# TTG & MRV Coming in November for Series3 & TiVoHD



## TiVoPony

Hey guys,

I know you've been anxiously awaiting TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing on your Series3 and TiVoHD boxes.

I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.

These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC. High Definition content will not be supported for transfer or playback on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD), and copy-protected High Def or Standard Def content cannot be transferred (same as our current Series2 products). The aptly yet unofficially named TiVoToComeBack also will be supported, including HD content (originally recorded on a TiVo DVR).

It's not far off guys. 

Pony

ps - If you've been beta testing this stuff, you have a beta forum to participate in. Shoo! Get out of here! Remember the first rule of beta club... 

[edit - clarified that HD TTCB is initially for content originally recorded on a TiVo DVR, not HD content from other sources]


----------



## Fofer

Sweet! Happy to see the "official" news (finally.) The Series 3 (and TiVoHD) now rock completely, no excuses.


----------



## flc

Sweet news, I'll be glad to get TTCB back


----------



## Turtleboy

But what will people complain about now?

Good job!


----------



## buddhawood

Will shows recorded in HD be able to be transfer and be shown in SD on the S2?


----------



## Fofer

TiVoPony said:


> The aptly yet unofficially named TiVoToComeBack also will be supported, including HD content.


Even from a Mac?


----------



## MickeS

buddhawood said:


> Will shows recorded in HD be able to be transfer and be shown in SD on the S2?


From the OP: "High Definition content will not be supported for transfer /../ on a Series2 system"

This is good news!

A question: will the Series 3 TTCB be MPEG-4 compatible?


----------



## s2kdave

finally!! I'm excited.


----------



## bubba1972

Is there a way to tell which programs I have currently recorded are copy protected? It would be nice to get a feel for what won't be transferable.


----------



## yunlin12

From TivoDeskTop, the shows on my S2 that are not available for TTG are marked with a X next to them, instead of the green or yellow dots like the ones you see in NowPlayingList.


----------



## brianlees

OK, I assume that since HD is so locked up by the networks it won't be transferrable between S3 devices? TivoPony doesn't mention this specific relationship...and the whole reason I would purchase I a second TivoHD.


----------



## Turtleboy

brianlees said:


> OK, I assume that since HD is so locked up by the networks it won't be transferrable between S3 devices? TivoPony doesn't mention this specific relationship...and the whole reason I would purchase I a second TivoHD.


Yes, HD will be transferable between S3 devices, HD Tivos, and Computers, and between them.

ONLY those shows that are copy-protected flagged can't be transferred.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Yunlin12,

Since I don't have a s2, and obviously TivoDeskTop does not yet show content on an S3

What I would like to know... is what shows are you getting an "X" marked next to them that ARE copy protected and are unable to transfer?

Are they from the Major Networks that are also OTA (Such as NBC, Fox, CBS etc...) or 
are they from the cable side networks? (ESPN, Showtime, HBO... etc.)

Just curious what shows are coming with the copy protected flag and which are not

thanks

TGC


----------



## Ilene

Thanks Pony for the update! Now all of us can tell Santa that we want a TiVoHD for Christmas to go as a companion for our S3s. 

The pretty bow would be the ability to either transfer Lifetime from our current S2s or even better - a one day after Thanksgiving sale that bundles Lifetime membership (non-transferrable) with a TiVoHD or S3 purchase (Must have purchased an HD series TiVo between 9/06 and 11/07, i.e a loyalty reward for those of us that have endured pixelation and cableCard battles). 

I can dream...


----------



## ZeoTiVo

Wow, I never would have guessed it would be by the end of this year  

Nice work TiVo engineers :up:


----------



## roosta69

Nice work is an understatement


----------



## ah30k

Once this kicks in to wide use we are really going to find out which MSOs are incorrectly tagging their transmissions with respect to CCI bits. I imagine any digital show tagged as 'Copy Once' will not be able to be transferred.

On the up-side, there was fear that we would not be able to transfer ANY digital shows. I was fully expecting the first incarnation of this to be for analog channels only.

This is great news. I might even consider a THD companion to my S3 and burn off that old grandfathered S1.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

One more question...

Can someone explain TivoToComeBack? exactly what is that? Is that video transfer from PC to Tivo? Or what?

Thanks

TGC


----------



## andyw715

yes like dumping your home videos in mpeg format to the My Tivo Recordings folder in My Documents, now shows up in Now Playing (with a little computer icon next to it, ala, transfer from computer to tivo and watch)


----------



## flc

in a word... yes


----------



## kmill14

Wasn't part of the hold-up something to do with CableLabs? Can we assume if this finally went thru, that CableCards and the new "dongle" might be on the way as well?


----------



## Gene S

Great news!! When enabled I can get rid of my monthly S2 and get a T-HD to go along with my S3!!


----------



## cwoody222

Fofer said:


> Even from a Mac?


They're "working on it" 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Pony... can you confirm whether Mac users will be left out of all the fun or not? Even if you don't officially support it will we be able to do what we can with S2s in terms of browsings to the Now Playing list and manually downloading the files?


----------



## LoREvanescence

This is great news. I only wish I could use networking on my Tivo though=\. My university's firewall blocks its access to the network and tivo tells me it cannot find a dctp server.


----------



## mazman

TiVoPony said:


> ps - If you've been beta testing this stuff, you have a beta forum to participate in. Shoo! Get out of here! Remember the first rule of beta club...


Can you provide the link to update/signup for beta testing?


----------



## mattack

andyw715 said:


> yes like dumping your home videos in mpeg format to the My Tivo Recordings folder in My Documents, now shows up in Now Playing (with a little computer icon next to it, ala, transfer from computer to tivo and watch)


But you can transfer a show from Tivo -> computer (hopefully Mac as others have requested) -> Tivo, and it will be unrecognizeable from the original recording, right?

i.e. it won't have the computer icon..? There are times I'd use a computer as offline storage if I could then dump it back to the Tivo. (I've only had S1s previously.. now I have an S3 and would use this for this purpose..)


----------



## BlackBetty

whats the latest on eSata? That is the final link now. Would be awesome for TiVo to list these features.....MRV, TTG, and eSata expansion in time for the Holiday season.


----------



## navman

I second blackbetty, what about esata?


----------



## bedelman

Fofer said:


> Even from a Mac?


I would think that the protocol used by the "hidden" video tab found within the TiVo Desktop for Mac OSX preference pane will be compatible.

I wonder if other applications like TiVo.NET will work (which I use mostly with my Macs)


----------



## dtphonehome

TexasGrillChef said:


> What I would like to know... is what shows are you getting an "X" marked next to them that ARE copy protected and are unable to transfer?
> 
> Are they from the Major Networks that are also OTA (Such as NBC, Fox, CBS etc...) or
> are they from the cable side networks? (ESPN, Showtime, HBO... etc.)
> 
> Just curious what shows are coming with the copy protected flag and which are not
> 
> thanks
> 
> TGC


I second that...I would also like to know what I'll be able to transfer. And if I can use a Mac to do it! Maybe a new iPod touch is in the cards!


----------



## brianlees

I think people are finally going to see how many shows are flagged as no copy or copy once (which was all agree sounds like won't be copyable between units). Once they do, I think they are going to be po'd.

I wish Tivo would support streaming between units ala Sling. That would eliminate this issue. HD Tivos have ethernet and wireless N (via USB add-on) is easily capable as well. But, alas, I'm sure it has been talked about here many times and I'm guessing it will never come.

I also wish I wouldn't be treated as a criminal by the media companies. I don't do bittorrent, I own all the songs on my iPod...why can't I watch a show I recorded on another device in my house. Ugh. *rant complete*


----------



## HerronScott

TiVoPony said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I know you've been anxiously awaiting TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing on your Series3 and TiVoHD boxes.
> 
> I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


Hurrah! And please thank development for the hard work.

Scott


----------



## rainwater

brianlees said:


> I think people are finally going to see how many shows are flagged as no copy or copy once (which was all agree sounds like won't be copyable between units).


I believe this info is already available in the Info screen for a program unless I am mistaken.


----------



## d_anders

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent.

A great news day for TiVo.

I was going to ask about Rhapsody, but I'll start asking more about that tomorrow


----------



## d_anders

LoREvanescence said:


> This is great news. I only wish I could use networking on my Tivo though=\. My university's firewall blocks its access to the network and tivo tells me it cannot find a dctp server.


What's a dctp server? Do you mean DHCP server? Do you have a router connected between your dorm room ethernet jack and your TiVo? Your TiVo should be getting it's ip address from your router first, then going out from there.


----------



## mikeyts

rainwater said:


> I believe this info is already available in the Info screen for a program unless I am mistaken.


You are correct. If you go to the program information dialog for a saved recording and hit the INFO button, you get a dialog labelled "Program Details". There will be sections for "Title", "Episode Title" and "Content Rating", and if the recording is copy protected, those will be followed by a section labeled "Restrictions" which will read: 


> Due to policy set by the copyright holder, this recording: Cannot be transferred to VCR, DVD or any other media device. To learn more, visit www.tivo.com/copyprotection.


(The way it's worded and punctuated, it looks as if there could be something else where "Cannot be transferred..." is, but I've never seen anything else).

There's no way for over-the-air content to be marked as protected (the dread Broadcast Flag was about marking OTA for some limited protection, but the legislation was repealed and has not been reincarnated). FCC regulations do not allow anything in the core basic cable tier to be copy protected at all; FCC regs also require that all rebroadcast of over-the-air channels be positioned in the core basic tier, so network HDTV cannot be copy protected. Anything outside of the core basic tier (expanded basic and premium subscription channels) _can_ be marked for copy protection, but won't necessarily be. Looking at the stuff on my S3 right now, the recordings from Showtime, HBO and TNT (movies, _Californication_, _Dexter_, _The Closer_) are all copy protected; a recording of the US Open Tennis Championships from Universal HD isn't, nor are a couple of things from the Sci Fi Channel.


----------



## jaydfwtx

Just wanted to add my voice for getting Mac support.


----------



## alansplace

TiVoPony said:


> You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


    
--
Alan


----------



## mikeyts

Curious, I just played around a little with recording what's showing now on my local cable system (my provider is North San Diego County Cox). _NFL Yearbook_ on ESPN2 HD was protected, but _Baseball Tonight_ on ESPN HD wasn't. _Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag_ (a documentary) on MOJO was not protected, but _Man-Made_ on National Geographic HD was. _Red Hot Chili Peppers Live In Milan_ on MTV HD was not protected, _The Thomas Crown Affair_ on TNT HD was. _Sharkman_ (documentary) on Discovery HD Theater was not protected, but _CSI: Miami_ on A&E HD was.

It's not clear whether these protections are on a program-by-program basis or whether whole channels are set protected; I suspect the latter, and things might not be set up the way that they intended (ESPN2 HD being protected while ESPN HD is not seems suspicious). Doubtless, the way protections are set will vary wildly by cable provider.


----------



## SnakeEyes

Mac support?


----------



## drew00001

What relation will the Comcast Tivo have in all this? Just wanted to know before I buy a THD, especially b/c of SV and VOD.


----------



## mikesay98

As long as I can take content from my S3 and transfer it to my computer to put on my iPod, I'm completely happy. Please tell me this means that, cause it sure sounds like it!


----------



## mikeyts

drew00001 said:


> What relation will the Comcast Tivo have in all this? Just wanted to know before I buy a THD, especially b/c of SV and VOD.


The feature-set of the UI the cable companies have commissioned from TiVo to run on Motorola and SA boxes is controlled by them and I strongly doubt that they'd order TTG (although I could believe they might go for MRV). In any case, doesn't TTG require an Ethernet connection? Do any of the leased cable boxes have one?


----------



## bwhaler

Well, this is good news, although I have been let down on this topic before so I am cautious.

I own one Series 3, and without these abilities and Mac support, I have held back from getting new S3 or HD's Tivos for my other 4 TV's. I have a bunch of friends in the neighborhood who are the same way.

I just hope Tivo understands that Mac is a key segment since it is generally folks with higher spends--the customers you WANT to have. 

Deliver these features and Mac compatibility, and I'll order 4 new ones with subscriptions before the holiday.


----------



## jb007

jaydfwtx said:


> Just wanted to add my voice for getting Mac support.


Ditto!!!


----------



## jfh3

TiVoPony said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I know you've been anxiously awaiting TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing on your Series3 and TiVoHD boxes.
> 
> I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


Great news !

(Good thinking to have the retailer demo videos on the Tivo HD boxes already have this information embedded in them. Now if you could just find a way to have more stores actually hook up a unit in demo mode)


----------



## montivette

Turtleboy said:


> But what will people complain about now?


Maybe the software won't work correctly on Vista and we can complain about it. 

I bet people will find something else to complain about. Nobody is ever totally satisfied it seems.


----------



## vman41

TiVoPony said:


> It's not far off guys.


It depends upon how busy your life is. The rest of September, all of October, and an indeterminate number of days into November is just barely over the line of 'far off' to 'not far off' to me. To some people, that time span is more like 'before you know it.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin

I don't have anything new to say, but can't resist chiming in with a *Thank You* to TiVo And TiVoPony for announcing this now.

I think Santa is bringing two more TiVo HDs to our household for Christmas.


----------



## jfh3

TiVoPony said:


> These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC. High Definition content will not be supported for transfer or playback on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD), and copy-protected High Def or Standard Def content cannot be transferred


Does "copy protected" mean "anything from a digital channel with a non-zero CCI value"?


----------



## jfh3

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I think Santa is bringing two more TiVo HDs to our household for Christmas.


It will be interesting to see how many of the S3/THD "I'm not buying another box until Tivo enables MRV" crowd actually goes out and gets another box ...


----------



## Martin Tupper

Woo-Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nhaigh

Yes !! Now I'll go out and buy a couple more HD TiVo's


----------



## SullyND

TiVoPony said:


> You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


Wow, awesome news, I'm impressed that it's pinned down to a date rather than "soon". I don't think I've seen that before. Hey look, no space after TiVo for the HD! 


Turtleboy said:


> But what will people complain about now?


Fof answered you two posts down:


Fofer said:


> Even from a Mac?


My guess, Mac Support, Copy Protection, (*TiVo sucks, it won't let me transfer ANYTHING, because their CableCo is screwed up), SDV, and Lifetime Subscriptions/ability/inability to transfer/purchase. Did I miss any of the usual suspects? Oh and poor parking habits, seat reclining, and gas station conversationalists.


mikeyts said:


> In any case, doesn't TTG require an Ethernet connection? Do any of the leased cable boxes have one?


Ethernet, or USB and a compatible adapter, and yes, the Moto boxes have both (or at least did last I looked)


jfh3 said:


> It will be interesting to see how many of the S3/THD "I'm not buying another box until Tivo enables MRV" crowd actually goes out and gets another box ...


Some will become owners, others will become the

"I'm not buying another box until Tivo addresses SDV" crowd

OR the

"I'm not buying another box until Tivo brings back Lifetime Subscriptions" crowd


----------



## TiivoDog

As a proud owner of 7 Tivo units, this is an epic step forward for Tivo, its community (TivoNation) and Cablelabs equipped technology at large!!! As everyone on this board is aware, it has been a long struggle for Tivo to gain support from Cablelabs in order to extend their services into this new frontier, which will be certain to gain further applaud / accolades from its users.

Additionally, I am now anxious to hear commentary from Tivo's naysayers as the S2/S3 Tivo line will be now have common functionality less HD content of course and have units (Tivo HD) within the financial grasp of virtually everyone!!!

Again, great news and can't wait for the upgrade!!


----------



## Revolutionary

That is fricking awesome! Get me some HD source content for that iPod Touch that I absolutely must have! Sweet!


----------



## chazas

I just bought an S3 for my main TV and I am, for the most part, thrilled with it. When this happens I will buy HDs for my other two TVs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

jfh3 said:


> It will be interesting to see how many of the S3/THD "I'm not buying another box until Tivo enables MRV" crowd actually goes out and gets another box ...


It's begining to look a lot like Christmas 

PS - HD to PC? well the time and file size to do that will give people something to complain about


----------



## doormat

TiVoPony, is the software that makes this happen run as a tray icon or a Windows Service? 

I'd like a Windows Service because then I can install it on my Windows Home Server box. Maybe even make a WHS add-in...


----------



## Beantownbeanie

THis is great. Now I can get a Tivo HD for the bedroom and off load programs to watch from the living room Tivo HD. I won't need to get 2 more cable cards unless I decide that I need to watch something that is not OTA live in the bedroom.


----------



## TroyB

jfh3 said:


> It will be interesting to see how many of the S3/THD "I'm not buying another box until Tivo enables MRV" crowd actually goes out and gets another box ...


I was one of these people that said that, but my wife saw the fall preview guide of TV shows and instead of arguing about what we were going to watch and what we weren't I just ordered another S3 for the bedroom last week after reading about the possiblity of MRV and TTG coming soon.

Thanks TiVo for making this happen, because let's face it the wife's way is always the way things go and I won't be stuck watching what I want on the small bedroom TV, because I will now be able to transfer my shows onto the 60" TV in the Living Room.


----------



## vstone

doormat said:


> TiVoPony, is the software that makes this happen run as a tray icon or a Windows Service?
> 
> I'd like a Windows Service because then I can install it on my Windows Home Server box. Maybe even make a WHS add-in...


It's Tivo Desktop and you can download it from Tivo.com. If you're into programming there is a development kit available (java or some such, I think).


----------



## mikeyts

ZeoTiVo said:


> PS - HD to PC? well the time and file size to do that will give people something to complain about


Wireless G is gonna suck. It could take a few hours to transfer one hour's worth of HD content of a decent bit rate (say 15 Mbps or better), and I'm guessing the MRV of such content over a wireless G connection isn't going to be practical. 100BASE-T and gigabit Ethernet connections might be tolerable.


----------



## mercurial

Ok, just to clarify- If a show is copy protected, obviously I can't TTG it, but can you MRV it between two boxes? Or at least MOVE it between two boxes so there is only one copy? That's one of my bigger usability issues. I want to record some things on the S3 in the basement (some of it HD and likely marked protected) but be able to pull it up to the family room for viewing sometimes.


----------



## SullyND

mikeyts said:


> 100BASE-T and gigabit Ethernet connections might be tolerable.


The S3/THD aren't gigabit capable though, right?


----------



## Blaq

TiVoPony said:


> These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC. High Definition content will not be supported for transfer or playback on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD),


Wow, what great news! That's one less reason for us not to contemplate buying a TiVoHD, even though here in Canada it would be limited to OTA stations.

One thing remains unclear to me: will the S3/TiVoHD allow *transfers* of non-protected *HD* shows to a S2, *in standard-def* format?


----------



## SeanC

I dunno bout the THD, but the S3 most definitely is not Gigabit.


----------



## cr33p

vstone said:


> It's Tivo Desktop and you can download it from Tivo.com. If you're into programming there is a development kit available (java or some such, I think).


Go check this out, I think this is what you are looking for. Someone has already written a plugin for WHS and Tivo. Im thinking you would still need to run a program like PyTiVo to get shows from the pc back to the TiVo box though.

http://durfee.net/software/2007/07/tivo-publisher-for-whs.html


----------



## mikeyts

Blaq said:


> One thing remains unclear to me: will the S3/TiVoHD allow *transfers* of non-protected *HD* shows to a S2, *in standard-def* format?


Read carefully--he said (and you quoted), "High Definition content will not be supported for *transfer or playback* on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD)". That would be a "no" answer to your question.

What you're asking for would require that they convert an HD program to standard def resolution and create a new MPEG encoding for it, kind of a tall order. You might be able to transfer the file to your PC, make the conversion there and copy it to a Series 2 using "TiVo2ComeBack".


----------



## bryus

I am on the verge of ordering a TiVoHD and this may push make the decision for me.

I have a DirecTiVo box now and my second tuner is dying. Getting a new DirecTiVo box isn't an option and transferring shows between boxes is very attractive.


----------



## dswallow

mikeyts said:


> What you're asking for would require that they convert an HD program to standard def resolution and create a new MPEG encoding for it, kind of a tall order.


Reports are that the TiVoHD has a chipset that supports this sort of transcoding (though the Series3 doesn't).


----------



## mikeyts

cr33p said:


> Im thinking you would still need to run a program like PyTiVo to get shows from the pc back to the TiVo box though.


Since they're making "TiVoToComeBack" an official feature, I'm guessing that they'll be adding the ability to transfer files onto TiVo to TiVo Desktop.


----------



## MickeS

Considering the transfer from TiVo -> PC is currently more limited by the way TiVo handles audio and video, than by the network bandwidth, I hope they have found a way around this for HD content. Otherwise it will be excruciatingly slow.

EDIT: took out incorrect information.


----------



## 20TIL6

bwhaler said:


> Well, this is good news, although I have been let down on this topic before so I am cautious.
> 
> I own one Series 3, and without these abilities and Mac support, I have held back from getting new S3 or HD's Tivos for my other 4 TV's. I have a bunch of friends in the neighborhood who are the same way.
> 
> I just hope Tivo understands that Mac is a key segment since it is generally folks with higher spends--the customers you WANT to have.
> 
> Deliver these features and Mac compatibility, and I'll order 4 new ones with subscriptions before the holiday.


When you guys are asking for Mac support, you mean TTG, etc. copying to/from a Mac, right? I remember that TiVo had applications for both Windows and Mac, but then seemed to drop Mac and just go forward with Windows. But didn't Roxio pick up TiVo TTG, etc. functionality and now have it in their software on the Mac? I get emails it seems like every other day from Roxio talking about this latest version. And I've been ignoring them since I only had S3's and an HD. When these features hit in November, I'll probably pick up the Roxio software.

I guess I am missing what Mac support from TiVo would offer over what Roxio has in their latest version. The Roxio software is not free, but like you said, Mac users are higher spend folks.

I'm assuming the Roxio stuff will work with the S3's and HD's when MRV/TTG rolls out.


----------



## mikeyts

MickeS said:


> Considering the transfer from TiVo -> PC is currently more limited by the DRM "decoding" that the TiVo has to perform, than by the network bandwidth, I hope they have found a way around this for HD content. Otherwise it will be excruciatingly slow.


What DRM decoding? TiVo doesn't have to store things in encrypted form unless they're copy protected and if they're copy protected they're not eligible for TTG.


----------



## MickeS

mikeyts said:


> What DRM decoding? TiVo doesn't have to store things in encrypted form unless they're copy protected and if they're copy protected they're not eligible for TTG.


Copy protection and encryption are not the same thing. The encryption they use is related to playing the file back on a PC. They currently use it on the Series 2 models.


----------



## Brainiac 5

About not being able to transfer copy-protected material, as some others on the thread have wondered, how copy-protected does it have to be? The cable company can make it copy freely, copy once, or copy never. Copy freely and copy never seem pretty clear, but will we be able to transfer copy once content?

Unfortunately, where I live Comcast has every single channel except the broadcast channels marked copy once, and I think that is fairly standard practice.


----------



## nathanziarek

20TIL6 said:


> The Roxio software is not free, but like you said, Mac users are higher spend folks.


I hate that logic. Feature for feature Macs have been proven to be comparable in price, Apple simply doesn't make "low-end." Mac users are clearly not a large population to TiVo, and I accept that it isn't worth their time.

I'm excited about getting some video for my iPod and archiving some specials. Or just watching something recorded on my Mac while the wife uses the TV. I'd like to see MRV with some sort of scheduler that would let me just record 3 shows at the same time and have the TiVos figure it out. That'd be especially nice for ER, which NBC decided had to start an end one minute early, messing up other recordings that end on the 0s.


----------



## richsadams

Phantom Gremlin said:


> I don't have anything new to say, but can't resist chiming in with a *Thank You* to TiVo And TiVoPony for announcing this now.
> 
> I think Santa is bringing two more TiVo HDs to our household for Christmas.


Yep...gotta get a bigger stocking to handle two more THD's for our household!! Woo hoo!!


----------



## ZeoTiVo

MickeS said:


> Considering the transfer from TiVo -> PC is currently more limited by the DRM "decoding" that the TiVo has to perform, than by the network bandwidth, I hope they have found a way around this for HD content. Otherwise it will be excruciatingly slow.


actually that is a myth. The files are encrypted as they are recorded. However the media switch approach TiVo uses actually has the video in one stream and the audio in another stream. Since on a PC it is best to ahve one mpeg file TTG does the bulk of its work on the DVR muxing the two streams together.

now that is SD analog way this all worked. I do not know what TiVo does with digital stream. It may actually be that TiVo can TTG digital recordings faster if no muxing is needed. hmmm...............


----------



## LoREvanescence

d_anders said:


> What's a dctp server? Do you mean DHCP server? Do you have a router connected between your dorm room ethernet jack and your TiVo? Your TiVo should be getting it's ip address from your router first, then going out from there.


opps, yup. I meant DHCP. Yeah, i to figured that by just plugging it it should get a ip address from the router in the local apartment building. But it doesn't. When I want to the Computer help desk to get this sorted I was told that a Tivo is an unsupported device and the network does not allow it to get passed through. Any request tivo sends out is not returned and there for times out. To acces the network the net work must first scan your computer to varify that you have antivirus and have the latest security updates installed. If it doesn't, a device isn't allowed to access the network and doesn't get passed through. In addition, once a device is allowed through it must be registered, and the internet system forces a page on a computer or a mac for say when you open the browser where you have to fill out your full name, housing information and school email address. Wireless is a whole lot harder with a system scan at every connect and the need to log in with a user name and password.

I would love to get TivoToGo working as well as other networking features. But have been unable and just told by my school that tivo is a unsupported device.

I would love ot see this news on TTG and MRV revamp Tivo for the end of the year. Things are looking good=)


----------



## raitchison

Turtleboy said:


> But what will people complain about now?


Either the lack of satellite support or the lack of a lifetime service option, take your pick 

Seriously, this is huge news, unfortunately it doesn't benefit me personally (I'd go without TV altogether before I gave TimeWarner a dime of my money) but this will fix one of the largest shortcomings in the TiVo HD/Series3 lineup.


----------



## StuffOfInterest

With the reduced hard disk size in the TiVo HD, it would be nice if TiVo To Go would support auto-push of programs to a computer rather than deleting schedulced recorded programs when in-box disk capacity maxes out. I'd much rather be in a situation of pulling the video back from the PC than having it disappear all together if I happen to record 21 hours of (non-protected) HD content.


----------



## cwoody222

I could 11 posts asking about Mac support... out of 80 posts so far. That's not bad.

Pony - care to comment and quell any fears that TiVo will (once again) leave Mac users out in the cold?


----------



## rainwater

StuffOfInterest said:


> With the reduced hard disk size in the TiVo HD, it would be nice if TiVo To Go would support auto-push of programs to a computer rather than deleting schedulced recorded programs when in-box disk capacity maxes out. I'd much rather be in a situation of pulling the video back from the PC than having it disappear all together if I happen to record 21 hours of (non-protected) HD content.


TiVo Desktop already supports automatic downloading of season passes. I see no reason this will change when S3 support is added.


----------



## nathanziarek

LoREvanescence said:


> ... To acces the network the net work must first scan your computer to verify that you have antivirus and have the latest security updates installed. If it doesn't, a device isn't allowed to access the network and doesn't get passed through. In addition, once a device is allowed through it must be registered, and the internet system forces a page on a computer or a mac for say when you open the browser where you have to fill out your full name, housing information and school email address. Wireless is a whole lot harder with a system scan at every connect and the need to log in with a user name and password...


OT, but Holy cow!


----------



## MickeS

ZeoTiVo said:


> actually that is a myth. The files are encrypted as they are recorded. However the media switch approach TiVo uses actually has the video in one stream and the audio in another stream. Since on a PC it is best to ahve one mpeg file TTG does the bulk of its work on the DVR muxing the two streams together.
> 
> now that is SD analog way this all worked. I do not know what TiVo does with digital stream. It may actually be that TiVo can TTG digital recordings faster if no muxing is needed. hmmm...............


Thanks for correcting me. Either way, I hope they have a different approach to this, so transfer speeds can be increased.


----------



## rodalpho

Pretty much all channels in my cable system (time warner cable, southern manhattan) are CCI byte 0x2 - copy once. This covers everything except for a couple of HD channels, including discovery, sci-fi, comedy channel, FX, etc. Am I pretty much SOL for TTG?

Also, does the S3 support mpeg-4 encoded TTCB files? Or is that still covered under NDA?


----------



## TiivoDog

SeanC said:


> I dunno bout the THD, but the S3 most definitely is not Gigabit.


Yeah, this is a bummer as I have addressed this topic a while back both in this forum per the link below, as well as the provided link in that post, which tied back to when the Tivo S3 unit was first publicly available for display at 2006 CES show. I was certain the lack of gigabit speeds would raise concern within the Tivo Community as that enhancement would have greatly expedited transfer rates within one's own network (i.e. Home) for both MRV & TTG.....

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5278524&&#post5278524


----------



## MichaelK

StuffOfInterest said:


> With the reduced hard disk size in the TiVo HD, it would be nice if TiVo To Go would support auto-push of programs to a computer rather than deleting schedulced recorded programs when in-box disk capacity maxes out. I'd much rather be in a situation of pulling the video back from the PC than having it disappear all together if I happen to record 21 hours of (non-protected) HD content.


I'm not positive- as I dont use it regularly but can't you tell the tivo desktop to auto pull by series?


----------



## MickeS

MichaelK said:


> I'm not positive- as I dont use it regularly but can't you tell the tivo desktop to auto pull by series?


Yes, you can.


----------



## MichaelK

LoREvanescence said:


> opps, yup. I meant DHCP. Yeah, i to figured that by just plugging it it should get a ip address from the router in the local apartment building. But it doesn't. When I want to the Computer help desk to get this sorted I was told that a Tivo is an unsupported device and the network does not allow it to get passed through. Any request tivo sends out is not returned and there for times out. To acces the network the net work must first scan your computer to verify that you have antivirus and have the latest security updates installed. If it doesn't, a device isn't allowed to access the network and doesn't get passed through. In addition, once a device is allowed through it must be registered, and the Internet system forces a page on a computer or a mac for say when you open the browser where you have to fill out your full name, housing information and school email address. Wireless is a whole lot harder with a system scan at every connect and the need to log in with a user name and password.
> 
> I would love to get TivoToGo working as well as other networking features. But have been unable and just told by my school that tivo is a unsupported device.
> 
> I would love ot see this news on TTG and MRV revamp Tivo for the end of the year. Things are looking good=)


I am no windows expert- but couldn't you can just slap another Ethernet card (wired or wireless) in your pc and then set up windows the "share" the connection with the tivo across the second card. At least with older versions of windows you could. (and I'm not sure if perhaps they could "find" the tivo but I believe the PC would use NAT and it would look invisible to the PC. But then again the NAT in the router should make hide how many devices are there anyway?

You're just in college now so you probably don't know what dial up is- but way back when when there was no dsl or cable modems people used to share their dialup connection accross their networks (stop laughing - it was the only choice we had ;-))

Another possibility is- a router that "clones" a MAC. One of the more knowledgeable guys can step in here but basically if I understand the MAC address is like the social security number of your Ethernet card. In the old days before routers cable modems would 'mate' to the MAC in the PC they were attached too as some sort of way to keep you from sharing the Internet with neighbors. The cable modem or cable head end would ensure that only that MAC address was allowed on the Internet. IT MIGHT be that once you jump through the log in hoops your connection clears that MAC address as OK. IF that's the case you would just get a router that "clones" the mac address off the laptop (basically like when an illegal steals your SS number to work)- and then let it scan your laptop and then connect behind the router with that MAC cloned. Might be worth a try?

(Just trying to help- the more knowledgeable guys can probably either agree or debunk my thoughts...)


----------



## MichaelK

TiivoDog said:


> Yeah, this is a bummer as I have addressed this topic a while back both in this forum per the link below, as well as the provided link in that post, which tied back to when the Tivo S3 unit was first publicly available for display at 2006 CES show. I was certain the lack of gigabit speeds would raise concern within the Tivo Community as that enhancement would have greatly expedited transfer rates within one's own network (i.e. Home) for both MRV & TTG.....
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5278524&&#post5278524


never had 2 S2's at the same time to play with MRV myself (currently have 2 S3's and an S2) but from what I read- NO tivo with any adapter (built in or usb or hacked to the motherboard, wired or wireless, tivo brand or supported or non supported) has ever approached even 100- there's a limit in there someplace besides the speed of the netwrok adapter. So adding gigabit would still ahve the limit. COnsidering the THD has less expensive hardware then the S3 I'd guess that it doesn't have the hardware either to overcome whatever the bottleneck is...


----------



## edrock200

This is great news. Looks like I can ditch a few more fios DVR's in favor of a few Tivo HD's (I only have one Tivo HD at the moment.) Now if they can just get VOD services to work on 3rd party boxes...


----------



## mikeyts

MickeS said:


> Copy protection and encryption are not the same thing. The encryption they use is related to playing the file back on a PC. They currently use it on the Series 2 models.


You're saying that they encrypt everything that they store on the PC with Series 2 TTG? Do they encode it as some kind of DRM protected licensed content, ala WMDRM, essentially tethering it to the PC with some limited ability to transfer it to portable devices? I can see where that would make the IP holders happy, though there's nothing which legally compels it. The thing that they (the IP holders) fear most about things like TTG is unfettered network transfer of digital television--it was the stated purpose of the Broadcast Flag.


----------



## TiVoPony

Fofer said:


> Even from a Mac?


Yes, even from a Mac. 

Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.

Cheers,
Pony


----------



## mikeyts

rodalpho said:


> Pretty much all channels in my cable system (time warner cable, southern manhattan) are CCI byte 0x2 - copy once. This covers everything except for a couple of HD channels, including discovery, sci-fi, comedy channel, FX, etc. Am I pretty much SOL for TTG?


For those "Copy One Generation" marked channels, you are. Again, it's against FCC regs for them to mark anything in the core basic tier that way, so all over-the-air local network HDTV should be transferrable. Whether they protect any of the rest is completely up to the cable companies and their content providers.

Technically, the "one generation" of copies allowed for "Copy One Generation" marked content is the copy on the DVR. DVRs are a special case, since the intent of the rule is to allow for a single permanent copy to be made. It has been suggested that DVRs should be allowed a "move" operation which would end with the deletion of the copy on the DVR.


----------



## clemon79

Two questions, neither of which I think have been covered yet:

1) Is it still going to be a dog-slow transfer, like it is on the S2, and

2) are they using the same muxing technique in the S3 transfer method, which means the audio/video sync issues are still going to be there?

TTG and TivoBack was nice on an S2, and I can even live with the transfer speeds, but the A/V thing was maddening, and the reason I now run cables from my PC to my TV to watch programming on my PC.


----------



## TiVoPony

Blaq said:


> One thing remains unclear to me: will the S3/TiVoHD allow *transfers* of non-protected *HD* shows to a S2, *in standard-def* format?


HD content cannot be transferred to a Series2. And there is no transcoding ability to convert HD to SD (these are consumer electronic devices, not beefy multi-core PC's). So the answer is no. If it's recorded in HD on a Series3 or TiVoHD, then it can be shared between those platforms, but not with a Series2.

And when I say 'can be shared between those platforms', it of course comes with any caveats the copyright owner dictates regarding sharing.

Pony


----------



## cgould

rodalpho said:


> Pretty much all channels in my cable system (time warner cable, southern manhattan) are CCI byte 0x2 - copy once. This covers everything except for a couple of HD channels, including discovery, sci-fi, comedy channel, FX, etc. Am I pretty much SOL for TTG?
> 
> Also, does the S3 support mpeg-4 encoded TTCB files? Or is that still covered under NDA?


Sounds like your cable system has the flags wrong (likely due to mistaken default setting). Harass them, especially if it's for network/must-carry channels, as noted above. Likely they've just goofed, not any specific policy per se.

would love to know about what TTCB file formats are supported too  although as noted in a previous thread, HDV MPG2 (native HD camcorder files) appeared to work OK (w/ small tweak to change them to CBR flags not VBR)


----------



## StuffOfInterest

MichaelK said:


> I'm not positive- as I dont use it regularly but can't you tell the tivo desktop to auto pull by series?


That would get things part way there. Still, rather than having to setup copy for specific programs it would be nice to have a more generic setting with a logic to the effect of, "if you want to record a show and an existing show would have to be deleted to make room, move that show to be deleted over to a computer first." Essential, no...convienent, yes.


----------



## MickeS

TiVoPony, what about the ability to play back MPEG-4 files transfered from a PC? Is that something that will be enabled, or will it still be all MPEG-2?


----------



## cgould

TiivoDog said:


> Yeah, this is a bummer as I have addressed this topic a while back both in this forum per the link below, as well as the provided link in that post, which tied back to when the Tivo S3 unit was first publicly available for display at 2006 CES show. I was certain the lack of gigabit speeds would raise concern within the Tivo Community as that enhancement would have greatly expedited transfer rates within one's own network (i.e. Home) for both MRV & TTG.....
> 
> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5278524&&#post5278524


Wouldn't the Tivo harddrive throughput (plus overhead of other work/recording/transfer CPU etc) be the bottleneck long before 100mb/s wired ethernet? 
Practically many drives achieve around 30MB/sec, 240Mb/s, much more than 100mb/s ethernet, but... that's without much overhead...

most HD shows are around 7GB/hour. w/ my napkin math that means around 12+minutes txfer time assuming 75% throughput on the 100mbps ethernet.
w/ native disk speeds (30MBps), that's 4minutes. 3x faster but...

I doubt the Tivo hardware (disk/cpu/bus etc) could handle GigaE, but would be nice. Time to transfer/backup my entire 750gb drive at the speed above is 22hrs instead of 7


----------



## cwoody222

TiVoPony said:


> Yes, even from a Mac.
> 
> Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pony


I hope we'd still be able to access the Now Playing list via a browser and then just download the .tivo file.

Then we can use programs to turn it into a .mpeg to play natively on the Mac (for free, like Windows users can) or move the file to a Windows machine that may not be on the same network.


----------



## Brainiac 5

cgould said:


> Sounds like your cable system has the flags wrong (likely due to mistaken default setting). Harass them, especially if it's for network/must-carry channels, as noted above. Likely they've just goofed, not any specific policy per se.


What rodalpho describes is the way my cable company is, too. What you say is of course true for the local/must-carry channels, but it seems to be extremely common for cable companies to set all the other channels to copy-once, as people in the AVSForum HD Recorders forum can attest. And I suspect that _is_ their policy. Even if it's not, I've never known my cable company to fix anything unless legally required to do so.

If we really cannot transfer copy-once recordings (which I suspect we cannot), then a lot of people, possibly most, will not be able to use this for anything other than local channels.


----------



## cgould

PS TivoPony & all the Tivo developers/CableLabs negotiators who enabled this good news -
may I just offer another *"WOOT!!!"* hurrah and big thank you in advance for this news!! 

With this transfer ability- especially HD files including home movies (we'll see re formats)-
this means Tivo could be a AppleTV killer in most functionality (slicker UI and ITMS-AAC DRM notwithstanding)... I can finally watch my HD home movies and such w/o swapping tapes and cables! 
and, I can now archive off the "eye candy" HD & other shows that I rarely watch (but want to keep) to my big PC drives/DVDs, and not worry about always-on eSATA expansion drives burning up etc...

awesome news, worth the wait, hope this drives a lot more TivoHD/S3 sales now!


----------



## raianoat

Thanks for the update! Great news!


----------



## ncbagwell

Man, this is great news! I will be getting a Tivo HD or another Series 3 soon. Maybe 2 THDs with an upgraded hard drive for one!

FWIW, I checked content flags on some of my recordings from TWC in Raleigh, NC and it looks like things on the digital teir (NBA TV for example) are flagged for Copy Never. But it isn't consistent. We'll see.


----------



## MichaelK

Brainiac 5 said:


> What rodalpho describes is the way my cable company is, too. What you say is of course true for the local/must-carry channels, but it seems to be extremely common for cable companies to set all the other channels to copy-once, as people in the AVSForum HD Recorders forum can attest. And I suspect that _is_ their policy. Even if it's not, I've never known my cable company to fix anything unless legally required to do so.
> 
> If we really cannot transfer copy-once recordings (which I suspect we cannot), then a lot of people, possibly most, will not be able to use this for anything other than local channels.


same here.

analog is obviously clear.

digital locals are unencrypted.

music choice is 0x00 for some reason.

everything else digital is 0x02 = 'copy once'.

I am under the impression that "copy once" has already occured on teh tivo's hard drive so things then become copy no more.

WHich essentially leaves local channels and analog to MRV.

it's a big annoying a cable company can be such pricks (they have the ability to allow the content providers to pass along flags so there is no reason for any head end to arbitrarily apply the copy once flag accross the board- in fact it can be against the wishes of the coyright holder- see cable in the classroom). But big picture most of my must have TV that doesn't repeat comes in on the broadcast networks so I can live with it. The one channel that does really annoy me is my RSN- so I am forced to tie up a tuner on each S3 for local sporting events.


----------



## Joe3

Just a point.

A copy command is not a move command.

Transfer=move

Copy once rule still in place.

???


----------



## MichaelK

Joe3 said:


> Just a point.
> 
> A copy command is not a move command.
> 
> Transfer=move
> 
> Copy once rule still in place.
> 
> ???


Also streaming is apparently allowed since only one copy exists at a time (apparently that's how MS gets around the problem)

unfortunatly tivo doesn't Move or stream but rather copy's programs from one box to another.

Perhaps they can update MRV so first it copies(but locks the show) then deletes the original on the old box, then unlocks the program on the new show.

I think that might be legit in the eyes of cable. We'll have to keep our fingers crossed to see what tivo comes up with.


----------



## dolfer

TiVoPony said:


> I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


*Exactly* when in November??? I keed, I keed!


----------



## dbenrosen

nathanziarek said:


> I'd like to see MRV with some sort of scheduler that would let me just record 3 shows at the same time and have the TiVos figure it out. That'd be especially nice for ER, which NBC decided had to start an end one minute early, messing up other recordings that end on the 0s.


The S3 handles the case where a show runs over by a minute or starts a minute early via a "clip" feature. It can clip up to 5 minutes of a program. So, if ER starts a minute early (it did two years ago, now it starts a minute late) and you were recording two shows then ended at 10, it will clip the first minute of ER.


----------



## Brainiac 5

MichaelK said:


> I am under the impression that "copy once" has already occured on teh tivo's hard drive so things then become copy no more.


It's at least a little open to interpretation - many cable company DVRs will let you offload a copy-once program from the hard drive to a D-VHS recorder, for instance. (Apparently they don't count the copy on the hard drive.) However, TiVo is very conservative about these things, so I suspect you're right and they'll consider the copy on the TiVo's hard drive the one copy you're allowed (although I'd be very happy to be corrected on that).


----------



## MichaelK

Brainiac 5 said:


> It's at least a little open to interpretation - many cable company DVRs will let you offload a copy-once program from the hard drive to a D-VHS recorder, for instance. (Apparently they don't count the copy on the hard drive.) However, TiVo is very conservative about these things, so I suspect you're right and they'll consider the copy on the TiVo's hard drive the one copy you're allowed (although I'd be very happy to be corrected on that).


to be honest I'm not clear on it at all myself. 

I'm planning for he worst and maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised....


----------



## mercurial

MichaelK said:


> Also streaming is apparently allowed since only one copy exists at a time (apparently that's how MS gets around the problem)
> 
> unfortunatly tivo doesn't Move or stream but rather copy's programs from one box to another.
> 
> Perhaps they can update MRV so first it copies(but locks the show) then deletes the original on the old box, then unlocks the program on the new show.
> 
> I think that might be legit in the eyes of cable. We'll have to keep our fingers crossed to see what tivo comes up with.


That's my hope to. I don't think it's likely but it's my hope. At least I'll be able to "offload" all the SD shows onto an S2DT TiVo in another room and then MRV them to the family room to save space. Might even be worth getting another S2DT for that.


----------



## mikeyts

Brainiac 5 said:


> It's at least a little open to interpretation - many cable company DVRs will let you offload a copy-once program from the hard drive to a D-VHS recorder, for instance. (Apparently they don't count the copy on the hard drive.)


The problem with that is that it's essentially no copy protection at all. Though one assumes that the D-VHS copy would be encrypted and marked "Copy No More" so that no further copies could be made from it, if the copy on the DVR continues to exist, you can make infinite copies of it, one at a time.

1394/DTCP was once imagined as a digital display interconnect--Mitsubishi vehemently swore that they'd never put an DVI-or-HDMI/HDCP connection on any of their displays, but they were forced to back down from that stance. It's perfectly legit to send a secure 1394/DTCP stream of a "Copy One Generation" recording if you mark that stream "Copy No More".


----------



## eagraves

I have read through this thread, but have not seen an answer to the e-sata / external storage question relative to the Series 3s I own. Will this functionality be added at the same time? I, too, heard that these issues were all interrelated to the existence of cable cards. Thanks...


----------



## Brainiac 5

mikeyts said:


> The problem with that is that it's essentially no copy protection at all. Though one assumes that the D-VHS copy would be encrypted and marked "Copy No More" so that no further copies could be made from it, if the copy on the DVR continues to exist, you can make infinite copies of it, one at a time.


Who knows what the reasoning is, but nonetheless, that's how many cable company DVRs work.


----------



## headroll

eagraves said:


> I have read through this thread, but have not seen an answer to the e-sata / external storage question relative to the Series 3s I own. Will this functionality be added at the same time? I, too, heard that these issues were all interrelated to the existence of cable cards. Thanks...


Nothing in this thread speaks to the eSata upgrade, nor would I expect it to.

I am sure once this is ready, Pony will announce it in a separate thread.

-Roll


----------



## mikeyts

Brainiac 5 said:


> Who knows what the reasoning is, but nonetheless, that's how many cable company DVRs work.


Oh, I believe you, but I think that they break the intention of the copy protection mode.


----------



## TiVoPony

I need to clarify something, as I may have unintentionally miscommunicated something regarding TiVoToComeBack.

TiVoToComeBack will initially support HD content originally recorded on a TiVo DVR. It will not support HD content from other sources at this time. 

Sorry for any confusion!

Pony


----------



## gthassell

TiVoPony,

This thread is indeed full of great news.

Can you also clarify or give us any hints as to the performance / transfer times for digital SD and digital HD to / from PCs, if using wired ethernet?

I'm just hoping that it is significantly faster that what we see with the S2s.

Thanks,

-Todd


----------



## TiVoPony

eagraves said:


> I have read through this thread, but have not seen an answer to the e-sata / external storage question relative to the Series 3s I own. Will this functionality be added at the same time? I, too, heard that these issues were all interrelated to the existence of cable cards. Thanks...


Sorry, that's because this discussion has to do with TTG & MRV.

I don't have anything to share today regarding eSATA.

Cheers,
Pony


----------



## TiVoPony

gthassell said:


> TiVoPony,
> 
> This thread is indeed full of great news.
> 
> Can you also clarify or give us any hints as to the performance / transfer times for digital SD and digital HD to / from PCs, if using wired ethernet?
> 
> I'm just hoping that it is significantly faster that what we see with the S2s.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Todd


The intent of the thread was to let you guys know it's coming, not to spec it out for ya. 

It's coming. You'll see it when it's ready.

Oh yeah...it's almost ready. 

Pony


----------



## cgould

TiVoPony said:


> I need to clarify something, as I may have unintentionally miscommunicated something regarding TiVoToComeBack.
> 
> TiVoToComeBack will initially support HD content originally recorded on a TiVo DVR. It will not support HD content from other sources at this time.
> 
> Sorry for any confusion!
> 
> Pony


Thanks for the clarification Pony, it's an important one for some of us... [wahhh HD home movies idea goes bye-bye, let alone MPG4 re-encodes to save space ] :-(

Glad to hear "initially" and "at this time" at least, there's hope ... and ANY MRV/TTG/TTCB is great great news!

Now I still have a reason to sign up as beta-tester  Any way to specify what aspect's I'd prefer/be able to beta-test? assuming you don't have enough already?


----------



## mercurial

Pony, I know you're getting slammed with questions but can you clarify MRV with copy protected shows? Can they be _copied _S3<->S3? Can they be _moved_ S3<->S3? And if not, do you think you'll be able to get a solution for that at some point in the future that would be acceptable to CableLabs? (i.e. is it something you've even thought about/would be willing to work towards)

Thanks for all the great news.


----------



## rodalpho

Brainiac 5 said:


> What rodalpho describes is the way my cable company is, too. What you say is of course true for the local/must-carry channels, but it seems to be extremely common for cable companies to set all the other channels to copy-once, as people in the AVSForum HD Recorders forum can attest. And I suspect that _is_ their policy. Even if it's not, I've never known my cable company to fix anything unless legally required to do so.


That's exactly right. For TWC NYC, _every_ channel is CCI 0x2 copy once except for SD/HD locals. Every basic cable channel is 0x2, every extended cable channel, every movie channel, everything, _everything_ is 0x2.

In other words, these features will be effectively worthless. No MRV or TTG for us, even though they work on S2s with the same content.


----------



## BlackBetty

TiVoPony you are the shiznit!


----------



## jwdawso

Great news and thanks for sharing! I want to get a Series 3 or THD, but without MRV, my wife says don't get it. She and my youngest daughter are BIG TiVo users, and MRV is a must for them. 

The day MRV is released is the day we buy a new TiVo!

(Mark me down also on requesting Mac features.)


----------



## BlackBetty

I'll be swapping out my two S2DT's for two TiVoHD's!!!


----------



## MickeS

It stinks that this change to more and more digital programming we're going through is most likely the end of universal TTG and MRV... :/ for those of you thinking of switching to THD from a S2, that's something to consider (IMO).


----------



## mikeyts

rodalpho said:


> That's exactly right. For TWC NYC, _every_ channel is CCI 0x2 copy once except for SD/HD locals. Every basic cable channel is 0x2, every extended cable channel, every movie channel, everything, _everything_ is 0x2.
> 
> In other words, these features will be effectively worthless. No MRV or TTG for us, even though they work on S2s with the same content.


Unfortunately, the cable system has the right to do this to anything not in the core basic services tier (the 20 or so channels that you get in the minimum level of service to which you can subscribe and to which you must subscribe to get anything else). Typically these days the only natively digital channels in that range are local DTV rebroadcasts (there may be digital simulcasts of all the rest, but those can be protected and encrypted so long as the analog versions are in the clear).

I don't know why you'd call TTG and MRV _worthless_, though. In my case, 90% or more of everything that I record is from the over-the-air networks. Do you mean to say that you don't record any substantial amount of network television?


