive) firm of international corporate lawyers to represent them in this case. I received a letter from this law firm this morning sternly informing me that my case was without merit and seeking my confirmation that I would withdraw and discontinue the claim.

I'm not going to quote directly from the letter because I think that would be discourteous but since it wasn't addressed to the court and wasn't marked private or confidential, I see no reason not to share the gist of it.

First, it says I ought to be aware that TiVo (UK) Ltd is a dormant company with no assets. Then, it offers the following defences to the claim:

1. The contract governing the provision of the TiVo service is between me and TiVo Inc, not between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd. TiVo (UK) Ltd is not responsible for the provision of the service to me. So if I had any claim arising out of the provision of the service, it would be against TiVo Inc which is a US company. In short, there is no legal relationship between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd so TiVo (UK) Ltd has an unassailable defence to my claim.

2. The old chestnut - clause 15 of the T&Cs (2010 version) provides for TiVo to withdraw the lifetime service at any time so there's been no breach of contract.

3. Even if there had been a breach of contract (which of course there hasn't, they add hastily!) clause 20 limits TiVo's liability to the amount paid by me in the last 12 months, ie nothing.

4. Clause 21 states that the contract between me and TiVo Inc is governed by the laws of the State of California and any legal proceedings must be brought in the courts of Santa Clara. The courts of England and Wales have no jurisdiction over any claims against TiVo Inc. (But this is really just defence number 1 again.) 

I think they protest too much. Their big problem is that they can't dispute the substance of the claim - that they've stopped providing the service I paid for - and instead they're just desperately throwing out a barrage of technicalities hoping one of them will stick.

Anyway, I think I can deal pretty easily with all those points so I'm pressing ahead with the claim even more happily than before.

Oh yes, I also received the paperwork from the court in which the law firm says it will defend the claim AND contest the court's jurisdiction. Again, that smacks of desperation to me. I mean, make up your minds, guys - either you're innocent, or you're guilty but we can't catch you, but you can't be both.


----------



## Trinitron

Nothing in those defences that hasn't been brought up here already. I look forward to the next developments with interest and can't wait for the HBO series that will surely follow!


----------



## TCM2007

That's very interesting. Instructing solicitors to write you that letter will have cost far more than just paying you the money you've asked for. If they are going down that route I'd have logically expected a without prejudice offer to settle out of court. 

Curiouser and curiouser!

My feelings on the merit of your case aside, I'm now intrigued...


----------



## mikerr

Someone with deeper pockets may already be suing them?


----------



## Heuer

Talk to any firm of Solicitors and they will say you have a 100% chance of success in litigation. After handing over several large cheques you find it becomes 80%, 60%, 50%, "would you like us to make this go away because you could lose" and "we really think you should settle out of court". It is how they make their money. Rule 1 is never take it personally against the other parties legal team as they are only doing their job and have families and Ferrari's to support, stay focussed on TiVo.

Keep going rwtomkins, this is going to be a fun ride!


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> 1. The contract governing the provision of the TiVo service is between me and TiVo Inc, not between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd. TiVo (UK) Ltd is not responsible for the provision of the service to me. So if I had any claim arising out of the provision of the service, it would be against TiVo Inc which is a US company. In short, there is no legal relationship between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd so TiVo (UK) Ltd has an unassailable defence to my claim.


Their Lifetime Service letter to me dated February 2003 is signed clear as day by Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer but the company shown at the bottom of the letterhead (which has the Tivo Guy logo in the top right of it) is "Tivo UK Registered Office: Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, Blackfriars, London EC4Y 0DX. Registered in England number:4056501". I would tend to believe it is likely that Companies House records will show that at the time of the letter Mr Ramsay was a board director of Tivo UK Ltd.

So I am sure any attempt to claim that jurisdiction only applies in a California court on a product sold out of UK retail chain shops and where calls for customer support went to their agents (Sky) at a UK call centre are likely to fall on stony ground with the judge and that you could successfully argue that the attempted changes to the contract are an unfair contract term on Tivo's part. They obviously hope to get it out of the UK small claims court system as the cost of continuing with the claim then becomes unaffordable for you. As Tivo UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tivo Inc their attempts to claim that that their choice of making it dormant and leaving it with no assets absolves it of all responsibility for your contract also seems to be wholly bogus.



> 3. Even if there had been a breach of contract (which of course there hasn't, they add hastily!) clause 20 limits TiVo's liability to the amount paid by me in the last 12 months, ie nothing.


Was this clause also in the original terms and conditions or only in their revised terms and conditions. If the latter then its clearly an unfair contract term once again. If it was in the original Lifetime Service contract then you may have a problem.



> I think they protest too much. Their big problem is that they can't dispute the substance of the claim - that they've stopped providing the service I paid for - and instead they're just desperately throwing out a barrage of technicalities hoping one of them will stick.
> 
> Anyway, I think I can deal pretty easily with all those points so I'm pressing ahead with the claim even more happily than before.


You may also want to draw the current state of your claim to the attention of Peter Young, a UK journalist who expressed a previous interest in following this whole story in the US Tivocommunity Coffee House forum section thread started by Spitfires in his post at:-

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8383119#post8383119

This seems to be the journalisted entry for Peter Young. Perhaps he is even a Tivo S1 owner with a Lifetime Service contract?

See http://journalisted.com/peter-young


----------



## spitfires

^ Yes the jurisdiction issue really shouldn't be a problem - the original paper-only (back in the days when th'internet was a wee lad) agreement which came inside the "Start Here" guide gave jurisdiction as "England and Wales"; to move that to California would clearly be an unfair change and would be stricken out I'm sure.

.


----------



## Steve_K

Well the issue I was most concerned about has come up. They claim the deal was made with TiVo US. Pete's point aside if tjis turns out to be true then AFAIK you can still take an off shore company to the Small Claims Fast Track but it would be getting more complex and there is the risk the fast track judge will refuse to consider it under that route.

But it is as TCM says, curious that they have spent serious money on a defence

And also curious why they tried to remove the English Law requirement so very recently


----------



## aleks

I wonder: Is it worth moving off AltEPG back to Tivo just to add some weight to the number of existing users?


----------



## Heuer

I was wondering about that but I am getting rather hooked on the sXXeXX annotations for series used by AltEPG.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Well the issue I was most concerned about has come up. They claim the deal was made with TiVo US. Pete's point aside if tjis turns out to be true then AFAIK you can still take an off shore company to the Small Claims Fast Track but it would be getting more complex and there is the risk the fast track judge will refuse to consider it under that route.


Pretty sure you can't - that came up much earlier in one of these threads:



> You can use Money Claim Online to make some court claims for money
> 
> If youre making your claim online it must be:
> 
> for a fixed amount less than £100,000 (including court fees and any solicitors costs)
> against no more than two people or organisations
> *sent to an address in England or Wales* with a valid postcode


----------



## Trinitron

Irrespective of what Pete77's letter may say, all the service agreements stipulate the contract is with TiVo, Inc. Whether that carries any weight in UK law is for the courts to decide.


----------



## rwtomkins

Very interesting comments, guys, and some good advice too. Thanks very much! And keep it coming!

If anyone can point me to a beginner's guide to contract law, it might help me to get to sleep at nights.

Oh yes, and Pete77, I'll take a look at that Peter Young suggestion - thanks very much. BTW Mike Ramsay was indeed a director of TiVo (UK) Ltd.


----------



## ggieseke

I'm in the US, but spitfire's quote from the paper agreement seems clear.

This agreement explains the terms and conditions that will apply to your use of the TiVo service and constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc. ("TiVo").

Guess that cuts both ways. The fact that TiVo (UK) Ltd is a dormant company with no assets means nothing, but you would probably have to file with the US courts to get anything out of TiVo Inc.

P.S. It looks like ReplayTV users are now in the same boat.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=471468


----------



## rwtomkins

Did anyone ever find a bank/credit card statement showing who they paid their money to when they bought their lifetime subscription? I haven't found mine yet but I still have a few more boxes to go through! I'm interested to know whether it shows TiVo UK, or TiVo Inc, or just TiVo. I know the money was actually collected by TiVo (UK) Ltd but the more evidence I can pile on, the better.


----------



## sjp

somebody did, earlier in the post i think. will have a look in a min.


----------



## Richard42

sjp said:


> somebody did, earlier in the post i think. will have a look in a min.


That'll be me ( page 1 ) - unfortunately the statement just says "TiVo" no hint of uk or inc


----------



## drgeoff

rwtomkins said:


> Did anyone ever find a bank/credit card statement showing who they paid their money to when they bought their lifetime subscription? I haven't found mine yet but I still have a few more boxes to go through! I'm interested to know whether it shows TiVo UK, or TiVo Inc, or just TiVo. I know the money was actually collected by TiVo (UK) Ltd but the more evidence I can pile on, the better.


I have my bank statement dated 4 Dec 02 which shows I made the transaction with a debit card. The line reads:

20NOV CARD PMNT 15NOV TIVO 199.00


----------



## Pete77

Richard42 said:


> That'll be me ( page 1 ) - unfortunately the statement just says "TiVo" no hint of uk or inc


But the transaction was in sterling and not dollars. As Tivo Inc had no UK presence why did it set up Tivo UK if it was not to take subscriptions etc for the UK Series 1 service in the UK in sterling............

A look back at Tivo UK Ltd's accounts for the period 2000 to 2004 would undoubtedly be instructive.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But the transaction was in sterling and not dollars. As Tivo Inc had no UK presence why did it set up Tivo UK if it was not to take subscriptions etc for the UK Series 1 service in the UK in sterling............
> 
> A look back at Tivo UK Ltd's accounts for the period 2000 to 2004 would undoubtedly be instructive.


US companies can take payments in pounds, and vice versa.

It's all pretty irrelevant, as the bit of the contract even I agree would immediately get struck out is the California law part.


----------



## Steve_K

imho the contract was clearly with TiVo Inc but you'd have to guess they are bankrolling TiVo UK's defence. Why go to the lengthy defence they have if they could have just replied "not us, try TiVo inc?"

Suggests TiVo Inc could be nervous

I guess the next step depends what the goal is. Can't speak for rwtomkins but if it was my case I don't want the money. I want TiVo Inc to turn the service back on even if it has to be because they fear the alternatives.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> I guess the next step depends what the goal is. Can't speak for rwtomkins but if it was my case I don't want the money. I want TiVo Inc to turn the service back on even if it has to be because they fear the alternatives.


If you make a claim using small claims court track it has to be to get financial compensation. If you want them to maintain the service you would need an injunction in a different (and much more expensive) court.


----------



## Steve_K

That's the direct route

IF an award is given and IF TiVo Inc didn't pay up then I wouldn't want to be a senior exec of TiVo visiting the UK


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> IF an award is given and IF TiVo Inc didn't pay up then I wouldn't want to be a senior exec of TiVo visiting the UK


What are you going to do? Meet them at the airport in a blacked-out vehicle? 

Unless there is something else going on, this particular claim is in the small claims track of the county court. A CCJ against a company the size of TiVo is of no consequence, as martink0646 has said previously.


----------



## Steve_K

ah but surely a bailiff could presume a senior exec of TiVo Inc might be carrying TiVo Inc property about their person when travelling. Smart phone, ideally a laptop. 

A VP (=director) might even be personally responsible for the debt - yes sir we do take American Express.


----------



## Richard Loxley

rwtomkins said:


> Did anyone ever find a bank/credit card statement showing who they paid their money to when they bought their lifetime subscription? I haven't found mine yet but I still have a few more boxes to go through! I'm interested to know whether it shows TiVo UK, or TiVo Inc, or just TiVo. I know the money was actually collected by TiVo (UK) Ltd but the more evidence I can pile on, the better.


I paid mine on credit card on 04/06/2002 and the details on my credit card bill say "TIVO 08702 418486".

I also bought a cable-TV adapter during the same phone call, and that it listed on the credit card bill as "SKY SUBSCRIPTION DIGIT 08702 404040".

I've also found the letters sent in response to these two purchases. The Lifetime sub letter had this address at the top: TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lovian, EH54 7NB. It was signed by Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer. The footer of the letter reads: TiVo Inc. 2160 Gold Street, PO Box 2160, Alviso, CA. 95002.

And the cable adapter came from Sky, PO Box 43, Livingston, West Lovian, EH54 7DD.

So the Tivo letter was obviously sent out by Sky on Tivo's behalf, and seems to imply it's from Tivo Inc (no mention of Tivo UK Ltd anywhere).

I can't find any printed copy of my user agreement however.


----------



## Trinitron

That's interesting. Looks like the letters didn't change to the TiVo(UK) company address until the end of 2002 (but used the Sky PO box as a postal address throughout). 

They could just have been using up old stationery of course!


----------



## rwtomkins

Richard42 said:


> That'll be me ( page 1 ) - unfortunately the statement just says "TiVo" no hint of uk or inc





drgeoff said:


> I have my bank statement dated 4 Dec 02 which shows I made the transaction with a debit card. The line reads:
> 
> 20NOV CARD PMNT 15NOV TIVO 199.00





Richard Loxley said:


> I paid mine on credit card on 04/06/2002 and the details on my credit card bill say "TIVO 08702 418486".


Thanks very much indeed, guys, that's really kind of you. It would have been even more helpful if it had said TiVo UK but it doesn't matter that it only says TiVo. They seem to have used TiVo (and indeed TiVo Inc) as a catch-all word for TiVo or any of its subsidiaries.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> When it suits you you put reliance of the precise wording of communications down to a single word, yet you then ignore multiple paragraphs which contradict you!


Isn't that what any good barrister does when he is assiduously arguing the righteousness of his client's case?


----------



## rwtomkins

There's been another unexpected development. I had a phone call today from a member of staff at TiVo Inc in Alviso which resulted in a very long (and amicable) conversation. He basically asked why I was doing this and what I wanted out of it. I explained that it wasn't about money but the way they'd treated UK customers. He said how much TiVo valued its UK customers and how much time had gone into looking for an alternative to cutting off the service in this way. But unfortunately there had been no alternative, he said. He said in the US, TiVo boxes were configured to work with many different cable operators but in the UK they were configured to work with one supplier of EPG data only and that was BSkyB. They said that when BSkyB decided to pull the plug on the EPG service that meant it was the end for the UK TiVo boxes and TiVo had been left with no alternative but to look for a new partner and start offering a new service with new boxes using the new partner's EPG. I said this wasn't my understanding of the situation at all - I thought the connection with BSkyB ended years ago and the EPG data was provided by an independent company called Tribune which could easily go on supplying the data if desired, so I couldn't understand this version of events. However, he said I was incorrect and didn't have a full knowledge of the situation and that his version about BSkyB "shutting down the pipeline" as he put it was correct. There didn't seem much point in arguing about it since I was unsure of my facts so we moved on.

He then said that TiVo had been looking long and hard at how it could help its loyal UK customers who would otherwise be left without a TiVo service. The Virgin tie-up was one but he then said that TiVo (a) was looking for other new partners in the UK in order to reach a larger market than it could through Virgin alone and (b) that in the meantime it also wanted to help UK customers who were not signed up to the Virgin service as far as it could and to that end would in the next week or so be posting an FAQ on its own website giving advice to UK customers who were looking for ways of keeping their TiVo boxes going after the TiVo service expired.

I think those were the main points. I said I was open to the idea of withdrawing the claim if TiVo publicly supported the provision of a satisfactory alternative to the existing EPG and helped people switch to it but there was plenty of time for that because it would be a long time before the claim came to court. We agreed to keep in touch in the meantime.

Coincidentally I had earlier in the day posted my reply to the lawyer's letter in which I thanked them for outlining their defences and briefly explained, very politely, why I thought they probably wouldn't hold up in court. But that's another story and I think the phone call is more interesting for the moment.


----------



## Steve_K

I'm trying to decide whether to say "shame they got the one on acid to call you" or "unlucky you didn't get the one not on acid" 

Which bit of "exclusive" in the Virgin deal did he not understand?

Which bit of the deal they did with Tribune was he struggling with?

Still on the up side looks like a "blink" by TiVo to me and begs again the question "what do we want (if they can't restore the service)?" 

A full and frank apology posted on this forum would be a start


----------



## DX30

Interesting development, although I'm not sure I buy the bit about it being all down to BSkyB.

I guess it is possible that BSkyB could have stopped supplying listings for the channels they own but that shouldn't stop the service entirely. Were BSkyB also supplying the listings for the Freeview or Virgin cable service? Even on Satellite most channels are not Sky owned so the idea that there is no other way for TiVo to get listings for e.g. the BBC or ITV channels doesn't seem credible.

I can believe that the existing arrangements might be disrupted by a BSkyB action, and that TiVo felt it wasn't commercially worthwhile to make alternative arrangements, but not that no alternatives were possible.


----------



## TCM2007

How extraordinary. Why would someone from TiVo ring up and feed you such obvious BS? It's like they were only half breifed on what was going on.

What they presumably meant was that the customer service and payment processing agreement with BSkyB had come to an end - last year when payments stopped being taken and the customer support line stopped. Nothing to do with the EPG, of course.

And I would imagine when the management at VM have their attention drawn to your post, there will be a stiff phone call to TiVo Inc in short order.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> I had a phone call today from a member of staff at TiVo Inc in Alviso which resulted in a very long (and amicable) conversation.
> 
> He said how much TiVo valued its UK customers and how much time had gone into looking for an alternative to cutting off the service in this way. But unfortunately there had been no alternative, he said. He said in the US, TiVo boxes were configured to work with many different cable operators but in the UK they were configured to work with one supplier of EPG data only and that was BSkyB. They said that when BSkyB decided to pull the plug on the EPG service that meant it was the end for the UK TiVo boxes and TiVo had been left with no alternative but to look for a new partner and start offering a new service with new boxes using the new partner's EPG.


I would be interested to know precisely who this person is and what their job title is because they sound like they are only a senior customer service person who has been fed the nonsense version of Tivo UK's history created by Joshua Danovitz to justify the termination of the UK S1 service being exactly coincidental with the commencement of the new Virgin Media Tivo Service.

The only arrangement they have in fact recently terminated with Sky is the one relating to their customer service telephone support line. They could easily have pulled this back to Alviso and supported UK customers from there instead including still paying £10 per month. Sky never have had and never will have anything to do with the EPG on our Tivo boxes. That is why it has always been provided by Tribune Media Services, the same supplier who also provides data for the EPG on the Virgin Media Tivo and all the US Tivos. It is also why anyone who connects to Tivo over the internet by using a network card from their S1 Tivo can still get an EPG for their UK S1 Tivo. Namely because TMS is still supplying a UK EPG to Tivo that their servers are still processing in to a format suitable for our S1 Tivos as well as for the Virgin Media Tivo.

Surely if Tivo is going to bother having a conversation with someone taking them to court it should at least be an honest and meaningful one rather than a wholly fictitious version of events from an employee clearly only concerned to fob you off with blatantly inaccurate facts. It is incredible to think that they believe someone who has gone to all the trouble to take them to court can now be got rid of by simple old fashioned bare faced blatant lieing. Unfortunately this has characterised Tivo's behaviour ever since they announced the termination of UK S1 EPG services but then refused to respond to any correspondence from their customers about the matter.

The stuff about Tivo finding other partners to work with in the UK are also typical of the kind of lies that a card carrying customer service person will dream up without bothering to check their facts. Had they checked their facts they would know that Tivo have signed an exclusive agreement with Virgin Media that precludes them from licensing the Tivo service to anyone else in the UK for as long as their commercial agreement with Virgin persists. They would have also known that the original S1 UK Tivo could record analogue tv from its own internal tuner and work with either a DTT or Sky Digital or Freesat box as well as with a Virgin cable box. Now they seem to claim that the S1 Tivo works only with Sky Digital just because it suits them to try to alter history in this kind of Stalinist manner.

Surely if they are going to take the trouble to call you they could at least have an adult conversation with you rather than one based on customer service lala land where they decide that blatant lieing and dishonesty are the only tactics they can think of to get rid of you.

Tivo's level of arrogant contempt for their UK customers is so great that if I were you I would now be thinking of producing a press release about your case to send to every UK journalist who writes about PVRs.

EDIT:- Just to add that this absurd phone call smacks of Tivo directors without the guts to do their own dirty work and who then hide behind well meaning but clearly unintelligent and unenquiring customer service staff who they then brief with a plethora of deliberate lies to try to justify their actions.


----------



## Pete77

DX30 said:


> I guess it is possible that BSkyB could have stopped supplying listings for the channels they own but that shouldn't stop the service entirely. Were BSkyB also supplying the listings for the Freeview or Virgin cable service? Even on Satellite most channels are not Sky owned so the idea that there is no other way for TiVo to get listings for e.g. the BBC or ITV channels doesn't seem credible.


Sorry but this is nonsense. The listings for the Sky branded channels on a Tivo do not come from Sky but from Tribune Media Services for all the channels.

They collect them in order to supply an EPG for lots of different products in the UK and elsewhere. Also many of the channels on a Virgin Media Tivo box are Sky One, Sky Two, Sky Sports News, Sky Sports 1, Sky Sports 2 etc, etc, etc. Sky have no control over what TMS chooses to deliver to Tivo in the way of EPG listings about their channels so far as I am aware.

Your mistake was clearly to believe that any part of the Tivo customer service person's call to rwtomkins was an accurate version of the facts.


----------



## DX30

Pete77 said:


> Sorry but this is nonsense. The listings for the Sky branded channels on a Tivo do not come from Sky but from Tribune Media Services for all the channels.


It's not nonsense. Where do you think Tribune get the listings for Sky owned channels from if not Sky?



Pete77 said:


> Your mistake was clearly to believe that any part of the Tivo customer service person's call to rwtomkins was an accurate version of the facts.


I do wish you'd stop telling me what I believe.

For the avoidance of doubt I merely said is it is possible for Sky to stop supplying listings for channels it owns, but that wouldn't affect the vast majority of channels even in the BSkyB package.


----------



## Pete77

The Tivo 2010 Annual Report at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NTExMzd8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1 may provide some useful information for the court:-

On Page 20:-



> TiVo was incorporated in August 1997 as a Delaware corporation and is located in Alviso, California. *In August of 2000, we
> formed a wholly owned subsidiary, TiVo (U.K.) Ltd., in the United Kingdom*. In October of 2001, we formed a subsidiary, TiVo
> International, Inc., a Delaware corporation. On January 12, 2004, we acquired Strangeberry, Inc., a small Palo Alto based technology
> company specializing in using home network and broadband technologies to create new entertainment experiences on television. On
> July 16, 2004, TiVo Intl. II, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of TiVo Inc., was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. On March 22,
> 2005, TiVo Brands LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of TiVo Inc., was incorporated in the State of Delaware.


And on page 21 under Risk Factors:-



> *Tribune is the sole supplier of the program guide data for the TiVo service. Tribune Media Services, Inc., or Tribune, is the
> current sole supplier of program guide data for the TiVo service. Our current Television Listings Data Agreement with Tribune
> became effective on May 14, 2007 and has an initial term of five years and with TiVo having the right to renew the agreement for four
> additional years. The agreement provides each party with a termination right if the other party becomes controlled by certain third
> parties. Tribune Media Services, along with their parent company, Tribune Co., filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 8, 2008. As
> a result, Tribune or Tribune Media Services, Inc. could reject the Television Listing Data Agreement and we would be left will an
> unsecured claim in Tribune's bankruptcy. If Tribune breaches its obligation to provide us with data, rejects the agreement or otherwise
> fails to perform its obligations under our agreement, we would be unable to provide certain aspects of the TiVo service to our
> customers until we are able to incorporate an alternate source of guide data.* Depending upon the amount of notice we receive of such
> a breach or rejection of our agreement, and the amount of development work required by us to incorporate an alternate source of guide
> data, we may be subject to a period of time in which we are unable to provide the TiVo service to our customers and distribution
> partners. In such an event, our business would be harmed.


----------



## Pete77

DX30 said:


> For the avoidance of doubt I merely said is it is possible for Sky to stop supplying listings for channels it owns, but that wouldn't affect the vast majority of channels even in the BSkyB package.


But you ignore the fact that most Sky channels also exist in the Virgin Media EPG so if Sky stopped supplying EPG data to Tribune for their own brand channels then Virgin Media would not be at all happy about it and indeed might be inclined to rush straight off to the Competition Commission or Office of Fair Trading to complain about the matter.

I think what you are failing to do is to not judge the comments made about the Sky listings by the Tivo person in the context of the reliability of the conversation as whole. Since the conversation contained numerous other wild inaccuracies such as claims that Tivo is currently in a position to license its service to other UK television platforms then why would one take any part of the claims made by this Tivo person seriously.

I haven't spent years dealing with customer service departments not to be able to spot a load of made up on the spur of the moment lies designed to fob off a customer's complaint.


----------



## DX30

Pete, please read what I actually posted rather than inventing things I didn't say and then disagreeing with them.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> Which bit of "exclusive" in the Virgin deal did he not understand?


We don't know how long the exclusivity clause is for. I doubt the word 'lifetime' appears in the agreement. 

As for the BSkyB claptrap, TiVo have misunderstood or misrepresented their partnership with Sky from the very beginning. Look at the agreement change last December, where they refer to S1 users as 'BSkyB subscribers'. Not hard from there for someone in Alviso to conflate the ending of the customer service agreement to include EPG services.

Anyway, it's something else for the conspiracy theorists to mull over. Can't wait for the next episode.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> Look at the agreement change last December, where they refer to S1 users as 'BSkyB subscribers'. Not hard from there for someone in Alviso to conflate the ending of the customer service agreement to include EPG services.


There are longstanding members of senior marketing staff at Tivo Inc like Bob Pony (aka TivoPony in the forum) who are well aware of precisely what the Tivo S1 Service in the UK involved. Are we really saying that new brooms at senior level at Tivo (eg Joshua Danovitz) have swept their accurate knowledge aside in favour of a distorted version of history of the UK Series 1 Tivo that is politically expedient in terms of the new UK deal that they have now signed with Virgin Media.

Even if gung ho corporate ethos means they must now try to believe these lies themselves surely they don't believe someone who is taking the trouble to sue them for reneging on the original deal with customers to believe these lies?

One would have hoped that the person who telephoned rwtomkins might at least have read this forum thread before bothering to do so but it seems self evident that they could not possible have done so in view of their line of conversation.

*EDIT:-* The last Google reference that I can find to Tivo Director of Product Marketing, Bob Pony, is in 2009 so I wonder if a load of the original Tivo old guard have now left the company and the newcomers like Joshua Danovitz really have no idea at all what the Tivo S1 service was all about and/or the range of different television platforms that it can support?


----------



## afrokiwi

rwtomkins said:


> ..... and (b) that in the meantime it also wanted to help UK customers who were not signed up to the Virgin service as far as it could and to that end would in the next week or so be posting an FAQ on its own website giving advice to UK customers who were looking for ways of keeping their TiVo boxes going after the TiVo service expired.
> 
> .....
> 
> .


Oh the irony if they were to give ALTEPG as an alternative


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> There are longstanding members of senior marketing staff at Tivo Inc like Bob Pony (aka TivoPony in the forum) who are well aware of precisely what the Tivo S1 Service in the UK involved. Are we really saying that new brooms at senior level at Tivo (eg Joshua Danovitz) have swept their accurate knowledge aside in favour of a distorted version of history of the UK Series 1 Tivo that is politically expedient in terms of the new UK deal that they have now signed with Virgin Media.


I don't know what 'we' are saying (you clearly like speaking for other people) but what *I* am saying is that *to me* it doesn't look as deliberate a conspiracy as you and others are making it out to be. You are reading too much into what RWT reported. The person he spoke to was most probably misinformed, no more no less. No conspiracies, no 'corporate lies' IMHO. That doesn't make what he said defensible, he should have done his research better before picking up the phone.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> That doesn't make what he said defensible, he should have done his research better before picking up the phone.


On that point I would most certainly agree with you.

As to why they were not better informed my own personal theory would be that they were a customer services person because management in large companies tends to always hide behind customer services for all customer communication but the job does not usually tend to attract very well informed or knowledgeable employees because of the passive and reactive nature of the role these staff are asked to perform.

If Tivo had genuinely wanted to influence rwtomkins not to proceed with this legal action then Joshua Danovitz himself ought in my opinion to have made the phone call.


----------



## Heuer

The risk factor quoted says _"Our current Television Listings Data Agreement with Tribune became effective on May 14, 2007 and has an initial term of five years and with TiVo having the right to renew the agreement for four additional years."_

Does that mean the service will actually cease on 12th May 2012 which is why we can still get EPG data? Presumably Tribune have been paid until that date so no skin off their nose if they keep the service running.


----------



## Pete77

Heuer said:


> Does that mean the service will actually cease on 12th May 2012 which is why we can still get EPG data? Presumably Tribune have been paid until that date so no skin off their nose if they keep the service running.


I wouldn't have thought so as (a) Virgin will still need Tivo to be supplied with a UK EPG by TMS after that date for their Tivo product and (b) if the 12th May 2012 date was relevant we wouldn't have received notice of Tivo's intention to terminate the service on 1st June 2011.


----------



## AMc

Pete77 said:


> I wouldn't have thought so as (a) Virgin will still need Tivo to be supplied with a UK EPG by TMS after that date for their Tivo product and (b) if the 12th May 2012 date was relevant we wouldn't have received notice of Tivo's intention to terminate the service on 1st June 2011.


Virgin must have had and continue to need a listings feed for their standard and V+ boxes. This will need to have included series link data since they launched the TVDrive years ago. AFAIK there has been no change to their standard STB set up in ages.

What leads you to believe they're using the old Tivo S1 data over using the existing listings service they were already paying for and making basing new Virgin Tivo EPG off that?


----------



## Pete77

AMc said:


> What leads you to believe they're using the old Tivo S1 data over using the existing listings service they were already paying for and making basing new Virgin Tivo EPG off that?


I have no idea what Virgin's EPG arrangements are for their non Tivo boxes. It is the previously confirmed fact that Virgin Media are sourcing EPG data from TMS via Tivo for the Virgin Tivo that I was referring to.

Tivo's job is to process the raw data (a UK EPG feed from TMS with the Metadata) in to whatever file format each client requires. My assumption is that the raw EPG data feed from TMS continues over to Tribune unchanged and is then processed in to one or more data files compatible with any UK Tivo machines.

As our networked S1 Tivos continue to find files to collect it is not completely impossible the S1 and S4 Tivos use the same data format although as the S4 Tivo also offers catchup tv and on demand stuff etc I can't say that this is completely likely. However the live UK EPG listings could be just one file that a Virgin Tivo uses and it may then have other data files sources for Catchup tv and on demand stuff that may come from Tivo/Tribune or may be sourced internally within Virgin.

All I am trying to do is look at possible reasons why the UK S1 data files remain available to be collected even though Tivo said there would be no service available after June 1st. I realise that this apparently seems to go against the grain for those of you who are probably dutiful and loyal large company employees who just wait to be spoon fed those hard facts with evidence that your employer chooses to make available to you whilst apparently not questioning or speculating about any matters that your employer chooses to keep you in the dark about.


----------



## Trinitron

Heuer said:


> The risk factor quoted says _"Our current Television Listings Data Agreement with Tribune became effective on May 14, 2007 and has an initial term of five years and with TiVo having the right to renew the agreement for four additional years."_
> 
> Does that mean the service will actually cease on 12th May 2012 which is why we can still get EPG data? Presumably Tribune have been paid until that date so no skin off their nose if they keep the service running.


That agreement covers US listings as well, so expect it to continue to 2016. Their first agreement was a one-year rolling deal that started in 1998. What isn't so clear is how the agreement with Virgin works, as the press releases in January were pretty explicit about TMS supplying VM with entertainment data, not TiVo yet TiVo are still having UK listings supplied to their servers. The next TMS or TiVo financial reports may shed some light on this.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> What isn't so clear is how the agreement with Virgin works, as the press releases in January were pretty explicit about TMS supplying VM with entertainment data, not TiVo yet TiVo are still having UK listings supplied to their servers. The next TMS or TiVo financial reports may shed some light on this.


