# Is it now legal to hack your tivo?



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

The EFF _Copyright Office of the U.S. Library of Congress_ just issued some new guidelines, as posted in a press release by the EFF and referenced in this link:

http://www.gadgetsdna.com/jailbreaking-iphone-is-now-legal-permitted-by-us-federal-law/5038/

While the ipod/iphone/etc get all the attention, note that one of the new guidelines is:

"Allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers."

Now, down to the point, we know that our Tivos are designed to disable certain features when the subscription is no longer paid. This includes but is not limited to MRV, recording w/o guide data, etc. We know that they're designed to only accept guide data from Tivo.

If it's legal to modify a used cellphone to switch carriers, then is it also legal to modify a used Tivo to switch guide data providers, and/or to enable features that are disabled by the lack of a provider? The marketing mechanism of the devices is similar, with both cellphones and Tivos using a monthly service fee to supposedly subsidize the cost of the phone. One would expect there is a lot of similarity in the legaleze of the service contracts.

It looks like the EFF specifically refuted Apple's argument that the owner of the device is merely a licensee of the operating system / firmware.

This message should be in no way construed as an advocacy for hacking a Tivo, but rather that I'm very surprised to see this sort of ruling applied to the cellular providers, and wondering about the wider impacts on other devices.

(an no, in response to the title, I don't think it's legal at this time. The EFF listed several specific exceptions to the 1998 law, and to my knowledge Tivo was not listed. One must wait another 3 years and see)

EDIT: Corrected erroneous references to EFF.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I'd like to hack my TiVo to turn off this stupid CCI byte code nonsense that is making MRV worthless. This is the very definition of interoperability, making the TiVo units work with each other as they were designed to work. I don't have the skill to desolder chips from the board without ruining it. Maybe the guys who can do this service can crawl out from hiding and do this in the sunlight now.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

I think you are misreading the guidelines, and the rational behind them, much of which is based in Apple's own license agreements, which doesn't apply at all to Tivo. 

Also, who exactly do you believe is going to come kicking down your door if you hack your Tivo? There are broader issues - such as distributing modified tivo software to others which would be a copyright violation. Whether Tivo will continue to serve or support a unit you've hacked. Selling hacked units containing modified Tivo software. Circumventing copy protection methods to transfer protected content violates both your agreement with your cable company, and several copyright laws.

But if *you* hack *your* tivo, to run software *you* have written.... has tivo ever actually threatened a end user with jailtime for that (like apple has?)

(Obviously they'd certainly prefer that you didn't).

-Ken


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

There are six things that have been legalized by the ruling, according to this press release from the Copyright Office:

1. Breaking the CSS encryption on a movie on DVD to get an excerpt for teaching, documentary, or "noncommercial video" purposes (I am not sure if the definition of "motion picture" includes TV or other video);

2. Jailbreaking a "wireless telephone handset" to run all "legally obtained applications" (i.e. iPhones aren't limited to the iTunes App Store);

3. Jailbreaking a "wireless telephone handset" so it can (legally) run on another "wireless telecommunications network";

4. Breaking into copy/access controls on games on PCs in order to find or test security flaws;

5. Breaking a computer program that requires a dongle so it no longer needs one, if the dongle is no longer being made;

6. Modifying an e-copy of a book to allow it to be "read aloud" by the reader or to appear in a specific format (I think that means "in a format that can be displayed by a particular reader), if all e-versions of that book have the same limitation.

Nothing here seems to apply to DVRs. Also, by a strict reading, while iPhones apparently can use any apps, the same is not true for iPhone Touches, which don't have telephone capability.

-- Don


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

The last I looked the EFF does not actually make or interpret the laws in a legally binding way but seeks to modify them toward a freer use for consumers in the name of fair use. Huzzah for that but simply interpreting some policy changes on copyright law does not make for an airtight case in court.

as to the specific question TiVo would respond in exactly the way Apple did if asked, emphasis is mine



> It stated that its validation system is necessary to protect consumers and Apple from harm. Apple further contended that modifying Apple's operating system constituted the creation of an infringing derivative work. Specifically, Apple argued that *because purchasers of an iPhone are licensees, not owners, of the computer programs* contained on the iPhone, Section 117 of the Copyright Act is inapplicable as an exemption to the adaptation right. Apple further argued that the fair use defense codified in 107 would not apply to jailbreaking activity under the statutory factors.


Now the TiVo hardware is yours when you buy it however. Want to wipe the hard drive clean and install your own or open source software and not sub with TiVo - that is perfectly within the TOS.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> There are broader issues - such as distributing modified tivo software to others which would be a copyright violation. Whether Tivo will continue to serve or support a unit you've hacked. Selling hacked units containing modified Tivo software.


There are ways around the distribution problem. For example, one could distribute a patch or "kit" that modified the Tivo without actually distributing the modified Tivo. The patch is the intellectual property of the person who created it, the Tivo software is the intellectual property of Tivo, and the end-user is within his fair use guidelines to apply the patch.

I'm not concerned with the do-not-copy DRM flags being applied by the cablecos (that is a separate issue). What interests me is the right of a user to continue to use his Tivo, minus guide data, without paying for service.

Whenever I've brought up this argument before, the response is always "_Tivo is a like a cellphone. You signed a service contract. You're licensing the firmware, not buying it_.". Thus, let's flip that argument around. If Tivo is like a cellphone, then the same logic that the EFF just used against cellphone companies should apply.

As far as the practical implications, if I have a _Fair Use_ to use and modify my Tivo (or cellphone) after the service contract has expired, what right does Tivo (or the cellular company) have to prevent me from doing so? Might there be more legal decisions coming down the line?

It seems to me that this EFF ruling has taken a step in that direction.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Might there be more legal decisions coming down the line?
> 
> It seems to me that this EFF ruling has taken a step in that direction.


_
there has been no legal decision yet at all._ The Library of Congress simply issued some changes to the COPYRIGHT policy.

also the EFF CAN NOT MAKE RULINGS.
seems you were missing that fact so decided to shout it. 

so new policy is that jailbreaking a phone does not violate copyright laws, it does not speak of consequences of modifying leased software. If nothing else the modification violates terms of service and Apple/TiVo could legally demand that use of their software cease. I would wait for a court case before deciding all this is legal and bear in mind that The EFF will have a slanted opinion around their bias toward freer fair use.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Now the TiVo hardware is yours when you buy it however. Want to wipe the hard drive clean and install your own or open source software and not sub with TiVo - that is perfectly within the TOS.


Is it ?? as you would still be using the BIOS chip on the mother board. Do you think I could sell (legally) a hard drive upgrade for a TiVo that got by not using the TiVo guide service?, IE: purchase an unsub TiVo, and put my hard drive in your TiVo and you will get a guide service (not using the TiVo servers) and a TiVo type UI for free.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> Is it ?? as you would still be using the BIOS chip on the mother board. Do you think I could sell (legally) a hard drive upgrade for a TiVo that got by not using the TiVo guide service?, IE: purchase an unsub TiVo, and put my hard drive in your TiVo and you will get a guide service (not using the TiVo servers) and a TiVo type UI for free.


The BIOS firmware is not owned by TiVo. They do have a chip that does the checksum on files on the drive to make sure the TiVo owned software has not been modified. Likely changing anything in that chip would put you in a cease using our software situation as well.

now a hard drive with your own software on it that simply ignores that chip, I know of no problem. The 'TiVo type UI' and software you come up with on your own - well see DISH threads on PATENT infringement for that one  Your software would have to be your own work and be 'colorably different' from TiVo's work.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lessd said:


> Do you think I could sell (legally) a hard drive upgrade for a TiVo that got by not using the TiVo guide service?


I see it as two questions:

1) Could you legally sell it? (I don't see why not, if it was entirely your own intellectual property)

2) Could someone legally install it? (that is the subject of this thread, and concerns the ruliXXXX err let's call it "policy changes" issued by the EFF)


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

smbaker said:


> Whenever I've brought up this argument before, the response is always "_Tivo is a like a cellphone. You signed a service contract. You're licensing the firmware, not buying it_.". Thus, let's flip that argument around. If Tivo is like a cellphone, then the same logic that the EFF just used against cellphone companies should apply.


That's their rational for their for the current pricing model, just like a cell phone, just like a razor. Their rational for forcing you (as best as they can) to purchase service with every Tivo. And that's the rational for talk about theft of service being historically discouraged here - we like Tivo. (Well, I do, as did the previous forum owners who made the policy).

But I'm not sure there's any argument to "flip around". What legal barriers are currently preventing you from hacking your own tivo that you feel this interpretation lifts, if only by cell phone analogy?



smbaker said:


> As far as the practical implications, if I have a _Fair Use_ to use and modify my Tivo (or cellphone) after the service contract has expired, what right does Tivo (or the cellular company) have to prevent me from doing so?


Give me a practical example (that's not colored by broader copyright issues). Is there some epidemic of Tivo launched lawsuits against users who have hacked their own Tivo's that I'm not aware of?

-Ken


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> I see it as two questions:
> 
> 1) Could you legally sell it? (I don't see why not, if it was entirely your own intellectual property)
> 
> 2) Could someone legally install it? (that is the subject of this thread, and concerns the ruliXXXX err let's call it "policy changes" issued by the EFF)


the EFF did NOT issue the policy changes. Here is what the EFF does as you seem confused on this point. from their website


> EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations.


so in effect at this moment the EFF is only *commenting* on the policy changes issued by a Government agency. They did not create them and they will not offer any legally binding interpretation of them, ever. It might seem a nitpick but it is significant to keep in mind who makes the rules and who comments on the rules and pushes for change. That said the EFF certainly has people who follow such things very closely and their comments are well worth noting - but simply as comments and with a mind to the agenda of the EFF which would spin interpretation to their liking.

as to the questions 
- if it is wholly your intellectual work and does not violate some law then you can sell it.
side note
The guy that made DVD copy fell into trouble since his software clearly violated the DMCA under the old policy. 
Now we have the brave new world where he can say his asoftware is ONLY to be used by teachers/students for academic purposes. 

- can the user install it in their TiVo hardware. Unless there is some provision in the TOS about using the hardware only with a sub, and I know of no such provision. So yes, a brand new hard drive with your own software or open source that does not modify that checksum chip is legal. It certainly does not modify any TiVo software on the original drive.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> the EFF did NOT issue the policy changes. Here is what the EFF does as you seem confused on this point. from their website


Oh, very well, so I named the incorrect party. Amend my remarks to say the "The Copyright Office of the U.S Library of Congress's Policy Changes, as reported by the EFF".

The substance of the argument remains the same. The policy has changed.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

kdmorse said:


> Give me a practical example (that's not colored by broader copyright issues). Is there some epidemic of Tivo launched lawsuits against users who have hacked their own Tivo's that I'm not aware of?
> 
> -Ken


back in the day of hard drive upgrades that were not automated - hackers would have websites with images of TiVo software mainly S1 you could put on the drive. some of them were modified to run other stuff and to pull content off. TiVo did indeed release the lawyers on those sites with cease and desist orders.

On the 540 models the Chip was introduced that did the checksum on the drive to make sure no files were modified. some folks offer the service of bypassing that but they stay VERY low key and it is not worth it to TiVo to track them down it seems. If they went visible with easily found websites I imagine TiVo would release the lawyers again.

The two places that had sites that could offer guide data for TiVo DVRs since TiVo did not operate there (Canada and Australia) now have legit TiVo DVR service and those sites are no longer open found and at the very least the old admins said they would not continue to offer the service once you could get a TiVo and a sub legit. So no need for a public scene on those.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Oh, very well, so I named the incorrect party. Amend my remarks to say the "The Copyright Office of the U.S Library of Congress's Policy Changes, as reported by the EFF".
> 
> The substance of the argument remains the same. The policy has changed.


the substance is the same at the core but the comments by the EFF now carry their proper weight, which is as interested bystander who has a lawyer and knows how to use it. 

PS - just use LOC for Library of Congress


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

So the question is, could you legally disable all connections to TiVo, upload your own guide data, and hack the TiVo to allow it to work this way?

I don't think that has ever been illegal. What would be illegal is hacking it to steal TiVo's service.

Seems like a lot of work though.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> So the question is, could you legally disable all connections to TiVo, upload your own guide data, and hack the TiVo to allow it to work this way?
> 
> I don't think that has ever been illegal. What would be illegal is hacking it to steal TiVo's service.
> 
> Seems like a lot of work though.


due to the TOS and the fact the TiVo software is leased and not bought by the end user - modifying the TiVo software in anyway violates the TOS and would likely still violate copyright law, since the LOC policy change has nothing to do with DVRs, if it ever became a court case.

if by 'disable all connections to TiVo' you mean wipe all TiVo software off the drive - then that is legal. And yes no one has ever seen the value in that since you can just get a PC and go from there with a lot less low level hardware access to work out.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> And that's the rational for talk about theft of service being historically discouraged here - we like Tivo. (Well, I do, as did the previous forum owners who made the policy).


I like Tivo as well. I've been an advocate of the company and products since my first Phillips Series 1 box.



kdmorse said:


> But I'm not sure there's any argument to "flip around". What legal barriers are currently preventing you from hacking your own tivo that you feel this interpretation lifts, if only by cell phone analogy?


As a general rule, I avoid doing things that are illegal. As such, the fact that it is if it was now legal for me to hack my Tivo encourages me to do so. In and of itself, is that enough? probably not because it doesn't address the license.

It does however void the argument by some that said practices cannot be talked about because they are illegal.



kdmorse said:


> Give me a practical example (that's not colored by broader copyright issues).


I want to be able to transfer programs to my THD without paying a monthly fee to do so. Granted, this change made by the Copyright Office of the U.S. Library of Congress does not in and of itself allow me to do that, because it may not affect the licensing agreement allowing me to use the Tivo software on the box. I think we need a reexamination of software licensing practices in general.

Leasing the software that runs in a piece of consumer electronics is as ridiculous as leasing the compressor motor in my refrigerator and telling me that my meat will spoil if I don't pay for a continuing monthly refrigerator use fee.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> There are six things that have been legalized by the ruling, according to this press release from the Copyright Office:
> 
> 1. Breaking the CSS encryption on a movie on DVD to get an excerpt for teaching, documentary, or "noncommercial video" purposes (I am not sure if the definition of "motion picture" includes TV or other video);...