----------



## Espo

TivoPony, just to clarify, does this mean we will be able to finally watch our SD sourced Divx & Xvid files on our S3s/HDs using the Desktop 2.5 Plus software? Will we still have to pay the upgrade fee of $25 for this avi playability or is there any chance this feature will be a standard feature of a future version of Desktop? Please!!!


----------



## Brainiac 5

mikeyts said:


> I don't know why you'd call TTG and MRV _worthless_, though. In my case, 90% or more of everything that I record is from the over-the-air networks. Do you mean to say that you don't record any substantial amount of network television?


I can't speak for rodalpho, but I'm about the opposite of you - only about 10% of what I record is from over-the-air networks. And during the summer, it's more like 0%.


----------



## brams

I don't see what the fuss is about...

I've been holding off on buying three S3 or THD boxes because they're useless to me without MRV. I've explored every option for recording HD and distributing to multiple TVs, and with the possible exception of the new Cablecard equipped PCs, there really is no viable way to do this. So, the restriction on sharing copy protected shows is a major negative, because the Tivo would then not be giving me anything that I can't get from many other platforms (since recording HD locals is already possible with an ATSC or QAM tuner or Firewire from a STB). Tivo, it should be pretty obvious that people who are spending several hundred to several thousand dollars on DVRs equipped with Cablecard probably enjoy TV enough to subscribe to premium channels that require the Cablecards in the first place. So, MRV limited to non-copy protected channels is basically no MRV, and worthless.

While I'm not happy about the whole thing, I would be OK if as speculated one copy could reside on the recording Tivo and stream the recording to another box, like Fios Home Media DVR. I'm not much of a TTG user, so that would be enough for me. Without this feature, though, MRV is basically a waste of time.

Would all you guys congratulating Tivo really be enthused if the only thing you could transfer was OTA?


----------



## rickeame

Can someone explain this feature to me? Why doesn't it just stream between boxes, instead of copying?

So if I'm downstairs and have something recorded upstairs, why do I have to copy it and wait for that to finish rather than just have it stream to the box so I can watch it right away?

How long does it typically take over a gigabit network to copy a 1 hour HD tv show?


----------



## moyekj

brams said:


> Would all you guys congratulating Tivo really be enthused if the only thing you could transfer was OTA?


 Note that it's not only OTA channels that would be eligible at least for my cable company. Take a look at my spreadsheet in my sig and you will see the vast majority of channels have CCI=0x0, so non-OTA digital channels such as USA, SciFi etc. which are encrypted but have CCI=0x0 would also presumably be candidates for MRV/TTG. The only ones that have CCI=0x02 are the premium channels which I don't subscribe to anyway. So to me this is extremely useful capability and something that I cannot do with PC tuners (since USA, SciFi etc. are encrypted). Even if that weren't the case and only the locals were eligible to me that would still be extremely useful as like other posters most of my recordings are from the major networks anyway. For premium type content netflix/blockbuster suits me just fine so I don't see a need to subscribe to cable for that kind of content.


----------



## moyekj

rickeame said:


> So if I'm downstairs and have something recorded upstairs, why do I have to copy it and wait for that to finish rather than just have it stream to the box so I can watch it right away?


 Actually the way it works (at least for the S2 platform) you don't have to wait for the copy to finish before you start watching - you can start watching as soon as the transfer begins. Of course for HD transfers depending how long transfers take you may have to wait longer for enough content to be transferred so you don't catch up with the transfer point while watching, but you don't have to wait for the entire transfer to complete before you start watching.

I also own a bunch of ReplayTVs which do use streaming method (instead of copying) for viewing content of remote ReplayTVs. The problem with that approach (at least the way RTV implements it) is you have to have a very clean network transfer as any networking glitches result in broken up playback since the RTVs don't do enough content buffering to get around the problem. Also for HD streaming you have to have at least 19Mbps or so throughput to assure no playback issues - so in a sense the way that Tivo implements it as a whole copy is perhaps more reliable since you can wait long enough for a large buffer to build up before starting to watch and avoid any playback glitches.


----------



## FrodoB

It copies the show, but you can start playback of the show immediately. (With the caveat that there probably won't be a high enough transfer speed to skip commercials if you start playback immediately, and for some people, their transfers aren't even fast enough to play the recording in real time.) So it "streams" in the sense that you can watch it in real time if your network is fast enough, but you're actually getting a copy of the recording.


----------



## vstone

StuffOfInterest said:


> With the reduced hard disk size in the TiVo HD, it would be nice if TiVo To Go would support auto-push of programs to a computer rather than deleting schedulced recorded programs when in-box disk capacity maxes out. I'd much rather be in a situation of pulling the video back from the PC than having it disappear all together if I happen to record 21 hours of (non-protected) HD content.


An eSATA drive will fix this. I know we all want a server farm to store hundreds of movies in HD, but that's not necessarily Tivo'sd game plan,

...yet.


----------



## Brainiac 5

moyekj said:



> Take a look at my spreadsheet in my sig and you will see the vast majority of channels have CCI=0x0, so non-OTA digital channels such as USA, SciFi etc. which are encrypted but have CCI=0x0 would also presumably be candidates for MRV/TTG.


If only cable companies everywhere were so kind!


----------



## Bierboy

brams said:


> ...Would all you guys congratulating Tivo really be enthused if the only thing you could transfer was OTA?


Yes, this guy would, because that's the vast majority of the HD that I TiVo.


----------



## Brainiac 5

Bierboy said:


> Yes, this guy would, because that's the vast majority of the HD that I TiVo.


This may not matter to you either, but just remember that it's not just HD, but anything on a digital channel, whether SD or HD.


----------



## mikeyts

Bierboy said:


> Yes, this guy would, because that's the vast majority of the HD that I TiVo.


I second that. I pretty much watch very little that's not HD and most of the HD material that I'm interested in is OTA. The only stuff that I watch that's not OTA are some premium cable series (currently only _Dexter_ and _Californication_), premium cable movies and TNT's _The Closer_. The only non-HD programming that I watch are a couple of series on Sci Fi (the _Stargate_ series and _Battlestar Galactica_), matches on The Tennis Channel, _The Simpsons_, _Family Guy_ and _American Dad_.

During the season, I watch the 3 _CSI_ series, _Smallville_, _Heroes_. _NCIS_, _L&O_, _L&O: SVU_, _ER_, _Boston Legal_, _Medium_, _House_ and _Bones_. There are 3 or 4 new shows that look promising. With all of the HD over-the-air stuff that I watch, I don't have time to watch any of the rest of digital cable. Certainly, the 13 hours/week of OTA that I currently watch make TTG potentially useful.


----------



## moyekj

Brainiac 5 said:


> If only cable companies everywhere were so kind!


 I don't know if it is a question of being kind. The decision to copy protect content should lie with the content provider, not the distributor (cable company in this case) so I think my cable company is simply correctly passing on the flag as set by the content providers without modifying. Of course we do know the cable company has the ability to set the flag if they so choose but I don't see how it benefits them to do so especially since channels are encrypted anyway. In some cases (from AVSForum threads) users have been able to get things changed in their local headend since the problem turned out to be a mistake rather than an intentional thing. My guess is many Tivo owners will be fighting these battles with their local headends once MRV/TTG is released (and our assumptions hold true that all CCI=0x0 content is eligible).


----------



## aindik

moyekj said:


> I don't know if it is a question of being kind. The decision to copy protect content should lie with the content provider, not the distributor (cable company in this case) so I think my cable company is simply correctly passing on the flag as set by the content providers without modifying. Of course we do know the cable company has the ability to set the flag if they so choose but I don't see how it benefits them to do so especially since channels are encrypted anyway. In some cases (from AVSForum threads) users have been able to get things changed in their local headend since the problem turned out to be a mistake rather than an intentional thing.


It benefits them by reducing the differentiation between their DVR and TiVo's.


----------



## barbeedoll

TiVoPony said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I know you've been anxiously awaiting TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing on your Series3 and TiVoHD boxes.
> 
> I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.
> 
> These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC. High Definition content will not be supported for transfer or playback on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD), and copy-protected High Def or Standard Def content cannot be transferred (same as our current Series2 products). The aptly yet unofficially named TiVoToComeBack also will be supported, including HD content (originally recorded on a TiVo DVR).
> 
> It's not far off guys.
> 
> Pony
> 
> ps - If you've been beta testing this stuff, you have a beta forum to participate in. Shoo! Get out of here! Remember the first rule of beta club...
> 
> [edit - clarified that HD TTCB is initially for content originally recorded on a TiVo DVR, not HD content from other sources]


 This is incredibly exciting. Now my Tivos go from 6 Series 2s and 1 Series 3 to 6 and 2.

Great Job Tivo!!!!! And thanks Tivo Pony for the early Christmas gift.

Barbeedoll


----------



## dswallow

Has anyone done a definitive TiVoHD vs. Series3 comparison? I don't care much for the extra delay in the graphics pipeline of the TiVoHD, though if the reported chipset-based transcoding capability of the TiVoHD is ultimately going to be used to provide transcoding from HD to SD when transferring to Series 2 systems, I might consider getting one instead of getting another Series3. On the other hand, I really like having the front panel display of show names that are recording so I'm not sure the transcoding possibilitry in the future is even a consideration -- after all, I probably will eventually get rid of the Series2DT I have to keep things 100% HD-capable anyway.

I just wish there were clearer choices to make here.


----------



## richsadams

barbeedoll said:


> Now my Tivos go from 6 Series 2s and 1 Series 3 to 6 and 2.


   Eeeeeyow! And I thought _we _ were addicted...clearly we barely hold amateur status!!


----------



## Brainiac 5

moyekj said:


> I don't know if it is a question of being kind. The decision to copy protect content should lie with the content provider, not the distributor (cable company in this case) so I think my cable company is simply correctly passing on the flag as set by the content providers without modifying.


I agree that it should work that way, but cable companies are allowed to set any channels they want except the over-the-air stations to copy once - and many do. Even if it's a mistake, they don't _have_ to fix it, which in my experience means that they probably won't.

It will be interesting to see if people can convince their cable companies to change this, as you mention some people having been able to do. That would be great!


----------



## EVizzle

This is great news... I would rather not use "unsupported" eSATA drives, much rather transfer to my PC and external HDDs, not that eSATA is bad, but I am not comfortable creating such a setup. Now if I could only watch HD and my slingbox on my soon to be arriving ipod touch, I would be in digital heaven!


----------



## mikesown

TiVoPony: Can you clarify one thing? When you say "copy protected" do you mean anything that's transmitted via cable which requires a cablecard to receive, or do you mean anything that doesn't have a 0x00 flag that's transmitted via cablecard? In essence, can things recorded through the cablecard be transmitted to my computer in their full digital HD glory?

Also, any news on "fixing" the SDV problem? I want to buy a TiVoHD, but I don't want to make a $300 investment(then pay $16 a month) if the device isn't going to receive all of my channels.


----------



## saberman

TiVoPony said:


> These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC.


Does that mean we will be able to play non-protected HD video transferred from a S3 to a PC on the PC?


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Well just keep in mind.

At least for dallas... After Jan 1, 2010. S2 boxes will only work with composite video/audio in. 

Why?

Because on Feb 17th, 2009 All OTA will go ATSC Digital. So the Tuners in S2 boxes will no longer work.

On Jan 1st, 2010. TWC in Dallas will DROP all support for ANALOG cable and switch to 100% digital cable.

Thus anything that would normally work with "Analog" cable such as the S2 box. will no longer get a signal from cable. Since analog will be shut off.

Chicago analog cable (so I have heard) will be discontinuing ANALOG cable shortly after the Feb 17th 2009 deadline as well.

What point am I trying to make?

Well if the Content providers / Cable companies are marking the channels as "Copy Once" or even "Copy Never", Then eventually, even S2's won't be able to do MRV/TTG anymore.

Another point I would like to make.... If you do have 2 S3's or THD and you record something with a "Copy Once" flag set. You will still be able to MRV it on your other Tivo S3/HD.... however just once... not many many times... The second time you watch the show, you will still have to watch it on the original Tivo. Thats the way I understand it. I could be wrong. You also might be able to transfer to Show to your PC (just once). However, once it is on your PC, you can use software to RIP & CHANGE the Copy flag. Then maybe transfer it back to any other Tivo you want to view it on.

TGC

Analog Cable/OTA is going away... What ya going to do when its 100% digital?


----------



## aindik

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well just keep in mind.
> 
> At least for dallas... After Jan 1, 2010. S2 boxes will only work with composite video/audio in.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because on Feb 17th, 2009 All OTA will go ATSC Digital. So the Tuners in S2 boxes will no longer work.
> 
> On Jan 1st, 2010. TWC in Dallas will DROP all support for ANALOG cable and switch to 100% digital cable.
> 
> Thus anything that would normally work with "Analog" cable such as the S2 box. will no longer get a signal from cable. Since analog will be shut off.
> 
> Chicago analog cable (so I have heard) will be discontinuing ANALOG cable shortly after the Feb 17th 2009 deadline as well.
> 
> What point am I trying to make?
> 
> Well if the Content providers / Cable companies are marking the channels as "Copy Once" or even "Copy Never", Then eventually, even S2's won't be able to do MRV/TTG anymore.
> 
> Another point I would like to make.... If you do have 2 S3's or THD and you record something with a "Copy Once" flag set. You will still be able to MRV it on your other Tivo S3/HD.... however just once... not many many times... The second time you watch the show, you will still have to watch it on the original Tivo. Thats the way I understand it. I could be wrong. You also might be able to transfer to Show to your PC (just once). However, once it is on your PC, you can use software to RIP & CHANGE the Copy flag. Then maybe transfer it back to any other Tivo you want to view it on.
> 
> TGC
> 
> Analog Cable/OTA is going away... What ya going to do when its 100% digital?


S2s will record cable TV for as long as the cable companies are supplying cable boxes with composite or S-Video outputs. I can't see those going away any time soon.

And it is probably possible via software update for the TiVo to control, via IR, an OTA digital STB with an S-Video or composite output.


----------



## Espo

TiVoPony said:


> HD content cannot be transferred to a Series2. And there is no transcoding ability to convert HD to SD (these are consumer electronic devices, not beefy multi-core PC's). So the answer is no. If it's recorded in HD on a Series3 or TiVoHD, then it can be shared between those platforms, but not with a Series2.
> 
> And when I say 'can be shared between those platforms', it of course comes with any caveats the copyright owner dictates regarding sharing.
> 
> Pony


For people who keep asking, I think this is a pretty clear answer to whether or not the HD model has this added ability over the S3. After all, this is straight from the horse's (pony) mouth!


----------



## Saxion

mikeyts said:


> Unfortunately, the cable system has the right to do this to anything not in the core basic services tier (the 20 or so channels that you get in the minimum level of service to which you can subscribe and to which you must subscribe to get anything else).


For this reason, the value of non-encrypted, basic tier (local network) channels might increase (i.e. not subject to copy protection). TiVoPony, can you give us any clue as to TiVo's plans to support basic tier digital channels without CableCARDs? Pretty please???


----------



## CharlesH

As I understand it, CCI=0x02 means "copy one more generation", not "make one more copy". You can make as many copies of the CCI=0x02 program that you want; it's just that the copies must be marked "copy never" CCI=0x03. I can see how this could be enforced on MRV, but not on TTG, since the TTG file on the PC is essentially "copy unlimited". Under this (optimistic) interpretation, you could MRV 0x02 content from TiVo#1 to TiVo#2, but you wouldn't be able to copy it off of TiVo#2; it would look like, for example, TiVoCast content on Tivo#2.


----------



## jfh3

TiVoPony said:


> I don't have anything to share today regarding eSATA.


OK, it's tomorrow now. Anything to share?


----------



## rodalpho

TexasGrillChef said:


> Analog Cable/OTA is going away... What ya going to do when its 100% digital?


By the time that eventually happens, technology will have caught up with speed requirements, and you'll be able to buy a $40 chip to encode analog HD video to mpeg-4 in realtime. And then we won't have to worry about satisfying CableLABs or cablecards or CCI or DRM or really _any_ of this obscenely anti-consumer garbage. We'll just record the analog hole and tell the copyright holders to go stuff themselves.


----------



## morac

CharlesH said:


> As I understand it, CCI=0x02 means "copy one more generation", not "make one more copy". You can make as many copies of the CCI=0x02 program that you want; it's just that the copies must be marked "copy never" CCI=0x03. I can see how this could be enforced on MRV, but not on TTG, since the TTG file on the PC is essentially "copy unlimited". Under this (optimistic) interpretation, you could MRV 0x02 content from TiVo#1 to TiVo#2, but you wouldn't be able to copy it off of TiVo#2; it would look like, for example, TiVoCast content on Tivo#2.


I was under the impression that copy on the hard drive counted as the "one copy" with the cable stream being the original. If this is the case then MRV would not be allowed either.

Either way, this is going to be a thorn in the side of TiVo users.

When I first got my S3 all digital channels in my cable system, with the exception of ORA broadcast startions, were flagged as CCI=0x02. Every single one of the recordings I had mentioned that "due to policy set by the copyright holder, this recording: Cannot be transferred to VCR, DVD or any other media device" in the info screen (exactly like TiVoCast content does). I still have one of these on my S3 back from January.

I complained to Comcast and it eventually was changed so that only premium channels are flagged CCI=0x02 while everything else is now CCI=0x0. Even after this change though, occasionally programs on the CCI=0x0 channels get flagged as transfer restricted when it looks like they should not be. The weirdest one I saw was two back to back episodes of Cinemetech on G4 where the first was marked as restricted and the second was not.


----------



## d_anders

LoREvanescence said:


> opps, yup. I meant DHCP. Yeah, i to figured that by just plugging it it should get a ip address from the router in the local apartment building. But it doesn't. When I want to the Computer help desk to get this sorted I was told that a Tivo is an unsupported device and the network does not allow it to get passed through. Any request tivo sends out is not returned and there for times out. To acces the network the net work must first scan your computer to varify that you have antivirus and have the latest security updates installed. If it doesn't, a device isn't allowed to access the network and doesn't get passed through. In addition, once a device is allowed through it must be registered, and the internet system forces a page on a computer or a mac for say when you open the browser where you have to fill out your full name, housing information and school email address. Wireless is a whole lot harder with a system scan at every connect and the need to log in with a user name and password. ....


Wow, you're campus network is locked up tighter than my company's Fortune 500 network...which could be telling enough...but nethertheless, it very similar to how some hotels are now controlling access to their networks as well.

Ok, there still may be a way for you do to this....You're going to need to turn on internet sharing via one of your PCs and treat it like an access point and spoof the network into thinking that the traffic is coming from your PC. You're network may limit the port activity via your TiVo but the IP address that your network will see will be your PC and not the TiVo.

There are some how-to's via CNET and other sites that will let you do this. What you need to do is on your own little dorm room network is establish your PC as the gateway and then assign an internal static ip on the TiVo and also manually assign the gateway server on the TiVo to the IP address of your PC. This way, all traffic to/from the TiVo will look like traffic from your PC on the campus network....

you may be able to do dynamic IP assignment from the dhcp server on the PC, but the reason I suggest manual assignment is because you need to make sure that the TiVo is really using your PC as it's gateway and not the router...you also want to secure your PC to make sure it's going to do this for any other device either, so you need to restrict it's sharing with the IP address of your TiVo and also to it's MAC address...take it step by step, get it working then lock down internet access via the PC.

all at least worth at least giving it a try....good luck.

P.S. MRV/TTG will only work within the same subnet so it would only work in your dorm room/apartment network. Unless you've got multiple TiVo's in your apartment this would only enable Tivo2Go (TTG)...which you really don't need out internet access for...but certainly for guide data, and unbox, other applications, etc.


----------



## mikeyts

CharlesH said:


> As I understand it, CCI=0x02 means "copy one more generation", not "make one more copy". You can make as many copies of the CCI=0x02 program that you want; it's just that the copies must be marked "copy never" CCI=0x03.


You misunderstand "Copy One Generation". From the DFAST CABLECARD-HOST INTERFACE LICENSE AGREEMENT (PDF page 38):


> 3.5 *Copy One Generation.*
> 
> 3.5.1 Licensed Products may make a copy of Controlled Content that is designated in the EMI bits as permissible to be copied for one generation (Copy One Generation), as provided in section 3.2 or the first sentence of 3.4.1 or *provided that the copy (a) is scrambled, encrypted or uniquely bound to that device*, in each case using a form of copy protection that is identified by an amendment to this section 3.5, if any, *and (b) is remarked as not to be further copied (copy no more)* in a manner that is identified by an amendment to this section 3.5, if any, and will be effective to prevent such further copies being made by devices capable of receiving a transmission of such remarked data through the outputs identified in section 2.4. In the absence of either such amendment to this section 3.5, no copy of such Controlled Content other than as permitted in sections 3.2 or the first sentence of 3.4.1 may be made, except as provided in Section 3.5.2.
> 
> 3.5.2 A Licensed Product that makes a copy of content marked in the CCI as Copy One Generation in accordance with this Section 3.5 *may move such content to a single removable recording medium, or to a single external recording device, only when* (a) the external recording device indicates that it is authorized to perform this Move function in accordance with the requirements of this Section, and to copy such Controlled Content in accordance with the requirements of this Section 3.5; *(b) such Controlled Content is marked for transmission by the originating Licensed Product as Copy One Generation;* (c) the Controlled Content is output over a protected output in accordance with Sections 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 of this Exhibit C; *(d) before the Move is completed, the originating Licensed Product recording is rendered non-useable and the moved Controlled Content is marked Copy No More* (e) the device to which the removable recording medium is moved is unable or rendered unable to output the Controlled Content except through outputs authorized by these Compliance Rules; and (f) the copy is stored (i) using an encryption protocol approved by CableLabs which uniquely associates such copy with a single device so that it cannot be played on another device or, if stored to removable media, so that no further usable copies may be made thereof or (ii) otherwise using methods referenced in Section 3.5.1. Multiple moves consistent with these requirements are not prohibited.


The first section states that any copy of content received through a CableCARD marked "Copy One Generation" has to be stored in encrypted form and marked "Copy No More". The second section states that a "move" operation is permitted in which the original copy is rendered unusable (i.e., there is one usable copy remaining after the "move"). The intent is that you be allowed to make a single copy that cannot be freely copied, except in a special operation that destroys the original copy. You get to have one copy of "Copy One Generation" content, period.

The distinction between "Copy Never" and "Copy No More" is that the process for identifying a device as being capable of using "Copy Never" is separate, more elaborate and uses a different set of credentials--not every device has to be provided with credentials to negotiate to receive keys for decryption of "Copy Never" content. One way to prevent a recording device from recording "Copy Never" content is to not provision it with such credentials. You would probably provision a DVR with them, but not necessarily a removable media recorder.


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well if the Content providers / Cable companies are marking the channels as "Copy Once" or even "Copy Never", Then eventually, even S2's won't be able to do MRV/TTG anymore.


FCC regs restrict the use of "Copy Never" to Pay-Per-View and Video-On-Demand.



> Another point I would like to make.... If you do have 2 S3's or THD and you record something with a "Copy Once" flag set. You will still be able to MRV it on your other Tivo S3/HD.... however just once... not many many times... The second time you watch the show, you will still have to watch it on the original Tivo. Thats the way I understand it. I could be wrong. You also might be able to transfer to Show to your PC (just once). However, once it is on your PC, you can use software to RIP & CHANGE the Copy flag. Then maybe transfer it back to any other Tivo you want to view it on.


By the license agreement, you can't move "Copy One Generation" content at all, except in a "move" operation which destroys the original copy. If you move it to a PC, the copy must be encrypted and protected--you could use software to remove the protection, but it would be illegal software which breaks the DMCA, possession and use of which would be a Federal crime.


----------



## bown

mikeyts said:


> FCC regs restrict the use of "Copy Never" to Pay-Per-View and Video-On-Demand.


Except for when it "accidentally" gets set by the cableco.


----------



## classicsat

mikeyts said:


> You're saying that they encrypt everything that they store on the PC with Series 2 TTG?


Basically yes. The TiVo, in its recording process, encrypts the content, 
and maintains the encryption in transfers.



> Do they encode it as some kind of DRM protected licensed content, ala WMDRM, essentially tethering it to the PC with some limited ability to transfer it to portable devices?


The DRM used in .tivo files is not fixed to the device the .tivo file is downloaded to. There is no "license" applied to the device. All that is needed is a decryption filter, and the Media Access Key, which you can manually enter. Once downloaded to a computer with the decryption filter and MAK, it can be converted to a number of portable formats.

Note: This is from the perspective of Series 2 transfers. Series 3 transfers could be different.


> I can see where that would make the IP holders happy, though there's nothing which legally compels it. The thing that they (the IP holders) fear most about things like TTG is unfettered network transfer of digital television--it was the stated purpose of the Broadcast Flag.


TiVo uses encryption not because they are compelled to by the IP industry, but to keep the IP industry not looking at TiVo too much, or compelling them to use DRM they don't want to use.


----------



## classicsat

cwoody222 said:


> I hope we'd still be able to access the Now Playing list via a browser and then just download the .tivo file.


I bet it will be there., although that interface is technically a backdoor, so I wouldn't directly expect it to remain.


> Then we can use programs to turn it into a .mpeg to play natively on the Mac (for free, like Windows users can) or move the file to a Windows machine that may not be on the same network.


Officially, there is no 3rd party free Mac .tivo file processing utilites.
Transferring the files are probably against your TOS, but can be done.


----------



## Thunderclap

Glad to hear I'll finally be able to transfer video from my PC to Tivo again! And now, with Apple's announcement of possible movie rentals through iTunes, it would be doubly sweet if we could get integrated iTunes rental on Tivo. (hint hint)


----------



## classicsat

Espo said:


> TivoPony, just to clarify, does this mean we will be able to finally watch our SD sourced Divx & Xvid files on our S3s/HDs using the Desktop 2.5 Plus software? Will we still have to pay the upgrade fee of $25 for this avi playability or is there any chance this feature will be a standard feature of a future version of Desktop? Please!!!


It seems:

SD, yes, HD, possibly later (at release TTCB in HD will be limited to HD .tivo files.

Desktop will always be pay for the conversion features, since codecs legally need paid for. There is zero chance it will be free from TiVo. You can probably find 3rd party converters for free though. Transfers on the S3 won't change that.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> By the license agreement, you can't move "Copy One Generation" content at all, except in a "move" operation *which destroys the original copy.*


The specific term in the agreement is "rendered non-usable". The difference might be relevant in an MRV situation where you want to play the show on the original box. That would be theoretical discussion about a future revision of MRV because it sounds like the first release won't be allowed to work with anything having non-zero CCI.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> The specific term in the agreement is "rendered non-usable". The difference might be relevant in an MRV situation where you want to play the show on the original box. That would be theoretical discussion about a future revision of MRV because it sounds like the first release won't be allowed to work with anything having non-zero CCI.


The functional distinction between "render non-usable" and "destroying" currently escapes me. Permanently removing the index entry which permits access to the bits (not just moving it into the "recently deleted" folder) would satisfy "render non-usuable" whereas if they'd said "destroy" you'd probably have to immediately write over the copy. In either case it's gone, presumably non-retrievable through any normal function of the recorder.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

Actually I put in a feature request years ago that TiVo allow a move function. I hated MRVing a file and watching it and then having to remember to physically go back to the other TiVo and delete it if need be.

Since I can TTCB as well I would love a setting that any TTG or MRV be a move in whioch the original is gone when the file is complete and finsihed on the other device.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> The functional distinction between "render non-usable" and "destroying" currently escapes me. Permanently removing the index entry which permits access to the bits (not just moving it into the "recently deleted" folder) would satisfy "render non-usuable" whereas if they'd said "destroy" you'd probably have to immediately write over the copy. In either case it's gone, presumably non-retrievable through any normal function of the recorder.


Non-usable technically allows for multiple copies with only one usable at any point in time. Destroying allows for only one physical copy. If you watch a show in the family room, then decide to go to bed and watch the rest, MRV would transfer a copy over to the bedroom. If it rendered the original copy non-usable (ie marked it non-usable), you could decide at a later point to watch it in the family room and another MRV copy wouldn't be necessary, just marking the 2nd copy in the bedroom non-usable would be all that is needed. It is basically similar to lazy deletion of shows with the "Recently Deleted" folder. Why delete/destroy a file completely if it isn't required. If you need the space for something else, look in Recently Deleted first, then look in the marked non-usable files.

I'm going by the terminology they decide to use in the agreement. If they wanted to say destroy, they most likely would have specified destroy.

I think if MRV was implemented as true streaming, it wouldn't matter that much but the way MRV is currently implemented there is more flexibility when you play a show that is completely contained on the local drive vs one where you have started playback of the MRV copy prior to the entire show copy being complete.


----------



## lrhorer

mikeyts said:


> The feature-set of the UI the cable companies have commissioned from TiVo to run on Motorola and SA boxes is controlled by them and I strongly doubt that they'd order TTG (although I could believe they might go for MRV). In any case, doesn't TTG require an Ethernet connection? Do any of the leased cable boxes have one?


Have one what? An Ethernet connection? Yes. That, and Scientific Atlanta has a whole series of set-tops which allow a program recorded on one of their DVRs to bw watched on any set-top in the house.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> I'm going by the terminology they decide to use in the agreement. If they wanted to say destroy, they most likely would have specified destroy.


We'll have to agree to disagree here. There is no mention in the agreement of the original copy being rendered "temporarily non-usable" to potentially be made usable again at some point. If it'd had been their intention to allow that I'm certain that it would have been spelled out and the conditions under which a "rendered non-usable" copy could be made usable again would have also been clearly spelled out. They said "non-usable" because they didn't want to require that the bits be eradicated, which might not be possible, depending on the medium.

Also, if it were going to allow potential reactivation of "non-usable" copies, I strongly doubt that the agreement would have explicitly allowed the moved copy to be moved again, which it does.


----------



## sfhub

lrhorer said:


> Have one what? An Ethernet connection? Yes. That, and Scientific Atlanta has a whole series of set-tops which allow a program recorded on one of their DVRs to bw watched on any set-top in the house.


Is that using IP over coax stuff developed for MoCA or is it using ethernet for everything?


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree here. There is no mention in the agreement of the original copy being rendered "temporarily non-usable" to potentially be made usable again at some point. If it'd had been their intention to allow that I'm certain that it would have been spelled out and the conditions under which a "rendered non-usable" copy could be made usable again would have also been clearly spelled out. They said "non-usable" because they didn't want to require that the bits be eradicated, which might not be possible, depending on the medium.
> 
> Also, if it were going to allow potential reactivation of "non-usable" copies, I strongly doubt that the agreement would have explicitly allowed the moved copy to be moved again, which it does.


In any event, if you use their terminology of "rendered non-useable" rather than your terminology of "destroy" there is no ambiguity, as it matches their term in their agreement.


----------



## mikeyts

lrhorer said:


> Have one what? An Ethernet connection? Yes. That, and Scientific Atlanta has a whole series of set-tops which allow a program recorded on one of their DVRs to bw watched on any set-top in the house.


There may be an Ethernet header on the board, but that's different from actual inclusion of a functioning interface. Most of these boxes have a number of optional interfaces that the cable providers can order.

My impression is that Scientific Atlanta's MRV mechanism for these boxes somehow uses the coax loop(s) in your home. It's extremely limited and only allows playback of SD from a DVR by a limited range of non-DVR SD satellites.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> Also, if it were going to allow potential reactivation of "non-usable" copies, I strongly doubt that the agreement would have explicitly allowed the moved copy to be moved again, which it does.


Why would that lead you to highly doubt? You can have a third box that you want to watch the show on, which would involve, move followed by another move, thus allowing a 2nd move says nothing about how to implement "rendering non-useable" On the contrary, allowing the 2nd move supports the notion of marking non-useable, then allowing that to be marked usable (as long as the other copy is then marked non-usable) because you can accomplish the exact same thing with 2 moves. Marking something non-usable is just an implementation optimization to avoid copy followed by copy back.

Looking at what they are trying to protect against (multiple copies viewed in multiple locations) I don't see any reason why they would object to a lazy deletion method involving marked non-useable. What are they losing by allowing that? You seem to have a strong opinion that this would bring down the whole house of cards if this was allowed?


----------



## musictoo

From the trade show floor at CEDIA yesterday regarding eSATA:

I spoke with someone at the TiVo booth about eSATA and their response was that it was ready to go, they were holding off till they had a solution where they could confirm that the external drives would be suitable for DVR use. I'm not sure if this means that you would need to purchase direct from TiVo or what, but the main concern expressed to me was that they were worried about non-DVR rated hard drives failing resulting in the loss of recorded shows, something they were not at all comfortable with. I tried to get them to elaborate more but that was the end of the conversation.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> Looking at what they are trying to protect against (multiple copies viewed in multiple locations) I don't see any reason why they would object to a lazy deletion method involving marked non-useable. What are they losing by allowing that? You seem to have a strong opinion that this would bring down the whole house of cards if this was allowed?


Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Remember that Copy One Generation is a paranoid attempt to keep people from creating endless copies of a single recording of "high value" cable content, while allowing them to keep a single copy. The people who created this agreement (the cable industry) had no motive to allow the use that you describe and had they intended it they would have explicitly detailed it in the agreement. They're not trying to be as flexible as possible, just to give people the minimum acceptable recording capability. Affective management of the existence of unlimited copies, only one allowed to be "usable" at any time, would be hugely difficult to acheive and ripe for potential abuse.


----------



## DCIFRTHS

ZeoTiVo said:


> Actually I put in a feature request years ago that TiVo allow a move function. I hated MRVing a file and watching it and then having to remember to physically go back to the other TiVo and delete it if need be. ...


 :up:


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Aindik,

I do beleive in the first sentance I did say Only work with composite video/Audio in. My apologies for forgetting about S-Video. But I do understand what you were saying and I thought I had mentioned that. However, in Dallas area, DVR's will be the only STB available after January 1st, 2010. So wonder how the connections will be after that?

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

rodalpho said:


> By the time that eventually happens, technology will have caught up with speed requirements, and you'll be able to buy a $40 chip to encode analog HD video to mpeg-4 in realtime. And then we won't have to worry about satisfying CableLABs or cablecards or CCI or DRM or really _any_ of this obscenely anti-consumer garbage. We'll just record the analog hole and tell the copyright holders to go stuff themselves.


Maybe so... but my point being is that On February 17th, 2009 ANALOG OTA will no longer exist. (In the USA)

In Dallas on or about Jan 1st, 2010, analog Cable will no longer exist. Other cities such as Chicago will beat Dallas to that punch. Other cities will follow Dallas soon after.

So this $40 chip that you speak of that will encode analog to Mpg-4 will have no analog signals to encode in real time.

Now of course if you have a Cable Co supplied DVR or STB. (After 2010 Dallas TWC will only offer DVR's as STB's) You will be able to get an analog signal from those boxes in the form of a Composite or S-Video interface. Although those interfaces don't and will not provide a true HD signal.

Just like Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies/players can limit content being piped out "Analog" cables. The same will soon apply to Cable Co's DVR's.

Their are several blu-ray movies that if you use componet video instead of HDMI, the movie will limit resolution to 720p and not allow 1080i viewing via Component cables.

Analog Television via OTA or even cable will be distant thought in the past by 2012.

TGC


----------



## CharlesH

mikeyts said:


> You misunderstand "Copy One Generation".


Thanks for the correction and elaboration.  So does 0x03 mean that it has to be deleted after an hour or something like that? Technically, ALL streams are recorded on the TiVo before you see them, even if it's just the 30-minute live buffer.


----------



## sneagle

CharlesH said:


> Thanks for the correction and elaboration.  So does 0x03 mean that it has to be deleted after an hour or something like that? Technically, ALL streams are recorded on the TiVo before you see them, even if it's just the 30-minute live buffer.


I found this:
The four levels of copy protection are:

0x00 = Copy Freely
0x01 = No More Copies
0x02 = Copy One Time
0x03 = Copy Never


----------



## mikeyts

CharlesH said:


> Thanks for the correction and elaboration.  So does 0x03 mean that it has to be deleted after an hour or something like that? Technically, ALL streams are recorded on the TiVo before you see them, even if it's just the 30-minute live buffer.


Copy Never protection means that you can't make a permanent copy of it. It does allow DVRs to make an up-to-90-minute-long trick-play buffer of it, so long as it's flushed completely on any channel change.

Use of Copy Never on anything other than Pay-Per-View and (Pay-Per-Viewing-Period) Video On Demand is a violation of FCC regs.


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> Their are several blu-ray movies that if you use componet video instead of HDMI, the movie will limit resolution to 720p and not allow 1080i viewing via Component cables.


Which movies are those? There's a mechanism in AACS (the copy protection system used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs) called the "Image Constraint Token"; if the ICT is asserted, rendering of the content is constrained to no more than one quarter 1920x1080 (i.e., 960x540) when displayed over analog component video. All of the movie studios have sworn off use of the ICT for the present. In any case, the AACS licensing requires that any release which uses it be clearly labelled, so that people who aren't using HDMI can avoid buying them. (There's a rumor that multiple studios agreed amongst themselves to hold off on using it until 2010 or 2012).

I was unaware that anyone had used the ICT. Which films are you talking about?


----------



## aindik

TexasGrillChef said:


> Aindik,
> 
> I do beleive in the first sentance I did say Only work with composite video/Audio in. My apologies for forgetting about S-Video. But I do understand what you were saying and I thought I had mentioned that. However, in Dallas area, DVR's will be the only STB available after January 1st, 2010. So wonder how the connections will be after that?
> 
> TGC


If they want it to work with older TVs, it will have to support older outputs. Though, at that point, it doesn't really makes sense to connect an S2 to a cable company DVR.


----------



## rodalpho

Nobody has used the ICT. All blu-ray/HD-DVD content will play at full resolution over component cables. All cable content too.

When I speak of the analog hole, I'm referring to component cables out of a cable box. Basically like the old S1/S2 boxes, except it'll work with HD too. It's the only likely solution. 

What really sticks in my craw is that all of this content is freely downloadable on bittorrent. That's illegal but inherently unstoppable. The content creators need to stop living in 1996 and look for new ways to monetize their properties, because treating their paying customers like criminals is not a long term strategy likely to be successful.


----------



## jrm01

sneagle said:


> I found this:
> The four levels of copy protection are:
> 
> 0x00 = Copy Freely
> 0x01 = No More Copies
> 0x02 = Copy One Time
> 0x03 = Copy Never


Thanks for this summary. I keep hearing different interpretations. To recap this in terms of Tivo functionality, I assume that this means:

00 - Full functionality, no restrictions
01 - Original copy on receiving tivo is all you'll get. No TTG or MRV
02 - TTG & MRV will work, but the second copy will be marked 0x01
03 - restricted viewing (90 minutes) on original copy

Does that sound right?


----------



## bicker

That's not my understanding from TiVoPony's postings... rather, I thought his messages indicated:

00 - Full functionality, no restrictions
01 - Original copy on receiving tivo is all you'll get. No TTG or MRV.
02 - Original copy on receiving tivo is all you'll get. No TTG or MRV.
03 - restricted viewing (90 minutes) on original copy


----------



## sfhub

Concur with Bicker. What I took TiVo's response to be was TTG, MRV, etc. (for this release) would work on CCI=0x00 content, but not non-zero CCI content. It is a separate discussion what the CCI flags would really allow and that is likely a discussion that would delay TTG, MRV, etc. even longer.


----------



## stevereis

TexasGrillChef said:


> ...
> In Dallas on or about Jan 1st, 2010, analog Cable will no longer exist. Other cities such as Chicago will beat Dallas to that punch. Other cities will follow Dallas soon after.


TGC - Where do you get your info on TWC Dallas plans? Any idea how much SDV plays into this picture? I assume they'll recover a lot of bandwidth from dropping the analogs but not sure what that means regarding SDV and all the new HD content / channels coming available. I also understand that, even in Chicago, they still have the networks on analog.


----------



## Brainiac 5

sfhub said:


> Concur with Bicker. What I took TiVo's response to be was TTG, MRV, etc. (for this release) would work on CCI=0x00 content, but not non-zero CCI content.


I think so, too.



> It is a separate discussion what the CCI flags would really allow and that is likely a discussion that would delay TTG, MRV, etc. even longer.


Yes, I'd like to thank TiVo for releasing it as things stand. Although I know that the copy protection issue will affect me personally, I'll take whatever I can get for now.

If the content providers really are not requiring that the cable companies protect their channels with CCI=0x02, then ideally I hope TiVo can help us in some way to get our cable companies to stop using that flag.


----------



## CharlesH

Brainiac 5 said:


> IIf the content providers really are not requiring that the cable companies protect their channels with CCI=0x02, then ideally I hope TiVo can help us in some way to get our cable companies to stop using that flag.


This is another example of where the cable companies really aren't going to try fix an issue unless it adversely effects *THEIR* products. AFAIK, cable company DVRs don't support anything like MRV or TTG, so labeling everything other than "Basic" cable as CCI=0x02, and PPV as 0x03, is legal, is at least as strong as desired by the content providers, and doesn't hurt the cable company. Unless a provider had a reason for specifically wanting their content to be Copy Freely.


----------



## moyekj

CharlesH said:


> This is another example of where the cable companies really aren't going to try fix an issue unless it adversely effects *THEIR* products. AFAIK, cable company DVRs don't support anything like MRV or TTG, so labeling everything other than "Basic" cable as CCI=0x02, and PPV as 0x03, is legal, is at least as strong as desired by the content providers, and doesn't hurt the cable company. Unless a provider had a reason for specifically wanting their content to be Copy Freely.


 Actually for Motorola DVRs it's affected users for the last few years who use the firewire output to extract recordings to a PC. The same issue applies there - any non-zero CCI setting renders the firewire output useless for PC extraction purposes. There is a huge thread on this in AVS Forums:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=403695


----------



## sfhub

CharlesH said:


> This is another example of where the cable companies really aren't going to try fix an issue unless it adversely effects *THEIR* products. AFAIK, cable company DVRs don't support anything like MRV or TTG, so labeling everything other than "Basic" cable as CCI=0x02, and PPV as 0x03, is legal, is at least as strong as desired by the content providers, and doesn't hurt the cable company. Unless a provider had a reason for specifically wanting their content to be Copy Freely.


http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7477


----------



## morac

CharlesH said:


> This is another example of where the cable companies really aren't going to try fix an issue unless it adversely effects *THEIR* products. AFAIK, cable company DVRs don't support anything like MRV or TTG, so labeling everything other than "Basic" cable as CCI=0x02, and PPV as 0x03, is legal, is at least as strong as desired by the content providers, and doesn't hurt the cable company. Unless a provider had a reason for specifically wanting their content to be Copy Freely.


They can be pressured into making the change though. in my area every channel except the OTA channels was tagged as 0x02. This made every recording on my S3 show as copy restricted in the program info screen. I contacted the cable company (with a CC to the BPU) telling them that they were flagging Cable in the classroom programs, who producers specifically give permission to make copies, as copy prohibited. A short time later all the channels except premiums were flipped to 0x00 (with the occasional mis-marked program here and there). I don't know if it was because of my letter or not, but cable companies will make changes if backed into a corner.


----------



## vman41

sfhub said:


> http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=7477


It uses MoCA for streaming the video over the same coax that delivers the 'live' content, doesn't mean they've addressed the firewire issue.


----------



## Adam1115

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well just keep in mind.
> 
> At least for dallas... After Jan 1, 2010. S2 boxes will only work with composite video/audio in.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because on Feb 17th, 2009 All OTA will go ATSC Digital. So the Tuners in S2 boxes will no longer work.
> 
> On Jan 1st, 2010. TWC in Dallas will DROP all support for ANALOG cable and switch to 100% digital cable.


So?? When they do this, they will give you a STB and your S2 will still work just fine..


----------



## TexasGrillChef

stevereis said:


> TGC - Where do you get your info on TWC Dallas plans? Any idea how much SDV plays into this picture? I assume they'll recover a lot of bandwidth from dropping the analogs but not sure what that means regarding SDV and all the new HD content / channels coming available. I also understand that, even in Chicago, they still have the networks on analog.


I have a friend who works in the managment area in the Irving TWC office.

*I COULD BE WRONG.... * All of my information is based on conversations on that I had with this person about what upgrades TWC was doing to their system in the next few years & the direction TWC was wishing to take in the DFW market.

I had discussed with them about the rumors of Chicago dumping analog cable, DVR's, Tivo's etc... This person claimed that if TWC could drop their analog cable support. (DVR's & STB's would still have analog out) that this would free up bandwidth that could be used for additional channels. They also mentioned a few other insignificant excuses as well.

I honestly think the time frame is off. I do IMHO forsee *analog* television being a thing of the past by 2015, and deffinately by 2020 at the latest.

TGC

P.S. Dallas TWC is waiting to see how SDV goes over in other markets before they commit this area to SDV. DFW could go SDV. Chicago from what I heard is suppose to be the first cable company to drop analog cable. But only sometime AFTER the February 17th, 2009 deadline that all networks be 100% digital anyways.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Adam1115 said:


> So?? When they do this, they will give you a STB and your S2 will still work just fine..


Yep, When they do that, you could get a STB and your S1/s2 should continue to work just fine.

However, They are looking at plans on doing away with plain STB's in favor of DVR's as your STB. If they did that... They you would plug a S2 into a DVR?

TGC


----------



## Adam1115

TexasGrillChef said:


> Yep, When they do that, you could get a STB and your S1/s2 should continue to work just fine.
> 
> However, They are looking at plans on doing away with plain STB's in favor of DVR's as your STB. If they did that... They you would plug a S2 into a DVR?
> 
> TGC


why not?

If the tivo changes to channel 105, it will change. Who cares if it's a dvr or not..


----------



## sfhub

vman41 said:


> It uses MoCA for streaming the video over the same coax that delivers the 'live' content, *doesn't mean they've addressed the firewire issue.*


Did you read the quote I was responding to? Where do you see I was responding to anything regarding firewire?


----------



## MichaelK

mikeyts said:


> Which movies are those? There's a mechanism in AACS (the copy protection system used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs) called the "Image Constraint Token"; if the ICT is asserted, rendering of the content is constrained to no more than one quarter 1920x1080 (i.e., 960x540) when displayed over analog component video. All of the movie studios have sworn off use of the ICT for the present. In any case, the AACS licensing requires that any release which uses it be clearly labelled, so that people who aren't using HDMI can avoid buying them. (There's a rumor that multiple studios agreed amongst themselves to hold off on using it until 2010 or 2012).
> 
> I was unaware that anyone had used the ICT. Which films are you talking about?


I *THINK* OCAP has ICT also...


----------



## bown

Adam1115 said:


> So?? When they do this, they will give you a STB and your S2 will still work just fine..


*GIVE*??? Eh, no. The cable companies don't "give" anything. When they switch over they will charge you for renting a new box, plus raise the rates for the "bonus" of giving everyone "digital clarity".


----------



## jrm01

Adam1115 said:


> So?? When they do this, they will give you a STB and your S2 will still work just fine..


Except, your S2DT will only function as a single tuner box.


----------



## TriBruin

bown said:


> *GIVE*??? Eh, no. The cable companies don't "give" anything. When they switch over they will charge you for renting a new box, plus raise the rates for the "bonus" of giving everyone "digital clarity".


I expect most companies will "give" you a box for "free" (Comcast always does when you subscribe to a digital service. However, they probably will raise the basic cost to cover it.


----------



## Brainiac 5

RBlount said:


> I expect most companies will "give" you a box for "free" (Comcast always does when you subscribe to a digital service. However, they probably will raise the basic cost to cover it.


I think you're _both_ right - they'll probably "give" you *one* box for "free" and then charge you separately for every box after that. (Which, as you say, is what Comcast already does for digital service.)


----------



## MichaelK

yup- that first box will be "free" just like locals, espn, disney, etc.

They put the cost in there someplace....

And actualy with boxes they are regulated and are supposed to attemtp to maintain something akin to break even on hardware rentals. So they can't legally subsidize them (in places were they still have regulated pricing becasue there is no effective competition...)


----------



## MighTiVo

TiVoPony said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I know you've been anxiously awaiting TiVoToGo and Multi-Room Viewing on your Series3 and TiVoHD boxes.
> 
> I wanted to let you know that development has been progressing smoothly, and all is well. You can expect TTG & MRV to be available for Series3 and TiVoHD this November.


With the recent automated phone calls announcing new features for DTV TiVo boxes, any any chance MRV will make it to those boxes?


----------



## Adam1115

MighTiVo said:


> With the recent automated phone calls announcing new features for DTV TiVo boxes, any any chance MRV will make it to those boxes?


No.


----------



## Fofer

MighTiVo said:


> With the recent automated phone calls announcing new features for DTV TiVo boxes, any any chance MRV will make it to those boxes?


With hacking, yes. That's what I did until I dumped DTV and moved to cable and a S3.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> Which movies are those? There's a mechanism in AACS (the copy protection system used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs) called the "Image Constraint Token"; if the ICT is asserted, rendering of the content is constrained to no more than one quarter 1920x1080 (i.e., 960x540) when displayed over analog component video. All of the movie studios have sworn off use of the ICT for the present. In any case, the AACS licensing requires that any release which uses it be clearly labelled, so that people who aren't using HDMI can avoid buying them. (There's a rumor that multiple studios agreed amongst themselves to hold off on using it until 2010 or 2012).
> 
> I was unaware that anyone had used the ICT. Which films are you talking about?


I had heard in rumor that some were using it. I did know that the systems were capable of limiting resolution on the component output. Therefore...After I read your reply here I did a little more research into this issue to see if any movies were in fact making use of this technology.

What I found out is that you are indeed *CORRECT*. That *CURRENTLY * no one in the USA market is making use of ICT.

However, the *"Content Providers"* are keeping a close eye on the market and "pirating" going on. Should they see in the future, abuse of the component output in the form of illegal copies poping up. They could and probably would start using ICT. Most likely this would occur first in the Asian & European markets first giving us a "heads up".

*My main point * that I was trying to make though, while ICT isn't currently being used. It is something everyone should be aware of & *should NOT * turn a blind eye too.

My personal effort is to keep as many people as informed as possible in anything that *MAY* limit our possible *"Fair use"* that I beleive we all as consumers are entitled too. I don't beleive in DRM, Encrypting, or limiting our use of legal content when there are those of us who purchase/rent legal copies of said content.

I do appreciate you clarifying the "details" of this further. I SHOULD have added in my original statement that I have not see any movies that have made use of ICT.