Its a commercial agreement that TMS EPG data can be used on Virgin Media Tivos but perhaps what is not made clear in the press release (since unlike various other contracts between Tivo and TMS no version of that contract can yet be found online even if you are prepared to pay to access it) is that Tivo is almost certainly involved in the loop as a conduit to reprocess the TMS data in to a format suitable for an S4 Tivo and that can be collected from Tivo's servers by an S4 Tivo.

This is probably covered somewhere in the agreement that Virgin Media also have directly with Tivo for the use of their proprietary Tivo software and other related technology on their Virgin Media boxes. Also don't forget that everything about TMS has been in a state of flux for a long time due to the uncertainty caused by the Chapter 11 bankrupty protection.

However it seems that TMS's restructuring is finally reaching completion given this press release issued by the company only three days ago:-

See http://corporate.tribune.com/pressroom/?p=3134


----------



## TCM2007

Trinitron said:


> Look at the agreement change last December, where they refer to S1 users as 'BSkyB subscribers'.


I think that's just their internal term for us, because the payments etc would have come to TiVo from BSkyB who took the orders.


----------



## rwtomkins

Maybe the five-year deal with Tribune explains why they kept the UK TiVo service going so long? They'd paid for it anyway so maybe they thought they may as well go on supplying it rather than rock the boat by cutting it off. At least, until the Virgin deal came along. 

Pete77, thank you for pointing out the flaws in TiVo's version of events. I don't see a need though to get angry with the poor chap who delivered this information to me - I agree with Trinitron that he was probably just badly briefed. It does seem odd how TiVo seems convinced that we are all BSkyB customers, even to the extent of putting it on our T&Cs. It seems to be a view that's taken hold within TiVo and yes, perhaps all the people who know different have left.

afrokiwi, you said how ironical it would be if they offered AltEPG as an alternative service but I think that's precisely what they have in mind. We'll soon see, if the promised FAQ appears. What I have to decide now is what would be enough to make me drop the claim. The promised FAQ seems a good start - the first thing is, they need to acknowledge, and start talking to, their UK customers, and they seem prepared to do that. I certainly don't want a grovelling apology but it would be nice if they simply expressed regret that the UK TiVo service had ended. The big question then is what they do to help keep UK customers' TiVo boxes working. As a lifetime subscriber I'd be happy with anything that didn't involve further spending, that had a reasonable life expectancy, that was a satisfactory substitute for the TiVo service and had TiVo's official approval and support. Is that expecting too much? What would you want?

Meanwhile I'll get back to the TiVo person and correct him on his "facts"!


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> Meanwhile I'll get back to the TiVo person and correct him on his "facts"!


Whilst it is certainly charitable of you to suggest the chap who called you was badly briefed I would be inclined to suggest that this was a mission only worth Tivo bothering with in the first place if the person who called you was in possession of the full facts of the matter.

If I was you I would be inclined to pen an email to Joshua Danovitz saying it was awfully nice of his messenger to call you but that in view of the import of this matter and the significance of the issue to Tivo's corporate good name in the UK that you would very much appreciate a chance to discuss this matter with the head organ grinder responsible for the new deal with Virgin Media.

Perhaps you could also say that the resolution you are seeking is for Tivo to renegotiate with Virgin Media so the the Exclusive arrangement is only in respect of new UK Tivos and not ones that were sold between eight and eleven years ago and that you believe these can still be supported for EPG data supply by Tivo without it damaging Virgin Media's exclusive proposition on new Tivo units. If that were to happen then you would happily withdraw your existing claim against Tivo.


----------



## Trinitron

I vote for 

(b) None of the above.

Pete, this is a claim in the small claims track of the County Court, not a winding up order against TiVo, Inc. If you want to speak to Mr Danowitz in person, why don't you put up your own claim instead of pontificating about what someone else should do? Or get on a plane to San Jose and find your way to Gold Street. I'm sure we could organise a whip-round for the fare.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> Pete, this is a claim in the small claims track of the County Court, not a winding up order against TiVo, Inc.


But since Tivo UK Ltd proudly reports that it has no assets or cash at bank it may well turn out to cause a winding up order against that Tivo subsidiary in due course.

Or at least that would be the easy way out paying any future claims assuming that Virgin Media's contract is directly with Tivo Inc and not with Tivo UK............


----------



## dmeldrum

Pete77 said:


> But since Tivo UK Ltd proudly reports that it has no assets or cash at bank it may well turn out to cause a winding up order against that Tivo subsidiary in due course.
> 
> Or at least that would be the easy way out paying any future claims assuming that Virgin Media's contract is directly with Tivo Inc and not with Tivo UK............


You can't wind up a dormant company, and there is no point in attempting to do so. Winding up is about distributing any remaining assets - there are none.

Clearly Virgin have a contract with TiVo Inc. Since TiVo UK is a dormant company.


----------



## dmeldrum

Pete77 said:


> I wouldn't have thought so as (a) Virgin will still need Tivo to be supplied with a UK EPG by TMS after that date for their Tivo product and (b) if the 12th May 2012 date was relevant we wouldn't have received notice of Tivo's intention to terminate the service on 1st June 2011.


You constantly misunderstand the relationships between Virgin, Tribune and TiVo.

TiVo have supplied the set top box software to Virgin. TiVo have also supplied the backend server based software for Virgin to run the service. Virgin get the Epg data direct from Tribune. TiVo have no involvement in the day to day provision of the Virgin service.

If TiVo were to cease trading tomorrow and switch off all of their servers, Virgin would be unaffected. The only impact would be that they would not receive any further software updates.

This appears to be the trading model that TiVo want going forward. TiVo are changing from a full service provider to a specialist software house.


----------



## Pete77

dmeldrum said:


> You constantly misunderstand the relationships between Virgin, Tribune and TiVo.
> 
> TiVo have supplied the set top box software to Virgin. TiVo have also supplied the backend server based software for Virgin to run the service. Virgin get the Epg data direct from Tribune. TiVo have no involvement in the day to day provision of the Virgin service.
> 
> If TiVo were to cease trading tomorrow and switch off all of their servers, Virgin would be unaffected. The only impact would be that they would not receive any further software updates.


And how do you know in such great technical detail the precise manner in which Tribune, Virgin Media and Tivo interact with one another? Especially when the contract between Tribune and Tivo has never been published to the world at large.

Do you work for one of these companies by any chance?


----------



## michael401

dmeldrum said:


> TiVo have also supplied the backend server based software *for Virgin to run the service.*


Is that true - I haven't seen that written anywhere?

(I mean I am aware that VM have a contract with TMS to supply the data but I didn't realize that VM were actually running and managing the guide data server)


----------



## Pete77

michael401 said:


> (I mean I am aware that VM have a contract with TMS to supply the data but I didn't realize that VM were actually running and managing the guide data server)


Quite Right. It hasn't been written anywhere even by a journalist as speculation.

That is why I asked dmeldrum where he worked since he seems to know exactly what is going on behind the scenes.


----------



## GarySargent

Surely all you need is the IP address the virgin box connects to, and then see if it is owned by TiVo or Virgin.


----------



## TCM2007

I would imagine it would be an address on Virgin's internal network, for reasons of robustness. If you were VM you wouldn't want you whole system to be reliant on an externally hosted 3rd party server.

The fact that the EPG is supplied by Tribune to Virgin, not Tivo, is in the public domain; the press release has been linked to many times.

That the TiVo service is hosted by Virgin is not public domain, but if you were VM's IT manager charged with keeping the vital EPG running to VM's subscribers, what would you do?


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> And how do you know in such great technical detail the precise manner in which Tribune, Virgin Media and Tivo interact with one another? Especially when the contract between Tribune and Tivo has never been published to the world at large.


Are you asking him to produce evidence to back up his claim? 

Something you have consistently failed to do when your assertions have been questioned.



> Do you work for one of these companies by any chance?


----------



## AMc

Pete77 said:


> AMc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virgin must have had and continue to need a listings feed for their standard and V+ boxes. This will need to have included series link data since they launched the TVDrive years ago. AFAIK there has been no change to their standard STB set up in ages.
> 
> What leads you to believe they're using the old Tivo S1 data over using the existing listings service they were already paying for and making basing new Virgin Tivo EPG off that?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what Virgin's EPG arrangements are for their non Tivo boxes. It is the previously confirmed fact that Virgin Media are sourcing EPG data from TMS via Tivo for the Virgin Tivo that I was referring to.
Click to expand...

I know you've said it a lot Pete - I was wondering where it was confirmed as fact?


----------



## AMc

rwtomkins - Now that Tivo have closed accounts on networked Tivos (an unauthorised mod I know) and left them bricked rather than just running out the EPG I'd like to wish you my whole hearted best wishes on your day in court.
What an arrogant and unnecessary thing to do!


----------



## Trinitron

Arrogant but simple IMHO. Much easier to reset the database entries to 'Account Closed' than send a software update to remove the automatic locking built in to the software. 

At least they switched off the official phone line before closing accounts, so dialup users with unmodified boxes will not be in boat anchor mode until their EPG data runs out.

It's easy to un-brick a networked TiVo. See other threads on here and tivoland for how to do it.


----------



## rwtomkins

AMc said:


> rwtomkins - Now that Tivo have closed accounts on networked Tivos (an unauthorised mod I know) and left them bricked rather than just running out the EPG I'd like to wish you my whole hearted best wishes on your day in court.
> What an arrogant and unnecessary thing to do!


Thanks, AMc. While accepting what Trinitron says, it certainly doesn't make you want to love TiVo any more. The whole way they've gone about ending the service, you'd think their main aim was to alienate or even infuriate as many people as possible. It could so easily have been done with grace, leaving a fund of goodwill.


----------



## Trinitron

No, I agree with you about the lack of communication at the end of service. I may not agree entirely with your motives for doing it but at least you have put your money where your mouth is (so to speak), unlike some people here. For that you deserve respect and good wishes for your dealings with TiVo and the courts.


----------



## Steve_K

More stupidity from TiVo that weakens their legal position

Remember their strongest legal defence is their right to end "the TiVo Service"

Well here's an interesting _link on their own website_



> In which countries is the TiVo Service available? . .
> . .
> England


And when you click the link for "England" (yes they are that geographically stupid thinking England = UK - but I digress) you get _this link_ which has two legal problems for them

a) the main one is it admits "the TiVo Service" is now with Virgin. IE *this was a transfer *not a termination and their best defence is toast.

b) it tries to tell a false tale of how TiVo was only made available to BSkyB customers. Err no and a court hearing how TiVo have deliberately spread false information won't be very happy will it. Worse they have linked the recorder and service contracts so the claim goes back to £598.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> a court hearing how TiVo have deliberately spread false information won't be very happy will it. Worse they have linked the recorder and service contracts so the claim goes back to £598.


Admit it. You don't know much about how the legal system works, do you?


----------



## Steve_K

and your point is just what, that you do?

Well if so then show me your expertise by explaining just how it's impossible to pursue a claim against a defaulting offshore company that contracted under UK law

Failing that perhaps showing us all how you successfully sued that charm school your parents wasted money on would impress


FWIW my expertise is more in product liability and tort.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> show me your expertise by explaining just how it's impossible to pursue a claim against a defaulting offshore company that contracted under UK law


If I ever said that, I might try. But I didn't, because it's not so. One of the few things everyone appears to be agreed on is that TiVo agreements are under E&W jurisdiction and any attempt to change that is invalidated.

It's the tenuous thinking that you can ignore 8-10 years of service you have had out of a product based on sloppy terminology[1] that gets me. But we have been through that ad nauseum and don't need to go there again.

[1] Terms like 'UK law'. A bit like using 'BSkyB' when you mean something wider.


----------



## kitschcamp

(interesting thought... If it involves BSkyB, is that Scottish or English?)


----------



## Pete77

kitschcamp said:


> (interesting thought... If it involves BSkyB, is that Scottish or English?)


No its English and Welsh (the two countries have have one system of Company Law). BSkyB is legally headquartered in England despite the fact that it has a massive call centre and administration operation in Scotland (not to mention India to a lesser extent).


----------



## unitron

Is there anywhere a legal (i.e., part of the terms and conditions of one's contract with TiVo) prohibition of using a TiVo from one country in another country?

There doesn't seem to be anything in that DEC 2000 T&C (which says that it's a legally binding agreement with TiVo, Inc., and doesn't say it's with TiVo UK, and which says that the service is guaranteed for the lifetime of the recorder) that says that you and your lifetimed TiVo can't relocate to the US. If you did so, leaving aside the technical problems (solvable with suitable externally attached custom made set-top boxes and converters), would TiVo have any obligation to provide service just as it has to to all the US purchased lifetime subs?


----------



## rwtomkins

Trinitron said:


> No, I agree with you about the lack of communication at the end of service. I may not agree entirely with your motives for doing it but at least you have put your money where your mouth is (so to speak), unlike some people here. For that you deserve respect and good wishes for your dealings with TiVo and the courts.


Thank you, Trinitron, much appreciated.

Meanwhile... I just noticed that if you follow Steve_K's link to the TiVo page and click on the "England" link, you get to this page

http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/318

and if you then click on this link towards the bottom of the page

http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2068

it takes you to an FAQ for UK TiVo users (so-called BSkyB Customers).

I believe this is the FAQ that I was told about in the phone call from TiVo a few days ago since, if you click on the Details button, it appears to have been posted on 24 June 2011.

To be brutally frank it's not all that impressive, is it?


----------



## alek

rwtomkins said:


> To be brutally frank it's not all that impressive, is it?


I gave it two thumbs down

Alek


----------



## Trinitron

Not at all impressive, not least because they didn't even publicise it. 

And how do you get rid of the nag screens telling you there is no data?


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> Thank you, Trinitron, much appreciated.
> 
> Meanwhile... I just noticed that if you follow Steve_K's link to the TiVo page and click on the "England" link, you get to this page
> 
> http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/318
> 
> and if you then click on this link towards the bottom of the page
> 
> http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2068
> 
> it takes you to an FAQ for UK TiVo users (so-called BSkyB Customers).
> 
> I believe this is the FAQ that I was told about in the phone call from TiVo a few days ago since, if you click on the Details button, it appears to have been posted on 24 June 2011.
> 
> To be brutally frank it's not all that impressive, is it?


Nothing on either of those pages about how to keep the clock properly set, I see.


----------



## steveroe

I have submitted some choice feedback.


----------



## pemills

Anyone know what's happened to Tivoland.com the web site is down!! or at least I can't connect to it, has Tivo sent a hit squad in!!


----------



## Pete77

pemills said:


> Anyone know what's happened to Tivoland.com the web site is down!! or at least I can't connect to it, has Tivo sent a hit squad in!!


Its just down at the moment.

It has been working fine for most of the last few days.


----------



## GarySargent

Let's hope this claim doesn't backfire. If TiVo are as awful as some are claiming here, then they might get so pissed off with their old UK customers that they set legal procedings themselves - against AltEPG.

The fact that they are (it would appear) allowing this service to run and turn a blind eye is not goodwill then eh?


----------



## pemills

GarySargent said:


> Let's hope this claim doesn't backfire. If TiVo are as awful as some are claiming here, then they might get so pissed off with their old UK customers that they set legal procedings themselves - against AltEPG.
> 
> The fact that they are (it would appear) allowing this service to run and turn a blind eye is not goodwill then eh?


Thanks guy's I was starting to get paranoid, I for one are hoping that TiVo inc will turn a blind eye to our efforts to give our S1's a new lease of life, I'm not sure how the public a large would view it IF a 'Goliath' like TiVo tried to swat a 'David' like altEPG...... we all know how that story panned out


----------



## Pete77

pemills said:


> I'm not sure how the public a large would view it IF a 'Goliath' like TiVo tried to swat a 'David' like altEPG...... we all know how that story panned out


I don't think that Tivo would dare to or have any reason to start legal proceedings in the reverse direction given that they blatantly have completely walked away from 50% of Tivo S1 customers and reneged on Lifetime Service while many of the boxes were still functional as originally supplied and whilst they (Tivo) continue to provide Lifetime Service in the UK on newer boxes from Virgin.

I also don't think they would wish the nonsense line that they are now spinning about the S1 units being a product that was wholly reliant on Sky and its EPG to be subject to too much further public scrutiny.

When they have refused to even send a stock letter out in response to personal emails of complaint to senior Tivo executives and did not even send a final goodbye message out after the several message exhortations to buy a Virgin Tivo I am sure they would understand why some customers are unhappy enough to start legal proceedings against them. I also imagine they feel bad about having to dump half the UK S1 customers but are forced to do because those are the terms of the deal with Virgin including Virgin having a UK exclusive on EPG data in Tivo compatible format from Tribune Media Services.


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> whilst they (Tivo) continue to provide Lifetime Service in the UK on newer boxes from Virgin.


"Obviously" there's no lifetime service on the VM boxes:
a) you don't own the box
b) £3/month is on the bill even if there's a discount cancelling it out.
c) it'll not get service once you stop subscribing to VM

Plus the fact that we pay VM, not TiVo.


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> "Obviously" there's no lifetime service on the VM boxes:
> a) you don't own the box
> b) £3/month is on the bill even if there's a discount cancelling it out.
> c) it'll not get service once you stop subscribing to VM
> 
> Plus the fact that we pay VM, not TiVo.


Nonetheless there is still a Tivo with Tivo Service being distributed in the UK and it is Tivo who have chosen to not make the updated model available to customers not living in a Virgin Media cabled area and/or to cut off EPG service to the S1 Tivos whilst they still had a Tivo product being distributed and used within the UK.

The fact that Tivo do not offer Lifetime on the new boxes is irrelevant as that is an offer that has also ebbed and flowed in the USA depending on marketing conditions.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I don't think that Tivo would dare to or have any reason to start legal proceedings in the reverse direction given that {usual stuff}


Dare? Are you saying TiVo's frit? You keep claiming that are/have been/are about to be damaged by some massive amount of non existent publicity.

Reason? Because we've pissed them off. I'm sure you must have done something along those lines in your life.

All it would take is a cease and desist letter, they wouldn't need to go to court.


----------



## Wendell Pierce

I have four UK Tivo S1, two of which have Lifetime subscriptions, one has never been activated, and one which was never activated, and has recently stopped powering on.
I have no intention of claiming against Tivo but support the idea that UK Tivo Lifetime customers have been poorly served.
I will not be transferring to Virgin Media, I have SKY HD subscriptions.

I am wondering if now Tivo have closed the accounts of Lifetime subscribers, and disconnected access to the service they are now in breach of contract to Lifetime subscribers.
The point being Tivo FAQ states:
" Will my box need to remain connected via dial up or broadband in order to make its daily call to the TiVo Service?

No, now that the service is disconnected, your box will not need to make a daily call or remain connected to your broadband or phone line. "

So by their own reference the service still exists.

When I was sold my Tivos I had the option of paying monthly or choosing a Lifetime account. Admittedly back then I wrongly assumed it meant the life of my Tivo - only recently realising it actually meant the life of the service.

So if the service still exists - and my Lifetime status should allow access to the service with no subscription to pay - surely Tivo are acting wrongly to close UK Lifetime accounts. 

In my opinion Tivo have not done themselves credit acting this way. :down::down:


----------



## Heuer

Can't see how TiVo Inc can stop AltEPG as it does not infringe their copyright in any way. As TiVo owners we have the right to use the machines in perpetuity given we bought them not rented. Besides there is a similar service running in Oz from where the AltEPG guys received their help.

Just to rub salt in the wound though I would dearly like to get my hands on an AltEPG hacked S3 TiVo with HD. Possibly the next stage for TiVoland? My deposit is here and waiting guys!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Reason? Because we've pissed them off. I'm sure you must have done something along those lines in your life.


But you have to look at who started it.

They cut off the service using only System Messages designed as a Virgin Media marketing tool to make the announcement and then refused to send out even a courteous letter in response to numerous personal emails and letters of appeal from customers criticising their decision.

Also they didn't even provide a final software update to turn the boxes in to a useful hard drive based video recorder by disabling all the nag screens and Account closed screens and allowing you to define new channels.

If they try to sue a group of the original UK Tivo enthusiasts I am sure that would feed back on to the US forums and go down very badly with Tivo owners over there and Tivo know that. Of course all too predictably you suggest they might take such action just because of your longstanding view that companies can do whatever they like as long as they can find a smart lawyer to back their actions (usually relying on the we can revise the contract at any time to be whatever we want it to be clause that customers were blackmailed in to signing to obtain the product).

Oh and "cease and desist letters" are only of any use if the recipient actually ceases and desists in response to them However I'm pretty sure that in this case they would not.


----------



## TCM2007

I don't beleive that they will take any action, but I'm sure that both the creation of the AltEPG and using it, is in breach of the software license.



> Any attempt to disassemble, decompile, create derivative works of, reverse engineer, modify, sublicense, distribute or use for other purposes either the TiVo DVR or the software of the TiVo DVR is strictly prohibited


----------



## unitron

Wendell Pierce said:


> ...When I was sold my Tivos I had the option of paying monthly or choosing a Lifetime account. Admittedly back then I wrongly assumed it meant the life of my Tivo - only recently realising it actually meant the life of the service...


I think the latest spin is that lifetime is for the lifetime of the box as long as they are offering the service, or weasel words to that effect.

Interestingly, the part of the TiVo Service Agreement on the US website dealing with lifetime says the sub remains with the box for the lifetime of the box, but doesn't mention anything about "unless we discontinue the service", although I'm a little suspicious of their use of the phrase "Product Lifetime Subscription" instead of "Product Lifetime Service", which is what it says on the System Information page on the TiVo account status line.



> 14. Product Lifetime Subscriptions. A "Product Lifetime Subscription" to the TiVo service covers the life of the TiVo DVR you buy  not the life of the subscriber. The Product Lifetime Subscription accompanies the TiVo DVR in case of ownership transfer. The subscription remains in effect if the TiVo DVR needs to be repaired or replaced due to a malfunction (see manufacturer or retailer warranty details) or even if you upgrade your TiVo DVR to increase storage capacity (though such upgrades, if not performed by TiVo or a TiVo-authorized third party, will void the warranty on your TiVo DVR and constitute a breach of this Agreement). Because a Product Lifetime Subscription is linked to a particular TiVo DVR, you may not transfer it to any other TiVo DVR unless all the following conditions apply: (a) the TiVo DVR is being replaced pursuant to the manufacturer's or retailer's warranty; and (b) the TiVo DVR being replaced is of the same make and model as the replacement TiVo DVR; and (c) you provide us with a proof of replacement by the manufacturer or retailer. TiVo reserves the right to charge you a fee to transfer Product Lifetime Service from a TiVo DVR being replaced to a replacement TiVo DVR. Each TiVo DVR purchased requires its own TiVo service subscription and activation. Of course, hardware products don't last forever and their lifespan will vary. TiVo makes no warranties or representations as to the expected lifetime of the TiVo DVR (aside from the manufacturer's or retailer's warranty).


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I don't beleive that they will take any action, but I'm sure that both the creation of the AltEPG and using it, is in breach of the software license.


You are ignoring the first rule of litigation.

Namely that litigation is long, tortous and debilitating so that people only usually litigate if they see a major positive financial benefit for the victorious party.

A judge would not be impressed about Tivo litigating about something that does not appear to be causing them any real financial loss and instead seems to be intended only to prevent a Tivo box continuing to fulfil its only purpose in life as an advanced television program recorder that Tivo no longer wishes to sell its own EPG service for even though it could have gone on doing so had it wanted to.


----------



## TCM2007

No, you are ignoring the first rule of litigation; that litigation is long, tortuous etc, so people will go out of their way to avoid it. I would be surprised if the AltEpG team has the resources to defend any action.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> No, you are ignoring the first rule of litigation; that litigation is long, tortuous etc, so people will go out of their way to avoid it. I would be surprised if the AltEpG team has the resources to defend any action.


But you are ignoring that Tivo will not want all their dirty linen in terms of whatever they agreed to with Virgin about shutting down Lifetime Service on the S1 machines to be washed in public.

The fact they don't want to talk in public about their deal with Virgin is made clear by their stony silence in response to all letters of complaint from UK Series 1 Tivo owners on the subject.

The only people who actually have a potentially logical reason to litigate against the AltEPG are the owners of the EPG data it is currently using and they are not either Tivo, Virgin Media or Tribune Media Services. However the hobby use of various EPGs in this way by MediaPortal and other software is long established and as long as it does not appear to be losing the copyright owners big bucks on sales they might otherwise make then the chances are they won't resort to legal action. As Tivo owners are clearly a bunch of techno-dinosauars who will eventually die out it obviously isn't worth it.

If you are concerned that litigation is the likely outcome then I am surprised that a successful and ambitious corporate executive such as yourself would ever have wished to be seen to be publicly linked with a project of this kind.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But you are ignoring that Tivo will not want all their dirty linen in terms of whatever they agreed to with Virgin about shutting down Lifetime Service on the S1 machines to be washed in public.


You miss my point. AltEPG has no money, so would concede before anything ever came to any court.



> If you are concerned that litigation is the likely outcome then I am surprised that a successful and ambitious corporate executive such as yourself would ever have wished to be seen to be publicly linked with a project of this kind.


I'm not concerned, as I said earlier.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> You miss my point. AltEPG has no money, so would concede before anything ever came to any court.


What are Tivo going to sue for when the existence of the AltEPG isn't costing them any money. In fact it may be saving them money hence why they have been keen to informally disclose certain facts about their long term plans to Dave at Tivoland.

Also AltEPG in principle has no formal corporate existence so who is there to take action against. Although in practice AltEPG might be seen as being a product of Tivoland (which is itself not a limited company but only a sole trader to the best of my knowledge). No doubt this is why Dave was keen to reach some some sort of agreement with Tivo that is subject to the infamous Non Disclosure Agreement before he embarked on acting as the lynchpin for the creation of the AltEPG service.

The real legal issues could actually arise with the source EPG data. For that reason I hope that AltEPG is in a position to switch its XML data source in fairly short order without too much disruption of the AltEPG service.

The other most likely party to actually take legal action could be Virgin who might object to non Virgin Media sourced Tivos continuing to operate within the Virgin Media area with free data hence at least theoretically depriving them of potential new sales of Virgin Media Tivos. Esoecially in the case of S1 Tivos being used with a Virgin Media based EPG lineup including the Virgin Media channel numbers. I could see the AltEPG potentially being pressurised in to longer supporting the Virgin Media EPG lineup for that reason.

In any case I really don't think we ought to be having these kinds of discussions on a public forum and so am surprised that you have encouraged this line of debate.


----------



## Steve_K

Have to agree per se TCM but there's an obvious defence for AltEPG. 

They just say "ah but we (without prejudice to other users rights) accept your change of law to be USA so sue us there then. Of course (a) we have no assets there and (b) you are aware of the USA law on "fair use" re Sega v. Accolade aren't you? So run along then Darth TiVo don't waste your money"


----------



## GarySargent

Pete77 said:


> As Tivo owners are clearly a bunch of techno-dinosauars who will eventually die out it obviously isn't worth it.


Yes Pete - probably the same conclusion TiVo came to when deciding whether or not to carry on the TiVo service for S1 users!


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> What are Tivo going to sue for when the existence of the AltEPG isn't costing them any money.


For someone so cynical, you can be very naive.



> The real legal issues could actually arise with the source EPG data. For that reason I hope that AltEPG is in a position to switch its XML data source in fairly short order without too much disruption of the AltEPG service.


The source used is cleared for non commercial use, but yes, the source can be switched.



> The other most likely party to actually take legal action could be Virgin who might object to non Virgin Media sourced Tivos continuing to operate within the Virgin Media area with free data hence at least theoretically depriving them of potential new sales of Virgin Media Tivos.


On what grounds might Virgin take legal action? There is no contract or commercial relationship between any of us and Virgin. You can't sue someone for doing something that costs you money, or all business in the UK would grind to a halt suing its competitors! Naive, as I said.



> In any case I really don't think we ought to be having these kinds of discussions on a public forum and so am surprised that you have encouraged this line of debate.


Yet you continue to discuss!


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> On what grounds might Virgin take legal action? There is no contract or commercial relationship between any of us and Virgin. You can't sue someone for doing something that costs you money, or all business in the UK would grind to a halt suing its competitors! Naive, as I said.


Virgin Media might take legal action against Tivo on the grounds of their contract with them that says Tivo is now an EPG interface and television recorder system that is their exclusive property in the United Kingdom for the defined period of the agreement.

This then forces Tivo to take legal action against the AltEPG. QED.



> Yet you continue to discuss!


You are the one who is suggesting litigation by Tivo is likely hence why I am surprised that you are now so keen to encourage it in the number one thread in the forum about legal action against Tivo that every senior Tivo executive in Alviso is bound to be subscribed to.

Your position in being an active operative of the guerilla AltEPG project (unlike me) and then saying the AltEPG is going to have the pants sued off it by Tivo is somewhat contradictory. I therefore can only presume that you took out every possible policy going to cover your legal expenses before you decided to make posts on the forum deliberately designed to bate Tivo to sue you and your fellow AltEPG co-conspirators.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Virgin Media might take legal action against Tivo on the grounds of their contract with them that says Tivo is now an EPG interface and television recorder system that is their exclusive property in the United Kingdom for the defined period of the agreement.
> 
> This then forces Tivo to take legal action against the AltEPG. QED.


Your "understanding" of the legal system never fails to amuse.



> You are the one who is suggesting litigation by Tivo is likely


I said the opposite, in fact. You could try reading the posts.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I said the opposite, in fact. You could try reading the posts.


Why not admit that you just enjoy bating people (especially myself) by deliberately playing Devils Advocate on the forum due to presumably finding life in your office or at home provides insufficient entertainment for you at the present time.

Tivo signed a contract with Virgin Media saying they now have an exclusive on the Tivo brand and operating system in the UK for x years. Tivo's S1 customers are continuing to breach that agreement by Tivo with Virgin through creating their own EPG to ensure continued use of the S1 boxes even in Virgin Media's own cabled area. Tivo may therefore have a contractual obligation with Virgin to take legal action to stop that happening. Go figure its surely not that difficult.

I note that as you don't any longer operate a Tivo yourself you seem to lack the legitimate reason that the rest of us have for posting here and are in danger of becoming the new Carl Waring of the Tivo S1 section of the Tivocommunity forum.


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> Tivo signed a contract with Virgin Media saying they now have an exclusive on the Tivo brand and operating system in the UK for x years.


Depends on the exact wording (as ever)

Exclusive could just refer to current products - the S1 hadn't been sold for 8 years, 
and so long as no new subscriptions were sold, tivo may not have been in breach. 
But it's all speculation.

IMO TiVo kept a presence (S1 service) in the UK until there was another available (virgin).


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> Depends on the exact wording (as ever)
> 
> Exclusive could just refer to current products - the S1 hadn't been sold for 8 years, and so long as no new subscriptions were sold, tivo may not have been in breach.
> 
> But it's all speculation.


Then why have we S1 customers been summarily cut off at almost exactly the same time that Tivo went live to the main existing Virgin Media customer base?

Also in my experience the outcome of litigation is dependent not just on the actual wording of the contract but also on how expensive a lawyer you can afford to employ to have the contract interpreted in your favour by the court.

Unless both parties can afford an equally high powered top solicitor and barrister the court's decision often doesn't properly reflect the true interpretation of the wording of the contract.


----------



## alek

Pete77 said:


> Why not admit that you just enjoy bating people (especially myself) by deliberately playing Devils Advocate on the forum due to presumably finding life in your office or at home provides insufficient entertainment for you at the present time.
> 
> Tivo signed a contract with Virgin Media saying they now have an exclusive on the Tivo brand and operating system in the UK for x years. Tivo's S1 customers are continuing to breach that agreement by Tivo with Virgin through creating their own EPG to ensure continued use of the S1 boxes even in Virgin Media's own cabled area. Tivo may therefore have a contractual obligation with Virgin to take legal action to stop that happening. Go figure its surely not that difficult.
> 
> I note that as you don't any longer operate a Tivo yourself you seem to lack the legitimate reason that the rest of us have for posting here and are in danger of becoming the new Carl Waring of the Tivo S1 section of the Tivocommunity forum.


I've been wondering for a while now, so I am going to come right out and ask.

Pete what colour is the sun on your planet.

Alek


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> Then why have we S1 customers been summarily cut off at almost exactly the same time that Tivo went live to the main existing Virgin Media customer base?