Just as an FYI, the definition of Motion Picture in copyright law is referring only to what technically makes a moving image, and says nothing about the type of content.



US Copyright Law said:


> Motion pictures are audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> the fact that it is now legal for me to hack my Tivo encourages me to do so. In and of itself, is that enough? probably not because it doesn't address the license.
> 
> It does however void the argument by some that said practices cannot be talked about because they are illegal.


you seem hell bent on stating things that are simply not true. The policy change by the LOC has not changed anything at all about legality of hacking a TiVo DVR.

You seem to have decided something before even getting the groups involved sorted out correctly.

oh and no matter the legality it certainly has no effect on the rule of what can be discussed here. That is determined by forum owners who need not base it on legality of the topic.



smbaker said:


> Leasing the software that runs in a piece of consumer electronics is as ridiculous as leasing the compressor motor in my refrigerator and telling me that my meat will spoil if I don't pay for a continuing monthly refrigerator use fee.


 then use something else like open source DVR software on a PC if you truly believe that.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> You seem to have decided something before even getting the groups involved sorted out correctly.


Fair enough; in my original post I said that I thought that the exceptions did not apply to DVRs; in my haste in the last reply I replied as if they did.



ZeoTiVo said:


> oh and no matter the legality it certainly has no effect on the rule of what can be discussed here. That is determined by forum owners who need not base it on legality of the topic.


Granted, but it does lessen the argument.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Fair enough; in my original post I said that I thought that the exceptions did not apply to DVRs; in my haste in the last reply I replied as if they did.
> 
> Granted, but it does lessen the argument.


man you are a hoot. 

in the first sentence you seem to agree that the new LOC policy did not change anything in reagrad to legality of hacking TiVo.

Then in the second sentence you speak of it lessening the argument about it being illegal. 
Cant have it both ways. 

now I am fine if someone hacks their TiVo and does a full blown blog on it or openly offers services or talks about it here etc.. Not my forum and not my DVR company. I just am the type to keep the record straight as people discuss things.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> man you are a hoot.


On the best of days, my world is a strange and confusing place.



ZeoTiVo said:


> in the first sentence you seem to agree that the new LOC policy did not change anything in reagrad to legality of hacking TiVo.


Okay, let me elaborate my obviously flawed world view.

1) I agree that legally the policy change did not address the Tivo, because the Tivo is not listed among the exceptions. I don't think any of us disagree on that point.

2) I see no fundamental difference between the argument made by EFF on behalf of the iPhone and the argument that could be made on behalf of the Tivo (other than the obvious fact that one argument was made and one presumably was not). The points EFF raised about the iPhone are the same as the points that would be raised about the Tivo. The defense Apply presented about the iPhone is likely the same defense Tivo would present.

3) As the cases are similar and case #1 is not illegal does make a basis for arguing that case #2 is also not illegal. It's a matter of applying the precedent in case #1 to case #2. As someone already stated in this forum, it's really not set until some court case is brought forth that addresses it and a decision is reached.

The next step is for someone to challenge the license agreement for the iPhone (whoops, that's already happening with the Apple-AT&T partnership). That's where things may start to get really interesting.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

oh, and ....



ZeoTiVo said:


> Then in the second sentence you speak of it lessening the argument about it being illegal.


You were speaking in the abstract about whether the legality of a topic may impact whether or not a forum owner allows it to be discussed.

I replied that it lessens the argument about why the topic should not be discussed. I think this is relatively obvious: "You may not talk about hacking a tivo because that is a violation of law" is a stronger argument than "You may not talk about hacking a Tivo because I do not like the subject matter".

The forum owner is the forum owner, and he ultimately decides what can be posted. We have no disagreement there.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> 2) I see no fundamental difference between the argument made by EFF on behalf of the iPhone and the argument that could be made on behalf of the Tivo


 depends on what result is being sought. You stated that you wanted to use the TiVo to copy shows and watch them without a subscription. I think even the EFF would see that as simply getting around an agreed upon TOS to not have to spend money. Modding the software to make use of MRV without a sub would be the equivalent of modding the iPhone to get iTunes stuff without paying.

In the iPhone case, this was to allow you to switch cell phone providers or run other apps _besides_ the ones from iTunes. So for a TiVo it would be equivalent to modding the software to run a web app that would let you say stream media from some other media provider or display caller ID.

this is what the LOC said about all this


> "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses," Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, wrote in the ruling approved by Billington (download PDF).





> That's where things may start to get really interesting.


indeed


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I think even the EFF would see that as simply getting around an agreed upon TOS to not have to spend money.


Is switching providers from an expensive provider to an inexpensive provider not also a way to get around an agreed upon TOS? Presumably the TOS when I buy my AT&T cellphone tells me that I must continue to use it with AT&T. Allowing me to switch providers will cost AT&T revenue.

Similarly, what if I wanted to change my Tivo to use guide service provided by another company? Let's say schedulesdirect, for $20/year instead of $12.95 a month...

Considering the cost of enabling MRV, "non-guide" recording, and a host of other services that are disabled without paying a monthly fee for the Tivo is *zero*, I would assume there are other providers that can offer it for substantially less than Tivo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Considering the cost of enabling MRV, "non-guide" recording, and a host of other services that are disabled without paying a monthly fee for the Tivo is *zero*, I would assume there are other providers that can offer it for substantially less than Tivo.


there is jailbreaking with *some* modifications to enable the jailbreaking and then there is hacking simply to get at services without paying anyone.

Your scenario would be more like - iPhone has a kick butt game that TOS to be active so long as you have service with AT&T. You jail break the phone to work with Verizon which does not support the game but as part of the jail break you mod things so the game is active again. That does not fall under the exemptions outlined by LOC policy and you would be in violation of copyright.

I highly doubt the LOC will allow as exemption for you to mod the TiVo to use some 20$ a year guide data provider. That is not where they were going when they made the exemptions about cell phones having stranglehold on one cell provider among many in a mature market.


----------



## tivohaydon (Mar 24, 2001)

Hacking a TiVo has always been legal. Now it would be harder for TiVo to discontinue service if they decided to take an aggressive stand on it. Performing copyright infringement with a TiVo is not legal - hacked or not.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> due to the TOS and the fact the TiVo software is leased and not bought by the end user


Most of the software is not leased. Most of the software is Linux based, and distributed under the GPL license. The source code for these is freely available. Any user is free to modify these any way they like. Tivoapp and some of the drivers are TiVo proprietary, not GPL. so the rules for them are a bit different. Stealing TiVo service is illegal, regardless of how it is attempted. Generally speaking, hacking the TiVo in some way that does not steal service is not, with some exceptions.



ZeoTiVo said:


> - modifying the TiVo software in anyway violates the TOS and would likely still violate copyright law, since the LOC policy change has nothing to do with DVRs, if it ever became a court case.


They would have to prove damages and show an intent to distribute the altered product. One can write all over a book they themselves own all they want.

Hacking the TiVo, as practiced by anyone of which I am aware, is not illegal, and never has been. It does void the warranty, of course, including even such simple, mundane hacks as replacing / upgrading the hard drive.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I highly doubt the LOC will allow as exemption for you to mod the TiVo to use some 20$ a year guide data provider. That is not where they were going when they made the exemptions about cell phones having stranglehold on one cell provider among many in a mature market.


Why not? I could conceivably hack an iPhone and eliminate the enormously expensive voice+data plan in favor of a very cheap plan. I could probably achieve an amount of the same magnitude of switching a Tivo over to a $20/year service.

I don't see what legality has to do with size and type of market. Either the user has a right to modify his property or he doesn't.

If they are applying the DMCA as subjectively as you imply that they are, then it sounds like the whole law needs to be thrown out.



Irhorer said:


> Hacking the TiVo, as practiced by anyone of which I am aware, is not illegal, and never has been.


"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself."

Assuming your hacking involves circumventing an access control, and there is no exception by the LOC, then it may be illegal. Actually, assuming I'm reading the above summary correctly, then it also criminalizes that example we had before of distributing a hard drive intended to circumvent the access controls of a Tivo.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I highly doubt the LOC will allow as exemption for you to mod the TiVo to use some 20$ a year guide data provider. That is not where they were going when they made the exemptions about cell phones having stranglehold on one cell provider among many in a mature market.


That's... a little trickier. Modifying the TiVo proprietary code which manages the guide data would probably be infringement. As I recall, the code which obtains the data is GPL ( I could be mis-remembering, though, and I could be wrong WRT the S3), so modifying it should be fine. Writing brand new code to handle the database is also a gray area, but if the effort is truly independent, I think TiVo would be hard pressed to win the case. I'm not sure how the database management code hooks into the main tivoapp, or if perhaps it is part and parcel of tivoapp.

Note none of this is illegal in the sense of being felonious. At most it is only actionable in civil court. Stealing copyrighted content can actually get you thrown into jail, and that includes the TiVo guide data.

Note also violating CableLabs rules isn't even actionable. It just loses a manufacturer the CableLabs stamp of approval.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That's... a little trickier. Modifying the TiVo proprietary code which manages the guide data would probably be infringement.


Let's say a router just fell into place between the router and the internet and that router just happened intercept the messages the Tivo was sending to request guide data and replied with it's own messages. No Tivo code need be modified, yet I think one would be hearing from some lawyers should one start to market such a device.



lrhorer said:


> Note none of this is illegal in the sense of being felonious. At most it is only actionable in civil court. Stealing copyrighted content can actually get you thrown into jail, and that includes the TiVo guide data.


Man convicted of felonies for violating DMCA....

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-5080807.html


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

Given that we all know we can get access to the same TMS guide data for only $20/year, clearly the bulk of the subscription fee TiVo charges largely goes to keeping the company running to where just selling the DVD hardware itself is not a viable business model. 
My only problem with the TMS data is when the embedded station-to-channel mapping for each zipcode/provider/package doesn't exactly match the station-to-channel mapping as the cable provider is pushing out. We shouldn't have to spend hours of our lives trying to convince TMS that station X is on channel N, even despite the fact that one's cable provider is too lazy to update their own printed and/or on-line lineup listing to where TMS tends to believe the cable provider's inaccurate information over an actual customer who clearly knows what channel number station X is on.
Given the premium we pay TiVo for the privilege of using their product, I still can't understand why they have no mechanism at all to let the individual customer set the proper station-to-channel mapping when TMS can't get it figured out (for weeks at a time).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

smbaker said:


> As far as the practical implications, if I have a _Fair Use_ to use and modify my Tivo (or cellphone) after the service contract has expired...


Your arguments might have more merit if you actually used legal terms like "Fair Use" properly. This decision has to do with the DMCA, not Fair Use.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

mattack said:


> Your arguments might have more merit if you actually used legal terms like "Fair Use" properly. This decision has to do with the DMCA, not Fair Use.


From the article, the EFF's position:



EFF said:


> Finally, EFF contended that in any event, jailbreaking constitutes *fair use* of the firmware because jailbreaking is a purely noncommercial, private use of computer software, a largely functional work that operates the phone, and that the phone owner must reuse the vast majority of the original firmware in order for the phone to operate.


The LOC's decision regarding the EFF's position:



LOC said:


> However, the Register does find that the proponent's *fair use* argument is compelling and consistent with the congressional interest in interoperability.The four *fair use* factors tend to weigh in favor of a finding of *fair use*."


The EFF's position toward the iPhone is identical to the position that I'm that I'm making about the Tivo. While I've seen a few responses that gripe about my use or alleged misuse (or by extension, the LOC's misuse??) of legal terminology, I've yet to see a single compelling argument about what exactly makes the Tivo's access restrictions fundamentally different than the iPhone's.

If you want to read more about the decision, you may do so here: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> From the article, the EFF's position:
> 
> The LOC's decision regarding the EFF's position:
> 
> ...


If you purchase the TiVo hardware and get a TiVo sub, TiVo most likely does not care what apps or upgrades you put on the TiVo, with the iPhone Apple does want you to use ATT service only (at least until Jan 2011). Apple wants only approved apps so they have some control and not have some virus installed on a customer's iPhone.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

smbaker said:


> , I've yet to see a single compelling argument about what exactly makes the Tivo's access restrictions fundamentally different than the iPhone's.


Becasue the TiVo subscription is not only guide data. If it were, your argument would be correct.

The TiVo subscription is in fact an ongoing license or a lease of the software, and the service connection enforces that by updating system keys which enable features of the DVR software.

With the iPhone, you more or less outright own an ongoing license to the OS/software when you buy the hardware. Your contract with AT&T is to provide wireless services, and that you subscribe for a period to make up the cost of the phone, or pay up because you want to own the phone.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Most of the software is not leased. Most of the software is Linux based, and distributed under the GPL license. The source code for these is freely available. Any user is free to modify these any way they like. Tivoapp and some of the drivers are TiVo proprietary, not GPL. so the rules for them are a bit different.


 thus why I specifically state "TiVo software" in my comments to exclude the open source stuff that does not belong to TiVo. TiVoApp is not some small sub component but the very thing we use.


> Stealing TiVo service is illegal, regardless of how it is attempted. Generally speaking, hacking the TiVo in some way that does not steal service is not, with some exceptions.
> 
> They would have to prove damages and show an intent to distribute the altered product. One can write all over a book they themselves own all they want.
> 
> Hacking the TiVo, as practiced by anyone of which I am aware, is not illegal, and never has been. It does void the warranty, of course, including even such simple, mundane hacks as replacing / upgrading the hard drive.


If they change the PROM chip they have violated the DMCA - plain and simple. DMCA never took fair use or damages into account at all - plain and simple.
The series 1 hacks are a bit fuzzier since they can be hacked without circumventing protection and thus damages would have to be shown as you note.



cogx said:


> Given that we all know we can get access to the same TMS guide data for only $20/year


 it is not the same - plain and simple. TiVo pays for more massaging of the data to meet TiVo specific needs.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

If you came up with a means to obviate the need for the TiVo service without taking anything from TiVo you would likely be ok. Once you stop paying them you wouldn't be obligated by the terms of the contract, unless it was judged that you agreed to a click wrap agreement by opening the box. 