Thank you for pointing that out

TGC


----------



## mikeyts

I monitor highdefdigest.com and would have expected any use of the ICT to be _huge_ news there. I believe that they compare the HDMI and component outputs when reviewing discs just to be sure that the publishers don't try to sneak an ICT-enabled disc in somehow.

The issue doesn't affect me personally, since both my HD DVD player (a Toshiba HD-A20) and Blu-ray player (a Playstation 3) are connected to my system via HDMI for both sound and video, but there are quite a few folks out there who would go ballistic. It'll be a while (years) before the ICT can safely be used without precipitating a PR nightmare.


----------



## Brighton Line

RBlount said:


> I expect most companies will "give" you a box for "free" (Comcast always does when you subscribe to a digital service. However, they probably will raise the basic cost to cover it.


Cablevision in NYC is all digital execpt for about 23 stations, basic broadcast and some public access. When they switched we had to go to the local"Store" to swap the non-digital boxes for digital boxes. Cablevision in NYC always has required a box for permium channles.

I'm still paying over $6 for the box and I have to pay $5 to have the premium channels on a 2nd box in the home.
When I got my cable cards which are only $1.25 a month I lost one $6 charge (plus $0.23 for remote) but they still charge me the $5 for premium channles on a second outlet, they would not waive it even though I don't have a "2nd box".


----------



## kas25

I currently have a S3 as well as an Apple TV. I use the Apple TVs to play home movies, as well as pics/music. Will I be able to transfer these files (MPEG 4 format) to the TIVO. I think I've heard this question asked but not answered. Thank you.


----------



## cgould

kas25 said:


> I currently have a S3 as well as an Apple TV. I use the Apple TVs to play home movies, as well as pics/music. Will I be able to transfer these files (MPEG 4 format) to the TIVO. I think I've heard this question asked but not answered. Thank you.


Pony clarified to No- at least not initially/yet, for HD files at least; Tivo format (source) only.
Other sources (with accidental TTCB access) however earlier reported some success w/ various HD/SD MPG2 formats after some tweaks- but not MPG4 (SD also.)
So we might both be stuck at first. (The tivo chipset supports MPG4 etc, but maybe not the drivers, or at least tivo desktop for transfers.)

I'm hoping eventually it will support more formats. We'll see if Tivo Desktop+ or VideoRedo etc might help w/ making correct transcodes/formats etc. Can't wait til November!


----------



## bdraw

Why would the content providers even care about ICT, as long as AACS is ineffective at protecting data? I'm not sure why anyone would record via component when they could just put a disc in their computer and copy it, which would be faster and without the chance of degrading quality.


----------



## cgould

bdraw said:


> Why would the content providers even care about ICT, as long as AACS is ineffective at protecting data? I'm not sure why anyone would record via component when they could just put a disc in their computer and copy it, which would be faster and without the chance of degrading quality.


Exactly- what kind of realtime component HD video capture devices exist out there anyway? Certainly nothing that's as cheap as simply spending $20-40 for the real disk...

This component downgrade crap really pisses me off, since I don't have an HDMI HDTV, so any "upconverting" DVD player is worthless for me. And it's much easier as you said to simply rip the stupid disk directly.

At least the GOOD thing about component, is I don't have any of the HDCP nightmares from HDMI- I'll live with problem-free HD happily if only downside is no DVD upconverts!

All this means yet again that DRM/copy protection, only hurts the legitimate users, (and CE mfrs trying to make it work), and not the pirates- and the stupid content providers still don't get it. Paranoid , stupid idiots that ruin things for the rest of us.


----------



## mikeyts

Believe me--the content providers realize that _real_ pirates _will_ get around the copy protection systems (particularly systems for protecting static media, like AACS). There's nothing they can do that won't eventually be broken, by people with a strong profit motive, who can spend significant money on the problem since they expect to realize a return. I've seen whitepapers and slide presentations on copy protection in which they freely admit it. This stuff is aimed at making Joe Average follow the rules. They don't want millions of Joe Averages making unauthorized copies of their IP and casually passing them around to their friends. "Keeping honest people honest."


----------



## Crazydiamond

jfh3 said:


> It will be interesting to see how many of the S3/THD "I'm not buying another box until Tivo enables MRV" crowd actually goes out and gets another box ...


Well actually for some of us this could actually result in more than just upgrading to the new HD Tivos - part of my decision to upgrade my old tube TV's to HD TV's was dependent on Tivo getting MRV (which we use all the time on S2's) in the new HD units.

Yes, this could be a very busy year for "HD Santa".

P.S.

Of course after reading a few posts here I have to know if my Comcast Chicago SCI-FI channel, BBCA and other digital channels are allowed to use the MRV feature on the new Tivo HD units


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bdraw said:


> Why would the content providers even care about ICT, as long as AACS is ineffective at protecting data? I'm not sure why anyone would record via component when they could just put a disc in their computer and copy it, which would be faster and without the chance of degrading quality.


Who says "Content Providers" do anything logical or easy? LOL

Why do they even mess and spend money on DRM when everyone knows it will get broken eventually.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> Believe me--the content providers realize that _real_ pirates _will_ get around the copy protection systems (particularly systems for protecting static media, like AACS). There's nothing they can do that won't eventually be broken, by people with a strong profit motive, who can spend significant money on the problem since they expect to realize a return. I've seen whitepapers and slide presentations on copy protection in which they freely admit it. This stuff is aimed at making Joe Average follow the rules. They don't want millions of Joe Averages making unauthorized copies of their IP and casually passing them around to their friends. "Keeping honest people honest."


Exactly.... However.....

Once the "Breaks" are figured out. Sofware comes out for the general public to allow us "Joe Averages" to make copies of our DVD's

I can give you a list of at least 5 different programs available for free or even less then $50 that can easily copy & convert regular DVD's.

Through a pain in the butt process I (Joe Average) can allready rip Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies. I give it another year & someone will release a simple to use program that will be available for "Joe Average" to rip Blu-ray & HD-DVD

The problem is, that most of Joe Averages just don't want to be controlled on how, where, when and the way we choose to watch their content.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK

TexasGrillChef said:


> Who says "Content Providers" do anything logical or easy? LOL
> 
> Why do they even mess and spend money on DRM when everyone knows it will get broken eventually.
> 
> TGC


this all reminds me of all the bizarro copy protection they put on computer software in the beginning- if I recall they used to use oddly formatted disks and things like that.

Now all the software people seem to have given up and just seem to use "secret codes' that get validated. With all the HD disc players having ethernet- I could see the secret code thing being the end game at some point. You buy a disc and it comes with a pin- the first time you put it in your player it calls the mother ship and they prompt you for the pin. Future playback the disc asks the mothership and it recognizes the mac address (or crypto chip or some unique indentifier in the player) already called in with the PIN and allows playback without any user intervention. If we get LUCKY- we can also play the disk on the player in the bedroom by re-entering the pin- but if you try the pin too many times it tells you to bite me...

just my WAG of how ugly this gets in the end...


----------



## mercurial

MichaelK said:


> this all reminds me of all the bizarro copy protection they put on computer software in the beginning- if I recall they used to use oddly formatted disks and things like that.
> 
> Now all the software people seem to have given up and just seem to use "secret codes' that get validated. With all the HD disc players having ethernet- I could see the secret code thing being the end game at some point. You buy a disc and it comes with a pin- the first time you put it in your player it calls the mother ship and they prompt you for the pin. Future playback the disc asks the mothership and it recognizes the mac address (or crypto chip or some unique indentifier in the player) already called in with the PIN and allows playback without any user intervention. If we get LUCKY- we can also play the disk on the player in the bedroom by re-entering the pin- but if you try the pin too many times it tells you to bite me...
> 
> just my WAG of how ugly this gets in the end...


You mean, like Circuit City's DIVX?


----------



## MichaelK

mercurial said:


> You mean, like Circuit City's DIVX?


good example. Yepp- I'm afraid that's what happens. I just read a story the other day how google (I think?) had been "beta" testing video and decided to go out of business and so everyone that "purchased" video from them is now SOL and wont be able to use the content they bought. (although I think Google did give them all credits?)

unbox is just another example of one not physically possessing the content one purchased.


----------



## nathanziarek

mikeyts said:


> Believe me--the content providers realize that _real_ pirates _will_ get around the copy protection systems (particularly systems for protecting static media, like AACS). There's nothing they can do that won't eventually be broken, by people with a strong profit motive, who can spend significant money on the problem since they expect to realize a return. I've seen whitepapers and slide presentations on copy protection in which they freely admit it. This stuff is aimed at making Joe Average follow the rules. They don't want millions of Joe Averages making unauthorized copies of their IP and casually passing them around to their friends. "Keeping honest people honest."


I don't think that is the reason for a second. DRM accomplishes nothing but provide a temporary block to pirates. Eventually they'll figure it out. Everyone knows that.

The real reason DRM exists is to halt inter-compatibility. Media companies have every reason to make sure that a video bought for the Zune plays only on a Zune. It lessens the potential audience of thieves and (most importantly) forces me to repurchase the media if I were to buy an incompatible player in the future. The media companies remember the record profits they made from the conversion of VHS to DVD and see DRM as a way to keep that ball rolling.

My 2 cents anyway...


----------



## dougdingle

Thunderclap said:


> Glad to hear I'll finally be able to transfer video from my PC to Tivo again! And now, with Apple's announcement of possible movie rentals through iTunes, it would be doubly sweet if we could get integrated iTunes rental on Tivo. (hint hint)


What an unbelievable disaster that would be.

iTunes appears to be an insidious virus propagated by Apple in an attempt to be the world's gatekeeper for DRM.

What Jobs appears to want in the long run is a few cents every single time you watch or listen to anything you haven't personally created. Once he has reached some predetermined number of installations, he's going to partner with every content provider in the known universe in a revenue sharing agreement which is likely going to cost us money every time we play back anything.

A big step was requiring the installation of iTunes to activate the iPhone. There is no reason on earth that was necessary, but if you didn't install iTunes, you couldn't activate your new $600 toy. Not at the Apple store. Not at AT&T. You HAD to install iTunes to turn the phone on. It was the reason I didn't buy an iPhone (which is a nice piece of version 1.0 technology, BTW).

The last thing I want is that program anywhere near my TiVo.


----------



## nathanziarek

Hmm...I like my iPods, iPhone and Macs, but I am far from one of those "Apple just wants whats best for the consumer" mac zealots. Still, I don't think Jobs cares much about the media. He's a known music lover, but claims not to watch TV or movies. He wants to sell iPods and iPhones with huge margins. He wants to control the experience of his gadgets -- that's why iTunes was required. I've never pegged Apple for a nickle-and-dime sort of company (exact opposite in fact).


----------



## dougdingle

nathanziarek said:


> I've never pegged Apple for a nickle-and-dime sort of company (exact opposite in fact).


Nickels and dimes add up very quickly when the number of installations is, say, fifty million PCs and Macs (not to mention all those iPods, iPhones, and whatever else will have iTunes), and each one pays just a few pennies for every playback.

The ongoing ever growing revenue stream from that will make the enormous income from, say, Microsoft Office or iPod sales look like chump change. It's the Gillette model (give away the razor, charge for every blade) extrapolated to an enormous base.


----------



## Tuckrat

Where do I sign up for the priority update???


----------



## Redux

dougdingle said:


> It's the Gillette model (give away the razor, charge for every blade) extrapolated to an enormous base.


If you read a bit, you'd find that iTunes is frequently referred to as the razor blade model reversed.

Also you'd discover that Jobs has been forcefully lobbying the Music Industry to allow universal (so to speak) DRM-free distribution, which is itself a major part of the friction between Apple and the Industry.

Having had DRM forced upon it as a condition of doing business with that Industry, Apple is very good at implementing it, and this certainly does aggravate many users.


----------



## Fofer

nathanziarek said:


> He's a known music lover, but claims not to watch TV *or movies.*


I don't buy that. Dude was the CEO of Pixar until its acquisition by Disney. He is currently the largest Disney shareholder and a member of Disney's Board of Directors.

I think he watches a movie or two, now and then.


----------



## Fofer

dougdingle said:


> iTunes appears to be an insidious virus propagated by Apple in an attempt to be the world's gatekeeper for DRM.


LOL.

Might be time to edumacate yourself:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

http://news.com.com/EMI,+Apple+partner+on+DRM-free+premium+music/2100-1027_3-6172398.html


----------



## mikeyts

Redux said:


> Having had DRM forced upon it as a condition of doing business with that Industry, Apple is very good at implementing it, and this certainly does aggravate many users.


My problem with iTunes is that Apple chose to invent their own DRM system--ironically called "FairPlay"--which they've refused to license to any other music store. When the iTunes store hit the scene there had been a plethora of stores online using WMDRM for years. You can only buy licensed music from the iTunes store to play on iPods and you can't play the tracks on anything else (except the iTunes player running on a Mac or PC).

Of course, Microsoft decided to follow Apple's lead for the Zune store and create a special version of WMDRM just for the Zune.



Fofer said:


> LOL.
> 
> Might be time to edumacate yourself:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
> 
> http://news.com.com/EMI,+Apple+partner+on+DRM-free+premium+music/2100-1027_3-6172398.html


EDIT: Just read that. Ugh .


----------



## Dennis Wilkinson

mikeyts said:


> My problem with iTunes is that Apple chose to invent their own DRM system--ironically called "FairPlay"--which they've refused to license to any other music store. When the iTunes store hit the scene there had been a plethora of stores online using WMDRM for years. You can only buy licensed music from the iTunes store to play on iPods and you can't play the tracks on anything else (except the iTunes player running on a Mac or PC).


They did this/do this (developed their own/refuse to license it) because they were the ones contractually 'liable' to the record companies should their DRM be broken, so they also wanted to be the sole party responsible for the DRM scheme (my recollection is that FairPlay was something Apple purchased and developed further in-house, not really a "roll-from-scratch" thing, but that's not really relevant, as FairPlay today is clearly Apple-only.)

It makes sense from a managing-the-business standpoint. And if you buy from a DRM-free music store, all of Apple's devices will happily play the content. With over 30GB loaded, my iPod has much, much less than 1% of its content purchased from the iTunes Store (and all of the content is legitimately purchased, predominantly ripped from CD -- if I'm going to pay full price, I want all the bits, not something compressed.)


----------



## saberman

TiVoPony said:


> These features will provide support for video transfers between Series3 & Series2 systems and between a Series3/Series2 system and a PC. High Definition content will not be supported for transfer or playback on a Series2 system (Series2's just can't play HD), and copy-protected High Def or Standard Def content cannot be transferred (same as our current Series2 products). The aptly yet unofficially named TiVoToComeBack also will be supported, including HD content (originally recorded on a TiVo DVR).


Any chance they'll final put in folder support for video files?


----------



## mikeyts

Dennis Wilkinson said:


> They did this/do this (developed their own/refuse to license it) because they were the ones contractually 'liable' to the record companies should their DRM be broken, so they also wanted to be the sole party responsible for the DRM scheme (my recollection is that FairPlay was something Apple purchased and developed further in-house, not really a "roll-from-scratch" thing, but that's not really relevant, as FairPlay today is clearly Apple-only.


I read Jobs' excuse, but the end result is that they became the sole source for licensed-and-DRM'd tracks for the iPod market, far and away and the biggest slice of the portable music player market. It's a smug justification for market protectionism and anti-competitive business practice. I'm not sure how they (or MS) get this type of BS past the FTC.


----------



## Fofer

mikeyts said:


> I read Jobs' excuse, but the end result is that they became the sole source for licensed-and-DRM'd tracks for the iPod market, far and away and the biggest slice of the portable music player market. It's a smug justification for market protectionism and anti-competitive business practice. I'm not sure how they (or MS) get this type of BS past the FTC.


 

So how do you explain EMI's DRMless tracks for sale on the iTunes Store?


----------



## formulaben

TiVoPony said:


> Yes, even from a Mac.
> 
> Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pony


Ubuntu support?


----------



## Fofer

formulaben said:


> Ubuntu support?


  :up:

Good one.


----------



## bicker

cgould said:


> All this means yet again that DRM/copy protection, only hurts the legitimate users, (and CE mfrs trying to make it work), and not the pirates- and the stupid content providers still don't get it. Paranoid , stupid idiots that ruin things for the rest of us.


Actually,_ they're_ smarter than you think. First, it ruins things only for a few of you. Second, it protects _them_ against advances in hacking capability that will eventually come down the pike. _They _learned the hard way with analog that once a door is left open, it can never be closed.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Why do they even mess and spend money on DRM when everyone knows it will get broken eventually.


Because they make more money that way.


----------



## bicker

mikeyts said:


> They don't want millions of Joe Averages making unauthorized copies of their IP and casually passing them around to their friends.


Absolutely. I've seen messages on some other websites that curled my toes, pointing out just how opportunistic some people are -- about everything! Hotels, theme parks, airlines, cable service, groceries, etc.

For the vast majority, basic controls such as DRM does nip that in the bud, and safeguard the IP to a great extent. Since this ensures that only a few transgressive people do the extra work necessary to break the DRM, and they are effectively prohibited from distributing copies to others on a wholesale basis, it is therefore a win for content owners.


----------



## rainwater

bicker said:


> Actually,_ they're_ smarter than you think. First, it ruins things only for a few of you. Second, it protects _them_ against advances in hacking capability that will eventually come down the pike. _They _learned the hard way with analog that once a door is left open, it can never be closed.


Copy protection/drm has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with content providers restricting content so they can have multiple revenue streams from the same content.


----------



## mikeyts

bicker said:


> Absolutely. I've seen messages on some other websites that curled my toes, pointing out just how opportunistic some people are -- about everything! Hotels, theme parks, airlines, cable service, groceries, etc.
> 
> For the vast majority, basic controls such as DRM does nip that in the bud, and safeguard the IP to a great extent. Since this ensures that only a few transgressive people do the extra work necessary to break the DRM, and they are effectively prohibited from distributing copies to others on a wholesale basis, it is therefore a win for content owners.


Thank you for seeing my point. No copy protection mechanism will ever be unbreakable and the content IP holders readily admit that (though I'm sure that they'd hoped that AACS might take just a bit longer to break ). As long as its technically complex and a federal crime to break these protections, relatively few people will do it.

And no one technically astute enough to find and read these forums can be considered "Joe Average". We're all early-adopter, tech-fascinated freaks.
Any mass-media product that doesn't attract at least a hundred times so many customers as people like us is either going to be priced through the roof forever or is going to fail.


----------



## nathanziarek

Fofer said:


> I don't buy that. Dude was the CEO of Pixar until its acquisition by Disney. He is currently the largest Disney shareholder and a member of Disney's Board of Directors.


I'm sure he does. I wasn't trying to imply he doesn't watch anything. That said, read up sometime on how Jobs went on to purchase Pixar. He largely lucked into purchasing a company with a phenomenal staff (John Lasseter).

Anyway, I think that is Apple could get DRM-free media on iTunes throughout, they would - it makes the products Apple does care about: tv, iPod, iPhone, Quicktime, etc more valuable. It is the reverse-razorblade model.


----------



## nathanziarek

rainwater said:


> Copy protection/drm has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with content providers restricting content so they can have multiple revenue streams from the same content.


++ :up:


----------



## Fofer

nathanziarek said:


> That said, read up sometime on how Jobs went on to purchase Pixar. He largely lucked into purchasing a company with a phenomenal staff (John Lasseter).


I've read all about it.

And when it comes to his kind of business savvy and success, I simply don't believe in "luck."


----------



## ah30k

TexasGrillChef said:


> My personal effort is to keep as many people as informed as possible in anything that *MAY* limit our possible *"Fair use"* that I beleive we all as consumers are entitled too. I don't beleive in DRM, Encrypting, or limiting our use of legal content when there are those of us who purchase/rent legal copies of said content.


I'm no lawyer but I thought fair use was a legitimate defense in copyright cases but not a 'right'. For instance if I make a copy of a copyright material then I can claim fair-use in my defense. It is not a 'right' however in that all copyright holders *must* provide me as a consumer a way to copy the material.

That whole digital protection circumvention law seems smell a little fishy though... but that is another topic.


----------



## nathanziarek

Fofer said:


> And when it comes to his kind of business savvy and success, I simply don't believe in "luck."


You are right. Luck is the wrong word. Jobs has a vision that many people lack. But, Pixar wasn't bought as a movie house. It was in hardware sales. So, as far as "owning Pixar" = "Loves movies", I don't think it holds up. Still, my knowledge of Jobs like and dislikes in media is completely hearsay, do it doesn't really hold up either


----------



## bryus

The entertainment industry's problem is that they now see a way to increase revenue. They do this by introducing new, more restricted formats, locking digital content to one format. They'd also like you to pay again and again for each device you have.

They refuse to admit that ALL content can and will be pirated. They also refuse to admit that one motivation for piracy is that they don't provide their content in a format consumers want or because they prevent it from being moved across platforms.

They are also battling consumer perception. Consumers used to copying records to cassettes or dubbing cassettes under fair use think this should translate to new media. Why should I have to break the law to rip a DVD onto my iPod? It's not illegal to put music on my iPod.

The same goes for my TiVo. Why should they be able to stop me from recording shows off my TiVo onto a DVD or my iPod for personal use? Simple, they can't make money off it.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

dougdingle said:


> What an unbelievable disaster that would be.
> 
> iTunes appears to be an insidious virus propagated by Apple in an attempt to be the world's gatekeeper for DRM.
> 
> What Jobs appears to want in the long run is a few cents every single time you watch or listen to anything you haven't personally created. Once he has reached some predetermined number of installations, he's going to partner with every content provider in the known universe in a revenue sharing agreement which is likely going to cost us money every time we play back anything.
> 
> A big step was requiring the installation of iTunes to activate the iPhone. There is no reason on earth that was necessary, but if you didn't install iTunes, you couldn't activate your new $600 toy. Not at the Apple store. Not at AT&T. You HAD to install iTunes to turn the phone on. It was the reason I didn't buy an iPhone (which is a nice piece of version 1.0 technology, BTW).
> 
> The last thing I want is that program anywhere near my TiVo.


Except that NBC just dumped iTunes recently and will shortly be pulling all NBC (if it hasn't allready) content from iTunes

TGC


----------



## bryus

TexasGrillChef said:


> Except that NBC just dumped iTunes recently and will shortly be pulling all NBC (if it hasn't allready) content from iTunes
> 
> TGC


I think NBC will come to regret this decision. I'm not buying anything that uses Microsoft's DRM. It doesn't work on my computer and it's not as user friendly as Apple's.

I think this will just drive users to Bittorrent because their reasonable option was removed.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

rainwater said:


> Copy protection/drm has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with content providers restricting content so they can have multiple revenue streams from the same content.


And that is exactly what I personaly find morally wrong.

I beleive that I should pay once for content, then have the right to do with it as I wish.

Just like my Automobile, or a BOOK I buy. Once I buy them, I can do what I wish with them. Except make copies and resell them.

I as a consumer, don't have a desire to make copies and resell them. However, if I wish to paint my car pink, grean & orange. I have the right to do so. If I wish to get rid of my car & sell it. (The original copy) I have a right to do so.

Same goes with the book. If I wish to scan it to a PDF format so I can read it on my computer or book reader, I can. If I wish to read it anywhere I want I can. If I am tired of it, I can sell it (original copy only).

However, with DL music, or DVD's (Including Blu-ray & HD-DVD). I have to jump through hoops first! I have to break the DRM content. Before I can watch it how I want, where I want, or anything else. In some cases I can't even sell my original copy of the content because I am tired of it. Unlike a book, or car, or anything else I am tired of and wish to get rid of. Although a DVD, Blu-ray, or HD-DVD I can. Downloaded content with DRM I can't.

We as consumers I beleive have the *INHERANT (sp?)* right to sell the *ORIGINAL* copy of anything we purchase. Cars, Houses, TV's, Books, Computers, Software etc...

We also have a right to *USE* anything we purchase anyway we so chose. With 2 exceptions we can't sell "Copies" and we have to use said products in a safe way as to not endanger the lives & safety of other people &/or the enviroment.

I think it is morally wrong to have to purchase upteen hundred copies of the same content to play on my PSP, iPod, Zune, DVD player in the home, DVD player in the car, Computer, Laptop or any other freakin device I have. If I own them all, and am only using it by me personaly.

Well Sorry for rant. Now that I got that off my chest... I fully support all efforts to break any DRM or other encryption of legally obtained content for personal use only.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

ah30k said:


> I'm no lawyer but I thought fair use was a legitimate defense in copyright cases but not a 'right'. For instance if I make a copy of a copyright material then I can claim fair-use in my defense. It is not a 'right' however in that all copyright holders *must* provide me as a consumer a way to copy the material.
> 
> That whole digital protection circumvention law seems smell a little fishy though... but that is another topic.


Whats a priviledge for some, other consider a Right and vice-versa.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bryus said:


> The entertainment industry's problem is that they now see a way to increase revenue. They do this by introducing new, more restricted formats, locking digital content to one format. They'd also like you to pay again and again for each device you have.
> 
> They refuse to admit that ALL content can and will be pirated. They also refuse to admit that one motivation for piracy is that they don't provide their content in a format consumers want or because they prevent it from being moved across platforms.
> 
> They are also battling consumer perception. Consumers used to copying records to cassettes or dubbing cassettes under fair use think this should translate to new media. Why should I have to break the law to rip a DVD onto my iPod? It's not illegal to put music on my iPod.
> 
> The same goes for my TiVo. Why should they be able to stop me from recording shows off my TiVo onto a DVD or my iPod for personal use? Simple, they can't make money off it.


Exactly the point I have made many many times before.

I shouldn't have to pay additional money to play the content on additional platforms that I allready own. If it is for personal/family use only.

It isn't like I am trying to make copies and SELL them. I am not. I DO think that is wrong.

Keep in mind, that if it was up to "CONTENT PROVIDERS" they wouldn't even allow the "Fair Use" clause of the Copyright law!

Hmmmmmmmmmm anyone remember the Boston Tea Party? or the Camden 28?

TGC


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> Keep in mind, that if it was up to "CONTENT PROVIDERS" they wouldn't even allow the "Fair Use" clause of the Copyright law!


I don't think that the content providers have anything against the Fair Use clause of the copyright law since it has nothing to do with their business. As written (and it has never been modified or appended), it gives journalists, scholars and researchers the right to make productive use of portions of copyrighted work (but no substantial part of the whole) in their own works. It was intended to prevent copyright from impeding the free public discourse on ideas which were first introduced in copyrighted work. A narrow majority of the 1984 Supreme Court made a very inventive interpretation of "productive use of no substantial part of the whole" by scholars and journalists to cover "casual, non-productive use" of whole copyrighted works (as broadcast on free, over-the-air television) by anyone.


----------



## nathanziarek

TexasGrillChef said:


> Except that NBC just dumped iTunes recently and will shortly be pulling all NBC (if it hasn't allready) content from iTunes


Close. NBC decided not to renew its contract, meaning no new shows comes December. iTunes (Apple) retaliated and said they were going to dump NBC immediately. To date, all the NBC stuff is still up there, and NBC claims all new episodes up to the contract expiration in December will be, so we'll see where the rubber actually meets the road. I don't understand why Apple won't let NBC price their content at any price (and find a nice market equilibrium at probably less than $1.99) and I don't understand how NBC, whose show _The Office_ was practically made by iTunes, doesn't understand the implicit value in the store. But, I'm a low-paid web developer, not a high paid exec. What do I know?

Back on topic, things like MRV and TTG make the content more valuable. I'll watch more TV (not healthy, but...) if I can get it on my laptop or iPod on the way to work. By and large, I think execs understand that, but, especially with TV, there are so many middle men -- production company, broadcaster, cable company -- that I think satisfying everyone is nearly impossible.

n


----------



## CharlesH

TexasGrillChef said:


> Just like my Automobile, or a BOOK I buy. Once I buy them, I can do what I wish with them. Except make copies and resell them.


You don't have to *sell* the copies to infringe the copyright. Giving them away also infringes the copyright. The point is whether copies are being distributed in a manner not authorized by the copyright holder, not whether the distributer has made any money in the process.


----------



## Redux

mikeyts said:


> I don't think that the content providers have anything against the Fair Use clause of the copyright law


I don't think they understand it.

Fair Use is a principle that existed long before copyright, in common law forever. Since the more recently-created right of copyright infringed on existing rights, an explicit statement confirming that Fair Use still existed was incorporated into copyright law and examples were given. Many people try to fabricate limitations on Fair Use based on the language and the examples, and there are some limited supporting decisions that seem to follow that logic. But mainstream, long term, the effort is doomed. It is copyright itself that is the exception, the new kid on the block, that needs to be defended, not Fair Use. Fair Use is the default.


----------



## bryus

nathanziarek said:


> Close. NBC decided not to renew its contract, meaning no new shows comes December. iTunes (Apple) retaliated and said they were going to dump NBC immediately. To date, all the NBC stuff is still up there, and NBC claims all new episodes up to the contract expiration in December will be, so we'll see where the rubber actually meets the road. I don't understand why Apple won't let NBC price their content at any price (and find a nice market equilibrium at probably less than $1.99) and I don't understand how NBC, whose show _The Office_ was practically made by iTunes, doesn't understand the implicit value in the store. But, I'm a low-paid web developer, not a high paid exec. What do I know?
> 
> Back on topic, things like MRV and TTG make the content more valuable. I'll watch more TV (not healthy, but...) if I can get it on my laptop or iPod on the way to work. By and large, I think execs understand that, but, especially with TV, there are so many middle men -- production company, broadcaster, cable company -- that I think satisfying everyone is nearly impossible.
> 
> n


NBC has the same disconnected view as the record industry who argue that record sales are dropping due to piracy. They fail to mention fewer albums are being released or that the quality of new music has declined.

Entertainment execs have a deliberate inability to link a cause with it's actual effect. It's really no surprise that they can't draw the connection between iTunes and a show gaining an audience. It would really blow their mind to make the connection that giving away content is profitable, like in the case of independent musicians who let podcasts play their songs for free to drive sales.


----------



## tetzel1517

bedelman said:


> I would think that the protocol used by the "hidden" video tab found within the TiVo Desktop for Mac OSX preference pane will be compatible.
> 
> I wonder if other applications like TiVo.NET will work (which I use mostly with my Macs)


What is this "tab" of which you speak, and how do I access it? It's not a huge deal because I've downloaded other programs off my S2 to my Mac using some open-source software tools, but if there's a way to do it within TiVo Desktop, that'd be pretty sweet.

I can't wait for this... I just got the new iPod Classic, which has a fantastic screen on it. Being able to download content from my S2 _and_ my S3 and then converting it for use on my iPod would rock.


----------



## bicker

rainwater said:


> Copy protection/drm has nothing to do with piracy. It has everything to do with content providers restricting content so they can have multiple revenue streams from the same content.


DRM has to do with both.


----------



## bicker

mikeyts said:


> We're all early-adopter, tech-fascinated freaks.
> Any mass-media product that doesn't attract at least a hundred times so many customers as people like us is either going to be priced through the roof forever or is going to fail.


Abso-friggen-lutely. The consumer products we discuss here will always be dominated, in their engineering and the structure of their offering, by the preferences and purchasing behaviors of folks who are far less "into" this stuff than most anyone here is.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> I beleive that I should pay once for content, then have the right to do with it as I wish.


I believe a lot of things, but that doesn't mean my beliefs will affect the reality of the situation.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Just like my Automobile, or a BOOK I buy. Once I buy them, I can do what I wish with them.


Except that digital content isn't sold like an automobile or a book. Every seller has an unequivocal moral right to decide if they're going to sell what they own, and if so, with what terms and conditions they choose to offer it for sale. Every buyer has an unequivocal moral right to decide if they're going to make the purchase, given that making the purchase requires compliance with the terms and conditions offered.


----------



## rainwater

bicker said:


> DRM has to do with both.


Can you name a major DRM scheme used for video content that hasn't been broken yet? Again, they may say that is what it is about, but they are not stopping people who really want to crack these schemes. It is only affecting the average consumer who doesn't even care about stealing content.


----------



## bicker

As many people in this thread have pointed out, DRM does stop many people from pirating digital content. 

Trying to rationalize transgressive behavior because there isn't an armed guard at every door is ridiculous. Many rules and laws in our society are intended to be enforced by the honor system. So the question for each of us is whether or not we'll choose to live with honor or be selfish.


----------



## saberman

rainwater said:


> Can you name a major DRM scheme used for video content that hasn't been broken yet? Again, they may say that is what it is about, but they are not stopping people who really want to crack these schemes. It is only affecting the average consumer who doesn't even care about stealing content.


A current example is the Apple cellphone. It was only supposed to work on the AT&T network and had firmware and software to restrict it to the AT&T network.

There are at least a couple of published hacks for using it on other networks and someone makes a small hardware attachment that lets anyone use it on other networks -- no technical knowledge required. How long has the phone been out?

In the begining of time -- when I was in college -- one of the schools put in a new computer system that was supposed to significantly improved security. IF I remember correctly, it was designed to keep the students from hacking in and it did -- for almost 30 minutes.


----------



## PaulS

rainwater said:


> Can you name a major DRM scheme used for video content that hasn't been broken yet? Again, they may say that is what it is about, but they are not stopping people who really want to crack these schemes. It is only affecting the average consumer who doesn't even care about stealing content.


I don't believe Blu-Ray's "BD+" scheme has been broken yet.


----------



## rainwater

PaulS said:


> I don't believe Blu-Ray's "BD+" scheme has been broken yet.


Are any discs even using BD+ yet?


----------



## rodalpho

saberman said:


> There are at least a couple of published hacks for using it on other networks and someone makes a small hardware attachment that lets anyone use it on other networks -- no technical knowledge required. How long has the phone been out?


There's actually a software hack out now that's pretty much point and click. The iphone has been out for a month and a half. Not that that has anything to do with DRM, so going back on topic...

DRM only hurts honest customers. Pirates gleefully circumvent it.


----------



## sommerfeld

bicker said:


> As many people in this thread have pointed out, DRM does stop many people from pirating digital content.


The problem with DRM is not that it fails to prevent all transgressive behavior, but that it also interferes with much entirely non-transgressive behavior.

As a result, people not normally inclined to piracy are motivated to find ways to bypass DRM to permit fair use (for instance, to play a mass-market DVD you own on a computer you own running an operating system not blessed by the CSS people, you need to run code which breaks CSS encryption).


----------



## bicker

The reality is that DRM *succeeds* in preventing a substantial amount of transgressive behavior. Why would you even imply that the number of folks who transgress "because of" DRM comes anywhere close to the number of people who don't transgress because of DRM. That's an incredibly outrageous -- an utterly incredible -- assertion.


----------



## nathanziarek

bicker said:


> The reality is that DRM *succeeds* in preventing a substantial amount of transgressive behavior. Why would you even imply that the number of folks who transgress "because of" DRM comes anywhere close to the number of people who don't transgress because of DRM. That's an incredibly outrageous -- an utterly incredible -- assertion.


Proof? I don't have any contrary, but I figure there are a four different types of people:
1) My mom, who wouldn't know the difference between a CD and DVD, but uses them without issue
2) My wife and I, who have no need or want to pirate, even casually, and are limited by what we can legally do (put a DVD on our iPod) because of DRM. They may or may not know how to crack the DRM, but regardless, it never "leaves the house."
3) People who crack the DRM because they want to use their media anywhere, and might share a video or two with friends (but probably not seed a torrent or anything)
4) Pirates, who crack the DRM and pirate the media wholesale.

What has DRM accomplished there? It was cracked by those that want to pirate it and hindered those that simply wanted to view the media. It prevented some "casual" pirating. Unless casual pirating is much bigger than I think (and it could be), DRM has effectively done nothing to help the industry, and through hindering people from viewing the media the way they want, may have actually hurt it.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

nathanziarek said:


> Close. NBC decided not to renew its contract, meaning no new shows comes December. iTunes (Apple) retaliated and said they were going to dump NBC immediately. To date, all the NBC stuff is still up there, and NBC claims all new episodes up to the contract expiration in December will be, so we'll see where the rubber actually meets the road. I don't understand why Apple won't let NBC price their content at any price (and find a nice market equilibrium at probably less than $1.99) and I don't understand how NBC, whose show _The Office_ was practically made by iTunes, doesn't understand the implicit value in the store. But, I'm a low-paid web developer, not a high paid exec. What do I know?
> 
> Back on topic, things like MRV and TTG make the content more valuable. I'll watch more TV (not healthy, but...) if I can get it on my laptop or iPod on the way to work. By and large, I think execs understand that, but, especially with TV, there are so many middle men -- production company, broadcaster, cable company -- that I think satisfying everyone is nearly impossible.
> 
> n


Thanks for clarifying the whole NBC story. I didn't know what was what on it. Other than there was a so called falling out between the two & that they will be soon parting company.

thanks

tgc


----------



## TexasGrillChef

CharlesH said:


> You don't have to *sell* the copies to infringe the copyright. Giving them away also infringes the copyright. The point is whether copies are being distributed in a manner not authorized by the copyright holder, not whether the distributer has made any money in the process.


Well I still have the right to give away my car, or a BOOK (Original copy of course) or anything else I buy....

I might not have the legal right... but IMHO I sure have the moral right. If Paid for something, then I should have the right to re-sell, or give away the original copy.

I am sure you wouldn't be happy if the Developer who built your house said because you couldn't sell your house or give away your house. The "blue prints" to a house are often times copyrighted. I know the Blue prints to my house are. However, I know I have a right to sell the original copy of the blue prints of my house, as well as the house itself. I don't have the right to make multiple copies of the blue prints and sell each of the copies.

As far as I am concerned... I will sell or give away anything (Original copy only) that I feel I wish to do so what ever that item may be. As far as being sued, Fine sue me. Can't get blood from a turnip. Arrest me even feel free. I have good lawyers and plenty of legal defenses.

Boston Tea Party anyone? Camden 28 anyone?

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bryus said:


> NBC has the same disconnected view as the record industry who argue that record sales are dropping due to piracy. They fail to mention fewer albums are being released or that the quality of new music has declined.
> 
> Entertainment execs have a deliberate inability to link a cause with it's actual effect. It's really no surprise that they can't draw the connection between iTunes and a show gaining an audience. It would really blow their mind to make the connection that giving away content is profitable, like in the case of independent musicians who let podcasts play their songs for free to drive sales.


Personally. Doesn't really matter to me. I think its stupid on NBC & Apples part.

I don't buy anything I can get in Hi-Def for free anyways.

Why would I want to pay ANY PRICE for a SD show that I can only watch on my computer / ipod etc, that I can RECORD in Hi-Def on my TiVO? And soon in time, be able to transfer that HD show to my Blu-Ray.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

PaulS said:


> I don't believe Blu-Ray's "BD+" scheme has been broken yet.


Not yet.. but as described and listed in Doom9 forum. Currently there are *NOT* any Blu-Ray DVD's released in the USA that make use of BD+

Since there aren't any current Blu-ray titles with BD+ released, there hasn't been a big push to break it, or content to work on to be broken. It is just a matter of time though.

I currently backup all of my Blu-ray & HD-DVD's. I have not yet come across any title that I haven't been able to duplicate.

tgc


----------



## TexasGrillChef

I know *I am as Guilty* of this as a few others. But I have just noticed that the last 40-50 posts in this thread our posts have had very little to do with MRV/TTG coming to our S3/HD.

Albeit though DRM, Pirating, encryption etc does have alot to do with how MRV/TTG will be controlled, used, abused, etc...

IMHO.... I do beleive that MRV/TTG that will be released in November will work just fine for the vast majority of us with multiple S3's/HD boxes.

I do beleive that MRV will work just fine for the most part even with premium HD channels such as HBO-HD, ESPN-HD, and even Discovery Channel HD.

I think most of the caveats & issues will remain with those doing TTG of premium based channels & those that have out of the ordinary setups or use routines.

For me, I will have 3 boxes (All S3 or HD boxes) and for the most part, I will record a show, watch it then delete it once I am finished watching it. Whichever TV set/box I watch it on.

98% of the TV I watch is broadcast in HD. The only shows that I "Save" after watching are all in fact HD. Those are only 3 shows, (Heroes, Lost & 24).

The only caveat or issue I forsee having, is transfering those 3 shows to my computer, and burning them (IN Hi-Def) to a Blu-Ray disc. If not, then saving in a format that my Xbox 360 (with media center/extender) can read & play them in HD. (Storage space isn't an issue with me)

Of course for all of us.... Everything is pretty much speculation, wishes & hopes until we know for sure when it is released in November.

TGC

Then again... who knows what the future will bring....TARDIS anyone?


----------



## sfhub

TexasGrillChef said:


> I do beleive that MRV will work just fine for the most part even with premium HD channels such as HBO-HD, ESPN-HD, and even Discovery Channel HD.
> 
> I think most of the caveats & issues will remain with those doing TTG of premium based channels & those that have out of the ordinary setups or use routines.


What are you basing your feeling that MRV will work for CCI=non-zero content? I didn't see that in TiVoPony's postings.


----------



## rainwater

sfhub said:


> What are you basing your feeling that MRV will work for CCI=non-zero content? I didn't see that in TiVoPony's postings.


Luckily for me I don't have that issue on any of my premiums for the most part so transferring recordings will be no problem for me unless something changes.


----------



## bicker

nathanziarek said:


> What has DRM accomplished there?


It accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish with respect to the group of people you neglected to list.


----------



## Onibroc42

nathanziarek said:


> Proof? I don't have any contrary, but I figure there are a four different types of people:
> 1) My mom, who wouldn't know the difference between a CD and DVD, but uses them without issue
> 2) My wife and I, who have no need or want to pirate, even casually, and are limited by what we can legally do (put a DVD on our iPod) because of DRM. They may or may not know how to crack the DRM, but regardless, it never "leaves the house."
> 3) People who crack the DRM because they want to use their media anywhere, and might share a video or two with friends (but probably not seed a torrent or anything)
> 4) Pirates, who crack the DRM and pirate the media wholesale.
> 
> What has DRM accomplished there? It was cracked by those that want to pirate it and hindered those that simply wanted to view the media. It prevented some "casual" pirating. Unless casual pirating is much bigger than I think (and it could be), DRM has effectively done nothing to help the industry, and through hindering people from viewing the media the way they want, may have actually hurt it.


The point of DRM is not to stop piracy. It is to control access. The so-called encryption of DVDs doesn't stop someone from doing a bit-wise copy of a DVD. What it does is prevent someone from selling a DVD player without first paying tithe to the DVD-CCA.

DRM has never been about preventing piracy. It has always been about control. The music and movie industries have a vision in their minds of a perfect world where every time an image passes through a pair of eyeballs, or a note passes through a pair of ears, they get money. DRM was supposed to enable that by forcing consumers to repeatedly buy the same content for every new device they purchase.

DRM is nothing more than planned obsolescence taken to its furthest extreme.


----------



## GoHokies!

bicker said:


> It accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish with respect to the group of people you neglected to list.


Could you elaborate more on that group of people then, or do we just have to guess?


----------



## dougdingle

rainwater said:


> Luckily for me I don't have that issue on any of my premiums for the most part so transferring recordings will be no problem for me unless something changes.


I'm in the same situation. After reading the thread, I had a look at my recorded programs, both locals and premiums (HBO), and nothing is marked in the Info screen as being protected. I was pretty surprised, actually...


----------



## sfhub

dougdingle said:


> I'm in the same situation. After reading the thread, I had a look at my recorded programs, both locals and premiums (HBO), and nothing is marked in the Info screen as being protected. I was pretty surprised, actually...


If it stays CCI=0x00 for you, consider yourself fortunate. You can actually swap CableCARDs to different units or different slots and they will continue to work also (for those channels with CCI=0x00)

However, keep in mind CCI value can change overnight with no warning. A likely triggering event could be if your cable company decides to install CPMS updates for Motorola headends (assuming it hasn't done so already). There were folks who found out more than they wanted to about CCI values when their previously functioning CableCARD setups stopped working (for CCI=non-zero content) because they weren't actually paired properly.


----------



## nathanziarek

dougdingle said:


> I'm in the same situation. After reading the thread, I had a look at my recorded programs, both locals and premiums (HBO), and nothing is marked in the Info screen as being protected. I was pretty surprised, actually...


I was browsing through last night on a whim an noticed everything, except some stuff I saved off locals, was protected (no copying to DVD, etc). Would be a bummer to finally get TTG and have it be essentially useless for me


----------



## cfryer

I browsed the info screen on a good number of recorded shows including OTA, local networks via cable, cable HD stations and premium stations (via Comcast Bay Area). Many of the shows I'd like to transfer were marked with NO restrictions. Most of the recent movies from HBO HD were restricted but not all. Many HD shows on Discovery HD were not restricted. It seems to me that restrictions are placed on a per show basis and not on a per channel basis at least via Comcast (SF) Bay Area.


----------



## bicker

GoHokies! said:


> Could you elaborate more on that group of people then, or do we just have to guess?


I won't name names. I know people who, if all they had to do is pop a blank disc in a HD-DVD recorder and press Record, *would*. Give them a box that has an HD-DVD player on one side and a HD-DVD recorder on the other, and also takes input from a cable company HD DVR, and they'd never buy a commercial HD-DVD, and would be more than happy to just rent them or record them using the DVR, and would also be happy to make lots of extra copies for their friends. They'd gladly ignore messages imprinted on the rental DVD and included in a cable channel pre-show message saying, "Don't record this for permanent storage, and definitely don't make copies for friends." If it wasn't for DRM, these people would represent a large number of transgressions committed against content owners.

Not every potential thief is willing to learn the trade, but, sadly, if theft was easy and risk-free, too many people would gladly engage in it.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

sfhub said:


> What are you basing your feeling that MRV will work for CCI=non-zero content? I didn't see that in TiVoPony's postings.


Just a feeling. Hey, I could be wrong just said it was a feeling not fact. I have been keeping an eye on the TV shows that I do personally watch lately and as far as I can tell. All of them had CCI=0.

Obviously there are some shows not currently "on" that I can't check. Such as "24", "Lost", "Heroes", and "Big Love" (HBO). HBO's "Tell me You Love me" Which is a show my wife watches does have CCI=0. At least in my area for the time being.

But like I said.. is just a feeling, intuition, me being positive and optimistic. I admit I could be wrong.

Since we really don't know for sure yet, I just want to stay positive before we start complaining and whining. LOL 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Onibroc42 said:


> DRM has never been about preventing piracy. It has always been about control. The music and movie industries have a vision in their minds of a perfect world where every time an image passes through a pair of eyeballs, or a note passes through a pair of ears, they get money. DRM was supposed to enable that by forcing consumers to repeatedly buy the same content for every new device they purchase.
> 
> DRM is nothing more than planned obsolescence taken to its furthest extreme.


IF that is the case, and I do believe to a certain degree it is, is EXACTLY what I don't like about DRM. Control!

No one has the right to tell me how to watch, view, listen content, or where & when I may do so.

Since Content providers are unable to this with OTHER FORMS OF ART... Such as Books, Paintings, Statues (Carvings), etc.... Why do they think they can do it with Music, Movies and TV shows?

If I buy a painting, a book or Statue and take it home. The artist has no control what I do with his peice of artwork when I get home with it. As long as I don't duplicate it and try to sell or give away that duplication.

Same thing should apply to Music, movies, TV programmes

TGC

P.S. I also don't beleive that just because you make theft easy people would do it. It is pretty easy to break into cars or steal your newspaper or your mail off your front porch. However, just cause it is easy, I still don't do it. It just isn't right.

I don't copy & sell music, movies or TV Shows. I don't trade the copies to my friends either. Any copy I make of a movie, TV show or music is only used personally by me in my Home, car, Boat, RV, or personal media device (iPod, Zune).

Those uses fall under fair use guidlines. DRM makes it more difficult to actually be about use my fair use capabilities. Not impossible, just more difficult.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> I won't name names. I know people who, if all they had to do is pop a blank disc in a HD-DVD recorder and press Record, *would*. Give them a box that has an HD-DVD player on one side and a HD-DVD recorder on the other, and also takes input from a cable company HD DVR, and they'd never buy a commercial HD-DVD, and would be more than happy to just rent them or record them using the DVR, and would also be happy to make lots of extra copies for their friends. They'd gladly ignore messages imprinted on the rental DVD and included in a cable channel pre-show message saying, "Don't record this for permanent storage, and definitely don't make copies for friends." If it wasn't for DRM, these people would represent a large number of transgressions committed against content owners.
> 
> Not every potential thief is willing to learn the trade, but, sadly, if theft was easy and risk-free, too many people would gladly engage in it.


Bicker,

There is a device allready on the market that does this. To a certain degree. NOT EXACTLY like you describe....

What it does do/have is a blu-ray &/or HD-DVD player. It "RIPS" the movie and stores an "IMAGE" of the original DVD. (DVD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD) and stores that image on it's Hard drive.

Another unit located at the TV set reads the image (Down 100mbps Ethernet) and views that DVD (including Blu-ray & HD-DVD) on your local HDTV.

The Server, depending on how much money you spend, has up to 12 Terabytes worth of space. Effectively able to store & retreive ON DEMAND up to several hundred Hi-Def Movies.

One Server even allows for a TV Tuner card to be installed. So you could get OTA HD capability on it as well.

Here is the link....

http://axonix.com/

TGC


----------



## formulaben

bicker said:


> I won't name names. I know people who, if all they had to do is pop a blank disc in a HD-DVD recorder and press Record, *would*. Give them a box that has an HD-DVD player on one side and a HD-DVD recorder on the other, and also takes input from a cable company HD DVR, and they'd never buy a commercial HD-DVD, and would be more than happy to just rent them or record them using the DVR, and would also be happy to make lots of extra copies for their friends. They'd gladly ignore messages imprinted on the rental DVD and included in a cable channel pre-show message saying, "Don't record this for permanent storage, and definitely don't make copies for friends." If it wasn't for DRM, these people would represent a large number of transgressions committed against content owners.
> 
> Not every potential thief is willing to learn the trade, but, sadly, if theft was easy and risk-free, too many people would gladly engage in it.


I'm shocked, SHOCKED that someone would do this.  [/shock and awe]

So you never did this with a VCR?


----------



## aindik

TexasGrillChef said:


> IF that is the case, and I do believe to a certain degree it is, is EXACTLY what I don't like about DRM. Control!
> 
> No one has the right to tell me how to watch, view, listen content, or where & when I may do so.
> 
> Since Content providers are unable to this with OTHER FORMS OF ART... Such as Books, Paintings, Statues (Carvings), etc.... Why do they think they can do it with Music, Movies and TV shows?
> 
> If I buy a painting, a book or Statue and take it home. The artist has no control what I do with his peice of artwork when I get home with it. As long as I don't duplicate it and try to sell or give away that duplication.
> 
> Same thing should apply to Music, movies, TV programmes
> 
> TGC


By default, no, the painter has no control of what you do with a painting. But what if you agree to restrict your use of the painting as a condition of your purchasing it? IOW, if the artist will sell you a copy of the painting only if you agree to restrict your use of it? Should buyer and seller be able to agree like that?