One possibility is the bit you didn't quote:


mikerr said:


> IMO TiVo kept a presence (S1 service) in the UK until there was another available (virgin).


----------



## Pete77

mikerr said:


> One possibility is the bit you didn't quote:


I don't think so as otherwise they might have listened when 50% of their UK customers pointed out that they did not have the option to migrate to Virgin Media.

From the way in which Tivo have refused to justify or explain their decision or tried to blame it on their previous relationship with Sky I am perfectly sure that they cannot go on suporting the S1 Tivos due to a contractual restriction they entered in to with Virgin Media.

But perhaps you are in that rare 1% of the population who also believes that MPs take their job out of their patriotism towards the country rather than in order to derive the maximum possible benefit for their own career and finances?


----------



## ash10

Pete77 said:


> Why not admit that you just enjoy bating people...


Wow, just wow


----------



## unitron

alek said:


> I've been wondering for a while now, so I am going to come right out and ask.
> 
> Pete what colour is the sun on your planet.
> 
> Alek


Why do you assume the existance of only one?

What I want to know is how many moons and if it has rings.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Why not admit that you just enjoy bating people (especially myself) by deliberately playing Devils Advocate on the forum due to presumably finding life in your office or at home provides insufficient entertainment for you at the present time.


Or you could of gone for "sorry, you're quite right, you did say you didn't think it would happen". Whichever you prefer.



> Tivo signed a contract with Virgin Media saying they now have an exclusive on the Tivo brand and operating system in the UK for x years. Tivo's S1 customers are continuing to breach that agreement by Tivo with Virgin through creating their own EPG to ensure continued use of the S1 boxes even in Virgin Media's own cabled area. Tivo may therefore have a contractual obligation with Virgin to take legal action to stop that happening. Go figure its surely not that difficult.


It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that VM insisted on a having a clause along the lines of "TiVo will take all possible actions to ensure S1 TiVos are put beyond use even with a home grown EPG, especially that Pete77 guy's, he's right pain.".

But it seems broadly unlikely they'd have bothered.

And it would have to have been specifically put in the contract, as an exclusive sales agreement has no automatic implication of anything like that.

"Tivo's S1 customers are continuing to breach that agreement" - you really don't get this stuff do you? TiVo's S1 customers have no agreement with VM to breach.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I
> But perhaps you are in that rare 1% of the population who also believes that MPs take their job out of their patriotism towards the country rather than in order to derive the maximum possible benefit for their own career and finances?


I'm in that "1%". I've met quite a few MPs, all of which are primarily "in it" out of sense of public duty. I'm not surprised you take the conspiracy view though, that's very in charachter.


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> I don't think so as otherwise they might have listened when 50% of their UK customers pointed out that they did not have the option to migrate to Virgin Media.


S1's may have been "available to 100%", but they only ever had a measly 40,000 units at its peak..

Want to bet there's many more than that VM TiVos in use already ? 
VM have stated they want to use TiVo as the default middleware on all their boxes eventually (4 million)

It's all about total subscriber numbers.


----------



## TCM2007

Other statements in forums from VM staffers suggest that they really didn't want to offer any deals to S1 users at all, but TiVo insisted. Which makes it unlikely that VM saw S1 owners as a significant upgrade path.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Other statements in forums from VM staffers suggest that they really didn't want to offer any deals to S1 users at all, but TiVo insisted. Which makes it unlikely that VM saw S1 owners as a significant upgrade path.


But makes it all the more likely that they did not want Tivo S1 owners cut off as an inconvenient historical memory that Tivo had been in the UK before and that this was not an entirely new UK product launch by Virgin.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> TiVo's S1 customers have no agreement with VM to breach.


But Tivo do have such an agreement with Virgin Media and the actions of the AltEPG are allowing S1 Tivos to continue to be used with other tv platforms than Virgin contrary to the agreement Virgin thought they had with Tivo that they now had a UK exclusive on use of Tivo's proprietary software in the UK. AltEPG also allows the Virgin Media tv package to be recorded on Tivos not supplied by Virgin without paying the Virgin Tivo monthly fee.

I'm sure there is probably something in the Tivo S1 contract somewhere that forbids their continued use with any non Tivo EPG.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But makes it all the more likely that they did not want Tivo S1 owners cut off as an inconvenient historical memory that Tivo had been in the UK before and that this was not an entirely new UK product launch by Virgin.


I can't work out what you mean by that paragraph.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But Tivo do have such an agreement with Virgin Media


Yes, but that's not what you said.



> I'm sure there is probably something in the Tivo S1 contract somewhere that forbids their continued use with any non Tivo EPG.


Yes, pretty sure I quoted it earlier on. You're not actually reading the posts are you?


----------



## mikerr

Pete77 said:


> I'm sure there is probably something in the Tivo S1 contract somewhere that forbids their continued use with any non Tivo EPG.


So you if you break the contract by using altEPG - then TiVo could terminate your contract and service - oh wait....


----------



## TCM2007

mikerr said:


> So you if you break the contract by using altEPG - then TiVo could terminate your contract and service - oh wait....


Well technically you'd then be in breach of the software license, so they would have whatever recourse that gives them. Being able to insist it's removed from your HD presumably. I do say "technically"; so that Pete understands, I don't think it's likely.


----------



## OzSat

*A number of Ot and/or offensive posts have been remove. Please keep posts on-topic and personal comments/attacks away from this forum!*


----------



## rwtomkins

Thanks very much for re-opening the thread, OzSat. Much appreciated. 

I can now give you another quick update. Today, leaving it until the very last moment, TiVo's lawyers apparently entered their defence. I only know this because I can check the status of my claim online. So I haven't actually seen their defence yet - it will come to me in the next day or two through the post. They also said they were going to contest the court's jurisdiction but I won't know whether they've actually done this until I see their defence.

I still haven't got around to e-mailing the TiVo staff member who phoned me a week or so ago. Just to get my facts straight, can someone remind me what happened at the beginning of the TiVo UK saga in respect of BSkyB? I dimly recall that TiVo had some kind of business arrangement with BSkyB but it turned very sour, possibly because BSkyB launched its own rival product in the form of the Sky box, and it was soon after that that TiVo gave up on the UK. However it does seem that even afterwards BSkyB was providing customer services as a subcontractor to TiVo, right up until a few weeks ago, which seems odd if relations were that bad.


----------



## DX30

In 2000 TiVo and BSkyB reached an agreement to market TiVo in the UK

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/...et-to-launch-in-uk-with-bskyb/1191562.article

Shortly after Thomson came on board to manufacture the hardware

http://www.e-repair.co.uk/story21.htm

Later on BSkyB took a stake in TiVo

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-us-personal-video-box-group-tivo-751715.html

In 2002 Thomson ceased manufacture of TiVo hardware and BSkyB ceased TiVo marketing in the UK.

BSkyB continued to provide customer support and manage monthly subscriptions up until late 2010.


----------



## TCM2007

The stake was in lieu of cash TiVo owed Sky, a deal done at the point TiVo was winding up it's UK operations.


----------



## drgeoff

rwtomkins said:


> ........
> 
> I still haven't got around to e-mailing the TiVo staff member who phoned me a week or so ago. Just to get my facts straight, ......


That TiVo was only available to BSkyB customers is a falsehood on at least four accounts:

1. The UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional using the inbuilt tuner with terrestrial analogue channels.

2. The UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional with Freeview digital terrestrial set top boxes.

3. Since 2002 I have had a UK S1 TiVo fed from a Sky Digibox but am not and never have been a BSkyB customer.

4. UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional with cable television from NTL. Further, the adaptor required to control some of their STBs had to be ordered from TiVo themselves.


----------



## kdmorse

rwtomkins said:


> I can now give you another quick update. Today, leaving it until the very last moment, TiVo's lawyers apparently entered their defence.


I've partly lost track of the parties involved. Who exactly responded? Was this on behalf of the entity that used to be known as Tivo UK, or the US based Tivo Inc?

-Ken


----------



## Steve_K

drgeoff said:


> That TiVo was only available to BSkyB customers is a falsehood on at least four accounts:
> 
> 1. The UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional using the inbuilt tuner with terrestrial analogue channels.
> 
> 2. The UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional with Freeview digital terrestrial set top boxes.
> 
> 3. Since 2002 I have had a UK S1 TiVo fed from a Sky Digibox but am not and never have been a BSkyB customer.
> 
> 4. UK S1 TiVos were 100% functional with cable television from NTL. Further, the adaptor required to control some of their STBs had to be ordered from TiVo themselves.


And a fifth: I bought mine from Dixons, did I have to give them my BSkyB details? No.

IIRC the deal was for 2 years for BSkyB to act as agents for TiVo. Which they did while all the time developing their own rival Sky+ having spotted that TiVo hadn't taken out UK patents for it's US patented technologies.

Moral: BSkyB are very good at keeping their promises, just not what you may have thought was promised.


----------



## joecody12

Oh and good move Rwtomkins

Now where did I put those old credit card statements. I paid up for lifetime sub on Dec 20th 2000.


----------



## rwtomkins

DX30 said:


> In 2000 TiVo and BSkyB reached an agreement to market TiVo in the UK
> 
> http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/...et-to-launch-in-uk-with-bskyb/1191562.article
> 
> Shortly after Thomson came on board to manufacture the hardware
> 
> http://www.e-repair.co.uk/story21.htm
> 
> Later on BSkyB took a stake in TiVo
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-us-personal-video-box-group-tivo-751715.html
> 
> In 2002 Thomson ceased manufacture of TiVo hardware and BSkyB ceased TiVo marketing in the UK.
> 
> BSkyB continued to provide customer support and manage monthly subscriptions up until late 2010.


That's great, thanks a lot DX30. I enjoyed that little trip down memory lane!


----------



## rwtomkins

kdmorse said:


> I've partly lost track of the parties involved. Who exactly responded? Was this on behalf of the entity that used to be known as Tivo UK, or the US based Tivo Inc?
> 
> -Ken


This is a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd, which was the company that sold me my lifetime subscription. It has been responded to by a very large firm of international corporate lawyers who said they had been appointed to represent TiVo (UK) Ltd. They didn't say who had appointed them or who was paying their fees but since TiVo (UK) Ltd is dormant one can only assume that it's TiVo Inc.



joecody12 said:


> Oh and good move Rwtomkins
> 
> Now where did I put those old credit card statements. I paid up for lifetime sub on Dec 20th 2000.


:up:


----------



## abarthman

I'm following this thread with interest.

No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see that someone is trying to give TiVo a parting bloody nose for the way in which they have treated their S1 customers. 

I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## Mark Bennett

I bought mine in either Curry's or Comet. Of course the poor lad I bought it from had not a clue what this anonymous silver box was. "Oh, it's a video recorder then? Where do you put the tape?"

Sky had no hand in selling it to me.


----------



## TCM2007

Yes they did; when you rang up to activate it, that was Sky you spoke to.


----------



## unitron

> Sky had no hand in selling it to me.





TCM2007 said:


> Yes they did; when you rang up to activate it, that was Sky you spoke to.


What he said was that Sky had no hand in selling it to him.

And if he'd never activated it, he'd still own it, and Sky would still be completely uninvolved.


----------



## OzSat

Sky handled the subscriptions - although they may have not been the name on the payment - but then how many companies do you deal with that have a different company name on payment slips.

Sky did all the techincal and customer support.

Sky might not of sold it - but it wouldn't have done much without dealing with Sky.


----------



## TCM2007

unitron said:


> What he said was that Sky had no hand in selling it to him.
> 
> And if he'd never activated it, he'd still own it, and Sky would still be completely uninvolved.


Really, you're going for that as an arguement? C'mon....


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Really, you're going for that as an arguement? C'mon....


He said Sky had no hand in selling it to him, you disagreed, but your evidence had nothing to do with the sale.

Sky may have acted as TiVo's agent when he activated (an activity separate from the sale), but that didn't necessarily make him a customer of Sky.


----------



## rwtomkins

Well, there's two different things obviously, the box itself and the subscription, and it's the lifetime subscription that's at issue here. I don't think there's any doubt that lifetime subscriptions were sold in the UK by TiVo (UK) Ltd. No doubt they did employ the Sky call centre to do the admin but we've been through all this before and I thought we were all agreed that TiVo was the seller. Not even TiVo is disputing this - in fact TiVo is claiming that the seller was TiVo Inc, not TiVo (UK) Ltd, though I think it would be hard to find anyone who agrees with them.


----------



## TCM2007

If you want to claim that the activation of a product which does nothing until you activate it is not in integral part of the sale process, well....


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> I don't think there's any doubt that lifetime subscriptions were sold in the UK by TiVo (UK) Ltd. TiVo is claiming that the seller was TiVo Inc, not TiVo (UK) Ltd, though I think it would be hard to find anyone who agrees with them.


I think there is doubt. None of the contractual paperwork that has been referred to in this thread establishes a relationship with TiVo UK. The best I have seen is that some letters were sent on TiVo UK letterheads. Perhaps I missed something, but has anyone got a contract or service agreement that says it is provided by TiVo UK? If not, perhaps TiVo could claim that TiVo UK were merely agents of TiVo Inc.


----------



## Trinitron

There is little doubt that TiVo, Inc. controlled the business but something went through the UK company accounts. 

One interesting snippet of info I recently dug up is that TiVo (UK) Ltd. is officially reported as having ceased trading on 3 May 2002. Yet I got a letter on TiVo (UK) letterhead in December 2002. It had a turnover of £3.4M in its 21 months of operation.


----------



## Mark Bennett

I know Sky handled the (in my case Lifetime) subscription.

But they certainly didn't sell it to me! They were just the agents that handled the subs. They answered the phone as Tivo, never mentioned Sky etc. If it had not been for this forum (waaaay back then!) I would not have known that the Tivo subscriptions were handled by Sky. I guess that could be the same for many users.
There are many service companies that answer the phone as, and represent various different companies - all from one help centre. The Activation/Subscription being done via Sky's agents could easily have been following that model.

Didn't mean to kick off another argument - sorry for that!


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> My personal view is that in maintaining the service for so long after it stopped being sold...


After the service stopped being sold, or the hardware?


----------



## unitron

Mark Bennett said:


> I know Sky handled the (in my case Lifetime) subscription.
> 
> But they certainly didn't sell it to me! They were just the agents that handled the subs. They answered the phone as Tivo, never mentioned Sky etc. If it had not been for this forum (waaaay back then!) I would not have known that the Tivo subscriptions were handled by Sky. I guess that could be the same for many users.
> There are many service companies that answer the phone as, and represent various different companies - all from one help centre. The Activation/Subscription being done via Sky's agents could easily have been following that model.
> 
> Didn't mean to kick off another argument - sorry for that!


Back on page 2 TCM2007 says

"You also seem to not want to read the actual agreement. Our contracts were with TiVo."

in answer to Steve_K's

"As I've posted before, the biggest weakness in suing TiVo is it may well turn out that our contracts were actually with BSkyB."

so I can't tell if he's taking Sky's side against the customer or taking TiVo's side against the customer.

I need to go back and see if there are any posts where he sides with the customer, just to complete my confusion.


----------



## TCM2007

Trinitron said:


> There is little doubt that TiVo, Inc. controlled the business but something went through the UK company accounts.
> 
> One interesting snippet of info I recently dug up is that TiVo (UK) Ltd. is officially reported as having ceased trading on 3 May 2002. Yet I got a letter on TiVo (UK) letterhead in December 2002. It had a turnover of £3.4M in its 21 months of operation.


The tenner a month fees went somewhere after TiVo UK became dormant.

So in reality at various times the relationship has been with TiVo Inc, and with TiVo UK, without end users being informed of any change.


----------



## TCM2007

I was replying to a post that Sky had "no hand" in the sale. They patently did. But the contract was of course with TiVo. The two things are in no way contradictory.

Not taking any sides, discussing issues of fact.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> This is a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd, which was the company that sold me my lifetime subscription. It has been responded to by a very large firm of international corporate lawyers who said they had been appointed to represent TiVo (UK) Ltd. They didn't say who had appointed them or who was paying their fees but since TiVo (UK) Ltd is dormant one can only assume that it's TiVo Inc...


Just for sheer entertainment value, I'd like to see it turn out to be someone other than TiVo, Inc. footing the bill.

Like, say, the Illuminati, or the Bilderbergers, or the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Templars, or the Free Masons...

(or somebody whose initials are Richard Branson)


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> I was replying to a post that Sky had "no hand" in the sale. They patently did. But the contract was of course with TiVo. The two things are in no way contradictory.
> 
> Not taking any sides, discussing issues of fact.


Mark Bennet said

"I bought mine in either Curry's or Comet."

He gave them money. He left the store with the hardware. How does that not constitute a sale?


----------



## TCM2007

It's part of the sale; a TiVo sale has two parts, buying the hardware and buying the service. One is useless without the other.

He did not leave the store with a working TiVo.


----------



## Mark Bennett

OK, we all know Sky handled the activations.

But they didn't *say *they were Sky, they said they were Tivo.

I worded my original post in this thread badly (or at least in a way that could be picked to bits!) 
Perhaps I need to engage a legal team to proof every post before hitting "Submit Reply"


----------



## alek

unitron said:


> Like, say, the Illuminati, or the Bilderbergers, or the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Templars, or the Free Masons...


It's actually a conspiracy started right back in the sixties, it's the real reason that Lee Harvey Oswald was shot.

He was about to blow the lid off a secret plot to defraud a handfull of brits out of £199.

Alek

A reliable source has further informed me that Tivo ceo Tom Rogers is the grandson of a lady who once sold an ice cream to Jack Ruby.


----------



## sjp

if he knew all those years ago what the secret plot to defraud was about, he should have got the patents - his estate would be loaded by now


----------



## alek

sjp said:


> if he knew all those years ago what the secret plot to defraud was about, he should have got the patents - his estate would be loaded by now


Read latest breakthrough above.

It's all coming together now, arrests are imminent.

Alek


----------



## rwtomkins

Just to keep you up to date, TiVo filed its defence which is much as previously outlined and the claim has been allocated to a certain county court in London. Both sides now have to fill in an allocation questionnaire by July 18 and the London court will then look at the case and determine whether it is indeed suitable for the small claims track. (It's a small claim, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be.) Although TiVo said it was going to contest the court's jurisdiction, I haven't seen any paperwork on that so I can only assume I'm not a part of that process and it's between TiVo and the court. I think TiVo and its lawyers recognise that they are in a very weak position since they have no defence to the substance of the claim and therefore I imagine they will try very hard to prevent the case coming to court in the first place, either by asserting that the English courts have no jurisdiction over the contract, or by asserting that the claim should go to a higher court than the small claims court, or most likely, both. I will keep you posted so if you're interested, please check back from time to time, even if this forum does go a bit quiet!

Oh yes, and today I eventually got around to sending an email to the TiVo staff member in Alviso who phoned me a week or two ago. I said, politely, that I thought he had been misinformed over the reasons for TiVo's withdrawal of the TiVo service in the UK, since his account didn't seem to fit with the facts, and also that he must have been misinformed over the idea that TiVo was looking for further partners in the UK since TiVo's deal with Virgin Media was exclusive. I also said that the FAQ on TiVo's website didn't seem to amount to much so all in all I couldn't see any reason not to proceed with my claim against TiVo UK which was proceeding very nicely through the judicial system.

I had another letter from TiVo's lawyers, too. Nothing new but the amount TiVo is racking up in lawyers' fees over this one tiny claim must be staggering.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> Just to keep you up to date, TiVo filed its defence which is much as previously outlined and the claim has been allocated to a certain county court in London. Both sides now have to fill in an allocation questionnaire by July 18 and the London court will then look at the case and determine whether it is indeed suitable for the small claims track. (It's a small claim, so there's no reason why it shouldn't be.) Although TiVo said it was going to contest the court's jurisdiction, I haven't seen any paperwork on that so I can only assume I'm not a part of that process and it's between TiVo and the court. I think TiVo and its lawyers recognise that they are in a very weak position since they have no defence to the substance of the claim and therefore I imagine they will try very hard to prevent the case coming to court in the first place, either by asserting that the English courts have no jurisdiction over the contract, or by asserting that the claim should go to a higher court than the small claims court, or most likely, both. I will keep you posted so if you're interested, please check back from time to time, even if this forum does go a bit quiet!
> 
> Oh yes, and today I eventually got around to sending an email to the TiVo staff member in Alviso who phoned me a week or two ago. I said, politely, that I thought he had been misinformed over the reasons for TiVo's withdrawal of the TiVo service in the UK, since his account didn't seem to fit with the facts, and also that he must have been misinformed over the idea that TiVo was looking for further partners in the UK since TiVo's deal with Virgin Media was exclusive. I also said that the FAQ on TiVo's website didn't seem to amount to much so all in all I couldn't see any reason not to proceed with my claim against TiVo UK which was proceeding very nicely through the judicial system.
> 
> I had another letter from TiVo's lawyers, too. Nothing new but the amount TiVo is racking up in lawyers' fees over this one tiny claim must be staggering.


Make 'em bleed.


----------



## pemills

Watching with fascination where this leads, lawyers are definitely not cheap so this is going to hurt them in the pocket one way or another -)


----------



## WhiskeyTango

rwtomkins said:


> Nothing new but the amount TiVo is racking up in lawyers' fees over this one tiny claim must be staggering.


I doubt that. They have a legal department that I'm sure is capable of handling a small claims suit. Those guys are getting paid whether they are doing anything or not. They could probably have a paralegal handle this.


----------



## davesh

I just hope the entertainment value of reading these posts is worth the price we're all paying to fund this ( frivolous ? ) action through our taxes .

Dave


----------



## SolidTechie

WhiskeyTango said:


> They have a legal department that I'm sure is capable of handling a small claims suit.


In a "foreign" country? I can't think why they would have experts in the British legal system on staff. And it would be a foolish legal department that tried to contest a case under laws with which they are not familiar.

In any event, I believe the point is moot, since it has already been stated:



rwtomkins said:


> They have taken on a VERY large, well-known (and expensive) firm of international corporate lawyers to represent them in this case


----------



## topbanana

davesh said:


> I just hope the entertainment value of reading these posts is worth the price we're all paying to fund this ( frivolous ? ) action through our taxes .
> 
> Dave


Frivolous would be debatable. In terms of financial recompense, it might possibly be so. However, slapping a company for failing to honour a lifetime guarantee/uncapped use/unlimited refills/waterproof to 10 meters promise is always worthwhile. In large part, this is what the SCC's there for.


----------



## rwtomkins

Just to pass the time while waiting to hear from the court, I think I've worked out why everyone at TiVo Inc is under the misapprehension that we're BSkyB customers. When TiVo first announced its plans to enter the UK market in 2000, it was through a "strategic alliance" with BSkyB. The idea was that the UK TiVo service would be aimed mainly at BSkyB customers who would use the new TiVo box alongside their Sky Digibox to record programming received through the Sky satellite service. The TiVo boxes would be co-branded with the Sky and TiVo names and BSkyB would heavily promote and market them to its Sky customers. Demand was expected to be such that several electronics manufactures would be involved in manufacturing the Sky/TiVo boxes. As an aside, it was also envisaged that these boxes would function with terrestrial analogue television services but this was seen more as an add-on than as a prime function.

As we know, things turned out very differently. Behind the scenes, even as it signed the deal, BSkyB was probably already working on its own version of the TiVo service and it's tempting to speculate that it only ever signed the deal with TiVo to stymie TiVo's prospects of emerging as a competitor in the UK. In any event the co-branded Sky/TiVo boxes never emerged and BSkyB never promoted the TiVo service to its Sky customers. Presumably as a result, TiVo signed a deal with Thomson later in 2000 for the manufacture of a "standalone" TiVo box called the Scenium, not linked to any particular service, but this had very poor sales because BSkyB certainly wasn't going to promote it and TiVo couldn't afford to do so on its own. The following year BSkyB launched its own Sky+ PVR and started marketing that to its UK customers instead of the TiVo box, which was effectively the end of TiVo in the UK. What's amazing is that even after this TiVo maintained a relationship with BSkyB, giving the company a huge amount of TiVo stock (in lieu of cash) for services rendered (not!) and for continuing to operate a call centre operation for UK TiVo customers.

The thing is, the people at TiVo Inc only seem to know the first part of this story and are stuck in a mindset where they believe we are all BSkyB customers who bought our TiVo machines primarily to work with the Sky satellite service. It's not surprising in a way because there was a lot of fanfare about that original BkyB "alliance" whereas of course the way in which it came so badly unstuck was never talked about. It seems that TiVo's co-founders, who were running TiVo Inc at the time, were played for a couple of patsies by Rupert Murdoch who was somewhat more experienced in the media business than they.


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> In any event the co-branded Sky/TiVo boxes never emerged and BSkyB never promoted the TiVo service to its Sky customers.


Yes it did; before the upgrade to 2.5.5 there was a Sky logo on the main menu page, and there was a Sky sticker on the packaging. There is still a trace of it if you trigger the start up animation - it appears top right right at the end.

And Sky did promote TiVo to their customer base.



> TiVo couldn't afford to do so on its own.


They ran quite a large ad campaign in press, TV and cinema, but it was of arguable quality.



> The following year BSkyB launched its own Sky+ PVR and started marketing that to its UK customers instead of the TiVo box, which was effectively the end of TiVo in the UK. What's amazing is that even after this TiVo maintained a relationship with BSkyB, giving the company a huge amount of TiVo stock (in lieu of cash) for services rendered (not!) and for continuing to operate a call centre operation for UK TiVo customers.


The stock was in lieu of future services, and was done in the knowledge that TiVo were pulling out - effectively lowering the cash cost of maintaining S1's in the UK. I have speculated that the stopping of S1 EPG might be related to that 2002 "no cash" deal expiring.



> The thing is, the people at TiVo Inc only seem to know the first part of this story and are stuck in a mindset where they believe we are all BSkyB customers who bought our TiVo machines primarily to work with the Sky satellite service.


I think it's a bit simpler; TiVo always called us BSkyB subscribers internally as as far as they are concerned the names and addresses and of course cash come from BSkyB (who take our credit card details) not us. So to them we are BSkyB subscribers (subscribers to TiVo via BSkyB). That's got a bit Chinese whispered down the years.


----------



## Steve_K

Yep I'd echo all that. Especially the poor quality of the TiVo ad campaign. Going on and on about pausing live TV when the real benefit was near care free recording and as someone even posted here: creating your own TV channel

All spillt milk under the bridge now but a tragic waste of an opportunity.


----------



## rwtomkins

What I hadn't realised before, in all these years, was that TiVo in the UK was originally intended to be sold to, and used by, primarily BSkyB customers in conjunction with their Sky Digiboxes, not as a standalone unit. I think that goes a long way to explaining why TiVo to this day thinks we are all or nearly all BSkyB customers, why it calls us that in the latest version of the terms and conditions and why in that conversation I had with TiVo a couple of weeks ago, the staff member who called me was convinced that we were receiving our daily EPG from BSkyB.

Anyway, as I say, just passing the time. That staff member didn't reply to my email, by the way, but it didn't particularly call for a reply so that's OK.


----------



## TCM2007

Sky was definitely their strongest potential market at that time. Freeview and Freesat didn't exist and paid terrestrial was struggling. Sky customers had shown that they were prepared to pay for TV - selling £10 a month to an analogue only customer was always going to be very hard.


----------



## rwtomkins

TCM2007 said:


> Freeview and Freesat didn't exist...


Oddly, although my welcome letter is dated June 2002 and Freeview didn't then exist, the instruction manual gives instructions for hooking the TiVo up to a digital set-top box as an alternative to the Sky Digibox (or an analogue cable box, or just a TV antenna). I wonder how that could be? Was it a reference to the OnDigital service or was the manual simply anticipating the launch of Freeview?



TCM2007 said:


> ...selling £10 a month to an analogue only customer was always going to be very hard.


Definitely. If you were getting your analogue TV pretty much for free, and already had a TV set and a VCR, paying an extra £600 (box + lifetime sub) for the TiVo service seemed an astronomical sum at the time. It did to me, anyway!


----------



## TCM2007

I had two TiVos then, one on Sky, one on OnDigital.


----------



## AMc

I bought mine to work with OnDigital - there was no other reliable way to record more than one TV show. An OnDigital timer set to wake the VCR worked but never stopped the tape - so it was good for one episode of ER.
It was a minor gamble to pick up Tivo for £230 as I knew you got the grace period to see if it worked. I ended up moving it to Telewest cable almost immediately.


----------



## DX30

A bit off topic but prior to getting a TiVo I used a VCR to record from an ONdigital box. You set the timer (including channel) on the VCR and the VCR had an IR blaster it used to select the approriate channel on the ONdigital box. This allowed you to set the VCR to record multiple programmes on different channels.

The VCR could also control a Sky digibox in a similar way.

Still there was no guide data and even at EP you were limited to 9 hours recording time so the TiVo was an enormous step forward. Like TCM2007 I ended up with two TiVos, one for Sky and one for ONdigital.


----------



## sjp

and so the circle completes... what these ondigital/analog & early digital sky boxes needed was... wait for it... REMINDERS!

a decade and a half on and them pesky VM tivo newbies are still demanding them


----------



## sellmynumber

I've been reading this thread for some time now and I'm usually one for supporting the man in the street but rwtomkins whilst your legal action is commendable I believe your case is weak to the point where it will simply be chucked out and you possibly billed with the costs from the other side.

I own a Tivo S1 (now redundant and I'm pretty peeved that it is) but I'd say the lifetime membership of which I am once such subscriber to has served me well and done it's job.Things do expire and whilst I'd like nothing more than the dial-up service to resume I doubt it will happen. 

To answer another point in here, I purchased my Tivo when they were being sold off by Curry's and Comet for £99, some of them were shop display units that came with a lifetime on them courtesy of the shop. others came with a monthly subscription which the shop had obviously purchased but when selling them off didn't appear to cancel them, my friends whose Tivo was just that...was working until they all went down in June....

If anything I would say that Tivo are more than likely here reading and collating the data from this thread, it is altogether ridiculous that you discuss your case in such an open manner, you will have very little to surprise them (Tivo) with at court...

Give it up whilst you still have the shirt on your back.


----------



## Steve_K

_"I believe your case is weak to the point where it will simply be chucked out and you possibly billed with the costs from the other side."_

Very broad brush statement that

And what actually do you see as (a) the weaknesses and (b) the ability of the defendant to be the first in history to reclaim costs from a small claims fast track case?

I think most here think TiVo UK's only defence is to say they are but helpless minions totally owned but never consulted by TiVo Inc in making their decisions.

Which then leaves the route open to claim off TiVo Inc


----------



## dmeldrum

Steve_K said:


> I think most here think TiVo UK's only defence is to say they are but helpless minions totally owned but never consulted by TiVo Inc in making their decisions.


What rubbish!

For this claim to succeed, you have to prove that there is a contract in place between the OP and TiVo UK Ltd, that TiVo UK Ltd have breached that contract, and that the OP has suffered a financial loss as a result.

I'm not convinced that the OP can prove any of those facts, but he needs all three to get anything.

I wish him well and follow with interest but I don't hold out much hope.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> What rubbish!
> 
> For this claim to succeed, you have to prove that there is a contract in place between the OP and TiVo UK Ltd, that TiVo UK Ltd have breached that contract, and that the OP has suffered a financial loss as a result.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the OP can prove any of those facts, but he needs all three to get anything.
> 
> I wish him well and follow with interest but I don't hold out much hope.


Depends on how narrowly you define "succeed".

He doesn't necessarily have to win in court for this to be a loss for TiVo.


----------



## dmeldrum

unitron said:


> Depends on how narrowly you define "succeed".
> 
> He doesn't necessarily have to win in court for this to be a loss for TiVo.


Success is defined as winning the claim in court. The bonus would be getting them to pay.

If the sole aim is to cause TiVo to incur a loss through defending the claim, then the claimant is vexatious.


----------



## TCM2007

sellmynumber, the way rtomkins has done through the small claims process he is cannot be liable for costs.


----------



## Steve_K

dmeldrum said:


> What rubbish!
> 
> For this claim to succeed, you have to prove that there is a contract in place between the OP and TiVo UK Ltd, that TiVo UK Ltd have breached that contract, and that the OP has suffered a financial loss as a result.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the OP can prove any of those facts, but he needs all three to get anything.
> 
> I wish him well and follow with interest but I don't hold out much hope.