The ideal way to do this would be some sort of firmware update, but it would probably be easier to intercept the TiVo's traffic and return the information in the format it is expecting. I'm fairly certain to do that you'd be violating a patent or two. 

So while it's an intriguing idea to hack a TiVo to run without service, if enough people were doing it or distributing the means for others to do it they'd be shut down fast.


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> it is not the same - plain and simple. TiVo pays for more massaging of the data to meet TiVo specific needs.


I would be very interested to know how much TiVo is charged for the TMS data (per subscriber), to know if it is even a significant fraction of the TiVo subscription fees. Until proven wrong, I stand by my prior stated assumption that the TiVo subscription fees are more about the overall operational costs of running their business which hardware sales alone could never cover. I'm fine with it, though, as I selfishly need them to stay in business.
However, just to continue with my obsession (yes, I am self-aware), one would think that extra "massaging" of the TMS data would include a far, far better mechanism to deal with the station-to-channel management problems many (most?) TiVo users have had to suffer with over the years.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> If you came up with a means to obviate the need for the TiVo service without taking anything from TiVo you would likely be ok. Once you stop paying them you wouldn't be obligated by the terms of the contract,


you also would not be allowed to use any part of the TiVo software anymore even except fro live buffer recording and trick play within it in its unmodified form.

Lets face it - the only reason to use a TiVo after the sub is up is to use the TiVo software, otherwise you are better off using PC hardware


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

cogx said:


> Until proven wrong, I stand by my prior stated assumption that the TiVo subscription fees are more about the overall operational costs of running their business which hardware sales alone could never cover.


 and once covered the rest would end up being profit. It is their publicly stated business model so far.



> one would think that extra "massaging" of the TMS data would include a far, far better mechanism to deal with the station-to-channel management problems many (most?) TiVo users have had to suffer with over the years.


 The extra massaging is to get the bits of data needed to denote first run from repeat, assuming the show will supply that in a timely way. Some shows are notoriously bad on that *cough* Daily show *cough** 
For station to channel management they rely on the broadcasters informing TMS of the lineup change. Sometimes the local cable does not do that so well either.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

classicsat said:


> The TiVo subscription is in fact an ongoing license or a lease of the software, and the service connection enforces that by updating system keys which enable features of the DVR software.


The fact that you're leasing the software is solely a contrivance to ensure continued subscription payments. The argument could be made for any device. For example, the iPhone does consider its OS a lease and could choose to disable access to apps without an AT&T cellular subscription. My toaster could implement an internet connection, microcontroller, and refuse to brown my toast if I ceased paying a toaster subscription.



ZeoTivo said:


> TiVo pays for more massaging of the data to meet TiVo specific needs.


I'd wager that a simple Python program could massage the $20/year guide data to the same specifications as the $12.95/mo "Tivo" data. I'll even throw in that channel-mapping feature that people keep asking for.



Stormspace said:


> So while it's an intriguing idea to hack a TiVo to run without service, if enough people were doing it or distributing the means for others to do it they'd be shut down fast.


Not really. The 2year contract can be enforced by threats to turn the consumer over to a collection agency, just like the cellular companies do. Tivo may already employ collection agencies for contract enforcement for all I know (I've never been delinquent on a Tivo payment to find out).



ZeoTivo said:


> Lets face it - the only reason to use a TiVo after the sub is up is to use the TiVo software, otherwise you are better off using PC hardware


Presumably one is doing it for the guide data service and the software update service (although at this point S1,S2, and S3 users are getting royally screwed on the software update service).

The proposed change would force Tivo to be more competitive with other providers once the subscription is up, just like the new change to the cellular providers will force them to be more competitive once their subscription period is up.

The two markets are quite similar. They both rely on service contracts to subsidize the cost of the hardware. They both lock down the hardware to prevent changing providers during and after the contract has expired. As I said before the interesting bit will be the class action suit against Apple/AT&T as to whether or not Apple will be forced to stop actively preventing users from changing providers. If that happens, then the precedent could be applied to many other businesses.

Apple has similar language about leasing the software rather than selling it to the user; it doesn't look like that's going to do them a whole lot of good.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Smbaker the below is what you are not getting.
Hint - the lease of software is not a _contrivance_ but a legally binding TOS similar to what Apple does with its iOS.

from CNN website


> So does Apple have to support jailbreaking?
> 
> Nope. Section 2(c) of the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement (PDF) bans any attempt to "modify" the iPhone software or to reverse-engineer it.
> 
> ...


----------



## cogx (Sep 23, 2006)

ZeoTiVo said:


> For station to channel management they rely on the broadcasters informing TMS of the lineup change. Sometimes the local cable does not do that so well either.


The understatement of the year? 

My experience, and for many others posting on various threads on this forum board, is that we the customers are almost always the ones having to convince TMS about station/channel changes, whether by filling out the web form on TiVo's web site (one or more times over a period of several weeks) (and/or by filling out the Zap2It web form one or more times) and/or for those who have an HTPC and a SchedulesDirect subscription also having them contact TMS on our behalf.

Of course, when one's own cable provider can't be bothered to update their own printed and/or on-line channel lineup to be 100% correct, it then becomes a protracted battle to convince TMS that our change requests are correct, not the cable provider's inaccurate documentation. Sometimes, TMS will even make the changes in a couple of business days, only to change things back a few days or weeks later, once again including the errors in the cable provider's documentation.

I just find it unacceptable given the great technological achievements the human species has accomplished in even just the past 100 years that something as simple as having a database table with the correct station and channel numbers is something that is just so very hard to get even close to 100% accurate on any given day. We have rovers on Mars, but oh man, that Comcast digital rebuild messing over a lot TiVo customers posting on this forum, whoa, now that is what I call a challenge!

My bottom line is that TiVo needs to have a mechanism in place that allows *them* to correct station-to-channel assignment errors regardless of what TMS has in their database. As of now, I don't feel like we are getting the proper level of service for the premium we pay TiVo which is way beyond what they pay TMS for their guide data. Two or even three business days of incorrect data in my TiVo every couple of years, you know what, that is just one of those things. The 46 total days, just so far in 2010, where my own channel lineup hasn't perfectly matched up, that is beyond ridiculous (and that is even before remembering the OTA digital transition debacle of 2009).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> My toaster could implement an internet connection, microcontroller, and refuse to brown my toast if I ceased paying a toaster subscription.


 do not know about your toatser but my toaster is simply not smart enough to pull that off. Also I would simply buy a toaster that had no sub as the toasting function is not that dynamic nor important to me to warrant a sub.


> I'd wager that a simple Python program could massage the $20/year guide data to the same specifications as the $12.95/mo "Tivo" data. I'll even throw in that channel-mapping feature that people keep asking for.


 you would loose that wager in a bug way. Think of the major broadcasters and the subset of smaller broadcasters - now stir in an order of magnitude of each local affliate doing things differently. It is a tremendous amount of data with a lot of irregularities by locale that is constantly updating - literally by the hour.
Also channel mapping as a hack was tried and given up on since the end user would have a hard time updating the map themselves on the TiVo via hack and the map was found to be in constant flux. Also a cable card does the mapping easily albeit something you have to deal with the cable company on.

You have a small piece of the puzzle you want (use MRV for free) but in arguing for it you are simply not looking at the big picture


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Smbaker the below is what you are not getting.
> Hint - the lease of software is not a _contrivance_ but a legally binding TOS similar to what Apple does with its iOS.


Very well, let's call it a: _legally-binding contrivance_.

Actually 'contrivance' doesn't have a significantly negative connotation to it. I could really use a better word. Hopefully you know of a good one.

I certainly hope I'm not leasing the software in my Jeep. I'd hate to cancel my XM radio subscription and have the power windows and doorlocks fail and the tires fall off....

The legally-binding contrivance of the software lease is merely used to prop up business that either can't compete or that (in the case of Apple) may be applying illegal anti-competition measures. Tivo should be more concerned about producing a quality product and/or providing value added services for the monthly subscription fee. The current state of the S4 shows that they are concerned with neither, instead choosing to continue to act like they are the sole provider of DVRs. Competition will soon eat them if they don't mend their ways.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

cogx said:


> I just find it unacceptable given the great technological achievements the human species has accomplished in even just the past 100 years that something as simple as having a database table with the correct station and channel numbers is something that is just so very hard to get even close to 100% accurate on any given day.


It's amazing what competition can do. If there were multiple choices of data providers, then perhaps one would attempt to be more responsive than the others?

I must be in the minority, that my channel numbers here rarely change (other than the occasional spanish-language network or shopping network that is coming or going).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> I certainly hope I'm not leasing the software in my Jeep. I'd hate to cancel my XM radio subscription and have the power windows and doorlocks fail and the tires fall off....


 when you get an example that actually compares I will reply.


> The legally-binding contrivance of the software lease is merely used to prop up business that either can't compete or that (in the case of Apple) may be applying illegal anti-competition measures. Tivo should be more concerned about producing a quality product and/or providing value added services for the monthly subscription fee. The current state of the S4 shows that they are concerned with neither, instead choosing to continue to act like they are the sole provider of DVRs. Competition will soon eat them if they don't mend their ways.


 You must feel foolish for even being on a TiVo forum then, let alone using the DVRs. So which DVR solution are you switching to that does all the above correctly?


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

I think we've all been at the point where we consider using the TiVo hardware sans a subscription. Aside from licensing restrictions we may very well be a step closer to it with this new iPhone ruling, however it would be an enormous task that many people would balk at doing. 

Also, with regard to the iPhone ruling. Nothing about that allows you to not pay the phone company for service. You are just allowed to mod your phone to install applications and change the way the phone operates. You still have to pay them. 

That last bit would be the untested portion for a TiVo sub hack.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> when you get an example that actually compares I will reply.


You did reply.



ZeoTivo said:


> You must feel foolish for even being on a TiVo forum then, let alone using the DVRs.


Not in the least. I like my DVR and have been an advocate of Tivo for years. At one point several relatives purchased them, so I sold at least a few DVRs and a few subscriptions for Tivo.

Why should I feel foolish that Tivo brought out a flawed and incomplete S4 DVR, which I have wisely chose not to upgrade to? Why should I feel foolish that Tivo chooses to lease software to its customers in order to enforce a monthly subscription fee?

Some people seem determined to bury their head in the sand. Putting out flawed products, failing to innovate new services and features (what exactly does the S4 do that the S3 does not?), and sticking to an outdated pricing structure might be fine when you're the only game in town. But, Tivo isn't the only DVR manufacturer anymore. They need to wise up, and quickly. I'm not putting the company down, I'm offering advice on how to save it.

At some point Tivo stopped being the innovative company that it was ten years ago.



Stormspace said:


> Also, with regard to the iPhone ruling. Nothing about that allows you to not pay the phone company for service.


Hypothetically, the ruling allows me to switch to a provider that was free, if such a provider existed. I'm not sure why the distinction matters to the companies in question. If they lose a customer to a discount provider that charges less, then it is no different from losing a customer to "free" service. A lost customer is a lost customer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Why should I feel foolish that Tivo chooses to lease software to its customers in order to enforce a monthly subscription fee?


because paying TiVo for what you consider a contrivance is only going to encourage them to continue what you consider a contrivance and would like to see discontinued.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

How does this work for lifetime Tivos?
When TiVo stops making money on my "lease" of the TiVo software, I own the unit outright.
So the only reason for me to hack my Tivo would be to circumvent the copy protection and since my primary viewing is OTA only, I don't have a problem with that.
So for now, it's not worth the effort...unless things change and OTA stations are no longer forced to keep shows copy free.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

steve614 said:


> How does this work for lifetime Tivos?
> When TiVo stops making money on my "lease" of the TiVo software, I own the unit outright.


Probably not. Even if you have a lifetime subscription, you're probably still leasing the software (for lifetime with no payment??). Violating the terms and conditions would probably violate the lease and Tivo could likely terminate or disable the software.

That's why I maintain this whole lease nonsense is nothing more than an artificial legal contrivance. You bought it, they know you bought, you paid for it in full, you fulfilled your obligation in full, and yet you're still "leasing" the software. It's nonsense. It's only purpose is to prevent you from using the items that you purchased as you see fit.

It's as foolish as if you'd purchased a book from a bookstore and were told that you were only leasing the words contained within and writing cliff notes on the pages would void the lease.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> That's why I maintain this whole lease nonsense is nothing more than an artificial legal contrivance. You bought it, they know you bought, you paid for it in full, you fulfilled your obligation in full, and yet you're still "leasing" the software. It's nonsense. It's only purpose is to prevent you from using the items that you purchased as you see fit.


I doubt most companies have the evil purpose of simply blocking a person from using the product in some new way.

TiVo loses no real money if someone hacks their TiVo DVR. maybe loose some possible UNBOX sales or netflix subs since someone would have some other means to media but that is about it money wise.

Support would become non-existant of course since there are already so many configurations for a TiVo DVR they deal with adding in the exponential factor of people modding and forget it. So keeping a brand image seems a reason and a reasonable goal for TiVo inc.

Business environment - TiVo is already in a wrestling match over access to broadcast TV. Add in people getting at the content in ways TiVo nor broadcasters can control *that are legal* and all bets are off. TiVo would likely start loosing the wrestling match over access to broadcast content and they are barely holding there own as it is.

Theft - do not kid yourself or any of else that theft of service would go up. This would include using MRV on subscriptionless boxes. If it was made legal to mod a box like that - TiVo would have to start charging more for the box upfront which would likely decrease sales to a point TiVo would go under.

I say your best bet is to get the EFF to go after access to cable companies. Get then hammering the FCC that cable card access should be hardware certified only. This would negate some of the arguments up above AND let the open source folks get in the door to broadcast access and that is the real solution to your desire.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Support would become non-existant of course since there are already so many configurations for a TiVo DVR they deal with adding in the exponential factor of people modding and forget it. So keeping a brand image seems a reason and a reasonable goal for TiVo inc.


This is similar to the argument that Apple makes, namely that hacking an iPhone will cause a termination of the warranty, lead to unpredictable and unreliable behavior, and an inability to provide or receive support.

