# What does "Lifetime" really mean?



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

So, in light of the news out of the UK, what does Lifetime _really_ mean?

I've read that, back in the early days, TiVo had to tighten up their fine print to say that lifetime wasn't the lifetime of the subscriber or of the account, it was the lifetime of the box, but now, at least across the pond, it seems that lifetime means "lifetime of the box, as long as we're still offering the service, which we can discontinue with a month's notice anytime we please".

What does that portend for us in the U.S.?

Can they say that service for the S1s isn't the same thing as service for the later models, and shut it down while continuing to feed data to S2s and up?

If so, how long after that do they say that service for the S2s isn't the same as service for the S3s and up, and shut that down as well?

Is there a contract law specialist in the audience?


----------



## Riverdome (May 12, 2005)

If lifetime is defined as "the lifetime of the box or 7 years after we sell the last box, which ever comes last" then I'm okay with that. As I understand things that is what has happened to the poor folks in the UK. Tivo pulled out of the market and now 7 years later have announced they are no longer supporting those users.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

If you put absolute faith in any "lifetime warranty" you are being naive. The company may have vanished by the time you need the warranty (just one example of how you can lose).


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dlfl said:


> If you put absolute faith in any "lifetime warranty" you are being naive. The company may have vanished by the time you need the warranty (just one example of how you can lose).


we are speaking of lifetime *SERVICE* which means guide data being supplied so the DVR keeps recording things. Please do not muddy up the thread with the word warranty as that implies fixing the hardware and is a different thing.

The UK had a specific clause about 30 days notice and lifetime is over. I see no such clause in the US version of Lifetime service -- so shutting down lifetime to any box in the US would be a VERY different thing.  IANAL so can not speak to specifics of contract law, but TiVo would have to work within that law

ETA - the same 30 day clause is in the US agreement. No idea how that interacts with life of box service.


----------



## slude (Feb 9, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The UK had a specific clause about 30 days notice and lifetime is over. I see no such clause in the US version of Lifetime service


While, that statement is true it is irrelevant to the OP's question of whether the "lifetime service" OP purchased really means "service for as long as the box runs", as he thought, or has a meaning where the "lifetime" ends sometime before the hardware does.

Indeed, on November 14, 2010 http://www.tivo.com/abouttivo/policies/112010_tivopaymentplans.html Tivo did insert a clause in the "lifetime service" TOS for US buyers which defines lifetime independently from the functional condition of the hardware: "usable lifetime.

Prior to that date, the TOS read "Product Lifetime Service includes a Product Lifetime Subscription to the TiVo service which covers the life of the TiVo DVR you buy  not the life of the subscriber. The Product Lifetime Subscription accompanies the TiVo DVR in case of ownership transfer. For more information on Product Lifetime Subscriptions, please refer to the TiVo Service Agreement. Of course, hardware products don't last forever and their lifespan will vary. TiVo makes no warranties or representations as to the expected lifetime of the TiVo DVR (aside from the manufacturer's Limited Warranty)." The key phrase, in this context, being "for the life of the TiVo DVR you buy -- not the life of the subscriber"

For PLS purchased November 14, 2010 or later, the TOS reads "Product Lifetime Subscription includes a subscription to the TiVo service for the useable life of the TiVo DVR you buy  not the life of the subscriber  and may not be transferred to another TiVo DVR. A Product Lifetime Subscription accompanies the TiVo DVR it is associated with in case of ownership transfer of that TiVo DVR. For more information on Product Lifetime Subscriptions, please refer to the TiVo Service Agreement. Of course, hardware products don't last forever and their lifespan will vary. TiVo makes no warranties or representations as to the expected lifetime of the TiVo DVR (aside from the manufacturer's Limited Warranty)." The key change, in this context, being the new term "*usable* life".

"Usable life" is a term commonly defined and used by the IRS, insurance agents, appraisers, etc. The last time I checked, the IRS defined the "usable life" of a computer as 5 years. I don't remember if the IRS supplies a definition for the "usable life" of a TV / Consumer Electronics product, but I'd be surprised if they haven't.

So PLS purchased on November 14, 2010 or later certainly has a clause promising that service for only a limited number of years. Plenty of room for argument as to whether the PLS TOS prior to then promised an indefinite continuation of service.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> If you put absolute faith in any "lifetime warranty" you are being naive. The company may have vanished by the time you need the warranty (just one example of how you can lose).