Counts to 10

Well the financial loss is unarguable, it costs money to get even partly back to the recorder+lifetime sub the user had in place as of Jan 1st and had every expectation would be in place til the recorder pegged out. You might argue on the size of that loss.

The breach of contract is slightly less clear. The TiVo URLs that I posted up showing that the contracted service badged as "The TiVo Service" was now being made available via Virgin look to be very damming on TiVo though.

So is there a contract or tort with TiVo UK? My view is there is no contract as it was explicitly with TiVo Inc. HOWEVER if TiVo UK had any part in the decision to transfer service to Virgin then they have a liability under tort.

Hence my comment about TiVo Uk having to show they were mere minions.

So rubbish? Unpalatable to you maybe for some reason.


----------



## dmeldrum

Steve_K said:


> Counts to 10
> Well the financial loss is unarguable, it costs money to get even partly back to the recorder+lifetime sub the user had in place as of Jan 1st and had every expectation would be in place til the recorder pegged out. You might argue on the size of that loss.


Very arguable, and it has been argued on this forum many times. The value of the service already delivered exceeds the price paid. In terms of pro-rata refund, there is nothing due. In terms of getting back to the position on Jan 1st (which is not a reasonable expectation under the contract), the Alt-EPG has made that possible at no additional cost.



Steve_K said:


> The breach of contract is slightly less clear. The TiVo URLs that I posted up showing that the contracted service badged as "The TiVo Service" was now being made available via Virgin look to be very damming on TiVo though.


Not damning at all.
The contract made it clear that TiVo could modify or withdraw the service at any time, and could terminate by giving notice. They gave more notice than necessary and withdrew the service. Hence no breach of contract.
The fact that Virgin are providing a different service "Powered by TiVo" is irrelevant.



Steve_K said:


> So is there a contract or tort with TiVo UK? My view is there is no contract as it was explicitly with TiVo Inc. HOWEVER if TiVo UK had any part in the decision to transfer service to Virgin then they have a liability under tort.


Not at all. The contract was with TiVo Inc. TiVo UK may have been agents for TiVo Inc in certain aspects, or may simply have been a legal device used to deal with Sky and/or Thomson. Apart from the letterhead used for the odd letter, there is nothing legally linking any TiVo user with TiVo UK Ltd.

TiVo UK Ltd has been a dormant company for six years+, so I think it is easy to demonstrate they had nothing to do with the Virgin deal.



Steve_K said:


> So rubbish? Unpalatable to you maybe for some reason.


I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> HOWEVER if TiVo UK had any part in the decision to transfer service to Virgin then they have a liability under tort.


TiVo (UK) Ltd. ceased trading on 3 May 2002 and is reported as dormant by Companies House, so that is highly unlikely.


----------



## Steve_K

Trinitron I want to know who is opening and acting on the post of a supposedly dormant company, who's paying them to do that and why TiVo Inc are so keen to defend a supposedly dormant company. 

demeldrum as you say just about all your points have been made and refuted here before. You don't accept those as refutals but they're at least enough to make a court think WTF did that company think it was doing

In brief: a contractual obligation isn't limited to what the other party did or could have paid for it - think life assurance; since 1999 you cannot just change a contract with a consumer in the UK even if you put clauses in the contract saying you can and lastly if you specifically advertise you are now supplying the exact same named service you previously supplied to consumers but now through a new vendor then most people are going to figure you transferred it.

And if you still doubt that ask yourself why did TiVo try to get UK law off the table earlier this year. It wasn't because they believed they had no risk here was it?

But yes if TiVo UK can show they were truly dormant the case has to be pursued with TiVo Inc. Which is roughly what I wrote.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> Trinitron I want to know who is opening and acting on the post of a supposedly dormant company, who's paying them to do that and why TiVo Inc are so keen to defend a supposedly dormant company.


Errm, how about the parent company? By keeping the registration open at Companies House, TiVo are stopping anyone else from using their brand name in the UK and keeping open the (very remote) possibility of using it again should they want to.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Well the financial loss is unarguable, it costs money to get even partly back to the recorder+lifetime sub the user had in place as of Jan 1st and had every expectation would be in place til the recorder pegged out. You might argue on the size of that loss.


It cost nothing to keep a TiVo working in the same way as at Jan 1st, thanks to AltEPG. So not really "unarguable"?


----------



## Pete77

Steve_K said:


> And what actually do you see as (b) the ability of the defendant to be the first in history to reclaim costs from a small claims fast track case?


This clearly can't happen unless the case is allocated by the judge to the Multi Track instead of the Small Claims track at the allocation hearing.

If that does happen then the case could always be pulled before any exposure to the other side's (Tivo's) legal costs starts to be accrued. No doubt this is what Tivo is hoping will happen with its various complicated demands for the case to be transferred to a US Court and so forth.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> It cost nothing to keep a TiVo working in the same way as at Jan 1st, thanks to AltEPG. So not really "unarguable"?


Err so what's the 0800 number for AltEPG dial up then? Oh there isn't one and 0845 numbers are chargeable on my current phone tariff

Yes I could network it but no one to my knowledge is providing free network cards

And of course AltEPG has no cover for terrestial channels - in fact it deletes them so I can't record BBC1 while watching Sky1

Apart from that and probably other points then yes it's free - ie it's not


----------



## Pete77

Clearly one paid Tivo for a Lifetime Service from them and their current EPG supplier using known parameters and not for an alternate Lifetime Service bodged together as best they can by an eager band of volunteers from a data source that might turn out to eventually object to its data being used in this way.

And the official Tivo service used to have up to 21 days data and not only 7 days of EPG data and also had OADs and star ratings for films.

A court is hardly going to dismiss a claim for a prepaid contract for a year's supermarket food from Waitrose on the basis that you may still be able to keep yourself alive if you instead forridge in the bins of your neighbours for scraps or hang out at the local soup kitchen for down and outs.


----------



## TCM2007

And Pete manages to slag off the AltEPG team, again, comparing them to tramps and dumpster divers. Way to go Pete.

The point made was that the financial loss was the cost of buying an equivalent service. You may think AltEPG is crap Pete, but it's as good as any other equivalent service, and it's free unless you're on a cheapskate phone package.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> And Pete manages to slag off the AltEPG team, again, comparing them to tramps and dumpster divers. Way to go Pete.


No that is your maximum Pete bashing distortion and misinterpretation of my words.

All I am saying is that AltEPG is a community volunteer effort that it has no contractual obligation to provide to me or anyone else. It cannot therefore begin to be compared in court with the professionally provided paid Tivo/Tribune EPG.

Of course I appreciate that any comment other than "we totally and utterly worship the ground on which the AltEPG guys live and grovel at their feat in admiration" appears unlikely to be received favourably by this particular group of volunteers.

But for you to effectively argue that if Tesco stopped delivering me a daily sliced loaf I had paid for in advance for the next five years I could always go and bake my own instead is a ridiculous basis on which to argue that no harm has been caused by the loss of the Tivo EPG.

All my thousands of thumbs and hundreds of season passes are of course also rendered completely null and void by the change of EPG source.


----------



## dmeldrum

Pete77 said:


> But for you to effectively argue that if Tesco stopped delivering me a daily sliced loaf I had paid for in advance for the next five years I could always go and bake my own instead is a ridiculous basis on which to argue that no harm has been caused by the loss of the Tivo EPG.


When claiming compensation for breach of contract, there is a duty on the plaintiff to mitigate their losses by all reasonable means. The availability of the Alt-EPG effectively free of charge is reasonable mitigation.


----------



## Pete77

dmeldrum said:


> When claiming compensation for breach of contract, there is a duty on the plaintiff to mitigate their losses by all reasonable means. The availability of the Alt-EPG effectively free of charge is reasonable mitigation.


An argument that can easily be countered by pointing out deficiencies in the AltEPG service such as (a) it only being available on alpha test (b) not supporting 21 days of EPG data but only 7 (c) not supporting OADs (d) not supporting film ratings (e) not supporting any of the thumbs you have accumulated over the last 10 years to support Suggestions and (f) not supporting any of your carefully accumulated Season Passes over the last few years.

Mitigating your losses is intended to cover things like shutting off your water at the mains after you discover a leak in your plumbing or not continuing to drive a car once you discover that it is very low on oil or water.


----------



## dmeldrum

Pete77 said:


> An argument that can easily be countered by pointing out deficiencies in the AltEPG service such as (a) it only being available on alpha test (b) not supporting 21 days of EPG data but only 7 (c) not supporting OADs (d) not supporting film ratings (e) not supporting any of the thumbs you have accumulated over the last 10 years to support Suggestions and (f) not supporting any of your carefully accumulated Season Passes over the last few years.


Well of course the Alt-EPG is not a perfect replica of the TiVo service. In some areas it is better, others worse.

TiVo were of course contractually entitled to alter the scope and nature of their service at any time, and the items listed above did not form part of the contract. The TiVo service at launch had features that were subsequently disabled or no longer supported. Conversely I'm sure the Alt-EPG people plan to enhance their service over time.

The judge would have to decide if the Alt-EPG service were sufficient to be considered an equivalent service. My judgement would be yes.

This debate is only meaningful if TiVo are found to be in breach of contract (which is unlikely). In that scenario, the claim is either
a) cost of restoring the service (if possible)
b) value of the service not delivered
and the contract limits any such claim to the total paid for the service.

Your contention is that the Alt-EPG is not an adequate replacement service, so b) must apply, which is the outstanding value of the service not delivered. In my view that is zero, as lifetime subs have already obtained the full value for what they paid.

Either way, the value of the claim is approaching zero, if not actually zero.


----------



## Steve_K

dmeldrum said:


> When claiming compensation for breach of contract, there is a duty on the plaintiff to mitigate their losses by all reasonable means. The availability of the Alt-EPG effectively free of charge is reasonable mitigation.


But the transition cost is not free of charge is it - see above posts

The service is not guaranteed to last the lifetime of the box is it

And good as it is AltEPG does not have the same coverage as the TiVo service did does it?

So as misleading posts go you are today's winner (but there's still time for you to be surpassed)


----------



## dmeldrum

Steve_K said:


> The service is not guaranteed to last the lifetime of the box is it


Neither was the TiVo service.
A lifetime subscription but not a lifetime service.


----------



## Benedict

Pete77 said:


> No that is your maximum Pete bashing distortion and misinterpretation of my words.


Gotta say I'm with Pete on this one, I didn't interpret his post as slagging off AltEPG at all, in fact I thought it verged on sounding complementary (with the possible exception of the word "bodged")


----------



## Steve_K

dmeldrum said:


> Neither was the TiVo service.
> A lifetime subscription but not a lifetime service.


Was guaranteed to last the lifetime of the box, is AltEPG? Err no

So do you now concede that AltEPG is not a zero cost full service for those that had lifetime service qualifying machines?


----------



## rwtomkins

sellmynumber said:


> If anything I would say that Tivo are more than likely here reading and collating the data from this thread, it is altogether ridiculous that you discuss your case in such an open manner, you will have very little to surprise them (Tivo) with at court...


You're absolutely right, of course. I've said far too much already and I really shouldn't say any more. There is one upside, though - those of you who keep telling me why this is so obviously a lost cause are making it equally likely that TiVo will have little to surprise me with at court, either!

A couple of thoughts on the most recent posts.

One is that I don't think I need worry too much about what the T&Cs might say. If you Google "unfair contract terms" you quickly discover that T&Cs count for very little if they're in conflict with the legislation on unfair contract terms, with consumer protection law, with common law or with common sense generally. I'm not a lawyer of course but what you also very quickly discover is that the legislation on unfair contract terms is heavily weighted in favour of the consumer and that if there's any doubt about the meaning or intent of a contract term, then the interpretation that favours the consumer is the one that prevails. I think that's why TiVo UK is relying on its "It wasn't me!" defence as its primary defence because it's going to have a great deal of difficulty in making anything else stick.

I also think a lot of the discussions here are, no discourtesy intended, over-complicating the matter. Remember, this is only a small claims court and the hearing will probably only last an hour. The simple question is, did I pay for something that I didn't get? If TiVo could answer either, "He didn't pay for it" or "He did get it," then I'd be in trouble. But since it can't, it's left flailing around trying to get off the hook on legal technicalities and/or get-out clauses that, personally, I don't think will go down very well in a small claims court.

Finally, some of the posts here - and again, no discourtesy intended - are understandably mixing up two different questions: one, whether TiVo is at fault, and the other, if so, how much compensation is due. For example I don't think it makes TiVo any less culpable to know that AltEPG exists, but I can see how TiVo might try to argue that it would reduce extent of damages due, even though I wouldn't agree. It's the same with the "You've had your money's worth" argument - it's irrelevant to TiVo's culpability but I can see why TiVo might try to argue that it's relevant to the damages due. (However, please note that damages are assessed by working out what it would cost to replace the thing that has been lost - not according to what value may or may not have been received.)

Anyway for these reasons and others I remain very optimistic about the claim but I'm also happy to hear your opinions, especially when expressed in a friendly manner that doesn't threaten to get the thread closed down!


----------



## spitfires

rwtomkins said:


> Remember, this is only a small claims court and the hearing will probably only last an hour.


Having gone through Small Claims before I can tell you the hearing will last 5 to 10 minutes, max. Judge asks the claimant to speak first, then the defendant, then the claimant then the defendant, and then gives his/her ruling.

(Hint: the judge has usually already made up their mind based on the content of the paperwork already submitted).



rwtomkins said:


> it's relevant to the damages due. (However, please note that damages are assessed by working out what it would cost to replace the thing that has been lost - not according to what value may or may not have been received.)


Make sure you don't use the word "damages" in front of the judge! In a Small Claim you can only claim for *actual* financial loss, you cannot claim for damages (nor "perceived" loss).


----------



## rwtomkins

spitfires said:


> Having gone through Small Claims before I can tell you the hearing will last 5 to 10 minutes, max. Judge asks the claimant to speak first, then the defendant, then the claimant then the defendant, and then gives his/her ruling.


That certainly puts things in perspective. Rightly so: in the great scheme of things, one has to admit that it's really not all that important.



spitfires said:


> Make sure you don't use the word "damages" in front of the judge! In a Small Claim you can only claim for *actual* financial loss, you cannot claim for damages (nor "perceived" loss).


OK, thanks for the tip! Anyone know what it would cost me to get the replacement TiVo Service via Virgin, including cable hook-up, box and subscription for the next few years?


----------



## mikerr

rwtomkins said:


> Anyone know what it would cost me to get the replacement TiVo Service via Virgin, including cable hook-up, box and subscription for the next few years?


How about the cost of moving house into a Virgin area while you're at it ?


----------



## unitron

mikerr said:


> How about the cost of moving house into a Virgin area while you're at it ?


Better yet, the cost to pay Virgin enough to get them to extend service to the area in which you live, since it could be argued that having to give that up (near job, friends, relatives, etc., or other charms unreplicable in a different location) would be a loss even if all the expenses were paid.


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> OK, thanks for the tip! Anyone know what it would cost me to get the replacement TiVo Service via Virgin, including cable hook-up, box and subscription for the next few years?


Not comparable, as it includes the pay TV sub.

I beleive the TiVo surcharge is £3/month.


----------



## Benedict

TCM2007 said:


> Not comparable, as it includes the pay TV sub.
> 
> I beleive the TiVo surcharge is £3/month.


Aren't you forced to take a pay TV sub in order to also take the TiVo service? I'm guessing you can't just pay £3/month.

If that's the case then surely the cost of the sub needed to provide access to a comparable set of channels could be legitimately included (less the cost of any sub currently being paid to an alternative provider like Sky)


----------



## TCM2007

The TiVo service we used to have did not include any pay TV service, so that would be stretching the comparison beyond breaking point, IMHO.

If I'm wrong it would be nice for TiVo to be forced to pay for a £40 a month TV package indefinitely based on £198 paid 10 years ago, but I'm thinking that might not be considered reasonable!


----------



## Benedict

Isn't that the point though. The TiVo service I used to have cost me £10 per month and I used it with FreeView.

To subscribe to the new TiVo service I have to pay Virgin Media at least £15.50 per month (£12.50 of which is for their basic M+ TV package that I don't really want/need) So I'm £5.50 per month worse off!


----------



## DX30

Benedict said:


> Isn't that the point though. The TiVo service I used to have cost me £10 per month and I used it with FreeView.
> 
> To subscribe to the new TiVo service I have to pay Virgin Media at least £15.50 per month (£12.50 of which is for their basic M+ TV package that I don't really want/need) So I'm £5.50 per month worse off!


ISTR you cannot get a TiVo with the M+ TV package, you need to get the XL, so you would end up spending at least £33.50 a month.

It is difficult to work out what a fair replacement cost for a Freeview TiVo would be. At the low end I'd guess around £100 would buy a Freeview PVR, but that is lacking in functionality compared with a TiVo. A Windows Media Centre HTPC is probably the closest in terms of functionality at the moment but is more like £300. Maybe in a years time a YouView box would be a suitable replacement but I'd guess those are likely to be about £300 again, at least initially.


----------



## TIVO_YORK99

You can get a Tivo with any VM TV package. I've got M+ and only pay £3 a month for Tivo.


----------



## Ianl

TIVO_YORK99 said:


> You can get a Tivo with any VM TV package. I've got M+ and only pay £3 a month for Tivo.


how did you manage that , i had to "upgrade" from m+ to xl


----------



## DX30

TIVO_YORK99 said:


> You can get a Tivo with any VM TV package. I've got M+ and only pay £3 a month for Tivo.


The virgin media website says you need XL - did you get some special offer?


----------



## Trinitron

http://shop.virginmedia.com/digital-tv/set-top-boxes/tivo-box-prices.html



> TiVo activation fee is £49.95 for the 500GB box and £99.95 for the 1TB box with all TV packages. Subscription is £3 a month with all TV packages.





> TiVo bundles start from just £6.25 a month with free installation
> when you take a Virgin phone line for £13.90 a month


----------



## rwtomkins

Well, until the service was discontinued I was using TiVo with Freeview and had no monthly fees at all - I've never had any paid-for satellite or cable service and don't want to in the future. So I think it's reasonable to ask what total additional costs I would face to obtain the new TiVo Service through Virgin - the minimum, most basic service possible - less any discounts that may have been offered to existing TiVo customers.

The problem of course is deciding how many months of future subs should be included in the total. What TiVo should have done, and no doubt others said this long ago, is made an arrangement with Virgin whereby existing lifetime subscribers would have their lifetime subs transferred over to the Virgin TiVo Service whereby they would have received a very basic package of Freeview channels at no cost and whereby all TiVo users would be able to trade in their old TiVo box for a Virgin box at half price. Or something like that.


----------



## Trinitron

The problem you run into there is that it is Virgin that set the conditions for their service, not TiVo. If you are looking at what it would cost to restore an equivalent to the TiVo Series 1 boxes (putting to one side the arguments of AltEPG) then is a Freeview DVR not a more reasonable substitute? It comes down then to how fundamental the proprietory elements of the TiVo Service are - season passes, wishlists and suggestions - in terms of the promised 'lifetime' subscription.


----------



## mikerr

The VM TiVo can't record from an external source like the S1 either.
The topfield PVR has SPs wish lists and suggestions, not out of the box though.

I do find the whole thing bizarre though - lifetime subbers had a net gain of 8+ years, or £1000 over tenner a month'ers.... it wasn't cancelled in 2003 or shortly after when it was widely expected it to be.

From the many emails and phone calls I get I think many people would actually have been happier if the service was closed down before there was a VM deal at all. It's the fact that there is a possible upgrade route onto VM that they can't or don't want to take that annoys.


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> Well, until the service was discontinued I was using TiVo with Freeview and had no monthly fees at all - I've never had any paid-for satellite or cable service and don't want to in the future. So I think it's reasonable to ask what total additional costs I would face to obtain the new TiVo Service through Virgin - the minimum, most basic service possible - less any discounts that may have been offered to existing TiVo customers.


I thought your claim was for actual financial loss incurred? So what have you spent additionally since the TiVo S1 service was discontinued?


----------



## TCM2007

At the risk of going round in circles, the only actual financial loss is the reduction in resale value of a TiVo with lifetime sub, they were going for ~£50 at the time of the announcement; I gather they now go for £15, so £35 would seem the most reasonable amount to claim, if you're of that frame of mind.

If you look for equivalent services,the closest equivalent by far is AltEPG, but that would not really help you with a claim.


----------



## Steve_K

rwtomkins said:


> . . . What TiVo should have done . . . .


Could sum up their last 12 years both sides of the Atlantic. Never the brightest business wise.

As for the loss incurred then why do some here insist on applying their model to others. Losses are individual and frankly TCM using an eBay model based on the difference in sale prices for a subset of people who'd given up on TiVo is rather preposterous.


----------



## TCM2007

Why preposterous? How else would you define the value if not what people are prepared to pay?

The losses are not individual, they are extremely standard!


----------



## Steve_K

Yep, preposterous

You'd probably value pork by what it'd sell for in Jerusalem


----------



## TCM2007

So how else would you define the financial value of something if not by what someone else is prepared to pay for it?

It's the very definition of the term!

Before the closure of the service was announced TiVos typically cost £50. Afterwards their value fell to £15. The drop in the value of your asset due the service losing as a TiVo owner is therefore £35.

I can't see how that is arguable?


----------



## rwtomkins

dmeldrum said:


> I thought your claim was for actual financial loss incurred? So what have you spent additionally since the TiVo S1 service was discontinued?


What I'm saying is, perhaps I was looking at the question of compensation the wrong way. Previously I was saying, as a result of TiVo's withdrawal of the lifetime service, I've lost the value of my TiVo machine which is now officially inoperable and worthless, and I've lost my lifetime subscription. Of course everyone will have their own idea of what that translates into in financial terms. But now I'm saying, hang on, perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way. As I understand it, the law says that if someone ceases to perform a contract, the injured party should receive whatever sum is necessary to put him back in the same position he would have been in if the contract had been performed. So that's why I'm wondering if the correct figure to have claimed would have been the cost of moving me over to the new TiVo service.

HOWEVER, this is all academic because today I went on to the Virgin Media website to see how much it would cost to obtain the new TiVo service and I was astounded to discover that I couldn't receive it anyway because Virgin doesn't serve my area! I never saw that coming. I mean, I live in central London - I thought it was just folk in the Highlands and Islands who couldn't get Virgin, not those living in the capital.

So, yes, it looks like I have to claim the cost of paying Virgin to dig up my street and lay down a cable. Alternatively, what does a Toppy cost?


----------



## TCM2007

Given that AltEPG exists, that will be the most cost effective and closest equivalent service should you take that approach.


----------



## spitfires

rwtomkins said:


> As I understand it, the law says that if someone ceases to perform a contract, the injured party should receive whatever sum is necessary to put him back in the same position he would have been in if the contract had been performed.


That would be true if you were claiming for breach of contract and it was in a "regular" court action - what you refer to above are "damages".
Not applicable in a Small Claims action I'm afraid.

.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> Given that AltEPG exists, that will be the most cost effective and closest equivalent service should you take that approach.


Oh come on. If you're saying that's the basis for financial loss assessment then you must admit that AltEPG, impressive though it is, doesn't offer free dial up, does not cover terrestial analogue, won't record an ad hoc RF source and has no guarantee to last the lifetime of the box.

But then seemingly you only ever thought your TiVo could be valued by asking someone getting rid of one via a glorified garage sale. Surprising you've made so many posts about something you valued so low.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Oh come on. If you're saying that's the basis for financial loss assessment then you must admit that AltEPG, impressive though it is, doesn't offer free dial up, does not cover terrestial analogue, won't record an ad hoc RF source and has no guarantee to last the lifetime of the box.
> 
> But then seemingly you only ever thought your TiVo could be valued by asking someone getting rid of one via a glorified garage sale. Surprising you've made so many posts about something you valued so low.


AltEPG is not identical to the official TiVo service, but a S1 running AltEPG is clearly the closest you can get. In making a claim for losses you must take all reasonable steps to mitigate your loss, and installing AltEPG seems to me to be a reasonable mitigating step. Certainly more reasonable than buying a Freeview Plus box.

The FINANCIAL value of anything (and in this kind of claim, financial value is all you can consider) is what someone is prepared to pay for it. That's the economic system we live in, to deny that seems very peculiar.


----------



## Steve_K

yes you should mitigate your loss but AltEPG does not cover the service I used. As a minimum I've been forced to buy a compatible Freeview box and pay for phone calls for the rest of the box lifetime.

And as for value, will you sell me your TiVo for what is a nearest equivalent recent sale on eBay? Of course not. It's a subset market dominated by supply from those that either don't understand or don't value the TiVo features. It could never be used as a reasonable representation of worth


----------



## TCM2007

Nonsense, a free market value in a a public auction is an excellent indicator of worth. You can say your TiVo is worth £100 until you're blue in the face but if all anyone will pay for it is £15 it's worth £15 whether you like it or not.

The issue of what inputs are supported is an entirely separate issue to to the ending of the service. You lifetime sub never guaranteed which inputs were supported, TiVo could have discontinued analogue support (or any other input) at any time while continuing the service.

Nor, perhaps surprisingly, is the 0800 access part of the service as defined in the T&Cs, so claiming for loss of that would require a different approach.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> yes you should mitigate your loss but AltEPG does not cover the service I used. As a minimum I've been forced to buy a compatible Freeview box and pay for phone calls for the rest of the box lifetime.


So what would you have done if your TiVo was still working when digital switchover occurs in your area?

Just as some people can't receive Virgin cable, others can't get analogue signals. Neither are available where I live. By your reasoning, TiVo should have given me a Freeview box when my analogue signal was switched off as I needed one to keep their service running. Or should I have sued the government for the cost of buying a freeview box? As TCM says, there were no guarantees in the TiVo T&Cs about which platforms are supported.


----------



## rwtomkins

spitfires said:


> That would be true if you were claiming for breach of contract and it was in a "regular" court action - what you refer to above are "damages".
> Not applicable in a Small Claims action I'm afraid.
> 
> .


Fair enough - I think the "financial loss" approach would be more favourable to me anyway, if it mattered that much.


----------



## Pete77

My advice for what its worth is if the judge does assign the case to the multi track instead of allowing it to continue on the small claims track that you must immediately pull your case rather than be exposed to the massive costs that a firm of experienced international lawyers of this kind can cause you to be hit with if Tivo wins.

I would only not advise pulling your case in this circumstance if you could get 500 members of this forum to put down £100 each towards continuing to fight the case against Tivo. Even then it is still all too easy for the voracious vultures otherwise known as lawyers to run up legal costs of more than £50,000 on a single simple case of this kind.


----------



## rwtomkins

Pete77 said:


> I would only not advise pulling your case in this circumstance if you could get 500 members of this forum to put down £100 each towards continuing to fight the case against Tivo.


Shouldn't be a problem.  Perhaps you could lead by example?


----------



## Steve_K

Yes Triniton I have to buy a freeview receiver in over a years time. That's still a year of non service or buy a unit at todays prices

TCM the free call was an on the record promise made in pursuit of a contract so forms part of the contract. 

Interestingly you decline to answer whether you'd sell your TiVo to me for what they go for on EBay. Seems you don't believe your own posts about value.


----------



## TCM2007

I'm not looking to sell my TiVos. if I were I would happily sell to you for the same price as I could get on eBay, as that's the only place I know of to sell TiVos.

It's entirely possible for something to be worth more to you than someone is prepared to pay for it, but that's your subjective value not financial value.

TiVo dropped free calls in the US; can't recall what the outcome of that was.


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> I'm not looking to sell my TiVos. if I were I would happily sell to you for the same price as I could get on eBay, as that's the only place I know of to sell TiVos.
> 
> It's entirely possible for something to be worth more to you than someone is prepared to pay for it, but that's your subjective value not financial value.
> 
> TiVo dropped free calls in the US; can't recall what the outcome of that was.


What do you mean by free calls?

Tivo using its internal modem to get guide data, software updates, et cetera?

Customers picking the phone to call TiVo Customer Service?


----------



## sjp

unitron said:


> What do you mean by free calls?
> 
> Tivo using its internal modem to get guide data, software updates, et cetera?
> 
> Customers picking the phone to call TiVo Customer Service?


epg data/software update calls haven't been free in the US for a good while now.


----------



## unitron

sjp said:


> epg data/software update calls haven't been free in the US for a good while now.


Do you mean you can't use a WATS line/800 number/toll-free number if TiVo doesn't offer a local dial in number in your area?

Are there any areas where they don't offer a local dial-in number?


----------



## Pete77

unitron said:


> Do you mean you can't use a WATS line/800 number/toll-free number if TiVo doesn't offer a local dial in number in your area?
> 
> Are there any areas where they don't offer a local dial-in number?


Those of you who don't live in the USA (unlike Unitron who does) don't seem to be aware that local calls have always been free there with most telcos.

Of course whether that extended to calls to internet dialup numbers or other PoPs I don't know but I'm sure that Unitron does know. Clearly in Britain the shark like telcos decided to exclude local calls to internet PoPs from their so called "free call allowances" which aren't in any case free as BT upped their minimum line rental by over 50% in five years to pay for these supposedly free weekend calls for all of their customers.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> Shouldn't be a problem.  Perhaps you could lead by example?


Sorry but in the real world you would be lucky to find 50 Tivo users willing to contribute £50 each towards the legal action against Tivo. You might perhaps get 150 willing to contribute £10 each or 500 willing to contribute £1 each.

Having been involved in a long and messy civil litigation where most of the other originally supportive parties walked away when it came to being at financial risk from the other side's legal costs unfortunately people are usually long on talk and short on actual action when it comes to this kind of thing.

And if your case against Tivo lasts another three years the lawyers could easily award themselves £100k in legal fees.


----------



## Trinitron

Steve_K said:


> Yes Triniton I have to buy a freeview receiver in over a years time. That's still a year of non service or buy a unit at todays prices.


That's not answering my question.


----------



## Steve_K

The "free calls" refers to TiVo's web site promises made in the UK in 2000/2001 and maybe later. To get people to sign up they promised the guide data would be to a free number and it was until they disconnected it

I'd post the link to the text but the wayback machine is blocked at work


----------



## unitron

Steve_K said:


> The "free calls" refers to TiVo's web site promises made in the UK in 2000/2001 and maybe later. To get people to sign up they promised the guide data would be to a free number and it was until they disconnected it
> 
> I'd post the link to the text but the wayback machine is blocked at work


I don't understand how that has anything to do with TCM2007's claim that TiVo dropped "free calls" (whatever that means) in the US. You know, that place on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?

Unless at one time they allowed free Trans-Atlantic calls. I'd certainly understand them not wanting to keep paying for those.


----------



## Steve_K

> Unitron: "I don't understand how that has anything to do with TCM2007's claim that TiVo dropped "free calls" (whatever that means) in the US. You know, that place on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?"


Very little. The free calls point comes up because TCM and others are claiming it costs nothing to move to AltEPG and the truth is it does as you have to pay for either a net card or for what were once free calls. TCM pointed out the arguably side point that free calls were dropped in the USA. I know (and probably care) nothing about the relevant consumer rights in the USA



Trinitron said:


> That's not answering my question.


In effect it was. But to spell it out

Q: So what would you have done if your TiVo was still working when digital switchover occurs in your area?

A: If the TiVo was still working, I would then have bought a freeview box.


----------



## unitron

Steve_K said:


> Very little. The free calls point comes up because TCM and others are claiming it costs nothing to move to AltEPG and the truth is it does as you have to pay for either a net card or for what were once free calls. TCM pointed out the arguably side point that free calls were dropped in the USA. I know (and probably care) nothing about the relevant consumer rights in the USA
> 
> In effect it was. But to spell it out
> 
> Q: So what would you have done if your TiVo was still working when digital switchover occurs in your area?
> 
> A: If the TiVo was still working, I would then have bought a freeview box.


As far as I know, free calls were never dropped in the US, unless it was toll-free calls for people not living where there was a local dial-in number availible, and they dropped the toll-free authorization after they had local numbers for everybody.


----------



## WebAgents

What a long thread...


Has anyone mentioned that the agreement does state that they can change the service at anytime that they want?

Even cease it...?