Nevertheless, I look back to the days of the series 1 and the "Tivo Underground" forum. There was some real innovation going on -- we had development of the cache card and a couple iterations of network cards. Web access software was developed. It was the golden years of the Tivo. I'd come here often to read about the interesting new developments and new hacks that people had developed. Heck, if we'd had to rely solely on Tivo we probably still wouldn't have a way to upgrade hard drives. The underground forum is now a very lonely place.



zeotivo said:


> Theft - do not kid yourself or any of else that theft of service would go up. This would include using MRV on subscriptionless boxes. If it was made legal to mod a box like that - TiVo would have to start charging more for the box upfront which would likely decrease sales to a point TiVo would go under.


My opinion remains that MRV should not require a subscription fee. Regardless, I don't see theft of service being a significant problem. The contract period can be enforced with the dreaded 'collection agency' so that the boxes do end up paid in full. Receipt of guide data can be enforced by the same method that it is now, a unique key (or serial number) stored in each box that's used for authentication. Assuming the worst case that the box was 100% open and someone shared the key (or serial number), then it's trivial for Tivo to detect that multiple boxes are using the same key and a compromise has occurred and shut off data to that account.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Nevertheless, I look back to the days of the series 1 and the "Tivo Underground" forum. There was some real innovation going on -- we had development of the cache card and a couple iterations of network cards. Web access software was developed. It was the golden years of the Tivo.


it was the golden years of hacking the TiVo. Now most of that is built in and supported by TiVo. I am all for TiVo allowing for more public APIs and letting folks build better 3rd party stuff to work with a TiVo. Discontinuing their HME efforts was a real let down.
Still I see your opinions but they do not add up to real points made by you that would say to me TiVo would be better off if jail breaking it was "legal".


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Still I see your opinions but they do not add up to real points made by you that would say to me TiVo would be better off if jail breaking it was "legal".


Legality isn't always determined by what's best for the company. One has to factor in the rights of the consumer and achieve a balance. I'm just drawing that line in a different place than you are. If I buy something and fulfill my obligation to pay for it, then it is mine to do with as I please.

Certainly that doesn't allow me free access to Tivo's guide data service, but I do believe it allows me to full unrestricted access to the box and the software contained within for my own personal use.

In the case of the iPhone, the LOC seems to agree with me and has decriminalized jailbreaking. I still fail to see how the Tivo's access controls differ from the iPhone in any meaningful way. I can jailbreak an iPhone to switch content providers or install unapproved apps, but I cannot jailbreak a Tivo to do the very same thing?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> In the case of the iPhone, the LOC seems to agree with me and has decriminalized jailbreaking. I still fail to see how the Tivo's access controls differ from the iPhone in any meaningful way. I can jailbreak an iPhone to switch content providers or install unapproved apps, but I cannot jailbreak a Tivo to do the very same thing?


again you need to be more exact on what you are saying. The LOC said that circumventing the simple security measures on a cell phone do not violate the DMCA anymore as they exempted them.
They could not speak to contract law and whether jialbreaking a cell phone violates the TOS. Apple would likely have a good case in that arena but would have to spend more time in court and not have as great a punitive damage, What the LOC did was take away the double barreled shotgun and gave Apple a single barrel shotgun.

There is a mature cell phone provider market and multiple providers. The LOC really was saying that folks should be able to choose among the many legit cell providers already in place and that people making and selling apps did not have to bow down to the cell phone maker in order for users to be able to install them. I agree completely with that line of thinking.

TiVo is not at all the same market
There is no bevy of providers of guide data. Fair use of a different guide data provider really just does not exist and would not spring up since 3rd party DVRs are not exactly a big market and TiVo is set to work closely with the guide data in any event so the proper format is essential.

adding 3rd party is also really not legitimate as a TiVo DVR is not designed for installing apps such as exists on modern cell phones designed to accept installation of apps. The part where it gets interesting is if TiVo does put up an App store for the Premiere with its Flash interface. Then there is a legit reason for users to want that to be open for other apps 3rd parties might make but not affiliated with TiVo

Jailbreaking the TiVo then is really only about not paying the subscription as you yourself admit. Since TiVo makes it clear on the Box you need a sub to use the DVR and would have significant financial difficulties if people could start legally using them without the sub then it is not balanced in the least for the LOC to make an exemption for jail breaking a TiVo _after_ TiVo has established their business model.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> again you need to be more exact on what you are saying. The LOC said that circumventing the simple security measures on a cell phone do not violate the DMCA anymore as they exempted them.
> They could not speak to contract law and whether jialbreaking a cell phone violates the TOS. Apple would likely have a good case in that arena but would have to spend more time in court and not have as great a punitive damage, What the LOC did was take away the double barreled shotgun and gave Apple a single barrel shotgun.
> 
> There is a mature cell phone provider market and multiple providers. The LOC really was saying that folks should be able to choose among the many legit cell providers already in place and that people making and selling apps did not have to bow down to the cell phone maker in order for users to be able to install them. I agree completely with that line of thinking.
> ...


I agree with you this jailbreak thing is only to keep someone from being forced to go to court over DRM issues, nothing else. It give you permission to break the copy protection of say movie DVD for some uses, again the movie co can't file a DRM case against you if you follow the rules. I don't think this applies at present to anything on TiVo, maybe in the future it will have some meaning, you still can't use TiVos patents to design your own DVR for sale or hack a TiVo to steal TiVos guide service.
Even the drive upgrade Hack may never be as it was for the Series 1,2,3, the people who are doing for the TP may have made a master drive (doing a lot of work to get one drive working) and use a hard drive duplicator to sell the upgrades. If this is so the home user may never have any easy way to backup his own TP, or TPXL and than expand the drive or image another drive. (without a full copy of his original TP drive at his disposal)


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> adding 3rd party is also really not legitimate as a TiVo DVR is not designed for installing apps such as exists on modern cell phones designed to accept installation of apps.


So it's not legitimate to add 3rd party apps to a Tivo because Tivo designed it to be difficult to add unauthorized applications. Has Apple not made it difficult to add unauthorized applications as well? Isn't that what the jailbreaking issue is all about?



ZeoTivo said:


> The part where it gets interesting is if TiVo does put up an App store for the Premiere with its Flash interface.


Tivo does support applications (Youtube, Netflix, etc). Similar to Apple, they restrict the set of applications that you may use. The difference is the quantity of the applications.



ZeoTivo said:


> Since TiVo makes it clear on the Box you need a sub to use the DVR and would have significant financial difficulties if people could start legally using them without the sub then it is not balanced in the least for the LOC to make an exemption for jail breaking a TiVo after TiVo has established their business model.


We're continually told that the 2 year contract is necessary to subsidize the cost of the hardware.... Well, is it or isn't it? Is the company also destined to fail if people purchase lifetime subscriptions?

All companies would like to be able to keep their customers after the equipment is paid for. That's exactly why the cellular providers locked phones to prevent switching service.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

when TiVo has an app store like Apple does then it becomes relevant - till then comparing apps a user merely hits 'install' on to TiVo developers putting out updated code is just beyond silly.

and bottom line - you just want to avoid paying a sub on a box that can MRV shows from another TiVo DVR. I am not feeling your fair use pain here and there are other solutions to that problem already in the marketplace. Use them instead.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lessd said:


> I agree with you this jailbreak thing is only to keep someone from being forced to go to court over DRM issues, nothing else. It give you permission to break the copy protection of say movie DVD for some uses, again the movie co can't file a DRM case against you if you follow the rules. I don't think this applies at present to anything on TiVo, maybe in the future it will have some meaning, you still can't use TiVos patents to design your own DVR for sale or hack a TiVo to steal TiVos guide service.
> Even the drive upgrade Hack may never be as it was for the Series 1,2,3, the people who are doing for the TP may have made a master drive (doing a lot of work to get one drive working) and use a hard drive duplicator to sell the upgrades. If this is so the home user may never have any easy way to backup his own TP, or TPXL and than expand the drive or image another drive. (without a full copy of his original TP drive at his disposal)


Looked over the ruling here and it specifically states "wireless telephone handsets". I'd like it to apply to TiVo, but at present it doesn't.

A more interesting exemption is this one..



> (5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace;


If at some point TiVo decides it will no longer support older TiVo's via a subscription service, this exemption will allow us to circumvent the protection to use the boxes. Until then we can wait another 3 years for the LOC to hopefully add something more significant.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> when TiVo has an app store like Apple does then it becomes relevant - till then comparing apps a user merely hits 'install' on to TiVo developers putting out updated code is just beyond silly.


Again, I fail to see any significant difference other than the quantity of the apps. Both companies ship third-party apps. Both companies restrict which third party apps can be used. Tivo preinstalls the third party apps while Apple requires the user to take an additional step. The need to take that additional step is merely due to the quantity of apps. If Apple only had a few dozen apps, they'd likely preinstall them as well.



ZeoTivo said:


> and bottom line - you just want to avoid paying a sub on a box that can MRV shows from another TiVo DVR. I am not feeling your fair use pain here and there are other solutions to that problem already in the marketplace. Use them instead.


It's not about feeling my pain or not feeling my pain. To my knowledge DMCA does not address 'pain' as one of the criteria for what should be exempted. The same argument could be made of the iPhone -- there are other solutions in the marketplace that do allow unrestricted apps, and there are solutions in the marketplace that allow unrestricted providers. One could tell the iPhone users to 'use them instead' as well. Nobody force the iPhone users to buy their phones. The iPhone users were made aware of the restrictions before buying their phones.

What we have is a law, the DMCA, that is selectively applied to some devices and not others, with apparently very little legal justification as to why.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Again, I fail to see any significant difference other than the quantity of the apps. Both companies ship third-party apps. Both companies restrict which third party apps can be used. Tivo preinstalls the third party apps while Apple requires the user to take an additional step. The need to take that additional step is merely due to the quantity of apps. If Apple only had a few dozen apps, they'd likely preinstall them as well.
> 
> It's not about feeling my pain or not feeling my pain. To my knowledge DMCA does not address 'pain' as one of the criteria for what should be exempted. The same argument could be made of the iPhone -- there are other solutions in the marketplace that do allow unrestricted apps, and there are solutions in the marketplace that allow unrestricted providers. One could tell the iPhone users to 'use them instead' as well. Nobody force the iPhone users to buy their phones. The iPhone users were made aware of the restrictions before buying their phones.
> 
> What we have is a law, the DMCA, that is selectively applied to some devices and not others, with apparently very little legal justification as to why.


I don't know very many people here that wouldn't say the DMCA is bad law. It's created a means to stifle competition by adding in a little encryption. Doesn't even have to be good encryption. A few examples of why it's bad is that it has prevented..
 Repairing automobiles
 Making a copy of public domain works on DVD.
 Moving content to other devices when the original device's encryption scheme is no longer supported. (plays for sure)

And until this week..preventing a computer program from reading back text to the blind.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> If at some point TiVo decides it will no longer support older TiVo's via a subscription service, this exemption will allow us to circumvent the protection to use the boxes. Until then we can wait another 3 years for the LOC to hopefully add something more significant.


Technically the Tivo doesn't use a dongle, so I don't think it applies (just like I agree that the iPhone jailbreak ruling and the phone provider ruling don't apply at this time either). The closest thing the Tivo has to a dongle is the boot PROM that does the signature checking on boot-up. One could make the argument that if the boot PROM failed, and Tivo was unable or unwilling to provide a substitute boot PROM, that hacking the boot PROM ought to be legal.

The dongle ruling falls prey to the same software licensing restrictions that plague the other rulings. The companies that produced the software have likely written it up as a lease stating that the lease is void if you attempt to circumvent use of the dongle and as such sue you for using the software without a valid lease. One could even claim that dongle obsolescence is a marketing tactic to ensure upgrade to newer software versions. This is where the reform needs to be.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Technically the Tivo doesn't use a dongle, so I don't think it applies (just like I agree that the iPhone jailbreak ruling and the phone provider ruling don't apply at this time either). The closest thing the Tivo has to a dongle is the boot PROM that does the signature checking on boot-up. One could make the argument that if the boot PROM failed, and Tivo was unable or unwilling to provide a substitute boot PROM, that hacking the boot PROM ought to be legal.
> 
> The dongle ruling falls prey to the same software licensing restrictions that plague the other rulings. The companies that produced the software have likely written it up as a lease stating that the lease is void if you attempt to circumvent use of the dongle and as such sue you for using the software without a valid lease. One could even claim that dongle obsolescence is a marketing tactic to ensure upgrade to newer software versions. This is where the reform needs to be.


Just for argument, lets say the TiVo loses the ability to phone home. Bad NIC, Phone Jack, whatever. TiVo won't fix it, yet you bought lifetime service. See where I'm going with this?


----------



## CuriousMark (Jan 13, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Tivo does support applications (Youtube, Netflix, etc). Similar to Apple, they restrict the set of applications that you may use. The difference is the quantity of the applications.


Those are more analogous to web pages being supplied by TiVo's, Google's and Netflix' servers. They are not embedded applications at all. The menu links to them in the TiVo interface are really nothing much more than built-in hyperlinks.

If your magical router dropped in from the sky, it would need to be able to serve those pages and link back to the Google, Amazon, and Netflix servers to function.

The Premiere has the horse power, RAM, and flash based interface that could support a native sandbox based applications interface some day. But until then, the TiVos really don't have apps in the way that you are thinking of them.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Just for argument, lets say the TiVo loses the ability to phone home. Bad NIC, Phone Jack, whatever. TiVo won't fix it, yet you bought lifetime service. See where I'm going with this?


Yes, I see where you're going, and I agree with the direction.

However, a dongle is a specific type of device and Tivo does not use one. Hence, technically we'd need another ruling from the LOC on the DMCA to decriminalize it.

This is what's so silly about the law. It failed to correctly generalize what should or should not be illegal, and instead appears to criminalize almost everything and make exemptions every 3 years.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

CuriousMark said:


> Those are more analogous to web pages being supplied by TiVo's, Google's and Netflix' servers. They are not embedded applications at all.


yep and the other thing smbaker got wrong is that you can serve up any HME app today by simply putting the IP of the HME app in the TiVo on some menu. People actually are NOT blocked from using the apps the same way TiVo does - sav for the fact that only a limited subset of the APIs are public and things like scheduling are not exposed for 3rd party use.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> I don't know very many people here that wouldn't say the DMCA is bad law. It's created a means to stifle competition by adding in a little encryption. Doesn't even have to be good encryption.


yeah they really just amde a broad law when it became beyond obvious that no one could make unbreakable encryption if the product was going into users hands. So a law was passed to strengthen even weak encryption.