----------



## MichaelK

nathanziarek said:


> Hmm...I like my iPods, iPhone and Macs, but I am far from one of those "Apple just wants whats best for the consumer" mac zealots. Still, I don't think Jobs cares much about the media. He's a known music lover, but claims not to watch TV or movies. He wants to sell iPods and iPhones with huge margins. He wants to control the experience of his gadgets -- that's why iTunes was required. I've never pegged Apple for a nickle-and-dime sort of company (exact opposite in fact).


not sure I'd call it a nickel and dime but they are almost as bad as MS forcing windows on every new PC with the I-tunes virus. They're almost like AOL with the darn thing.

Try to install quicktime without itunes every few days a window pops up telling you it's time to upgrade by installing "quicktime PLUS i-tunes". Enough already- I dont want the stupid thing on my computers... I have a paid version of quicktime even and that's not enough to get the stupid popups from coming- I believe I can go in and uninstall some component or change a setting to stop it, but I shouldn't have to need to waste my time digging around to shut that "feauture" off.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> IF that is the case, and I do believe to a certain degree it is, is EXACTLY what I don't like about DRM. Control!


No one likes not having total control over whatever the care about. That's life!



TexasGrillChef said:


> No one has the right to tell me how to watch, view, listen content, or where & when I may do so.


You're mistaken. You only have total control over content you create or purchase unrestricted rights to. And you do not have the right to insist on being able to purchase unrestricted rights to anything. The seller offers, and the buyer can choose to (1) accept; (2) decline; or (3) counter-offer (which has the same effect as declining). And in case of a counter-offer, the buyer has the right to the same choices, including declining your counter-offer, leaving you without any rights whatsoever.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Those uses fall under fair use guidlines. DRM makes it more difficult to actually be about use my fair use capabilities. Not impossible, just more difficult.


Note that the Fair Use Doctrine provides *absolutely no* rights to easy use. It merely excuses certain uses, but the burden of determining how to accomplish those uses falls on the person asserting Fair Use rights, and in many cases Fair Use is not a valid defense against established laws that protect against breaking copy protection.


----------



## bicker

formulaben said:


> So you never did this with a VCR?


But that's the point, isn't it? Was there any way they could have prevented people from doing it with a VCR or even made it substantially difficult? Maybe there was, and they simply missed the opportunity to impose that -- but they always had the right to do so if it was technically feasible, and the fact that they didn't do so before does not mean that they cannot do so now.


----------



## bicker

aindik said:


> By default, no, the painter has no control of what you do with a painting. But what if you agree to restrict your use of the painting as a condition of your purchasing it?


Absolutely. I recall the company I worked for many years ago being forced to get an addition to their building approved by the original architect. The original architect had the clout to retain those rights to his work. The company had to choose between getting the original architect to agree and leveling the building and starting from scratch. (I suspect, for large works of art like architected buildings, arbitration could be invoked, to force a reasonable accommodation by the entity that retained rights.)


----------



## MichaelK

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well I still have the right to give away my car, or a BOOK (Original copy of course) or anything else I buy....
> 
> I might not have the legal right... but IMHO I sure have the moral right. If Paid for something, then I should have the right to re-sell, or give away the original copy.
> 
> I am sure you wouldn't be happy if the Developer who built your house said because you couldn't sell your house or give away your house. The "blue prints" to a house are often times copyrighted. I know the Blue prints to my house are. However, I know I have a right to sell the original copy of the blue prints of my house, as well as the house itself. I don't have the right to make multiple copies of the blue prints and sell each of the copies.
> 
> As far as I am concerned... I will sell or give away anything (Original copy only) that I feel I wish to do so what ever that item may be. As far as being sued, Fine sue me. Can't get blood from a turnip. Arrest me even feel free. I have good lawyers and plenty of legal defenses.
> 
> Boston Tea Party anyone? Camden 28 anyone?
> 
> TGC


I'm no big fan of DRM- I think it's stupid and a waste of time and effort.

that said- there are plenty of places where you buy a house that has deed restrictions. For example sometimes you agree to covenants that restrict how you can use your home. In my neighborhood pools are not allowed as an example. I have no patience for the idiots that buy houses in my neighborhood and then ***** they cant install a pool- didn't they read the deed and "rulebook" before they plunked down six figures on a house?

Beyond that- here in NJ we have "affordable housing"- basically they state has decided that even poor folk have the right to live in rich towns. So the rich towns have to set aside a certain number of homes for the less affluent. When built, they sell for much less than market value and the new owner is deed restricted as to who they can sell too and for how much.

It's sort of like the "license" terms you agree to when you buy your house. If you don't like the terms then you don't have to buy such restricted housing. Some would argue the deed restrictions lessen the value of the property (certainly the 'affordable housing restrictions' do.) Myself, I kind of hate having 'big brother' over my shoulder and having to ask for permission to do anything with my home. But to be honest it's what I could afford (or choose to afford) and so I suck it up and abide by the rules.

So I actually think I agree with Bicker's thinking in this case- no one forces anyone to accept the license terms for this content. If we don't like it we don't need to buy it. It might stink and keep us from getting stuff we "really really want" (as my 6 year old says)- but the choice really is ours.


----------



## AbMagFab

Except for content like DVD's, there's no license agreement that I sign, or passively agree to when I buy it.

Software license agreements are on the software, and by opening it, I agree to it.

DVD's have no such thing. They are allowed to prevent me from making copies for my own personal use, in violation of the fair-use clauses of copyright law.

This is why you'll never see an individual in court for making copies of DVD's. You'll only see people in court who make money selling copies, since that's a different violation.

- For anyone that wants to break it to make money, they can (there's not a single DRM scheme in production that hasn't been broken).

- For us regular folks, who just want to make a copy, or put it on our PC media server, or whatever, we are hindered with a pointless DRM. In many cases forcing normal people to look for ways to break the DRM so we can just use the media the way we want.

Ergo, DRM is pointless. It doesn't stop anyone from breaking the law, and just prevents normal people from using the media they way they are allowed to by copyright law (for personal use).


----------



## MichaelK

cfryer said:


> I browsed the info screen on a good number of recorded shows including OTA, local networks via cable, cable HD stations and premium stations (via Comcast Bay Area). Many of the shows I'd like to transfer were marked with NO restrictions. Most of the recent movies from HBO HD were restricted but not all. Many HD shows on Discovery HD were not restricted. It seems to me that restrictions are placed on a per show basis and not on a per channel basis at least via Comcast (SF) Bay Area.


Some over zealous head neds NAIL every digital channel except rebroadcast locals with CCI= 0x02.

Beyond that the providers can flag individual shows and they should travel down the food chain and maintain those flags.

My provider, some of the comcast systems, some of the TWC systems (someone specifically said all of NY city) are guilt of the wholesale 0X02 treatment.


----------



## bicker

AbMagFab said:


> Except for content like DVD's, there's no license agreement that I sign, or passively agree to when I buy it.


Yes there is. Look closer.


----------



## MichaelK

AbMagFab said:


> Except for content like DVD's, there's no license agreement that I sign, or passively agree to when I buy it.
> 
> Software license agreements are on the software, and by opening it, I agree to it.
> 
> DVD's have no such thing. They are allowed to prevent me from making copies for my own personal use, in violation of the fair-use clauses of copyright law.
> 
> This is why you'll never see an individual in court for making copies of DVD's. You'll only see people in court who make money selling copies, since that's a different violation.
> 
> - For anyone that wants to break it to make money, they can (there's not a single DRM scheme in production that hasn't been broken).
> 
> - For us regular folks, who just want to make a copy, or put it on our PC media server, or whatever, we are hindered with a pointless DRM. In many cases forcing normal people to look for ways to break the DRM so we can just use the media the way we want.
> 
> Ergo, DRM is pointless. It doesn't stop anyone from breaking the law, and just prevents normal people from using the media they way they are allowed to by copyright law (for personal use).


I don't disagree necessarily with your point about DRM in general- but...

Really? There's no license terms on DVD's anywhere? (could be I never really looked to be honest). How about Blue Ray and HD-DVD? But unfortunately I'm fairly certain that any online purchase- like unbox, itunes, zune, etc, etc comes with 12 pages of terms that we all agree to with a click when we install it on our machines.

I think this license nonsense is a new phenomenon happening to like everything. A couple years ago my baseball season tickets became a "seat license" or some crap like that so they could enforce ominous terms on my like banning resales on stubhub.


----------



## MichaelK

bicker said:


> Yes there is. Look closer.


curious- where is it? On the shrink wrap? Do they give you the option to leave it sealed and return to place of purchase like you can with software?


----------



## CharlesH

TexasGrillChef said:


> I might not have the legal right... but IMHO I sure have the moral right. If Paid for something, then I should have the right to re-sell, or give away the original copy.


In general, when you buy a copyrighted work like a book, you *are* entitled to dispose of the the copy you purchased in any way you want: sell it, shred it, give it away, put it on a shelf, whatever. The restraint comes over distributing *copies* of the original. There may be additional restrictions you specifically agree to when you buy a work, but the default gives you free reign over the one copy you bought. What DRM is trying to do is add a bunch of additional restrictions. :down:


----------



## MichaelK

CharlesH said:


> ...There may be additional restrictions you specifically agree to when you buy a work, but the default gives you free reign over the one copy you bought. What DRM is trying to do is add a bunch of additional restrictions. :down:


which may just suck, but it's their right to add the restrictions- and our right not to buy their crap when its resticted and show them we wont put up with it.


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> Really? There's no license terms on DVD's anywhere? (could be I never really looked to be honest). How about Blue Ray and HD-DVD?


I just picked a few discs up at random. A DVD of _A Scanner Darkly_ (Warner) says, in text on disc, "No Copying. Subject to applicable laws." An HD DVD of _King Kong_ (Universal) says "Federal law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video formats"; the text is repeated in Spanish. A Blu-ray disc of _Terminator 2: Judgement Day_ (Lionsgate) gives the same warning as _A Scanner Darkly_ and an HD DVD of _The Bourne Supremacy_ (Universal) has the same text as _King Kong_.

A Blu-ray disc of _Blood and Chocolate_ (MGM/Sony) states "Unauthorized public broadcast or copying is a violation of applicable laws"; a BD of _Letters from Iwo Jima_ (Warner) says "No unauthorized copying. Subject to applicable laws. I just checked an HD DVD/DVD combo disc of _Happy Feet_ and found the "No Copying. Subject to applicable laws" warning in the tiny band of text around the central hub. Since the combo discs are encoded on both sides and don't have full silkscreens, I thought they might omit it, but they found space.

Some discs have the notice on the box cover insert and some don't, but they all have them printed on the surface of the disc.


----------



## Redux

AbMagFab said:


> there's no license agreement that I sign, or passively agree to when I buy it


You don't have to "knowingly" enter into a contract to "knowingly enter into a contract"

Doesn't make sense, but that's where the preponderance of case law is at the moment. It's very fragmentary, and a real landmark case could blow it all away, but right now you're wrong.


----------



## ah30k

bicker said:


> Note that the Fair Use Doctrine provides *absolutely no* rights to easy use. It merely excuses certain uses, but the burden of determining how to accomplish those uses falls on the person asserting Fair Use rights, and in many cases Fair Use is not a valid defense against established laws that protect against breaking copy protection.


This is consistent with what I said earlier that I believe (I'm no lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night) that Fair-Use is a defense not a right.


----------



## sommerfeld

mikeyts said:


> I just picked a few discs up at random. A DVD of _A Scanner Darkly_ (Warner) says, in text on disc, "No Copying. Subject to applicable laws." An HD DVD of _King Kong_ (Universal) says "Federal law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video formats"; the text is repeated in Spanish. A Blu-ray disc of _Terminator 2: Judgement Day_ (Lionsgate) gives the same warning as _A Scanner Darkly_ and an HD DVD of _The Bourne Supremacy_ (Universal) has the same text as _King Kong_.


The Computer & Communications Industry Association recently filed a complaint with the FTC charging content owners including Universal, NBC Universal, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, Dreamworks Studios, and others, with misrepresenting copyright law in their copyright warnings.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that:


> 17. Each of the Rights-holder Corporations identified herein has employed, and continues to employ, copyright warnings that purport to limit the public's right to engage in activities not explicitly authorized by the Rights-holder Corporation in question. Many of the warnings threaten consumers with criminal and civil penalties for engaging in "unauthorized" activities that are in fact permitted by statute or by limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution itself.
> 
> 18. These representations materially misrepresent U.S. copyright law, particularly the fundamental "built-in First Amendment accommodations" which serve to safeguard the public interest.


Free legal advice on the back of a DVD case is worth as much as free legal advice on the back of a cereal box.


----------



## mikeyts

sommerfeld said:


> Free legal advice on the back of a DVD case is worth as much as free legal advice on the back of a cereal box.


I'd suggest that an unruled-upon filed complaint against a decades old practice has even less worth . (That Groklaw link in your post is broken, BTW).


----------



## Brainiac 5

mikeyts said:


> I just picked a few discs up at random. A DVD of _A Scanner Darkly_ (Warner) says, in text on disc, "No Copying. Subject to applicable laws." An HD DVD of _King Kong_ (Universal) says "Federal law provides severe criminal and civil penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video formats"; the text is repeated in Spanish. ...


But none of these examples are license agreements - they just warn you of applicable laws and don't claim to add any restrictions beyond that.


----------



## mikeyts

Brainiac 5 said:


> But none of these examples are license agreements - they just warn you of applicable laws and don't claim to add any restrictions beyond that.


What restrictions beyond "No Copying", "No Unauthorized Public Exhibition" and "No unauthorized distribution" were you expecting?

But you're right--they're not license agreement per se.


----------



## drosoph

November cannot come soon enough! Its almost Season Premieres week and I NEED to transfer from downstairs to upstairs ... that's Wide Awake in the living room to 1am watching TV in the bedroom ... if I cant do that Im going to have to start sleeping on the couch


----------



## d_anders

drosoph said:


> November cannot come soon enough! Its almost Season Premieres week and I NEED to transfer from downstairs to upstairs ... that's Wide Awake in the living room to 1am watching TV in the bedroom ... if I cant do that Im going to have to start sleeping on the couch


I want and need this too for similar reasons...so I know it's redundant recording, but what's stopping you from recording some of the same shows upstairs, or at least 1-2 series for the overlap?

Even though it drives me crazy, this is what I'm doing until MRV is released.


----------



## Brainiac 5

mikeyts said:


> What restrictions beyond "No Copying", "No Unauthorized Public Exhibition" and "No unauthorized distribution" were you expecting?


There aren't any particular other restrictions I'd expect, but the subject being discussed was content providers using license terms to restrict customers beyond what is in copyright law. AbMagFab had asserted that there is no license agreement on a DVD, and bicker disagreed. I was just saying that these statements aren't license agreements, and don't prove bicker's point (although that doesn't mean the point isn't correct, just that these don't prove it).

In any case, AbMagFab's statement about it being legal to copy DVDs for your own personal use is still not correct, assuming they are protected by CSS. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection, regardless of whether the copying would otherwise be allowed.


----------



## sfhub

TexasGrillChef said:


> Just a feeling. Hey, I could be wrong just said it was a feeling not fact. I have been keeping an eye on the TV shows that I do personally watch lately and as far as I can tell. All of them had CCI=0.
> 
> Obviously there are some shows not currently "on" that I can't check. Such as "24", "Lost", "Heroes", and "Big Love" (HBO). HBO's "Tell me You Love me" Which is a show my wife watches does have CCI=0. At least in my area for the time being.
> 
> But like I said.. is just a feeling, intuition, me being positive and optimistic. I admit I could be wrong.
> 
> Since we really don't know for sure yet, I just want to stay positive before we start complaining and whining. LOL
> 
> TGC


But saying the content you watch is mostly CCI=0 is very different than saying MRV will work for CCI=non-zero. From what TiVoPony said, transfers would not work for copy protect content, which means CCI=non-zero, so we do know, based on what TiVoPony said. Nobody is whining, we are just trying to get accurate information.


----------



## sfhub

bicker said:


> But that's the point, isn't it? Was there any way they could have prevented people from doing it with a VCR or even made it substantially difficult? Maybe there was, and they simply missed the opportunity to impose that -- but they always had the right to do so if it was technically feasible, and the fact that they didn't do so before does not mean that they cannot do so now.


Ever heard of macrovision?


----------



## rodalpho

sfhub said:


> Nobody is whining, we are just trying to get accurate information.


I'm whining. We're getting TTG/MRV, but for my cable system it will only work for the major networks, while a S2 would work with every channel. This isn't TiVo's fault, don't get me wrong, but it does suck.


----------



## bicker

sfhub said:


> Ever heard of macrovision?


Indeed, and digital DRM will be even more effective, eh?


----------



## Arcady

Macrovision is a joke. You can kill it with a $20 box. My Firewire capture card has an unmarked jumper that kills it when you remove the jumper.

As a matter of fact, all DRM is a joke.

I'll be buying another HD TiVo box in the next 30 days to do MRV. I just haven't decided if I want another Series3 or a THD.


----------



## sfhub

bicker said:


> Indeed, and digital DRM will be even more effective, eh?


Read what you wrote. It was about existence, not about effectiveness.

BTW digital DRM apparently is just as ineffective.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

aindik said:


> By default, no, the painter has no control of what you do with a painting. But what if you agree to restrict your use of the painting as a condition of your purchasing it? IOW, if the artist will sell you a copy of the painting only if you agree to restrict your use of it? Should buyer and seller be able to agree like that?


Absolutely NOT! Sure we can choose not buy the music or movie. Then again the Artist can choose just not to make the music or movie or whatever art form they produce as well.

tgc


----------



## formulaben

I prefer my steak rare.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Absolutely. I recall the company I worked for many years ago being forced to get an addition to their building approved by the original architect. The original architect had the clout to retain those rights to his work. The company had to choose between getting the original architect to agree and leveling the building and starting from scratch. (I suspect, for large works of art like architected buildings, arbitration could be invoked, to force a reasonable accommodation by the entity that retained rights.)


Very true, certain works of art in the Architectual world by contract have certain limitations on changes they can make to their building. Especially by famous architects such as Frank Loyd Wright. etc...

However, they do retain the right to demolish it, or even sell it, or even use it as they see fit. Within reason of course. Example. Frank Loyd Wright designed many houses. Many of his houses are now currently being used as offices &/or museums. Many have had landscape changes, but the actual building remains the same.

One fact is certain.... for the most part. (I am sure exceptions apply). Neither Content Providers nor the general consumer are currently satisfied with the current control/restrictions/drm of the content we wish to use.

Currently I don't beleive anyone on the content provider or consumer side has an effective solution that would make even the majority of either side happy.

The main problem I believe is each sides deffinition of what they consider "Fair Use" to be.

Even we as consumers in this TiVo forum have differences of opinion when it comes to "Fair Use".

Because of this... I beleive there will always be hackers hacking, & Content Providers will continue spending millions on DRM & passing that along to us with higher prices for their content. Same way most Retail stores raise prices to cover their cost of what is lost because of Shop Lifting. Example of this... At my restaurant I have an extra 3% markup on my menu prices to cover employee theft, and customer walk outs.

Who knows what the solution is... Any ideas?

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

MichaelK said:


> I'm no big fan of DRM- I think it's stupid and a waste of time and effort.
> 
> that said- there are plenty of places where you buy a house that has deed restrictions. For example sometimes you agree to covenants that restrict how you can use your home. In my neighborhood pools are not allowed as an example. I have no patience for the idiots that buy houses in my neighborhood and then ***** they cant install a pool- didn't they read the deed and "rulebook" before they plunked down six figures on a house?
> 
> Beyond that- here in NJ we have "affordable housing"- basically they state has decided that even poor folk have the right to live in rich towns. So the rich towns have to set aside a certain number of homes for the less affluent. When built, they sell for much less than market value and the new owner is deed restricted as to who they can sell too and for how much.
> 
> It's sort of like the "license" terms you agree to when you buy your house. If you don't like the terms then you don't have to buy such restricted housing. Some would argue the deed restrictions lessen the value of the property (certainly the 'affordable housing restrictions' do.) Myself, I kind of hate having 'big brother' over my shoulder and having to ask for permission to do anything with my home. But to be honest it's what I could afford (or choose to afford) and so I suck it up and abide by the rules.
> 
> So I actually think I agree with Bicker's thinking in this case- no one forces anyone to accept the license terms for this content. If we don't like it we don't need to buy it. It might stink and keep us from getting stuff we "really really want" (as my 6 year old says)- but the choice really is ours.


Certain cities in Texas now are considering city ordinances that limit certain deed restrictions. Even the state of Texas is now considering a state wide limitations on what restrictions are & are not aloud on deed restrictions. Theres a long story in Texas on why those bills are being considered before the Texas Legislature. Even other parts of the country are starting to consider legislation that limits some forms of deed restrictions. Some legislation will be tougher on deed restrictions than other areas.

Like I said in an earlier post... I don't beleive at this time their is a true solution to the problem that will keep both the consumers & the content providers happy and satisfied... Until then There will be hackerrs hacking & Content providers spending millions.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard of any home consumer yet to be arrested for copying content for thier personal use. Sued yes, about all the music downloads. But the few I knew that got sued also beat them in court too.

tgc


----------



## gweempose

TexasGrillChef said:


> At my restaurant I have an extra 3% markup on my menu prices to cover employee theft, and customer walk outs.


Ah, so that's we're your screen name comes from.


----------



## Redux

TexasGrillChef said:


> Absolutely NOT!


You may have misunderstood the question. It was something of a straw man and the unavoidable answer is "yes."

Maybe you read it as "would you agree with the seller on restrictions as a condition of sale?" or something.

If there's a legally binding contract between buyer and seller that includes the buyer agreeing to look at a video ONLY while standing on his head, well, better get used to standing on your head!

The issue is, are the restrictions we're talking about a legally binding contract?


----------



## TexasGrillChef

MichaelK said:


> I don't disagree necessarily with your point about DRM in general- but...
> 
> Really? There's no license terms on DVD's anywhere? (could be I never really looked to be honest). How about Blue Ray and HD-DVD? But unfortunately I'm fairly certain that any online purchase- like unbox, itunes, zune, etc, etc comes with 12 pages of terms that we all agree to with a click when we install it on our machines.
> 
> I think this license nonsense is a new phenomenon happening to like everything. A couple years ago my baseball season tickets became a "seat license" or some crap like that so they could enforce ominous terms on my like banning resales on stubhub.


Yeah exactly... When I looked at my Dallas Cowboys Season Tickets. It clearly states it is a "Seat License" and even though I can give away each games tickets. That if they so chose not to allow that person in to use my seats, they have to right to do so. Although as far as I can tell, they haven't ever done that to anyone holding season tickets. Go figure.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

CharlesH said:


> In general, when you buy a copyrighted work like a book, you *are* entitled to dispose of the the copy you purchased in any way you want: sell it, shred it, give it away, put it on a shelf, whatever. The restraint comes over distributing *copies* of the original. There may be additional restrictions you specifically agree to when you buy a work, but the default gives you free reign over the one copy you bought. What DRM is trying to do is add a bunch of additional restrictions. :down:


If you read closely. I always said ORIGINAL copy. Never said anyone had the right to make copies of the original and sell those. Unless of course that is the contract you bought. Just like when Southern Living bought a recipe from me to publish in their magazine. They paid me $100 for the right to publish it in as many issues/magazines cookbooks they see fit. Although they have yet to publish it. Go figure.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

sommerfeld said:


> The Computer & Communications Industry Association recently filed a complaint with the FTC charging content owners including Universal, NBC Universal, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, Dreamworks Studios, and others, with misrepresenting copyright law in their copyright warnings.
> 
> This complaint alleges, among other things, that:
> Free legal advice on the back of a DVD case is worth as much as free legal advice on the back of a cereal box.


Here is another Case in point. At a Parking garage here in Dallas that I use frequently. The back of the parking ticket clearly states....

"Not responsible for any damage to any vehicles of any kind"

However in Texas, Texas law clearly states that Parking garages may not exclude responnsibility for damage to vehicles. They can LIMIT damage, but can not dismiss damage.

Even though the parking garage clearly states & claims it won't take responsibility for any damage. If it fact something were to go wrong in the garage especially because of negligent from any parking garage employee, damage were to occurr, In Texas they could STILL be held legally liable.

Thus the point you made is in fact the point that the complaint makes to the FTC.

Then again... anyone here a lawyer? Or are we just arm chair judges?

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

sfhub said:


> But saying the content you watch is mostly CCI=0 is very different than saying MRV will work for CCI=non-zero. From what TiVoPony said, transfers would not work for copy protect content, which means CCI=non-zero, so we do know, based on what TiVoPony said. Nobody is whining, we are just trying to get accurate information.


True, good point.

The thing I think I have noticed is that CCI=0 or CCI= Non Zero is NOT consistant across the USA even on the SAME channels &/or SAME shows.

So one person in what part of our great USA could in fact MRV/TTG lets say "Big Love" on HBO-HD while somone else somewhere else might not be able to MRV/TTG.

Do you think that might be true?

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

formulaben said:


> I prefer my steak rare.


One Rare 16oz Porterhouse on the barbie as we speak!

TGC


----------



## formulaben

TexasGrillChef said:


> True, good point.
> 
> TGC





TexasGrillChef said:


> One Rare 16oz Porterhouse on the barbie as we speak!
> 
> TGC


I knew you'd see it my way eventually...


----------



## sfhub

TexasGrillChef said:


> True, good point.
> 
> The thing I think I have noticed is that CCI=0 or CCI= Non Zero is NOT consistant across the USA even on the SAME channels &/or SAME shows.
> 
> So one person in what part of our great USA could in fact MRV/TTG lets say "Big Love" on HBO-HD while somone else somewhere else might not be able to MRV/TTG.
> 
> Do you think that might be true?
> 
> TGC


Yes, that is absolutely true from what we see today.


----------



## bicker

sfhub said:


> BTW digital DRM apparently is just as ineffective.


Apparently not.

Did you read what you wrote?


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> One fact is certain.... for the most part. (I am sure exceptions apply). Neither Content Providers nor the general consumer are currently satisfied with the current control/restrictions/drm of the content we wish to use.


Yes. Content providers seem to prefer that consumers respect purchase and sales agreements which both sides enter into voluntarily. A dismaying number of consumers, by contrast, would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever. The former is a rational and mature reaction. The latter is selfish. Seems to me pretty clear which side has the moral high ground.



TexasGrillChef said:


> The main problem I believe is each sides deffinition of what they consider "Fair Use" to be.


That is not the case. The courts have very clearly and firmly established what Fair Use is, and it has nothing to do with making full copies.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Even we as consumers in this TiVo forum have differences of opinion when it comes to "Fair Use".


That's because a lot of people in online forums would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever.



TexasGrillChef said:


> Because of this... I beleive there will always be hackers hacking, & Content Providers will continue spending millions on DRM & passing that along to us with higher prices for their content.


Probably true.


----------



## jrm01

Redux said:


> If there's a legally binding contract between buyer and seller that includes the buyer agreeing to look at a video ONLY while standing on his head, well, better get used to standing on your head!
> 
> The issue is, are the restrictions we're talking about a legally binding contract?


Most courts would throw out a contract that imposes unreasonable terms on the buyer, even if the buyer signed the contract.


----------



## bicker

That's irrelevant... nothing about the terms being discussed is even remotely unreasonable.


----------



## sommerfeld

bicker said:


> That is not the case. The courts have very clearly and firmly established what Fair Use is, and it has nothing to do with making full copies.


In 1984, the US Supreme Court (in the "betamax" case) ruled that Sony's videotape recorders had substantial non-infringing use even when that use was not authorized by copyright holders of the work being copied, stating in part that "the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use."

In 2005, the Supreme Court was given an opportunity to overturn this precedent in the "Grokster" case, but declined to do so.

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that making full copies for redistribution to others is generally not fair use, while making full copies for personal use generally is fair use.


----------



## MickeS

bicker said:


> Yes. Content providers seem to prefer that consumers respect purchase and sales agreements which both sides enter into voluntarily. A dismaying number of consumers, by contrast, would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever. The former is a rational and mature reaction. The latter is selfish. Seems to me pretty clear which side has the moral high ground.


No, this "dismaying number of consumers" expects that once they paid for something, they should be free to use it as they want - in other words, if I buy a DVD, I should be able to make a copy of it and put on my laptop. THAT is rational and mature. To NOT allow me to do that is selfish.


----------



## Brainiac 5

bicker said:


> A dismaying number of consumers, by contrast, would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever.


We're talking about MRV - I subscribe to cable TV and pay quite a lot for it; I'd like to be able to view the shows in different rooms, and have no interest in exchanging any copyrighted material with anyone else. I don't really see how that's "preferring everything for free."


----------



## mercurial

Well, I did a quick look through a lot of my recorded shows (from the digital tier, "analog", and various HD sources (Discover, HDNet, etc.)). Looks like analog are obviously clear to copy but almost everything in digital and HD had the statement about being protected and not allowed to be copied to VCRs, DVDs, and other media devices. I'm guessing that means they won't be MRVable.  

I'd hoped when MRV finally came out, I could use the second TiVo to share the space and provide for the rare 3/4-way conflicts. I guess not. I'll still have to see when the regular network shows return but I'm guessing it won't be better. But maybe there is hope. I'll be anxious to see how the OTA broadcasts get marked. If they're clear, it might be worth finally putting in an OTA antenna. Until then, I guess I'll use the S2DTs (and maybe pick up another) and just off-load all the non-HD recordings to those since they CAN be transfered back to the S3s.

For the record, this is TWC Raleigh/Cary, NC.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

MickeS said:


> No, this "dismaying number of consumers" expects that once they paid for something, they should be free to use it as they want - in other words, if I buy a DVD, I should be able to make a copy of it and put on my laptop. THAT is rational and mature. To NOT allow me to do that is selfish.


well this brings this to an interesting point in the thread.

You bought a DVD - not the rights to a digital copy of the movie in multiple forms

The content owners saw value in making a distinction between the two
so the protected the disc and got a law (DMCA) that made it illegal to break that protection no matter the method.

so you actually have a fair use right towatch the movie on the laptop... with a DVD ROM and software that has paid for a Macrovision license

however I have a DVD player hooked up to a system that broadcasts it around the house on channel 71. I have not broken the copy protection and it seems I would have a legal right to do this within my own home even toa TV card on my laptop

Now here we are speaking of broadcast TV and as long as the license is not violated then yes you can move a digital copy of it around for personal use.
However cable labs is taking a page from the macrovison playbook and is able to force CE companies to certify their devices in order to get service for cable cards from the cable companies. But really that is simply to keep the content owners happy they are doing due diligence in protecting the material. Cable companies are not the ones to determine how the flags are set, unless they do so in error 

so now the question is really - what license restrictions can the content owners legally place on the material they distribute via cable television? anything else is well... illegal and can be reported


----------



## MichaelK

TexasGrillChef said:


> True, good point.
> 
> The thing I think I have noticed is that CCI=0 or CCI= Non Zero is NOT consistant across the USA even on the SAME channels &/or SAME shows.
> 
> So one person in what part of our great USA could in fact MRV/TTG lets say "Big Love" on HBO-HD while somone else somewhere else might not be able to MRV/TTG.
> 
> Do you think that might be true?
> 
> TGC


I'm certain it's true.

Right now there are many over zealous cable engineers that set their particular head end to have restictions when the content from the national provider (like HBO in the above case) has no such restrictions.

As far as I understand if HBO decided to flag their content all current headend systems would pass along the content owners flag- so there is no reason for the head end to set anything beyond "pass through the flags".

In fact at times the stupid flags imposed by the local head end are contrary to the intent of the content owner- see cable in the classroom.


----------



## MichaelK

mercurial said:


> Well, I did a quick look through a lot of my recorded shows (from the digital tier, "analog", and various HD sources (Discover, HDNet, etc.)). Looks like analog are obviously clear to copy but almost everything in digital and HD had the statement about being protected and not allowed to be copied to VCRs, DVDs, and other media devices. I'm guessing that means they won't be MRVable.
> 
> I'd hoped when MRV finally came out, I could use the second TiVo to share the space and provide for the rare 3/4-way conflicts. I guess not. I'll still have to see when the regular network shows return but I'm guessing it won't be better. But maybe there is hope. I'll be anxious to see how the OTA broadcasts get marked. If they're clear, it might be worth finally putting in an OTA antenna. Until then, I guess I'll use the S2DTs (and maybe pick up another) and just off-load all the non-HD recordings to those since they CAN be transfered back to the S3s.
> 
> For the record, this is TWC Raleigh/Cary, NC.


OTA is essentially flag free at the moment. So when you have 3/4 conflicts if any of it is OTA you will be fine.

Also it appears current law/regs prohibit the cable company from putting flags on the locals channels that they rebroadcast. So as long as some of your conflicts come from local channels you should be fine with MRV.

The one that is a pain in MY rear is my local provider flags the RSN's. So that means I have to set both my S3's to record my teams baseball games everynight so I can be sure to be able to watch it either in the living room or the bedroom. So basically most weeknights during baseball season I have just 1 free tuner on each box.... Luckily for me most of what I need during that time period is on the local channels so it's not so bad. Hmmm.... maybe I just need to pick up another THD and toss it on the kids tv or something once MRV comes to be....


----------



## MichaelK

ZeoTiVo said:


> ... But really that is simply to keep the content owners happy they are doing due diligence in protecting the material. Cable companies are not the ones to determine how the flags are set, unless they do so in error
> ...


seems many cable companies make this "error".

mine regional provider does. The comcast thread has reports of some systems doing it and others being clear. Someone reported that TWC NYC does it. And just above someone posted that TWC in a another system is doing it.

Makes one wonder what they are thinking? If I was a cable exec I'd instruct my peopel to set everything to just pass through the flags encoded by the content owner. By choosing to set flags or not set flags they are taking some amount of liability for it in my mind.


----------



## dougdingle

sfhub said:


> If it stays CCI=0x00 for you, consider yourself fortunate. You can actually swap CableCARDs to different units or different slots and they will continue to work also (for those channels with CCI=0x00)
> 
> However, keep in mind CCI value can change overnight with no warning. A likely triggering event could be if your cable company decides to install CPMS updates for Motorola headends (assuming it hasn't done so already). There were folks who found out more than they wanted to about CCI values when their previously functioning CableCARD setups stopped working (for CCI=non-zero content) because they weren't actually paired properly.


So just to be clear about this:

I there is no language in the S3 program Info screen about restricted copying, CCI=0x00, and come November I should be able to move programs between my two S3's?


----------



## sommerfeld

ZeoTiVo said:


> so now the question is really - what license restrictions can the content owners legally place on the material they distribute via cable television? anything else is well... illegal and can be reported


A posting over at avsforum.com cites 47 CFR 76.1904.

Assuming I'm reading this correctly the regulations say:

broadcast tv must have cci=0 (unrestricted)
digital cable channels can have cci=2 (copy once) or cci=0 (unrestricted) but must not have cci=3 (copy never)
pay per view and on-demand content can have cci=3 (copy never)
providers must not prevent content marked "copy never" from being copied as needed to permit it to be paused for up to 90 minutes.


----------



## MichaelK

sommerfeld said:


> A posting over at avsforum.com cites 47 CFR 76.1904.
> 
> Assuming I'm reading this correctly the regulations say:
> 
> broadcast tv must have cci=0 (unrestricted)
> digital cable channels can have cci=1 (copy once) or cci=0 (unrestricted) but must not have cci=2 (copy never)
> pay per view and on-demand content can have cci=2 (copy never)
> providers must not prevent content marked "copy never" from being copied as needed to permit it to be paused for up to 90 minutes.


you're off there a bit

0x00 is unrestircted
0x01 is copy no more (presumably a copy once that was copied)
0x02 is copy once
0x03 is copy never (eg - 90 minute self distruct)

also there are many other CCI flags- the above values are just if the digital copy flags are set woth no other flags and dont account for the other things that can be in those flags- like analog output control (they can force macrovision if I recall) and I think image constraint (eg downrezzing).

my memory at the moment is that basically the CCI we see is a hex version of a binary number(I think 8 places off the top of my head) and the last 2 bits tell you the digital restrictions. If I remember correctly you convert the hex into binary and if the last 2 digits are 00 then it's unrestricted, 01 is copy no more, 10 would be copy once, and 11 would be copy never (And that's if I'm doing the hex to binary correct). So there are other possibilities for CCI besides the above 4 values that we typically talk about.


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> I'm certain it's true.
> 
> Right now there are many over zealous cable engineers that set their particular head end to have restictions when the content from the national provider (like HBO in the above case) has no such restrictions.
> 
> As far as I understand if HBO decided to flag their content all current headend systems would pass along the content owners flag- so there is no reason for the head end to set anything beyond "pass through the flags".
> 
> In fact at times the stupid flags imposed by the local head end are contrary to the intent of the content owner- see cable in the classroom.


I feel fairly certain that HBO/Cinemax _does_ want the restriction. They (along with Showtime/TMC) fought for the right to mark subscription VOD (i.e., "HBO On Demand") as "Copy Never" under the FCC reg that allows VOD to be marked that way. Starz!/Encore wanted to limit SVOD to "Copy One Generation". (The problem with that is that endless copies can be made of any form of VOD marked Copy One Generation, by simply making a copy and restarting playback of the program on the VOD channel and making another copy). I'm not sure how they resolved this--"VOD" as defined in the FCC regs refers to "Pay-Per-Viewing-Period Video On Demand" and "SVOD" was deemed an "undefined business model".

Okay--I looked it up and it seems as though the FCC decided to let providers treat SVOD however they want (see this). So Starz!/Encore can set their SVOD channels Copy One Generation while HBO/Cinemax and Showtime/TMC can set theirs Copy Never.


----------



## bicker

MickeS said:


> No, this "dismaying number of consumers" expects that once they paid for something, they should be free to use it as they want - in other words, if I buy a DVD, I should be able to make a copy of it and put on my laptop.


That's selfishness. You pay $X for Y and are insisting on having Y+Z.


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> also there are many other CCI flags- the above values are just if the digital copy flags are set woth no other flags and dont account for the other things that can be in those flags- like analog output control (they can force macrovision if I recall).


All of the non-zero CCI flags imply analog copy control (Macrovision Colorstripe, CGMS-A, etc) on analog outputs. CGMS-A can actually mirror the original "Copy No More", "Copy One Generation", "Copy Never" values.


----------



## bicker

Brainiac 5 said:


> We're talking about MRV - I subscribe to cable TV and pay quite a lot for it


Which is irrelevant. You pay for what the service includes, NOT for what you want it to include.


----------



## bicker

ZeoTiVo said:


> what license restrictions can the content owners legally place on the material they distribute via cable television?


Whatever cable systems are willing to accept.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin

bicker said:


> Yes. Content providers seem to prefer that consumers respect purchase and sales agreements which both sides enter into voluntarily. A dismaying number of consumers, by contrast, would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever. The former is a rational and mature reaction. The latter is selfish. Seems to me pretty clear which side has the moral high ground.


You're handing the "moral high ground" to the same people who bought off the US Congress into passing an essentially infinite extension of copyright? I don't think so.

The US Constitution grants authors a copyright for "lmitied times". My tax dollars are being used to protect those rights. In return for which these creations should eventually pass into the public domain.

Come back and claim the moral high ground after you stop bribing the US Congress.


----------



## sommerfeld

bicker said:


> Whatever cable systems are willing to accept.


There are also regulatory constraints on most cable systems.


----------



## mikeyts

ZeoTiVo said:


> so now the question is really - what license restrictions can the content owners legally place on the material they distribute via cable television? anything else is well... illegal and can be reported


It depends upon the business model used to distribute it on cable. Core basic cable (the 20 or so channels you get in the lowest cost subscription which must include all rebroadcast local television) can't be protected from copying; Pay-Per-View and Pay-Per-Viewing-Period Video On Demand can be marked "Copy Never" and anything else can be marked "Copy One Generation". See Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, §76.1904, the "Encoding rules for defined business models" (the "defined business models" are listed in §76.1902(i) and individually defined in paragraphs §76.1902(l), (m), , (o), (s) and (t).

Additionally, CFR Title 47 §76.1906(a), "Encoding rules for undefined business models" says that anything not in the list of defined business models can be marked with any protection the content provider sees fit to use, until it becomes defined and explicit limits are placed on it.

Note that these rules establish caps for levels of protection by business model--they're not required to use any copy protection.


----------



## bicker

Phantom Gremlin said:


> You're handing the "moral high ground" to the same people who bought off the US Congress into passing an essentially infinite extension of copyright?


I'm not handing anything -- they have the moral high ground because they're operating in accordance with our society's rules, while pirates are not.


----------



## dswallow

bicker said:


> I'm not handing anything -- they have the moral high ground because they're operating in accordance with our society's rules, while pirates are not.


If there's a lot of pirates, it can be argued that they're following prevailing community standards (you know, like the "indecency" statutes rely upon, rather than actually factually defining anything).


----------



## sfhub

bicker said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Did you read what you wrote?


Yes, very effective 

http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvdhd.html
Features HD-DVD
Same features as regular AnyDVD
Removes encryption (AACS) from HD-DVDs
watch movies over digital display connection, without HDCP compliant graphics card and HDCP compliant display.
...
Features Blu-Ray
Same features as regular AnyDVD
Removes encryption (AACS) from Blu-Ray DVDs
Removes region codes from Blu-Ray DVDs
watch movies over digital display connection, without HDCP compliant graphics card and HDCP compliant display.
...


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> All of the non-zero CCI flags imply analog copy control (Macrovision Colorstripe, CGMS-A, etc) on analog outputs. CGMS-A can actually mirror the original "Copy No More", "Copy One Generation", "Copy Never" values.


Why do they need to "imply" analog copy control. CCI has specific bits 2&3 to specify directly analog copy control methods so why not use them?  Is there some restriction that makes those bits impractical?

APS (Analog Protection System) bits 2&3 of CCI
00 Copy Protection Encoding Off
01 AGC Process On, Split Burst Off
10 AGC Process On, 2 Line Split Burst On
11 AGC Process On, 4 Line Split Burst On


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> Yes, very effective


No doubt more effective than most home door locks, and yet we all use _them_. Any professional thief who wants in your house won't even touch your most securely locked door and will gain entrance in 5 minutes or less. There are also people who run crime-of-opportunity scams where they walk around neighborhoods knocking on doors and trying locks when they don't get an answer; if they find an unlocked door with no one home, they enter and walk around for a few minutes gathering up any small, easily pocketed valuables. (If you do answer when they knock, they were looking for your neighbor and got the address wrong, or they were handing out copies of "The Watchtower" ). Easy money, no break-in skills required. Having an engaged lock on your door will stop that kind of theft (just as it will stop your too familiar neighbor from barging in without knocking ).

So, though door locks won't stop everyone, they will stop enough people from simply walking in that it's worth mounting them on our doors. The same thing is true of digital (and analog) media copy protection mechanisms; they won't stop the professional thief or even determined amateur, but most people won't chose to break the law by buying and using illegal copy protection circumvention software--most people will never even realize that it's available.

There's no hope of stopping everyone and the content providers readily and publicly admit it. From this page at the MPAA's site:


> The motion picture industry has pursued those who distribute devices that break copy protection in any format. While *no technology has yet proven foolproof*, the industry continues to implement protection technologies which *raise the threshold of difficulty and expense for the pirate and therefore help reduce piracy*.


(Emphasis provided). Even if they can't completely stop piracy, it continues to be worth the content provider's time and effort to reduce it.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> No doubt more effective than most home door locks, and yet we all use _them_. Any professional thief who wants in your house won't even touch your most securely locked door and will gain entrance in 5 minutes or less. There are also people who run crime-of-opportunity scams where they walk around neighborhoods knocking on doors and trying locks when they don't get an answer; if they find an unlocked door with no one home, they enter and walk around for a few minutes gathering up any small, easily pocketed valuables. (If you do answer when they knock, they were looking for your neighbor and got the address wrong, or they were handing out copies of "The Watchtower" ). Easy money, no break-in skills required. Having an engaged lock on your door will stop that kind of theft (just as it will stop your too familiar neighbor from barging in without knocking ).
> 
> So, though door locks won't stop everyone, they will stop enough people from simply walking in that it's worth mounting them on our doors. The same thing is true of digital media copy protection mechanisms; they won't stop the professional thief or even determined amateur, but most people won't chose to break the law by buying and using illegal copy protection circumvention software--most people will never even realize that it's available.
> 
> There's no hope of stopping everyone and the content providers readily and publicly admit it. From this page at the MPAA's site:
> (Emphasis provided). Even if they can't completely stop piracy, it continues to be worth the content provider's time and effort to reduce it.


You can make the same statements for macrovision or CSS. What makes one effective and the other not?

Saying something is effective or not, is not a statement on whether it should be there or not.

Fact is encryption/copy-control (effective or not) has to be there so the content providers can use DMCA.


----------



## nathanziarek

All told, though, we won't really know how any of this CCI nonsense affects any of us until we know how this implementation of MRV and TTG work, right? MRV could use streaming or move. I thought there as some new thing approved by CableLabs (began with a D but I can't find it) that allowed you to sling shows around your house.

Anyway, I'm hopeful, but in a glass half-empty sort of way.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> Why do they need to "imply" analog copy control. CCI has specific bits 2&3 to specify directly analog copy control methods so why not use them? Is there some restriction that makes those bits impractical?
> 
> APS (Analog Protection System) bits 2&3 of CCI
> 00 Copy Protection Encoding Off
> 01 AGC Process On, Split Burst Off
> 10 AGC Process On, 2 Line Split Burst On
> 11 AGC Process On, 4 Line Split Burst On


The additional bits are an alternate mechanism, but the the licensing agreements for all protection mechanisms which use CCI (CableCARD's DFAST, DTCP, AACS, CSS, etc) require that Macrovision Colorstripe, AGC or CGMS-A be applied to analog output of protected content.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> The additional bits are an alternate mechanism, but the the licensing agreements for all protection mechanisms which use CCI (CableCARD's DFAST, DTCP, AACS, CSS, etc) require that Macrovision Colorstripe, AGC or CGMS-A be applied to analog output of protected content.


I read through the DFAST license agreement and didn't see this "mirror" requirement you are referencing where analog copy protection must mirror what is specified in the digital portion for the CCI bits.

What I did find was specific references to using the APS bits to specify what protection method was used on analog outputs for Controlled Content.

Could you give a reference to where this mirror requirement exists for CableCARD products like S3?

http://www.cablelabs.com/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf


> 2. Outputs of Controlled Content
> 
> 2.1 General. A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product shall not output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content to any output, except as permitted in this Section 2.
> 
> 2.2 Standard Definition Analog Outputs. A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product shall not output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content to any output, in Standard Definition Analog Form except as provided in Sections 2.2.1 or 2.2.2:
> 
> 2.2.1 In any transmission through an NTSC RF, Composite, Y,Pb,Pr, Y,R-Y,B-Y, or RGB format analog output (including an S-video output and including transmissions to any internal copying, recording or storage device) of a signal including Controlled Content, Unidirectional Digital Cable Products shall generate copy control signals in response to the instructions provided in the APS bits of the Copy Control Instruction message for Controlled Content (i.e. trigger bits for Automatic Gain Control and Colorstripe copy control systems, as referenced below). The technologies that satisfy this condition and are authorized hereunder are limited to the following:
> 
> (1) For NTSC analog outputs (including RF, Composite or S-Video), the specifications for the Automatic Gain Control and Colorstripe copy control systems (contained in the document entitled Specifications of the Macrovision Copy Protection Process for STB/IRD Products Revision 7.1.S1, October 1, 1999);
> 
> (2) For Y,Pb,Pr or Y,R-Y,B-Y outputs, the appropriate specifications for the Automatic Gain Control copy control system (contained in the document entitled Specifications of the Macrovision Copy Protection Process for STB/IRD Products Revision 7.1.S1, October 1, 1999);
> 
> (3) For 480p progressive scan outputs, the appropriate specification for the Automatic Gain Control copy control system (contained in the document entitled Specification of the Macrovision AGC Copy Protection Waveforms for DVD Applications with 525p (480p) Progressive Scan Outputs, Revision 1.1.1 (August 15, 2002)).
> 
> 2.2.2 A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product may output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content through a VGA output to a monitor, in Standard Definition Analog Form.
> 
> 2.3 High Definition Analog Outputs. Unidirectional Digital Cable Products may output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content to, High Definition Analog Outputs; provided that Unidirectional Digital Cable Products having High Definition Analog Outputs shall produce a Constrained Image for all Controlled Content output over High Definition Analog Outputs in response to a Constrained Image Trigger set to require a Constrained Image.1
> 
> 2.4 Digital Outputs. A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product shall not output Controlled Content, or pass Controlled Content, to any output in digital form except as permitted by this Section 2.4.
> 
> 2.4.1 If a Unidirectional Digital Cable Product includes any form of 1394 output, such Unidirectional Digital Cable Product may output Controlled Content, and pass
> Controlled Content to such output in digital form where such output is protected by DTCP.
> 
> 2.4.2 If a Unidirectional Digital Cable Product includes any form of the Digital Visual Interface (DVI) output, including High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), such Unidirectional Digital Cable Product may output Controlled Content, and pass Controlled Content to such output, in digital form where such output is protected by HDCP.
> 
> 2.4.3 A Unidirectional Digital Cable Product that outputs Controlled Content may use a copy protection technology other than DTCP or HDCP as may be approved under Section 2.4.4.
> 
> 2.4.4 CableLabs shall approve or disapprove digital outputs and/or content protection technologies on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis within 180 days of submission by a Licensee of a request and all information necessary to evaluate such request. In the event of disapproval, CableLabs will indicate in writing the specific reasons for the disapproval. CableLabs shall not withhold approval of any such output or content protection technology that provides effective protection to Controlled Content against unauthorized interception, retransmission and copying. In making that determination, CableLabs shall take into account (a) the effectiveness of the technology; (b) the license terms governing the secure implementation of the technology; and (c) other objective criteria. In the event that CableLabs disapproves or fails to act within the time specified above, a 1 This capability is provided in accordance with the FCC Order FCC 03-225. Should the FCC subsequently determine by final order no longer subject to judicial review that this capability is prohibited for all MVPDs, this requirement will sunset in accordance with the terms of such FCC order and Section 12.13 of the Agreement. It is recognized that Unencrypted Broadcast Television shall not be subject to a Constrained Image requirement. Unidirectional Digital Cable Products need only respond to the Constrained Image Trigger and need not distinguish between broadcast and non-broadcast content.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> You can make the same statements for macrovision or CSS. What makes one effective and the other not?
> 
> Saying something is effective or not, is not a statement on whether it should be there or not.
> 
> Fact is encryption/copy-control (effective or not) has to be there so the content providers can use DMCA.