ZeoTiVo said:


> we are speaking of lifetime *SERVICE* which means guide data being supplied so the DVR keeps recording things. Please do not muddy up the thread with the word warranty as that implies fixing the hardware and is a different thing........


OK. Substitute "service" for "warranty" in my statement, mr. picky, picky.  I doubt any readers failed to get the point.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

dlfl said:


> OK. Substitute "service" for "warranty" in my statement, mr. picky, picky.  I doubt any readers failed to get the point.


What are you smoking?! I want me some....


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

No offense.. but you all miss the line in the service agreement "TiVo may at its discretion change the terms of this Agreement. " Meaning nothing is rock solid and can change any time.

So Tivo could do anything it wants anytime, including cancelling service. It's even mentioned in the line " TiVo reserves the right to discontinue one, some, or all of the features of the TiVo service you receive at any time at its discretion". 

But this is not just a Tivo issue, why would anyone think any company would mandate itself to anything when it is easily avoidable? Any good company does the same.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dlfl said:


> OK. Substitute "service" for "warranty" in my statement, mr. picky, picky.  I doubt any readers failed to get the point.


"The company may have vanished by the time you need the service"

I do not get the point of that myself


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

dlfl said:


> If you put absolute faith in any "lifetime warranty" you are being naive. The company may have vanished by the time you need the warranty (just one example of how you can lose).


Search though I may, I can find nowhere in my original post where I said anything about putting absolute faith in anything.

If you want to analogise this to "Company X offers lifetime warranty", then my question would be along the lines of "Exactly how is Company X defining 'warranty', 'cause I've seen them change the definition once here in the States, and apparently they have a third different definition in the UK?".


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

bschuler2007 said:


> No offense.. but you all miss the line in the service agreement "TiVo may at its discretion change the terms of this Agreement. " Meaning nothing is rock solid and can change any time.
> 
> So Tivo could do anything it wants anytime, including cancelling service. It's even mentioned in the line " TiVo reserves the right to discontinue one, some, or all of the features of the TiVo service you receive at any time at its discretion"...


This suggests that if they want, they can require all male TiVo users to put on a ballerina outfit and dance for fifteen minutes on alternate Saturday afternoons in the center of their city or town, or have their lifetime service cancelled.

I hear those ballet shoes can be killers on a guy's feet.


----------



## deandashl (Aug 8, 2008)

Riverdome said:


> If lifetime is defined as "the lifetime of the box or 7 years after we sell the last box, which ever comes last" then I'm okay with that. As I understand things that is what has happened to the poor folks in the UK. Tivo pulled out of the market and now 7 years later have announced they are no longer supporting those users.


TiVo people are the BIGGEST whiners.

Seven years after selling the last DVR, pretty good if you ask me.


----------



## m.s (Mar 8, 2007)

bschuler2007 said:


> No offense.. but you all miss the line in the service agreement "TiVo may at its discretion change the terms of this Agreement. " Meaning nothing is rock solid and can change any time.
> 
> So Tivo could do anything it wants anytime, including cancelling service.


No, they can't. They can change the terms of the Agreement, but that doesn't affect anyone who is already bound to an existing agreement.

In other words, that statement is basically the same as when a hardware manufacturer says "specifications subject to change at any time...". That doesn't mean a car maker can take your engine out at first service and claim they changed the specs to no longer include an engine.


----------



## NJ Webel (Dec 8, 2004)

m.s said:


> No, they can't. They can change the terms of the Agreement, but that doesn't affect anyone who is already bound to an existing agreement.
> 
> In other words, that statement is basically the same as when a hardware manufacturer says "specifications subject to change at any time...". That doesn't mean a car maker can take your engine out at first service and claim they changed the specs to no longer include an engine.


It is actually more analogous to a credit card agreement that can be changed by the credit issuer at any point. If your card agreement is changed by the bank, your choices are to either accept the new agreement, or close the card. You will see that TiVo's wording is similar if not identical.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

dlfl said:


> If you put absolute faith in any "lifetime warranty" you are being naive. The company may have vanished by the time you need the warranty (just one example of how you can lose).





unitron said:


> Search though I may, I can find nowhere in my original post where I said anything about putting absolute faith in anything.
> .............


You are correct. Sorry if it seemed I was saying that about you. I was trying to make a general point, that when you look 7 years or more in the future, regarding any perceived commitment of a company, you probably should be more concerned about whether the company will still be in business then, rather than the exact details of the commitment. And then there is the fine print (as you mention) that may say it isn't really a commitment anyway!