The LOC is slowly addressing all the areas where everyone agrees the DMCA was not meant to stifle. why the LOC goes so slowly about this is anyone's guess. The academic use and reading text to the blind were obvious ones.

Still, it will be business as usual at Apple and the only real effect I see is that folks can finally decide which cell carrier they really want to use with their phone of choice.


----------



## CharlesH (Aug 29, 2002)

I cringe whenever I read articles in the media talking about how jailbreaking is now legal, so go mad installing your non-approved iPhone apps. As ZeoTiVo pointed out, the ruling simply declared certain activities as exempt from being prosecuted under the DMCA, but said nothing about the ability of Apple and/or at&t to enforce TOS contract terms related to jailbreaking. So you cannot be dragged into court for DMCA violations for jailbreaking, but you can still have your at&t service terminated with EFT due, your iTunes account can be closed, or whatever other penalties their lawyers can come up for violating the TOS.

It's not like some court has ruled that TOS prohibitions concerning jailbreaking are null and void, but that is what you would conclude from the media reports.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The Tivo software is what makes a Tivo a Tivo. If you're going to replace the Tivo software with your own software, then you might as well build a HTPC. The Tivo hardware is locked down to use the Tivo software with a subscription and a great deal of effort is needed to circumvent the lock down. Tivo would cease to exist if there was a cost effective way to use the Tivo hardware without paying for a subscription.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Tivo would cease to exist if there was a cost effective way to use the Tivo hardware without paying for a subscription.


Tivo seemed to survive and grow during the time of the series 1, and it was quite easily hacked. My Phillips S1 even allows recording based on time/channel without requiring a subscription! It was even listed as a "feature" at the time. How ever did the company survive?!?!?!

There's absolutely no reason for Tivo to cease to exist if the hardware can be used without subscription. My Blu-ray player can be used without a subscription. My TV can be used without a subscription. My laser printer can be used without a subscription. Even my toaster can be used without a subscription. One merely sells the hardware at a price that makes a profit. This can be done by charging more up front or by using a service contract with collection enforcement (as is probably done now; I've never tried to cancel a Tivo during the contract period).

One could even break the product into three parts: hardware, software, and guide data service and sell each individually. Microsoft can sell Windows while selling neither hardware nor subscription. IBM can sell computers while selling neither hardware nor subscription. Nortan can sell antivirus subscriptions while selling neither software nor hardware. It's all doable.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Tivo seemed to survive and grow during the time of the series 1, and it was quite easily hacked. My Phillips S1 even allows recording based on time/channel without requiring a subscription! It was even listed as a "feature" at the time. How ever did the company survive?!?!?!
> 
> There's absolutely no reason for Tivo to cease to exist if the hardware can be used without subscription. My Blu-ray player can be used without a subscription. My TV can be used without a subscription. My laser printer can be used without a subscription. Even my toaster can be used without a subscription. One merely sells the hardware at a price that makes a profit. This can be done by charging more up front or by using a service contract with collection enforcement (as is probably done now; I've never tried to cancel a Tivo during the contract period).
> 
> One could even break the product into three parts: hardware, software, and guide data service and sell each individually. Microsoft can sell Windows while selling neither hardware nor subscription. IBM can sell computers while selling neither hardware nor subscription. Nortan can sell antivirus subscriptions while selling neither software nor hardware. It's all doable.


The issue is not what may be doable but the freedom for any business to set up it own TOS within the law, if you had the money and desire to purchase the TiVo co you could run it your way, TiVo has the right to run their business their way, your agreement to their business model is not necessary. Everybody free to speculate on TiVos future, but it is just speculation. I am sure you can find people that thought BP was too lax in their safety standards, they have now been proven correct, and if someday TiVo goes under some people will also be proven correct. The only people that can change policy is TiVo itself if TiVo thinks it is in their interest to do so. We can give them advice but don't make that advice look like TiVo doing something bad.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> My Blu-ray player can be used without a subscription. My TV can be used without a subscription. My laser printer can be used without a subscription. Even my toaster can be used without a subscription. One merely sells the hardware at a price that makes a profit.


all of those were sold with no more expectation to deliver anything save for the warranty. Since this is all so easy, what company is it you are running?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> all of those were sold with no more expectation to deliver anything save for the warranty.


My blu-ray player comes with software updates. It does netflix and youtube and a number of other things. New apps show up on it and just work. My windows operating system has software updates. My printer has software updates. My TV has a firmware port and probably has updates too. The only one of these things I can think of that doesn't offer software updates is my toaster. Maybe it doesn't need them.



ZeoTivo said:


> Since this is all so easy, what company is it you are running?


I never said it was easy. Someone said that Tivo would "cease to exist" were it not for the subscription fees. This doesn't seem to be the case with my Blu-Ray player, my printer, my computer, my operating system, or even my toaster. Moxi can do it. Even Tivo can do it with the lifetime subscription plan. So why do we continually see this rehashed argument about how Tivo cannot survive without subscription fees?

It may seem that I'm simply pointing out the obvious (at least it does to me). However, I think the bigger message is that Tivo is going to have to adjust as market conditions change. Is this speculation? of course it is. However, I just don't see how they can sit by for years with no innovation (someone remind me again of how the S4 differs from the S3 in functionality?) and still charge a premium price. In particular, how do they expect to continue to charge a large monthly fee for something others are giving away for free?

It would be one thing for Tivo to charge a premium price if they were leading the market, but they're not. It'd be one thing to charge the large subscription fee for timely software updates that offered new exciting features and programming. At this point they're just keeping up with the status quo. Another year or two and they could be lagging behind instead of keeping up.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> how do they expect to continue to charge a large monthly fee for something others are giving away for free?


who is giving it away for free?

oh and BTW - the argument that "they charge too much therefor I have a fair use to hack it and get it for free" is so full of logic holes that no one takes it seriously


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Yes, I see where you're going, and I agree with the direction.
> 
> However, a dongle is a specific type of device and Tivo does not use one. Hence, technically we'd need another ruling from the LOC on the DMCA to decriminalize it.
> 
> This is what's so silly about the law. It failed to correctly generalize what should or should not be illegal, and instead appears to criminalize almost everything and make exemptions every 3 years.


I've been doing some research on this and most of the media seem to be leaning towards an interpretation that it would be ok to use legally acquired software and hardware that was locked down with encryption. An example I heard involved an Apple Mac and a hypothetical hardware failure. In this case everything was purchased legally, so replacing the PC with hackintosh components wouldn't be illegal, though it may violate the EULA.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> most of the media seem to be leaning towards an interpretation that it would be ok to use legally acquired software and hardware that was locked down with encryption. An example I heard involved an Apple Mac


save the the exemption very specifically said phone so any PC hardware software has no such DMCA exemption at the moment. Be mindful of who you read, some camps are just going nuts with this as if the LOC now wants to abolish the DMCA


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> save the the exemption very specifically said phone so any PC hardware software has no such DMCA exemption at the moment. Be mindful of who you read, some camps are just going nuts with this as if the LOC now wants to abolish the DMCA


This one was in reference to the dongle issue and bypassing encryption to use legally acquired software. It originally was about a UPS and a hardware dongle that was required to use some sort of maintenance software. The dongles failed and the company hacked the software to run without them since they could no longer be purchased. They won the case in court and the LOC backed it up with an exemption for breaking DRM to use legally acquired software. Of course the LOC exemption was much more specific, but discussion in the media is that this opens to the door to applying it to other devices and software as well.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

smbaker, you have to realize TiVos only business is DVRs, and their business model focuses on the software and features, which is why thir "service" is sold for the price it is. 

Other than printers, most consumer electronics are sold outright with no further obligation from the customer, becuase that is the model the manufacturers chose, plus they have numerous other products to profit from. Same for service providers (including cell phones). Their hardware are a cost for their services, and can cut the hardware costs because they get ongong service revenue.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

classicsat said:


> smbaker, you have to realize TiVos only business is DVRs, and their business model focuses on the software and features, which is why thir "service" is sold for the price it is.


There are many businesses that sell only one class of product and yet don't have to rely on a service contract to survive.

There are many software companies that sell software and don't need to rely on service contracts to support software development either. Some of them charge for major upgrades (Agreed, Tivo would fail in such a model because there has been no significant software improvement since HMO on the S2).

Even cellular is starting to move toward a pay-as-you-go model and away from contractual obligations.

The problem here is that we're conflating goods with services. The Tivo hardware and software are goods. The guide data and software update service are services. Considering the software update service is virtually nonexistent for S1/S2/S3 and the butt of jokes for the S4, what you end up paying for is a rather overpriced guide data service.

Hardware lockdown, as enforced by the DMCA and the license agreement, are the only reason why the consumer continues to pay for such an overpriced lackluster service. Were it feasible to use a different guide data service with the Tivo hardware, then Tivo would re-price it's service *or* come up with additional features. Actual meaningful timely software updates might start flowing again.

I have nothing against paying $12.95 for service. My beef is with 1) paying for inferior service, and 2) paying for service that I do not use.

The locked down hardware is in fact hurting the longevity of the product.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> This one was in reference to the dongle issue and bypassing encryption to use legally acquired software..


oops - I cited the wrong one in haste - yes they had a specific dongle exemption as well. I think that was also specific enough in the wording that most courts would not see it as relevant to the example.
Likely the EFF and others would need to hit LOC up directly to broaden the exemption, but then I am not a lawyer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> (Agreed, Tivo would fail in such a model because there has been no significant software improvement since HMO on the S2).
> 
> Considering the software update service is virtually nonexistent for S1/S2/S3 and the butt of jokes for the S4, what you end up paying for is a rather overpriced guide data service.
> 
> ...


wow - your agenda came through loud and clear there. You do realize that everyone is finding your posts silly by now and have caught on to the fact you have no legit fair use argument but just seem to have a real dislike for the TiVo DVR you claim to use. This of course hurts the longevity of any credibility you have in this forum.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> wow - your agenda came through loud and clear there. You do realize that everyone is finding your posts silly by now and have caught on to the fact you have no legit fair use argument but just seem to have a real dislike for the TiVo DVR you claim to use. This of course hurts the longevity of any credibility you have in this forum.


So now you've given up arguing on the merits entirely and must resort to attacking me personally.

I use the DVR. I like the DVR. I've owned 5 of them. I still use two of them. I even invested in the company because I believed in the product. I just don't like the direction it's going in. There's something about this forum where people cannot tolerate criticism of the product or the company. Criticism is a necessary requirement for improvement.

If I am so wrong in my ways, please tell me of the great improvements that are coming down the pipe for the S1, S2, and S3. I'm paying a monthly fee for software updates for those DVRs. Please let me know of all the advances that the S4 offers. Please tell me what, in addition to guide data, am I receiving for $12.95 per month?

It's true, these concerns are not necessarily related to the DRM argument that began this thread. However, I'm not the one who started up the tired old Tivo protectionism argument about how Tivo cannot survive without monthly fees and locked down hardware and service contracts. Obviously other companies can. Tivo can too.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> I just don't like the direction it's going in. There's something about this forum where people cannot tolerate criticism of the product or the company.


I criticize the product as well, it is not perfect at all. Want to start a thread with a legit complaint about the product or fees - have a ball.
want to claim that the LOC DMCA exemption for cell phones extends to TiVo DVRs and then devolve into "they charge too much for a bad product so I should be allowed to hack it" argument and I will note *your posts* are silly and how that lessens your credibility. I do this so other readers can decide among a more complete picture. Simple really.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> want to claim that the LOC DMCA exemption for cell phones extends to TiVo DVRs and then devolve into "they charge too much for a bad product so I should be allowed to hack it" argument and I will note *your posts* are silly and how that lessens your credibility.


When did I say that the price justified whether or not the product can be hacked? If I did say such a thing, then please quote me.

The thread has morphed (as threads do), and there are multiple topics ongoing. To restate my positions:

1) I have a right to modify the Tivo hardware and software as I see fit because I purchased it and it is now mine.

2) #1 should not be criminalized under the DMCA, for all the same reasons that iPhone jailbreaking or cellphone provider switching are no longer criminalized. Whether or not the DMCA has taken up the specific case of a Tivo exemption is a matter of circumstance, not of principle.

3) I ought to be able to modify the Tivo hardware and software regardless of whether or not the software is supposedly "leased" to me.

4) I'm being overcharged for guide data service and a software update service that has not delivered a meaningful update in years.

5) Company will not succeed in the long term unless it a) delivers meaningful innovations to compete with competitors, b) provides meaningful additional services to justify the high monthly cost, and c) fixes the massive quality control problem that allowed a faulty S4 to be brought to market.

Points 1, 2, and 3 are about the DMCA and license agreement. Points 4 and 5 are about the Tivo in general. If you want to fork off a separate thread, then do so. I'm content to stay where we are.

As someone who has as much experience as you do in this forum, I'm astonished that you can disagree about points #4 and #5. We've both seen the company start out as an innovator, followed by sitting on its hands for nearly a decade, and finally reaching the point where it will soon fall behind the competition.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I criticize the product as well, it is not perfect at all.





smbaker said:


> As someone who has as much experience as you do in this forum, I'm astonished that you can disagree about points #4 and #5.


.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> When did I say that the price justified whether or not the product can be hacked? If I did say such a thing, then please quote me.
> 
> The thread has morphed (as threads do), and there are multiple topics ongoing. To restate my positions:
> 
> ...


Aw come-on overcharged for guide service, who makes you use the TiVo and its guide service, go to MS media service and save money on guid service.

When has TiVo ever gone after anybody under DMCA, I only see TiVo go after co.s that TiVo claims are using their patents to make a commercial DVR product.

The music industry tried to enforce DMCA on downloaded music, had some success but i have not heard about it lately, if you wanted to sell a TiVo that did not need a sub to get guide data *from* TiVo itself, that would be illegal, if you hack an iPhone so you would not have to pay for service that would also be illegal, if you hack the iPhone to pay for service on say Version that would be OK. If another service did exist that a hacked TiVo could call into and get guide information, and never try to steel any service from the TiVo Internet servers I would assume that also would be OK if it was worth the trouble of doing.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lessd said:


> If another service did exist that a hacked TiVo could call into and get guide information, and never try to steel any service from the TiVo Internet servers I would assume that also would be OK if it was worth the trouble of doing.