I'm just replying to all the people who seem to be saying "The copy protection mechanisms are easily broken--I break them all the time--so why even bother? The content providers aren't justified to use them since they don't accomplish their goal of stopping everyone from copying." Though their ideal is to stop everyone from making unauthorized copies, if they can't do that, they want to stop as many people as possible.


----------



## sfhub

nathanziarek said:


> All told, though, we won't really know how any of this CCI nonsense affects any of us until we know how this implementation of MRV and TTG work, right? MRV could use streaming or move. I thought there as some new thing approved by CableLabs (began with a D but I can't find it) that allowed you to sling shows around your house.
> 
> Anyway, I'm hopeful, but in a glass half-empty sort of way.


TiVoPony said TTG/MRV would not work for copy-protected content.

CCI is the method the parties have agreed on to specify whether content has copy-protection restrictions.

The TiVo "Info" screen for content recorded with non-zero CCI apparently already mentions content restrictions.

I think we can safely say the current release of TTG/MRV referenced by TiVoPony will not work for content recorded with CCI=non-zero values. Future releases may behave differently. They might even reimplement MRV using DTCP-IP, but that is something for future discussion.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> Could you give a reference to where this mirror requirement exists for CableCARD products like S3?


I don't recall stating that there was a requirement. CGMS-A _can_ mirror the EMI bits of the CCI mask in two bits carried encoded in analog VBI.

It looks as though, for CableCARD at least, following the APS bits of CCI is required. I was wrong.


----------



## nathanziarek

sfhub said:


> TiVoPony said TTG/MRV would not work for copy-protected content.
> 
> CCI is the method the parties have agreed on to specify whether content has copy-protection restrictions.
> 
> The TiVo "Info" screen for content recorded with non-zero CCI apparently already mentions content restrictions.
> 
> I think we can safely say the current release of TTG/MRV referenced by TiVoPony will not work for content recorded with CCI=non-zero values. Future releases may behave differently. They might even reimplement MRV using DTCP-IP, but that is something for future discussion.


Glass all the way empty now. Thanks.


----------



## mercurial

nathanziarek said:


> Glass all the way empty now. Thanks.


But at least it's damp at the bottom...


----------



## sommerfeld

mikeyts said:


> I'm just replying to all the people who seem to be saying "The copy protection mechanisms are easily broken--I break them all the time--so why even bother? The content providers aren't justified to use them since they don't accomplish their goal of stopping everyone from copying." Though their ideal is to stop everyone from making unauthorized copies, if they can't do that, they want to stop as many people as possible.


I think you're badly misreading the anti-DRM argument. I can't speak for others, but I'm opposed to currently fielded DRM systems not because they stop some piracy, but because they interfere with many forms of entirely legitimate fair use.


----------



## Redux

mercurial said:


> But at least [the glass is] damp at the bottom...


Those are just water spots.


----------



## Brainiac 5

bicker said:


> Which is irrelevant. You pay for what the service includes, NOT for what you want it to include.


You snipped out the part that is relevant:


Brainiac 5 said:


> I'd like to be able to view the shows in different rooms, and have no interest in exchanging any copyrighted material with anyone else. I don't really see how that's "preferring everything for free."


You said that people "want everything for free," which I understood to mean "copy things and not pay for them." I'm not interested in getting any content I didn't pay for, I just want to watch it in a different room. Your contention seems to be that DRM only adversely affects pirates, and I'm saying it adversely affects paying customers as well (it doesn't necessarily have to, but it does in this case). As for what the service includes, I'm not saying I have a right to MRV because I pay my cable bill. I'm saying that MRV is not used for piracy, so why should the cable company want to restrict you from doing it? My guess is that they *don't* want to restrict you from doing it, but their DRM doesn't really have a way to make this a special case.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Redux said:


> You may have misunderstood the question. It was something of a straw man and the unavoidable answer is "yes."
> 
> Maybe you read it as "would you agree with the seller on restrictions as a condition of sale?" or something.
> 
> If there's a legally binding contract between buyer and seller that includes the buyer agreeing to look at a video ONLY while standing on his head, well, better get used to standing on your head!
> 
> The issue is, are the restrictions we're talking about a legally binding contract?


Ahh... ok.... Well legally binding or not. They are unethical.

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? The Camden 28?

Cival Disobediance to change laws, policy and actions that are unethical.

INHO the degree that the music/movie industry is taking in the way they WISH to control their content is unethical.

Its like at my restaurant... serving up a dish of food, and saying eat it with a straw, sorry no salt n pepper. Now in the real world you could go ELSEWHERE to eat. So obviously I don't force my customers to eat their food in a particular manner.

However... Since the ENTIRE Movie/music industry (Albeit some exceptions here & there) are using the same tatics. If I wish to listen to music, watch movies, I simply CAN"T go elsewhere, like customers in my restaurant can.

Now... IF I WAS THE ONLY restaurant in town. The ONLY place to EAT. THe only place anyone could get any food. THEN I could EASILY tell people HOW to eat. Would that be ethical? Even if I WAS the only food available?

That is my point.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Yes. Content providers seem to prefer that consumers respect purchase and sales agreements which both sides enter into voluntarily. A dismaying number of consumers, by contrast, would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever. The former is a rational and mature reaction. The latter is selfish. Seems to me pretty clear which side has the moral high ground.


Me personally, Im not asking, or expecting free. Currently what the Music/movie industry is doing I personally find unethical. See another post I made just prior to this one using my restaurant as an example.



bicker said:


> That is not the case. The courts have very clearly and firmly established what Fair Use is, and it has nothing to do with making full copies. .


How many consumers & how man content providers always agree with the courts though? Ie... the purpose of the appeal. Which 98% of court decesions regarding this issue have been or currently on appeal.



bicker said:


> That's because a lot of people in online forums would apparently prefer having everything for free, subject to no limitations whatsoever.


While I can't speak for others, I can for myself. I honestly don't beleive un unlimted use of content. There SHOULD be some limitations.

I just oppose limitations in the folowing regards.

1. My right to protect my investment from loss in any form. (Fire, theft, damage etc..) by being able to make a backup copy for safe gaurds. I am able to do this with computer software WITHOUT any difficulty what soever.

2. One should *not* have to buy umpteen hundred copies for PERSONAL/FAMILY NON-Commercial HOME use. The content you purchase should EASILY allow you to play/view the content on the hardware you personally own. WE should NOT have to jump through hoops to do so. MOST (Not all) Computer software does allow you to install & run their software on more than one computer. Some have limits to 5, some just 2. But most all (With the exception of OS's) allow installation on more than ONE HOME personal computer for NON-Commerical use.

3. If your using the Content for Commerical use in any form, Public display, etc.. or in a Buisness setting. Then in that instance I do beleive additional fees &/or purchase of additional copies should be required.

4. Encryption, DRM, or any other protection scheme I don't see a problem in being used. As long as it does not hinder, alleviate the capability to do Item #1 or Item #2. I personally would even be willing to use "Special Approved" software/hardware. As long as that software/hardware was affordable for the mass HOME consumer.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> That's irrelevant... nothing about the terms being discussed is even remotely unreasonable.


Thats all in a point of view. I find those terms unreasonable & unethical.

See earlier post I made in reference to an example with my restaurant.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

ZeoTiVo said:


> well this brings this to an interesting point in the thread.
> 
> You bought a DVD - not the rights to a digital copy of the movie in multiple forms
> 
> The content owners saw value in making a distinction between the two
> so the protected the disc and got a law (DMCA) that made it illegal to break that protection no matter the method.
> 
> so you actually have a fair use right towatch the movie on the laptop... with a DVD ROM and software that has paid for a Macrovision license
> 
> however I have a DVD player hooked up to a system that broadcasts it around the house on channel 71. I have not broken the copy protection and it seems I would have a legal right to do this within my own home even toa TV card on my laptop
> 
> Now here we are speaking of broadcast TV and as long as the license is not violated then yes you can move a digital copy of it around for personal use.
> However cable labs is taking a page from the macrovison playbook and is able to force CE companies to certify their devices in order to get service for cable cards from the cable companies. But really that is simply to keep the content owners happy they are doing due diligence in protecting the material. Cable companies are not the ones to determine how the flags are set, unless they do so in error
> 
> so now the question is really - what license restrictions can the content owners legally place on the material they distribute via cable television? anything else is well... illegal and can be reported


In regards to the DMCA..... BOSTON TEA PARTY... CIVAL DISOBEDIANCE.... CAMDEN 28....

Just cause it's Law doesn't make it right or ethical.

I fully support the overturning of the DMCA. I beleive it will be in short time. I as well as others also beleive the DMCA will be overturned in a case that is pending in the Supreme Court. Many beleive it to be unconstitutional.

We will see in time if it does.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

MichaelK said:


> I'm certain it's true.
> 
> Right now there are many over zealous cable engineers that set their particular head end to have restictions when the content from the national provider (like HBO in the above case) has no such restrictions.
> 
> As far as I understand if HBO decided to flag their content all current headend systems would pass along the content owners flag- so there is no reason for the head end to set anything beyond "pass through the flags".
> 
> In fact at times the stupid flags imposed by the local head end are contrary to the intent of the content owner- see cable in the classroom.


Absolutely I agree with you 100%.

Cable Co's should just pass along the flags that are set by the source. But as we are all seeming to learn lately, many of the cable co's are indeed adding their own controls with changing the flags as they see fit for their own needs.

I am not sure what the cure to that is or will be. Right or wrong it is the way it is.

One thing I do know & this happens in all areas of buisness. IS many corporations/Buisness's don't follow the letter of the law unless it benefits them in some way, or if what they are doing wrong/illegal can easily be discovered and reported to the proper authorities.

As I am sure you can tell from reading this thread, even many of us here are in a heated debate on exactly what is or isn't legal &/or ethical in this buisness.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> That's selfishness. You pay $X for Y and are insisting on having Y+Z.


YES, In which case they should through in Z free, or say add 10% for Z then give us a 10% discount.

At my restaurant I give free Breadsticks with a meal... Sure I can make you pay for it.. but it entices my customers to come back again.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> I'm not handing anything -- they have the moral high ground because they're operating in accordance with our society's rules, while pirates are not.


Well following that line of reasoning... Our Countries forfathers were in the wrong then. We shouldn't honor Washington, Hancock, Jeffereson, B. Franklin for standing up to the WRONGS of the British Empire & throwing their control & the control the King gave to bristish buisness's.

Those at the Boston Tea Party were actually in the wrong & are not in fact heros'

Our societies rules, were made by our current congress, who the rich corporate owners have bribed.

Example... Disney gave millions as so called campain contrubitions. In return, congress granted them an EXTENSION to the copyright on Micky Mouse till the year 2024 (I think that year is correct, I could be wrong).

The Moral High ground is in protecting the rights of the CONSUMERS, not those of the Rich corporations or of buisness's.

Even though I am a buisness owner, I still support laws that protect an individual over that of any buisness or government.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> There's no hope of stopping everyone and the content providers readily and publicly admit it. From this page at the MPAA's site:
> (Emphasis provided). Even if they can't completely stop piracy, it continues to be worth the content provider's time and effort to reduce it.


I agree with you on some points there. What I do disagree with is the deffinition of Piracy.

If somone makes a copy of some content, for the purpose of selling that conent so they can make a profit from it. They YES that is Piracy.

If I make a copy of the content that I purchased so that I can watch on it my Ipod, or Laptop, or even keep it "Safe" as INSURANCE to protect my investment from loss. That IMHO is NOT Piracy, It is simply "Fair Use"

The use of DRM/Encryption makes it more difficult for someone to make "fair use" possible.

TGC


----------



## MichaelK

mikeyts said:


> I feel fairly certain that HBO/Cinemax _does_ want the restriction. They (along with Showtime/TMC) fought for the right to mark subscription VOD (i.e., "HBO On Demand") as "Copy Never" under the FCC reg that allows VOD to be marked that way. Starz!/Encore wanted to limit SVOD to "Copy One Generation". (The problem with that is that endless copies can be made of any form of VOD marked Copy One Generation, by simply making a copy and restarting playback of the program on the VOD channel and making another copy). I'm not sure how they resolved this--"VOD" as defined in the FCC regs refers to "Pay-Per-Viewing-Period Video On Demand" and "SVOD" was deemed an "undefined business model".
> 
> Okay--I looked it up and it seems as though the FCC decided to let providers treat SVOD however they want (see this). So Starz!/Encore can set their SVOD channels Copy One Generation while HBO/Cinemax and Showtime/TMC can set theirs Copy Never.


if HBO or anyone else wants the restirctions they can set the flags themselve to 0x02 and the headends should pass that along in basically all instances. But since many can attest to HBO having 0x00 on HBO it's obvious that CURRENTLY no national content owner is setting restrictions- except perhaps VOD/PPV/SVOD/ETC


----------



## MichaelK

mikeyts said:


> All of the non-zero CCI flags imply analog copy control (Macrovision Colorstripe, CGMS-A, etc) on analog outputs. CGMS-A can actually mirror the original "Copy No More", "Copy One Generation", "Copy Never" values.


you sure of that?

I'll totally admit I dont understand fully but-

I beleive people have reported using the ananlog outputs of S3's even with 0x02 content without any macrovision restrictions. (but I'd have to search to confrim so I might be mistaken)


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> you sure of that?
> 
> I'll totally admit I dont understand fully but-
> 
> I beleive people have reported using the ananlog outputs of S3's even with 0x02 content without any macrovision restrictions. (but I'd have to search to confrim so I might be mistaken)


sfhub pointed out text in the DFAST agreement using a two-high-order-bit field of the CCI mask to determine how to apply analog copy protections like Macrovision AGC. That field is called "APS"; the two-lower-order-bit field determining the copy protection mode is called "EMI". DFAST also defines a one bit field called "CIT" which implements a image constraint function.

So I was wrong about that. Sorry.


----------



## MichaelK

mikeyts said:


> sfhub pointed out text in the DFAST agreement using a two-high-order-bit field of the CCI mask to determine how to apply analog copy protections like Macrovision AGC. That field is called "APS"; the two-lower-order-bit field determining the copy protection mode is called "EMI". DFAST also defines a one bit field called "CIT" which implements a image constraint function.
> 
> So I was wrong about that. Sorry.


I forget- I read through all the docs when the S3 came out as I had an issue with my over zealous provider actually uising 0x03 on some channels. But I think besides, the analog, digital, and image constraint bits there are another bit or 2- might be just "reserved" for now....


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> if HBO or anyone else wants the restirctions they can set the flags themselve to 0x02 and the headends should pass that along in basically all instances. But since many can attest to HBO having 0x00 on HBO it's obvious that CURRENTLY no national content owner is setting restrictions- except perhaps VOD/PPV/SVOD/ETC


Many others of us can attest to getting HBO's regular (non-SVOD) channels marked Copy One Generation. Here's what HBO has to say on the matter:


> *HBO Copyright Protection Background*HBO includes a technology in its program services that provides copyright protection information to consumer electronic equipment connected to analog outputs of cable and satellite set-top boxes. The technology (CGMS-A -- Content Generation Management System for Analog) enables compliant digital recording devices to abide by federal digital encoding rules.
> 
> In accordance with the federal encoding rules, HBO and Cinemax subscribers are still *able to make a single copy of HBO and Cinemax linear programming*, but are *not able to make any copies of HBO-On-Demand or Cinemax-On-Demand* programming.
> 
> Some of the questions that you may have about CGMS-A are answered below. If you have any additional questions, please contact your consumer electronic equipment manufacturer.​


This is from a FAQ on copy protection and concerns their application of CGMS-A to analog outs of their channels, dictating what analog recording equipment made in the past nine years since the DMCA came into effect can do with it (VCRs, DVD recorders, TiVo Series 2, etc). I have to think that they're setting Copy One Generation in their MPEG streams, which is what's telling cable boxes to encode it into CGMS-A on the analog outs. (Read the whole FAQ--you'll love it ).

If you're getting HBO and Cinemax marked Copy Freely, _that's_ the cable provider screw-up. It's certainly not because HBO/Cinemax wants you to.


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> I agree with you on some points there. What I do disagree with is the deffinition of Piracy.
> 
> If somone makes a copy of some content, for the purpose of selling that conent so they can make a profit from it. They YES that is Piracy.


There's professional piracy, which I'd define as unauthorized copying and distribution for monetary gain. Then there's what I call "casual piracy", being unauthorized copying for minor personal gain (getting a free copy of a DVD that you rented or borrowed), or just to be nice to your friends and relations (copying DVDs that you purchased--or copied rentals--to give away, keeping one or more copies for yourself). I know several people who use illegal DVD ripping software to do these things, which are clearly infringement of copyright. I'd like to call this latter activity something other than "piracy"--after all, nautical pirates don't do what they do casually for trivial or no gain. Unfortunately there is no other term for it in common use.

No one has come up with a way to prevent these copyright-infringing acts of copying-with-intent-to-distribute which does not also prevent or inhibit seemingly non-infringing uses (like making back-ups of media that you've purchased or copies of it to download to portable devices or media servers for personal use). The content providers aren't trying to be unreasonable, though. Note the "move" operation defined in the CableCARD licensing for Copy One Generation content. This is all about allowing people to make a copy on removable media of things recorded on DVRs. That provision doesn't do anything favorable for cable providers or the television or motion picture industries, who'd just as soon you not make collections of cable television on removable media, and buy their series season sets instead .


----------



## jrm01

Sorry for taking this thread back to the original subject, but....

I just completed an Authorized Reseller Tivo Training program and we were told that TTG & MRV will be available for the S3 and THD later this year, but ONLY FOR ANALOG CONTENT. Neither option will be available for any content provided via the Cablecard (their words) until sometime in 2008.

No mention was made of OTA HD.


----------



## TydalForce

jrm01 said:


> Sorry for taking this thread back to the original subject, but....
> 
> I just completed an Authorized Reseller Tivo Training program and we were told that TTG & MRV will be available for the S3 and THD later this year, but ONLY FOR ANALOG CONTENT. Neither option will be available for any content provided via the Cablecard (their words) until sometime in 2008.
> 
> No mention was made of OTA HD.


This appears to directly contradict what TiVoPony said in the first post.... I think what you've heard is some of our old speculation being distributed as fact.

The common rumour around these parts was that TTG/MRV/TTCB would show up first for Analog content.


----------



## mikeyts

jrm01 said:


> Sorry for taking this thread back to the original subject, but....
> 
> I just completed an Authorized Reseller Tivo Training program and we were told that TTG & MRV will be available for the S3 and THD later this year, but ONLY FOR ANALOG CONTENT. Neither option will be available for any content provided via the Cablecard (their words) until sometime in 2008.
> 
> No mention was made of OTA HD.


They're wrong. Bob Poniatowski, the OP of this thread, is in product marketing at TiVo and is the main company liaison with this forum. TiVoPony knows; he wouldn't lie to us .


----------



## lessd

jrm01 said:


> Sorry for taking this thread back to the original subject, but....
> 
> I just completed an Authorized Reseller Tivo Training program and we were told that TTG & MRV will be available for the S3 and THD later this year, but ONLY FOR ANALOG CONTENT. Neither option will be available for any content provided via the Cablecard (their words) until sometime in 2008.
> 
> No mention was made of OTA HD.


Both TiVo HD units can output any HD recorded program on analog RCA composite outputs (480I 4x3), to me that means that both HD TiVos have a digital to analog (480i 4x3) converter built in so MRV could use this converter and move HD digital programs in 480I 4x3 format to any Series 2 TiVo (or Series 3 ). Am i missing something ?? Moving HD between two HD TiVos would be another matter.


----------



## MichaelK

mikeyts said:


> Many others of us can attest to getting HBO's regular (non-SVOD) channels marked Copy One Generation. Here's what HBO has to say on the matter:
> This is from a FAQ on copy protection and concerns their application of CGMS-A to analog outs of their channels, dictating what analog recording equipment made in the past nine years since the DMCA came into effect can do with it (VCRs, DVD recorders, TiVo Series 2, etc). I have to think that they're setting Copy One Generation in their MPEG streams, which is what's telling cable boxes to encode it into CGMS-A on the analog outs. (Read the whole FAQ--you'll love it ).
> 
> If you're getting HBO and Cinemax marked Copy Freely, _that's_ the cable provider screw-up. It's certainly not because HBO/Cinemax wants you to.


my HBO ( and actually every single digital channel on my system) is marked 0x02. so I'm wlll aware that plenty of cable systems have it marked that way.

Again- if HBO wanted it set they would just set the flag on their feed to the cable company's and the headends would pass the flag down stream. So it's almost impossible for it not to be flagged if HBO was sending the flag.

That aside- you are ignoring that all the channels get flagged someplaces. Your going to tell me that such highly pirated content like the NASA channel forces cable company's to flag their content 0x02?

My head end clearly just turns on the 0x02 flag for everything. EVERY LAST THING that's legal. IN cluding the NASA channel. Now I might be mistaken but I'd bet my paycheck that NASA is not demanding that channel to be flagged.

Now I guess it's possible that HBO wants the flag set and all the providers that have it in the clear have somehow overrode the HBO flag. But still that doesn't explain why my NASA channel has the stupid flag set does it?


----------



## MichaelK

jrm01 said:


> Sorry for taking this thread back to the original subject, but....
> 
> I just completed an Authorized Reseller Tivo Training program and we were told that TTG & MRV will be available for the S3 and THD later this year, but ONLY FOR ANALOG CONTENT. Neither option will be available for any content provided via the Cablecard (their words) until sometime in 2008.
> 
> No mention was made of OTA HD.


I suspect Tivo Pony will be PM'ing you shortly to see who provided your training since what they said completely contradicted him.


----------



## MichaelK

lessd said:


> Both TiVo HD units can output any HD recorded program on analog RCA composite outputs (480I 4x3), to me that means that both HD TiVos have a digital to analog (480i 4x3) converter built in so MRV could use this converter and move HD digital programs in 480I 4x3 format to any Series 2 TiVo (or Series 3 ). Am i missing something ?? Moving HD between two HD TiVos would be another matter.


your missing something-sorry.

hat happens in the output chips and not at the part of the box that handles the mpeg content (sorry I'm not that technical so dont know the proper way to describe it). In a nutshell TivoPony above already said there is no ability to transcode stuff from HD to SD coming.


----------



## mikeyts

MichaelK said:


> my HBO ( and actually every single digital channel on my system) is marked 0x02. so I'm wlll aware that plenty of cable systems have it marked that way.
> 
> Again- if HBO wanted it set they would just set the flag on their feed to the cable company's and the headends would pass the flag down stream. So it's almost impossible for it not to be flagged if HBO was sending the flag.


Nothing is impossible. I think that the EMI bits set in the CableCARD through DFAST are set separately--the copy-control packets in the MPEG transport stream (which HBO could provide from their transponders) could be consulted to derive the setting for DFAST EMI, but it would require some parsing of the stream. I'm imagining that the cable providers' equipment can do this, if properly set up, or it can provide a static setting for what gets passed by DFAST without ever looking at the stream. That would account for all of the mistakes in copy control people have gotten--both local broadcast channels marked Copy Never and PPV marked Copy Freely have been reported, where the former breaks FCC encoding rules and the latter isn't likely to be intentional.

I think that some cable providers might actually have a policy to set the maximum allowed copy protection mode on all channels at all times. Nothing in the regulations prevent them--all you can do is complain. Earlier, someone in this thread reported that they got action from complaining.

Use of Copy One Generation in my system is fairly spotty. It looks as though all the premium subscription tier channels to which I subscribe (HBO, Showtime) both SD and HD are set that way and about half the expanded-basic-like HD channels (A&E HD, TNT HD, UHD, MHD, Discovery HD, MOJO, etc). None of the standard-def expanded-basic channels are set that way, even when their HD counterpart is. Most of them are digital simulcasts of analog channels, though.


----------



## ah30k

lessd said:


> Both TiVo HD units can output any HD recorded program on analog RCA composite outputs (480I 4x3), to me that means that both HD TiVos have a digital to analog (480i 4x3) converter built in so MRV could use this converter and move HD digital programs in 480I 4x3 format to any Series 2 TiVo (or Series 3 ). Am i missing something ?? Moving HD between two HD TiVos would be another matter.


It is the digital mpeg stream that gets moved around and the conversion to composite happens at the very last stage. To move HD content to an S2 they would need to take the HD mpeg stream and convert it to an SD mpeg stream (hence the name transcoding). This could be done in hardware with certain image processors (as is rumored to be in the TivoHD) or in software (if there were enough spare compute horsepower). Even if it could be done, software would need to be written to control the process and TiVoPony pretty much said it ain't gonna happen any time soon.


----------



## sinanju

MichaelK said:


> *snip!*...
> 
> Now I guess it's possible that HBO wants the flag set and all the providers that have it in the clear have somehow overrode the HBO flag. But still that doesn't explain why my NASA channel has the stupid flag set does it?


Foreseeing this problem, I wrote to my own local franchise authority back in January to complain that Comcast was 0x02ing everything in the digital lineup except those channels that were also part of the basic analog lineup and local digital channels. I pointed to Cable in the Classroom as an example of where 0x02 was specifically counter to the intent of the content provider. After a few notes back and forth, and the ultimate involvement of the lead engineer for my region, I received a call to tell me that they were going to switch the flag to 0x00 unless specifically requested by the content provider that it should be otherwise. Additionally, I was told that would be the policy Comcast-wide.

The change took a few weeks to implement. It was not without hiccups -- INHD went 0x03 for a few hours. Now, the only 0x02 channel in the lineup (I have no pay channels) is Encore Movieplex.


----------



## jrm01

TydalForce said:


> This I think what you've heard is some of our old speculation being distributed as fact.


What I heard came directly from Tivo disseminated to Authorized Resellers as part of a training program developed by Tivo. It may not be correct, but it did come directly from them.


----------



## jrm01

mikeyts said:


> They're wrong. Bob Poniatowski, the OP of this thread, is in product marketing at TiVo and is the main company liaison with this forum. TiVoPony knows; he wouldn't lie to us .


Then TivoPony better talk to his people who developed the Tivo Accommodation Training Program.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

jrm01 said:


> What I heard came directly from Tivo disseminated to Authorized Resellers as part of a training program developed by Tivo. It may not be correct, but it did come directly from them.


I think the below post by Pony, from earlier in this thread, saying HD content can be transferred between two S3 platform boxes is pretty clear that the coming TTG/MRV will be for digital content (that is not copy protected) as well as analog.
I am sure you heard what you heard but a training program that takes time to develop and then is open to interpretation 2 or 3 layers deep is just not as reliable to me as the words of one person directly attached to the original source of the information he is posting.


TiVoPony said:


> HD content cannot be transferred to a Series2. And there is no transcoding ability to convert HD to SD (these are consumer electronic devices, not beefy multi-core PC's). So the answer is no. If it's recorded in HD on a Series3 or TiVoHD, then it can be shared between those platforms, but not with a Series2.
> 
> And when I say 'can be shared between those platforms', it of course comes with any caveats the copyright owner dictates regarding sharing.
> 
> Pony


----------



## jrm01

ZeoTiVo said:


> I think the below post by Pony, from earlier in this thread, saying HD content can be transferred between two S3 platform boxes is pretty clear that the coming TTG/MRV will be for digital content (that is not copy protected) as well as analog.
> I am sure you heard what you heard but a training program that takes time to develop and then is open to interpretation 2 or 3 layers deep is just not as reliable to me as the words of one person directly attached to the original source of the information he is posting.


I hear what you are saying, and I agree with you. However, this was not a case of hearing things. It was written material, from Tivo which said"(TTG and MRV for THD and S3) will be available in late 2007 for analog content. Content received through the cablecard will not be available in 2007."


----------



## moyekj

jrm01 said:


> I hear what you are saying, and I agree with you. However, this was not a case of hearing things. It was written material, from Tivo which said"(TTG and MRV for THD and S3) will be available in late 2007 for analog content. Content received through the cablecard will not be available in 2007."


 It could well be dated material. If that's the case Tivo's plans have now changed. Otherwise it could just have been a bad interpretation which was not properly proof read by Tivo. As others have stated I would put a lot more stock in what TivoPony has written here than in some training material.


----------



## sfhub

Well a subset of CCI=0x00 content (HD locals) for most people, isn't "received" through the CableCARD, but neither is it analog. Just trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole.


----------



## jfh3

moyekj said:


> It could well be dated material. If that's the case Tivo's plans have now changed. Otherwise it could just have been a bad interpretation which was not properly proof read by Tivo. As others have stated I would put a lot more stock in what TivoPony has written here than in some training material.


True, but it's still a problem either way. Either there are a bunch of resellers that will be giving out the wrong information or there will be a lot of people here surprised.


----------



## nathanziarek

sinanju said:


> Foreseeing this problem, I wrote to my own local franchise authority back in January to complain that Comcast was 0x02ing everything in the digital lineup except those channels that were also part of the basic analog lineup and local digital channels. I pointed to Cable in the Classroom as an example of where 0x02 was specifically counter to the intent of the content provider. After a few notes back and forth, and the ultimate involvement of the lead engineer for my region, I received a call to tell me that they were going to switch the flag to 0x00 unless specifically requested by the content provider that it should be otherwise. Additionally, I was told that would be the policy Comcast-wide.
> 
> The change took a few weeks to implement. It was not without hiccups -- INHD went 0x03 for a few hours. Now, the only 0x02 channel in the lineup (I have no pay channels) is Encore Movieplex.


Any chance you still have any of the communication you used? I'd like to start the conversation about this policy with my local franchise as well, but would like to use the correct language.

[Update] Actually...where do I find information on my local franchise authority? I thought a Google search would pop it right up, but no luck so far...


----------



## GoHokies!

nathanziarek said:


> Any chance you still have any of the communication you used? I'd like to start the conversation about this policy with my local franchise as well, but would like to use the correct language.
> 
> [Update] Actually...where do I find information on my local franchise authority? I thought a Google search would pop it right up, but no luck so far...


I remember reading that it should be on your bill. I do all my bills electronically, so I haven't taken a good look at a bill recently to see if it's actually on there.


----------



## sinanju

nathanziarek said:


> Any chance you still have any of the communication you used? I'd like to start the conversation about this policy with my local franchise as well, but would like to use the correct language.


Unfortunately, I no longer do.

A couple of points about what I did write, though:

I tried not to accuse Comcast of anything. I pointed out that support was unable to help me and that there was likely a configuration issue about which Comcast was unaware -- since S3s were new and, as of yet, unable to transfer recordings -- and I said I just needed to find the right person to resolve it. I didn't want to start out arguing with anyone.
I explained CCI and its impact on recordings made on the TiVo.
I pointed to Discovery Channel's (and Animal Planet and Travel Channel) programming aimed specifically at classrooms as an example of how blanket copy protection was counter to intended use. (http://school.discoveryeducation.com/ontv/)

Since VCRs are going the way of the dinosaur, the only way for a teacher to get a recording from home to classroom is via DVR transfer and storage on a computer HD or on a DVD. It's hard for them to argue with that.


----------



## Ski5907

LoREvanescence said:


> This is great news. I only wish I could use networking on my Tivo though=\. My university's firewall blocks its access to the network and tivo tells me it cannot find a dctp server.


All you need is to setup your computer though a router and log in, then hook in your tivo and it should work. I had this problem when i lived in the dorms... Hope that helps


----------



## edrock200

sinanju said:


> Unfortunately, I no longer do.
> 
> since S3s were new and, as of yet, unable to transfer recordings -- and I said I just needed to find the right person to resolve it. I didn't want to start out arguing with anyone.


Interesting comment...I hooked up some new Tivo HD's today and when I attempted to attach one unit to my Dell LCD via HDMI it immediately popped an HDCP error, for every channel. It suggested I use component cables, which I did. Does this mean that Verizon FiOS has flagged every channel and that I won't be able to perform transfers? Is there an easy way to determine if content has been flagged?


----------



## Arcady

Your Dell display is probably not HDCP compliant. I had the same problem with a Dell monitor, but the same channels output to a Samsung TV via HDMI worked fine.


----------



## bkdtv

edrock200 said:


> Interesting comment...I hooked up some new Tivo HD's today and when I attempted to attach one unit to my Dell LCD via HDMI it immediately popped an HDCP error, for every channel. It suggested I use component cables, which I did. Does this mean that Verizon FiOS has flagged every channel and that I won't be able to perform transfers? Is there an easy way to determine if content has been flagged?


The use of HDCP on HDMI output is standard throughout the industry (cable and satellite). HDCP has nothing to do a flag on the programming. It's always enabled.

You can select any recording on your Tivo and hit Info. If that program is copy-protected, the Tivo will tell you. If it doesn't mention copyright protection, then there is none.

I live in the DC area, so I can save you some time. Last I checked, Verizon FiOS did not "copy protect" any digital cable channels in the FiOS TV Premier package. Assuming nothing changes at FiOS in the next three months, you should have no trouble transferring your recordings to a PC come November.


----------



## mikeyts

bkdtv said:


> The use of HDCP on HDMI output is standard throughout the industry (cable and satellite). HDCP has nothing to do a flag on the programming. It's always enabled.


The use of protection modes in HDCP is _supposed_ to have something to do with the security level of the content. HDCP has a similar set of protection flags as DFAST and DTCP--content can be transported over it marked "Copy Freely". The last time that I looked, the HDMI specs don't even require that HDCP be implemented, though it almost always is.

Except for the hassles that people have experienced with non-interoperability of implementations, HDCP is presently sort of moot. Nothing that you buy at consumer prices could capture the bit stream and encode it into a compressed form in realtime. Even if you could store the uncompressed raster, it would fill a 750 GB HDD in a matter of a few minutes.


----------



## edrock200

mikeyts said:


> The use of protection modes in HDCP is _supposed_ to have something to do with the security level of the content. HDCP has a similar set of protection flags as DFAST and DTCP--content can be transported over it marked "Copy Freely". The last time that I looked, the HDMI specs don't even require that HDCP be implemented, though it almost always is.
> 
> Except for the hassles that people have experienced with non-interoperability of implementations, HDCP is presently sort of moot. Nothing that you buy at consumer prices could capture the bit stream and encode it into a compressed form in realtime. Even if you could store the uncompressed raster, it would fill a 750 GB HDD in a matter of a few minutes.


Thanks for the info. After making this post I decided to start an seperate thread on the subject (sorry all for the double post) as well to avoid hijacking this one.

Anyway, thanks again for the info, it appears that is good news for me in regards to MRV and TTT with FiOS.


----------



## mikeyts

edrock200 said:


> Thanks for the info. After making this post I decided to start an seperate thread on the subject (sorry all for the double post) as well to avoid hijacking this one.
> 
> Anyway, thanks again for the info, it appears that is good news for me in regards to MRV and TTT with FiOS.


I actually think that I'm wrong about some of that post (what I get for fact checking _after_ posting ). HDCP protection is either enabled or disabled--there don't appear to be copy protection flags. It should not be enabled for non copy-protected content, though.


----------



## reflxshn

I'm new to the forum, so excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but it would seem the CableLabs agreement with the studios regarding the use of DTCP-IP for protected content within a "private network" should free up protected streaming protected content as well. Assuming MRV will be DTCP-IP compliant.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> The use of protection modes in HDCP is _supposed_ to have something to do with the security level of the content. HDCP has a similar set of protection flags as DFAST and DTCP--content can be transported over it marked "Copy Freely". The last time that I looked, the HDMI specs don't even require that HDCP be implemented, though it almost always is.


I've read through the HDCP spec and don't see anything referring to protection flags (Copy Freely, etc.) like in DFAST and DTCP. AFAIK HDCP was designed for point-to-point encryption between source and sink devices, not as an overall end-to-end content protection scheme.
http://www.digital-cp.com/home/HDCPSpecificationRev1_1.pdf

That's why with HD-DVD and BluRay, the content protection policies are handled by AACS.

EDIT: woops, it looks like you self-corrected later on.


----------



## mikeyts

reflxshn said:


> I'm new to the forum, so excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but it would seem the CableLabs agreement with the studios regarding the use of DTCP-IP for protected content within a "private network" should free up protected streaming protected content as well. Assuming MRV will be DTCP-IP compliant.


Has CableLabs come to an agreement to DFAST-protected content to be forwarded over DTCP-IP? As I recall, they'd been pretty strongly against it, and some OEMs had made it a topic with the FCC (I think that TiVo was one of them).

If they do allow it, then it certainly could be used for streaming Copy One Generation content for MRV purposes.


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> Has CableLabs come to an agreement to DFAST-protected content to be forwarded over DTCP-IP? As I recall, they'd been pretty strongly against it, and some OEMs had made it a topic with the FCC (I think that TiVo was one of them).
> 
> If they do allow it, then it certainly could be used for streaming Copy One Generation content for MRV purposes.


http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=132377&site=cdn

However being approved and being used by TiVo for MRV are separate issues since TiVo had already previously developed their own solution and likely would go with that for an initial release.


----------



## mikeyts

sfhub said:


> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=132377&site=cdn
> 
> However being approved and being used by TiVo for MRV are separate issues since TiVo had already previously developed their own solution and likely would go with that for an initial release.


I meant in the future. If they were planning to use on the initial release, I doubt that we would have been told that there'd be the restriction. (Thanks for the link, BTW--good to see that that was settled).

Copy One Generation content streamed via DTCP-IP could be marked "Copy No More", just as it would be on output over 1394/DTCP. The receiving DVR could buffer it for playback. It doesn't help much with TTG of Copy One Generation content, except maybe to protect it during a "move" operation from the TiVo to a PC.


----------



## lrhorer

bicker said:


> I'm not handing anything -- they have the moral high ground because they're operating in accordance with our society's rules, while pirates are not.


Many people, including me, would dispute this. First of all, societal rules, regulations, and laws are derived from moral principles, *NEVER* the other way around. Any entity who claims a moral high ground must do so based upon deriving it from the underlying morality, not from following some ruleset which was an attempt to implement said morality. Of course in the best of worlds, the rules would always perfectly demand compliance with the morality from which they were derived, but we live on Earth, not Utopia, and many established rules or even societal norms are blatantly immoral. If you truly are inclined to argue, I would hasten to point out that Nazi officials, slave owners and traders, fundamentalists who murder their offspring in honor killings, and the KKK all followed established laws, rules, regulations and societal norms.

Secondly, following a set of rules and regulations which pertain to one moral issue does not in any way guarantee the actions themselves do not violate other moral issues not directly related to the ruleset in question. Obtaining through force an item which belongs to someone else is part and parcel of the definition of theft. If an heir of an individual murders the individual in order to obtain their possessions, then it is not theft, however. The fact under the law the heir cannot be held accountable for theft for killing their parent does not prevent it from being murder. In order to claim the high ground, the entity must be able to claim conformity to all moral and ethical standards, not just some of them.

Relating to the particular issue of piracy, however, the moral issues are complex and difficult, and far far too broad an issue to discuss in this thread. Partially because of this and partially because of the rapid evolution of communications media, the rules and regulations relating to the issue are just a pile of spaghetti.

That said, no one who obtains a position through bribery, intimidation, theft, fraud, and deceit can ever claim a moral high ground no matter what rules, regulations, and laws they otherwise may have followed.


----------



## lrhorer

TexasGrillChef said:


> One Rare 16oz Porterhouse on the barbie as we speak!


Oh, come now, man! We're from Texas. What are you doing putting a measely little 16oz steak anywhere? 'Be a Texan. 'Make it a 48oz.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> The use of protection modes in HDCP is _supposed_ to have something to do with the security level of the content. HDCP has a similar set of protection flags as DFAST and DTCP--content can be transported over it marked "Copy Freely". The last time that I looked, the HDMI specs don't even require that HDCP be implemented, though it almost always is.
> 
> Except for the hassles that people have experienced with non-interoperability of implementations, HDCP is presently sort of moot. Nothing that you buy at consumer prices could capture the bit stream and encode it into a compressed form in realtime. Even if you could store the uncompressed raster, it would fill a 750 GB HDD in a matter of a few minutes.


Actually there is a Product at consumer prices that will capture HDMI Digital Stream input of BOTH Audio & Video.

*HOWEVER... if it has HDCP implemented... IT will block it. If the HDCP has been turned off, it will allow HDMI capture. Such as FROM A HDMI equiped CAMCORDER.*

Check out: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/ for more information regarding this HDMI capture card.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

lrhorer said:


> Oh, come now, man! We're from Texas. What are you doing putting a measely little 16oz steak anywhere? 'Be a Texan. 'Make it a 48oz.


Well then lets go To Amarillo for the 72oz steak... eat it in an hour and its FREE 

TGC


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well then lets go To Amarillo for the 72oz steak... eat it in an hour and its FREE


I was driving through the Panhandle (_breathtaking_ flatness as far as the eye can see in all directions ), coming from Seattle to do some software engineering contracting at IBM in Austin and saw a sign for a deal like that. Have you eaten in one of those restaurants?


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> I was driving through the Panhandle (_breathtaking_ flatness as far as the eye can see in all directions ), coming from Seattle to do some software engineering contracting at IBM in Austin and saw a sign for a deal like that. Have you eaten in one of those restaurants?


Yep, Eat there everytime I go to Amarillo (About 5 or 6 times a year). It's called the "Big Texan" it's on I-40, East Side of Amarillo.

FOOD IS FANTASTIC... IMHO best steak in texas. They have about 25 different steaks to choose from, plus about 15 different sides to choose from as well.

Great family place as well. The Beef is pulled from Local cattle at local feedlots and butchered at local butcher shops as well. 100% texas beef, from finish to end.

Well worth the effort to eat there next time you go through Amarillo.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

TiVoPony said:


> The aptly yet unofficially named TiVoToComeBack also will be supported, including HD content (originally recorded on a TiVo DVR).
> 
> [edit - clarified that HD TTCB is initially for content originally recorded on a TiVo DVR, not HD content from other sources]


I have new Question. On TTCB... How will the S3/HD unit *"Know"* if content was originally recorded on a TiVO S3/HD???

In other words, If *I "EDIT" & "Convert" * the HD Video File say from a video that came off my HD Camcorder, or Blu-Ray, Or HD-DVD (I can Rip those new DVD's) how will the TiVo Know it was or wasn't recorded on a TiVo?

TGC


----------



## morac

TexasGrillChef said:


> I have new Question. On TTCB... How will the S3/HD unit *"Know"* if content was originally recorded on a TiVO S3/HD???


Programs transferred from S2 TiVos are in a special .tivo file format which is basically an encrypted mpeg2 file with special metadata. Assuming the S3/HD uses the same file format (and OTA and cable HD is encoded in MPEG2 format) , then it would be very easy for TiVo Desktop to tell if a file came from the S3/HD or not.


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> Actually there is a Product at consumer prices that will capture HDMI Digital Stream input of BOTH Audio & Video.
> 
> *HOWEVER... if it has HDCP implemented... IT will block it. If the HDCP has been turned off, it will allow HDMI capture. Such as FROM A HDMI equiped CAMCORDER.*
> 
> Check out: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/ for more information regarding this HDMI capture card.
> 
> TGC


Thanks for the link--I was unaware of this product. Pretty damn impressive for the price. Looks as though it can only capture stereo sound, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on "consumer priced". Though the capture card is impressively priced, most people won't have a system or storage resources adequate to make any effective use of it, and the cost of that will be non-trivial. It's also technically challenging to make use of, well beyond the potential of Joe Average. The content providers are more concerned about mass-market, easy-to-use means of casual capture and distribution.


----------



## bicker

sommerfeld said:


> I can't speak for others, but I'm opposed to currently fielded DRM systems not because they stop some piracy, but because they interfere with many forms of entirely legitimate fair use.


You say that as if you have some right to easy access beyond what the content owner wishes to provide you. You don't. Fair Use (which is misapplied in this scenario, but I'll let that go) is only a defense, not a right.

This is just another case of Entitlement Mentality: Some viewers presuming that they have rights that they simply don't have -- presuming that they're entitled to something that they are simply not entitled to (i.e., easy access to do what they want).


----------



## bicker

Brainiac 5 said:


> You snipped out the part that is relevant


No, I included only what was relevant. You said: "I just want to watch it in a different room" as if your desire was your license to do so... as if you were entitled to do so. You're not. You wanted that capability even though that was NOT what you paid for. That's the point I made.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Your contention seems to be that DRM only adversely affects pirates


What are you smoking? I never said anything of the sort. DRM exists because of piracy. That's it. How you perverted that into something easier for you to argue against is a mystery.



Brainiac 5 said:


> As for what the service includes, I'm not saying I have a right to MRV because I pay my cable bill. I'm saying that MRV is not used for piracy, so why should the cable company want to restrict you from doing it?


No, I don't believe that that is what you're saying. As it is, "Why?" is a useless question because AFAIC the folks asking it typically don't really care to internalize the honest answer to it.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Currently what the Music/movie industry is doing I personally find unethical.


With respect, I see that as nothing more than opportunistic convenience. What they're doing is completely ethical. You simply don't like this. There IS a difference.



TexasGrillChef said:


> 1. My right to protect my investment from loss in any form.


Yet it is the unequivocal right of content owners to sell you license to watch a copy of their content "for as long as that copy survives" *subject to* any and all means of deterioration/destructions, including (Fire, theft, damage etc..)



TexasGrillChef said:


> 2. One should *not* have to buy umpteen hundred copies for PERSONAL/FAMILY NON-Commercial HOME use.


Yet it is the unequivocal right of content owners to sell you license to watch a copy of their content restricted to a single device.



TexasGrillChef said:


> The content you purchase should EASILY allow you to play/view the content on the hardware you personally own.


Content owners have the unequivocal right to charge more for such convenience, or choose NOT to sell such convenience.



TexasGrillChef said:


> 4. Encryption, DRM, or any other protection scheme I don't see a problem in being used. As long as it does not hinder, alleviate the capability to do Item #1 or Item #2.


Your desire is just that and nothing more. See my discussion about "Entitlement Mentality" above.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well following that line of reasoning... Our Countries forfathers were in the wrong then. We shouldn't honor Washington, Hancock, Jeffereson, B. Franklin for standing up to the WRONGS of the British Empire & throwing their control & the control the King gave to bristish buisness's.


Your assertions that this has any relevance to our nation's fight for freedom from tyranny are too ridiculous to form a polite reply to.


----------



## bicker

lrhorer said:


> Many people, including me, would dispute this. First of all, societal rules, regulations, and laws are derived from moral principles, *NEVER* the other way around.


More specificaly, societal rules are a reflection of a consensus view of moral principles. Note that "consensus" is not "majority". Also note that this is not a matter of actual practice.

Regardless, I'll just say that you're wrong: They have the moral high ground because they ARE operating in accordance with our society's rules, while pirates are not, DESPITE your preference to the contrary. It seems we'll just have to agree to disagree about that (and your invocation of Nazism pretty-much nullifies the rest of your message).


----------



## AbMagFab

bicker said:


> You say that as if you have some right to easy access beyond what the content owner wishes to provide you. You don't. Fair Use (which is misapplied in this scenario, but I'll let that go) is only a defense, not a right.
> 
> This is just another case of Entitlement Mentality: Some viewers presuming that they have rights that they simply don't have -- presuming that they're entitled to something that they are simply not entitled to (i.e., easy access to do what they want).


What? This is all about copyright law. You sound like the copyright holders have some entitlement - they don't either.

There is no license, implied or otherwise, when someone buys or records a piece of media. Copyright law is all that covers the use of this media (with a few exceptions, like some books and printed materials with explicit copyright use on them).

Once I buy a CD, or DVD, or book, or anything, copyright law allows me to make partial excerpts for the sake of satire or criticism as much as I want. It also allows me to make full copies for my own personal use (and do just about anything I want, for my own personal use). As long as I'm not trying to make money, or infinging on the copyright holders ability to make money, it's fine (by copyright law).

DMCA, a joke, tries to significantly change that. But it's failed, and it will likely never be applied to a person making copies for their own use, only to people who make copies for the purpose of distribution or making money. Whatever, fine.

However it still holds that us individual consumers are allowed to make copies, backup copies, whatever, for our own personal use. In the digital age, this includes making copies on my media computer so I don't have to worry about the physical media. As long as I don't try to distribute it to anyone else.

All these DRM's do is:
1) Nothing for the people who are intent on breaking copyright law, since every single one has been broken.
2) Make otherwise law-abiding citizens seek out ways to break DRM, since they want to use the media in a way that is consisitent with copyright law, but is hindered by DRM schemes.

It's a pointless exercise that is doomed to failure, created by an industry that has been unable to keep up with the times. Throw in the advertisers, and you have an industry that is capable of producing great content, and can't for the life of them figure out how to distribute it in a digital world.


----------



## bicker

AbMagFab said:


> What? This is all about copyright law. You sound like the copyright holders have some entitlement - they don't either.


Huh?! Are we speaking the same language?

Yes, copyright holders have entitlements, i.e., those outlined in copyright law.

And beyond that, content ownership itself carries with it entitlements, including the entitlement to determine what conditions of sale the seller is willing to offer.


----------



## AbMagFab

bicker said:


> Yes, copyright holders have entitlements, i.e., those outlined in copyright law.
> 
> And beyond that, content ownership itself carries with it entitlements, including the entitlement to determine what conditions of sale the seller is willing to offer.


They have rights granted to them by copyright law. Entitlements tends to mean something that goes beyond something that is explicityly written (like workers feeling entitled to certain benefits). And if you use the word as you are, then consumers have entitlements as well (back to your earlier post).

And sorry, but copyright holders don't get to "determine what conditions" they are willing to offer, unless they make the buyer sign a specific agreement.

Since what we're talking about here (TV shows, CD's, DVD's, etc.) have no such agreement, the copyright holders in these cases are bound by the overarching copyright law, not their own "conditions" (as much as they'd like that).

And copyright law allows consumers of this type of content (that without additional explicit agreed to conditions) to make copies for their own personal use.

(And as you know, as trite as it is, this has been tested in court and has been de facto happening for decades.)

(And popping up a screen when I play a DVD doesn't count as an additional agreement. You can't sell me something, then let me open it up and use it before you tell me what I can and can't do with it. Especially if you then don't let me return it for a full refund.)