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Right, you either accept the new agreement or you and Tivo part ways. Either way.. Tivo shuts you down. And almost all companies have such agreements. And don't get me wrong, I actually think such revolving agreements are good for the most part.

In the car warranty example.. the car company could give you a choice, no engine or we could take the car back and refund your money. This is basically what happens to consumers in compulsory or mandatory recalls if they refuse the recall (besides the consumer usually getting fined if it is a life or health risk).

So it's not like Tivo could force us to wear ballerina outfits per the example.. but it could say.. dance around town in ballerina outfits or your Tivo no longer works. This could be added into a new service agreement that either you accept or you don't.

Truth is, if you could have Tivo service without accepting new agreements.. adding functions like Netflix, etc.. would have huge issues as some users would accept the agreement some would not.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Regardless of the terms, it's critical to understand exactly what they are before entering into the agreement -- otherwise unreasonable expectations (which are quite common among consumers) lead to disappointment and anger. Each party to the agreement has to take responsibility for understanding it -- no one else can (or should) do this for them. Of course it would be nice if the party drafting the agreement would try to make it as simple and understandable as possible, rather than obfuscating it in fine print.

Lawyers really make out here. One party pays them to obfuscate the fine print and the other party may have to pay them to properly interpret it.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dlfl said:


> You are correct. Sorry if it seemed I was saying that about you. I was trying to make a general point, that when you look 7 years or more in the future, regarding any perceived commitment of a company, you probably should be more concerned about whether the company will still be in business then, rather than the exact details of the commitment. And then there is the fine print (as you mention) that may say it isn't really a commitment anyway!


Here, I see your point and agree with it.


----------



## ncfoster (Jan 22, 2011)

NJ Webel said:


> It is actually more analogous to a credit card agreement that can be changed by the credit issuer at any point. If your card agreement is changed by the bank, your choices are to either accept the new agreement, or close the card. You will see that TiVo's wording is similar if not identical.


Except that you use a credit card on an ongoing basis, so they have a basis to change the agreement. Nevermind that Congress at least paid lip service to tightening that up substantially. If you pay for lifetime service, the transaction is over. They cannot change the agreement without your consent and/or without giving something up. Doesn't mean that they couldn't breach the contract, but they can't change it.


----------



## velocitysurfer1 (Sep 6, 2006)

Riverdome said:


> If lifetime is defined as "the lifetime of the box or 7 years after we sell the last box, which ever comes last" then I'm okay with that. As I understand things that is what has happened to the poor folks in the UK. Tivo pulled out of the market and now 7 years later have announced they are no longer supporting those users.


From a uk s1 users perspective, they are no longer supporting us because TiVo Inc have signed a contract with the (one in the uk) cable company, who'll supply new TiVo boxes and new guide data. If they hadn't come back to the uk, I'm pretty sure that the s1 guide data would continue.

The downside is that the cable company (virgin media) only covers 50% of UK households. We have people from major cities like London that are not in a cabled area.

The new boxes are tied to the cable contract and are the property of the cable company, unlike S1s.

Unlike our S1 TiVos, they can only record from cable; our S1s can record from cable, satellite and roof top aerial reception via set top boxes.
A number of TV services in the UK are free and S1 TiVos can record from these sources. So the cost of using S1 TiVo is £10 per month (or free on a £199 lifetime subscription) The cost of the new TiVo is nearly £40 per month as you need to take the cable companys top tier tv package.

Note that the s1 end user contract is with TiVo, whilst the new contract is with virgin media.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Of course it would be nice if the party drafting the agreement would try to make it as simple and understandable as possible, rather than obfuscating it in fine print.


Actually, one good red flag for the consumer is a service contract with inordinately convoluted details in either bold print or fine print.

As always, caveat emptor.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

m.s said:


> No, they can't. They can change the terms of the Agreement, but that doesn't affect anyone who is already bound to an existing agreement.
> 
> In other words, that statement is basically the same as when a hardware manufacturer says "specifications subject to change at any time...". That doesn't mean a car maker can take your engine out at first service and claim they changed the specs to no longer include an engine.


Where did you study contract law?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

slude said:


> While, that statement is true it is irrelevant to the OP's question of whether the "lifetime service" OP purchased really means "service for as long as the box runs", as he thought...