I'm pretty sure TiVo would file a DMCA violation against the company for breaking the encryption that allows them to provide the data instead of TiVo. TiVo gives almost nothing for the sub fee on older units and any items they have added since HMO/HME have been for pay options.

All I see is that every monthly subscriber has financed TiVo's development efforts in providing a lackluster flash interface for the S4. Aside from an update to the THD that fixed serious bugs and came a year and a half late, I haven't seen any updates at all that give us more functionality without having to pay extra for them.

Subs are a cash cow for TiVo and if anyone tried to come between them and the milk there would be some fightin'.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Subs are a cash cow for TiVo


cash cow means you make large profit with little resources spent. TiVo public filings do not seem to show that large profit


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> .


Well, I'm glad we're in agreement then.

Am I to assume that since you didn't cite any post where I said "they charge too much for a bad product so I should be allowed to hack it", that no such post exists and that was a mischaracterization of what I had said?



lessd said:


> When has TiVo ever gone after anybody under DMCA, I only see TiVo go after co.s that TiVo claims are using their patents to make a commercial DVR product.


Were I to market a hypothetical device that rendered a Tivo capable of functioning without guide service, I would expect Tivo to pursue me with the full force of the law, both civil and criminal.

Having a law in effect does have a deterrent effect, regardless of whether or not a case has been brought forth under that law.



stormspace said:


> All I see is that every monthly subscriber has financed TiVo's development efforts in providing a lackluster flash interface for the S4. Aside from an update to the THD that fixed serious bugs and came a year and a half late, I haven't seen any updates at all that give us more functionality without having to pay extra for them.


There we go, that's what I'm talkin' about...


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> cash cow means you make large profit with little resources spent. TiVo public filings do not seem to show that large profit


I have little trust of corporate accounting. Typically we see only the end result in a filing, not any of the details. The true numbers would be what the data costs them v what they generate from the subs without operating expenses rolled into that.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Well, I'm glad we're in agreement then.
> 
> Were I to market a hypothetical device that rendered a Tivo capable of functioning without guide service, I would expect Tivo to pursue me with the full force of the law, both civil and criminal.
> 
> Having a law in effect does have a deterrent effect, regardless of whether or not a case has been brought forth under that law.


What the difference in hacking a iPhone (you own without a contract) to work on a paid sub with say Verizon and hacking a TiVo box to use the *Acme guide service*, in both cases you own the hardware and are under no contract and have not agreed to anything. As the iPhone (Apple) wanted you to use ATT, TiVo wants you to use their guide service but the ruling said that a co can't use DCMA to stop some people in the breaking of this law, as long as your not steeling something.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

I am leaning on the side of those who state the tivo isn't very different from the iphone.
The iphone didn't exclude jail breaking in their TOS? Hard to imagine.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

smbaker said:


> 1) I have a right to modify the Tivo hardware and software as I see fit because I purchased it and it is now mine.


No, you bought just the hardware, possibly at a loss to the manufacturer.
The software, although present on the box, is not directly owned or licensed to you, or is under certain tems.


> 2) #1 should not be criminalized under the DMCA, for all the same reasons that iPhone jailbreaking or cellphone provider switching are no longer criminalized. Whether or not the DMCA has taken up the specific case of a Tivo exemption is a matter of circumstance, not of principle.


You would still be in a TOS violation, regardless of any DMCA exception or lack thereof. A DMCA exception, would not nullify the TOS.


> 3) I ought to be able to modify the Tivo hardware and software regardless of whether or not the software is supposedly "leased" to me.


Good for you. See #2 response.
The only thing is that the DMCA may no longer prohibit getting "root" access.

Until the TiVo TOS or other situatinos change, it will still probably be against board rules to defeat the actual TiVo service as TiVo defines it.



> 4) I'm being overcharged for guide data service and a software update service that has not delivered a meaningful update in years.


You do not subscribe to a guide/software service. You just subscribe to the TiVo service, whose primary purpose is to license the software (and provide tiVo with that revenue), and with that is monthly service keys (delivered along with guide data)which the operating software uses to determine what it can do. If it gets no keys, it does shut down "subscribed" features.
Yes, a user of older hardware will likely see no software updates, but that is the way it is with older hardware. Yes the price may be too high, and they could offer a discounted price for "abandoned" hardware, but the fact is they do not. They have basically one rate chart for all TiVo models, from the Series 1 to the Series 4, and disagreement with that rate chart is not a DMCA exception to basically steal a license to their software.


> 5) Company will not succeed in the long term unless it a) delivers meaningful innovations to compete with competitors, b) provides meaningful additional services to justify the high monthly cost, and c) fixes the massive quality control problem that allowed a faulty S4 to be brought to market.


And you think basically stealing a license to their software will help how?



> Points 1, 2, and 3 are about the DMCA and license agreement. Points 4 and 5 are about the Tivo in general. If you want to fork off a separate thread, then do so. I'm content to stay where we are.
> 
> As someone who has as much experience as you do in this forum, I'm astonished that you can disagree about points #4 and #5. We've both seen the company start out as an innovator, followed by sitting on its hands for nearly a decade, and finally reaching the point where it will soon fall behind the competition.


I fundamentally agree with 4 and 5, if for #4 you just mean "TiVo Service", with no errant claim that service is just guide data and software updates.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> What the difference in hacking a iPhone (you own without a contract) to work on a paid sub with say Verizon and hacking a TiVo box to use the *Acme guide service*, in both cases you own the hardware and are under no contract and have not agreed to anything. As the iPhone (Apple) wanted you to use ATT, TiVo wants you to use their guide service but the ruling said that a co can't use DCMA to stop some people in the breaking of this law, as long as your not steeling something.





qz3fwd said:


> I am leaning on the side of those who state the tivo isn't very different from the iphone.
> The iphone didn't exclude jail breaking in their TOS? Hard to imagine.


in both cases TOS comes into effect upon use of the software and the TOS states you will not modify the software (it is more legal than that and Apple of course allowsfor app store doing things etc..but I state it simply for post in an informal thread purposes).

TiVo TOS says they can disable the DVR if you break the TOS. No idea what Apple lists as remedy. Both companies have a business model wherein they lease you the software and retain ownership of it, yes that includes the 1s and 0s that form the software on your device. This is the main disconnect people are having here - you never outright own the software. Microsoft sells you a copy of the software from what little I have read into their TOS and that is a different business model.

Now Apple has never gone after a jailbreaker directly and likely is far less inclined today. Apple simply will play software games and rasie the spectre of jailbreaks becoming bricks instead. TiVo is likely not actively looking for folks who hack a TiVo to use it without service but if a pattern emerged or someone was openly selling a way to use _TiVo software_ without the sub then letters from lawyers would start to flow. TiVo has a more compelling case since their business model is based on cash flow from subscriptions. Lifetime is mainly a marketing tool to keep sales up and the service becomes a cost of business as the lifetime is amortized. This is the big difference from Apple or any other smartphone for that matter.

Now all the above said - I am of the mind that the DMCA needs to be dialed back. It was meant to protect copyrights not as some crutch to beat people with simply because a company added some encryption or digital lock. The correct method to remedy for Apple or TiVo or any other business for that matter is via the TOS agreement for those that elect to use the product. TiVo states on the box you will need a subscription from TiVo inc. to use the product (product in this case is defined as the software) and you agree to that. Software coming with a periodic fee is a well established business model in the software industry - you do not get to change things simply because you do not like or agree with that business model.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

It's simple. If you violate the DMCA, you probably go to jail and pay a huge fine. If you only violate the TOS, you pay whatever is left on your ETF and get service canceled. If you get caught, the second option is much more preferable than the first. So now I'd have no problem hacking an iPhone, because the worst thing that can happen to me is I'd have to sell it because my service got canceled. And I'd get some good money for an already successfully jail-broken iPhone on eBay. (FYI, this ruling means that eBay can now sell jail-broken iPhones).

Does this ruling specifically mean you can jailbreak a Tivo? No, but it's a step in the right direction. There are many similarities. It would be a good thing for your lawyer to bring up if Tivo ever sued you under the DMCA.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

classicsat said:


> And you think basically stealing a license to their software will help how?


When have I advocated stealing the service? To be clear, I think Tivo's business model is wrong. It's up to them to fix it, or fall to the emerging competition.



classicsat said:


> Until the TiVo TOS or other situatinos change, it will still probably be against board rules to defeat the actual TiVo service as TiVo defines it.


Or until a class action lawsuit is brought forth and the TOS is struck down. I doubt it will happen anytime soon on the Tivo, but it's already happening on the iPhone, at least in the respect of the Apple/AT&T partnership. Just because the TOS says something doesn't mean it's legally enforceable. It doesn't even mean it conforms to the law.

This whole thing is very murky. The consumer does not fill out or sign a lease agreement when he purchases the item from his local Best Buy. At best he consents to the agreement when he plugs in the device and goes through guided setup. Clearly he purchased the item at the Best Buy (or did the Best Buy commit fraud?). At what point did the software contained on the item that the user purchased change to a lease? Can the user modify the software before consenting to the license agreement?

Furthermore, even if the software is a lease and not a purchase, does that invalidate the ability of the consumer to modify the product for his own use? This is an entirely separate issue.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> When have I advocated stealing the service? To be clear, I think Tivo's business model is wrong. It's up to them to fix it, or fall to the emerging competition.


 I asked in a different way before - just exactly what emerging competition are you referring to


> Or until a class action lawsuit is brought forth and the TOS is struck down.


exactly what grounds would the class action suit be on? you need damages or some other actionable item. Simply do not use the product and the TOS does not apply. unless they try to change the TOS then it can be known before you buy. Class action suit is just plain silly.

PS - you agree to the TOS on a TiVo during guided setup. Apple can use a simple "use of this product indicates agreement with..." You can say things that just do not apply to the legal system of this country, saying them does not make them correct or have merit.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> I asked in a different way before - just exactly what emerging competition are you referring to


At this point, I'd say primarily Moxi. They've shown some innovation in producing 3-tuner DVRs and the Moxi mates. Google is integrating search with everything in sight and I wouldn't be surprised if they partnered up with a DVR manufacturer. Microsoft I'm sure would love a chunk of the market so they can get their search on TV as well. There's numerous devices already staking out territory on the netflix/youtube/pandora/applet front (and doing it better than Tivo), which if you read Tivo's marketing of the S4, is the direction that Tivo is trying to move in.

The thing about competition is that if you leave a void, competition will seek to fill it.

We should already have streaming by now. We should already have devices similar to Moxi Mates in price and capability. A full HD interface should have already been brought out and should be fully functional by now. This is exactly where Tivo is not moving quickly enough. Tivo has had ample time to develop these features.



ZeoTivo said:


> exactly what grounds would the class action suit be on? you need damages or some other actionable item. Simply do not use the product and the TOS does not apply. unless they try to change the TOS then it can be known before you buy.


Whatever the same grounds are as the Apple / AT&T suit. If I don't like the iPhone TOS, then I can elect not to buy and iPhone. That reasoning has not stopped the suit. I'll leave it to the lawyers to explain exactly what the damages and the actionable items are in that suit.



ZeoTivo said:


> PS - you agree to the TOS on a TiVo during guided setup.


Ok, then I have not agreed to the TOS prior to guided setup, and am not bound by the terms of the lease or software licensing agreement until I have gone through guided setup? What legal state does the software exist in during this period?

The problem is that shortcuts were taken here. If you want to lease the software, then have the consumer sign a lease agreement at purchase time. The simple fact is that this is unpalatable to the consumer from a marketing perspective. They want to market Tivo as a consumer electronics purchase, and still maintain all of the legal controls that a lease affords them.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

smbaker said:


> When have I advocated stealing the service? To be clear, I think Tivo's business model is wrong. It's up to them to fix it, or fall to the emerging competition.


When you advocated using TiVos software without paying TiVo for the privilege. Reading between the lines, it seems you belive TiVos service is for all practical purposes, just guide data.
While I have no problem with you feeding TiVo an alternative source of guide data, you need to realize that you doing that will not make a TiVo work. It needs the service keys to work, and only TiVo has the right to provide those, becuse it is their software.


> This whole thing is very murky. The consumer does not fill out or sign a lease agreement when he purchases the item from his local Best Buy. At best he consents to the agreement when he plugs in the device and goes through guided setup. Clearly he purchased the item at the Best Buy (or did the Best Buy commit fraud?).


It is very clear. TiVos require a subscription to use their software, is says so on the box you purchase.


> At what point did the software contained on the item that the user purchased change to a lease?


October 2001 or so.


> Can the user modify the software before consenting to the license agreement?


Not legally speaking that I know of. Being ignorant of a TOS or EULA does not invalidate it.


> Furthermore, even if the software is a lease and not a purchase, does that invalidate the ability of the consumer to modify the product for his own use? This is an entirely separate issue.


So long as the user pays for the right to use the software, it is okay IMO, to modify the software, as long as the modification does not violate the TOS, the law, or to deprive entities of rightful revenue.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

classicsat said:


> When you advocated using TiVos software without paying TiVo for the privilege.


Quote?



classicsat said:


> Reading between the lines, it seems you belive TiVos service is for all practical purposes, just guide data.


and software update service

Pretty much everything they deliver over the pipe to the Internet connection on the back of the Tivo. I suppose the advertisements are a part of the service too, although an unwanted part.



classicsat said:


> It is very clear. TiVos require a subscription to use their software, is says so on the box you purchase.


That's not the point I'm arguing. What I'm curious about is when the software lease begins, and when I am bound to the terms of it. Several members have implied the reason why the Tivo cannot be hacked is because of the terms of service, and specifically the software lease.

There must be a point at which I consented to the terms of the lease.



classicsat said:


> Not legally speaking that I know of. Being ignorant of a TOS or EULA does not invalidate it.


So there's no obligation for me to consent to the lease? I certainly hope my toaster doesn't have one of these stealth leases on it. For all I know I could be eating illegal toast.