I came across my agreement in a box of manuals I was sorting and found that it did state the above, so surely there is no leg to stand a case on?

Bryan


----------



## TCM2007

The belief is that, for lifetime subscribers who have pre-paid their subscription, the ability to at will cancel the subscription without recompense is an unfair contract term.


----------



## alek

WebAgents said:


> What a long thread...
> 
> Has anyone mentioned that the agreement does state that they can change the service at anytime that they want?
> 
> Even cease it...?
> 
> I came across my agreement in a box of manuals I was sorting and found that it did state the above, so surely there is no leg to stand a case on?
> 
> Bryan


If one party can change the terms of a contract at will, what is the point of having a contract?

Alek


----------



## Steve_K

Exactly

No one can change a contract to say the other party must pay them a million pounds a day. That would be unreasonable and no court would support it. Once you've accepted the principle of unreasonable changes being verboten it all comes down to what is actually reasonable. IIRC UK consumer law says a clause allowing changes is unreasonable if the effect would be to benefit one side disproportionately for no good reason. That suggests most of TiVo's attempted changes are invalid. "Most" isn't of course all.


----------



## WebAgents

I see, not a breach of contract but an unfair contract term.

I agree, it is an unfair term...

...but I reckon a court would say 'and you didn't have a problem with the unfair term for HOW many years???'

Bryan


----------



## Pete77

WebAgents said:


> ...but I reckon a court would say 'and you didn't have a problem with the unfair term for HOW many years???'


If you actually start attending courts and tribunals you will find a lot of the outcome is actually down to whether the other side has an emminent barrister representing it and you don't.

Unfortunately if one side can afford to be represented by a good barrister and you go on representing yourself the court usually tends to presume the barrister's word on the law can be trusted and your word isn't worth the paper its written on (especially low level courts and low level tribunals). Or at least that is usually how it goes if interpretation of the law in an area is an arguable thing because the law has been written in the usual impenetrable fashion so favoured by lawyers to keep themselves in business by later arguing about what their abstruse and obscure piece of legislation means,


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> the law has been written in the usual impenetrable fashion so favoured by lawyers ,


I was always under the impression that Parliament wrote laws, not lawyers.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> I was always under the impression that Parliament wrote laws, not lawyers.


And guess who has historically made up both the legal staff of the House of Commons and House of Lords and formed the largest significant grouping of Members of Parliament in terms of their former profession.


----------



## WebAgents

Pete77 said:


> *If you actually start attending courts and tribunals * *a lot of the outcome* is actually down to whether the other side has an emminent barrister representing it and you don't.


Why do you assume that I don't attend courts and tribunals?

I never mentioned the outcome, just an argument that may be put forward.

(BTW my question is rhetorical - I don't want an answer really )

And can we please keep this thread on topic?

Thanks :up:


----------



## unitron

WebAgents said:


> ...
> 
> And can we please keep this thread on topic? ...


As the topic from the start seems to be the nuances of contract law...


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> ...TiVo dropped free calls in the US; can't recall what the outcome of that was.


Still wondering to exactly which calls you refer.


----------



## mikerr

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away - well ok, 9 years ago in America...
- TiVo dropped toll free calls for standalone TiVos:

http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58937


----------



## unitron

mikerr said:


> A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away - well ok, 9 years ago in America...
> - TiVo dropped toll free calls for standalone TiVos:
> 
> http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58937


And I see that even back then people were telling people who bought lifetime how unrealistic it was to expect TiVo to spend any money to service those lifetime subs, with nary a whisper that maybe TiVo is to blame for promising more than they could deliver.


----------



## TCM2007

mikerr said:


> A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away - well ok, 9 years ago in America...
> - TiVo dropped toll free calls for standalone TiVos:
> 
> http://archive.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58937


That's the fellow. Spookily read this while watching a Star Wars film with my 9 years old.


----------



## dmeldrum

alek said:


> If one party can change the terms of a contract at will, what is the point of having a contract?
> 
> Alek


I don't think TiVo have changed the terms of the contract. The contract was always a lifetime subscription, meaning you wouldn't have to pay anything more for the service. The original contract always allowed TiVo to terminate the service with notice, and to modify the service when they wished.

In my view, TiVo haven't breached their contract at all.

For those who think it is an unfair contract, I think your expectations of a completely eternal service for a one-off £200 is unrealistic. Of course it had to end at sometime, and here we are 10 years on and it has ended.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> I don't think TiVo have changed the terms of the contract. The contract was always a lifetime subscription, meaning you wouldn't have to pay anything more for the service. The original contract always allowed TiVo to terminate the service with notice, and to modify the service when they wished.
> 
> In my view, TiVo haven't breached their contract at all.
> 
> For those who think it is an unfair contract, I think your expectations of a completely eternal service for a one-off £200 is unrealistic. Of course it had to end at sometime, and here we are 10 years on and it has ended.


If, in late 1999-early 2000, they'd said "No, lifetime means until we decide to discontinue the service, not the lifetime of the subscriber" instead of "No, lifetime means the life of the machine, not the lifetime of the subscriber", then an accusation of unrealistic expectations would carry more weight.


----------



## Trinitron

dmeldrum said:


> I don't think TiVo have changed the terms of the contract. The contract was always a lifetime subscription, meaning you wouldn't have to pay anything more for the service. The original contract always allowed TiVo to terminate the service with notice, and to modify the service when they wished.


The most obvious unfair term is the change of legal jurisdiction from England and Wales to California in the 2010 conditions. That kind of action is clearly prohibited by unfair contract legislation. Less clear is the point under dispute - whether terminating the service under notice but without compensation is unfair given the 'Lifetime Service' (later changed to 'Product Lifetime Subscription') guarantee contained in the original UK S1 terms & conditions.

Morally, I'm with you. I paid £199 hoping TiVo would last 20 months, so trying to claim compensation for loss of use over 8 years later just isn't an issue for me.


----------



## rwtomkins

dmeldrum said:


> For those who think it is an unfair contract, I think your expectations of a completely eternal service for a one-off £200 is unrealistic. Of course it had to end at sometime, and here we are 10 years on and it has ended.


The trouble is, once you say a service "guaranteed for the lifetime" of the TiVo recorder doesn't actually mean that, you have to define what it does mean, and whatever definition you come up with, it won't be what was sold to lifetime subscribers for £199 a pop.

Also, just shooting the breeze here, but TiVo itself doesn't appear to agree with you. In its latest annual report it states:



> The product lifetime subscriptions to the TiVo service that we currently are obligated to service commit us to providing services for an indefinite period.


and



> We offer a product lifetime subscription option to the TiVo service that commits us to provide the TiVo service for as long as the DVR is in service.


Those quotes are taken from the last section on this page:

http://investor.tivo.com/phoenix.zh...tMDAwMDMyL3htbC9zdWJkb2N1bWVudC8xL3BhZ2UvMjc=

You can also see there that TiVo currently has 310,000 lifetime subscribers whose machines have exceeded their expected lifespan, totalling 56 per cent of all lifetime subscribers. Most or all of these, of course, are in the US, and will continue to receive their lifetime service, as promised. Not so the relatively small number of lifetime subscribers in the UK, who were promised the same thing. The rule seems to be, a promise isn't binding unless you make it to enough people.


----------



## TCM2007

unitron said:


> If, in late 1999-early 2000, they'd said "No, lifetime means until we decide to discontinue the service, not the lifetime of the subscriber" instead of "No, lifetime means the life of the machine, not the lifetime of the subscriber", then an accusation of unrealistic expectations would carry more weight.


Late 2000.

They DID say that of course. It was in the T&C, as has been discussed.


----------



## TCM2007

Rwtomkins, those quotes are in the context of the US service. For TiVo to ever stop the US service, TiVo would have to be dead so there is no need to qualify any statements with what might happen in those circumstances.

I thought I was buying never having to pay £10 a month for as long as the hardware lasted, no more no less. Other people obviously saw it differently - at least with 20:20 hindsight they think they did.


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Late 2000.
> 
> They DID say that of course. It was in the T&C, as has been discussed.


I'm referring to their "clearing up" the confusion, in the US, at least, about whether lifetime meant lifetime of the subscriber. Since the cut-off for grandfathered machines here is the 21st of January, 2000, I figured they probably ammended the supposedly vague terms in the time frame I mentioned.

Until the UK cutoff (which by the most amazing co-incidence came along about the same time as the Virgin exclusive re-launch), everything I saw was always "lifetime means life of the machine, not the subscriber", not "lifetime means life of the machine, unless we cut off the service before it dies, not life of the subscriber".

The fine print on which they're relying as a legal escape clause is the kind of boilerplate lawyers always insert into these kinds of things, but for their actions not to be underhanded and sleazy would require that the number of TAM club members suddenly plunged precipitously below sustainability levels somewhere in 2010.


----------



## Trinitron

TCM2007 said:


> Late 2000.
> 
> They DID say that of course. It was in the T&C, as has been discussed.


I know we are getting circular here, but I thought that the point was that they did link to the life of the DVR, not the life of the TiVo Service



TiVo Service Agreement said:


> Definition of Lifetime Service. If you paid a Lifetime Service fee for your Recorder, the TiVo service is guaranteed for the lifetime of that Recorder, even if you give it to a friend of family member. The TiVo service will be provided only to that particular Recorder and therefore, cannot be transferred to any others you may purchase.


----------



## TCM2007

Trinitron said:


> I know we are getting circular here, but I thought that the point was that they did link to the life of the DVR, not the life of the TiVo Service


Those T&Cs say they can stop the service at any time by giving notice. That rather implies that the service can end, don't you think?

People at the time were 100% aware that the service might end, and that the T&Cs said that - there were endless threads on here along the lines of "Will I get value from £200 for a lifetime or do we think the service will end within 20 months?".

To retrospectively claim to be shocked by the idea that the service might stop is revisionist at best and disingenuous at worst.


----------



## Trinitron

TCM2007 said:


> Those T&Cs say they can stop the service at any time by giving notice. That rather implies that the service can end, don't you think?


Absolutely. I fully agree with you that the £200 was seen as something of an optimistic act at the time.

But, even saying that, TiVo have dug themselves a little bit of a hole by not doing as Unitron suggests and defining Lifetime as
(a) the lifetime of the box, or
(b) the lifetime of the TiVo Service, or
(c) the lifetime of the owner
whichever ends first.

(I added the last one just in case  )


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Those T&Cs say they can stop the service at any time by giving notice. That rather implies that the service can end, don't you think?
> 
> People at the time were 100% aware that the service might end, and that the T&Cs said that - there were endless threads on here along the lines of "Will I get value from £200 for a lifetime or do we think the service will end within 20 months?".
> 
> To retrospectively claim to be shocked by the idea that the service might stop is revisionist at best and disingenuous at worst.


Were the worries about getting one's money's worth out of a lifetime sub that the company would go out of business, or that they'd still be around but just up and discontinue the service?


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> ... defining Lifetime as
> ...
> (c) the lifetime of the owner
> ...


Next up, TiVo sends hit teams after owners of lifetime'd units as cost-cutting measure!


----------



## Pete77

unitron said:


> Were the worries about getting one's money's worth out of a lifetime sub that the company would go out of business, or that they'd still be around but just up and discontinue the service?


I think the worry was mainly the former (that they would go out of business) as most people tended to assume they would have to go on offering a Tivo EPG that they had just taken £200 from lots of UK customers on as long as the parent company in the USA was still in business. Especially as most of the subs were paid for a credit card that would allow the payment to be put in dispute if the service were just cut off after a few months.

Politically if Tivo were going to cut the service off on the grounds of dwindling numbers and economic non sustainability they should have done it around 2007 or so before the Virgin deal was ever proposed or not for about three years after the Virgin service went live (when the argument that 10 years was a reasonable interpretation of hardware Lifetime for even the final boxes sold in the shops might have had some validity). To cut us off without a replacement in 50% of Tivo S1 homes at the very moment they were trumpeting the launch of Virgin Tivo was always going to cause the maximum amount of customer anger and bad feeling. But of course I believe it happened precisely because Virgin stupidly demanded this happen without thinking through the negative consequences for both them and Tivo.


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> ...
> Politically if Tivo were going to cut the service off on the grounds of dwindling numbers and economic non sustainability they should have done it around 2007 or so...


At which point the deal with Virgin probably wasn't even a gleam in either Tom or Richard's eye.

Since they didn't do it then, I surmise that there was enough coming in from the TAM club to make it viable to continue the service.

Also if they'd summarily ended the service then, the TiVo name would have still had enough bad feelings attached to make it unattractive to Virgin 4 years later.

Just because no one has leaked a smoking gun doesn't mean that we don't know what happened.


----------



## TCM2007

unitron said:


> Were the worries about getting one's money's worth out of a lifetime sub that the company would go out of business, or that they'd still be around but just up and discontinue the service?


Either.

I don't believe anyone thought the UK service would continue indefinitely once TiVo withdrew from the UK. The fear of service closure was largely them switching it off, not them going entirely bust.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> But of course I believe it happened precisely because Virgin stupidly demanded this happen without thinking through the negative consequences for both them and Tivo.


They announced 70,000 TiVo signups so far today. More than double what TiVo UK got in three years and it's only been on open sale a few weeks. Looks like all that negativity is really hurting them.


----------



## Trinitron

All the more impressive when you consider that Virgin have only recently extended their marketing of TiVo to the public at large[1]. The 70,000 will be from ex-S1 and existing VM subscribers.

[1] That's using the Virgin definition of public, where people in non-VM cabled areas don't matter.


----------



## dmeldrum

Trinitron said:


> But, even saying that, TiVo have dug themselves a little bit of a hole by not doing as Unitron suggests and defining Lifetime as
> (a) the lifetime of the box, or
> (b) the lifetime of the TiVo Service, or
> (c) the lifetime of the owner
> whichever ends first.


I think a number of people are reading individual lines of the contract and using them to support their position. A contract can only be understood be reading the whole document, understanding the context and interpreting what was intended at the time of the contract.

The clause that states that "lifetime is the life of the box" was intended to prevent subscriptions being transferred from one box to another. It makes that clear in the line that followed.

The existence of the termination and service amendment clauses clearly indicates that the service was not intended to last for eternity.

All contract clauses are open to interpretation and misinterpretation. It is only when read as a whole that you can really understand the meaning.


----------



## TCM2007

Shhh Darren, don't go being all reasoned and sensible, we're enjoying a good Internet arguement here.


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Shhh Darren, don't go being all reasoned and sensible, we're enjoying a good Internet arguement here.


<bugs bunny voice>Yeah, the noive of some people!</bbv>


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> . .To retrospectively claim to be shocked by the idea that the service might stop is revisionist at best and disingenuous at worst.


True but it's also a bit disengenuous not to mention that there's a good argument that this was not a termination but *a transfer* of "The TiVo Service" to Virgin. And it's that transfer with sod all regard for existing contracted customers that is shocking.


----------



## rwtomkins

dmeldrum said:


> The clause that states that "lifetime is the life of the box" was intended to prevent subscriptions being transferred from one box to another. It makes that clear in the line that followed.


You know, if you would only read the thread, all these discussions have been done to death already. But I have to hand it to you - that's the funniest interpretation I've heard yet.

Instead of putting your own interpretation on what TiVo means by a lifetime subscription, why can't you just accept TiVo's? (See post #416.)

Just to go back on topic for a moment - sorry - TiVo's lawyers have at last filed their allocation questionnaire. They missed the deadline which seems a bit careless but I don't think it matters. It's all a bit odd - they seem to have changed strategy quite drastically. There's no sign at all in any of the paperwork that I've seen so far suggesting that they intend to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, which they had previously stated they intended to do. And they have also stated that they consider this case suitable for the small claims track with an estimated hearing time of just 1 hour whereas I and some others felt sure that they would seek to have the case promoted to a higher court where I would have to bear the already enormous costs if I lost. It's almost as if they've decided to cut their losses and are now just trying to get the darned thing over with as quickly and cheaply as possible, even if it means the decision may go against them.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> It's all a bit odd - they seem to have changed strategy quite drastically. There's no sign at all in any of the paperwork that I've seen so far suggesting that they intend to challenge the jurisdiction of the court


Perhaps they have now properly researched the history of the UK Tivo and also read this thread and realised this is a no hoper argument which will only make the judge angry.



> It's almost as if they've decided to cut their losses and are now just trying to get the darned thing over with as quickly and cheaply as possible, even if it means the decision may go against them.


Perhaps having again read this thread they have concluded that even if you win this claim you won't get more than say £50 compensation and on that basis judging by the highly divided views of S1 UK Tivo owners shown in this thread about the legitimacy of pushing for compensation at all probably no more than another 5 Tivo S1 users at worst will ever bring proceedings against them, especially as the potential reward is so small.

Still it appears that you are in luck and can therefore afford to see the matter through to a decision.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> True but it's also a bit disengenuous not to mention that there's a good argument that this was not a termination but *a transfer* of "The TiVo Service" to Virgin. And it's that transfer with sod all regard for existing contracted customers that is shocking.


I don't think there's the slightest case for considering it as a transfer myself.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> Perhaps having again read this thread they have concluded that even if you win this claim you won't get more than say £50 compensation and on that basis judging by the highly divided views of S1 UK Tivo owners shown in this thread about the legitimacy of pushing for compensation at all probably no more than another 5 Tivo S1 users at worst will ever bring proceedings against them, especially as the potential reward is so small.


Yes, that's a possible conclusion.

Another is that they've been advised that their case if so strong they don't need to try to weasel out of it, as they are certain to win.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> Perhaps they have now properly researched the history of the UK Tivo and also read this thread and realised this is a no hoper argument which will only make the judge angry.


Yes, Pete. I think you should watch fewer legal dramas.

I agree though that they have probably given this some thought now and concluded that unfair contract legislation will work against them on the jurisdiction claim. I'm not sure our comments or opinions will count for much though.

The core argument is a simple one of whether clause 15 (Termination of Service) trumps clause 14 (Product Lifetime Subscriptions). That shouldn't take a judge more than an hour to decide. AFAIK s/he can always refer the case to a higher court if considered appropriate.


----------



## TCM2007

Actually, I think it's pretty clear the 15 does trump 14, the question is, is any cash compensation due.

Can small claims make partial awards, or is it all or nothing?


----------



## dmeldrum

TCM2007 said:


> Actually, I think it's pretty clear the 15 does trump 14, the question is, is any cash compensation due.
> 
> Can small claims make partial awards, or is it all or nothing?


Yes, Small Claims Court can decide to award some, all or nothing.


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> That shouldn't take a judge more than an hour to decide. AFAIK s/he can always refer the case to a higher court if considered appropriate.


Or if Tivo lose they can still appeal the decision to a higher court if they can get permission to appeal from this court or alternatively from the higher court.

If this happened rwtomkins would probably have to fold his case as the small claims court cost protection would no longer apply.

If rwtomkins loses his case he sadly unfortunately will almost certainly not be able to take the risk of appealing to a higher court where the small claims cost protection would no longer apply.



Trinitron said:


> Yes, Pete. I think you should watch fewer legal dramas.


No having been there I'm not imagining it actually. Some judges and Tribunal Chairman really do enjoy giving parties at hearings who have annoyed them a hard time and yet quite a few of them are lazy (especially in lower courts or Tribunals) and don't read all the papers properly and simply base their decision on a gut feeling about how the parties come across at the hearing.

The pay as a judge or Tribunal Chairman is rubbish compared to being a barrister in the same legal forum and they generally only apply for the job either because they were not especially good barristers, are nearing retirement or because they simply enjoy the power they have to control the lives of others that goes with being a judge. There is also far less work involved in being a judge or Tribunal Chairman than there is in being a competent barrister who spends hours going through documents to come up with the killer questions and/or legal arguments that manages to win their case.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> Actually, I think it's pretty clear the 15 does trump 14, the question is, is any cash compensation due.
> 
> Can small claims make partial awards, or is it all or nothing?


I'd agree with that so this is likely all going to come down to the is it a termination or transfer question.

As posted before it's hard for TiVo to argue it's a pure termination when they themselves advertised the very same branded service as being available via Virgin. Bit of a faux pas that

http://www.tivo.com/abouttivo/international/index.html

and

http://www.tivo.com/abouttivo/international/tivo-virgin-media.html

Note the second link has changed but bad luck TiVo I have a copy of what was there in June

It's very possible TiVo have read the threads here and concluded they only have to pay a very few as most have modified their TiVo's thereby removing the lifetime obligation. _Strange that _that those with no possible claim see determined to rubbish the chances of those who still had valid lifetime subscriptions.


----------



## Pete77

Steve_K said:


> It's very possible TiVo have read the threads here and concluded they only have to pay a very few as most have modified their TiVo's thereby removing the lifetime obligation. _Strange that _that those with no possible claim see determined to rubbish the chances of those who still had valid lifetime subscriptions.


I don't know that the Tivo modification argument would actually hold water as a way of dismissing a claim. However I suppose a judge could ask for a third party expert report to determine if the Tivo was modified or still in its original as sold condition if the matter was disputed between the parties. Or I suppose that the non original condition of the box could even have been reported back to Tivo during its daily calls although I am somewhat sceptical of that.

I think its more likely that Tivo's lawyers are confident that the award will be £100 or less if they lose and that on that basis most people here simply can't be bothered with all the faff of filling out court forms and allocation questionnaires or taking a day off work to attend the hearing.

Class action lawsuits (not that they are strictly speaking allowed in the British courts) normally involve situations where all the successful parties will be in line for several thousand quid each if they win their case.

The main danger for Tivo and/or Virgin Media is actually whether a journalist starts to take an interest in the story and starts writing something interesting in a paper or magazine that would incur significant bad PR for the two brands.


----------



## colinsherry

I think if virgin were clever about this they should offer S1 tivo owners, with a lifetime subscription, their £200 back if they took out a new Virgin Tivo. They are re-couping £99 already for the rental of the new box let alone the extra subs revenue a new customer could generate


----------



## dmeldrum

Steve_K said:


> I'd agree with that so this is likely all going to come down to the is it a termination or transfer question.


I think you are the only person arguing that the service has transferred and that somehow Virgin should be responsible for continuing the Series 1 service. You are reading meaning into advertising that just isn't there.

Virgin are offering a new service, with new hardware, new software, dedicated to their cable network. Virgin are not offering a Series 1 dialup service.

The service hasn't transferred, it is a different service. It is the equivalent of moving from Series 1 to Series 4 TiVo boxes in the US. It is the same as moving from a standard TiVo to a Comcast or DirectTV box.

And as we have already agreed, the service is not transferable between different hardware, the contract is very specific on that point.


----------



## Pete77

colinsherry said:


> I think if virgin were clever about this they should offer S1 tivo owners, with a lifetime subscription, their £200 back if they took out a new Virgin Tivo. They are re-couping £99 already for the rental of the new box let alone the extra subs revenue a new customer could generate


Either that or they should definitely otherwise be waiving the £3 per month Tivo service fee charged to Virgin Tivo customers. To not do either just seems like a deliberate to upset Tivo S1 customers.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> I think you are the only person arguing that the service has transferred and that somehow Virgin should be responsible for continuing the Series 1 service. You are reading meaning into advertising that just isn't there.
> 
> Virgin are offering a new service, with new hardware, new software, dedicated to their cable network. Virgin are not offering a Series 1 dialup service.
> 
> The service hasn't transferred, it is a different service. It is the equivalent of moving from Series 1 to Series 4 TiVo boxes in the US. It is the same as moving from a standard TiVo to a Comcast or DirectTV box.
> 
> And as we have already agreed, the service is not transferable between different hardware, the contract is very specific on that point.


You can't move a US subscription from an S1, 2, or 3 to an S4 (save grandfathered S1s and limited time promotional offeres that may have happened), but don't S1s and S4s download the same program guide data?


----------



## dmeldrum

Pete77 said:


> The main danger for Tivo and/or Virgin Media is actually whether a journalist starts to take an interest in the story and starts writing something interesting in a paper or magazine that would incur significant bad PR for the two brands.


That's just not going to happen, there is no story there, and the time to have raised it was when it was first announced or when it actually happened.

There is no bad PR for Virgin, they have done nothing wrong, and TiVo can explain the 9 years of good service they have given and the £900+ worth of value that lifetime subscribers received for less than £200.


----------



## dmeldrum

unitron said:


> You can't move a US subscription from an S1, 2, or 3 to an S4 (save grandfathered S1s and limited time promotional offeres that may have happened), but don't S1s and S4s download the same program guide data?


It cannot be the same, since the S4 has features that didn't exist in the S1 such as actors profiles and movie posters.


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> Either that or they should definitely otherwise be waiving the £3 per month Tivo service fee charged to Virgin Tivo customers. To not do either just seems like a deliberate to upset Tivo S1 customers.


If the total UK S1 population was costing TiVo more than the TAM club paid in, why did they keep it going instead of bailing out several years ago?

Were they deliberately absorbing the loss to protect the TiVo "aura" until something new and shiny to which they could attach it came along? (Which turned out to be Bransonvision, although I suppose it might have been something else.)

Because if they weren't losing money on it, and discontinued it anyway, it's a bit much to expect us to believe that the timing was merely co-incidental.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> It cannot be the same, since the S4 has features that didn't exist in the S1 such as actors profiles and movie posters.


You have one database.

If an S1 calls in, the server sends it some of it.

If an S4 calls in, the server sends all of that and more.

Doesn't require 2 (or 3 or 4) separate databases.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> That's just not going to happen, there is no story there, and the time to have raised it was when it was first announced or when it actually happened.
> 
> There is no bad PR for Virgin, they have done nothing wrong, and TiVo can explain the 9 years of good service they have given and the £900+ worth of value that lifetime subscribers received for less than £200.


One could make the argument that lifetime buyers did so because they did not consider the service worth ten a month.


----------



## dmeldrum

unitron said:


> You have one database.
> 
> If an S1 calls in, the server sends it some of it.
> 
> If an S4 calls in, the server sends all of that and more.
> 
> Doesn't require 2 (or 3 or 4) separate databases.


Some big assumptions there. Whilst it is possible to design a service that works in the way you describe, do we have any evidence that is how TiVo have managed it stateside? Just as valid would be a design that starts with one big database but divides the data differently to four different servers.

Regardless of the technical solution that TiVo have put in place, the S1 service is still different to the S4 service, even if they share some technology along the way.


----------



## dmeldrum

unitron said:


> Because if they weren't losing money on it, and discontinued it anyway, it's a bit much to expect us to believe that the timing was merely co-incidental.


I'm sure they were losing money on it, and their decision to continue the service so long could either be seen as
a) Altruistic
b) Based on a sense of responsiblity to their customer base
c) Because they hoped to do a deal and relaunch in the UK when the time was right

It is quite possible that the loss was marginal, and they deemed it a worthwhile investment to continue the service whilst they sought a partner.

However a key factor is that once they had signed the Virgin deal, there was a reasonable chance that the 50% of tenner a month customers that were remaining and in a Virgin cable area would cancel and then it would certainly have been running at a loss. At this point, TiVo could reasonably say that point b), their sense of responsiblity had been satisfied since customers now had the choice of continuing a TiVo service by subscribing to Virgin.

I appreciate the counter argument, what happens to those outside the Virgin cable area? There is not much that TiVo or Virgin can do about that at the moment if it is uneconomic to extend the cable network. Sometimes in business you just have to disappoint people.


----------



## unitron

dmeldrum said:


> I'm sure they were losing money on it*, and their decision to continue the service so long could either be seen as
> a) Altruistic
> b) Based on a sense of responsiblity to their customer base
> c) Because they hoped to do a deal and relaunch in the UK when the time was right...


As they are a publicly traded corporation, I think we can safely exclude a and b.

*(I'm not)


----------



## Trinitron

dmeldrum said:


> Some big assumptions there. Whilst it is possible to design a service that works in the way you describe, do we have any evidence that is how TiVo have managed it stateside? Just as valid would be a design that starts with one big database but divides the data differently to four different servers.


Not quite evidence but the availability of EPG data past the June 1st deadline on the dedicated UK server suggested that Virgin may well be getting the same data feeds as were supplied to S1 users, even if it is then sliced by them into something compatible for the newer boxes.


----------



## dmeldrum

Trinitron said:


> Not quite evidence but the availability of EPG data past the June 1st deadline on the dedicated UK server suggested that Virgin may well be getting the same data feeds as were supplied to S1 users, even if it is then sliced by them into something compatible for the newer boxes.


All that proves is that Tribune still had a contract to provide TiVo with UK data past the 1st June.

There is a separate contract between Tribune and Virgin, providing a different set of data, for a different set of channels. Virgin were free to source their data from any supplier they chose, and it does not come via TiVo.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> I don't know that the Tivo modification argument would actually hold water as a way of dismissing a claim. However I suppose a judge could ask for a third party expert report to determine if the Tivo was modified or still in its original as sold condition if the matter was disputed between the parties. Or I suppose that the non original condition of the box could even have been reported back to Tivo during its daily calls although I am somewhat sceptical of that.


Or you just could tell the truth in a courtroom when asked if the TiVo has had it's lifetime extended. You seem to be suggesting committing perjury as a defence?


----------



## TCM2007

dmeldrum said:


> I'm sure they were losing money on it, and their decision to continue the service so long could either be seen as
> a) Altruistic
> b) Based on a sense of responsiblity to their customer base
> c) Because they hoped to do a deal and relaunch in the UK when the time was right


Add

d) Feared that cutting UK subscribers off would make negotiations in other territories very difficult.

International expansion was an important part of TiVo's strategy at the time, they were negotiating to launch in Australia in particular.


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Or you just could tell the truth in a courtroom when asked if the TiVo has had it's lifetime extended. You seem to be suggesting committing perjury as a defence?


What if it's never been opened, you say so, and TiVo disputes that?


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> ... Or I suppose that the non original condition of the box could even have been reported back to Tivo during its daily calls although I am somewhat sceptical of that...


I think it's been pretty well established that at least here in the states the TiVo logs show if your machine has reported more hours availible than is stock for that model, but Customer Service have to dig a little to get at that info.

I for one do not choose to interpret your speculation on how things might go as an attempt to incite an unlawful action, but then perhaps I read your actual words more carefully.


----------



## TCM2007

unitron said:


> What if it's never been opened, you say so, and TiVo disputes that?


Don't understand, seems pretty straightforward to prove by looking at the box.


----------



## rwtomkins

dmeldrum said:


> I'm sure they were losing money on it, and their decision to continue the service so long could either be seen as
> a) Altruistic
> b) Based on a sense of responsiblity to their customer base
> c) Because they hoped to do a deal and relaunch in the UK when the time was right


I think it's fairly well established that, once TiVo had left the UK, maintaining the UK service cost them little or nothing because they had paid BSkyB up front (in TiVo stock) for customer care. They may have incurred a continuing cost for the UK listing data that they were purchasing from Tribune but again that was part of a long-term contract covering mainly the US and since the terms would have been agreed in advance it would probably have saved them nothing to have stopped taking the UK data for as long as that contract remained in force.

So if maintaining the UK service cost them little or nothing, there was no reason to halt it especially since to do so would risk claims for breach of contract from TiVo UK customers and could also set off alarm bells in the US among lifetime subscribers there.

Several things have now changed. There must have been a time limit on how long the arrangement with BSkyB would last and perhaps it has now expired. I can't remember when the Tribune contract is or was up for renewal but I think that too is around now and if the UK listings were included in the renewal, it would represent an extra cost beyond the cost of taking the US data only. Above all, TiVo has signed an exclusive contract with Virgin that prevents it offering the TiVo Service in the UK other than through Virgin.

I don't know how many of those prompted the decision to terminate the UK service but it seems TiVo weighed these up against the downside risks and decided it made most sense to terminate. That was probably a sensible decision but where it went badly wrong was in the execution - with very little imagination TiVo could have kept its loyal UK customers sweet during the wind-down of the service but instead, intentionally or otherwise, it acted like an arrogant corporate bully.


----------



## rwtomkins

unitron said:


> One could make the argument that lifetime buyers did so because they did not consider the service worth ten a month.


Very perceptive. I would never have paid £10 a month in perpetuity for the TiVo service, or for any other TV service. I still wouldn't today. However, I was just about prepared to pay £599 (including the £199 lifetime subscription) for a box that would give me a free TiVo service for ever - well, as long as the box lasted, anyway.