I have re-examined my original post and can find no indication in it of what, if anything, I think, so I'm not sure on what you base your belief that you know anything other than what I asked.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

ncfoster said:


> If you pay for lifetime service, the transaction is over. They cannot change the agreement without your consent and/or without giving something up. Doesn't mean that they couldn't breach the contract, but they can't change it.


Please _*READ*_ your Agreement people.

1) it is "Lifetime *Subscription*" NOT "Service". All the Lifetime Subscription gives you is a guarantee of no more monthly subs - it gives NO GUARANTEE at all about the service provided (or not). (Just read it if you don't believe me.)

2) Clause 1 clearly states that TiVo can change the terms of the Agreement at any time providing they give you notice (e.g. via system message to the TiVo box as they did in the UK). Your continued use thereafter of the TiVo means you legally accept the revised Agreement.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

Nope -- the term "lifetime", if not defined in the contract, is construed in favor of the party that did not draft the agreement (ie. the consumer) and is given its ordinary everyday meaning -- not some obscure or arbitrary meaning. The lifetime contract is complete at the time of purchase of the lifetime service contract, and not modifiable without explicit consent and/or valuable consideration. Continuing service that you have already paid for does not satisfy either requirement. The term "lifetime", to any ordinary individual that isn't looking for a way to wiggle out of a contract, is as long as the item works and/or usable -- for the Tivo, as long as the Tivo boots up and the hardware functions as originally designed, Tivo is obligated to provide service for that Tivo indefinitely -- that is what they agreed to. Now since Corporations (including Tivo) are devoid of moral considerations, and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and stockholder greed, Tivo might determine that it is more profitable to breech their agreement and pay whatever damages the law allows in lieu of fulfilling their contractual obligations -- but make no mistake, contractually, Lifetime is the physical life of your working Tivo and nothing less.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

parzec said:


> ......... Now since Corporations (including Tivo) are devoid of moral considerations, and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and stockholder greed.........


No more or less than non-corporate entities (including individual consumers) are devoid of moral considerations and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and their greed. If you're going to demonize, try to be balanced and fair about it.  Better yet ..... don't demonize.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

wendyts7 said:


> hello,lifetime means is forever.


Soon you'll be wondering why your posts disappeared.

The reason is the spam in your sig file.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Why quote a spammer? So the post stays in the thread vicariously?


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> Why quote a spammer? So the post stays in the thread vicariously?


It's possible (just barely) that, unlike the WOW gold guy, the poster wasn't here solely to spam, but just didn't read all the rules.

Don't worry, my five minutes of non-cynicism this year is over. : - )


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> No more or less than non-corporate entities (including individual consumers) are devoid of moral considerations and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and their greed. If you're going to demonize, try to be balanced and fair about it.  Better yet ..... don't demonize.


While I won't disagree that my language was a little demonic  I have to disagree with your assertion that people behave no differently than corporations. Corporations are required by law to place shareholder profit above all else, except the requirement that they act within the bounds of the law. By their very nature, they can not do the moral thing if it is not the most profitable option, or they will successfully be sued by their shareholders. Individuals and Privately owned Companies, are not required to maximize profit at the expense of morality. So an individual that over commits in a contract, can consider the ethical ramifications of their breech and choose not to breech even though it might be a more profitable option to do so. For example, a set contract for house repairs that cost more than what was originally contracted: the contractor has options, and a gentleman contractor would honor his commitments even at a loss as a matter of principle. A corporation, on the other hand, does not have the ability to even factor in the ethics of the breech and is governed solely by balance sheets and mathematical equations. So I would qualify your statement to be: People and Private Companies sometimes will do the ethical thing even if it is not the most profitable, but Publicly held Corporations never do the ethical thing if it is not also the most profitable.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

parzec said:


> Nope -- the term "lifetime", if not defined in the contract, is construed in favor of the party that did not draft the agreement (ie. the consumer) and is given its ordinary everyday meaning -- not some obscure or arbitrary meaning. The lifetime contract is complete at the time of purchase of the lifetime service contract, and not modifiable without explicit consent and/or valuable consideration. Continuing service that you have already paid for does not satisfy either requirement. The term "lifetime", to any ordinary individual that isn't looking for a way to wiggle out of a contract, is as long as the item works and/or usable -- for the Tivo, as long as the Tivo boots up and the hardware functions as originally designed, Tivo is obligated to provide service for that Tivo indefinitely -- that is what they agreed to. Now since Corporations (including Tivo) are devoid of moral considerations, and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and stockholder greed, Tivo might determine that it is more profitable to breech their agreement and pay whatever damages the law allows in lieu of fulfilling their contractual obligations -- but make no mistake, contractually, Lifetime is the physical life of your working Tivo and nothing less.