ZeoTivo in particular will like this part. I'll cite some case law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp.

In particular, this part: "The Smart Download license agreement was not binding because 1) the user did not have to click on an icon or link to indicate assent before downloading and using the software"

Now, I'm not arguing this is the same as the Tivo, or even that this precedent applies to the Tivo. However, clearly consent does matter.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> At this point, I'd say primarily Moxi. They've shown some innovation in producing 3-tuner DVRs and the Moxi mates. Google is integrating search with everything in sight and I wouldn't be surprised if they partnered up with a DVR manufacturer. Microsoft I'm sure would love a chunk of the market so they can get their search on TV as well. There's numerous devices already staking out territory on the netflix/youtube/pandora/applet front (and doing it better than Tivo), which if you read Tivo's marketing of the S4, is the direction that Tivo is trying to move in.


Digeo, who makes Moxi, sold itself off since Moxi did not sell well enough to support themselves as a private company, they also could not get an IPO off the ground. Not exactly burning up the market there.
What DVR will Google partner with and why? Google is all about IP downloadable stuff - which is fine for them but not a DVR market barn burner nor IP barnburner either. MIcrosoft has had Media center out for ages, win 7 version will do OK along with cable card ready tuners but againm not exactly burning up the market.
Roku, popcorn and all that is cool and does indeed have a better interface than TiVo for netflix - but they are not DVRs. TiVo and Moxi are the only 3rd party appliance DVRs out there. TiVo is not getting left behind - the actual fact is a harder nut to crack for TiVo - there really is only a limited market for 3rd party DVRs. There is no void happening here but more like a brick wall.

we in this forum like DVRs and will geek out all the details of each type. This leads to a mistaken group think that better features alone will suddenly sell more of a particular DVR. Spread over the mainstream mass market this is simply not true as even the core functionality of a DVR is not selling more of them.



> Whatever the same grounds are as the Apple / AT&T suit. If I don't like the iPhone TOS, then I can elect not to buy and iPhone. That reasoning has not stopped the suit. I'll leave it to the lawyers to explain exactly what the damages and the actionable items are in that suit.


 how about the judge explains it
"In court documents filed July 8, Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California *said parts of the lawsuit that deal with violations to antitrust law can continue as a class action*. The class includes anyone who bought an iPhone with a two-year AT&T agreement since the device first went on sale in June 2007.

Apple has sold more than 50 million iPhones in the last three years. The company does not specify how many have gone to U.S. customers.

Ware dismissed other claims against Apple,"

so tell us how TiVo is breaking anti trust laws. Hint you would need established gudie data services that are being kept out of the market by TiVo actions. The fact that none exist because there is no market for them kills the notion of anti-trust.



> Ok, then I have not agreed to the TOS prior to guided setup, and am not bound by the terms of the lease or software licensing agreement until I have gone through guided setup? What legal state does the software exist in during this period?


 still belongs to TiVo and not to you.


> The problem is that shortcuts were taken here. If you want to lease the software, then have the consumer sign a lease agreement at purchase time.


 this is simply absurd. TiVo clearly states that a sub is needed on the box, guided setup has you agree to the TOS which includes the acknowledgment that TiVo owns the software and this is a lease arrangement. All that satisfies the law and TiVo does not need to worry if it satisfies you since you are in an extremely small group that needs something more merely because you do not agree with the business model but would happily use their software for free if you could.

do you have any new arguments that actually have some merit?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> What DVR will Google partner with and why?


Whom they chose to partner with is their decision. If you look at the Google TV presentations, they are trying to redefine the television experience as search-centric. (when all you make is hammers, everything looks like a nail...)

It seems to me that for this to be successful, a key component will be DVRs. You type into on search box, press the <Search> button, and you'll see TV listings, online content, your home videos, DVR content, everything related to that search term. At least that's the impression that I got. Think about it a bit -- google as the primary interface to your content. You can see why they want a chunk of that market.

Microsoft, who for reasons unknown sees themselves as a competitor to Google in the search business, is going to have to counter Google TV.



ZeoTivo said:


> Roku, popcorn and all that is cool and does indeed have a better interface than TiVo for netflix - but they are not DVRs.


This is the direction the world is moving in. To be clear, I think within a decade the majority of cable TV networks are going to die off. There's simply no need for them with the broadband connectivity that we have now. The majority of programming will be pay-per-download.

The kids are already doing this with torrent now. There's no practical legal way to stop it, so the content providers are going to have to move to legalize and legitimize it, much has apple has legitimized music downloads with itunes.

If you look at the long game, the DVR capability in the Tivo becomes less important and the applet/streaming capability becomes more important. The segment Tivo is lagging in is the segment they should be trying to get a head start in.



ZeoTivo said:


> so tell us how TiVo is breaking anti trust laws. Hint you would need established gudie data services that are being kept out of the market by TiVo actions. The fact that none exist because there is no market for them kills the notion of anti-trust.


So I cannot make the argument that guide data services cannot be established because Tivo is monopolizing the marketplace? Regardless, clearly there is a market for guide data service as Tivo charges $12.95 a month for it. Companies that produce guide data for MythTV boxes are unable to sell that service to owners of Tivo boxes. Seems like there are arguments to be made here.



ZeoTivo said:


> this is simply absurd. TiVo clearly states that a sub is needed on the box, guided setup has you agree to the TOS which includes the acknowledgment that TiVo owns the software and this is a lease arrangement.


Still nobody has told me what state the software exists in prior to guided setup. I have not consented to a lease at this time. I exchanged currency to purchase the Tivo. What I received was a box containing hardware with software encoded on it. I've not been made aware of any TOS or EULAs or consented to either. At this point in time I have every expectation that I own what I have purchased. If Tivo didn't want me to modify the software, then they should have either 1) not put it on the box I purchased, or 2) made me sign a lease agreement prior to purchasing the box.

What if during this time I should choose the hack the software?

It seems to me the sole thing preventing me from doing this is the DMCA law against circumventing access controls, which is the very thing that started out this topic!

disclaimer (specifically, for classicsats): I am not advocating hacking the tivo software prior to accepting the license agreement. I'm conducting a simple thought experiment as to whether or not it could be done.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> So I cannot make the argument that guide data services cannot be established because Tivo is monopolizing the marketplace?


 correct. There are well established Cell carriers who would be happy to sign up iphone users. Users can point out that they signed only a 2 year contract for iPhone/AT&T all the while Apple/AT&T knew they had a 5 year deal and did not tell people. These are clear cut damages and actionable items. Theoretical companies or services do not let users file class action.



> Still nobody has told me what state the software exists in prior to guided setup. I have not consented to a lease at this time.


 TiVo owns it. You also never own the movie on the DVD you bought no matter what consent happens. You can return a TiVo within 30 days so if you read the TOS at guided setup and do not like it you have remedy. The law sees setting up the DVR within 30 days as reasonable and if you cant then the TOS is available online as well. The law is satisfied that TiVo ALWAYS owns the software whether you are satisfied or not. Your thought experiment is absurd in the eyes of the law.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> TiVo owns it. You also never own the movie on the DVD you bought no matter what consnet you gave.


Is it legal for me to modify the movie on the DVD for my own use? I believe it is. It's also legal for me to create backup copies or transcode it. I can probably even edit it, delete scenes, dub new audio, etc. What used to be illegal was circumventing the access controls on the DVD. It no longer is.

I'm not sure this analogy that you chose illustrated your point very well.

I'm also not convinced of your concept of 'ownership'. While I don't own the copyright on that movie, I do own the copy of the movie.

How does this apply do software? well here's another citation of copyright case law, from Wikipedia:



wikipedia said:


> In Galoob v. Nintendo, the 9th Circuit held that modification of copyright software for personal use was fair
> 
> ...
> 
> The Court denied Nintendo's motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that Game Genie did not create a derivative work and also suggesting that even if it did, it might well be fair use. As the district court wrote, "Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work."


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The law sees setting up the DVR within 30 days as reasonable and if you cant then the TOS is available online as well.


Oh, and you should look at that Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. decision that I cited. I'm not sure you're correct about the value the law places on placing a EULA online and leaving it up to the user to find.

Actual consent does seem to be a requirement.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Is it legal for me to modify the movie on the DVD for my own use? I believe it is.


believe what you want - it is not legal. Folks tried marketing DVD players that could mark naughty parts of movies and skip them. They were shut down on violation of copyright laws.

policy from LOC - they only said protection on the media could be circumvented (not the dvd player) for academic purposes. Please get the policy straight if you want to try and base arguments off of it.

oh and try and show that DVD at an event where you expect people to pay to get in or place that movie online for others to view and see how much you 'own' that copy. What you bought was a license to view that DVD for your personal use. You can sell that license to someone else and give them the DVD if you want.

I could see a day that the DMCA is finally kicked in the head and the ability to do what I do in ripping the DVD to my PC so I can watch it on whatever TiVo DVR I want is considered fair use again - but still it would just be the fair use ability to watch the DVD as I see fit, still no granting of ownership of the copy of the movie to me.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Oh, and you should look at that Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. decision that I cited. I'm not sure you're correct about the value the law places on placing a EULA online and leaving it up to the user to find.
> 
> Actual consent does seem to be a requirement.


which you do during guided setup which I stated many times over. And no you get no wiggle room cause you did not power up the DVR yet


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> in both cases TOS comes into effect upon use of the software and the TOS states you will not modify the software (it is more legal than that and Apple of course allowsfor app store doing things etc..but I state it simply for post in an informal thread purposes).
> 
> TiVo TOS says they can disable the DVR if you break the TOS. No idea what Apple lists as remedy. Both companies have a business model wherein they lease you the software and retain ownership of it, yes that includes the 1s and 0s that form the software on your device. This is the main disconnect people are having here - you never outright own the software. Microsoft sells you a copy of the software from what little I have read into their TOS and that is a different business model.


Where is this TOS you keep referring to, I don't agree to any TOS unless I take out a Sub with TiVo, if I go into Best Buy and purchase a TiVo I have agreed to nothing with TiVo (I am not made to sign a TOS at the time of purchase), and until I get a sub with TiVo or try to use the TiVo service I have no TOS with TiVo or anybody for the TiVo hardware i just purchased that can be enforced. If I then purchased a* Acme *hard drive, put it in my new TiVo that connected only to the* Acme TV guide service *I am still not in violation of any TOS with TiVo. The fact that TiVo may sell the hardware at too little money is not the customers problem, the cell phone co. gets around this by making you take out a 1 or 2 year contract at the time of purchase, TiVo does not do this so one is free to do with the TiVo hardware what they want as long as they don't steel any TiVo service.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> policy from LOC - they only said protection on the media could be circumvented (not the dvd player) for academic purposes. Please get the policy straight if you want to try and base arguments off of it.


Citation war!!!!!



loc said:


> The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners


Considering that the copyright act does permit a number of "fair use" scenarios, including making backup copies, this sounds significantly broader than the uses that you're trying to claim.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> which you do during guided setup which I stated many times over. And no you get no wiggle room cause you did not power up the DVR yet


Why not? I purchased it. It's my hard drive. I'm going to take it out and "soup it up" a bit then reinstall it and maybe my tivo will work better during guided setup. 

* disclaimer: no, I'm really not going to do this. It's just an experiment.

* wait? what? it's an experiment? ....hmmm.... thanks to the LOC I can now circumvent the access controls of video games to study them for security faults, and since I technically can play video games on my Tivo, I now am able to circumvent the access controls on my Tivo. Q.E.D.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> Where is this TOS you keep referring to, I don't agree to any TOS unless I take out a Sub with TiVo, if I go into Best Buy and purchase a TiVo I have agreed to nothing with TiVo (I am not made to sign a TOS at the time of purchase), and until I get a sub with TiVo or try to use the TiVo service I have no TOS with TiVo or anybody for the TiVo hardware i just purchased that can be enforced. If I then purchased a* Acme *hard drive, put it in my new TiVo that connected only to the* Acme TV guide service *I am still not in violation of any TOS with TiVo. The fact that TiVo may sell the hardware at too little money is not the customers problem, the cell phone co. gets around this by making you take out a 1 or 2 year contract at the time of purchase, TiVo does not do this so one is free to do with the TiVo hardware what they want as long as they don't steel any TiVo service.


If you paid attention you would have noted I was speaking of the TiVo software. This is getting tiresome


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Why not? I purchased it. It's my hard drive. I'm going to take it out and "soup it up" a bit then reinstall it and maybe my tivo will work better during guided setup.
> 
> * disclaimer: no, I'm really not going to do this. It's just an experiment.
> 
> * wait? what? it's an experiment? ....hmmm.... thanks to the LOC I can now circumvent the access controls of video games to study them for security faults, and since I technically can play video games on my Tivo, I now am able to circumvent the access controls on my Tivo. Q.E.D.


now you are just being silly. have fun with that


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> now you are just being silly. have fun with that


It's a silly law. I'm merely proving my point at how useless it is.



ZeoTivo said:


> If you paid attention you would have noted I was speaking of the TiVo software. This is getting tiresome


His point is valid, he ought to be able to buy a Tivo, install Linux on it, and turn it into a MythTV DVR or a web server or something that just sits there in an infinite loop if he wants. All at a loss to Tivo.

Large portions of the software contained on the hard drive are GPL, aren't they? So I would imagine he could re-use the bulk of the hard drive image.

This could all have been avoided by having the user consent to the agreement at purchase time.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> It's a silly law. I'm merely proving my point at how useless it is.
> 
> His point is valid, he ought to be able to buy a Tivo, install Linux on it, and turn it into a MythTV DVR or a web server or something that just sits there in an infinite loop if he wants. All at a loss to Tivo.
> 
> ...


TiVo has zero desire to lease the hardware. once bought, it is yours for good - use it to run the BE os for all TiVo cares. GPL software is the same way - TOS is not about GPL stuff. This is getting more tiresome


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

So I don't see what the issue is.

I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for modifying their boot ROM and installing their own unsigned software.