----------



## TCM2007

rwtomkins said:


> I think it's fairly well established that, once TiVo had left the UK, maintaining the UK service cost them little or nothing


Don't forget the cost of the 0800 calls, not insignificant.

My guess is that the switch off was originally intended for when they stopped charging, and by that point the Virgin was supposed to have been up and and running, but they ran late. All pure speculation.


----------



## Steve_K

dmeldrum said:


> I think you are the only person arguing that the service has transferred and that somehow Virgin should be responsible for continuing the Series 1 service. You are reading meaning into advertising that just isn't there. . . . .


Well even if that was true (and I know from PMs that I'm not alone) would I care if I was the only one? Err no.

That the contract prevented others from transferring between hardware is about as relevant as tomorrow morning's test match score. What matters is TiVo very carefully defined what the service was and then used nigh on the same words to describe what was being offered through their new exclusive partner.


----------



## kdmorse

rwtomkins said:


> I don't know how many of those prompted the decision to terminate the UK service but it seems TiVo weighed these up against the downside risks and decided it made most sense to terminate. That was probably a sensible decision but where it went badly wrong was in the execution - with very little imagination TiVo could have kept its loyal UK customers sweet during the wind-down of the service but instead, intentionally or otherwise, it acted like an arrogant corporate bully.


This is where I just don't follow. You admit that terminating the UK service for standalone units probably made good sense. Once they decided to go down this path, they notified everyone, giving everyone more than ample notice. They set a shutoff date, and then gave you a few extra days (weeks? I forget), and then puled the plug. I'm just not seeing the mistreatment, corporate bullying, or solutions that require "no little imagination". While the loss of service is an understandable cause of irritation - what about this process *beyond* the loss of service was handled so horridly?

[I am of course only observing from the other side of the pond, but have been following all these threads with interest. Was there corporate bullying that occurred that wasn't reported in this forum?]

Compare this to what most other services do. "Yah, we're out of money and pulling the plug next week, toodles!".

Now, the on-topic legal question of "Lifetime" is a fascinating one, and while in my own mind I don't agree with your stance on the subject, I wish you well and am watching with fascination your progress.

-Ken


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Well even if that was true (and I know from PMs that I'm not alone) would I care if I was the only one? Err no.
> 
> That the contract prevented others from transferring between hardware is about as relevant as tomorrow morning's test match score. What matters is TiVo very carefully defined what the service was and then used nigh on the same words to describe what was being offered through their new exclusive partner.


One was sold by TiVo. The other is sold by Virgin. They are patently different for that reason alone. There are of course a hundred other differences.

They are based on similar technologies, and may have some raw data in common, but that doesn't mean there's any continuity of service from one to the other.

That arguement leaves me entirely baffled.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Or you just could tell the truth in a courtroom when asked if the TiVo has had it's lifetime extended.


No I had in mind that the judge wanted definitive prove the Tivo was not modified if there was a dispute between the parties. In that case they often call for an expert witness to settle the matter.


----------



## TCM2007

If TiVo said the TiVo was modified when it in fact wasn't? I guess so. But that's not very likely, what's much more likely is that the plaintiff has in fact modified their TiVo to extend it lifespan and has omitted to mention that, which is I believe the case here.


----------



## SianGriffiths

It was an offer in the BBC in house magazine Airel before it was widely launched and so I think I must have been one of the first subscribers in the UK. I am interested in persuing it in the small claims court as for me a lifetime's subscription does not mean 10 years (unless you're 80)


----------



## ggieseke

unitron said:


> You have one database.
> 
> If an S1 calls in, the server sends it some of it.
> 
> If an S4 calls in, the server sends all of that and more.
> 
> Doesn't require 2 (or 3 or 4) separate databases.


Are you sure it even does that much? I thought all of the additional stuff in the HD menus is pulled as needed through the broadband connection. I don't have a Series 4 to see if there's anything in the SD menus like actor profiles that older units don't have.


----------



## Steve_K

TCM2007 said:


> One was sold by TiVo. The other is sold by Virgin. They are patently different for that reason alone. There are of course a hundred other differences. . . .


Matters not one jot. As you full know it is more correct to say "One was sold by TiVo. The other is sold by Virgin as exclusively licensed by TiVo."

But I'm not going to put my core arguments up here as I still may pursue TiVo Inc in court.

Whatever the state of RW's TiVo (and IIRC he fully answered your allegation some while back) I can absolutelely assure you that mine has never been repaired or modified. The original remote control wore out but if necessary can still be run up and used.

Anyone planning to try and deceive a court as to whether they've modified or repaired a TiVo would be well advised to change that plan. And whether it seems unfair to some that part of the agreement is never going to be ruled unfair by a court (rightly imho)


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Matters not one jot. As you full know it is more correct to say "One was sold by TiVo. The other is sold by Virgin as exclusively licensed by TiVo."
> 
> But I'm not going to put my core arguments up here as I still may pursue TiVo Inc in court.


IT'S NOT THE SAME SERVICE. Anyone can see that, it's beyond obvious.

I can't see any benefit in trying to go down that route unless you're trying to get TiVo to give you a Virgin subscription and a new box. That's clearly not something a court can order, even if it was in any way proportionate to the £198 you spent all that time ago.

If you're just trying to get a few quid compensation, that would be a hopeless way of going about it.


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> Whatever the state of RW's TiVo (and IIRC he fully answered your allegation some while back) I can absolutelely assure you that mine has never been repaired or modified. The original remote control wore out but if necessary can still be run up and used.


I was just quoting what he said himself:



rtomkins said:


> Pacelink have now diagnosed the failure of my TiVo and say it was not a failed hard drive but a failed hard disk controller. (Same as an IDE controller?) Haven't heard of this before, is it common? Cost of new controller, which I understand is a chip, is £48.20 plus VAT, plus fixed-rate labour charge of £35 plus VAT.


----------



## ColinYounger

Steve_K said:


> "One was sold by TiVo. The other is sold by Virgin as exclusively licensed by TiVo."


Virgin are actually selling a TV package with set-top box with TiVo software on it.

The only TiVo bit is the software. Everything else belongs to VM\Cisco.

Not the same package at all. I can't even start to compare the services on a like-for-like basis.


----------



## Steve_K

Yes Colin you can't compare a bundled package with one of it's components

And the relevance of that non comparison is just what?

TiVo transferred "The TiVo Service" and Virgin included "The TiVo Service" in their bundled package. Still a transfer of that component.


----------



## TCM2007

In what sense was it "transferred"? I really can't get my head around your perspective on that.


----------



## DX30

TCM2007 said:


> In what sense was it "transferred"? I really can't get my head around your perspective on that.


ISTR that TiVo said


> To carry on enjoying your TiVo service, swap to Virgin Media and grab the new Virgin Media TV powered by TiVo box.


Personally I don't think it is really a transfer, but I think TiVo should be more careful with their wording. Of course if they had been more careful in the first place they wouldn't have used the term "lifetime" either.


----------



## ColinYounger

Steve_K: the point of my comparison was, like TCM, my inability to understand your point, not to be argumentative.

You refer to "The TiVo service". I'm looking at my box now - I see no "TiVo service". Maybe that's where I'm missing something.


----------



## Steve_K

probably deserves a retelling

TiVo decided that the S1 service (TAM or lifetime) would be badged as "the TiVo service"

They also decided that they would advertise "the TiVo service" as being available via Virgin. 

So in their own words it's not a termination. Therefore it's a transfer.

A classic TiVo-ism. There were ways they could have legally constructed a position to effect the same end result but TiVo doesn't often do anything clever outside of the actual box. Right up to the point they set our accounts as closed they could still have pursued a legal construct that might have been immoral but would have been legal. Can't now though.


----------



## Pete77

It would be interesting if someone who has a new Virgin Media Tivo decides to file a case in the small claims court claiming for the cost of their new Virgin Tivo and the £3 per month Tivo service charge for say 10 years (so £36 x 20 = £720) on the basis that their new Virgin Media Tivo box clearly is just a continuation of the Tivo Service for which they had already paid for its Lifetime.


----------



## TCM2007

Lifetime isn't transferrable between two S1s let alone an S1 and an S4, so that would be a total waste of time!


----------



## TCM2007

Steve_K said:


> probably deserves a retelling
> 
> TiVo decided that the S1 service (TAM or lifetime) would be badged as "the TiVo service"
> 
> They also decided that they would advertise "the TiVo service" as being available via Virgin.


Wow, that's your arguement? The semantics of some marketing blurb? Really?

I still don't see what you hope to gain by this line of arguement. The service is still stopped. Any compensation you might be due from that is unrelated to whether another TiVo service exists on another platform.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Lifetime isn't transferrable between two S1s let alone an S1 and an S4, so that would be a total waste of time!


Ok looking at it another way someone living in a Virgin Tivo area who has had their S1 service discontinued can still made a good case for arguing that their net loss of value on the S1 Tivo is the cost of buying a Virgin Tivo and the extra subscription payment on that new box to get the new Virgin Tivo service.

If Tivo hadn't chose to renege on the Lifetime service on the customer's still functioning and unmodified Tivo S1 box then of course the customer would not have any case for making this argument since as you rightly say the S1 service is not transferrable at the mere whim of a customer just because they suddenly feel they want to have a newer Tivo box. But in this case it is not a customer's whim but is a situation enforced by Tivo discontinuing service to an S1 box that they the customer were happy to carry on using to get the Tivo service.

By the way its beginning to sound and more like Virgin and Tivo are paying you to act as their official spokesman. Did you take over the job when CarlWaring resigned the position in this section of the forum?


----------



## TCM2007

If you keep making more and more tenuous arguements, I'll keep knocking them down.

TiVo are guilty of poor customer relations with how they've handled this, but no more than that.

I don't buy the people claiming to be hard done by given the value that they've had from the TiVo in the last decade. Even if they have a legal claim for a few quid, they don't have a moral claim.

I can understand taking court action to register a protest against the closure, but some on here seem to think TiVo owes them their money back, or a new Virgin TiVo, and that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> If you keep making more and more tenuous arguements, I'll keep knocking them down.


Whereas I thought it was just that you found it more fun than chatting to the wife or getting on with the next piece of work at the office.

You certainly do seem to enjoy tortuous circular arguments and scoring points against others in forum debate (since you always depict your viewpoint on any situation as being intellectually superior to those you are debating with) whereas even I can see that most of the discussion in this thread is now quite pointless apart from the periodic updates on legal proceedings from rwtomkins.


----------



## TCM2007

Doesn't stop you posting either?

99.9% of all forum posts are "quite pointless"


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> 99.9% of all forum posts are "quite pointless"


So only yours appear to be worth reading then.


----------



## rwtomkins

kdmorse said:


> This is where I just don't follow. You admit that terminating the UK service for standalone units probably made good sense. Once they decided to go down this path, they notified everyone, giving everyone more than ample notice. They set a shutoff date, and then gave you a few extra days (weeks? I forget), and then puled the plug. I'm just not seeing the mistreatment, corporate bullying, or solutions that require "no little imagination". While the loss of service is an understandable cause of irritation - what about this process *beyond* the loss of service was handled so horridly?


Fair question. What I meant by "probably made sense" was that, as a business decision, it probably made sense from the shareholders' point of view, meaning the gains outweighed the relatively small downside risks. But if handled badly it was obviously going to upset the UK customers and particularly the lifetime subscribers and I think far more could have been done to keep them sweet. It's amazing what you can get away with if you simply talk to people and show them a bit of courtesy and consideration. TiVo made no attempt to communicate with its UK customers other than to notify them over the TiVo system that they were going to be cut off. It made no apology for it and showed no signs of caring about the lifetime subscribers whose contracts were being cancelled without recompense or the many customers who had no option to transfer to the Virgin service even if they were prepared to pay for it. People here tried to contact TiVo and there was even a petition of some sort - I can't remember the details - but to the best of my recollection all attempts to communicate with TiVo, even the friendly and constructive ones, were rudely ignored.

I think if a company like Amazon had been in the same situation it would have acted very differently. Indeed, if TiVo were doing the same thing in the US, I think it would act very differently there, too. But it seemed Tivo thought, because UK subscribers were relatively few in number, they could be safely ignored. So my very small claim is just my very small way of protesting.



kdmorse said:


> Now, the on-topic legal question of "Lifetime" is a fascinating one, and while in my own mind I don't agree with your stance on the subject, I wish you well and am watching with fascination your progress.
> 
> -Ken


Many thanks, Ken, much appreciated.


----------



## Trinitron

TCM2007 said:


> I still don't see what you hope to gain by this line of arguement. The service is still stopped. Any compensation you might be due from that is unrelated to whether another TiVo service exists on another platform.


No I don't get what he is on about either.

The "TiVo Service" is their trademarked content platform. Without it no TiVo box could function. From Reuters' profile of TiVo Inc:


> TiVo has developed a technology portfolio that makes the TiVo service available on a retail DVR product line that can receive over-the-air digital signals, analog cable, digital cable through the use of CableCARDs, and from broadband video sources. The TiVo service can also be deployed by cable operators, such as RCN, Suddenlink and Charter. The TiVo service can also be modified to work on integrated set-top boxes used by television service providers, such as Virgin Media, Ono and Canal Digital.


----------



## cwaring

mikerr said:


> S1's may have been "available to 100%", but they only ever had a measly 40,000 units at its peak..
> 
> Want to bet there's many more than that VM TiVos in use already ?


I believe that their latest quartely report states 50k Tivos in use.


----------



## mikerr

Yep, and another 25,000 on the current install list.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/virgin-media-loses-36000-customers


> Virgin Media has a total TV customer base of 3.77 million[...]
> The company said that it has installed 50,000 of its new TiVo personal video recorder set-top boxes, and has another 25,000 customers awaiting installation.


----------



## cwaring

Trinitron said:


> [1] That's using the Virgin definition of public, where people in non-VM cabled areas don't matter.


And if you can't get the, serivce why *should* you matter?


----------



## Wendell Pierce

Steve_K said:


> probably deserves a retelling...
> TiVo decided that the S1 service (TAM or lifetime) would be badged as "the TiVo service" They also decided that they would advertise "the TiVo service" as being available via Virgin.
> So in their own words it's not a termination. Therefore it's a transfer.
> A classic TiVo-ism. There were ways they could have legally constructed a position to effect the same end result but TiVo doesn't often do anything clever outside of the actual box. Right up to the point they set our accounts as closed they could still have pursued a legal construct that might have been immoral but would have been legal. Can't now though.


Thats my point also.

I have read this thread since the beginning and nothing alters my view that Tivo acted badly.
I don't expect compensation.
Neither would I expect a free Freeview box post-digital switch off as somebody opined, as Tivo would not be to blame for that, but for switching off the service to S1 Lifetime subscribers Tivo is to blame.

All I expected was that I could still connect to the service, not be disconnected by Tivo.

I'm repeating what I posted at the beginning, I still feel the same.

"I have four UK Tivo S1, two of which have Lifetime subscriptions, one has never been activated, and one which was never activated, and has recently stopped powering on.
I have no intention of claiming against Tivo but support the idea that UK Tivo Lifetime customers have been poorly served.
I will not be transferring to Virgin Media, I have SKY HD subscriptions.

I am wondering if now Tivo have closed the accounts of Lifetime subscribers, and disconnected access to the service they are now in breach of contract to Lifetime subscribers.
The point being Tivo FAQ states:
" Will my box need to remain connected via dial up or broadband in order to make its daily call to the TiVo Service?

No, now that the service is disconnected, your box will not need to make a daily call or remain connected to your broadband or phone line. "

So by their own reference the service still exists.

When I was sold my Tivos I had the option of paying monthly or choosing a Lifetime account. Admittedly back then I wrongly assumed it meant the life of my Tivo - only recently realising it actually meant the life of the service.

So if the service still exists - and my Lifetime status should allow access to the service with no subscription to pay - surely Tivo are acting wrongly to close UK Lifetime accounts.

In my opinion Tivo have not done themselves credit acting this way. "
:down::down:


----------



## Trinitron

cwaring said:


> And if you can't get the, serivce why *should* you matter?


Because Virgin are advertising TiVo on my TV, telling me I should sign up with them today. Except I can't.


----------



## rwtomkins

Wendell Pierce said:


> When I was sold my Tivos I had the option of paying monthly or choosing a Lifetime account. Admittedly back then I wrongly assumed it meant the life of my Tivo - only recently realising it actually meant the life of the service.


You weren't wrong - it really does mean the lifetime of your TiVo. The mistake people made was thinking it meant the lifetime of the owner when in fact it meant the lifetime of the TiVo. That's why it was renamed the "product lifetime subscription", to avoid the risk of confusion.



Wendell Pierce said:


> So if the service still exists - and my Lifetime status should allow access to the service with no subscription to pay - surely Tivo are acting wrongly to close UK Lifetime accounts.


Good point.


----------



## cwaring

Trinitron said:


> Because Virgin are advertising TiVo on my TV, telling me I should sign up with them today. Except I can't.


And, as I said before, they could not select who got the message and who didn't. A bit like a Sky mailshot telling me all about how I can get free broadband from them when I can't because they're not "in" my local exchange. (I think they are now but the point still stands!)

I left this forum because I couldn't be ars... erm... bothered to continue going round in circles on this very subject and yet here you all are, months later, *still* going on about.

Have to say that I've had a good laugh reading through this new thread on and off the last couple of days. Same old people, same old arguments that were wrong then and are still wrong now


----------



## Trinitron

cwaring said:


> I left this forum because I couldn't be ars... erm... bothered to continue going round in circles on this very subject and yet here you all are, months later, *still* going on about.
> 
> Have to say that I've had a good laugh reading through this new thread on and off the last couple of days. Same old people, same old arguments that were wrong then and are still wrong now


If you had bothered to read all my original post, I agreed that it was impressive that VM had signed up 70,000 people. The fact that those 70,000 are from a limited sample of the UK population makes it all the more impressive.

Virgin not being able to select who gets the message doesn't alter the fact that I (and many others) can't take up their offer.

Please tell me where I am wrong? Or do you just like quoting people out of context?


----------



## cwaring

Erm... I was referring to the "let's sue the backside off Tivo for completely nonsense reasons". You know, the main point of this thread


----------



## spitfires

@rwtomkins 
Any news? I would have thought your claim would have been heard by now?

.


----------



## TCM2007

He's been kidnapped by TiVo's goons to stop the claim.


----------



## Pete77

spitfires said:


> @rwtomkins
> Any news? I would have thought your claim would have been heard by now?


Then you clearly don't know the civil court process in this country very well.

If Tivo's side demanded more time to come up with evidence or call witnesses etc then the hearing could easily be adjourned to a later date a number of different times.

Only if both parties are content for matters to proceed to court as quickly as possible does a hearing take place in weeks rather than in months or years.


----------



## spitfires

Pete77 said:


> Then you clearly don't know the civil court process in this country very well.
> 
> If Tivo's side demanded more time to come up with evidence or call witnesses etc then the hearing could easily be adjourned to a later date a number of different times.
> 
> Only if both parties are content for matters to proceed to court as quickly as possible does a hearing take place in weeks rather than in months or years.


As per usual Pete77 you are talking out of your arfe. You are mixing up the Small Claims process with "normal" court actions. The small claims procedure (or whatever it is called these days) is specifically designed to PREVENT the defendants doing exactly what you describe.

(And yes I do know the process quite well since I have actually been through it, several times - unlike you who only knows the procedure you have dreamt and invented after skim reading one web page somewhere irrelevant. Hint: you do NOT "call witnesses" to a small claims hearing! Now go back in to your hole and only come out when or IF you have something helpful to write.)
(p.s. I bet you even think the hearing takes place in a Court Room with ushers and a stenographer as well don't you?...just like you've seen on TV)


----------



## RichardJH

spitfires said:


> ...just like you've seen on TV)


Perhaps it was Judge Judy


----------



## Heuer

He probably had to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement!


----------



## markbanang

Like @spitfires, I would be interested to know how @rwtomkins is getting on with his claim.

I have just gone back and read all of @rwtomkins' recent posts in this thread and while it is possible that the case was silently dropped, I don't think (from what I've just read) that the FAQ produced by Tivo is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy my own disappointment with Tivo.


----------



## TCM2007

RichardJH said:


> Perhaps it was Judge Judy


Given Pete's age it was probably County Court on ITV!


----------



## TCM2007

Of course he could just be on his summer holidays!


----------



## TCM2007

(Actually "Last Activity: 08-21-2011 09:22 PM" so he's here but not replying!)

If he maintains radio silence much longer you'd have to conclude he has successfully settled out of court in return for keeping quiet.

Your turn to file Pete!


----------



## CarlWalters

TCM2007 said:


> Given Pete's age it was probably County Court on ITV!


Wasn't it "Crown Court" - the one with the portentous theme tune?
(I must get out more  )


----------



## kitschcamp

Yeah, one of the best reasons to be off school sick. Crown Court, A Country Practice and the Monday Matinee.


----------



## CarlWalters

Theme tune is going round and round in my head now


----------



## cwaring

TCM2007 said:


> If he maintains radio silence much longer you'd have to conclude he has successfully settled out of court in return for keeping quiet.


Either that or he's too embarrassed that, after all the hyperbole and bluster, his claim failed


----------



## RichardJH

CarlWalters said:


> Wasn't it "Crown Court" - the one with the portentous theme tune?
> (I must get out more  )


Just for you Carl

Watch Crown Court Free Online

http://www.ovguide.com/tv/crown_court.htm


----------



## CarlWalters

RichardJH said:


> Just for you Carl
> 
> Watch Crown Court Free Online
> 
> http://www.ovguide.com/tv/crown_court.htm


Thanks! There goes the rest of this week's work


----------



## TCM2007

cwaring said:


> Either that or he's too embarrassed that, after all the hyperbole and bluster, his claim failed


I don't think so, he was doing it as a punt and he doesn't strike me as they type to go all shy if the claim was lost.

Either he's inhibited from posting for some reason, or he's settled. The other options don't strike me as likely.


----------



## spitfires

I agree. And it seems likely that he's subscribed to this topic (based on the speed of his replies previously) so he's undoubtedly aware of recent posts. Therefore I would conclude that he has settled out of court with a full gagging agreement.


----------



## Pete77

We are in one of the most popular weeks of the year to be away on holiday with your family. I suspect that this is where he may well be and that he does not have internet access there.


----------



## rwtomkins

No mystery - I'm on holiday! Back soon.


----------



## RichardJH

rwtomkins said:


> No mystery - I'm on holiday! Back soon.


Is Pete with you  He seemed to know where you were


----------



## Pete77

RichardJH said:


> Is Pete with you  He seemed to know where you were


I was just using normal brain cell power to reference the time of year and the fact that a lot of people are away and that the civil courts also sit for less of the time in the month of August.


----------



## OzSat

rwtomkins said:


> No mystery - I'm on holiday! Back soon.


Mystery solved - he can not post anything because he is on holiday 



RichardJH said:


> Is Pete with you


If only


----------



## bigwold

RichardJH said:


> Is Pete with you  He seemed to know where you were


Of course he knew - he knows everything


----------



## cwaring

RichardJH said:


> Is Pete with you  He seemed to know where you were





Pete77 said:


> I was just....


That one just went straight over your head, didn't it


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> That one just went straight over your head, didn't it


I think I liked it better when you had temporarily decided to confine yourself to the Virgin Media section of this forum.


----------



## cwaring

Teehee


----------



## rwtomkins

Well, no news I'm afraid - just to say I'm back from holiday but there was no letter from the court giving a date for the hearing. Presumably they closed down for August. If I don't hear anything in the next week or so I'll try giving them a call.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> Well, no news I'm afraid - just to say I'm back from holiday but there was no letter from the court giving a date for the hearing. Presumably they closed down for August. If I don't hear anything in the next week or so I'll try giving them a call.


Cases where the other side does not enter a defence usually proceed quickly to judgment against them. However where a defence is entered things usually slow down in a big way especially if no date for a new hearing was set at the last adjourned one.

One of the reasons for this is that the courts hope that you and the other side will end up settling out of court rather than insisting on a full blown hearing that might take up several valuable hours of court room time.


----------



## TCM2007

Small Claims courts don't work like that Pete.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Small Claims courts don't work like that Pete.


Sorry but it does work exactly like that when a defence is entered that may mean it is not now appropriate for the matter to be heard as a small claim.

In my case we had numerous adjournments whilst the matter instead preceded in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (where I had made a claim in relation to a larger number of issues) and the County Court claim was consequently eventually struck out.

Small Claims only works like lightning where the other side does not dispute it is a small claim and does not enter a defence to that effect.


----------



## TCM2007

What "adjourned" hearing are you talking about Pete? A hearing date is set, he case is heard ( in a few minutes), done.

Hearings with adjournments aren't small claims.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Hearings with adjournments aren't small claims.


Then why has rwtomkins case not been heard by now?


----------



## TCM2007

Because the date hasn't been set yet? You can only adjourn a hearing which has been convened.


----------



## spitfires

Pete77 said:


> [snip some irrelevant drivel]


"Then you clearly don't know the civil court process in this country very well."

The Small Claims process has a clearly defined (and tight timetable) to ensure claims are processed (and taken off the Court's books!) as quickly as possible.



Pete77 said:


> Small Claims only works like lightning where the other side does not dispute it is a small claim


Which they have not disputed as rwtomiins has already said. Do you actually READ anything that is written? Or are you just senile with a memory span akin to a goldfish.


----------



## spitfires

@rwtomkins
Don't wait for a hearing date - you *must* chase it up if the alloted timetable has passed. I don't know the exact date you served notice but they have to file a defence or counterclaim within 14 days from the date of service (which is deemed to be 5 days after date of issue), which may be extended to 28 days if they filed an acknowledgement of service (which I think you said they did do?).

Contrary to pete77's fairyland version of UK law, there is no "adjournment" or "extension" allowed. If the 14/28 period has elapsed then you should "request judgment". (Fill out form N225). It is up to YOU to request judgement - if you do not then the Court will not chase TiVo up for you.

If you do not request judgment and TiVo do not file a response then nothing at all will happen (i.e. no hearing date will be set) and the Court will simply bin your claim after 6 months. 

Although the Small Claims process is simple, it is up to you to chase it all the way through - the Court will not do this for you! (I mean how much Court effort should one expect for the fee of £25, £35 or £60  )


----------



## rwtomkins

Thanks for the advice. I think I posted developments as they took place but in any event the present situation is that TiVo's lawyers did file their defence before the final deadline and they also accepted that the claim was suitable for the small claims track, so as far as I can see the only reason for the present delay is that nothing much happens in August, especially if the claimant has declared that he will be on holiday for two weeks and immediately afterwards it's a bank holiday weekend. I would hope that a date might be set next week and I'll probably give the court a call if I haven't heard anything by the time next Friday looms.


----------



## rwtomkins

I phoned the London court yesterday and they said they couldn't understand why the claim wasn't moving forward. They said it was in the hands of the centralised small claims service at Haywards Heath and I should write to the business manager there asking what was happening so that's what I've done. They should have sent all the paperwork to the London court for a judge to look at by now but they haven't.


----------



## TCM2007

London courts a bit busy jailing sock stealers?


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> I phoned the London court yesterday and they said they couldn't understand why the claim wasn't moving forward. They said it was in the hands of the centralised small claims service at Haywards Heath and I should write to the business manager there asking what was happening so that's what I've done. They should have sent all the paperwork to the London court for a judge to look at by now but they haven't.


County Courts basically treat all correspondence from litigants in person as low priority but jump to it when they see anything from solicitors who they know will know how to work the complaints systems if they get poor performance on their documents.

I was told a letter had been written by a judge three weeks ago in my case and read its text but they still haven't produced it or sent it out in the post to me yet.


----------



## rwtomkins

STILL no news - in spite of my letter, the centralised small claims service at Haywards Heath has failed to pass the papers on to the London court, presumably having lost them, and I'm now working with the London court to try to sort out the mess. I don't think we're going to see much action for a while.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> STILL no news - in spite of my letter, the centralised small claims service at Haywards Heath has failed to pass the papers on to the London court, presumably having lost them, and I'm now working with the London court to try to sort out the mess. I don't think we're going to see much action for a while.


I have personal experience from both a speeding and a civil case that the Surrey and Sussex courts are nightmarishly inefficient and incompetent in handling cases and/or correspondence relating to them.

You may want to consider making a high level complaint about their maladministration as i my own case that immediately caused the district judge to read the paperwork a lot more thoroughly and generally to be more civil and fair towards my case. Of course some will argue that such a complaint might have the reverse effect although based on past experience they usually seem to treat you even more badly if you don't complain.

*EDIT* P.S. They do actually act very swiftly in response to court applications by solicitors but I assume that is because they know that the solicitors know how to complain if they screw up. But their basis attitude towards correspondence from litigants in person is that it is correspondence that they can afford to ignore for weeks on end.


----------



## tashflet

Hi there, 
Did you have any luck with your claim against TiVo? I want to do that now have a bit more time but not sure whether it's worth it or not?
Thanks so much!


----------



## rwtomkins

Well, the claim seems to have gone astray in the system but I hope to have it all straightened out and back on track very shortly and hopefully it will move swiftly to a conclusion soon after.

In the meantime, the latest development is that the defendant's lawyers have asked the court to dismiss the claim without a hearing on the grounds that (they argue) the claim has been made against the wrong party - TiVo (UK) Ltd instead of TiVo Inc. They argue that the original terms and conditions referred to TiVo Inc, not TiVo (UK) Ltd, and that the service was provided by TiVo Inc because when UK machines dialed the toll-free 0800 number, they connected with TiVo Inc's servers in the US. I've responded saying that none of this matters because when you buy something, your contract is with the person who takes your money in exchange and I've cited TiVo (UK) Ltd's annual reports showing that TiVo (UK) Ltd took all the revenues from the sale of UK subscriptions during this period.

I think it's very unlikely that the defendants' application will succeed so now it's just a question of waiting for a date for the hearing. In fact I'm pleased they've raised this now because it'll be one less issue to deal with once the case comes to court.


----------



## Steve_K

All power to you with your perseverance RW. :up: 

I have to confess that I saw that "wrong company" argument as a winner for TiVo UK and the complications of taking on TiVo US meaning Fast Track wouldn't touch it but hadn't thought of that aspect of the "look who took the money" angle.


----------



## rwtomkins

Thanks, Steve_K.

Good news: at last, the claim is back on track again and indeed they now seem to be trying to make up for lost time. A 15-minute preliminary hearing has been set for next Monday "to determine whether there is a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant." I'll report back afterwards.


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> Thanks, Steve_K.
> 
> Good news: at last, the claim is back on track again and indeed they now seem to be trying to make up for lost time. A 15-minute preliminary hearing has been set for next Monday "to determine whether there is a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant." I'll report back afterwards.


Did the prelim hearing take place?


----------



## rwtomkins

Yes, I'm so sorry, I kept meaning to post an update but never got around to it - I got the feeling that no one was following this thread any more apart from TiVo and its lawyers!

The judge, though sympathetic, decided there wasn't enough evidence to show that my contract was with TiVo (UK) Ltd rather than TiVo Inc and ruled accordingly. So unfortunately that means starting all over again with a claim against TiVo Inc which I've already initiated. The claim was served a few days ago on TiVo's London address so now I'm waiting to see if TiVo Inc intends to file a defence. I think from memory they get two weeks to respond, and if not, I can ask for a summary judgment.

Going back to the claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd, my case was based on TiVo (UK) Ltd's annual reports for the period in question which state clearly that the main business of the company was "that of marketing a subscription based television service." The reports also show substantial revenues from that activity, eg £2.5m in the 15 months to December 2001. That showed that it was indeed TiVo (UK) Ltd that was selling the subscriptions and taking the money during the period in question. I argued that, when you buy something, your contract is with the person you buy it from, and in this case that was clearly TiVo (UK) Ltd.

However, my problem was that I didn't have a single scrap of paper showing any kind of relationship between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd while on the other hand the one scrap of paper I did have, the lifetime service agreement, said there was a contract between me and TiVo Inc. So I don't blame the judge for reaching the decision he reached - it was a "case not proved" kind of thing rather than saying I was obviously wrong and as I say he was very sympathetic, saying he had "reluctantly" decided in favour of the defendant.