You have it correct, IMHO only if TiVo went bankrupt could the terms on your TiVo lifetime service be changed to your disadvantage, it does not matter what the contract does say about being changed, for a Lifetime TiVo contract terms can't changed from what you had at the time of purchase. *A contract that makes a statement in one place that you will receive service for the life of the TiVo, can't in another place say we can change that first statement with 30 days notice*, and have the 2nd statement *enforceable*. When you give your car to a parking garage to park, the claim ticket may say "we are not responsible for any damage done to your car", guess what the garage is responsible. That why for a marriage prenuptial both the man and woman must have their own lawyer, and even then the contract can sometimes be breached (look at what happen to *the Donald*)


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

lessd,
The main difference between Tivo's agreement and the parking garage is that there is no reason the parking garage couldn't park your car without damage, thus any damage can be argued to be caused by negligence. Same kind of argument about the marriage, he cheated thus his prenub is null and void, etc..

A Tivo service contract wouldn't have any of these issues. And you can't argue about what you THOUGHT the agreement meant.. it is what is in it.. and that is Tivo can change it anytime. In some rare cases you can argue what is implied, but since most people know Lifetime isn't really Lifetime.. that would be moot.

Anyone who argues Tivo Lifetime contract means forever regardless of if Tivo decides to cancel service, goes under or if your box lives 70 years is a dreamer. Kinda wish I was.. but alas.. I know better.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

bschuler2007 said:


> lessd,
> The main difference between Tivo's agreement and the parking garage is that there is no reason the parking garage couldn't park your car without damage, thus any damage can be argued to be caused by negligence. Same kind of argument about the marriage, he cheated thus his prenub is null and void, etc..
> 
> A Tivo service contract wouldn't have any of these issues. And you can't argue about what you THOUGHT the agreement meant.. it is what is in it.. and that is Tivo can change it anytime. In some rare cases you can argue what is implied, but since most people know Lifetime isn't really Lifetime.. that would be moot.
> ...


TiVo did have a court case on the meaning of lifetime Sub for a TiVo, and it was decided that Lifetime meant the life of the TiVo box you put the lifetime Sub on, no amount of years of life was stated, the contract than can't say OH! by the way we can cancel your Lifetime Sub with 30 days notice for no reason, this would not fly in any court. If you had the box for 7 years and never had to replace the hard drive you may still have a case, but most people would have replaced the hard drive by then, and if the replacement was not by an authorized TiVo dealer than TiVo would have a good case.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

bschuler2007 said:


> lessd,
> The main difference between Tivo's agreement and the parking garage is that there is no reason the parking garage couldn't park your car without damage, thus any damage can be argued to be caused by negligence. Same kind of argument about the marriage, he cheated thus his prenub is null and void, etc..
> 
> A Tivo service contract wouldn't have any of these issues. And you can't argue about what you THOUGHT the agreement meant.. it is what is in it.. and that is Tivo can change it anytime. In some rare cases you can argue what is implied, but since most people know Lifetime isn't really Lifetime.. that would be moot.
> ...


Sorry, you are wrong. It is not forever -- but it is indefinite for a specific amount of time , namely as long as the Tivo is physically working. Should Tivo stop offering the service or attempt a change in terms to do so, then we have a breech of contract. Period. (Bankruptcy or rewriting of contracts or discharging liability/debt or going out of business are completely different issues and not related to performance of the Lifetime contract in effect now) Furthermore, limiting the term of the lifetime after-the-fact would void the contract on the grounds of fraudulent inducement, requiring Tivo to return the original consideration paid by the consumer for lifetime subscription. Also, If Tivo means anything less than lifetime of the actual Tivo hardware, then they need to change the title to "7 years and Maybe more" ASAP or to whatever you think Tivo thinks the limitation is on the contract. But that wouldn't affect people that originally contracted for lifetime service, only those that purchase after the language change.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

parzec said:


> Also, If Tivo means anything less than lifetime of the actual Tivo hardware, then they need to change the title to "7 years and Maybe more" ASAP or to whatever you think Tivo thinks the limitation is on the contract. But that wouldn't affect people that originally contracted for lifetime service, only those that purchase after the language change.


they did change it in 2010 to the *usable* life of the DVR. Likely TiVo could show they amortize the box over 5 years and then the lawyers and judge agree on some number of years based on that - like say for instance 7 years.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> they did change it in 2010 to the *usable* life of the DVR. Likely TiVo could show they amortize the box over 5 years and then the lawyers and judge agree on some number of years based on that - like say for instance 7 years.