(Software products tried this for a while, then gave up, and have mostly migrated towards an "activation" model, with a little wiggle room for installing. So they don't get on your back for installing it a couple of times, allowing for backups and failures, but they effectively prevent the pirates who would be doing it dozens/hundreds of times. As much as I hate digital protections, this seems to be the most paletable for consumers and effective at reducing piracy.)


----------



## johnnylundy

All I want to do is view the TiVo HD's Now Playing List either through the browser or through the Dashboard Widget "Now Playing." I just set up my new TiVo HD and had no idea that you couldn't even SEE the Now Playing List. I just want to know what it has recorded - like I have been able to do with my Series 2.

Am I correct that the connection made via http ://IP_Of_The_TiVo/nowplaying/index.html with "tivo" as the userID and the MAK as the password no longer works on the TiVo HD? All I want to do is see the Now Playing List.


----------



## bicker

AbMagFab said:


> They have rights granted to them by copyright law. Entitlements tends to mean something that goes beyond something that is explicityly written


We're definitely NOT speaking the same language, then.



AbMagFab said:


> And sorry, but copyright holders don't get to "determine what conditions" they are willing to offer, unless they make the buyer sign a specific agreement.


I said that content owners get to determine the conditions by which they will offer their content for sale, not copyright holders.  And yes, they do. The buyer has a choice whether to accept those conditions or pass on the offer, and signing something has nothing to do with the content owner's unequivocal right to impose those conditions on the offer for sale.



AbMagFab said:


> Since what we're talking about here (TV shows, CD's, DVD's, etc.) have no such agreement, the copyright holders in these cases are bound by the overarching copyright law, not their own "conditions" (as much as they'd like that).


That is incorrect on TWO counts.

I understand that you want things to be your way. All I can say is that I'm sorry you're disappointed with the reality of the situation. Denying reality, though, doesn't excuse the transgressive behavior that such denial leads to.


----------



## AbMagFab

bicker said:


> I said that content owners get to determine the conditions by which they will offer their content for sale, not copyright holders.  And yes, they do. The buyer has a choice whether to accept those conditions or pass on the offer, and signing something has nothing to do with the content owner's unequivocal right to impose those conditions on the offer for sale.[/quote[
> Wow, where do you live, clearly not in the US. What distinction are you making between content owners and copyright holders? This is all about copyright law. If you don't own the copyright, then you have no say.
> 
> The content owner (e.g. singer) can decide to work with a music company/publisher or not. Once they do, we're into copyright law. Same with a TV show or move script writer. The content owner only has an agreement with a publisher, not directly with the consumer. If that's the distinction you're making, you're too far back in the food chain.
> 
> And as much as you seem to want something more, there is only an implied agreement between the copyright owner and the consumer. Without something signed, we're under copyright law at that point, nothing more. Point me to some other agreement that allows a copyright holder to put additional restrictions on content (like music, TV, and movies), and have it upheld, and I'll send you a diet coke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is incorrect on TWO counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate? We should call this the "bicker method" of posting.
Click to expand...


----------



## bkdtv

AbMagFab said:


> bicker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that content owners get to determine the conditions by which they will offer their content for sale, not copyright holders.  And yes, they do. The buyer has a choice whether to accept those conditions or pass on the offer, and signing something has nothing to do with the content owner's unequivocal right to impose those conditions on the offer for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where do you live, clearly not in the US. What distinction are you making between content owners and copyright holders? This is all about copyright law. If you don't own the copyright, then you have no say.
Click to expand...

I suspect he was differentiating between copyright holders and the owner of the TV rights. Studios like Universal, Paramount, etc hold the copyrights, but they sell the TV rights to different channels with certain conditions. In order to purchase the rights to a certain series, a channel may have to agree to protect that content with a provision for encryption and/or CCI in their contracts with cable companies.

In order to carry a channel on their system, cable and satellite providers must agree to the terms set forth by channel provider (such as Discovery) in their carriage contract. It is becoming increasingly common for those carriage contracts to include provisions on content protection, i.e. whether the channel is encrypted and whether it will be flagged with CCI.

When you sign up for cable service, you agree to their terms of service which may be influenced by the provisions in carriage contracts.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> Thanks for the link--I was unaware of this product. Pretty damn impressive for the price. Looks as though it can only capture stereo sound, though.
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree on "consumer priced". Though the capture card is impressively priced, most people won't have a system or storage resources adequate to make any effective use of it, and the cost of that will be non-trivial. It's also technically challenging to make use of, well beyond the potential of Joe Average. The content providers are more concerned about mass-market, easy-to-use means of casual capture and distribution.


Very true, with the computer "power" would need to make use of this capture card it is a little out of bounds for "Joe Average".

However... for Video hobbiests it isn't to far out of reach. It is a start though! Just like most computer products. As time goes on prices fall.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> You say that as if you have some right to easy access beyond what the content owner wishes to provide you. You don't. Fair Use (which is misapplied in this scenario, but I'll let that go) is only a defense, not a right.
> 
> This is just another case of Entitlement Mentality: Some viewers presuming that they have rights that they simply don't have -- presuming that they're entitled to something that they are simply not entitled to (i.e., easy access to do what they want).


Well the reverse of that is this... that Content Creators have a mentality that once they release their "Work" to the mass consumer that they have the right to "Control" said work of art.

Which they don't. I am an "Artist" as well. I have realized along time ago. That once I release my artwork to the public to consume. That I can no longer control what is done with my "art".

Being a chef... creating wonderful food is an art form. Thus Culinary Arts.

So I don't agree with your line of logic.

If viewers don't have "Entitlement" then neither do "Content creators"

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Your assertions that this has any relevance to our nation's fight for freedom from tyranny are too ridiculous to form a polite reply to.


Well.. my point being that the Music/Movie industry is in fact practicing a form of Tyranny. Even to the point on it's own artists. Most of know the stories of how MOST 70's actors & Actresses were victimized in their sitcoms.Such as "3's Company"

However... we & other can debate this until the end of time. Neither your view or mine will ever change. We need to agree that we will always disagree on this.

I consider this "Issue" be an issue that is unsolvable.... exactly as though the "Abortion" issue will always be debated until the end of time and won't ever be truly solved.

There will always be people that support abortion, and those that will always oppose abortion. Same thing applies to this issue as well.

I am an "Artist" as well, so I do have an understanding of trying to protect ones work. We culinary artists have realized along time ago, there is only so much we can do to protect our work. So the only thing we copyright is our books. Our recepies, which are our creations, are impossible to control.

The rest of the "Artistic" community needs to suck up like we Culinary Artists have been & acecpt the fact. Make money where you can't and don't worry about where you can't.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

AbMagFab said:


> What? This is all about copyright law. You sound like the copyright holders have some entitlement - they don't either.
> 
> There is no license, implied or otherwise, when someone buys or records a piece of media. Copyright law is all that covers the use of this media (with a few exceptions, like some books and printed materials with explicit copyright use on them).
> 
> Once I buy a CD, or DVD, or book, or anything, copyright law allows me to make partial excerpts for the sake of satire or criticism as much as I want. It also allows me to make full copies for my own personal use (and do just about anything I want, for my own personal use). As long as I'm not trying to make money, or infinging on the copyright holders ability to make money, it's fine (by copyright law).
> 
> DMCA, a joke, tries to significantly change that. But it's failed, and it will likely never be applied to a person making copies for their own use, only to people who make copies for the purpose of distribution or making money. Whatever, fine.
> 
> However it still holds that us individual consumers are allowed to make copies, backup copies, whatever, for our own personal use. In the digital age, this includes making copies on my media computer so I don't have to worry about the physical media. As long as I don't try to distribute it to anyone else.
> 
> All these DRM's do is:
> 1) Nothing for the people who are intent on breaking copyright law, since every single one has been broken.
> 2) Make otherwise law-abiding citizens seek out ways to break DRM, since they want to use the media in a way that is consisitent with copyright law, but is hindered by DRM schemes.
> 
> It's a pointless exercise that is doomed to failure, created by an industry that has been unable to keep up with the times. Throw in the advertisers, and you have an industry that is capable of producing great content, and can't for the life of them figure out how to distribute it in a digital world.


Here! Here!

Exactly what I have been trying to say... You just said it more elogquently (Sp?)

TGC


----------



## AbMagFab

bkdtv said:


> I suspect he was differentiating between copyright holders and the owner of the TV rights. Studios like Universal, Paramount, etc hold the copyrights, but they sell the TV rights to different channels with certain conditions. In order to purchase the rights to a certain series, a channel may have to agree to protect that content with a provision for encryption and/or CCI in their contracts with cable companies.
> 
> In order to carry a channel on their system, cable and satellite providers must agree to the terms set forth by channel provider (such as Discovery) in their carriage contract. It is becoming increasingly common for those carriage contracts to include provisions on content protection, i.e. whether the channel is encrypted and whether it will be flagged with CCI.
> 
> When you sign up for cable service, you agree to their terms of service which may be influenced by the provisions in carriage contracts.


Right... But the consumer doesn't agree to the terms between the cable company and the copyright owner. If cable/satellite feel the need to agree to whatever they want, that's fine, but the consumer is not bound by that agreement.

And this is the crux of many copyright issues. For example, just because Apple/iTunes agrees to put DRM on downloadable music doesn't mean it's illegal for someone to break that DRM for their own personal use. This extends to television "flags" and technical limits agreed to between the copyright owner and distributer, but not the consumer. And this is part of what DMCA is about - trying to build these things into copyright law.

It will be really interesting the first time this is tested in court against an individual doing this for their own personal use.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Huh?! Are we speaking the same language?
> 
> Yes, copyright holders have entitlements, i.e., those outlined in copyright law.
> 
> And beyond that, content ownership itself carries with it entitlements, including the entitlement to determine what conditions of sale the seller is willing to offer.


Well if thats the case... Stop Cooking.

Cookbooks. aren't giving you the right cook the recepies you find in them. Only the right to read the book. Following your description of copyright law. Creating a recepie that you read in a cookbook, is making a "copy" of someone elses creation. Therefore stop cooking!

Now obviously thats just plain ridiculas. That isn't obviously going to happen by you or anyone else. People buy cookbooks to cook the recepies in them. We as chef's/Writers of cookbooks, don't put some crazy DRM scheme on them or your stove/oven/microwave/mixer or other kitchen devices to make it more difficult for you to prepare those recepies.

People buy Movies/music to watch/listen to how they choose, on the devices they choose, when & where they choose. We don't want DRM schemes to make it more difficult to do what we purchase the content for.

Copyright law does allow for "fair use" in my deffinition of "fair use". If Content Creators don't like the way "Fair use" descirbes. (In my opinion) Then they don't have to produce any content. They can find another job!

In other words.. produce the content the way I want to use it & buy it... or go out of buisness and stop producitng content.

Same applies to my restaurant.... If people don't like the way I produce my food & service in my restaurant. They will buy somewhere else, and I will go out of business. I have to prodcue the "Content" my customers want. Or they will produce my recepies at their home themselvs.

TGC


----------



## saberman

TexasGrillChef said:


> Copyright law does allow for "fair use" in my deffinition of "fair use". TGC


I thank we should drop "fair use" from the discussion completely. "fair use" refers to the use of the material for both personal and non personal use. "personal use" is a subset topic. For example, the use of copyrighted material in a satire that is sold is considered "fair use" even though it is done for money and the material is duplicated and given to others. The use of a quoted portion of a copyright work in another work is another example of "fair use" even though the new work is distributed.

Personal use is just that -- personal use. The "rights" of TiVo users should be discussed based on "personal use" not "fair use". Look to the decision on taping copyrighted broadcast TV for "personal use". You can't make copies and distribute them because the right is under "personal use".

BTW, this "fight" between the user and the supplier of digital material goes way back. In the beginning of the personal computer age, Lotus distributed protected 5 1/4" diskettes that had to be in the machine to run the software. This was almost immediately followed by cracks to allow the software to run without the diskette being in the drive. It is my recollection that the practice was considered legal as long as you owned a copy of the software for each machine it was used on.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

saberman said:


> I thank we should drop "fair use" from the discussion completely. "fair use" refers to the use of the material for both personal and non personal use. "personal use" is a subset topic. For example, the use of copyrighted material in a satire that is sold is considered "fair use" even though it is done for money and the material is duplicated and given to others. The use of a quoted portion of a copyright work in another work is another example of "fair use" even though the new work is distributed.
> 
> Personal use is just that -- personal use. The "rights" of TiVo users should be discussed based on "personal use" not "fair use". Look to the decision on taping copyrighted broadcast TV for "personal use". You can't make copies and distribute them because the right is under "personal use".
> 
> BTW, this "fight" between the user and the supplier of digital material goes way back. In the beginning of the personal computer age, Lotus distributed protected 5 1/4" diskettes that had to be in the machine to run the software. This was almost immediately followed by cracks to allow the software to run without the diskette being in the drive. It is my recollection that the practice was considered legal as long as you owned a copy of the software for each machine it was used on.


Good Point.

Computer Software companies have "NOW" taken a livable approach to protecting the software it sells. In the early days of computers. Software distributed as "Shareware". Try it, if you like it, pay for it & get the extras &/or full support. MANY software companies today are succesful ONLY because they started off as shareware. Shareware still exists today (Download.com as an exmaple). Today, alot (but not all) expensive software from big vendors use "Activation" codes. I don't believe this concept would work very well with music &/or movies/TV though.

Honestly, I have watched/listened to a particular show/song decided I liked it and then when and PURCHASED a legal copy. Had I NOT watched/listened to the so called "illegal" copy. I would have NEVER bought a legal copy to begin with. Thus the illegal copy generated a sale that would never have happend.

One thing is for sure. This issue isn't going to go away until a resolution is discovered that will make both sides satisfied.

I do beleive this issue is very similar to the abortion issue (not that I am for or agains't abortion) but.... No matter what laws you pass to ban or make abortion illegal.... Those laws will be impossible to enforce & there will still be women who will continue to get abortions no matter the moral &/or legal implication.... THUS...
The same thing applies to copying music/movies/TV for "personal use".

You ain't gonna stop us from making copies. No way no how, impossible to enforce on a "personal use" basis. And EVEN if someone is able to enforce it on criminal basis. You will get public outcry to for the laws to change.

OR.... if they don't change... public cival disobediance....boston tea party, Camden 28, revolution, riots... the list could go on.

Anyways.. back to topic... MRV/TTG coming soon to a S3/TTG near you!

TGC

PS. I do know several families that DEFEATED the RIAA in lawsuits brought against them for the illegal transfer of music. The RIAA got such a bad rap for that, you don't hear much about it in the news anymore. They also don't bring cases agains't the general public except in certain exceptions.


----------



## rbienstock

AbMagFab said:


> Once I buy a CD, or DVD, or book, or anything, copyright law allows me to make partial excerpts for the sake of satire or criticism as much as I want.


No, not as much as you want. Only so much as constitutes a fair use. And your own comment is, by itself, internally inconsistent. You say you can "make partial excerpts" "as much as I want." The Supreme Court has spoken on this in Time v. The Nation, and, basically, the amount you are allowed to take EVEN BY PARAPHRASING, let alone quoting, is pretty narrow. Besides, I don't think that you are seriously implying that content owners are in any way upset about criticism or satire.



AbMagFab said:


> It also allows me to make full copies for my own personal use (and do just about anything I want, for my own personal use). As long as I'm not trying to make money, or infinging on the copyright holders ability to make money, it's fine (by copyright law).


That may be true of the copyright law in some other country or alternate universe, but it isn't teh copyright law of the United States. The only thing that you are allowed to make a backup copy of under US law is computer software, and then you are only allowed a single copy that you archive and don't use. And as far as your not making money is concerned, you've turned the law on its head. The rule is that your non-commercial use might be more likely to be permitted if it doesn't hurt the value of the copyright, not that if you don't hurt the copyright, you can do anything you want. Actual commercial use can be fair in certain cases where the value of the copyright isn't adversely affected, while non-commercial can be unfair even if it causes no adverse effects. It is all a balancing test.


AbMagFab said:


> However it still holds that us individual consumers are allowed to make copies, backup copies, whatever, for our own personal use. In the digital age, this includes making copies on my media computer so I don't have to worry about the physical media. As long as I don't try to distribute it to anyone else.


I wish that this were the law. It SHOULD be the law, but it isn't.



AbMagFab said:


> All these DRM's do is:
> 1) Nothing for the people who are intent on breaking copyright law, since every single one has been broken.
> 2) Make otherwise law-abiding citizens seek out ways to break DRM, since they want to use the media in a way that is consisitent with copyright law, but is hindered by DRM schemes.


DRM, as presently implemented, sucks. No argument there. But it is completely consistent with copyright law. In fact, the law has a built-in safety valve in that it allows people to petition to the Register of Copyrights for a ruling that DRM can be broken in a particular circumstance. And the Register has ruled that DRM can be broken in a number of different circumstances. But all of the circumstances you mention are ones that she explicitly rejected.



AbMagFab said:


> It's a pointless exercise that is doomed to failure, created by an industry that has been unable to keep up with the times. Throw in the advertisers, and you have an industry that is capable of producing great content, and can't for the life of them figure out how to distribute it in a digital world.


No, media companies are only tangentially in the business of producing content. They are in the business of selling content, either directly to end users, or indirectly through the sponsorship of advertisers. What they can't figure out is how they can stay in business when millions of people are able to acquire that content without buying it.


----------



## aaronwt

It was my understanding that making a copy of any DVD, even if you purchased it, is illegal.


----------



## lrhorer

bicker said:


> More specificaly, societal rules are a reflection of a consensus view of moral principles.


No, in general societal rules are produced by the whim of those who cannot be prevented from imposing their will upon the rest of the society. Hypothetically this is usually a variable mix of those who are rich, politically astute, or religious leaders - sometimes individuals who are all three. In practice this is usually bureaucrats in almost all but the very newest or smallest of societies. Of course there is nothing preventing someone from being a rich, politically astute religious leader who holds a major bureaucratic position.

Democracy is an attempt to prevent this from being the case, but if you can find a democracy somewhere outside a social club, you let me know.



bicker said:


> Note that "consensus" is not "majority".


Most modern political systems claim it is something roughly to that effect. I'll allow it is in fact often not true, but then on the other hand morality is far less about what is and far more about what is supposed to be.



bicker said:


> Also note that this is not a matter of actual practice.


I'm not certain of what point you are making with that statement. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you are correct. As I pointed out above and previously, legal theory and practice are frequently quite different. It's also true that in effect there is a different set of laws for the rich.



bicker said:


> Regardless, I'll just say that you're wrong: They have the moral high ground because they ARE operating in accordance with our society's rules


'Again with the rules. The fact they may or may not be following any set of rules is largely irrelevant to any discussion of morality, as I already pointed out. They are liars, thieves, bullies, and extortionists. They produce nothing yet distribute items they did not produce and seek to prevent anyone else from distributing them.



bicker said:


> while pirates are not, DESPITE your preference to the contrary.


Please re-read my post. I never said anything whatsoever concerning pirates. 'Not one, single, solitary word. Nor do you have any right to presume you know my preferences for anything unless I specifically tell them to you. I also reserve the rignt to change my preferences without any prior warning or notification after the fact.

To the point at hand, however, the simple fact is pirates are also clearly thieves. The first difference is the movie studios are only morally thieves while the pirates are both morally and legally thieves. Of course lying (except under oath) and being a bully is not illegal, so both the movie studios and the pirates to varying degrees are only morally liars and bullies, the pirates being more often the former and the movie studios more often the latter in the usual course of things. As far as extortion goes, I cannot think of a specific case where a pirate is extorting anything, so they are not extortionists, and the movie studios have only rarely been convicted of extortion, their frequently being guilty of it notwithstanding.

These facts as related to my previous statements are not relevant, however. The fact a putative evil Sheriff of Nottingham exists in no way means a putative Robin Hood is anything but a thief himself, but then neither does the existence of a Robin Hood mitigate or even vitiate the actions of the Sheriff by one iota. Neither does the fact that through power and wealth the Sheriff is able to twist the laws to his advantage without breaking them mean he is somehow less of a villain. Indeed, the fact is the rich and powerful often *CAN* break the law with very minimal fear of being caught in the first place or of being significantly punished even if they are caught. On the other hand, scratch the surface of a Robin Hood even lightly and one is almost certain to discover a hidden agenda - usually greed. This makes him no better than the Sheriff, who is of course also motivated by greed. Indeed, no matter what the movie studios actions may be, and no matter what the pirate's actions may be, the fact they are both motivated by greed absolutely prevents either from being described as taking the high moral ground, no matter how legal or illegal the activities may be.

The bottom line is, two wrongs do not make a right, and the fact what the pirates are doing is both illegal and immoral in no way whatsoever makes the movie studios moral.



bicker said:


> It seems we'll just have to agree to disagree about that (and your invocation of Nazism pretty-much nullifies the rest of your message).


'Far from it. The simple fact is the lower, middle, and some high ranking Nazi officials were indeed doing nothing but their duty as specified by the laws, rules, and regulations of the German government and military under Nazi rule. Their defense at the Nuremberg trials was they were, "Just following orders", and in many cases it was the plain truth. This fact in all its truth did not excuse their actions nor did it prevent the Nuremberg jurists from convicting them of war crimes. What they did was completely legal under German civil and military law - and utterly immoral.

That is certainly not to say the heads of the movie studios are anywhere nearly as immoral in their actions or motivations as those who tortured and murdered or caused to be tortured and murdered hundreds or even thousands of innocent individuals - far from it. I used the Nazi situation to demonstrate the principle at hand. I did not intend it as an inflammatory vehicle to bind emotional reactions to my debate.


----------



## lrhorer

bicker said:


> You say that as if you have some right to easy access beyond what the content owner wishes to provide you.


Who says the viewer does not own the content? Yes, I know, the law says it, but why should it? The viewer has paid for the content, which means locally the ownership should transfer to him. To be even remotely in line with the "norms of our society" as you put it, that should entitle the user to do whatever the hell they want to with it, any any actions or technologies which limit such use either by intent or incidentally should be expressly illegal. A book publisher cannot prevent someone who purchases a book from reading it over and over, loaning it to all his friends, selling it, burning it, whatever. The motion picture industry should not be allowed to prevent such use, either. Global ownership, now, is a different matter, and distributing multiple copis of the content is a different matter, both legally and morally.



bicker said:


> This is just another case of Entitlement Mentality: Some viewers presuming that they have rights that they simply don't have -- presuming that they're entitled to something that they are simply not entitled to (i.e., easy access to do what they want).


Once again, it isn't even remotely a question of what rights the user has, but what rights the user should have, or more properly what rights the motion picture studios should be able to limit.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

*To those of you that have become involved in this heated debate about current copyright law & the fair use segment of such law.... as well as what is allowed, not allowed, Drm etc... Here is my final statement regarding as such. Then I will say no more.*

Whatever your opinons & feelings are regarding current copyright law, positive or negative. 
You are not alone. For every single person that currently is in full support of the current law, there is someone that isn't.

Interpretation of the law is quite varied. Even lawyers & the branches goverment can't agree among themselvs what is & isn't allowed under current copyright law. That is why there are litterly thousands of cases involving the copyright law currently pending in US courts today. Many cases have been won & lost by *BOTH* sides of the issue. This of course applies to *ALL* sections of the current law.

This issue isn't going away anytime soon. Many people have deep feelings one way or the other on this issue. True there are some that just don't care either.

The two most powerfull things we as consumers have in our hands to change things, or for that matter keep things the way they are currently is to....

1. Write, fax, email, your congressman, Senators, Govenors, FCC, FTC & other government agencies. Either in support or agains't any laws/bills/procedures etc.. that you beleive in. When laws become to oppresive for the *"COMMON"* everyday people of a country, They protest, Cival disobediance, Riots, Revolution, etc... I can give you HUNDREDS of examples where masses of US citizens have protested, rioted, revolted & performed cival acts of disobediance because of lthe laws and actions of governments as well as private buisness practices, Schools, & other private & public instituions.

2. The power of how you spend your dollars. Buy their content, don't buy their content. Example... When I have a best seller on my menu at my restuarant I make sure to keep offering that item. If I have an item on my menu that no one likes no one buys it. So I take it off the menu. On a larger scale if people don't like my food or service. They stop coming. If enough people stop coming. I go out of buisness. Thus an exmaple of the POWER OF YOUR DOLLAR at work.

This issue isn't going to be going away for a long time, until which time a compromise that makes both sides happy happens. What that compromise is, or how it will work, or what it entails I have no idea. The computer industry with software has managed to find a happy medium. Now its time for the entertainment industry to do the same.

One thing I do beleive is certain. We should consider what is enforceable & what isn't. By enforceable I mean two things. One catching somone, & two making it stick in court. Some things are just impossible to be caught at. While others are impossible make stick in court.

On a more personal note.... I continue to write my government. I continue to make copies of all content I purchase or obtain in legal fashions for personal use & to make backup copies to protect my investment, as well as to play on devices that I currently own. I do not make illegal copies to sell, or to share with family or friends. If I am breaking current copyright law by doing what I am doing. I couldn't give a rats ass & as such won't stop.
If I am arrested, or sued. I am prepared to fight this case in the courts and through highly publicised public opinion (YouTube as an example) all the way to the Supreme court. Win or lose. I know I will have the support of many if I do.

TGC

P.S. We all need to keep in mind that currently while things are not perfect about what we can or can't do. Things could be alot worse. Things can still get better though.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

A Question to those who have 2 or more Series 2 TiVo's and are useing MRV.

Have any of you come across any shows you COULDN'T MRV or TTG because of copy protection?

I have checked all the shows I & my wife watch. Currently none of them have any form of copy protection being used. These are shows on Discovery HD, HBO HD, MOJO, And both channels of ESPN HD. HD versions of the 5 Major networks available through OTA obviously don't have thiers copy protected.

TGC


----------



## kb7oeb

TexasGrillChef said:


> 2. The power of how you spend your dollars. Buy their content, don't buy their content. Example... When I have a best seller on my menu at my restuarant I make sure to keep offering that item. If I have an item on my menu that no one likes no one buys it. So I take it off the menu. On a larger scale if people don't like my food or service. They stop coming. If enough people stop coming. I go out of buisness. Thus an exmaple of the POWER OF YOUR DOLLAR at work.


I don't disagree with you but they will not blame DRM , the will blame it on piracy and fight for stronger DRM, after all it couldn't possible be that people just don't want the product itself or as offered.


----------



## bicker

AbMagFab said:


> Wow, where do you live, clearly not in the US.


Definitely in the United States. I understand you're upset by the reality of the situation, but don't blame others for that.



AbMagFab said:


> What distinction are you making between content owners and copyright holders?


Ownership rights aren't granted by copyright. Content owners have basic ownership rights, and also have rights granted by copyright law.



AbMagFab said:


> Without something signed, we're under copyright law at that point, nothing more.


Incorrect. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that you're wrong about this is amusing, but no longer entertaining to reply to.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well the reverse of that is this... that Content Creators have a mentality that once they release their "Work" to the mass consumer that they have the right to "Control" said work of art.


And they ONLY do so to the extent that they've provided for that control in the license agreement.



TexasGrillChef said:


> If viewers don't have "Entitlement" then neither do "Content creators"


Unless they've asserted such at the time they make their content available.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Well.. my point being that the Music/Movie industry is in fact practicing a form of Tyranny.


Which, again, is so ridiculous that there isn't a polite way to reply to what you've said.


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> In other words.. produce the content the way I want to use it & buy it... or go out of buisness and stop producitng content.


Tough. You can assert what you want as much as you want, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually compelled to comply with your wishes. The law is bigger than you, and disagrees with you.


----------



## bicker

lrhorer said:


> No, in general societal rules are produced by the whim of those who cannot be prevented from imposing their will upon the rest of the society.


Spoken like a true anarchist. You get your red star today. 

This is a very common rationalization for transgressive behavior. It doesn't make the behavior any less objectionable, though, so please excuse those of us who actually respect the law and our society's ethos so much as to condemn what you are suggesting.



lrhorer said:


> 'Again with the rules.


Inconvenient, I know, when they get in the way of you having what you want.


----------



## bicker

lrhorer said:


> Who says the viewer does not own the content? Yes, I know, the law says it, but why should it?


Because society is best served by ownership rights providing incentive to those who produce not those who consume.



lrhorer said:


> The viewer has paid for the content


Wrong. The viewer has paid for rights to view the content. No matter how many times you try to pervert the reality, that doesn't change the reality.


----------



## Dr_Diablo

aaronwt said:


> It was my understanding that making a copy of any DVD, even if you purchased it, is illegal.


yeah, the juries still out on the subject of making a "legal" copy to backup your investment be a DVD or any other format...

Boils down to the greed of the movie industry, sweet an simple


----------



## bicker

No, not greed: Profit. 

The jury is not "still out". CDs and DVDs are long-lasting media, but the license you purchase is for the life of that specific media.


----------



## Laserfan

You guys are reminding me of one of the irrefutable laws of the universe: "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert!"

That's The Truth for sure, but here also is some Advice: "Never argue with a man who is wrong!"


----------



## Dark Helmet

bicker said:


> No, not greed: Profit.
> 
> The jury is not "still out". CDs and DVDs are long-lasting media, but the license you purchase is for the life of that specific media.


I call "********" on you, at least for CDs. The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act specifically says making personal copies of digital music is fine (a Senate report on this topic said that even making copies for family members is fine). I don't know how to define the "life" of a CD, so I don't know how to define when this supposed license expires. Are you saying that if my CD stops working, I am legally required to destroy all of the (legal) copies I made of it?

I would be interested in reading one of these licenses you are talking about. For DVDs, I have never seen what I would call a definitive legislative statement either way (aside from DMCA issues).


----------



## nathanziarek

bicker --

I've read your posts, and generally I agree. A couple of things, though:

- Legality does not equate to morality nor social norms. You seem to blur the lines, but they are not equal and do not follow each other.

- I wonder if a large part of the problem is that the industry as not properly informed users as to what you are buying. I was always under the impression that I was buying the data on the DVD (or CD). You say that is not the case, that I am merely buying the right to decode that data on specific hardware for viewing(?) purposes (what about concert DVDs that I only want to listen to? Am I breaking contract my keeping the TV off?)

The industry won't address this lack of information in a consumer-friendly manner -- it would hurt sales to know I am only purchasing the right to use the media in the exact manner the industry wants. Instead they'll continue to rely on lawsuits and threats.

Finally, where are the extended limitations available for my viewing. If the license is on the box, then I have the choice to or not to buy. If the license is inside the sealed box, then the contract was executed (a purchase) before the license was presented. The courts differ on this fact, so it is not really as cut-and-dried as you say.

Anyway, I personally think the studios will learn pretty quick that more and more people want their media on and iPod or streamed to a TiVo and will acquiesce. They aren't in business to hurt consumers, but to make money.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

bicker said:


> Because society is best served by ownership rights providing incentive to those who produce not those who consume.
> 
> Wrong. The viewer has paid for rights to view the content. No matter how many times you try to pervert the reality, that doesn't change the reality.


to give an example to what is said(and bear in mind there are things I completely disagree with Bicker on)
an unknown producer was given 300 million by a small company(basically betting the whole company) to produce 3 films based on the Lord of The Rings Trilogy of books. They did this because they could factor in DVD rentals and sales, VOD and PPV royalties along with movie tickets into their ROI calculation to determine the investment was worth the risk.

I am sure today the rights of ownership to those 3 films are worth a bit more than 300 million. So if you want to negotiate that final amount and pay 800 million or whatever then YES, you do own the content on the DVD. Otherwise, you can pay the 15$ and own a license to view that DVD in any private manner you see fit or lend or sell the DVD/license to someone else. You do not own the content and really have no legal right to break the copy protection on it and move the content off the DVD.

Mind you, I do pull content off DVDs I have bought to watch them in other forms though rarely since watching the DVD is easy enough anyways. I would love to be able to easily make backup copies of my Wii games. I would be all for laws that allowed a more loosened fair use policy but they would have to stop short of infringing on the content owners right to garner profit from PPV/VOD or selling the content as a down loadable file. Why? So that the next unknown producer genius gets to make the next massively brilliant and spectacular set of movies in some risky venture.

Also the only way content providers are going to get into downloadable or streaming delivery is for a profit motive. So the content owners would want their license protected by the courts in any form so they feel they can make licensing deals that will work. Sure they will come at it slowly and do stupid things like tack the 24 hour to view restriction on downloaded movies as if they were streaming PPV instead but over time that will change jsut like the transition from old napster to new napster and iTunes and Rhapsody for music.


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> A Question to those who have 2 or more Series 2 TiVo's and are useing MRV.
> 
> Have any of you come across any shows you COULDN'T MRV or TTG because of copy protection?
> 
> I have checked all the shows I & my wife watch. Currently none of them have any form of copy protection being used. These are shows on Discovery HD, HBO HD, MOJO, And both channels of ESPN HD. HD versions of the 5 Major networks available through OTA obviously don't have thiers copy protected.


Probably a bug in the way that your cable company is handling that content. The transport streams containing that content should have conditional access tables marking them as Copy One Generation; seeing this, your cable STBs should mark the analog outputs with Copy One Generation CGMS-A, which TiVo S2 should detect and refuse to move (and mark its analog out on playback with Copy No More via CGMS-A). Applying CGMS-A would be the job of the STB, which could be the point of failure. I can't imagine that TiVo wouldn't handle a properly marked signal, though it's a possibility as well.

There's a copy protection FAQ on HBO's site that I mentioned in a post above which indicates that it's their intention for HBO and Cinemax content to be marked with either Copy One Generation or Copy Never CGMS-A on analog output (Copy Never only for the VOD channels); the others may or may not have such policy, though it's hard to believe that at least ESPN wouldn't.

Enjoy it while it lasts and be aware that it could change.


----------



## sommerfeld

ZeoTiVo said:


> So if you want to negotiate that final amount and pay 800 million or whatever then YES, you do own the content on the DVD. Otherwise, you can pay the 15$ and own a license to view that DVD in any private manner you see fit or lend or sell the DVD/license to someone else.


In spot checks I've made of DVD packaging I can find no evidence of any explicit license granted to me by the copyright holder.

You own that particular physical DVD, and, thanks to the first sale doctrine, you can do nearly anything you want with it except redistribute copies to others.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

sommerfeld said:


> In spot checks I've made of DVD packaging I can find no evidence of any explicit license granted to me by the copyright holder.
> 
> You own that particular physical DVD, and, thanks to the first sale doctrine, you can do nearly anything you want with it except redistribute copies to others.


nowadays the DMCA covers the laspect of copying data off the DVD.

Also try this, open a bar or restaurant and play those DVDs, even for no extra charge to patrons. See what the court thinks of your theory there is no license involved in a DVD sale or rental and you can do whatever you want.


----------



## Goober96

How well does MRV work over a wireless connection? Are there bandwidth considerations? Would running a wire be a better solution?


----------



## ZeoTiVo

Goober96 said:


> How well does MRV work over a wireless connection? Are there bandwidth considerations? Would running a wire be a better solution?


depends on the wireless and what is being moved.

A TiVo wireless adapter is usually as good as wired for MRV. This assumes a decent wireless router and connection though.

Also HD content will be a new twist that has not been seen yet.


----------



## Narf54321

There's a whole thread concerning if MRV is quicker over hard wires, especially for the S3.


----------



## Stormspace

ZeoTiVo said:


> Wow, I never would have guessed it would be by the end of this year
> 
> Nice work TiVo engineers :up:


Yeah, they pushed it up a month so I'd be wrong.


----------



## Stormspace

LoREvanescence said:


> This is great news. I only wish I could use networking on my Tivo though=\. My university's firewall blocks its access to the network and tivo tells me it cannot find a dctp server.


From your PC click start-run and type cmd, click OK.
type ipconfig /all <press enter>

The information that pops up should be what you need to manually configure your TiVo. You should record the gateway ip and subnet mask from the results. if you want to, you can give your TiVo the same ip as your computer, but they can't be plugged into the network at the same time. You best bet is to take your PC's ip address and start assigning an address on your TiVo changing only the last number. xxx.xxx.xxx.2, xxx.xxx.xxx.3, etc. The xxx's represent the IP address numbers listed on your computer. Unless they're specifcally blocking the ports TiVo uses you should eventually find an IP address that works. Keep in mind however that it might fail if you assign an address and another PC logs on with the same address.


----------



## gormly2

barbeedoll said:


> This is incredibly exciting. Now my Tivos go from 6 Series 2s and 1 Series 3 to 6 and 2.
> 
> Great Job Tivo!!!!! And thanks Tivo Pony for the early Christmas gift.
> 
> Barbeedoll


Is there that much TV?

But really... 6 SD's and 2 HD Tivo's?
Thats is just beyond the need of any human being.

and sad when you really think about it. 

Of course, you could have 15 illegals working the landscaping and they all need to watch telemundo on their break, what do I know?


----------



## TexasGrillChef

ZeoTiVo said:


> nowadays the DMCA covers the laspect of copying data off the DVD.
> 
> Also try this, open a bar or restaurant and play those DVDs, even for no extra charge to patrons. See what the court thinks of your theory there is no license involved in a DVD sale or rental and you can do whatever you want.


Actually depends on the DVD.

I have come across a few DVD's that in their FBI warning at the beggining of the movie they explicitly say that FREE public viewing is allowed. While I have seen other that don't say anything one way or the other, and a few that explicitly say Public viewing is not allowed.

Although think of this... How many Church groups, Kids groups, School groups, & other non-profit social groups for all ages have "Movie parties" and show DVD's.

To date... don't think a single person or group have ever been arrested or sued for such "public" viewing.

While it is true, that showing a movie in a Bar/restaurant would be grounds for copyright infringment. The odds of getting sued are less then 1%. Unless if you were in California or something. Why do I say that?

Because if you were showing that movie in a bar/restaurant or other buisness to attract customers/clients. Somone who you were infringing would have to protest or notice that you were infringing on their rights. Some Joe blow, or tom, dick & harry off the street aren't going to make that complaint, or file a law suit. Or even take the time & trouble of calling the Studios to let them know.

Just goes back to something I had said in an earlier post.... ENFORCEMENT...
It may be illegal to do so... but close to impossible to enforce.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

Time is getting near!

I think once everyone has had their machinces upgraded to the new fall release 9.1 I think it is. I beleive a week or two later they will turn MRV on. 

I think they are waiting for the final rollout of the software upgrade to go successfully first. Since it is needed for the MRV/TTG.

I could be wrong...

TGC


----------



## TiivoDog

gormly2 said:


> Is there that much TV?
> 
> But really... 6 SD's and 2 HD Tivo's?
> Thats is just beyond the need of any human being.
> 
> and sad when you really think about it.
> 
> Of course, you could have 15 illegals working the landscaping and they all need to watch telemundo on their break, what do I know?


And I thought I was bad with my measly 7 Tivo's!!!


----------



## etevo

TiVoPony;

I wonder if TTG/TiVo Desktop for the S3 units will support closed captioning? From what I gather, the current TiVo Desktop/TTG for the S2 units do not have support for closed captioning. (Unless I'm mistaken!)

Thanks!


----------



## drew00001

etevo said:


> TiVoPony;
> 
> I wonder if TTG/TiVo Desktop for the S3 units will support closed captioning? From what I gather, the current TiVo Desktop/TTG for the S2 units do not have support for closed captioning. (Unless I'm mistaken!)
> 
> Thanks!


It is my understanding that THD and S3 are the only TiVos that can decode closed captioning (without another device).

When I had an S1, however, my TV had no problems decoding content saved on the Tivo.


----------



## bicker

nathanziarek said:


> - Legality does not equate to morality nor social norms.


Personal preference does not equate to morality. So given that two people's personal preferences vary, and the law favors one of the two, it makes no sense to suggest that the _other _personal preference is the _moral _one.



nathanziarek said:


> - I wonder if a large part of the problem is that the industry as not properly informed users as to what you are buying.


Customers, in general, have very little interest in learning what restrictions or limitations are associated with what they're buying -- the closer the customer is to J6P the more that is the case, but I've seen the same thing even in B2B situations.


----------



## bicker

ZeoTiVo said:


> to give an example to what is said(and bear in mind there are things I completely disagree with Bicker on)


However, it is great when we do agree, like in this case.... actually, I suspect that whenever the two of us do agree, we can probably rest assured that we're that much closer to being absolutely and unequivocally on-target.


----------



## andyw715

"...Also try this, open a bar or restaurant and play those DVDs, even for no extra charge to patrons. See what the court thinks of your theory there is no license involved in a DVD sale or rental and you can do whatever you want. ..."

Recent news articles (within the past few months) cited a few bars in Madison WI, that were issued citations for live music....some guy playing the guitar singing cover songs...for copyright infringement.

link


----------



## TexasGrillChef

andyw715 said:


> "...Also try this, open a bar or restaurant and play those DVDs, even for no extra charge to patrons. See what the court thinks of your theory there is no license involved in a DVD sale or rental and you can do whatever you want. ..."
> 
> Recent news articles (within the past few months) cited a few bars in Madison WI, that were issued citations for live music....some guy playing the guitar singing cover songs...for copyright infringement.
> 
> link


Did they simply pay the fine, or did they "Take it court". If they took it too court, who won?

I would be willing to bet that if they hired a good lawyer, the cases were dismissed or settle for reasonable fees, that still probably made it worth it to do what they did.

TGC


----------



## Brainiac 5

bicker said:


> No, I included only what was relevant. You said: "I just want to watch it in a different room" as if your desire was your license to do so... as if you were entitled to do so. You're not. You wanted that capability even though that was NOT what you paid for. That's the point I made.


By cutting out the parts you considered "irrelevant," you changed the meaning. I did _not_ state that I was "entitled" to MRV because I paid for cable TV service. I did state that this is a case where desiring it is not desiring to engage in rampant piracy and "expecting everything for free." I think it's a reasonable thing to want; that does not imply that the cable company is obligated to give it to me.

The point of the comment about being a paying customer is that I'm not interested in stealing cable, piracy, or anything else that violates copyright; I'm interested in watching from a different room. While I can't speak for the cable companies, I doubt that they see this as something they would take steps to prevent in and of itself; they're only doing so because the current DRM scheme will stop it along with all the other things that they _do_ specifically want to block.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your contention seems to be that DRM only adversely affects pirates
> 
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? I never said anything of the sort. DRM exists because of piracy. That's it. How you perverted that into something easier for you to argue against is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Seems there's a lot of this going around, because your whole discussion of "entitlement" has nothing to do with what I said. However, if I'm guilty of misstating your opinion I can admit it, so point taken.

Just to be sure I understand then: when you talked about people "wanting everything for free," I thought that was a broad characterization of people who'd like to do things not allowed by current DRM. If you're saying that _some_ people are like that, and that's the reason we have DRM, I agree. However, I'd disagree if you were saying that everyone who has issues with DRM is like that.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for what the service includes, I'm not saying I have a right to MRV because I pay my cable bill. I'm saying that MRV is not used for piracy, so why should the cable company want to restrict you from doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't believe that that is what you're saying. As it is, "Why?" is a useless question because AFAIC the folks asking it typically don't really care to internalize the honest answer to it.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused - you don't believe that I'm saying what you quoted me as saying? 

As for "why" being a "useless question," that's nice, but it's not an answer. Actually, the question was meant to have the obvious answer that they probably don't specifically want to restrict this particular use. But if you have another answer, let us know and we'll see if we're able to "internalize" it. Note that I'm not asking why we have DRM, I'm asking why they'd want to restrict MRV specifically.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

TexasGrillChef said:


> Although think of this... How many Church groups, Kids groups, School groups, & other non-profit social groups for all ages have "Movie parties" and show DVD's.
> 
> To date... don't think a single person or group have ever been arrested or sued for such "public" viewing.
> 
> While it is true, that showing a movie in a Bar/restaurant would be grounds for copyright infringment. The odds of getting sued are less then 1%. Unless if you were in California or something. Why do I say that?


well sure enforcement is what upholds the license. Take the cops off the roads and see how many traffic laws are obeyed. 

and Police are not likely to bust some community movie night unless some infringed party insists on it. Think NFL here. I saw a fundraiser to fight cancer that was *sponsored by the Carolina Panthers * get shut down ahead of the event by the NFL because the plan was to have the game on a big screen outside the stadium to draw crowds and do some fundraising stuff.

now sure a bar somewhere might get away with showing DVDs in violation of the license for that DVD. Think though, what a customer draw that would be to have movies playing in the bar/restaraunt, yet 99.99999999% of such places would not even think of doing it. Wonder why?


----------



## ZeoTiVo

andyw715 said:


> "...Also try this, open a bar or restaurant and play those DVDs, even for no extra charge to patrons. See what the court thinks of your theory there is no license involved in a DVD sale or rental and you can do whatever you want. ..."
> 
> Recent news articles (within the past few months) cited a few bars in Madison WI, that were issued citations for live music....some guy playing the guitar singing cover songs...for copyright infringement.
> 
> link





from the linked article said:


> "I always thought the royalties were covered with the purchase of the music," said Cliff McDonald, co-owner of Brocach on the Capitol Square. The copyright groups "will use threatening legal terms if you don't pay, so for us it just seemed like there weren't really any options."


hmm, I heard that same "covered with purchase" somewhere before


----------



## jrm01

In an earlier posting I mentioned that when I took a recent TiVo training course they said that the November release of TTG for S3 and THD would be for Analog only.

I have now received a message from TiVoJerry stating that the material in that training program was out of date. That is no longer true.    :up: 

The temperature is dropping, the leaves are turning. Is it November yet?


----------



## bicker

Brainiac 5 said:


> By cutting out the parts you considered "irrelevant," you changed the meaning.


I disagree. I kept my message short, and to the point.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I think it's a reasonable thing to want; that *does not imply that the cable company is obligated to give it to me*.


Thanks for explicitly stating that. That's really the whole context of my message.



Brainiac 5 said:


> The point of the comment about being a paying customer is that I'm not interested in stealing cable, piracy, or anything else that violates copyright; I'm interested in watching from a different room.


Which is not something you're necessarily paying for. That was my point.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Just to be sure I understand then: when you talked about people "wanting everything for free," I thought that was a broad characterization of people who'd like to do things not allowed by current DRM. If you're saying that _some_ people are like that, and that's the reason we have DRM, I agree. However, I'd disagree if you were saying that everyone who has issues with DRM is like that.


DRM exists because there are people who refuse to *voluntarily* comply with terms and conditions of use. That's not saying that everyone refuses to comply, but enough do.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm a little confused - you don't believe that I'm saying what you quoted me as saying?


Reading that over I cannot remember what I was referring to. I probably misread that part of your message. Sorry about that.



Brainiac 5 said:


> As for "why" being a "useless question," that's nice, but it's not an answer.


And that's my point: Not every inquiry to a supplier requires an answer, despite the desire of customers to have one. And despite vigorous protestations to the contrary, sometimes it is in the suppliers' best interest to provide a non-answer or no answer to such inquiries. Folks can therefore speculate about what the answer might be, but (1) it isn't going to have any reliable chance of accuracy, and (2) it won't change the customer's ability to derive value from the service offering.


----------



## sommerfeld

ZeoTiVo said:


> well sure enforcement is what upholds the license. Take the cops off the roads and see how many traffic laws are obeyed.


Bad analogy for DRM, because DRM enforcement is by a computer program with tunnel vision, not people who can look at the big picture.

Would you buy a car with an automatic speed governor which prevented it from exceeding the posted speed limit?


----------



## bicker

In some places, speed limits are enforced by cameras, not human police officers.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

ZeoTiVo said:


> well sure enforcement is what upholds the license. Take the cops off the roads and see how many traffic laws are obeyed.
> 
> and Police are not likely to bust some community movie night unless some infringed party insists on it. Think NFL here. I saw a fundraiser to fight cancer that was *sponsored by the Carolina Panthers * get shut down ahead of the event by the NFL because the plan was to have the game on a big screen outside the stadium to draw crowds and do some fundraising stuff.
> 
> now sure a bar somewhere might get away with showing DVDs in violation of the license for that DVD. Think though, what a customer draw that would be to have movies playing in the bar/restaraunt, yet 99.99999999% of such places would not even think of doing it. Wonder why?


I'll Tell ya why 99.999999999999% of bars etc.. don't. Because there are ALOT of decent customers out there that would find a Bar etc... doing that as dishonest & would probably wonder about the establishments OTHER practices & then stop being a customer. So while the "First" night would be good..."Second" night of DVD's probably wouldn't be.

I can see where the Carolina Pathers were shut down. They were outside the stadium! Thats like smokin a joint in front of a Police officer! (Depending on what state your from.. since its legal in a few states now).

BTW..... Even with all the cops on the road. Majority of americans do continue to "SPEED" Some only 5-10mph over... others even alot more. Radar Detectors are a Multi Billion dollar a year buisness. Knock on wood... I use one & haven't received a speeding ticket in over 3 years... Although I did spend a chunk of change & have the best one money can buy. LOL

Point being... as with everything... it's all about the bottom line & values... I am willing to pay the cost of a radar detector/jammer and fines/lawyer costs to keep speeding down the road. Others are not. Same thing applies to Copying/PD of Music/Movies/TV Shows.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

sommerfeld said:


> Bad analogy for DRM, because DRM enforcement is by a computer program with tunnel vision, not people who can look at the big picture.
> 
> Would you buy a car with an automatic speed governor which prevented it from exceeding the posted speed limit?


Nope... I wouldn't... I love to speed! LOL

However.. I am glad in *SOME STATES.... Schools CAN"T * buy buss's or other School Vehicles unless they do have a speed governor on them.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> In some places, speed limits are enforced by cameras, not human police officers.


Although keep in mind. That enforcement of any vehicular traffic violation is of cival terms and not criminal & does not end up on your driving record.

Here in Texas... Dallas area. where several cities have "cameras" many people were able to BEAT and WIN over the cameras... Until They made it a cival & not criminal & that the person who owned the vehicle was responsible.

All Cities/States that use cameras for moving vehicle violations have to be very specific & very carefull how the law/ordinance is worded/stated. Many are easy to beat if you know the law well enough. Some cities/states will DISMISS a violation from a Camera if you just "Fight" it. They are going on the statistics that 70% of people just pay the fine & don't fight it. Keep that in mind the next time you get a ticket in the mail from camera enforcement.

TGC


----------



## bferrell

bicker said:


> In some places, speed limits are enforced by cameras, not human police officers.


And thank God *some* states give you the constitutionally-guaranteed opportunity to face your accuser. ahem.