Looking on the bright side, it has at least made the claim much more straightforward. TiVo has repeatedly told me that I should be claiming against TiVo Inc and not TiVo (UK) Ltd so there is no longer any question of whether I'm claiming against the right party - they can't for example suddenly turn around and start trying to pass the buck to Sky. They have also denied that they're seeking to avoid the jurisdiction of the English courts by putting TiVo Inc in the frame so it will look pretty bad if they now go back on that.

BTW no one from TiVo was in court. They actually hired a barrister to represent them! I can't imagine how much money they must have spent on this. Which reminds me, they did spring one surprise - they asked for their costs. Apparently they can do this if your case hasn't yet been allocated. I protested to the judge that I couldn't possibly have known that and he awarded the absolute minimum permitted under the rules which was £175. I said I still thought that was unfair but as he pointed out it wouldn't even cover the cost of the barrister's breakfast that morning so I decided to shut up and pay up.


----------



## Trinitron

An interesting and informative post. Thanks for bringing us up to date. I can't say I'm surprised at the outcome, given the wording of the service agreement but I look forward to the sequel...


----------



## unitron

So, are you accepting (small  ) donations?


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> BTW no one from TiVo was in court. They actually hired a barrister to represent them! I can't imagine how much money they must have spent on this. Which reminds me, they did spring one surprise - they asked for their costs. Apparently they can do this if your case hasn't yet been allocated. I protested to the judge that I couldn't possibly have known that and he awarded the absolute minimum permitted under the rules which was £175. I said I still thought that was unfair but as he pointed out it wouldn't even cover the cost of the barrister's breakfast that morning so I decided to shut up and pay up.


This sounds like a complete and utter abuse of the small claims process. If the judge had decided to allocate the claim to the multi track then you should have had the opportunity to withdraw your claim before any costs recoverable from you were incurred.

Unfortunately the claim you are making here is one of principle where any potential payback you may get if you win is tiny in relation to the costs they could hit you with if the claim is allocated to the multi track and they win. I suspect their next trick when the courts hear your claim against Tivo Inc will be to argue that this is far too complicated a matter for the small claims track and to get in on to the multi track where they can hit you with all of their costs.

This is the game that most of the unprincipled low lifes otherwise known as solicitors and barristers play in this country. Namely making it unaffordable for small individual claimants to carry on with their case by pummelling them with large legal costs from which they, the low lifes, benefit.

I fear that the next trick will be for their lawyer to argue that a claim against a US company can't possibly be heard as a small claim, even if it can be heard in the British courts. As a result it will probably be allocated to the multi track.

The bottom line is that unless hundreds of us from this forum are signed up to fighting this as a group action it is going to become an unaffordable game to play very quickly.

Speaking as one who has just been forced to settle out of court for several tens of thousands over a tribunal dispute originally involving only a few hundred pounds at a tribunal billed as low cost and affordable and where any direct costs that can be awarded by the tribunal are meant to be limited to £500 I would advise you to think very long and hard indeed about carrying on with this struggle on your own.


----------



## Marcopolo1271

To rwtomkins

I too am a tivo lifetime subscriber and would just like to let you know that I have been watching this thread with interest and will continue to do so. I am grateful to you for spending the considerable time and effort to go after tivo on this.

I would like to echo the comments of unitron and offer you a small contribution towards your costs.

If you are successful in your action I will certainly consider doing the same or even better perhaps we could all gang up on them and offer them the chance to settle the matter without fighting x number of court cases. The very fact that they hired a barrister shows that they are nervous about losing the case presumably because of the flood of others that could follow.


----------



## Pete77

Marcopolo1271 said:


> I too am a tivo lifetime subscriber and would just like to let you know that I have been watching this thread with interest and will continue to do so. I am grateful to you for spending the considerable time and effort to go after tivo on this.


I admire rwtomkins stand of principle but I think it would have been better if he had managed to get 20 other members of the forum to also submit a claim on this matter on the same day. Because knowing now as I do how lawyers think I know that they will think that if your claim is not about a lot of money and you are just one person that they will get you to fold your case by running up massive and disproprotionate costs that they can hit you with. Solicitors and barrister do not care that there is a low costs track as their objective will be to get the case allocated to the high cost track instead. And if you don't fold well they get the money anyway for their time on the case so whatever happens they win.



> I would like to echo the comments of unitron and offer you a small contribution towards your costs.


I think you need to specify what you are prepared to contribute. What happens if rwtomkins is landed with a bill for £20,000 of legal costs on their side.



> The very fact that they hired a barrister shows that they are nervous about losing the case presumably because of the flood of others that could follow.


No it just shows Tivo Inc are a large corporate these days and large corporates are always represented by their lawyers in court. In addition from a practical perspective they don't have any staff resident in the UK so it is probably cheaper for them to use a barrister as well as far more likely to cause a successful legal outcome in their favour.

I personally think that the fact that it has been decided the contract is with Tivo Inc is very bad news and that there is now almost no hope of either any resolution or an affordable resolution of the matter in the UK courts.

My final word of warning is that if you are expecting justice in a matter involving civil litigation then the UK courts are unfortunately not a place where you can expect to find it. The rule of law in the UK civil courts is that Goliath (in terms of the amount spent on lawyer representation) normally wins his case.


----------



## sjp

unitron said:


> So, are you accepting (small  ) donations?


+1 feel free to PM


----------



## unitron

I was specifically referring to donations to help defray the, if I understand correctly, One-Hundred Seventy-Five Pounds, which according to Google works out to almost One Hundred Eighty United States Dollars (that must be one hell of a breakfast).

"However, my problem was that I didn't have a single scrap of paper showing any kind of relationship between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd..."

"I actually found my letter today, dating from 2002, thanking me for taking out a lifetime subscription. It was indeed from TiVo, not from BSkyB - it was from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer, TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB."

Are these two statements not contradictory?

Tivo does seem to be playing a particularly sleazy game here, claiming to be one entity when it suits them and a different entity when _that_ suits them.

Time for *OCCUPY TIVO*?


----------



## cwaring

rwtomkins said:


> BTW no one from TiVo was in court. They actually hired a barrister to represent them! I can't imagine how much money they must have spent on this. Which reminds me, they did spring one surprise - they asked for their costs. Apparently they can do this if your case hasn't yet been allocated. I protested to the judge that I couldn't possibly have known that and he awarded the absolute minimum permitted under the rules which was *£175*. I said I still thought that was unfair but as he pointed out it wouldn't even cover the cost of the barrister's breakfast that morning so I decided to shut up and pay up.


So your court action has, so far, cost nearly as much as your LT sub.

Some people really do have more money than sense


----------



## TCM2007

More, Carl, as he presumably also lost his cost of starting the action.

While not sharing Pete's views on lawyers (the ones on my side always seem nice guys tying to help), asking for costs at that point does seem below the belt.

A small claim win does not set a precedent in law, so it's not clear why they are defending so hard. Especially as I still think rtimkins only stands to be awarded a few quid at best.


----------



## unitron

I just came across a comment on HuffPo that seems pertinent here.

"...the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of lawyers."


----------



## rwtomkins

You guys are great, you really are. Thank you very, very much for offering to help out with the costs. But I wouldn't dream of taking you up on it - you never asked me to take on the case and indeed many advised me against doing so and anyway it's not all that much - about the price of a couple of parking tickets around where I live. Plus, of course, I'll get it back when I win!

It's getting a bit late now so I'll reply to the other points tomorrow but in the meantime thank you again - I'm really touched by your kindness and generosity.


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> Plus, of course, I'll get it back when I win!
> .


Er, no you won't. You can't recover the cost of your failed attempts even if you eventually win one.

If you spent £25 on your original failed claim against BSkyB, £25 against TiVo UK and now £175 costs, then the total is already more than the original cost of your subscription.


----------



## Trinitron

unitron said:


> I was specifically referring to donations to help defray the, if I understand correctly, One-Hundred Seventy-Five Pounds, which according to Google works out to almost One Hundred Eighty United States Dollars (that must be one hell of a breakfast).
> 
> "However, my problem was that I didn't have a single scrap of paper showing any kind of relationship between me and TiVo (UK) Ltd..."
> 
> "I actually found my letter today, dating from 2002, thanking me for taking out a lifetime subscription. It was indeed from TiVo, not from BSkyB - it was from Mike Ramsay, Chief Executive Officer, TiVo, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7NB."
> 
> Are these two statements not contradictory?


I'm you sure you meant to say Two Hundred Eighty! 

There isn't a contradiction in the TiVo letter, just insufficient evidence. Nowhere does the letter say TiVo(UK) Ltd, it just refers to 'TiVo' and gives an accommodation address - which happens to be Sky's Customer Service Centre. The letter would almost certainly have been sent out by Sky. Mike Ramsay was the CEO of TiVo, Inc. at the time.


----------



## spitfires

From the paper agreement (headed "TiVo's Privacy Policy & Service Agreement") that came with the "Start Here" guide in the TiVo box:



> TiVo Service Agreement - "TiVo Recorders"
> Welcome to TiVo! This agreement explains the terms and conditions that will apply to your use of the TiVo service and constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc. ("TiVo"). By using the TiVo service, you agree to all the terms and conditions in this agreement.


----------



## TCM2007

I though we established months ago that you ouldn't use the Internet small claims thingy if the entity you were suing wasn't in the UK?


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> I'm you sure you meant to say Two Hundred Eighty!
> 
> There isn't a contradiction in the TiVo letter, just insufficient evidence. Nowhere does the letter say TiVo(UK) Ltd, it just refers to 'TiVo' and gives an accommodation address - which happens to be Sky's Customer Service Centre. The letter would almost certainly have been sent out by Sky. Mike Ramsay was the CEO of TiVo, Inc. at the time.


Apparently I did, but came back from the Google page with such sticker shock that I retained the one hundred part from the pounds.

Like I said, that must be one hell of a breakfast.


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> ... Mike Ramsay was the CEO of TiVo, Inc. at the time.


So what's he doing giving out a UK return address? Did TiVo, Inc, have a different UK address from TiVo, UK?


----------



## Trinitron

Effectively, yes. TiVo sold their UK subscriptions through their agents/partners, Sky. there's nothing unusual in a company having the address of a third party contact centre as their contact address.

TiVo(UK)'s registered address IIRC will be that of the solicitors involved in setting up the company. Again, nothing unusual there for a company having no direct contact with the public.

I guess with hindsight we can say they have been prudent in keeping their US and UK entities at arms length. Or just lucky.


----------



## rwtomkins

OK, Im just going to try to reply to one or two of the points raised.

I don't think the standard welcome letter would have helped, for the reasons already stated: it does not specifically mention TiVo (UK) Ltd, and Mike Ramsay, although in fact a director of TiVo (UK) Ltd, was also CEO of TiVo Inc. The address given on the letter was simply the address of Skys customer care centre which was handling TiVos customer care in the UK at the time and the same address is given on the service agreement so it doesnt really take us anywhere.

Just for entertainment, since its all water under the bridge now, something I did bring up at the hearing was p2 of the original privacy policy and service agreement, para 4.4, which states:

*4.4 The Corporate Family.* Although TiVo currently does not have a parent company, any subsidiaries, joint ventures, or other companies under a common control (collectively, affiliates), it may in the future. TiVo may share some or all of your Subscriber information with these affiliates

That paragraph as you will see is untrue, since at the time the agreement was distributed, TiVo (UK) Ltd was already a highly active, revenue-earning, profit-making subsidiary of TiVo Inc. Why the untruth? Your guess is as good as mine. But I argued that the agreement was a muddled, inaccurate and untrustworthy document when it came to correctly identifying the corporate party to the agreement.

In the end, however, I was confronted (as I said before) with the complete lack of any piece of paper that Id ever received from TiVo with TiVo (UK) Ltds name on it.

On the money: how many times do I have to say? It's not about the money!!!

On TCM2007s point about using the small claims service to claim against a non-UK company: I dont think theres any problem there. Moneyclaimonline does require you to enter a UK address for the defendant but this is only because it needs somewhere in the UK to post the papers to  it only needs to be a correspondence address. I havent seen anything to suggest that the small claims process, or even Moneyclaimonline specifically, can only be used for UK domiciled companies but if anyone knows otherwise, Id be grateful if theyd point it out.

Since the title of this thread has become, shall we say, inappropriate, Ill start a new thread if and when the claim against TiVo Inc gets going.


----------



## dmeldrum

Why do you think the London address is an appropriate place to serve a claim against TiVo Inc? 

Legal papers are only valid if served at a registered address.


----------



## TCM2007

Looking at some other cases, you should try to submit the claim to TiVo's London solicitors. I don't think small claims will let you submit to California.


----------



## rwtomkins

dmeldrum said:


> Legal papers are only valid if served at a registered address.


Source?



TCM2007 said:


> Looking at some other cases, you should try to submit the claim to TiVo's London solicitors. I don't think small claims will let you submit to California.


Well, we'll see what happens. We'll know in a few days anyway because their deadline for responding is the end of the coming week.


----------



## Steve_K

sjp said:


> +1 feel free to PM


ditto here so +2

You shouldn't have to pay it all when clearly several of us were prepared to let you take the lead but happily piggy back on any winning strategy you used.

And I'm happy to help up the stake to take it to TiVo Inc. cwaring will think I have more money than sense, I tend to see it as I have more principles than cwaring. If TiVo Inc get away with this it sets a line other foreign companies will follow to screw much wider UK consumers and Ramsay will already be looking for other ways to screw the UK.


----------



## Trinitron

Here was I thinking the tone of discussion was getting pretty reasonable. Now the usual suspects are appearing, I should I have known better.


----------



## Pete77

My observation would be that this is now becoming a complex legal argument disputing whether the contract is with a UK or US entity and almost certainly it will not be able to be handled as a small claim and/or in a UK court. However rwtomkins will only discover this at the first hearing when it is allocated to the Multi Track or thrown out completely.

You will not win a complex technical legal dispute about contractual jurisdiction without an equally high powered barrister to theirs on your side. This will cost you at least £10k even if you go down the Direct Access route to instructing a barrister by cutting out those pointless russian style shop double manning goons called solicitors.

This may be a stand of principle but are you willing to spend £10k to win your stand of principle? If you try and represent yourself you will definitely lose and have to pay at least £10k or more of their legal costs. So the question is whether your stand of principle against Tivo is really worth this much to you?


----------



## rwtomkins

Steve_K: thanks very much, I greatly appreciate the offer but I've already said my piece on that.

Pete77: the question of whether this is a contract with a UK or US entity is settled. The court decided it was with a US entity and although that's not what I felt, I've accepted the court's decision and moved on. All I've done now is started a fresh small claim against the US entity, which is what TiVo said I should have done all along. So although I appreciate your dire warnings, I don't think they're justified at this point. It's not some almighty do-or-die struggle; it's a just a routine small claim.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> All I've done now is started a fresh small claim against the US entity, which is what TiVo said I should have done all along. So although I appreciate your dire warnings, I don't think they're justified at this point. It's not some almighty do-or-die struggle; it's a just a routine small claim.


I hope that my dire warnings won't prove to be correct as I am personally very disappointed by the way TomTom has behaved in reneging on the provision of Lifetime Service to UK Series 1 machines when 50% of UK customers have no replacement Tivo option whilst S1 service is still offered to US customers all of whom do have an upgrade path to a later Tivo model.

However my dire warnings are prompted by my recent practical experiences of the unfairnesses of the UK civil legal system where one side is professionally legally represented and the other is not and the unrepresented side is motivated more by a matter of unprinciple than by money.

Tivo Inc has already got a ruling that the contract is with them and not Tivo UK so I now fully expect that their next defence to your new case against them to be be that the UK courts have no jurisdiction to determine the matter.

It may well help if you look up what has happened in disputes between UK customers and TomTom over things like HD Traffic subscrptions where the ongoing traffic service is supplied by a Dutch based company to UK customers under Dutch contractual law. However even there the customer's position is better than the one with TomTom since numerous requirements of EU legislation will still cover the situation unlike the supply of a service by a US company to a UK citizen.


----------



## RichardJH

Pete77 said:


> I am personally very disappointed by the way *TomTom* has behaved in reneging on the provision of Lifetime Service to UK Series 1 machines.


----------



## ssilvo

To RW

I have just picked up on this ,as a lifetime (joke) subscription holder ,i want to commend your efforts and bloody mindedness in the face of this corporate slap in the face for 12000 former loyal customers by tivo uk ,maybe we could ask one of the consumer tv programs to look into it on our behalf and start to ask tivo for public comment ,it may well "queer" the current virgin advertising campaign for tivo products . 

I love the way you have refused to cower ,have kept your chin up and gone for it through the courts ,as a hoarder of useless scraps of paper i for one will be searching for any documentation with a provable link to Tivo uk in respect of subs paid.

In the meantime keep up the great work and if you wish a website set up for the lifetime subscription members to rally to and send emails direct to tivo via a link ,i am sure it can be arranged .In the meantime good luck to you and best wishes .

ssilvo:up:


----------



## rwtomkins

ssilvo said:


> ... commend your efforts and bloody mindedness...


Ha ha! Persistence might have been kinder but I'm more than happy to be bloody minded. Thanks very much indeed for the encouragement and good wishes, ssilvio.

The current situation is: I've claimed against TiVo Inc and the claim has been successfully served on the London address of their UK subsidiary; they've written to the court saying they're not going to file a defence because the claim should have been served in California; and I've written to the court saying they're wrong. So now we wait to see who the court agrees with. There should be more developments soon.

Pete77, it sounds as though you've had a terrible experience and it's understandable you feel the way you do. I agree there is an imbalance where one party is on his own and the other has access to expensive legal representation. It seems to me that the judicial system recognises this and has tried to allow for it but it is difficult to see how any legal system could fully resolve the problem. So yes, I appreciate the dangers, and your warnings.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> Ha ha! Persistence might have been kinder but I'm more than happy to be bloody minded. Thanks very much indeed for the encouragement and good wishes, ssilvio.
> 
> The current situation is: I've claimed against TiVo Inc and the claim has been successfully served on the London address of their UK subsidiary; they've written to the court saying they're not going to file a defence because the claim should have been served in California; and I've written to the court saying they're wrong. So now we wait to see who the court agrees with. There should be more developments soon.
> 
> Pete77, it sounds as though you've had a terrible experience and it's understandable you feel the way you do. I agree there is an imbalance where one party is on his own and the other has access to expensive legal representation. It seems to me that the judicial system recognises this and has tried to allow for it but it is difficult to see how any legal system could fully resolve the problem. So yes, I appreciate the dangers, and your warnings.


There's an interesting claim.

"We had to cross the Atlantic to screw you over, so it's only fair that you have to come over here to get back at us."


----------



## cwaring

ssilvo said:


> I have just picked up on this ,as a lifetime (joke) subscription holder ,i want to commend your efforts and bloody mindedness in the face of this corporate slap in the face for 12000 former loyal customers by tivo uk ,maybe we could ask one of the consumer tv programs to look into it on our behalf and start to ask tivo for public comment ,it may well "queer" the current virgin advertising campaign for tivo products.


With more than 200,000 Tivos now installed, plus the fact that we have water-tight contracts with Virgin Media and *not* Tivo directly, I'd say the chances of this very minor and frivolous case having any impact whatsoever is minimal.


----------



## TIVO_YORK99

Didn't realise that there are over 200,000 virgin tivo's installed. That surely is a great success.

Its funny now in the pub where friends tell me they've had tivo installed and tell me just how brilliant it is - (I haven't mentioned it to people for donkeys years) and they seem to be amazed that I had a tivo over 11 years ago.


----------



## mikerr

Yep, and one friend got quite heated in telling me I couldn't have had it years ago, as *Virgin Media* have only just *designed * it themselves. 

Still, makes a change from 
"That tivo you have - thats the same as sky+ right ?"


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins,

They are behaving exactly as I forecast that they would following their success in claiming that Tivo Inc and not Tivo UK are responsible for the contract. I very much doubt that small claims process can actually cover a dispute with an overseas company. That is why they wanted to ensure that they made Tivo Inc the responsible party.

However the company I would advise you to check up on for legal precedents is TomTom who claim to supply all of their millions of HD Traffic subscription services to all of their customers Europe wide from Holland so that once again your only redress on any complaint about the services would be through the Dutch courts. Or alternatively have the UK courts come to an alternative view where customers have raised complaints about these services?

If you are serious about this matter I would also advise appealing against the decision of the previous judge that Tivo UK is not legally responsible for the contract. Although there is usually a 14 day limit on lodging appeals you can usually appeal out of time if you can cite a reasonable reason for doing so. I am sure you could cite Tivo's deliberate red herring in trying to make Tivo Inc responsible for Tivo UK as suitable grounds for needing to research the matter further and take more legal advice.

If you really want to stir the pot a bit more and money isn't a concern I suppose you could also launch a further small claim against BSkyB and claim that they were responsible as the only UK company directly involved in promoting and selling the product.


----------



## Trinitron

Pete77 said:


> I am sure you could cite Tivo's deliberate red herring in trying to make Tivo Inc responsible for Tivo UK as suitable grounds for needing to research the matter further and take more legal advice.


How do you come to that conclusion? The service has always been provided by TiVo, Inc. as stated in all the correspondence. If you have something definitive that shows TiVo(UK) Ltd. were dealing with subscriptions directly at the time (other than as an accounting vehicle) then I'm sure RWT and the courts would like to see it.


----------



## cwaring

Trinitron said:


> How do you come to that conclusion?


Because he's Pete


----------



## Pete77

Trinitron said:


> How do you come to that conclusion? The service has always been provided by TiVo, Inc. as stated in all the correspondence.


If our relationship was with Tivo Inc then why did they need to set up Tivo UK and why did the letters confirming our Lifetime subscription payment arrive on Tivo UK letterhead? If our relationship was with Tivo Inc then I would have expected the monthly subscription payment to be defined in US Dollars and the card payments to be in US Dollars.

Who physically provided the data for the Service or the servers it was collecte from in IT terms (which clearly was Tivo and Tribune from the USA) is not relevant to the contractual matter of who it was who took our Lifetime Sub payments and sent us the letter confirming our Lifetime Service subscription.

I think you need to pursue your card company to establish who exactly was the Tivo to which the card payment for Lifetime Service was made and whether that payment went to Tivo UK in London or Tivo Inc in Alviso. If you can get a letter from your card company proving the payment went to Tivo UK or even to BSkyB then in my view you have very strong evidence that the contract was not with Tivo Inc.

If all our relationship was with Tivo Inc then why did Tivo need to set up Tovo UK and have substantially amounts of activity in their accounts over several years?


----------



## Trinitron

I think you need to look at your letters from TiVo more closely. They mention TiVo(UK) nowhere - the address is Sky's Customer Service Centre in Livingston. Probably because they will have been the ones sending it out. 

Payments will almost certainly have processed by Sky under an agency agreement. This where your argument falls down. To arrange my Barclays home insurance I call their service centre in Scotland and pay them by credit card. The 'them' is Aviva in Perth; the insurance is provided by Gresham Insurance Limited, Norwich (a wholly owned subsidiary of Aviva). My credit card statement says 'Barclays insurance'. Is my contract with Aviva or Barclays? Or Gresham, trading under the Barclays brand? 

Whatever, I don't need any evidence either way. I'm pretty sure I had a contract with TiVo, Inc. because that is what the service agreement and letters said.


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> I think you need to look at your letters from TiVo more closely. They mention TiVo(UK) nowhere - the address is Sky's Customer Service Centre in Livingston. Probably because they will have been the ones sending it out.
> 
> Payments will almost certainly have processed by Sky under an agency agreement. This where your argument falls down. To arrange my Barclays home insurance I call their service centre in Scotland and pay them by credit card. The 'them' is Aviva in Perth; the insurance is provided by Gresham Insurance Limited, Norwich (a wholly owned subsidiary of Aviva). My credit card statement says 'Barclays insurance'. Is my contract with Aviva or Barclays? Or Gresham, trading under the Barclays brand?
> 
> Whatever, I don't need any evidence either way. I'm pretty sure I had a contract with TiVo, Inc. because that is what the service agreement and letters said.


If the agreement is with TiVo, Inc., and not with TiVo UK, that makes TiVo's case weaker, as TiVo, Inc. is still providing "The Service" to S1s. I've got 2 of them.


----------



## TCM2007

Pete77 said:


> However the company I would advise you to check up on for legal precedents is TomTom


Also, Google for people trying to make claims against RyanAir, who have tried to behind being Irish on occasion.


----------



## waamo

After enduring Sky+ for a few months now I really hope you win.

I live out in the sticks with no hope of getting Virgin. I've suffered more failed recordings in the last 3 months than the previous 10 years. Sky is so unreliable that I sometimes feel like kicking it. It sucks. It's EPG is awful, it messes up more recordings than it gets right and the whole interface is so unfriendly it's not true.

I feel like I've been kicked in the teeth by Virgin, I would happily pay for an upgrade, I do like HD but they won't install by me. To my mind if you take something away you should give something back.

I will watch this with interest, to my mind it isn't about the money but the principle.


----------



## cwaring

waamo said:


> I live out in the sticks with no hope of getting Virgin.


At the moment, anyway. Who knows what the future will bring. I believe VM are trying a few things extend their reach in non-cabled areas.

Or you might have to move 



> I feel like I've been kicked in the teeth by Virgin..


Why? Just because you can't get their services in your area? That's not really their fault, is it?  You may as well blame NTL or Telewest for not being able to afford to extend their cabling to your "out in the sticks" area.



> I would happily pay for an upgrade...


Hmmm. I don't think you'd like the *actual* cost  It has to be commercially-viable for them to even consider it, of course.



> To my mind if you take something away you should give something back.


As far as I am aware, it was Tivo who stopped your service, not VM. We know people like to *claim* this, or interpret it from events, but I have not yet seen any *actual proof*.



> I will watch this with interest, to my mind it isn't about the money but the principle.


The principle of business is to make money, isn't it? If you're not making money, don't continue to offer the service.

We've had "when are Tivo closing the service" or even "I've heard that Tivo are closing the service" since around 2 years after the last unit was sold. That was around *eight* years ago. Those who bought their "lifetime" (of the service, not the owner) subscription have more-than made their money back on the initial outlay; over those of us who - for whatever reason - decided to pay monthly.

Interesting that it is only (or mainly) those who have paid *the least* who are now wanting to sue Tivo.


----------



## Pete77

Dear Mr Waring,

Please can you indicate precisely what your monthly fee is from both Tivo and Virgin Media for acting as their unswerving lapdog propagandist in this forum.

Believe it or not part of the UK population does need to live in the countryside and not everyone can give up living in the countryside just to get Virgin Media.

For the time being the earlier poster who is not happy with Sky+ would be best to consider Windows Media Centre along with a Dragon CAM if he wants most of the facilities of a Tivo along with an HD television picture and the ability to watch subscription Sky channels.


----------



## TCM2007

Can we keep this thread to discussing rtomkins legal action? There are plenty of others to talk about the whys and wherefores (and Carl!)


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Can we keep this thread to discussing rtomkins legal action? There are plenty of others to talk about the whys and wherefores (and Carl!)


Should there be a separate UK forum just for talking about Carl?


----------



## Pete77

unitron said:


> Should there be a separate UK forum just for talking about Carl?


I think that could be the start of a dangerous precedent.


----------



## cwaring

Pete77 said:


> Please can you indicate precisely what your monthly fee is from both Tivo and Virgin Media for acting as their unswerving lapdog propagandist in this forum.


I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.



> Believe it or not part of the UK population *does need to live in the countryside* and not everyone can give up living in the countryside just to get Virgin Media.


Need to? Really? Why? Because we can't all fit into urban areas? Very true. However, if any particular service is not available in the area you *choose* to live in, how is it the company's problem if they cannot supply their service for logistical/cost reasons?



> For the time being the earlier poster who is not happy with Sky+ would be best to consider Windows Media Centre along with a Dragon CAM if he wants most of the facilities of a Tivo along with an HD television picture and the ability to watch subscription Sky channels.


Sounds like a better course of action than his current one.



TCM2007 said:


> Can we keep this thread to discussing rtomkins legal action?


Threads can go off on a tangent at times; especially when there is precious little on-topic to post about.



Pete77 said:


> I think that could be the start of a dangerous precedent.


I am quite happy with people not talking about me at all, if they so wish


----------



## rwtomkins

Just a quick update. Things are moving along very nicely - Money Claim Online has very efficiently sent the claim to a court close to me in London and the parties have until November 25 to file their allocation questionnaires, which is the preliminary to a hearing. However TiVo has not even filed a defence and seems even less likely to return its allocation questionnaire since its current strategy is to pretend not to have received the claim. So I would imagine the court's first task will be to decide whether proper service has been effected.

I'll keep you posted.


----------



## cwaring

rwtomkins said:


> So I would imagine the court's first task will be to decide whether proper service has been effected.


Which, of course, it has. The service has stopped. The problem comes in defining "lifetime of the service" which, of course, ends when the service stops.

QED.

The VM Tivo is not, in any way, connected to the S1 boxes.


----------



## Trinitron

cwaring said:


> Which, of course, it has. The service has stopped. The problem comes in defining "lifetime of the service" which, of course, ends when the service stops.


I think sometimes you need to engage thinking mode before posting.

He's talking about Service of court papers.


----------



## unitron

Trinitron said:


> I think sometimes you need to engage thinking mode before posting.
> 
> He's talking about Service of court papers.


Somebody explain the difference between "effect" and "affect" to Carl.


----------



## dmeldrum

rwtomkins said:


> However TiVo has not even filed a defence and seems even less likely to return its allocation questionnaire since its current strategy is to pretend not to have received the claim.
> 
> I'll keep you posted.


You have served papers on TiVo Inc at an address which is only known to be registered to TiVo UK Ltd. They are two different legal entities, which is a lesson you should have learned by now.

You appear to have assumed that the solicitors acting for TiVo UK Ltd will forward those papers on to TiVo Inc. This may or may not happen.


----------



## cwaring

Trinitron said:


> I think sometimes you need to engage thinking mode before posting.


And I think you need to learn a few manners.



> He's talking about Service of court papers.


Whoops 


unitron said:


> Somebody explain the difference between "effect" and "affect" to Carl.


No need. I know the difference thanks.


----------



## unitron

cwaring said:


> ...No need. I know the difference thanks.


This post

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8807015#post8807015

makes it appear otherwise.

The TiVo Service was affected, in that it was ended, but it remains to be seen whether someone has effected legal service on TiVo.


----------



## TCM2007

dmeldrum said:


> You have served papers on TiVo Inc at an address which is only known to be registered to TiVo UK Ltd. They are two different legal entities, which is a lesson you should have learned by now.
> 
> You appear to have assumed that the solicitors acting for TiVo UK Ltd will forward those papers on to TiVo Inc. This may or may not happen.


This is true, but when a solicitors have been actively working for TiVo Inc and communicating with the court in their name, for them to then refuse service of document would I think be frowned upon.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> So I would imagine the court's first task will be to decide whether proper service has been effected.


I suspect that the court's first task will actually be to decide if a small claim involving a breach of contract by a US Corporation can actually be pursued through the small claims process or indeed any other form of claims process in the UK civil courts.

Since Tivo has clearly already taken advice from top corporate lawyers on that very question I fear that this is where the court will once again not rule in your favour.

The most likely outcome is that your claim will be struck out at the first hearing as not able to be pursued in the UK courts. The problem rwtomkins is that you unfortunately still seem to think that the UK civil courts are there to help people achieve justice rather than merely in order to achieve the most favourable outcome for those with access to the most expensive legal representation and/or legal advice...........

The reason Tivo Inc haven't filed a defence or submitted an allocation questionnaire is clearly because their legal advice will have been that this is the most effective way to block any further progress of the matter in the UK court system.


----------



## cwaring

unitron said:


> This post
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8807015#post8807015
> 
> makes it appear otherwise.
> 
> The TiVo Service was affected, in that it was ended, but it remains to be seen whether someone has effected legal service on TiVo.


Right. And there's no possible way it was simply an error on my part? 

Go get a life and stop stalking me please.


----------



## Pete77

cwaring said:


> Go get a life and stop stalking me please.