If so (and I disagree) they need to stop selling it as "lifetime service." The internal accounting of Tivo, Inc. to amortize the box is outside the scope of the contract and in my opinion, would be ignored by the court. The term "Usable" would be construed with its ordinary, everyday meaning meaning that the Tivo still works, ie boots up and has its hardware all in order.

If Tivo meant "5 or 7 years based on the amortized life of the box," it would be easy for them to put that in the contract and remove all misleading language referencing "lifetime" service. But Tivo didn't include such language in the contract, so they are stuck with the contract as written. Tivo may have the corporate equivalent of "buyers" remorse if the box lasts longer than their expectation -- but that is of no consequence to their duty of performance under the contract.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

parzec,
You are right, breach of agreement.. BUT.. that goes back to my car with removed engine analogy.. so they would refund your initial cost or if inclined, they could try for a pro-rated cost based on Tivo life expectancy most likely. My argument of if Tivo could cancel Lifetime service at anytime is either yes or no.. I didn't mention anything about money.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

parzec said:


> ......... Corporations (including Tivo) are devoid of moral considerations, and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and stockholder greed.........





dlfl said:


> No more or less than non-corporate entities (including individual consumers) are devoid of moral considerations and ruled by the lure of the almighty dollar and their greed. If you're going to demonize, try to be balanced and fair about it.  Better yet ..... don't demonize.





parzec said:


> While I won't disagree that my language was a little demonic ;......


A little demonic?  


parzec said:


> I have to disagree with your assertion that people behave no differently than corporations. Corporations are required by law to place shareholder profit above all else, except the requirement that they act within the bounds of the law. By their very nature, they can not do the moral thing if it is not the most profitable option, or they will successfully be sued by their shareholders. Individuals and Privately owned Companies, are not required to maximize profit at the expense of morality. So an individual that over commits in a contract, can consider the ethical ramifications of their breech and choose not to breech even though it might be a more profitable option to do so. For example, a set contract for house repairs that cost more than what was originally contracted: the contractor has options, and a gentleman contractor would honor his commitments even at a loss as a matter of principle. A corporation, on the other hand, does not have the ability to even factor in the ethics of the breech and is governed solely by balance sheets and mathematical equations. So I would qualify your statement to be: People and Private Companies sometimes will do the ethical thing even if it is not the most profitable, but Publicly held Corporations never do the ethical thing if it is not also the most profitable.


Strongly disagree. Stockholders are not likely to sue for reasonable ethical corporate decisions and please reference any law that says Corporations are required to be immoral. Corporations and individuals are continually balancing ethics and their interests. The behavior of both classes just illustrates the fact we are all human, i.e., imperfect. In my own personal opinion, the venue where unethical behavior does the most damage to society is in governments.


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

bschuler2007 said:


> parzec,
> You are right, breach of agreement.. BUT.. that goes back to my car with removed engine analogy.. so they would refund your initial cost or if inclined, they could try for a pro-rated cost based on Tivo life expectancy most likely. My argument of if Tivo could cancel Lifetime service at anytime is either yes or no.. I didn't mention anything about money.


I believe we are in agreement on the breech of agreement


----------



## parzec (Jun 21, 2002)

dlfl said:


> A little demonic?
> 
> Strongly disagree. Stockholders are not likely to sue for reasonable ethical corporate decisions and please reference any law that says Corporations are required to be immoral. Corporations and individuals are continually balancing ethics and their interests. The behavior of both classes just illustrates the fact we are all human, i.e., imperfect. In my own personal opinion, the venue where unethical behavior does the most damage to society is in governments.


I think you are missing some nuance -- I never said that Corporations are required to be immoral, just that they are required to maximize shareholder profit which sometimes means that they might have to choose an unethical position. Furthermore, they have to account for the expenditure of other peoples (shareholders) investment money but an individual proprietor can burn his own money if he wants -- if it means doing the right thing -- so that he can have a clean conscience. As an aside, Corporations don't have to worry about being able to sleep at night, either.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

parzec said:


> I think you are missing some nuance -- I never said that Corporations are required to be immoral, just that they are required to maximize shareholder profit which sometimes means that they might have to choose an unethical position. Furthermore, they have to account for the expenditure of other peoples (shareholders) investment money but an individual proprietor can burn his own money if he wants -- if it means doing the right thing -- so that he can have a clean conscience. As an aside, Corporations don't have to worry about being able to sleep at night, either.