I dont like the Ohio State Patrol, but you wont see them hiding behind billboards or on the side of the highway unlighted or running photo-radar, and they have to show you their daily radar calibration results if asked. God Bless America.

B


----------



## etevo

drew00001 said:


> It is my understanding that THD and S3 are the only TiVos that can decode closed captioning (without another device).


What does that mean as far as TTG/TiVo Desktop (For the S3 units, whenever it is released.) is concerned? Does it mean that the captions are 'printed' and would transfer over to the PC without the need for a software driver/solution on the PC's end to display correctly?

Hopefully the TiVo Desktop/TTG, when released, will allow me to watch S3 TiVo recorded content with captioning on my PC. I would love to have that!


----------



## ZeoTiVo

TexasGrillChef said:


> I'll Tell ya why 99.999999999999% of bars etc.. don't. Because there are ALOT of decent customers out there that would find a Bar etc... doing that as dishonest & would probably wonder about the establishments


ok, so we agree that their are licenses that come with DVDs and most people would like to see companies respect those copyrights. I think the same can be said of cable Television and most people would like to see companies respect the liscenses that are passed via cable or sat content delivery.

Also we agree that enforcement is a key function in how well those liscenses are observed. Most churches would noit expect to get busted for movie night

I think it safe to say that if TiVo did not honor the restrictions of cable shows within MRV/TTG that enforcement would be forthcoming quite swiftly since they are quite visible and not driving down some back road.


----------



## drew00001

etevo said:


> What does that mean as far as TTG/TiVo Desktop (For the S3 units, whenever it is released.) is concerned? Does it mean that the captions are 'printed' and would transfer over to the PC without the need for a software driver/solution on the PC's end to display correctly?
> 
> Hopefully the TiVo Desktop/TTG, when released, will allow me to watch S3 TiVo recorded content with captioning on my PC. I would love to have that!


Sorry, I have no idea, but would like to see close caption utilized, especially for MRV.


----------



## Arcady

The CC data is in the video signal. The playback device (your TV, the TiVo, or the application on the PC) needs to know how to decode it. A series2 could do it with a software upgrade, and so could software on the PC. MRV has nothing to do with retaining CC info.


----------



## dougdingle

ZeoTiVo said:


> Most churches would noit expect to get busted for movie night


Well, I'd like to point out that this past February the NFL made it quite clear that churches, charities, private social clubs, and any other group who promoted the concept would get sued if they had any sort of gathering and showed the Super Bowl during it, and were caught doing so. It was in all the news.

Of course, the NFL *are* the scum sucking, money grubbing, slimy weasel maggots of the known universe (with MLB running a close second), but still...


----------



## Brainiac 5

ZeoTiVo said:


> ok, so we agree that their are licenses that come with DVDs and most people would like to see companies respect those copyrights.


You mean you and TexasGrillChef? Because while I agree with the end conclusion based on this, I do not in fact see any licenses in my DVDs. The FBI warning is not a license; it only claims to be a description of applicable copyright laws. The companies of course own the copyright, and yes, most people would like to see the copyright respected. Although I'm not a copyright lawyer, I assume that this covers disallowing public showings of the material without the copyright owner's consent, so the effect in this case is the same. The difference, though, is that the law sets the limits, not the copyright owners.

It's interesting that music was brought up, because that's a favorite example of those who want looser restrictions. Note that the problem in the article that was mentioned was that the bars did not pay the proper royalties, not that they performed the songs at all. In the United States, there is a "compulsory license" scheme for music - the copyright owner cannot stop you from performing their song, as long as you pay them a mandated fee.



> I think the same can be said of cable Television and most people would like to see companies respect the liscenses that are passed via cable or sat content delivery.


I'm not sure that any licenses enter into this - there are FCC regulations concerning copy protection and what all the involved parties' responsibilities are.



> I think it safe to say that if TiVo did not honor the restrictions of cable shows within MRV/TTG that enforcement would be forthcoming quite swiftly since they are quite visible and not driving down some back road.


Certainly - TiVo has no choice in the matter. If they didn't obey the copy protection then their devices would not be approved by CableLabs and they would not be able to sell them.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

dougdingle said:


> Well, I'd like to point out that this past February the NFL made it quite clear that churches, charities, private social clubs, and any other group who promoted the concept would get sued if they had any sort of gathering and showed the Super Bowl during it, and were caught doing so. It was in all the news.
> 
> Of course, the NFL *are* the scum sucking, money grubbing, slimy weasel maggots of the known universe (with MLB running a close second), but still...


Somehow I don't think they will ever make it stick though.

I think if it did happen a church &/or school group got sued. It would end up in the news & they would get a very bad rap.

Besides that... I think the groups would win, especially since the Super Bowl is broadcast OTA on a network station.

Go to any bar/club/restuarant that has a TV & you will notice it is turned on during the Super Bowl.

I think the NFL could make all the claims it wants. I don't think it would stick in court though, & like I said earlier. If they did that, I think the NFL would look bad. Not that don't allready.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

My main point being...Enforcement.

Alot of things are again't the law, (Cival & Criminal), However if you can't enforce it. It's a moot point.

Example. 98% of the time I speed. I only get a ticket one every 4 or 5 years. I plead it defferend, take a Blockbuster Defensive driving course for $39, Pay the court costs of about $100. and presto, the Ticket is history. Now If I got a ticket every month, and the ticket cost me $300 or more per ticket. I might slow down.

I think the same thing applies it other laws as well. Although.... Enforcement doesn't always mean involving the police, or the courts.

In Dallas, it is again'st the law to smoke in restaurants. Most restaurants here in Dallas abide by the law. Even though getting a fine for allowing customers to smoke is close to impossible to get. (Not impossible, just difficult). but... If I allowed my customers to smoke. My establishment would get a reputation for smokers & thus, I would start LOSING buisness because customers know I don't follow the law in my restaurant. Logic dictates that they would wonder if I cook my food legally too. Thus I would go out of buisness for breaking the law.. but not by being sued, or by getting fines.

So enforcement... doesn't always mean law enforcment, but public enforcement as well.

TGC


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Although keep in mind. That enforcement of any vehicular traffic violation is of cival terms and not criminal & does not end up on your driving record.


Yes, and the analogue to that is that DRM prevents violations -- it doesn't convict you of a felony.


----------



## bicker

etevo said:


> What does that mean as far as TTG/TiVo Desktop (For the S3 units, whenever it is released.) is concerned? Does it mean that the captions are 'printed' and would transfer over to the PC without the need for a software driver/solution on the PC's end to display correctly?


I'm a bit confused by all this Closed Captioning discussion -- perhaps I missed the beginning of it where it gained some context. I have used MRV between S2s and between an S2 and a laptop, and have had Closed Captions decoded in both scenarios.

Are we going to lose that?


----------



## bicker

TexasGrillChef said:


> Alot of things are again't the law, (Cival & Criminal), However if you can't enforce it. It's a moot point.


Well, no -- for two reasons: (1) If you can preclude a felony, that's valuable; and (2) most reasonable people voluntarily comply with criminal law, regardless of enforcement. I believe conscious transgressors are a minority.


----------



## CharlesH

TexasGrillChef said:


> I think if it did happen a church &/or school group got sued. It would end up in the news & they would get a very bad rap.


Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


----------



## mikeyts

TexasGrillChef said:


> My main point being...Enforcement.
> 
> Alot of things are again't the law, (Cival & Criminal), However if you can't enforce it. It's a moot point.


No law can be perfectly enforced. Prosecutions of many of the most heinous crimes fail all the time; by their nature, most of these crimes are committed when the perpetrators think that they're unobserved and usually there are no witnesses other than the victim. Some murderers go free and probably most rapists. Shall we decriminalize rape and murder just because they can be hard to prosecute? (Not to compare casual acts of copyright infringement to rape and murder).

The laws concerning posted speed limits on the roads are broken _continuously_--there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of infractions ongoing in this nation as I type this. There will never be nearly enough police on the road to stop speeding, but the laws against it give them what they need to go after the worst offenders.

As with other many crimes, prosecution of copyright infringement and/or violation of the DMCA is driven by the "victim"--before the government agencies can do anything, someone must complain. In order to complain, the copyright holders have to detect and at least partially document the offenses, which can be expensive. They're not going to do it until they think that they're losing more than the cost of going after the offenders, just as a store isn't going to spend more to stop shoplifting than they're losing from shoplifting (to a certain point, they'll just pass the losses on to their paying customers ).

The motion picture industry has mostly used the DMCA to take down websites advertising (and sometimes selling) P2P access to downloads of films and television. They also used it to shut down 321 Studios, the makers of the original DVD X Copy. Strangely, they don't seem to be going after the myriad sellers of other illegal DVD ripping tools (though we probably wouldn't hear about it until someone was actually shut down). The content copyright holders realize that they can't stop this stuff--they can only afford to spend so much money going after offenders and they pick their battles.

But since distributing, selling, possessing and using copyright protection circumvention tools _is_ illegal, the damage that they can do is minimized. They can't be openly advertised and most people wouldn't deign to use them. You can't stop everybody, but if it weren't illegal an order of magnitude more people would be doing it. Minor OEMs not afraid of offending the movie industry would be openly selling SD and HD video disc dubbing decks.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

CharlesH said:


> Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


yes, and that was the same reason given by the NFL for shutting down that Panther's cancer benefit.

anyhow bottom line is that whether at the start if each show a license is flashed, or if there is some fine print when subscribing to cable or sat packages or not = there is a license involved. Those licenses do of course have to meet FCC rules and guidelines - such as no restrictions on OTA shows, but it is there and enforceable.

The trick is to know the FCC guidelines and what licenses are in place so you can call the cable or sat company on nay mistkes they make, because they do make them with the configuration of head end equipment not being a simple thing.


----------



## morac

CharlesH said:


> Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


There were sued, but if I remember correctly Disney later changed their mind and allowed it after getting a lot of bad press about it.


----------



## Narf54321

morac said:


> There were sued, but if I remember correctly Disney later changed their mind and allowed it after getting a lot of bad press about it.


You're talking about the Hallandale, Florida day-care case. Disney acted like a bunch of ***tunnels, and in the midst of a bunch of bad press Universal volunteered and stepped in to repaint the walls with Hanna-Barbara characters (mostly as a PR stunt).


----------



## dswallow

morac said:


> There were sued, but if I remember correctly Disney later changed their mind and allowed it after getting a lot of bad press about it.


Actually in 1989 Disney threatened to sue three day care centers in Hallandale, Florida that had murals depicting Disney characters if the centers didn't remove them. They were replaced with murals depicting Universal Studios / Hanna-Barbera characters when Universal Studios Florida stepped in during the controversy.

That's one of many examples where Disney won the battle but lost the war.


----------



## SMWinnie

CharlesH said:


> Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


Without comment on whether trademark and copyright law requires Disney to behave harshly, Snopes has a nice summary of the matter.


----------



## jrm01

bicker said:


> Well, no -- for two reasons: (1) If you can preclude a felony, that's valuable; and (2) most reasonable people voluntarily comply with criminal law, regardless of enforcement. I believe conscious transgressors are a minority.


Minority - yes. But it can be a large minority for those having a few drinks and driving home.


----------



## Amnesia

Forget drinking and driving---what about speeding?


----------



## etevo

bicker said:


> I'm a bit confused by all this Closed Captioning discussion -- perhaps I missed the beginning of it where it gained some context. I have used MRV between S2s and between an S2 and a laptop, and have had Closed Captions decoded in both scenarios.


FWIW, I didn't read the entire thread, either!  I've also never used a S2 unit, let alone see it in action. I just got a TiVo HD and like it so far. I also knew about the MRV/TTG capabilities by browsing TiVo's site, but have never seen TiVo Desktop in action nor own a second TiVo unit to try out the MRV feature.

How did you watch TiVo content on your laptop? Via the TiVo Desktop program? If the captions appear there, then the next version of TiVo Desktop, that support the S3 units, should also retain this capability. (I hope! I need it.)


----------



## moyekj

etevo said:


> How did you watch TiVo content on your laptop? Via the TiVo Desktop program? If the captions appear there, then the next version of TiVo Desktop, that support the S3 units, should also retain this capability. (I hope! I need it.)


 You can watch via Tivo Desktop if you want - there is a Play button which brings up Windows Media Player to play the content (and I believe the appropriate codecs are installed as part of TD installation). If you search the web you will find the .TiVo encrypted format (for S2 TTG) has been cracked and you can decrypt to unencrypted mpeg file (using a couple of different methods) which you can then play with any mpeg player you desire. We shall have to wait and see if that still works for S3/THD content.
I don't believe Media Player or many other players for that matter support digital captions (at least not without jumping through hoops) even if TTG does not strip them out.


----------



## bicker

CharlesH said:


> Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


Your memory is correct.


----------



## bicker

morac said:


> There were sued, but if I remember correctly Disney later changed their mind and allowed it after getting a lot of bad press about it.


That is not the case. See earlier message with the link to Snopes. Universal granted the child care center license to use their characters, exactly what the center neglected to secure from Disney.


----------



## bicker

etevo said:


> FWIW, I didn't read the entire thread, either!


Heck, I have read the entire thread, and am still confused about it.



etevo said:


> How did you watch TiVo content on your laptop? Via the TiVo Desktop program?


Correct.



etevo said:


> If the captions appear there, then the next version of TiVo Desktop, that support the S3 units, should also retain this capability. (I hope! I need it.)


I hope so too, but there is a difference between analog CC and digital CC, so don't *expect* support for analog CC to imply that the software will support digital CC. It has to be a separate requirement fulfilled (or not).


----------



## bicker

moyekj said:


> I don't believe Media Player or many other players for that matter support digital captions (at least not without jumping through hoops) even if TTG does not strip them out.


I have the OnAir GT digital tuner connected to my laptop, and thereby can watch HDTV programs through their viewer. Closed Captions are displayed for digital recordings (but, remarkably, not for analog recordings.)


----------



## eobiont

My provider is Mediacom.

They have ALL channels set to CCI=0x02 - even local HD channels.
I called in to them to ask if this wasn't in violation of FCC regulations and they told me with exceptional polietness to go make love to myself vigorously. 

I don't have a lot of recourse. I sent a note in to the city council franchise board and made a phonecall to the FCC. I don't really expect anything to come of it. You can either eat the turd sandwhich or go hungry. 

So for me, Tivo2Go won't even work for broadcast television.


----------



## mikeyts

eobiont said:


> My provider is Mediacom.
> 
> They have ALL channels set to CCI=0x02 - even local HD channels.
> I called in to them to ask if this wasn't in violation of FCC regulations and they told me with exceptional polietness to go make love to myself vigorously.
> 
> I don't have a lot of recourse. I sent a note in to the city council franchise board and made a phonecall to the FCC. I don't really expect anything to come of it. You can either eat the turd sandwhich or go hungry.
> 
> So for me, Tivo2Go won't even work for broadcast television.


In every case that I've heard of online, people always get action on complaints of blatant FCC violations like this one. Keep your complaint up until you get action. Log your interactions with everyone--ask anyone with whom you speak on the phone to identify his or herself so that you can say exactly who told you what and when.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

CharlesH said:


> Didn't a daycare center get sued a couple of years ago by Disney for unauthorized use of their characters? Something about either they enforce their rights, or the law can consider the claims forfeited?


Don't remember hearing anything about that. Would be interested to know the facts around that case including how the case was settled.

TGC

Guess I should have read the whole thread before posting... my bad.... Sorry

Yeah... Disney won the battle, lost the war. Then again, Disney is pretty much out there in doing contreversial things one way or the other. Disney is ending up in the news several times a year. Southern Baptists as far as I know from the official convention held every year here in Dallas is suppose to still be boycotting Disney. This could have changed though. LOL


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Well, no -- for two reasons: (1) If you can preclude a felony, that's valuable; and (2) most reasonable people voluntarily comply with criminal law, regardless of enforcement. I believe conscious transgressors are a minority.


It is true. I too beleive that for the most part people are good, & for the most part don't break the law. I do say for the most part. Because there are some laws I do abide by, even though impossible to enforce, & others that I don't.

Take speeding as an example. Latest statistics show that 87% of licensed drivers speed at least 34% of the time by at least 5mph over the speed limit.

TGC


----------



## saberman

TexasGrillChef said:


> It is true. I too beleive that for the most part people are good
> TGC


I usually try to avoid this but -- people are people. Good is a relative, not absolute, term.

...and now we return you to your regular programming.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

mikeyts said:


> No law can be perfectly enforced. Prosecutions of many of the most heinous crimes fail all the time; by their nature, most of these crimes are committed when the perpetrators think that they're unobserved and usually there are no witnesses other than the victim. Some murderers go free and probably most rapists. Shall we decriminalize rape and murder just because they can be hard to prosecute? (Not to compare casual acts of copyright infringement to rape and murder).


I think what I was trying to imply there was taken out of context, either that or I did not communicate clearly. My Bad. Yes, I do agree no law of any type, anywhere in the world, at any time can be perfectly enforced. Even when it is enforced, succesful prosecution is even harder. Then... EVEN when there is a succesfull prosecution we have loop holes in the law that allow cases to be defered, dropped, dismissed, pardon, etc... even to some point that the convictions end up being removed from ones "criminal" record. Just look how easy it is to "erase" speeding tickets. (At least in some parts of the country). The real truth in enforcement is where we want our law enforcement/justice system to put their money in enforcment/prosecution. Saw laws get more attention then others.



mikeyts said:


> The laws concerning posted speed limits on the roads are broken _continuously_--there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of infractions ongoing in this nation as I type this. There will never be nearly enough police on the road to stop speeding, but the laws against it give them what they need to go after the worst offenders.


Sometimes even the worst offenders can still get away with it. Just takes money.
Every traffic ticket I have received in the last 20 years I have had dismissed.



mikeyts said:


> As with other many crimes, prosecution of copyright infringement and/or violation of the DMCA is driven by the "victim"--before the government agencies can do anything, someone must complain. In order to complain, the copyright holders have to detect and at least partially document the offenses, which can be expensive. They're not going to do it until they think that they're losing more than the cost of going after the offenders, just as a store isn't going to spend more to stop shoplifting than they're losing from shoplifting (to a certain point, they'll just pass the losses on to their paying customers ).


Exactly my point. I can only do so much "control" in my restaurant to curb employee theft, & to stop theft by customers (Walk outs). Thus in my own restaurant, My menu prices are 3% higher to cover what I may lose from employees giving away free food to friends & family as well as customer thefts.
A friend of mine works security for a major retailer that is an "Anchor" store for most malls. Without security store theft is estimated to run about $15,000 a week in losses. The store spend about $10,000 a week in "security" and raises their prices 5% to cover cost of Security and theft. Next time you shop at Sears, Macy's, Dillards, JC Penny etc... remind yourself that 5% of what your paying is covering the cost of security & theft.



mikeyts said:


> The motion picture industry has mostly used the DMCA to take down websites advertising (and sometimes selling) P2P access to downloads of films and television. They also used it to shut down 321 Studios, the makers of the original DVD X Copy. Strangely, they don't seem to be going after the myriad sellers of other illegal DVD ripping tools (though we probably wouldn't hear about it until someone was actually shut down). The content copyright holders realize that they can't stop this stuff--they can only afford to spend so much money going after offenders and they pick their battles.


Again... when it comes to corporations that are "public" companies traded on the NY Stock exchange. Then you have to keep one thing in mind. It is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about the bottom line. A public traded company of any type doesn't do ANYTHING unless it has the projected outcome of positively effecting the bottom line. Now because corporations are run by living people that make mistakes, many times things corporation do don't always postively effect bottom line. But the intentions are always to have a postive effect on bottom line. 
Corporations don't even donate money to charities unless it can have a postive outcome to bottom line. Either in tax credits/deductions, or through increased sales because people think better of the corporation.



mikeyts said:


> But since distributing, selling, possessing and using copyright protection circumvention tools _is_ illegal, the damage that they can do is minimized. They can't be openly advertised and most people wouldn't deign to use them. You can't stop everybody, but if it weren't illegal an order of magnitude more people would be doing it. Minor OEMs not afraid of offending the movie industry would be openly selling SD and HD video disc dubbing decks.


Music CD' currently don't have any DRM on them. They tried to add DRM at one time to music CD's without success. Compatibility problems with older players I think was part of the problem. None the less, DRM went away for music CD's. You can go into almost any home stereo store and find CD Dubbing decks. Saw on the other day at Best Buy for $99. So you are correct. DRM & THE DMCA have stopped OEM's from making DVD dubbing decks. So if you want to copy a DVD you are required to use a computer & software to do so. Easy to find & download & cheap.

There are over a dozen programs though that will take a DVD & convert it for use with you Ipod, Zune or other video player. Those software programs of course all expect you to have "Removed" CSS encryption. They are succesful in selling this software, because they know the CCS Ripping software is easy to obtain & cheap to buy. Although not from any mass markerter like best buy. One even has the capability now to handle Blu-Ray & HD-DVD & even tells you WHERE to go to SEARCH for the software to RIP blu-ray & HD-DVD.

Like I have said many times... What is going on between content providers & consumers is what I call a circle game, & Until a "Happy medium" is reached that can satisfy both providers & consumers we will continue to have this mess.

Content providers & consumers it seems have come to some kind of basic understanding with music. (No, it isn't perfect yet), but it is alot better now for everyone now, then it was 10 years ago. More music is available legally today online than it was years ago, & using it on multiple devices is extemely easier too.

As inpaitient as WE all are, (Myslef included) it will work itself out in the end.

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

morac said:


> There were sued, but if I remember correctly Disney later changed their mind and allowed it after getting a lot of bad press about it.


Exactly the point I was trying to make several times. Content providers have learned that they have to be careful about who they sue & why. Otherwise it will give them bad press.

Bad press isn't a good thing to have. (For Content providers anyways)

TGC

Remember the bad press 48 hours got a month or two ago, when it tried to "TRAP" "hackers" at a convention?


----------



## bicker

Another analogy: DRM is like putting a speed bump in the road to prevent speeding. A speed bump is impervious to the kind of system abuse discussed by some.


----------



## MichaelK

eobiont said:


> My provider is Mediacom.
> 
> They have ALL channels set to CCI=0x02 - even local HD channels.
> I called in to them to ask if this wasn't in violation of FCC regulations and they told me with exceptional polietness to go make love to myself vigorously.
> 
> I don't have a lot of recourse. I sent a note in to the city council franchise board and made a phonecall to the FCC. I don't really expect anything to come of it. You can either eat the turd sandwhich or go hungry.
> 
> So for me, Tivo2Go won't even work for broadcast television.


it IS ILLEGAL for boradcast tv to be set to anything but 0x00.

I'm sure you can get that fixed eventually.

but beyond that pretty much everything elses IS allowed 0x02 and that's more of a policy choice so who knows how that works out.


----------



## MichaelK

bicker said:


> Another analogy: DRM is like putting a speed bump in the road to prevent speeding. A speed bump is impervious to the kind of system abuse discussed by some.


great analogy.

I hate speedbumps!


----------



## eobiont

MichaelK said:


> it IS ILLEGAL for boradcast tv to be set to anything but 0x00.
> 
> I'm sure you can get that fixed eventually.
> 
> but beyond that pretty much everything elses IS allowed 0x02 and that's more of a policy choice so who knows how that works out.


I don't think it's illegal, just in violation of FCC regulations. I think there is a difference there, possibly only sematic.

Either way, there is a wide chasm between something being illegal and getting anyone to do anything about it.

Mediacom has nothing to lose by continuing as business as usual. I have notified them of the "supposed" violation. If the FCC investigates, which I doubt they will, then Medicom will say oops and flip the switch. It isn't as if they are going to be fined or anything for breaking regulations. So why would they bring themselves into compliance without being forced to? And why would the FCC bother with such small potatos?

The customer service guy at Mediacom actually encouraged me to contact the FCC knowing full well they would not do anything about it.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

bicker said:


> Another analogy: DRM is like putting a speed bump in the road to prevent speeding. A speed bump is impervious to the kind of system abuse discussed by some.


Speed bumps are *EXACTLY* why I have a Touch Ford Truck.... Can't even tell when I hit a speed bump in my truck! 

TGC


----------



## TexasGrillChef

eobiont said:


> Mediacom has nothing to lose by continuing as business as usual. I have notified them of the "supposed" violation. If the FCC investigates, which I doubt they will, then Medicom will say oops and flip the switch. It isn't as if they are going to be fined or anything for breaking regulations. So why would they bring themselves into compliance without being forced to? And why would the FCC bother with such small potatos?
> 
> The customer service guy at Mediacom actually encouraged me to contact the FCC knowing full well they would not do anything about it.


Didn't I say somewhere earlier in post about "*ENFORCEMENT*"?????

Here is deffinately an example where a company does what it wants because it *KNOWS* that it *CAN* get away with it. At least for a little while.

TGC


----------



## mikeyts

eobiont said:


> The customer service guy at Mediacom actually encouraged me to contact the FCC knowing full well they would not do anything about it.


That's just BS. The FCC is extremely interested in making sure that these rules are observed--the sucess of "the digital transition" depends on it. He probably said that to you because he's a retarded peon at the bottom of the food chain. I can't believe that anyone in management would have urged you to get the FCC involved.

I will say that this is an awfully subtle problem that will affect only a tiny handful of subs--people in your system with TiVo S3s and TiVo HDs who'd like to use TTG and MRV. It's still a blatant violation of FCC regs.


----------



## Brainiac 5

eobiont said:


> I don't think it's illegal, just in violation of FCC regulations. I think there is a difference there, possibly only sematic.


You're right, but they're legally required to follow FCC regulations so as you say the difference isn't much.


----------



## bicker

MichaelK said:


> great analogy.
> 
> I hate speedbumps!


Yet I bet you slow down for them!


----------



## TerryTT

Excuse me whilst I try to read something pertaining to the release date of this feature in among all the armchair lawyers... anyone know dates for this feature?


----------



## bicker

The specific date has not been announced.


----------



## mikeyts

TerryTT said:


> Excuse me whilst I try to read something pertaining to the release date of this feature in among all the armchair lawyers... anyone know dates for this feature?


It's thought that the code for the feature is in the 9.1.L5 release being rolled out now, but that it won't be enabled for use until November. It's going to need a new version of TiVo Desktop; maybe that account for the delay.


----------



## jhimmel

mikeyts said:


> It's thought that the code for the feature is in the 9.1.L5 release being rolled out now, but that it won't be enabled for use until November. It's going to need a new version of TiVo Desktop; maybe that account for the delay.


They just recently released TiVo Desktop 2.5. Did they say they will need another update?

Jim H.


----------



## GoHokies!

jhimmel said:


> They just recently released TiVo Desktop 2.5. Did they say they will need another update?
> 
> Jim H.


I don't think so...


----------



## Solver

jhimmel said:


> They just recently released TiVo Desktop 2.5. Did they say they will need another update?
> 
> Jim H.


 Looks like 2.5.1 is coming!

From TiVo:
"You will encounter an installation error if you attempt to install *TiVo Desktop 2.5.1* on a Microsoft Windows Vista system with a previous version of TiVo Desktop already installed. You can resolve this problem by using the Programs and Features Control Panel to uninstall the previous version. If you are unable to uninstall the previous verison using the Programs and Features Control Panel, you can use the TiVo Desktop Cleaner utility to remove all traces of the previous version of TiVo Desktop except the MAK key and the Plus key. "

http://customersupport.tivo.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=9EC5326F-73A1-48C4-8CCA-E0B3D1A386E3


----------



## drew00001

Solver said:


> Looks like *2.5.1 * is coming!


Huh?

I am not a beta tester and am running *TivoDesktop 2.5.275.381*. I think this is what everyone has.


----------



## morac

Brainiac 5 said:


> You're right, but they're legally required to follow FCC regulations so as you say the difference isn't much.


The FCC does have the power to levy fines for violations. Most companies don't like being fined so they try to avoid violating FCC rules.


----------



## mikeyts

The FCC is the government agency through which cable providers are licensed. They have the power to revoke their licensing, though I doubt that they've ever gone that far with a cable provider. They have shut down television stations from time to time.


----------



## Pab Sungenis

I just got 9.1. However, since the main new feature of this upgrade (TTG/MRV) can't be activated until TiVo throws the switch on the website, what good is rolling it out to a few of us to judge the response customer service will get? If we can't try the feature, how do we know whether or not it works?

Throw the switch. Let us test it.


----------



## dswallow

Pab Sungenis said:


> I just got 9.1. However, since the main new feature of this upgrade (TTG/MRV) can't be activated until TiVo throws the switch on the website, what good is rolling it out to a few of us to judge the response customer service will get? If we can't try the feature, how do we know whether or not it works?
> 
> Throw the switch. Let us test it.


Because there's other issues to worry about with regard to rolling out the update, not just multi-room video features.


----------



## bicker

Yes. AAMOF, I've learned that a long-standing Closed Captioning problem is resolved in 9.1. Lots of changes I suspect in that release. Best to make sure that the basic functionality is stable before throwing more fuel on the support fire.


----------



## vstone

mikeyts said:


> The FCC is the government agency through which cable providers are licensed. They have the power to revoke their licensing, though I doubt that they've ever gone that far with a cable provider. They have shut down television stations from time to time.


If so this true for sure I'll believe you, but as far as I know they are regulated by the FCC and answer to the FCC, but I'm not sure that they're actually licensed by the FCC.


----------



## jhimmel

drew00001 said:


> Huh?
> 
> I am not a beta tester and am running *TivoDesktop 2.5.275.381*. I think this is what everyone has.


Yes, that is the latest.

Jim H.


----------



## mikeyts

vstone said:


> If so this true for sure I'll believe you, but as far as I know they are regulated by the FCC and answer to the FCC, but I'm not sure that they're actually licensed by the FCC.


From what I can find online, you're right--I don't think that the relationship of cable systems operators with the FCC should properly be called "licensing". New cable systems operators are required to register with the FCC and are authorized by them through a certification process. If they fail to comply to regulations, there is a possibility that they might be de-authorized and issued a cease-and-desist order. I doubt that it has ever come to that with a cable operator, though broadcast stations (which are licensed by the FCC) have been shut down from time to time for non-compliance.

Cable SOs are also in a contract with a local franchising authority which is more properly licensing, and involves payment of fees for operating within a local area. The FCC has some oversight of the franchising process.

My point was that cable operators have no legal ability to defy FCC regulations or dictates and can be shut down by the FCC if given sufficient cause.


----------



## TexasGrillChef

TerryTT said:


> Excuse me whilst I try to read something pertaining to the release date of this feature in among all the armchair lawyers... anyone know dates for this feature?


No ACTUAL dates have been released... However using an educated Guesstimate.. I am going to say around the middle of November to just before thanksgiving.

I make this based on the fact that all the TiVo's need upgrading to the 9.1 software first, & that they need time to make sure that everyone is working ok with the 9.1 release first.

THEN... after 9.1 has been rolled out fully.... Then they will flip the switch.

That is just my guesstimation though... It could be earlier... but I wouldn't put money on it.

TGC


----------



## vstone

They may want to turn switch in Novemeber as part of a Christmas shopping season ad blitz.


----------



## mikeyts

I was wondering why they needed _all_ TiVos updated before enabling transfers, but then it occurred to me that if you have multiple TiVos in your home, it's extremely unlikely that they'll all receive the update at the same time. If they don't wait until all TiVos everywhere are updated, they run a strong risk that people will try to use MRV when only one of the involved TiVos has the necessary code, precipitating a flood of feckless service calls .


----------



## bicker

The priority page makes it very clear: "For Multi-Room Viewing to work in software version 9.1, your other DVRs must also be running software version 9.1. Please sign up all DVRs on your account and have 9.1 installed before attempting to use MRV."


----------



## Chimpware

TexasGrillChef said:


> No ACTUAL dates have been released... However using an educated Guesstimate.. I am going to say around the middle of November to just before thanksgiving.
> 
> I make this based on the fact that all the TiVo's need upgrading to the 9.1 software first, & that they need time to make sure that everyone is working ok with the 9.1 release first.
> 
> THEN... after 9.1 has been rolled out fully.... Then they will flip the switch.
> 
> That is just my guesstimation though... It could be earlier... but I wouldn't put money on it.
> 
> TGC


I would actually guess earlier to make sure they do not have a big issue with the new features during the holiday buying weekend. Nothing would be worse than rolling it out 1 week before Thanksgiving and then having issues that would effect their sales during this critical period. I also think they may roll it out earlier to exceed expectations, particularly given the problems they had with pixelation on the HDs initially.


----------



## RoyK

bicker said:


> The priority page makes it very clear: "For Multi-Room Viewing to work in software version 9.1, your other DVRs must also be running software version 9.1. Please sign up all DVRs on your account and have 9.1 installed before attempting to use MRV."


That's good information for those of us who read this forum. However I think you'll agree that the vast majority of TiVo users do not and will be quite upset when one of their boxes gets the update and suddenly MRV doesn't work any more.

Maybe I missed it when mine were updated but I don't recall the message accompanying the update giving any warning that a problem will be experienced until all boxes receive the update.

I expect TiVo's CS switchboard will soon light up with angry calls and rightly so.


----------



## bicker

Yup, no mention of this restriction in the message announcing the Fall Update that I found on my TiVo this morning (updated to 9.1 overnight).


----------



## sfhub

mikeyts said:


> My point was that cable operators have no legal ability to defy FCC regulations or dictates and can be shut down by the FCC if given sufficient cause.


Essentially they do, they just need to file for "effective competition" status. More and more systems are doing this because of DirecTV and Dish. Once they are declared to have "effective competition" in a particular region, they are no longer subject to regulation. This is happening all over the nation in a low key, no publicity, manner.

Barring being declared to have effective competition, "basic service tier" is subject to regulation by state/local government franchising authorities. Franchising authorities are in turn "certified" by the FCC. Pay channels are not regulated at all. Everything else, expanded basic, equipment, etc. is regulated by the FCC directly.

The relationships are summarized in this FCC document:
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form328/328.pdf


> 2. *Only cable systems that are not subject to effective competition may be regulated.* Effective competition means that (a) fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a cable system; *or (b) the franchise area is (i) served by at least two unaffiliated multichannel video programming distributors each of which offers comparable video rogramming to at least 50 percent of the households in the franchise area; and ii) the number of households subscribing to programming services offered by multichannel video programming distributors other than the largest multichannel video programming distributor exceeds 15 percent of the households in the franchise area;* or (c) a multichannel video programming distributor operated by the franchising authority for that franchise area offers video programming to at least 50 percent of the households in that franchise area.


----------



## John Sydney

TexasGrillChef said:


> Yunlin12,
> 
> Since I don't have a s2, and obviously TivoDeskTop does not yet show content on an S3
> 
> What I would like to know... is what shows are you getting an "X" marked next to them that ARE copy protected and are unable to transfer?
> 
> Are they from the Major Networks that are also OTA (Such as NBC, Fox, CBS etc...) or
> are they from the cable side networks? (ESPN, Showtime, HBO... etc.)
> 
> Just curious what shows are coming with the copy protected flag and which are not
> 
> thanks
> 
> TGC


 TGG,

I have never found an X on any major network or cable show ( I have HBO, Starz and Encore). Most of my downloads are movies which I assume are the most likely to be blocked? The only time I have seen the red X is on movies from Amazon Unbox downloaded to my TiVo.

Regards,

John Sydney


----------



## dougdingle

John Sydney said:


> The only time I have seen the red X is on movies from Amazon Unbox downloaded to my TiVo.


Have you downloaded the Amazon stuff to an S3?

Was it in HD?

How was the quality?

I downloaded the "sample" I was offered when I first got my S3 in June, and was surprised at how bad it was...blocky, noisy, compressed to within an inch of its life.


----------



## TiVoJerry

RoyK said:


> That's good information for those of us who read this forum. However I think you'll agree that the vast majority of TiVo users do not and will be quite upset when one of their boxes gets the update and suddenly MRV doesn't work any more.
> 
> Maybe I missed it when mine were updated but I don't recall the message accompanying the update giving any warning that a problem will be experienced until all boxes receive the update.
> 
> I expect TiVo's CS switchboard will soon light up with angry calls and rightly so.


Here's what I posted in response to people asking about how we're rolling out the update "by accounts" in another thread.

_

As a part of the planned rollout, that's exactly what we're doing. However, we offer up this priority list as a way for those who want it earlier. This negates the pre-planned "release by account", but yes, we're also trying to make sure we sweep in other units on the same account even if only one is signed up on the priority list.

However, there are several ways that a customer could run into a problem, so having this warning language up, here and on the priority list itself, is just a way to raise the visibility of this short-term issue so that people don't think that there is a problem and call us unnecessarily.

1> If a customer buys a new DVR after receiving the update on current units, we aren't going to scan for new additions. We frequently allow new units to upgrade immediately, but that would likely cause more problems than it would cure in this situation.
2> Even though they've all been auth'd at the same moment, not all units in the home will call in to get the software at the same time of day. As such, there could be one day where there is a SW mismatch. This language was intended to remind people (without being too wordy) to confirm the software is actually installed before thinking there is a problem.
3> Even if both units have called in, they would both need to be restarted to actually install the software. Again, the language is a reminder.
4> Good ol' fashioned Murphy's Law could kick in and due to various circumstances someone ends up with SW on one unit but not the other. We're just trying to cover the MRV bases here.

We're working with what we've got, and we're asking much more from our operations team to get it done as smoothly as we can possibly orchestrate. We're hoping that having this language out there will help smooth out a few of the bumps that may come along._


----------



## dougdingle

I got the update on one of my two S3 boxes.

First thing I noticed is that it wiped out the device's name. Kind of impolite...

Update: 9.1 wiped out the device's name on BOTH my boxes, and going to the TiVo site and trying to reset them doesn't work.


----------



## johnnylundy

Are TiVo HD people getting these?

Is "Connect to TiVo Service Now" enough to force an update?


----------



## sfhub

Fill out the priority page.


----------



## bicker

dougdingle said:


> Have you downloaded the Amazon stuff to an S3?


Yes.



dougdingle said:


> Was it in HD?


No, not even wide-screen SD.



dougdingle said:


> How was the quality?


It didn't have closed captions so we didn't watch more than the first minute or so. It was okay -- better than SD from linear broadcast channels (if you're not hearing impaired), but of course, not as good as HD.


----------



## bown

dougdingle said:


> Update: 9.1 wiped out the device's name on BOTH my boxes, and going to the TiVo site and trying to reset them doesn't work.


The device name on my S3 has been gone for quite some time now, and I don't even have 9.1 yet. I guess this problem was not fixed by 9.1.


----------



## Chimpware

bown said:


> The device name on my S3 has been gone for quite some time now, and I don't even have 9.1 yet. I guess this problem was not fixed by 9.1.


Why exactly is this a problem? This does not affect any current functionality.

Once MRV and TTG are activated this will be remedied, or if not at that point it will become a problem.


----------



## reflxshn

I'm looking at purchasing a DRT400 Humax which has a DVD recorder built in. Based on the ability to transfer between S3 and S2 (once MRV/TTG is enabled) will I be able to burn SD content off my Tivo HD onto a Humax DVD recorder (non-protected of course)? Can this currently be done between two S2 devices?

Thanks


----------



## CuriousMark

reflxshn said:


> Based on the ability to transfer between S3 and S2 (once MRV/TTG is enabled) will I be able to burn SD content off my Tivo HD onto a Humax DVD recorder (non-protected of course)?


Not likely.



> Can this currently be done between two S2 devices?


No it cannot. The DVD burning TiVos will only burn what they recorded themselves.

I suppose we could hope the update adds the ability, but it is not at all likely that it will.


----------



## MichaelK

if I recall that's becasue the other S2's record in resolutions that are not DVD standard. 

Does anyone know what those standards are and if the THD and S3 do them?

Would Digital SD channels be in the correct resolution to match the DVD standards?


----------



## Brainiac 5

MichaelK said:


> if I recall that's becasue the other S2's record in resolutions that are not DVD standard.


If I remember correctly, you can't even record shows to DVD that you transferred from another DVD recorder TiVo. You're right that the resolution would be a problem with regular S2s, but it seems they don't want to allow it anyway even when technically possible.


----------



## MichaelK

that's a bummer if transfers from over dvd recording tivos dont even work.


----------



## dougdingle

MichaelK said:


> if I recall that's becasue the other S2's record in resolutions that are not DVD standard.
> 
> Does anyone know what those standards are and if the THD and S3 do them?
> 
> Would Digital SD channels be in the correct resolution to match the DVD standards?


All standard def video in the NTSC standard is either 720x480 or 720x486, also known as 480i. The full broadcast spec is 486 lines, but the FCC threw up their hands and surrendered some years ago, and everyone accepts and uses 480 line video as well for 480i SD work.

Standard def DVD's are also 720x480 aka 480i. Those players with progressive outputs of SD material can also be made 720x480p, and of course many players now have upconverters which will output quasi-HD type signals (720p and 1080i and 1080p) from SD disks.

S1 and S2 TiVos all record analog signals at 480i. So the S1 and S2 boxes record the same format as SD DVDs put out.

The S3 records SD material at 480i whether it's analog or digital (although, technically, digital SD is a recording of the incoming stream, not of video) , and HD material (also a straight recording of the incoming stream) at whatever resolution is being sent to it. This, incidentally, is why there is no "quality" setting for recording of digital channels: the recording is a straight 1:1 reproduction of the digital data. Playback is identical in quality to watching it live, for good or bad.

I don't know what the THD does, but I can't imagine it's anything different from the S3.


----------



## saberman

dougdingle said:


> The S3 records SD material at 480i whether it's analog or digital (although, technically, digital SD is a recording of the incoming stream, not of video) , and HD material (also a straight recording of the incoming stream) at whatever resolution is being sent to it. This, incidentally, is why there is no "quality" setting for recording of digital channels: the recording is a straight 1:1 reproduction of the digital data. Playback is identical in quality to watching it live, for good or bad.


That is going to be a real problem if there isn't any way to compress SD digital.

Assuming an SD digital broadcast at 720x480 -- how much space does that take up on the hard drive?


----------



## Maxnl

Well, digital broadcasts already come across compressed, usually around 1.2 gb per hour I think.


----------



## mikeyts

Maxnl said:


> Well, digital broadcasts already come across compressed, usually around 1.2 gb per hour I think.


That's about right for most standard definition "digital cable". HD material is typically 5-6 times that.


----------



## dougdingle

Maxnl said:


> Well, digital broadcasts already come across compressed, usually around 1.2 gb per hour I think.


Exactly so. Between .9 and 1.2, depending on content.

The amount of hardware and time required inside a TiVo to make the digital MPEG data stream into analog so it can be further compressed then turned into digital again for recording is prohibitive. Very little would be gained in the way of disk room by going the extra steps, and the quality hit would be outrageous.

The beauty of recording the digital stream on the TiVo first came to light in the DirecTivos that DTV used. The MPEG stream DTV normally sends to the receiver decoders was simply recorded as-is onto the drive, then decoded on playback. Recorded quality=playback quality.

Messing with the MPEG stream would be even worse in HD, which has already been compressed and recompressed several times by the time you see it. That's one of the reasons the engineers at Time Warner cable decided a while back that they were simply going to pass on the digital stream as they received it. It was too much work and delay and too big a quality hit to mess with it for minimal bandwidth gain.


----------



## MichaelK

dougdingle said:


> All standard def video in the NTSC standard is either 720x480 or 720x486, also known as 480i. The full broadcast spec is 486 lines, but the FCC threw up their hands and surrendered some years ago, and everyone accepts and uses 480 line video as well for 480i SD work.
> 
> Standard def DVD's are also 720x480 aka 480i. Those players with progressive outputs of SD material can also be made 720x480p, and of course many players now have upconverters which will output quasi-HD type signals (720p and 1080i and 1080p) from SD disks.
> 
> S1 and S2 TiVos all record analog signals at 480i. So the S1 and S2 boxes record the same format as SD DVDs put out.
> 
> The S3 records SD material at 480i whether it's analog or digital (although, technically, digital SD is a recording of the incoming stream, not of video) , and HD material (also a straight recording of the incoming stream) at whatever resolution is being sent to it. This, incidentally, is why there is no "quality" setting for recording of digital channels: the recording is a straight 1:1 reproduction of the digital data. Playback is identical in quality to watching it live, for good or bad.
> 
> I don't know what the THD does, but I can't imagine it's anything different from the S3.


Sorry- it's not that simple. Depending on the quality you choose the tivo's encode at different VERTICLE resolutions. If I recall correctly some of the quality settings on some of the boxes use 480x480 and that's the problem- DVD's have to be something like 480x720 (or maybe 704?) so the 480x480 resolution from certain quality settings on the S2's. I guess rather then just disallow those recordings tivo figured it's easier just to lock it to burning only stuff recorded locally.

The S3 and THD- would record digital content in exactly the format it's sent they don't reencode that as you are aware. BUT depending on the cable company's encoder settings and what the local ATSC broadcasters decide that might be all different things also. it might by 480Px720 (as fox used to use) 480ix720, maybe 480 or 704 vertical lines. I don't have all the table of allowed ATSC settings handy to give all the possibilities and also I believe cable has additional 'standard resolutions' to choose from like dish and directv do also. So again there's all sorts of variables.


----------



## fred2

I apologize if this question is out of place but in anticipation of MRV, etc....

I have an S2 and have had it for more than a year so I don't recall what I did to get a MAK (media access key) if I had to do anything.

I now have an S3. Do I or will I have to do something to get a MAK for this device? 
Will it be a new MAK or the same value as the S2's?

The S3 got the 9.x update last week and the S2, yesterday. So both units are at the same software value.

Thanks.


----------



## moyekj

fred2 said:


> I apologize if this question is out of place but in anticipation of MRV, etc....
> 
> I have an S2 and have had it for more than a year so I don't recall what I did to get a MAK (media access key) if I had to do anything.
> 
> I now have an S3. Do I or will I have to do something to get a MAK for this device?
> Will it be a new MAK or the same value as the S2's?
> 
> The S3 got the 9.x update last week and the S2, yesterday. So both units are at the same software value.
> 
> Thanks.


 All the Tivos on your account should have the same MAK. In fact MRV/TTG is restricted to only Tivos with the same MAK which should only be within 1 household. You can obtain your MAK by logging into tivo.com and going to Manage My Account and clicking on Media Access Key which takes you to:
https://www3.tivo.com/tivo-mma/showmakey.do


----------



## dougdingle

MichaelK said:


> Sorry- it's not that simple. Depending on the quality you choose the tivo's encode at different VERTICLE resolutions. If I recall correctly some of the quality settings on some of the boxes use 480x480 and that's the problem- DVD's have to be something like 480x720 (or maybe 704?) so the 480x480 resolution from certain quality settings on the S2's. I guess rather then just disallow those recordings tivo figured it's easier just to lock it to burning only stuff recorded locally.
> 
> The S3 and THD- would record digital content in exactly the format it's sent they don't reencode that as you are aware. BUT depending on the cable company's encoder settings and what the local ATSC broadcasters decide that might be all different things also. it might by 480Px720 (as fox used to use) 480ix720, maybe 480 or 704 vertical lines. I don't have all the table of allowed ATSC settings handy to give all the possibilities and also I believe cable has additional 'standard resolutions' to choose from like dish and directv do also. So again there's all sorts of variables.


Sorry, but I have to disagree. It really is that simple.

For the purposes of this discussion, we must assume that 720x480i, 720x486i, 704x480i and 704x486i are all the same "480i" standard, the differences between them being the size of the blanking (non-picture) intervals which don't mean anything to the end user.

Whatever the SD TiVos do internally (and I understand at the lowest quality setting they may only record a single field instead of both), _*the SD boxes output 480i on their composite and s-video outputs all the time, no exceptions*_. If they didn't, the image would either not fill the screen of or not be viewable on standard TVs - not an acceptable situation.

480p, for example, is not a format normally available on composite or s-video, and is not a signal that can even be displayed by 99.9% of tube sets out there (I happen to have an older 32" Panasonic tube set which DOES display 480p, but only on the component inputs).

The S3 (don't know about the THD) is a different beast, and will output whatever format you select in its setup on component and HDMI, doing both uprezz and downrezz as necessary. But the composite and s-video outputs of the S3 always put out 480i as well.

As for the ATSC standards, there are 18 formats defined in Table 3 (36 if you also want to accommodate NTSC colors ie. 29.97 instead of 30 frames), but in terms of what you can actually see broadcast or sent over normal cable or satellite in the U.S., there is 480i, 720p (1280x720 progressive, 16:9), and 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced, 16:9). That's it.

Now there are other formats in use in the production and postproduction pipeline, but no one gets to see those at home on their cable/satellite/off-air feeds.

Addendum: Some movies are sent to the home in widescreen format (1.85, 2.35, 2.40) in HD, and these will normally (no zoom applied from the TiVo or set itself) appear letterboxed even on a 16:9 HD set. But the underlying signal being sent is still 720p or 1080i 16:9. They just have black filling the rest of the frame.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin

dougdingle said:


> in terms of what you can actually see broadcast or sent over normal cable or satellite in the U.S., there is 480i, 720p (1280x720 progressive, 16:9), and 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced, 16:9). That's it.


Are you sure? I see some 14x9 aspect ratio stuff being broadcast. Slightly wider than 12x9 SD but definitely not full 16x9 HD.

Is 14x9 really just 16x9 with black bars on either side?


----------



## dougdingle

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Are you sure? I see some 14x9 aspect ratio stuff being broadcast. Slightly wider than 12x9 SD but definitely not full 16x9 HD.
> 
> Is 14x9 really just 16x9 with black bars on either side?


14:9, a standard first proposed by the BBC, is a "compromise" so the framing of the 16:9 image when cropped doesn't look totally stupid (like showing just a nose on each side of frame when two people are talking on opposite sides of a room).

Remember that many prime time shows and lots of live sports are now being shot in or transfered from film to 16:9 HD, and the SD versions of these shows simply cut off the left and right sides.

I have noticed that many SD commercials being shown on ABC's HD channels are at 14:9. Some, as you have said, are cropped 16:9, while others, as mikeyts noted, are zoomed "common top" 4:3. Since there is no standard for 14:9 in the U.S., the people sending out the images do what they want.

The real issue here (stepping up on my soapbox) is that American consumers are woefully unaware of the advantages of widescreen images, and call and write everyone when SD images are shown letterboxed, complaining that there are black bars in the picture, it's not filling the screen, and why did they buy a 36" set when they're not getting a 36" picture? This makes the broadcasters very nervous about showing letterbox in SD, so most of them just chop it when it originates widescreen. There are exceptions (like ER and The Sopranos, for example). If people were more sophisticated and stopped complaining to the networks, FCC, and elected representatives, production could take place with more artistic freedom in 16:9 (having to shoot 16:9 but "protect" for 4:3 is maddening), and SD and HD broadcasts would show the same framing (falling off my soapbox).