How someone who spends so much of his life posting in the British sections of this forum can now accuse an American member who posts here only occasionally and who was only responding to one of cwaring's posts is beyond me.

I find nothing at all about Unitron's posting in the forum that is in any way indicative of the actions of a stalker. However I am far less confident that the same claim can necessarily be made in relation to the posting activities of CWaring especially when it comes to anyone who dares ever make a critical a post of any kind about Virgin Media or especially about the Virgin Tivo.........


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> How someone who spends so much of his life posting in the British sections of this forum can now accuse an American member who posts here only occasionally and who was only responding to one of cwaring's posts is beyond me.
> 
> I find nothing at all about Unitron's posting in the forum that is in any way indicative of the actions of a stalker. However I am far less confident that the same claim can necessarily be made in relation to the posting activities of CWaring especially when it comes to anyone who dares ever make a critical a post of any kind about Virgin Media or especially about the Virgin Tivo.........


But what you don't know is that I created a separate Virgin Media conspiracy thread to lure him in so that I could stalk him there.


----------



## cwaring

Pete77 said:


> How someone who spends so much of his life posting in the British sections of this forum can now accuse an American member who posts here only occasionally and who was only responding to one of cwaring's posts is beyond me.


Have you not seen this other thread?

I can assure you I spend far more time NOT posting to this thread than I ever do posting to it 



> I find nothing at all about Unitron's posting in the forum that is in any way indicative of the actions of a stalker.


Well he does seem to be singling me out for special attention. I'd call that stalking of a sort.



> However I am far less confident that the same claim can necessarily be made in relation to the posting activities of CWaring especially when it comes to anyone who dares ever make a critical a post of any kind about Virgin Media or especially about the Virgin Tivo.........


What a complete load of boll.... I mean nonsense. I can be as critical of VM and their Tivo as anyone; and have been in the past. I just also disagree with some people's opinions and have the right to say so.



unitron said:


> But what you don't know is that I created a separate Virgin Media conspiracy thread to lure him in so that I could stalk him there.


Exactly. And yet, you won't post *your* opinion on it and have only ever complained about me in the posts you have made in that thread.

Point proved, I think.

Now, here's the thing. You *know* that I will always reply to posts that refer to, or are otherwise aimed at, me. You also complain about *me* posting OT comments.

So here's a question for you. Why are you posting *your own* OT comments in this thread. That's more than a little hypocritical of you, isn't it?


----------



## TCM2007

Can I suggest you take this spat to the Conspiracy thread? I'm sure many people are subscribed to this one to find out the latest progress on rwtomkins vs the combined forces of capitalism and don't want to read your bickering.


----------



## ggieseke

TCM2007 said:


> Can I suggest you take this spat to the Conspiracy thread? I'm sure many people are subscribed to this one to find out the latest progress on rwtomkins vs the combined forces of capitalism and don't want to read your bickering.


+1


----------



## afrokiwi

TCM2007 said:


> Can I suggest you take this spat to the Conspiracy thread? I'm sure many people are subscribed to this one to find out the latest progress on rwtomkins vs the combined forces of capitalism and don't want to read your bickering.


+2


----------



## cwaring

TCM2007 said:


> I'm sure *many people are subscribed to this one*...


One has to wonder what they will make of the two further posts that actually say nothing more than "+1"; yet I don't see anyone complaining about those two posts being OT


----------



## TCM2007

Apart from you, just then.


----------



## cwaring

No. I wasn't complaining either. Couldn't give a moneys either way. But I'm not the one that originally complained about OT posts. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Where's 'unitron' now? Obviously he's lost interest now he's had a pop at me.


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Can I suggest you take this spat to the Conspiracy thread? I'm sure many people are subscribed to this one to find out the latest progress on rwtomkins vs the combined forces of capitalism and don't want to read your bickering.


I would just as soon keep the conspiracy thread on the topic of whether the conspiracy actually exists or not and reasons for thinking so, although I fear that ship may have already sailed quite early on.


----------



## TCM2007

cwaring said:


> No. I wasn't complaining either. Couldn't give a moneys either way. But I'm not the one that originally complained about OT posts. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Where's 'unitron' now? Obviously he's lost interest now he's had a pop at me.


You really are entirely incapable of just shutting up when asked, aren't you!? "Must have last word" syndrome at its most advanced.


----------



## cwaring

Not really. But yes, this one was just for the hell of it because forums are open places that anyone can post it at any time 

Sorry, just get p!ssed-off with "do as I say not as I do, I'm not a Mod but do it anyway" people like unitron.

Don't worry. I'm done now


----------



## Steve_K

What TCM wrote - seconded


----------



## Pete77

Do you have a hearing date yet in the Tivo Inc case rwtomkins and/or has it already happened and if so what was the outcome?


----------



## rwtomkins

I'm sorry I've been a bit quiet but it seems a lot of patience is required in pursuing a claim. The situation is, the claim was served at the London registered office of TiVo (UK) Ltd and lawyers who appear to speak for TiVo Inc but who say they are not representing them have disputed whether this constitutes proper service. So now we are waiting for a judge to decide whether proper service has been effected. If the judge decides it has, he or she could make a default judgment in my favour (because TiVo has failed to file a defence) but I'm guessing they might rather give TiVo one last chance to defend the claim.

I'm hoping there'll be more news in the next week or so.


----------



## unitron

rwtomkins said:


> ...lawyers who appear to speak for TiVo Inc but who say they are not representing them have disputed whether this constitutes proper service....


If they are not representing TiVo, Inc., they have no business whatsoever discussing the case or offering an opinion on whether TiVo, Inc. have been properly served.


----------



## Trinitron

Well, there's clearly no need to wait for a judge to decide then. Have you thought of taking it up as a career?


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> So now we are waiting for a judge to decide whether proper service has been effected. If the judge decides it has, he or she could make a default judgment in my favour (because TiVo has failed to file a defence) but I'm guessing they might rather give TiVo one last chance to defend the claim.


But if the judge decides you cannot validly file a claim against a US incorporated company using the UK small claims process and/or without first serving the papers on the head office of the company in the USA the claim will be thrown out and you will presumably be advised to serve your claim through a California court at the headquarters of Tivo Inc..............

I am sure that like me rwtomkins will have no further wish to pursue a career in this antiquated quill pen world of legal pantomime once he realises it is only about the rich being able to easily protect their financial interests rather than about justice.


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> But if the judge decides you cannot validly file a claim against a US incorporated company using the UK small claims process and/or without first serving the papers on the head office of the company in the USA the claim will be thrown out and you will presumably be advised to serve your claim through a California court at the headquarters of Tivo Inc..............
> 
> I am sure that like me rwtomkins will have no further wish to pursue a career in this antiquated quill pen world of legal pantomime once he realises it is only about the rich being able to easily protect their financial interests rather than about justice.


So perhaps he could come over here and start Occupy Alviso.


----------



## rwtomkins

unitron said:


> If they are not representing TiVo, Inc., they have no business whatsoever discussing the case or offering an opinion on whether TiVo, Inc. have been properly served.


Indeed, it is curious, even bizarre, and it will be interesting to see what the court makes of it.


----------



## Pete77

rwtomkins said:


> Indeed, it is curious, even bizarre, and it will be interesting to see what the court makes of it.


Since they are legally represented in some fashion and you are not the judge will clearly realise that it is you who has foolishly erred in assuming that a small claim can be filed against a US incorporated company, throw out your claim and probably bill you some court costs on the basis that as this not a valid small claim you do not enjoy that form of protection from the court.

I wish the above analysis was not accurate but unfortunately I am pretty sure that this is what will happen. Regrettably those who do not have solicitor or barrister representing them in the UK civil courts do not in my experience unfortunately ever get justice against a professionally legally represented opponent. And contrary to what you seem to assume Tivo's lawyers almost certainly do know exactly what they are doing...........


----------



## Pete77

Jesse11 said:


> if I win, they will be liable to all 12,000 lifetime subscribers who were on the roll last September. So I think they might have to take this quite seriously.


Jesse where do you get your quite specific 12,000 Lifetime units still on the role figure from? Noting that Jesse is a vaguely American kind of a name do you perhaps have some inside contacts across the pond in Tivo Inc even though you perhaps currently live in the UK and own an S1 Tivo?

I admire those of you prepared to take on Tivo on but I would warn you that Tivo clearly took legal advice before they discontinued the service and are still receiving further legal advice about the matter now. If you take on Tivo but don't have such legal advice on your side you unfortunately have very little chance over what a judge in a UK civil court will inevitably see as a pedantic matter rather than a matter so important to your life and financial welfare that you had no option but to go to court.

Also don't forget that in my opinion Tivo Inc were always aware that reneging on the Lifetime sub agreement would cause a lot of customer anger and hostility and this is why they did not do it from 2002 when they withdrew from selling Tivos in the UK until 2011. In my opinion they only eventually cut off service due to a contractual restriction imposed by Virgin Media as part of their exclusivity deal on Tivo S4 distribution in the UK that someone at Tivo did not insist on having removed when signing that deal in their hunger to get such a big deal completed. Later when other folk at Tivo became aware of the consequences of the Virgin Media deal for S1 Tivo owners they almost certainly didn't like it but were now powerless to do anything about it.

So you will in my opinion be up against the much bigger financial penalties Tivo may face if they break their contractual deal with Virgin. That means they will invest a lot of lawyer time in winning and unless you happen to be a UK solicitor or barrister who is also a Tivo owner my betting would be that you won't have the requisite legal skills to win your case unless you can afford to also employ your own decent legal representation.


----------



## RichardJH

Pete you seem to be quoting a nonexistent or deleted post/user


----------



## Pete77

RichardJH said:


> Pete you seem to be quoting a nonexistent or deleted post/user


The post was there when I responded but Jesse seems to have deleted it subsequently.

As it had no content that ozsat would have objected to I suspect that Jesse was worried about the fact that he had provided an accurate figure for the remaining number of still active Lifetime Sub acccounts on S1 Tivos in June 2011. Only people with strong connections at Tivo would be in a position to have had access to such information.


----------



## unitron

When Jesse11 (with a join date of Dec. 2012) said "If *I* win", I checked his/her/its 8 other posts, and all of them were repetitions of parts of the posts of others taken from earlier in those particular threads so I reported the post as plagiarism with spam likely to follow.


----------



## Pete77

unitron said:


> When Jesse11 (with a join date of Dec. 2012) said "If *I* win", I checked his/her/its 8 other posts, and all of them were repetitions of parts of the posts of others taken from earlier in those particular threads so I reported the post as plagiarism with spam likely to follow.


That sounds like a very sophisticated kind of spamming to me. If indeed it was spamming rather than merely enthusiastic posting by a new forum member.

Are there any precedents for it and also what would be its point given that there were no links provided to sell commercial products in the posts in question.


----------



## unitron

Pete77 said:


> That sounds like a very sophisticated kind of spamming to me. If indeed it was spamming rather than merely enthusiastic posting by a new forum member.
> 
> Are there any precedents for it and also what would be its point given that there were no links provided to sell commercial products in the posts in question.


This is by no means the first time I've seen this kind of plagiarism from someone who signed up that same day. Some of the time there's sig spam included. I don't know if one has to have a minimum number of posts before a sig is enabled or not. Maybe they're trying to "sneak" past the minimum post number so that they can email and PM people so they can spam them that way.

Maybe they think that strings of words that have already been posted by "real" members will get past some sort of filters they think this site has.


----------



## TCM2007

Yes, I've seen "quote spam" on varius sites.


----------



## ColinYounger

It's the last sentence from post #9 in this very thread: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8511024#post8511024

It's not sophisticated at all, I'm afraid Pete.


----------



## davidcameron

Believe it or not, I have just discovered that the service has been cancelled!!

For picture quality reasons, I had retired my heavily modded (cachecard + 2x200Gb drive) TiVo, but now for financial reasons (made redundant), I have cancelled Sky + and wanted to dig out my Tivo again.

Whilst I realise that my TiVo wasn't contractually entitled to service as it had been modded, this has come as a bit of a shock ... it could be argued that I haven't been served any form of notice as the box has been disconnected.

Anyway, I haven't read all posts here, but I was intrigued by the first claim against BSkyB that failed, especially given TiVo's Press Release (can't post direct link as although I was a longterm member, my account has been pruned, but it can be found at pr.tivo.com press release refid=CA934452BA6418EF) :



> BSkyB Customers
> 
> TiVo Series1 DVRs were manufactured for sale in the UK from 2000 to 2002 and were available exclusively to customers of BSkyB. This box has not been actively sold since this time and new accounts are not being activated. If UK Series1 customers have product or technical questions, they can receive support via email to _(address deleted by me due to new account restrictions but is bskyb-support at tivo.com)_
> After over 10 years of operation, the UK Series1 TiVo service will be discontinued as of June 1, 2011. Since November 2010, monthly Series1 customers have not been billed and will continue to receive free service until June 1, 2011.
> 
> Without the program guide data provided by the TiVo service, Series1 boxes will have limited functionality. They can still be used to view previously recorded programs and, under certain circumstances, may be used to record programs manually.
> 
> For questions regarding the TiVo service and functionality of the TiVo Series1 DVR; see BSkyB TiVo service and Series1 DVR FAQs.
> 
> The newest generation of TiVo DVR and service is now available from Virgin Media. To learn more, please visit virginmedia _(link deleted by me due to new account restrictions)_
> 
> BSkyB TiVo Service Number prefix is 023.


The Press Release is inaccurate as the box was available on the High Street but the service only available via BSkyB trained agents, but it does accurately confirm the relationship with BSkyB that was denied by them early in the small claims process.

I still have doubts that any claim will succeed though ... look at how 'Unlimited' isn't unlimited but is restricted to reasonable and fair usage in the broadband world. I suspect that lifetime will potentially be judged to be reasonable at 9-11 years for a domestic appliance. That said I wish the claim well, but tricky to win if the box has been fixed/modified outside of Tivo 'centres'.

I found the Alt EPG stuff over at Tivoland .. I guess that's my next project .. reading up and deciding how best to proceed.


----------



## Pete77

davidcameron said:


> I found the Alt EPG stuff over at Tivoland .. I guess that's my next project .. reading up and deciding how best to proceed.


Do you already have a large hard drive or turbonet or Cachecard in your Tivo?

If not it might be worth considering going for one or both options or buying a Tivo on Ebay that already has these fitted (which may work out cheaper than buying them both new today). However if you don't have these and the objective is just to save money then your best bet is to take out an anytime calls plan with your telecoms provider (which as a redundant gentleman you should surely find yourself in need of) and just add the geographic 01 prefixed number to the Dial Prefix code on your Tivo and rerun Guided Setup. This hopefully means the modem calls will be not be charged for unless the Tivo 01 number is ever identified as being a data/ISP number by your telecoms company (they reserve the right to exclude data related numbers from their inclusive calling plans).

I trust that you have also written to the other *David Cameron* in suitable terms about the atrocious state of the economy which has so sadly left you without a job.

Regarding the withdrawal of Lifetime Service I think much turns on where the money from that Lifetime credit card payment actually went to. If it went directly to a bank account of Tivo Inc converted in to dollars then winning the argument about UK jurisdiction will be almost impossible. If however it went first in to the sterling bank account of Tivo UK or in to a sterling account of BSkyB who paid the money to Tivo then the case that this was a UK contractual relationship may be a lot better.

However unfortunately rwtomkins does not seem to have appealed the decision of the judge to strike out his original application against Tivo UK and charge him Tivo UK's legal costs so it may be too late now to reopen this issue.


----------



## davidcameron

Pete77 said:


> Do you already have a large hard drive or turbonet or Cachecard in your Tivo?
> 
> If not it might be worth considering going for one or both options or buying a Tivo on Ebay that already has these fitted (which may work out cheaper than buying them both new today). However if you don't have these and the objective is just to save money then your best bet is to take out an anytime calls plan with your telecoms provider (which as a redundant gentleman you should surely find yourself in need of) and just add the geographic 01 prefixed number to the Dial Prefix code on your Tivo and rerun Guided Setup. This hopefully means the modem calls will be not be charged for unless the Tivo 01 number is ever identified as being a data/ISP number by your telecoms company (they reserve the right to exclude data related numbers from their inclusive calling plans).


As I said, I have been to the other place. I opened a thread there with my spec and specific queries. You didn't need to go off topic and patronise me/ teach me to suck eggs.



Pete77 said:


> I trust that you have also written to the other *David Cameron* in suitable terms about the atrocious state of the economy which has so sadly left you without a job.


Off topic, irrelevant and doesn't help anyone.



Pete77 said:


> Regarding the withdrawal of Lifetime Service I think much turns on where the money from that Lifetime credit card payment actually went to. If it went directly to a bank account of Tivo Inc converted in to dollars then winning the argument about UK jurisdiction will be almost impossible. If however it went first in to the sterling bank account of Tivo UK or in to a sterling account of BSkyB who paid the money to Tivo then the case that this was a UK contractual relationship may be a lot better..


I didn't get in to that .. Deliberately!! That has been said repeatedly. However I did think it interesting about BSkyB refusal to acknowledge the relationship YET that service agreements starting 023 are acknowledged by TiVo as being a BSkyB relationship in their press release.


----------



## Pete77

davidcameron said:


> As I said, I have been to the other place. I opened a thread there with my spec and specific queries. You didn't need to go off topic and patronise me/ teach me to suck eggs.


I didn't actually know what level of Tivo user you were (many just watch tv and have very little technical knowledge) or that you had started a thread in the altepg.com forum (a forum I no longer patronise with any frequency because any discussion other than one that obsequious praises its creators no matter what the AltEPG's current limitations seems to cause offence). Your rather terse and hostile reply to my genuine attempt to be helpful I think possibly brings to mind your original forum avatar that possibly involved a photo of you. Would I be right in thinking you have a rather thick mop of reddish coloured hair?



> Off topic, irrelevant and doesn't help anyone.


If my name was David Cameron at the present time I would make darn sure to use a pseudonym to avoid the inevitable plethora of weak jokes that other forum members would otherwise feel obliged to engage in.



> However I did think it interesting about BSkyB refusal to acknowledge the relationship YET that service agreements starting 023 are acknowledged by TiVo as being a BSkyB relationship in their press release.


Legally I think there is a reasonable case if a group of us were represented by top flight commercial lawyers with a good knowledge of contractual law involving UK companies and their subsidiaries. However without such representation my own experience and the experience of many others is that the UK courts are usually not at all fair to litigants in person (the fact rwtomkins was outrageously charged the other side's costs in his original small claims action is proof of the way that the third rate barristers who become judges nearly always give way to the legal arguments of the first rate barristers who remain in private practice) and that rwtomkins is now very, very likely to lose regardless of the actual legal merits of his case if both sides had been represented with equal legal firepower.


----------



## davidcameron

Pete

1. No I did not and do not have thick red hair .. I am just annoyed that first post back, you seek to offer financial advice completely off topic
2. It is my bl**dy name. Why should I change it?
3. How many times can you slag off the legal worldin a single thread without saying anything new?


----------



## Pete77

davidcameron said:


> 3. How many times can you slag off the legal worldin a single thread without saying anything new?


If taking a case to a tribunal billed as one where you don't need to be legally represented and where you are not supposed to be liable to pay the other side's legal costs even if you lose ends up costing you £35,000 in the other side's legal costs then you might well feel like slagging them off too.

I do not agree I am not saying anything new as rwtomkins unfortunately continues to walk headlong in to Satan's Den without unfortunately realising what he may be getting himself in to and with almost no current chance of winning his case.


----------



## davidcameron

Pete77 said:


> I do not agree I am not saying anything new as rwtomkins unfortunately continues to walk headlong in to Satan's Den without unfortunately realising what he may be getting himself in to and with almost no current chance of winning his case.


Pete ... On my short peruse of this thread you have said the same repeatedly regarding 'self defense' vs. barristers having no chance.

That's the last I respond to you.


----------



## SolidTechie

Pete77 said:


> rwtomkins unfortunately continues to walk headlong in to Satan's Den without unfortunately realising what he may be getting himself in to and with almost no current chance of winning his case.


Surely that can't be true - you've told him often enough. Are you suggesting he's not paying attention to your view? Incredible, how dare he do such a thing?


----------



## Pete77

SolidTechie said:


> Surely that can't be true - you've told him often enough. Are you suggesting he's not paying attention to your view? Incredible, how dare he do such a thing?


I'm quite sure he has read my view. Unfortunately he is currently like me before I lost my own civil legal case and it cost me a lot of money. That is he still believes all the lies pushed at us in numerous tv dramas where David nearly always wins against Goliath in court because his case is morally righteous (as it is here against Tivo).

Unfortunately in the real world of the UK civil courts the sad reality is unfortunately that Goliath nearly always triumphs against David. However unfortunately you seem to need to lose a legal case and have it cost you a lot of money in order to become aware that this is the sad reality of how the UK civil legal system operates. As a result of that only either the rich or the super poor who get legal aid tend to get a just outcome in their civil cases.

If rwtomkins is to win he must at least get a Direct Access barrister (the cheapest way to be legally represented as it cuts out those leeches known as solicitors) to represent him. If he can't afford to do that or any barrister he talks to tells him he has no chance of winning his case then he will almost certainly end up losing.


----------



## TCM2007

Love to know more about your case. I'm sure like many on here I suspect that the attitude you frequently take on here may have got you into trouble in the courtroom..


----------



## davidcameron

TCM2007 said:


> Love to know more about your case. I'm sure like many on here I suspect that the attitude you frequently take on here may have got you into trouble in the courtroom..


Or ignored prior advice and went off on his own agenda like he did with me.

I said :



davidcameron said:


> For picture quality reasons, I had retired my heavily modded (cachecard + 2x200Gb drive) TiVo, but now for financial reasons (made redundant), I have cancelled Sky + and wanted to dig out my Tivo again.


The next post from Pete was to ask : _*Do you already have a large hard drive or turbonet or Cachecard in your Tivo?
*_ and then to tell me how I should consider upgrading to Network capable as well as getting my finances in order!!

When I got angry about his reply, he was still misguided enough to say that _*I didn't actually know what level of Tivo user you were*_.

So it would not surprise me if he was his own worst enemy.

Thread now BADLY off topic .. I apologise.


----------



## Pete77

davidcameron said:


> That's the last I respond to you.


It seems you are now using the excuse of a comment from TCM to now ignore your own earlier promise.

I don't ever recall having any form of cross word with you before your alleged rejoining of this forum (after you claim your previous account was pruned due to inactivity which I believe there is no evidence has actually ever happened). Are you sure you didn't actually use a quite different forum ID when you were last a member here.


----------



## Pete77

TCM2007 said:


> Love to know more about your case. I'm sure like many on here I suspect that the attitude you frequently take on here may have got you into trouble in the courtroom..


Thanks for your predictably smug put the boot in type response. Can you give me any reason why I should not at this stage add you to my currently empty Ignore list for this forum.


----------



## davidcameron

Pete77 said:


> It seems you are now using the excuse of a comment from TCM to now ignore your own earlier promise.
> 
> I don't ever recall having any form of cross word with you before your alleged rejoining of this forum (after you claim your previous account was pruned due to inactivity which I believe there is no evidence has actually ever happened). Are you sure you didn't actually use a quite different forum ID when you were last a member here.


TCM .... here again is an example of Pete not listening.

Somehow he thinks that I responded to him, when clearly I did not address him at all but was addressing and replying to you.


----------



## Furball

davidcameron said:


> I found the Alt EPG stuff over at Tivoland .. I guess that's my next project .. reading up and deciding how best to proceed.


Works well, couple of minor hicups but overal very impressed, didnt even have to pull the drive to use it, told them the service number, changed the dial prefix and away I went, I only dial in once a week to avoid call charges as I get free calls over the weekend but in the main the service I would say is better than TiVo ever offered, with line up issues being addressed and fixed way sooner than TiVo ever did :up:

Furball


----------



## davidcameron

Furball said:


> Works well, couple of minor hicups but overal very impressed, didnt even have to pull the drive to use it, told them the service number, changed the dial prefix and away I went, I only dial in once a week to avoid call charges as I get free calls over the weekend but in the main the service I would say is better than TiVo ever offered, with line up issues being addressed and fixed way sooner than TiVo ever did :up:
> 
> Furball


Thanks Furball,

Having the cachecard, I would prefer the network route which is also straightforward, I think to change the server details. The hardest thing will be finding the TiVo (i.e. remembering/finding the right IP) on my home network to telnet into to make the changes.

We should definitely be very grateful to the enthusiasts for breathing this new life into the box.


----------



## RichardJH

davidcameron said:


> Thanks Furball,
> 
> Having the cachecard, I would prefer the network route which is also straightforward, I think to change the server details. The hardest thing will be finding the TiVo (i.e. remembering/finding the right IP) on my home network to telnet into to make the changes.
> 
> We should definitely be very grateful to the enthusiasts for breathing this new life into the box.


I changed 2 Tivo to AltEPG and found the easiest way was to make the AltEPG CD from iso and then reconfigure the old drive. Bung it back in the Tivo boot up and let DHCP do its stuff


----------



## davidcameron

RichardJH said:


> I changed 2 Tivo to AltEPG and found the easiest way was to make the AltEPG CD from iso and then reconfigure the old drive. Bung it back in the Tivo boot up and let DHCP do its stuff


Access to an IDE equipped PC is a potential barrier though


----------



## RichardJH

davidcameron said:


> Access to an IDE equipped PC is a potential barrier though


I'm sure it works with an external caddy or usb adapter. The last HD upgrade I did I used a sata drive and then a sata to ide adapter in the Tivo.


----------



## unitron

RichardJH said:


> I'm sure it works with an external caddy or usb adapter. The last HD upgrade I did I used a sata drive and then a sata to ide adapter in the Tivo.


As long as we are so horribly off-topic allow me to jump in in an attempt to save previous poster some expensive grief and say that unless UK Series 1s have entirely different IDE controllers, you need a Marvel chipset based SATA/IDE adapter, and a Caviar Blue, IDE or SATA, isn't going to work. Don't know why, that's just how it is.

As for using the other way round type adapter to use an IDE/PATA drive on a computer's SATA port to hack the TiVo drive, either Marvel or JMicron chipset based adapters should be okay, but I don't trust the SunPlus/SataLink ones.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled legal rant.


----------



## Trinitron

unitron said:


> We now return you to your regularly scheduled legal rant.


Yes, there is plenty of room for tech discussions elsewhere! Let's leave this one to the progress of RWT's legal case... :up:


----------



## cwaring

unitron said:


> As long as we are so horribly off-topic ...


Which, incidentally, was started by TCM2007 who was the first to complain about me taking the thread OT not that long ago.

I'm sure the irony and hypocrisy cannot be lost on him


----------



## unitron

cwaring said:


> Which, incidentally, was started by TCM2007 who was the first to complain about me taking the thread OT not that long ago.
> 
> I'm sure the irony and hypocrisy cannot be lost on him


Actually TCM2007 didn't hop on this latest OT bandwagon until davidcameron and Pete77 already had it well underway.

I plead guilty to helping give it a push, but in mitigation the technical part was already underway, and since davidcameron indicated he hadn't been keeping up recently, I was trying to spare him some grief and expense.


----------



## rwtomkins

Very belatedly, an update. Before Christmas a judge ruled that the claim should be served on TiVo's US address. However the judge did not strike out the claim and instead only "stayed" it pending delivery to the new address. So the claim is still very much alive.

I have asked the court for clarification on some points but predictably things closed down over Christmas and I haven't got around to chasing them up yet. I'm not going to say what happens next because TiVo and its lawyers follow this thread - I will continue to post but only to say what's happened, not what's going to happen.


----------



## cwaring

rwtomkins said:


> I'm not going to say what happens next because TiVo and its lawyers follow this thread - I will continue to post but only to say what's happened, not what's going to happen.


Is that just paranoia or have they confirmed it?


----------



## TCM2007

Those aren't the only two options Carl!


----------



## cwaring

They really are. He must either a. *know* they're reading the thread or b. doesn't *know* but *suspects*. I was merely wondering which. (Not sure what the other options are )


----------



## unitron

cwaring said:


> They really are. He must either a. *know* they're reading the thread or b. doesn't *know* but *suspects*. I was merely wondering which. (Not sure what the other options are )


Suspecting isn't necessarily paranoia, which was the first option you offered, and he may know for sure somehow other than the lawyers having themselves confirmed it to be so, which was the second option you offered.


----------



## rwtomkins

TiVo's lawyers quoted very extensively from this thread in their defence at the previous court hearing, in papers sent to the court in advance of that hearing and in correspondence with me.


----------



## cwaring

Therefore it was option a. So I was right  (And I was being a bit light-hearted with the mention of 'paranoia'. Forgot the  though. Sorry )


----------



## unitron

cwaring said:


> Therefore it was option a. So I was right  (And I was being a bit light-hearted with the mention of 'paranoia'. Forgot the  though. Sorry )


Okay, so out of

a. know they're reading the thread

or

b. doesn't know but suspects

which one was the paranoia again?


----------



## cwaring

That was the light-hearted and not-entirely-serious bit I mentioned above


----------



## TCM2007

Odd that that wasn't your initial response Carl, and only became it when you realised your error!


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> Odd that that wasn't your initial response Carl, and only became it when you realised your error!


By initial response, do you mean this?



> Hello unitron,
> 
> cwaring has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - You CAN submit a claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd for loss of service - in the TiVo Series 1 - UK forum of TiVo Community.
> 
> This thread is located at:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=469325&goto=newpost
> 
> Here is the message that has just been posted:
> ***************
> Therefore it was option a. So I was right
> ***************
> 
> Again...This thread is located at:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=469325&goto=newpost
> 
> NOTICE: If you are a MOBILE USER on a PDA or cell phone, you can access the thread more quickly here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=469325&styleid=13&goto=newpost
> 
> There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.
> 
> Yours,
> TiVo Community team
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Unsubscription information:
> 
> To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/subscription.php?do=usub&t=469325
> 
> To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all


If one edits one's post quickly enough, it doesn't show as edited.

But the above reflects the way it was worded when I responded to it, even though the revised version now shows up as the quote in my post.


----------



## TCM2007

No, I meant



> They really are. He must either a. know they're reading the thread or b. doesn't know but suspects. I was merely wondering which. (Not sure what the other options are )


Not a hint of a smiley (or understanding what "paranoid" actually means - I suspect he looked it up and realised what we were talking about)


----------



## unitron

TCM2007 said:


> No, I meant
> 
> Not a hint of a smiley (or understanding what "paranoid" actually means - I suspect he looked it up and realised what we were talking about)


Well, I'm sure that all of us are, at one time or another, guilty of posting first and thinking later, and I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives and "tone of voice", so I try to ask rather than accuse.

Especially in fora where I'm an "out-of-town'er", so to speak.


----------



## cwaring

TCM2007 said:


> Odd that that wasn't your initial response Carl, and only became it when you realised your error!


At least I know and can admit when I made one 


unitron said:


> By initial response, do you mean this?


No. Post #660 was my initial response where I forgot to indicate the "not at all serious"-ness of my post 


TCM2007 said:


> No, I meant..


That wasn't where I meant either


----------



## unitron

cwaring said:


> At least I know and can admit when I made one
> 
> No. Post #660 was my initial response where I forgot to indicate the "not at all serious"-ness of my post
> 
> That wasn't where I meant either


I was asking TCM2007 what he meant by your initial response, which may or may not have been what you considered your initial response to be.

I was pointing out that my inquiry about which option you considered paranoia was made before you edited your post to include the remark about the initial remark about paranoia being in light-hearted jest, since the edited version appears in the part of my post that quotes yours, even though I was only seeing the original version as I composed my reply.

So, you guys got anything good to watch on TV over there these days?


----------



## cwaring

Wow! you guys really do get in a tizzy easily don't you?


----------



## markbanang

Oh, for pities sake children. Doesn't this thread have enough noise already?


----------



## rwtomkins

OK, I've been meaning to do this for ages and I've finally got around to starting a new thread for the claim against TiVo Inc since this thread is about an old claim against TiVo (UK) Ltd. To follow the latest developments, please go to the new thread here:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8949559#post8949559

Of course anyone can post where they like but it would be really helpful if you could post on the new thread and leave this one to fade away into the archive.


----------



## OzSat

I think this one would be best closed


----------