This is not about "missing some nuance" but just our different perceptions of reality. Your statement that "Corporations don't have to worry about being able to sleep at night" illustrates your bias. Corporations are composed of people, after all. My perception of reality is that corporations have about the same rates of unethical behavior as do individuals, companies, unions and governments, i.e., people. Since most people are not in corporate management, and many of them, as consumers, have disputes with corporations, it's a very easy cheap shot to demonize them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

parzec said:


> Corporations are required by law to place shareholder profit above all else, except the requirement that they act within the bounds of the law.


That they are required by law to do so does not necessarily mean much. Plenty of publicly traded businesses have demonstrably non-sustainable business plans. For that matter, many investors rely on the fact, especially in a bullish market.

Even at that, shareholder profit does not necessarily take top precedence, except indirectly. Often a company may have a contractural agreement which they cannot breech. One example is bank covenants. If a company forfeits their covenant with the bank, no matter how unprofitable it may be, the bank can call in the loan, perhaps even seizing the company. Another example is when a company has a critical supplier. They must meet the payment demands of the supplier, or go out of business.



parzec said:


> By their very nature, they can not do the moral thing if it is not the most profitable option, or they will successfully be sued by their shareholders.


That's just nonsense. First of all a successful investor suit is an exceedingly difficult accomplishment under any circumstances. Secondly, one cannot sue one's company simply because they made less profit than a competitor, despite the fact the competitor clearly selected better options, at least in the short term. Finally, almost every company will from time to time engage in strategic initiatives which are likely to temporarily impact their stock, whether it is borrowing money, expanding capital investments, or issuing additional stock.



parzec said:


> People and Private Companies sometimes will do the ethical thing even if it is not the most profitable, but Publicly held Corporations never do the ethical thing if it is not also the most profitable.


At the very least, that is an overstatement. Corporations can - and some do - the ethical thing as long as it is not unprofitable. Since what actions will be or will not be profitable are not nearly as cut-and-dried as your post suggests, there is in fact somewhat more wiggle room.

That said, the inevitable trend toward what you say in both publicly owned and privately owned companies is just one more reason that I think all corporate ownership should be abolished. When a company needs an infusion of capital, let them borrow it and then pay off the loan over time.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> This is not about "missing some nuance" but just our different perceptions of reality. Your statement that "Corporations don't have to worry about being able to sleep at night" illustrates your bias. Corporations are composed of people, after all. My perception of reality is that corporations have about the same rates of unethical behavior as do individuals, companies


Perhaps in some cases even better. Many enterprises have specific rules of ethics to which they must conform, either by law or charter. Not so a human being. There is also a difference between acting unethically and not making ethical considerations the only priority.



dlfl said:


> unions


Uh-uh. Unions are by definition an unethical response to unethical behavior. They are fighting one evil fire with another. Even a knight in shining armor is a murderer, don't forget.



dlfl said:


> governments


Oh, get real. Government is not only completely unethical, it is also completely evil. It serves no putative purpose whatsoever other than to limit the freedom of those governed. In practice, no government of which I am aware even does that properly. Government may be necessary - and to some extent it is, but that in no way makes it anything other than a necessary evil.



dlfl said:


> i.e., people. Since most people are not in corporate management, and many of them, as consumers, have disputes with corporations, it's a very easy cheap shot to demonize them.


Um, you lost me with your pronouns. Who is "them"? You employ the reference twice, but I'm having trouble relating both to a single antecedent. In short: Huh?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

dlfl said:


> In my own personal opinion, the venue where unethical behavior does the most damage to society is in governments.


I see your point, but I don't quite agree. First of all, I would say unethical behavior on the part of the police and the military are much more destructive. I suppose one could define both as part of government, but unless it is a police state or a military dictatorship, they can be tools of the government, but are not really part of it. The other reason I disagree is that most governments are so laughably inept and bureaucracy bound that unethical behavior on the part of their members rarely has much effect one way or the other.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

If we pulled every co/country apart like this we (the so called ethical) would not do business with anybody.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lessd said:


> If we pulled every co/country apart like this we (the so called ethical) would not do business with anybody.