Even without the DMCA, I'm not aware of any law that requires TiVo to make it easy to modify or to cooperate with you in modifying their box. And they're also free to come up with an update that bricks a modified box.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

alansh said:


> So I don't see what the issue is.
> 
> I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for modifying their boot ROM and installing their own unsigned software.
> 
> Even without the DMCA, I'm not aware of any law that requires TiVo to make it easy to modify or to cooperate with you in modifying their box. And they're also free to come up with an update that bricks a modified box.


yes, that has kind of been my actual point - the LOC policy change really means little is changed. You could say the same thing about apple/iPhone or any other cell phone.
A threat of criminal prosecution being removed would make jailbreakers breath easier but not that much since no one came after them anyway.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

alansh said:


> So I don't see what the issue is.
> I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for modifying their boot ROM and installing their own unsigned software.


The issue is one of deterrence. While I agree that I doubt Tivo would bother to harass an individual user who might modify his box, Tivo might very well unleash the lawyers and the local jurisdiction's police authority on someone who distributed or marketed a device that was designed to hack the Tivo.

Clearly they show no interest in doing this for hacks such as hard drive upgrades, but one might expect them to have a different attitude for a hack that (citing, but not endorsing one example allowed a box to use an alternate guide data provider.

Furthermore, in a criminal matter, it's not Tivo's choice whether to prosecute someone.

This isn't the first time the defense has been brought up that we shouldn't be concerned about the law because it is not being enforced. If a law isn't to be enforced, it shouldn't be on the books. Enacting laws with the expectation to not enforce them is silly.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> This isn't the first time the defense has been brought up that we shouldn't be concerned about the law because it is not being enforced.


not what was said at all. 
What was said is that the policy change by LOC did not change much in the field since no one was getting prosecuted under DMCA anyway for jailbreaking phones. I actually never even mentioned TiVo in my post before this.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> not what was said at all.


I was responding to alansh, who said:



alansh said:


> So I don't see what the issue is. I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for modifying their boot ROM and installing their own unsigned software.


I believe I restated his position accurately in my response to him. I could dig through this thread and pull out another statement or two from other people along the same sentiment. You seem to be acting as if I attributed the statement to you. I did not.

The fact that nobody has been prosecuted for violation of the law does not mean that it is not an issue. The potential for prosecution does exist. It's like if Al Capone was talking to his accountants and said "I don't see what the issue is, I'm not aware of anyone being prosecuted for tax evasion".


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Clearly they show no interest in doing this for hacks such as hard drive upgrades, but one might expect them to have a different attitude for a hack that (citing, but not endorsing one example allowed a box to use an alternate guide data provider.
> 
> Furthermore, in a criminal matter, it's not Tivo's choice whether to prosecute someone.
> 
> This isn't the first time the defense has been brought up that we shouldn't be concerned about the law because it is not being enforced. If a law isn't to be enforced, it shouldn't be on the books. Enacting laws with the expectation to not enforce them is silly.


I don't know if any criminal or civil case could be successfully brought against someone hacking a TiVo (and selling them in the open) that used an alternate guide data provider, as long as you did not agree to anything with TiVo itself, the hardware is yours to do what you want except to hack the TiVo to* steel *TiVo inc. (or anybody's) guide data.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lessd said:


> I don't know if any criminal or civil case could be successfully brought against someone hacking a TiVo (and selling them in the open) that used an alternate guide data provider, as long as you did not agree to anything with TiVo itself, the hardware is yours to do what you want except to hack the TiVo to* steel *TiVo inc. (or anybody's) guide data.


The whole point of the DMCA is that one cannot hack access controls. Whether or not one owns the hardware in question is another matter.

Lacking a DMCA exception from the LOC, a criminal case could be brought against you for hacking a Tivo, even if you did not technically "steal" anything. That's the whole point of the discussion.

Personally, I think if you start hacking Tivos to use an alternate guide data service and 'selling them in the open', you'd get a cease and desist letter as quickly as Tivo could make a phone call to the legal team. Their next step would be to evaluate whether or not you were worthy of suing for damages, or if simply making you go away was sufficient for their purposes.

EDIT: Think of it this way: if my toaster came with a CPU, and that CPU was designed to only allow me to toast one piece of toast per hour, and that CPU was secured by access controls (i.e. encryption), and I hacked that CPU to let me toast two pieces of toast per hour, then I could be prosecuted for violating the DMCA. It doesn't matter who owned the toaster. The creator of the toaster probably leased me the software on the CPU. It's a silly example, but it's also a silly law.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

smbaker said:


> The whole point of the DMCA is that one cannot hack access controls. Whether or not one owns the hardware in question is another matter.
> 
> Lacking a DMCA exception from the LOC, a criminal case could be brought against you for hacking a Tivo, even if you did not technically "steal" anything. That's the whole point of the discussion.
> 
> ...


With a DVD the answer is easy on DMCA but if I don't use any TiVo software, and create my own software, put the drive back into the TiVo where does hack access controls or DMCA come into play. Patents may come into play but when I purchased the TiVo hardware I have the right to use the TiVo patent on that one unit. Specialty auto shops can change out your car computer program to give you more power and other options, this may make the car not pass EPA standards but does DMCA come into play. So now we have three laws for protection copyright, DMCA, and patents. Some are obvious but when does DMCA come into hardware itself, a screwdriver could not be covered under DMCA, maybe a patent, a DVD player I would assume would covered under DCMA if you hacked a DVD player to un-encrypt a DVD. As we make exceptions, the DCMA gets hard to figure out like on the cell phones or now on small parts of a DVD movie used in a documentary film.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> I don't know if any criminal or civil case could be successfully brought against someone hacking a TiVo (and selling them in the open) that used an alternate guide data provider, as long as you did not agree to anything with TiVo itself, the hardware is yours to do what you want except to hack the TiVo to* steel *TiVo inc. (or anybody's) guide data.


how does the prom chip work?

Does it need some answer back saying checksum of TiVo software was good and the hardware boot can proceed?

does sending a signal to the prom chip from your own software violate the DMCA?

these are the questions for a court, if anyone ever went that far. We all know though that writing the software to make TiVo hardware work and do good DVR stuff versus making PC hardware work just has a negative payoff even for open source folks.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

lessd said:


> With a DVD the answer is easy on DMCA but if I don't use any TiVo software, and create my own software, put the drive back into the TiVo where does hack access controls or DMCA come into play.


The boot prom, it's soldered onto the motherboard and contains a tiny bit of software.



ZeoTiVo said:


> how does the prom chip work?
> 
> Does it need some answer back saying checksum of TiVo software was good and the hardware boot can proceed?


My understanding was that the prom does a signature check on the kernel and initrd and possibly other boot state. It's not so much "waiting for a signal" as it is performing a computation. Code in the initrd then performs signature checks on the rest of the operating system image on the hard drive. My guess would be that public key encryption is used for the first stage, with Tivo holding the private key and the public key being in the prom. For the second stage a simple list of SHA hashes would do.

I'm told this is at least in part why the Tivos boot so damn slowly.

So, in answer to the question, my guess would be that the prom has code which conducts the stage-1 signature verification itself. Thus, does removal or modification of the prom constitute subverting an access control?

If you stripped every last bit of Tivo software from the device (including desoldering the boot prom) and then proceeded as lessd suggested with a clean slate, are you then safe? If so, what is the point, other to get your hands on cheap hardware?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> If you stripped every last bit of Tivo software from the device (including desoldering the boot prom) and then proceeded as lessd suggested with a clean slate, are you then safe? If so, what is the point, other to get your hands on cheap hardware?


one thing to not use the TiVo software at all. Having to modify the PROM/or even remove it would violate DMCA though , which is the point.

So basically no matter how you look at it TiVo has created a device that would run afoul of the DMCA if you tried to change it. Looks like an exemption would be needed for TiVo "jailbreaking" but there are currently no other businesses (like alt. cell providers for phones) involved so it remains unlikely the LOC would consider one and I would think chances in court to compare TiVo to cell phone exemption to be none to slim.

So really no matter how you look at it
NO, it is not legal to hack your TiVo save for upgrading the hard drive size, which changes no access control nor copyrighted part of the TiVo.

if you want the legal ability to hack a TiVo then write the EFF.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ZeoTiVo said:


> one thing to not use the TiVo software at all. Having to modify the PROM/or even remove it would violate DMCA though , which is the point.


With the PROM and HD software removed what left that would be under DMCA, the act of removing the PROM is not breaking any encryption, all that would left is a bunch of standard electronic parts, you think that would fall under DMCA ?? I may be incorrect but I thought DMCA was to protect the makers of encrypted stuff from having that stuff de-encrypted. I think HP has gone after 3rd ptys for breaking the encryption on the ink refills.
I guess the whole thing is moot anyways as their is not an alternative guide service system that would make it worthwhile to do all this work just to get around the TiVo patents.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

IMHO, there are alternative guide providers, Shedules direct for one, but they provide only guide data, not a license to use any particular DVR software or hardware, as the TiVo subscription allows.

Also, IMHO, you could legally replace the PROM code with your own, and from the ground up make a DVR with completely no TiVo software. Heck, you could remove the security in the PROM, use the base open source Linux OS, and just replace the closed source elements of the software, copyrighted by TiVo Inc. and others, with your own.

What crosses the line is using the copyrighted portions of the TiVo software without a license as required by their EULA or TOS, regardless of whose guide data you wish to use or are capable of feeding to yur TiVo.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lessd said:


> With the PROM and HD software removed what left that would be under DMCA, the act of removing the PROM is not breaking any encryption.


DMCA is about breaking any access protection - removing/modifying the PROM chip that only serves to provide access protection *is* a violation of DMCA. Just like modifying the SIM card in an iphone would have been a violation of the DMCA until the LOC exempted that. Not a significant issue to me if someone does modify/remove their PROM chip but just stating things in the context of this thread.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So basically no matter how you look at it TiVo has created a device that would run afoul of the DMCA if you tried to change it. Looks like an exemption would be needed for TiVo "jailbreaking" but there are currently no other businesses (like alt. cell providers for phones) involved so it remains unlikely the LOC would consider one and I would think chances in court to compare TiVo to cell phone exemption to be none to slim.


I think the chances would be good. In the July opinion, the LOC stated:



LOC said:


> The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.


Fair use is a restriction upon copyright (the ruling went into more detail; in particular I think it was on the dongle exception). The above statement doesn't say anything about what other businesses are or are not involved in the marketplace.

Thus, all we need to find is any "fair use" of the Tivo software that is prevented by the access controls, and if the LOC is to remain consistent with these exceptions, they would have to rule the Tivo exception valid as well.

For example, a fair use might be to study the Tivo software for academic purposes.

There was another ruling I cited in a previous page where the LOC ruled fair use included modification of software for ones own enjoyment. I think it was the Game Genie vs Nintendo ruling. There are lots of avenues to open up the Tivo on "fair use" grounds.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

smbaker said:


> For example, a fair use might be to study the Tivo software for academic purposes.


I was speaking of actual use - not ways to skirt around exemptions. You want to open a PROM mod site and claim it is only for academic use - have fun with that.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> believe what you want - it is not legal. Folks tried marketing DVD players that could mark naughty parts of movies and skip them. They were shut down on violation of copyright laws.


http://www.clearplay.com/

Still not shut down.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

smbaker said:


> Thus, all we need to find is any "fair use" of the Tivo software that is prevented by the access controls, and if the LOC is to remain consistent with these exceptions, they would have to rule the Tivo exception valid as well.


Then, given that the TiVo subscription is a license to use the full of the TiVo software, who else sells TiVo software licenses (for the software on the box)?


> For example, a fair use might be to study the Tivo software for academic purposes.


You can, but it would just look silly with thousands of TiVO users "academically" studying the TiVo software.

It just doesn't wash, the same as it did with cable and satellite piracy, where one of the claims of vendors and users of pirate gear was "educational purposes". The best answer they could come up with is cryptology, which you can legitimately learn other ways, and don't need to really know to steal TV.


> There was another ruling I cited in a previous page where the LOC ruled fair use included modification of software for ones own enjoyment. I think it was the Game Genie vs Nintendo ruling. There are lots of avenues to open up the Tivo on "fair use" grounds.


The Game Genie did not deprive Nintendo or their game vendors of revenue, and I believe thay was the crux of the Judge's decision on that case.

Do you honestly think it would wash with the courts that modifying the TiVo software in manner to deprive the copyright owner of the software of their just revenue for the use of that software, which is just what you want.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Customers who paid tivo for a lifetime subscription might have an argument if they wanted to use a source of guide data that provided better information. I don't think such a vendor exists.

Customers who are willing to completely erase their hard drive and start from scratch may have an argument. Of course a PC would be easier.

edited to add--It's at least plausible the premise of the decision might be applicable to those who want to increase the capacity of their unit by installing a larger hard drive.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

classicsat said:


> Do you honestly think it would wash with the courts that modifying the TiVo software in manner to deprive the copyright owner of the software of their just revenue for the use of that software, which is just what you want.


There are uses that do not deprive Tivo of revenue.

For example, suppose I wish to modify my Tivo to have a free space indicator, to enhance my use and enjoyment of the product?

Perhaps I want to modify it to use a specific brand of wireless ethernet adapter, requiring me to install custom drivers into the kernel?

Maybe I want to add more memory to the box and need to modify the software to do it?

What if I want to add streaming support?

Several of these use scenarios are not even practical, but were done on the S1 (ethernet adapters, cache card, free space indicator...).

Not every use scenario to mod the Tivo is an attempt to steal service. My point being that there are likely fair use scenarios that are valid and would earn an exemption from the DMCA. This is a separate issue from the software license.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

lew said:


> http://www.clearplay.com/
> 
> Still not shut down.


cool - I missed that this happened


> SALT LAKE CITY -- Bill Expected to Quickly End Hollywood Litigation. Passage of the bill is expected to result in dismissal of the lawsuit filed against ClearPlay by eight Hollywood movie studios and the Directors Guild of America in September 2002. The bill will not affect companies in the litigation that edit and rent or resell DVDs.
> 
> The Family Movie Act was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith
> (R-TX) and sponsored in the Senate by Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The bill clarifies the Copyright Act to guarantee the legality of technologies that filter unwanted content in movies in the home. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act also includes several movie anti-piracy provisions, which also were supported by ClearPlay.


so still changing the movie would violate copyright law, except for the fact the law was specifically changed for the clearplay idea. Good for them.


----------