No .... do business but "Caveat Emptor", "trust but verify", etc.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

dlfl said:


> No .... do business but "Caveat Emptor", "trust but verify", etc.


Verify, ya for a car or a home, yes. 10 years ago i looked at the specs of the TiVo and purchased one, had as many as seven after that, now have 5, I could not have verified TiVo 10 years ago so i took a chance on one, I have purchased stuff that turn out NG and i accept the fact you will not will win on every purchase but if the co been around a while I assume somebody has taken the time to verify and i take my chances, I have been taken for about $100 or so over the last 10 years on a group of unrelated items, the time it would have taken to verify that group and maybe save myself the $100 was not worth my time.


----------



## Fear_n_Loathing (Feb 26, 2011)

Lifetime means the life of the box. I'm an owner of a lifetime box.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

lessd said:


> Verify, ya for a car or a home, yes. 10 years ago i looked at the specs of the TiVo and purchased one, had as many as seven after that, now have 5, I could not have verified TiVo 10 years ago so i took a chance on one, I have purchased stuff that turn out NG and i accept the fact you will not will win on every purchase but if the co been around a while I assume somebody has taken the time to verify and i take my chances, I have been taken for about $100 or so over the last 10 years on a group of unrelated items, the time it would have taken to verify that group and maybe save myself the $100 was not worth my time.


I hope you didn't intend this as disputing my short comment. If so you just read too much into what I said.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

velocitysurfer1 said:


> From a uk s1 users perspective, they are no longer supporting us because TiVo Inc have signed a contract with the (one in the uk) cable company, who'll supply new TiVo boxes and new guide data. If they hadn't come back to the uk, I'm pretty sure that the s1 guide data would continue.
> 
> The downside is that the cable company (virgin media) only covers 50% of UK households. We have people from major cities like London that are not in a cabled area.
> 
> ...


For the life of me I can't figure out why Tivo didn't include OTA in the new UK TiVos. They have the OTA tuners in the Premiere that we have in the U.S. How hard would it have been to include it in the new UK model as well?

Or maybe I can figure it out. Maybe Virgin wanted to make sure that any users within their 50% coverage area had to subscribe if they wanted to use TiVo. Ridiculously unfair to the people in the non-cabled area.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

appleye1 said:


> For the life of me I can't figure out why Tivo didn't include OTA in the new UK TiVos. They have the OTA tuners in the Premiere that we have in the U.S. How hard would it have been to include it in the new UK model as well?
> 
> Or maybe I can figure it out. Maybe Virgin wanted to make sure that any users within their 50% coverage area had to subscribe if they wanted to use TiVo. Ridiculously unfair to the people in the non-cabled area.


meh, it opens up the idea of hacking the S1 to get guide data without the thought of any theft of service. The industrious lot will now be able to use a S1 TiVo for free to record shows they get broadcast for free. This could be done in an area with cable, if the person does not choose cable


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> If we pulled every co/country apart like this we (the so called ethical) would not do business with anybody.


Oh, nonsense. Any time two entities of good faith and without guile engage in an exchange of goods, services, or monetary equivalents, an ethical business deal has been enacted. There is always a chance one or the other party will ultimately regret the transaction, or perhaps be less satisfied than they thought they would be when the transaction was completed, but as long as that disappointment is not a result of fraud or manipulation on the part of the other participant, then the transaction was a fair and ethical one.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

appleye1 said:


> For the life of me I can't figure out why Tivo didn't include OTA in the new UK TiVos. They have the OTA tuners in the Premiere that we have in the U.S. How hard would it have been to include it in the new UK model as well?
> 
> Or maybe I can figure it out. Maybe Virgin wanted to make sure that any users within their 50% coverage area had to subscribe if they wanted to use TiVo. Ridiculously unfair to the people in the non-cabled area.


Or TiVo wants to more like a Moto OEM and make a box to Virgin Specs as Virgin is TiVos customer.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Oh, nonsense. Any time two entities of good faith and without guile engage in an exchange of goods, services, or monetary equivalents, an ethical business deal has been enacted. There is always a chance one or the other party will ultimately regret the transaction, or perhaps be less satisfied than they thought they would be when the transaction was completed, but as long as that disappointment is not a result of fraud or manipulation on the part of the other participant, then the transaction was a fair and ethical one.


I made the comment as related to some of the posts before #45, I do agree with your comment above.


----------