One of my S3's is just hooked to an SD set, locked at 480i output, and on that set I watch things like sports and network feeds on the HD channels so I can get the full 16:9 letterboxed widescreen view even on an SD set. Football, in particular, being a rectangular long field, looks SO much better when viewed that way.


----------



## mikeyts

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Are you sure? I see some 14x9 aspect ratio stuff being broadcast. Slightly wider than 12x9 SD but definitely not full 16x9 HD.
> 
> Is 14x9 really just 16x9 with black bars on either side?


It's actually 4:3, zoomed in on a bit--the "zoom-a-vision" alternative to stretch-o-vision. Fills most of the screen without losing too much off the top and bottom. The CW uses it for their standard definition stuff. The sidebars aren't nearly as noticeable as straight pillarboxing--it's definitely far less objectionable than stretching.


----------



## MichaelK

dougdingle said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree. It really is that simple.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, we must assume that 720x480i, 720x486i, 704x480i and 704x486i are all the same "480i" standard, the differences between them being the size of the blanking (non-picture) intervals which don't mean anything to the end user.
> 
> Whatever the SD TiVos do internally (and I understand at the lowest quality setting they may only record a single field instead of both), _*the SD boxes output 480i on their composite and s-video outputs all the time, no exceptions*_. If they didn't, the image would either not fill the screen of or not be viewable on standard TVs - not an acceptable situation.
> 
> 480p, for example, is not a format normally available on composite or s-video, and is not a signal that can even be displayed by 99.9% of tube sets out there (I happen to have an older 32" Panasonic tube set which DOES display 480p, but only on the component inputs).
> 
> The S3 (don't know about the THD) is a different beast, and will output whatever format you select in its setup on component and HDMI, doing both uprezz and downrezz as necessary. But the composite and s-video outputs of the S3 always put out 480i as well.
> 
> As for the ATSC standards, there are 18 formats defined in Table 3 (36 if you also want to accommodate NTSC colors ie. 29.97 instead of 30 frames), but in terms of what you can actually see broadcast or sent over normal cable or satellite in the U.S., there is 480i, 720p (1280x720 progressive, 16:9), and 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced, 16:9). That's it.
> 
> Now there are other formats in use in the production and postproduction pipeline, but no one gets to see those at home on their cable/satellite/off-air feeds.
> 
> Addendum: Some movies are sent to the home in widescreen format (1.85, 2.35, 2.40) in HD, and these will normally (no zoom applied from the TiVo or set itself) appear letterboxed even on a 16:9 HD set. But the underlying signal being sent is still 720p or 1080i 16:9. They just have black filling the rest of the frame.


The issue with the DVD Burning tivos is NOT about what the boxes output. You are totally correct about outputs. BUt the problem is what they record to the hard drive. When you burn a disk the recording on the hard drive is copied to the dvd. There is no transcoding. So if the tivo records 480x480 (or whatever the low settings do) it would copy that to the dvd at 480x480. Dvd specs dont permit the 480x480 resolution and although most modern players would do just fine- some older players which comply with the bare minimum of the dvd spec would not play the disks. Since Tivo lives by the lowest common denominator that is a probelm and the box will refuse to burn a disk without an "offical" dvd resolution which is something like 720x480. And even though the boxes record at 480x480 (or whatever it is- honestly I dont recall) it still sends the OUTPUT as 720x480 (or whatever ntsc rf is supposed to be)

Also- not to get into a pissing match- but again cable and sat boxes might output 1080i (1920x1080 interlaced, 16:9) that doesn't mean the bitstream sent to the cable or sat boxes (or cablecard devices) is 1920x1080. Read the avsforums and search for HD Lite you can read all about it. Voom, Dish, And Directv absolutly down rez and sent 1080x1280 or 1080x1440. I haven't really read up on cable to see what they are doing but I have seen links to cable docs that specifically say cable tuners must accomadate those resolutuions also so I'm sure someplace they are doing just that.

So what boxes output is totally not the same as what gets sent to them.

_edit: big dsiclaminer- I dont know the actual numbers so feel free to correct at will- point is some tivos record INTERNALLY to a width that is not permitted by DVD specs and that's the issue._


----------



## MichaelK

heres a post from someone who knows the specs and explained it much simplier then the mess I made (LOL):

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3565082&&#post3565082



lajohn27 said:


> In summary:
> 
> Your S2 TIVO records at a resolution of something like 352 x 480 or 352 x 240 or somethign like that. Your DVD TIVO records the video image at 720 x 480.
> 
> A DVD-VIDEO requires a resolution of 720x480.
> 
> So.. your DVD burning TIVO can't burn it... and even if they let it.. most DVD players wouldn't play it properly.


----------



## GadgetGav

TiVoPony said:


> Yes, even from a Mac.
> 
> Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pony


At the risk of an on topic post in this all-encompassing thread...
Thank you...! Thanks for it being supported by software we've already bought to use TTG from our S2s and not making us go out and drop another $80 into Roxio's coffers for some new version.
Mac support of TTG from my THD will be a great addition.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats

any update on the MRV timeline?


----------



## morac

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> any update on the MRV timeline?


I didn't know it was November already.


----------



## jcthorne

Trick or Treet?


----------



## Graymalkin

Interestingly enough, my first TiVo HD was updated from 8.x to 9.1 within 48 hours of being activated. My two S2 TiVos also have been updated to 9.1.

However, my second THD has not been updated, even though I've had it for more than two weeks now. I can't seem to force an update, either. And while the two THDs have been labeled at TiVo.com, the units themselves still say "Name this unit at TiVo.com!" in the Settings menu.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats

morac said:


> I didn't know it was November already.


I didn't ask if it was working yet, I asked if there was an update on the anticipated rollout date.


----------



## yunlin12

> However, my second THD has not been updated, even though I've had it for more than two weeks now. I can't seem to force an update, either. And while the two THDs have been labeled at TiVo.com, the units themselves still say "Name this unit at TiVo.com!" in the Settings menu.


Interesting, maybe Tivo is holding off 9.1 and working on a patch.


----------



## mikeyts

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> I didn't ask if it was working yet, I asked if there was an update on the anticipated rollout date.


The answer to that question would be "no". One assumes that it's still on track for some unspecified day in November. If it changed, I would only expect it to be pushed back for some reason.


----------



## TiVoJerry

Graymalkin said:


> Interestingly enough, my first TiVo HD was updated from 8.x to 9.1 within 48 hours of being activated. My two S2 TiVos also have been updated to 9.1.
> 
> However, my second THD has not been updated, even though I've had it for more than two weeks now. I can't seem to force an update, either. And while the two THDs have been labeled at TiVo.com, the units themselves still say "Name this unit at TiVo.com!" in the Settings menu.


For this rollout, once we've auth'd your account for upgrade we generally aren't going back to see if you've added new units. If you don't use the priority list to request the upgrade, this unit would likely not receive software until the final push to map this as the default version.


----------



## Graymalkin

TiVoJerry said:


> For this rollout, once we've auth'd your account for upgrade we generally aren't going back to see if you've added new units. If you don't use the priority list to request the upgrade, this unit would likely not receive software until the final push to map this as the default version.


I put my name on the priority list -- and got the update last night. 

Now I just need the priority page for 9.2.  

Still curious as to why the units' names aren't showing up in System Information, even though they're registering under my account at TiVo.com.


----------



## aaronwt

it's been like that for a while now. Hopefully they plan on correcting it when they activate MRV.


----------



## saberman

TiVoJerry said:


> For this rollout, once we've auth'd your account for upgrade we generally aren't going back to see if you've added new units. If you don't use the priority list to request the upgrade, this unit would likely not receive software until the final push to map this as the default version.


How does one get on the priority list for downgrading to the previous release of the TiVo software? Surely, there must be a way of backing out a buggy release.


----------



## bicker

AFAIK, there has never been an official way of reverting back to a previous release of the TiVo software, on an operating box.


----------



## TokyoShoe

saberman said:


> How does one get on the priority list for downgrading to the previous release of the TiVo software? Surely, there must be a way of backing out a buggy release.


There is no way to downgrade a box. You just have to wait for a future upgrade that resolves any issues of said release.


----------



## CharlesH

Rollbacks are not just installing the older version of the software. The reason they don't allow version rollbacks is that often the internal data is modified in some way (to make it faster, add new features, fix a bug, whatever). Updating the data to the new format is a good part of what is being done in that "May take an hour or more" phase of an update. Writing a "revert data format" utility that would make the data compatible with the older software would be very time-consuming. So instead they focus on getting out a patch to fix the bug.


----------



## saberman

CharlesH said:


> Rollbacks are not just installing the older version of the software. The reason they don't allow version rollbacks is that often the internal data is modified in some way (to make it faster, add new features, fix a bug, whatever). Updating the data to the new format is a good part of what is being done in that "May take an hour or more" phase of an update. Writing a "revert data format" utility that would make the data compatible with the older software would be very time-consuming. So instead they focus on getting out a patch to fix the bug.


I have been in the software business for forty years. I have heard every possible excuse for why "we can't regress the software". The fact is that anyone that releases a new version of any software (in house or out house) that does not provide a way to get back to the last working version of the software is a software engineer that believes that users exist only to test software -- not to use it.

I doubt that any of the TiVo developers actually use the software on an S2 with a standard Windows XP PC. (Any TiVo developer that does use the software on an S2 with a standard Windows XP PC please feel free to say I am wrong.)

I have been in environments where the failure of a system resulted in a couple of people with their knuckles dragging on the ground and loaded weapons on their hips explaining to the in-charge why they had to go back to their "locations" with valid "reports" or the programmers that worked on them (dead or alive). I assure you that not only regression testing was done but that there was a simple way to go back to the last version that worked.


----------



## bicker

In my world, Rule #1 for upgrading system software is BACK UP THE DATA. Guess what? That doesn't happen with TiVo. It never has and it never will. Requiring that step, which is essential for any update that changes ODS, will practically halve space available for recordings. That's a reasonable expectation for enterprise software, so roll-back is a reasonable expectation for enterprise software. Unless TiVo requires a full data back up prior to upgrade, then version roll-back is an unreasonable expectation.


----------



## jeffster

Graymalkin said:


> Still curious as to why the units' names aren't showing up in System Information, even though they're registering under my account at TiVo.com.


I was wondering the same thing -- thought it was just me...


----------



## saberman

bicker said:


> In my world, Rule #1 for upgrading system software is BACK UP THE DATA. Guess what? That doesn't happen with TiVo. It never has and it never will. Requiring that step, which is essential for any update that changes ODS, will practically halve space available for recordings. That's a reasonable expectation for enterprise software, so roll-back is a reasonable expectation for enterprise software. Unless TiVo requires a full data back up prior to upgrade, then version roll-back is an unreasonable expectation.


Having the ability to boot multiple versions of OS is a normal part of Linux and
TiVo actually has reserved space on the drive for a second copy of the OS:
|| 52 - emergency reinstall
|| -- this will act like you've received new software but will
|| reinstall the existing software on the alternate root partition
|| and boot it, 
(From http://forums.tivo.com/pe/action/forums/displaypost?postID=10249544)

The recordings are in a separate partition and, unless a new version of the OS reprocesses all of the existing ones, they should be unchanged and available to an alternate (backup) boot.


----------



## bicker

What makes you think that the hours-long version update didn't change the data structure beyond the OS?


----------



## Brainiac 5

For that matter, if you go back the the previous version, won't it just upgrade itself again?


----------



## bicker

As soon as you connect to the service, yes, as long as your account is in good standing.


----------



## saberman

bicker said:


> What makes you think that the hours-long version update didn't change the data structure beyond the OS?


A logical design would put the recorded programs in a data partition. The update did not change the structure of the data files themselves.


----------



## saberman

Brainiac 5 said:


> For that matter, if you go back the the previous version, won't it just upgrade itself again?


The point is TiVo already has the ability to have two versions of the OS on the harddrive. All that would be necessary is to have a don't upgrade option that could be turned on until they get the new release debugged.


----------



## ZeoTiVo

saberman said:


> I doubt that any of the TiVo developers actually use the software on an S2 with a standard Windows XP PC. (Any TiVo developer that does use the software on an S2 with a standard Windows XP PC please feel free to say I am wrong.)
> 
> I have been in environments where the failure of a system resulted in a couple of people with their knuckles dragging on the ground and loaded weapons on their hips explaining to the in-charge


I am nopt a tivo developer but I have used S2 DVRs on a network with standard XP running TiVo Desktop with no major hassles. Not sure what your point is here.

and I am sorry but our Living rooms are just not enterprise level data centers. I would rather TiVo NOT spend the money to treat our DVRs like they would enterprise level data.


----------



## mercurial

Maybe I missed it but is MRV working on anyone elses S3 with the 9.2 update. I just checked this morning before I headed out to work since it was restart pending last night. I noticed that my TiVo Desktop box and my other two S2DTs were showing up on the family room S3's now playing list. I was able to start a transfer from one of the S2DT's to it. Haven't tried anything FROM the S3 and my other S3 in the rec room isn't showing up. 

This is with 9.2J1-01-2-648 and my status is a,a,a now.

If I'm smeeking, sorry. Didn't see it mentioned here or see an obvious separate thread on it and I figured it would be shouted from the roof tops by now...?


----------



## pkscout

mercurial said:


> This is with 9.2J1-01-2-648 and my status is a,a,a now.


I got 9.2 yesterday, and my status is still i,i,i. So either TiVo is starting a slow rollout of MRV or you got lucky.

edit: I just noticed on TiVo.com that I can now set the *enable transfers* preference for my S3. So I enabled it, but the web site says it could take 24 hours for the change to take effect. I guess I'll know tomorrow if it's enabled.


----------



## 20TIL6

I think you are on to something. Only one of my S3's has gotten the 9.2 update so far, but I am betting the others will be getting it soon.

I went to manage my account and ALL my units say "transfers allowed". Further, the on/off checkbox is working on the preference page. Whoohoo!


----------



## bicker

saberman said:


> A logical design would put the recorded programs in a data partition.


Absolutely.


saberman said:


> The update did not change the structure of the data files themselves.


That was the context of my question: What makes you think that the hours-long version update didn't change the data structure of the data files themselves?


----------



## bicker

Wow... pretty neat. I checked the checkbox too! Isn't it amazing how jazzed we all get about checking a checkbox on a webpage? 

I also just got 9.2J.


----------



## riddick21

im on a,a,a status now too but when I checked my MAK it said not available.


----------



## Joybob

mercurial said:


> Maybe I missed it but is MRV working on anyone elses S3 with the 9.2 update. I just checked this morning before I headed out to work since it was restart pending last night. I noticed that my TiVo Desktop box and my other two S2DTs were showing up on the family room S3's now playing list. I was able to start a transfer from one of the S2DT's to it. Haven't tried anything FROM the S3 and my other S3 in the rec room isn't showing up.
> 
> This is with 9.2J1-01-2-648 and my status is a,a,a now.
> 
> If I'm smeeking, sorry. Didn't see it mentioned here or see an obvious separate thread on it and I figured it would be shouted from the roof tops by now...?


We require confirmation.


----------



## pkscout

Joybob said:


> We require confirmation.


OK, confirmed. After updating my info at the TiVo web site and doing a couple of forced connections, my TiVo MRV status now says a,a,a. I still can't do anything though, as the TiVo reports my Media Access Key is temporarily unavailble (although it is listed on the TiVo web site).

I have been able to get my computer to show up in the Now Playing list via TiVo Desktop, and that is new.

Baby steps I guess.


----------



## George Cifranci

MRV just started working on my Tivo Series 3 and Tivo Series 2 this morning. My Tivo Series 3 was updated to 9.2.J1 last night and I forced a connection on my Series 2 so I don't know if that had anything to do with it or not. On the Now Playing List the DVR name for my Series 2 appears at the bottom of the list. You can select it and see all the content on the other Tivo. You can then select a show and transfer it. I tried it with a show that was on my Series 2 and it worked fine. I then went upstairs and check my Series 2 and it can also see my Series 3 (although the name just says DVR until Tivo fixes the Series 3 names) I was unable to test a transfer from my Series 3 to my Series 2 since everything I record on my Series 3 is from an HD channel. So all the shows listed on my Series 3 had red circles with slashes in them meaning they couldn't be transfered because they were in HD which is incompatible with the Series 2s. (UPDATE: I went ahead and recorded a few minutes of a show on a standard def channel on my Series 3 and was then able to transfer it to my Series 2 so it is working both ways with standard def recordings)

Pretty cool that I now have access to my Series 2 from downstairs at least.

I have a a,a,a status by the TivoToGo: entry on System Information and on my account at www.tivo.com next to both my Series 2 and Series 3 under Current Accounts it says "Transfers ALLOWED" under Settings. I didn't have to check any boxes or anything.


----------



## Globular

Schweet!

Anyone tried a TiVoToGo transfer of an HD show yet? 

-Matt


----------



## pjhartman

I'm here from work, not home, so can't check my TiVo HD, but can confirm that my TiVo account lists it as "Transfers ALLOWED".

I'm getting antsy.


----------



## bicker

Very cool... MRV has arrived in Burlington!


----------



## Ripcord2

Turtleboy said:


> But what will people complain about now?


*Sigh* We'll complain about it not working on Macs, which it looks like it doesn't (yet)...


----------



## mercurial

Joybob said:


> We require confirmation.


Sure, I confirm that I have MRV working between my S3 and my S2DT...

<--- Not exactly a n00b or a troll dude.

BTW, IIRC, when the S3 first rolled out, you could check the "enable transfers" box on the TiVo site but it didn't do anything and later it said "Not Allowed" or "Unavailable" or some such. I had checked it back when you could. I wonder if it just stayed set in the back-end database but did nothing and that's why it went "live" immediately for me and not for some others that had to go to TiVo.com first...?


----------



## cr33p

pjhartman said:


> I'm here from work, not home, so can't check my TiVo HD, but can confirm that my TiVo account lists it as "Transfers ALLOWED".
> 
> I'm getting antsy.


Be sure to do to your Dvr preferences and enable it. I had the same problem


----------



## iamnotmad

I have 9.2 on my S3, and transfered are checked and noted as allowed in my account. However from my Mac in Toast Titanium Tivo Transfer nothing appears to be working. Should this be working now?


----------



## Arcady

They need to update Toast for this to work.


----------



## jrm01

pjhartman said:


> I'm here from work, not home, so can't check my TiVo HD, but can confirm that my TiVo account lists it as "Transfers ALLOWED".
> 
> I'm getting antsy.


TiVo has enabled transfers, so transfer yourself home and try it out.


----------



## iamnotmad

Arcady said:


> They need to update Toast for this to work.


Ugh, any information on an update? When is this suppose to happen?


----------



## Arcady

I know they are aware of the issue, but I haven't heard of an ETA.


----------



## George Cifranci

TTG and MRV go live today! (official)

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=371193&page=1&pp=30


----------



## bicker

I've already watched my first MRV'ed program.


----------



## HDTiVo

Very exciting.


----------



## formulaben

...currently transferring my first TTG. Woohoo! BTW, I did a few forced connections and it worked on the 2nd restart after it took the Media Key.


----------



## saberman

ZeoTiVo said:


> I am nopt a tivo developer but I have used S2 DVRs on a network with standard XP running TiVo Desktop with no major hassles. Not sure what your point is here.
> 
> and I am sorry but our Living rooms are just not enterprise level data centers. I would rather TiVo NOT spend the money to treat our DVRs like they would enterprise level data.


I have 736 video files in 32 folders. Now if I just used TiVo ToGo Desktop I would have all 736 files in one list. In addition, if I have 10 files in a folder linked to the TiVo folder all ten show up with the same name -- the name of the folder.

My point is that the TiVo software developers do not understand the Windows home environment they are developing for. They don't use it and have probably never seen it in the real world. (My guess is they are running Linux at home with a hacked TiVo.) I am waiting to be corrected by any TiVo ToGo developer.


----------



## saberman

bicker said:


> Absolutely. That was the context of my question: What makes you think that the hours-long version update didn't change the data structure of the data files themselves?


They could have rerendered all of the files but I estimate that rerendering all of the programs stored on my TiVo would take days not hours. If they did change the data structure of the recorded programs they change them back when they transfer them to a PC as VideoReDo has no problem with them.

It is, of course, possible that they change the file system structure. But that is only done by stupid operating systems like Windows XP which upgraded NTFS to a structure that a dual boot Windows 2000 couldn't work with. But we are talking about Linux here and it is not unusually to have two or more versions booting in the same machine.


----------



## bicker

I doubt that they would have re-rendered everything. Rather, if there was such a data structure change, I suspect it was a re-structuring of the indexes.


----------



## mrmike

saberman said:


> My point is that the TiVo software developers do not understand the Windows home environment they are developing for. They don't use it and have probably never seen it in the real world. (My guess is they are running Linux at home with a hacked TiVo.) I am waiting to be corrected by any TiVo ToGo developer.


You'll be waiting a long time (since in most companies development folks aren't allowed to comment on stuff like this without going through an o-fish-eel representative like Pony or Jerry) , but I'd personally bet a week's paycheck that you're so far off base you could pick up a beer and a dog on the way back there and finish both off before you got tagged out.


----------



## mikeyts

saberman said:


> I have 736 video files in 32 folders. Now if I just used TiVo ToGo Desktop I would have all 736 files in one list. In addition, if I have 10 files in a folder linked to the TiVo folder all ten show up with the same name -- the name of the folder.


Huh. When I drop folder links into the My TiVo Recordings directory it scans the folders for files of the right type and those file names show up in TiVo's Now Playing list. The folder names don't show up anywhere. If there are lots of files it takes forever for TiVo to compose the list and most of the video clips I have on my system won't transfer with free TiVo Desktop (HD film trailers and game demo clips, mostly .wmv, .mp4 and .mov files), so I took the folder links out until I get around to buying TiVo Desktop Plus.


----------



## mercurial

Wierd questions about converting files to MPEG4 with TivoDesktop+ - is the resolution/quality maintained and just the encoding changed or is the compression ramped up and/or the resolution decreased assuming it's a mobile device and you won't "notice"...?


----------



## mikeyts

mercurial said:


> Wierd questions about converting files to MPEG4 with TivoDesktop+ - is the resolution/quality maintained and just the encoding changed or is the compression ramped up and/or the resolution decreased assuming it's a mobile device and you won't "notice"...?


You should probably find the appropriate thread and ask this in the TiVo Home Media Features & TiVoToGo forum. In fact, its probably answered there already; do a forum search first.

It's a problem that for many of us, 9.2 on TiVo S3 and TiVo HD are our first exposure to TTG and MRV whereas they've been a feature of TiVo S2 for years. Lots of discussion of issues that we're just broaching has gone on long ago (I myself owned a couple of S1s but never bought an S2, switching to leased HD cable DVRs for a couple of years until moving into a system using SARA on their boxes forced me to buy an S3).


----------



## moyekj

mercurial said:


> Wierd questions about converting files to MPEG4 with TivoDesktop+ - is the resolution/quality maintained and just the encoding changed or is the compression ramped up and/or the resolution decreased assuming it's a mobile device and you won't "notice"...?


 Currently TD+ converts all non-mpeg2 formats to 480i mpeg2 format when using TTCB no matter what the resolution of the originating non-mpeg2 file. So you are better off using a different encoder (such as ffmpeg) to convert files to a higher resolution mpeg2 to serve back to your THD/S3. Perhaps in the other forums someone has figured out how to tweak TD+ settings to perform higher resolution encodings, but I'm not aware of it.


----------



## mercurial

moyekj said:


> Currently TD+ converts all non-mpeg2 formats to 480i mpeg2 format when using TTCB no matter what the resolution of the originating non-mpeg2 file. So you are better off using a different encoder (such as ffmpeg) to convert files to a higher resolution mpeg2 to serve back to your THD/S3. Perhaps in the other forums someone has figured out how to tweak TD+ settings to perform higher resolution encodings, but I'm not aware of it.


No I'm talking about the opposite direction TTG (not TTCB) auto converting files transfered to the PC into MPEG4.


----------



## morac

mercurial said:


> No I'm talking about the opposite direction TTG (not TTCB) auto converting files transfered to the PC into MPEG4.


TiVo Desktop currently converts them to a 320x240 or lower resolution, depending on what format you pick. There is a way to get a better resolution, but it's not trivial with TiVo Desktop 2.5.1 and is an exercise left up to the reader (*hint* Google is your friend  ).


----------



## moyekj

mercurial said:


> No I'm talking about the opposite direction TTG (not TTCB) auto converting files transfered to the PC into MPEG4.


 Re-reading your post I now realize that. My bad...


----------



## mercurial

moyekj said:


> Re-reading your post I now realize that. My bad...


No worries...


----------



## saberman

mrmike said:


> You'll be waiting a long time (since in most companies development folks aren't allowed to comment on stuff like this without going through an o-fish-eel representative like Pony or Jerry) , but I'd personally bet a week's paycheck that you're so far off base you could pick up a beer and a dog on the way back there and finish both off before you got tagged out.


You're on. Now all we need is a honest response from the TiVo ToGo development team.

Please note that I have been through many a development cycle. The best results comes from folks that use what they are building. In a bootstrap environment you write the first compiler in machine language. The second one is written in the language of the compiler. Unless you use what you write what you write is not usable. (You may quote me -- without a copyright fee as long as you give credit.)

Given my experience with TiVo ToGo on Windows XP the development team is not using it for their family's video recordings -- commercial or home video.


----------



## bicker

saberman said:


> You're on. Now all we need is a honest response from the TiVo ToGo development team.


What do you mean by "honest"?


----------



## mikeyts

saberman said:


> Unless you use what you write what you write is not usable.


What utter and profound BS! I've been a software engineer for over 30 years; in the beginning, I wrote data acquisition and analysis applications for biochemical researchers. Those researchers used computer programs all day long; I had absolutely no personal use for anything that I wrote for them. To write highly usable applications for people like that you just have to make sure that you get their requirements down pat and watch them use your design, looking to see if they stop and do things "by hand" that the computer could be doing for them. There are tons of people who couldn't do their work without computer programs who have to depend on engineers who don't do what they do to write them.

I'll admit that its much more gratifying to write something that you have a personal use for, since you know that _you_ like the way that it works and that your opinion of it has some validity. Even then, in any major commercial endeavor the people writing code rarely have much input into user interface design.

Of course, TiVo is something that everyone can use .


----------



## tootal2

if i store shows from ttg to a dvd or harddrive will they still play on tivo in the future?

thanks


----------



## mercurial

Store how? If you store them as-is (e.g. a data DVD with *.tivo files), certainly just copy them back into your recordings folder and transfer back. If you burn a DVD, you'd be able to convert them back as MPEG files and play them as well (though it might go through TiVoToComeBack and if you had to compress to get them to fit to DVD the quality will be the same or worse the the DVD).... Make sense?


----------



## bicker

saberman said:


> Now all we need is a honest response from the TiVo ToGo development team.


What do you mean by "honest"?



saberman said:


> Unless you use what you write what you write is not usable.


What differentiates a professional software developer from an amateur is that an amateur must use the software s/he writes in order to write usable code, while that makes absolutely no difference for a professional.


----------



## prikindel

Unfortunately, for me MRV transfers don't work as expected. Here's what I did:

I transfered a recording from a Series2 TiVo to a HD TiVo. Of course that was a standard definition recording. I was able to play it on the HD DVR. So far so good.

Then I tried to transfer this recording back from HD to Series2, and I couldn't. It says that the recording is in HD format.

Did anyone have this problem? Why it says that the recording has HD format. Maybe anything that gets transferred to HD DVR gets assigned some type of HD attribute automatically?


----------



## mrmike

bicker said:


> What differentiates a professional software developer from an amateur is that an amateur must use the software s/he writes in order to write usable code, while that makes absolutely no difference for a professional.


Wow. I'm agreeing with bicker. Why did that flaming pit just open up in the floor?


----------



## MichaelK

mrmike said:


> Wow. I'm agreeing with bicker. Why did that flaming pit just open up in the floor?


ROFL.

Funny- but either I'm getting more crotchety or Bicker is making more and more sense all the time. I find myself agreeing with him most days of late.

:up:


----------



## bicker

I'm a pretty rational guy, really. The key is getting past the distinction between what we (all) wish was true, and what actually is true.


----------



## jrm01

bicker said:


> I'm a pretty rational guy, really. The key is getting past the distinction between what we (all) wish was true, and what actually is true.


I wish that were true.


----------



## George Cifranci

prikindel said:


> Unfortunately, for me MRV transfers don't work as expected. Here's what I did:
> 
> I transfered a recording from a Series2 TiVo to a HD TiVo. Of course that was a standard definition recording. I was able to play it on the HD DVR. So far so good.
> 
> Then I tried to transfer this recording back from HD to Series2, and I couldn't. It says that the recording is in HD format.
> 
> Did anyone have this problem? Why it says that the recording has HD format. Maybe anything that gets transferred to HD DVR gets assigned some type of HD attribute automatically?


Well I recorded a show off a standard def channel on my Series 3 and was able to transfer it to my Series 2. However, anything recorded off a HD channel (regardless if this show is actually in HD or not) will not transfer to the Series 2.


----------



## mattack

George Cifranci said:


> Well I recorded a show off a standard def channel on my Series 3 and was able to transfer it to my Series 2. However, anything recorded off a HD channel (regardless if this show is actually in HD or not) will not transfer to the Series 2.


i.e. a digital recording. I think that's been what's expected all along.


----------



## HDTiVo

jrm01 said:


> I wish that were true.


He didn't say which direction he would be travelling when crossing the barrier.


----------



## saberman

mikeyts said:


> What utter and profound BS! I've been a software engineer for over 30 years; in the beginning, I wrote data acquisition and analysis applications for biochemical researchers. Those researchers used computer programs all day long; I had absolutely no personal use for anything that I wrote for them. To write highly usable applications for people like that you just have to make sure that you get their requirements down pat and watch them use your design, looking to see if they stop and do things "by hand" that the computer could be doing for them. There are tons of people who couldn't do their work without computer programs who have to depend on engineers who don't do what they do to write them.


"...and watch them use your design..." Real world usage -- not just in the test rig. It is not just to see if they are doing things by hand that the computer could do for them. It was also to see if it behaved in the real world. Bet you put in metrics that could be turned on to track performance and identify bottlenecks. I can't seem to find that switch in TiVo ToGo.

Did the TiVo developers watch real world usage of the fall update on S2s and TiVo ToGo 2.5? Do they have timing metrics for wireless networks (using their wireless USB connectors) transfering files back and forth between an S2 and a Windows XP box? Where's the switch to turn on detailed logging?

The TiVo box records all sorts of statistics about what you watch, what commercials you watch or skip, whether you watch a recorded program within three days, etc. You would think that the system might also record LAN performance metrics -- but since they can't sell them they don't seem to bother to record them.


----------



## HDTiVo

Saberman:

you are right about testing, but TiVo knows about the performance hits.

I figure performance will improve with more development over time. 

TiVo doesn't have the resources/talent to do the job as soon and as well as it should.


----------



## CharlesH

saberman said:


> The TiVo box records all sorts of statistics about what you watch, what commercials you watch or skip, whether you watch a recorded program within three days, etc. You would think that the system might also record LAN performance metrics -- but since they can't sell them they don't seem to bother to record them.


I've seen quite a few times where someone like TiVoJerry will ask for someone to e-mail their TSN to them, so they fetch some logs from the user's TiVo. Except for those who have hacked their TiVo so they can see the file system, we really don't know what kind of logging they can turn on at one call-in and collect at the next.


----------



## dougdingle

FWIW, MRV works here between two S3 boxes, and both are still at version 9.1 software.

First time I ever used the feature, and it's kind of fun. Moved a 30 minute HD show from one to the other, was able to start watching in under two minutes, with full commercial skip in under five. One box hard wired, one wireless with 75% signal strength.

Pretty cool. Nice job, TiVo.


----------



## bob61

Just received 9.1 update for my Tivo HD (I must be at the back of the pack on the update train). With 9.1 the TTG and MRV appear to all be working. Able to see my S2 units from the Tivo HD, setting up a transfer as I type


----------



## mrmike

HDTiVo said:


> TiVo doesn't have the resources/talent to do the job as soon and as well as it should.


I would submit that it is more likely that they are spending their resources on different priorities. Ones you and I may not be aware of. I find it amazing that so many people who claim to have SW development experience have never been in a situation where they had to defer working a particular defect to work something else because of program/project priority shifts.

But what the heck, you'all can go on thinking that the TiVo SW engineers are all one-handed code monkeys who have somehow managed to pound out a universally loved user interface and a number of integrated applications frameworks delivering useful and entertaining content to their installed base on their drool-stained keyboards.


----------



## BankZ

mrmike said:


> I find it amazing that so many people who claim to have SW development experience have never been in a situation where they had to defer working a particular defect to work something else because of program/project priority shifts.


You must not know many developers. Other people's code is always crap that needs to be redone (and yes I am a developer).


----------



## bicker

I'm not sure you understood what mrmike wrote, since your reply doesn't seem to relate to what he said in his message.


----------



## BankZ

bicker said:


> I'm not sure you understood what mrmike wrote, since your reply doesn't seem to relate to what he said in his message.


I completely understand what he means, my point was that developers tend to find fault with other developers and everyone else is not as good/smart as them.


----------



## HDTiVo

mrmike said:


> I would submit that it is more likely that they are spending their resources on different priorities.


Yes, they are spending in other areas. I'm aware of many of them.

TiVo's resources are limited for quite a number of reasons and that condition has developed from a variety of unfortunate factors over its history.

No, I don't think TiVo's software developers are as limited as you describe, but there are some clear weaknesses.


----------



## bicker

BankZ said:


> I completely understand what he means, my point was that developers tend to find fault with other developers and everyone else is not as good/smart as them.


Uh, okay, but that's not what I believe mrmike was talking about. Rather, he was talking about a situation where you have enough resources to do Work Item X or Work Item Y, so you have to choose between the two of them, instead of doing both. So, more specifically, the project would defer work on one defect, so it can get the fix for another defect into the product release.

Make sense now?


----------



## MichaelK

George Cifranci said:


> Well I recorded a show off a standard def channel on my Series 3 and was able to transfer it to my Series 2. However, anything recorded off a HD channel (regardless if this show is actually in HD or not) will not transfer to the Series 2.


typically EVERYTHING on an HD channel IS in fact HD. It might just be upconverted SD content that started out 480i but they blow it up to 720p or 1080i and the S2 just cant play that back.


----------



## saberman

HDTiVo said:


> Saberman:
> 
> you are right about testing, but TiVo knows about the performance hits.
> 
> I figure performance will improve with more development over time.
> 
> TiVo doesn't have the resources/talent to do the job as soon and as well as it should.


They know about a lot of things but their business model does not include fixing them.

Telecommunications can be difficult but what I don't understand is why they can't get the easy things right -- like folder support for video files stored on the PC. They have it for music and pictures but not for video. Actually, they did implement folder support -- if you put videos in a seperate directory and put a shortcut to it in the TiVo folder you get the seperate directory name listed once for each video file in it -- but the video files names themselves don't show up. Come on -- walking a diirectory tree is a first semester homework assignment for a High School computer science course.


----------



## mikeyts

saberman said:


> if you put videos in a seperate directory and put a shortcut to it in the TiVo folder you get the seperate directory name listed once for each video file in it -- but the video files names themselves don't show up. Come on -- walking a diirectory tree is a first semester homework assignment for a High School computer science course.


As I said before, that doesn't happen to me--I don't see the directory names at all. It walks the entire tree and exposes the files with applicable extensions and never mentions the folders they came out of. It's none too fast doing it, but it does it.

I'd rather have it echo the folder tree--that's what happens with photos and music.

What version of the software running on what model have you observed this in? I'm using 9.2 on a Series 3.


----------



## HDTiVo

saberman said:


> They know about a lot of things but their business model does not include fixing them.
> 
> Telecommunications can be difficult but what I don't understand is why they can't get the easy things right -- like folder support for video files stored on the PC. They have it for music and pictures but not for video. Actually, they did implement folder support -- if you put videos in a seperate directory and put a shortcut to it in the TiVo folder you get the seperate directory name listed once for each video file in it -- but the video files names themselves don't show up. Come on -- walking a diirectory tree is a first semester homework assignment for a High School computer science course.


TiVo manages to leave itself half pregnant very often.

mikeyts:

Does TD show the PC server's videos as a flat list instead of sub folders?


----------



## mikeyts

HDTiVo said:


> mikeyts:
> 
> Does TD show the PC server's videos as a flat list instead of sub folders?


TiVo Desktop displays the same flat list that I see on the TiVo. I can put folder shortcuts or real folders in the My TiVo Recordings directory and what shows up for me is a flat list of files with no hint of the subdirectories they came out of.

The PC where the files are stored is a laptop running Windows XP.


----------



## HDTiVo

mikeyts said:


> TiVo Desktop displays the same flat list that I see on the TiVo. I can put folder shortcuts or real folders in the My TiVo Recordings directory and what shows up for me is a flat list of files with no hint of the subdirectories they came out of.


It is a flat list on both the TiVo and TD then.

I've been sticking with TD 2.2 because it works and I only want a directory structure as a new feature. Upgrading to 2.5 broke my playback and a quick jump back to 2.2 thankfully brought things back to normal.


----------



## 747pilot

Globular said:


> Schweet!
> 
> Anyone tried a TiVoToGo transfer of an HD show yet?
> 
> -Matt


I transfered a few to my laptop before I hit the road the other night. HUge files by the way. I went to watch them today and nothing seems to work. I tried to watch an old Tivo 2 recording and it worked fine. I'm off to research what I need for this one. Anyone have any clues for me?


----------



## Gregor

747pilot said:


> I transfered a few to my laptop before I hit the road the other night. HUge files by the way. I went to watch them today and nothing seems to work. I tried to watch an old Tivo 2 recording and it worked fine. I'm off to research what I need for this one. Anyone have any clues for me?


Sounds like a Codec problem. Try installing the codec pack below and setting Microsoft Windows Media Player as the default player.

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/KLite_Codec_Pack_Full/1094057842/3


----------



## MickeS

HDTiVo said:


> It is a flat list on both the TiVo and TD then.
> 
> I've been sticking with TD 2.2 because it works and I only want a directory structure as a new feature. Upgrading to 2.5 broke my playback and a quick jump back to 2.2 thankfully brought things back to normal.


Maybe I should try and go back to TD 2.2. I haven't had TD working in years. Sometimes it will let me open it, but most of the time it just throws an error message because some TiVo service isn't running. Haven't bothered to try and fix it though... I just use Galleon instead.

I have a rather straight-forward XP SP2 installation, so I have no idea why it's never worked good.


----------



## mikeyts

747pilot said:


> I transfered a few to my laptop before I hit the road the other night. HUge files by the way. I went to watch them today and nothing seems to work. I tried to watch an old Tivo 2 recording and it worked fine. I'm off to research what I need for this one. Anyone have any clues for me?


I've only transferred one file from TiVo (an episode of _Heroes_ from 2 weeks ago) and it seems to play back just fine. My laptop is a wimpy 2 GHz Celeron that I bought in January, with an ATI MOBILITY RADEON Xpress 200 series graphics chip. I have the laptop's VGA output connected to the DVI-I PC input on a Mitsubishi 46" 1080p LCD panel; the highest 16:9 resolution that the ATI chip and the panel can do in common over VGA is 720p, so when it's playing it back, it has to downscale the video. It seems to use about 40% of the CPU.

I'm using the free TiVo Desktop 2.5 on Windows XP Pro.


----------



## 747pilot

My version of desktop was too old. Working now, Thanks all!


----------



## saberman

mikeyts said:


> As I said before, that doesn't happen to me--I don't see the directory names at all. It walks the entire tree and exposes the files with applicable extensions and never mentions the folders they came out of. It's none too fast doing it, but it does it.
> 
> I'd rather have it echo the folder tree--that's what happens with photos and music.
> 
> What version of the software running on what model have you observed this in? I'm using 9.2 on a Series 3.


Do you use groups on the TiVo? When a file transfers from the TiVo to the PC the file name format is:
Group Name - ''description of the episode''
where Group Name is the name of the show. When you list the files on the PC via TiVo it list the Group Name once for each file. So I manually remove the group name. But if I then put the files in a sub directory TiVo lists the subdirectory name once for each file but not the file name.

I have the fall update on the TiVo S2s and Version 2.5.275381 of TiVo Desktop.


----------



## mikeyts

saberman said:


> Do you use groups on the TiVo? When a file transfers from the TiVo to the PC the file name format is:
> Group Name - ''description of the episode''
> where Group Name is the name of the show. When you list the files on the PC via TiVo it list the Group Name once for each file. So I manually remove the group name. But if I then put the files in a sub directory TiVo lists the subdirectory name once for each file but not the file name.
> 
> I have the fall update on the TiVo S2s and Version 2.5.275381 of TiVo Desktop.


The files I was talking about did not originate on TiVo. So instead of Group Name - ''description of the episode"​your files are now named merely''description of the episode"​ or even- ''description of the episode"​If so, maybe the TiVo server doesn't like names that start with dashes or quotation marks.

What does the list look like in the "Now Playing List" on TiVo Desktop?


----------



## aaronwt

Gregor said:


> Sounds like a Codec problem. Try installing the codec pack below and setting Microsoft Windows Media Player as the default player.
> 
> http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/KLite_Codec_Pack_Full/1094057842/3


Mine works in Vista Ultimate and XP media center with the default Media player settings and no extra codecs installed.


----------



## saberman

mikeyts said:


> The files I was talking about did not originate on TiVo. So instead of Group Name - ''description of the episode"​your files are now named merely''description of the episode"​ or even- ''description of the episode"​If so, maybe the TiVo server doesn't like names that start with dashes or quotation marks.
> 
> What does the list look like in the "Now Playing List" on TiVo Desktop?


The problem is associated with the TiVo grouping function. For the files where the name of the folder is the same as the name of a group (I.e. "Boston Legal") on the TiVo the Title column has the group name (i.e. "Boston Legal") and the episode has the name of the file.

For the files where the name of the folder is not the same as the name of a group (i.e. "Movies") the Title column has the name of the file and the episode column is empty.

On the TiVo side the files that are in a group named folder show only the group name in the Now Playing list. To see the episode name you need to high light one of the entries and select it.

Even if the TiVo does not support a directory tree for videos (which it does for pictures and music) it should at least treat directory the way it treats groups and list it once in Now Playing instead of once for each file in the directory. Then when you select the directory it should show the files in it.


----------



## mikeyts

saberman said:


> The problem is associated with the TiVo grouping function. For the files where the name of the folder is the same as the name of a group (I.e. "Boston Legal") on the TiVo the Title column has the group name (i.e. "Boston Legal") and the episode has the name of the file.
> 
> For the files where the name of the folder is not the same as the name of a group (i.e. "Movies") the Title column has the name of the file and the episode column is empty.
> 
> On the TiVo side the files that are in a group named folder show only the group name in the Now Playing list. To see the episode name you need to high light one of the entries and select it.
> 
> Even if the TiVo does not support a directory tree for videos (which it does for pictures and music) it should at least treat directory the way it treats groups and list it once in Now Playing instead of once for each file in the directory. Then when you select the directory it should show the files in it.


I do use groups--I just didn't modify the names and put them in directories on the PCs named like the groups.

When I play around with it and do what you said that you did (with .TiVo files), I don't get the directory name in the list on TiVo, I get the program names. I had two episodes of _Friday Night Lights_, named:Friday Night Lights - ''Are You Ready for Friday Night'' (Recorded Oct 19, 2007, KNSDDT).TiVo
Friday Night Lights - ''Backfire'' (Recorded Oct 26, 2007, KNSDDT).TiVo​I created a subdirectory, "Stupid Stuff", and moved them into it, removing "Friday Night Lights - " from their names:Stupid Stuff/"Are You Ready for Friday Night'' (Recorded Oct 19, 2007, KNSDDT).TiVo
''Backfire'' (Recorded Oct 26, 2007, KNSDDT).TiVo​What I see on TiVo's Now Playing List (and the "Now Playing on My_PC_Name" list in TiVo Desktop) is two entries called "Friday Night Lights" with different dates (though they're stored in my PC in a subdirectory called "Stupid Stuff"). If I go in and look at their descriptions I see the episode names and guide descriptions. If they were both resident on the TiVo and you turned groups off, this is exactly what you'd get in the list. "Friday Night Lights" is not a group name or a directory name, it's the program title as stored in the .TiVo wrapper.

Now, if you were to use VideoReDo or something to re-encode them as .mpeg files and lose the TiVo wrappers, all you'd get would be the filenames in the list, and if you looked at the description for each that's all you'd see as well.

This all seems very consistent to me, though I'd rather that it actually did echo the directory structure on my machine in the Now Playing List on TiVo. Actually, it's slightly inconsistent in that it does not create groups in the "Now Playing on My_PC_Name" list as shown in either TiVo or TiVo Desktop; if it has a bunch of .TiVo files that all have the same program title, then it should aggregate them in groups (if groups are turned on), no matter what subdirectories they came out of.

I guess I understand your complaint now--the problem is that the grouping function doesn't work for the "Now Playing on My_PC_Name" sub-lists. My confusion was in your saying that it was repeating the subdirectory names that you used for the programs, when it's not--it's listing the program titles from the .TiVo wrappers without grouping identical ones together. It's just coincidental (though appropriate) that you named the subdirectory for the program title.


----------



## dougdingle

Has anyone noticed that with 9.1 software, the 30 second skip mod has become "sticky" and survives an S3 reboot? 

Way cool...


----------



## cokyq

This thread is so big now... I remember seeing a link to a "user guide" thread on TTG & MRV. Does anyone has it handy and could post them again?

Thanks...


----------



## bkdtv

cokyq said:


> This thread is so big now... I remember seeing a link to a "user guide" thread on TTG & MRV. Does anyone has it handy and could post them again?
> 
> Thanks...


Stickied to the top of the forum?


----------



## Dr_Diablo

My Tivo just received the TTG update yet the software is still on v9.1...

Question is will this update work without the most recent update of 9.2 or better ?


----------



## pjhartman

dougdingle said:


> Has anyone noticed that with 9.1 software, the 30 second skip mod has become "sticky" and survives an S3 reboot?


To be honest, I _had_ been wondering about that.


----------



## mercurial

pjhartman said:


> To be honest, I _had_ been wondering about that.


I'd noticed it too but hadn't had time to do any exhaustive testing to see if it really was that way.


----------



## mikeyts

The "sticky 30 second skip" thing was noted in a "9.1 Bug Fix Summary" thread.


----------



## dougdingle

Dr_Diablo said:


> My Tivo just received the TTG update yet the software is still on v9.1...
> 
> Question is will this update work without the most recent update of 9.2 or better ?


It's working just fine here with all machines on 9.1


----------



## dougdingle

So I copied some shows from one S3 to another.

The majority of copied shows were put into folders in the destination machine, just like they were in the source machine.

But one set of shows (Rescue Me from F/X) wound up as individual shows at the destination, and won't move into a folder. I've tried turning folders on and off to see if that would work, but it doesn't.

Anyone have any idea what happened, and how I can prevent this in the future?


----------



## Adam1115

S3 MRV is SLOW. I can MRV s2 to s2 and even watch on the first level of FF.

From S3 to S2, I can't even watch it for 10 minutes...


----------



## moyekj

Adam1115 said:


> S3 MRV is SLOW. I can MRV s2 to s2 and even watch on the first level of FF.
> 
> From S3 to S2, I can't even watch it for 10 minutes...


 S3<->S3 MRV is the fastest possible of all Tivos right now... under ideal conditions I can get up to 44 Mbps (20GB/hour).
TivoPony already explained that S2<->S3 there are conversions taking place that demand CPU resources and really slow things down.


----------



## Canoehead

How is S3 <--> HD ? That will be my situation


----------



## moyekj

Canoehead said:


> How is S3 <--> HD ? That will be my situation


 THD units average only about 1/2 speed of S3 transfers (both for MRV & TTG). TivoPony also mentioned that was the case but that Tivo is still looking into it. So I think S3<->THD transfers are at best half the speed of S3<->S3 transfers. Under average conditions I get 20-30 Mbps (10-14 GB/hour) for S3<->S3, so I would guess THD<->S3 would be around 10-15 Mbps (5-7 GB/hour) on average - assuming wired connections, wireless could be much slower.


----------



## Adam1115

moyekj said:


> S3<->S3 MRV is the fastest possible of all Tivos right now... under ideal conditions I can get up to 44 Mbps (20GB/hour).
> TivoPony already explained that S2<->S3 there are conversions taking place that demand CPU resources and really slow things down.


Fine, but I think that sucks. So what, he explained why it sucks, it still sucks. My $700 dollar tivo runs worse than my free S2 after waiting a year for MRV.

I can't use MRV S3 - S2. It needs to at least run real time. I don't buy that it isn't possible to implement MRV so that you don't have to sit there for 10 minutes of buffering before you can watch it over a 100 Meg wired network.... Bad implementation.

and how is 44 MBPS good?? (And what are "ideal conditions..?") It's less than half the speed of the network connection!!


----------



## morac

Adam1115 said:


> I can't use MRV S3 - S2. It needs to at least run real time. I don't buy that it isn't possible to implement MRV so that you don't have to sit there for 10 minutes of buffering before you can watch it over a 100 Meg wired network.... Bad implementation.


I'm not sure about S3 to S2, but S2 to S3 runs slightly faster than real time for "High" quality recordings. This with the S2 and S3 both plugged into the same switch.


----------



## moyekj

Adam1115 said:


> and how is 44 MBPS good?? (And what are "ideal conditions..?") It's less than half the speed of the network connection!!


 20GB/hour is pretty good considering HD programs are typically 8GB/hour or less and is MUCH faster than any prior Tivo transfers. 100Mbps is theoretical max and doesn't account for real data rate transfers - a typical packet of data includes quite a bit of overhead so not all bits can be dedicated to video & audio data. Ideal conditions under which I achieved 44 Mbps (which obviously are not what one would normally operate under):
1. All 4 tuners of my S3s tuned to channels I don't receive
2. S3s wired together (cat6)
3. Not watching until transfer completes
Good is all relative - compared to S2 and THD units the S3 transfer rates are pretty darn good...
Do I wish it could be much faster? Don't we all!!?


----------



## Adam1115

moyekj said:


> Good is all relative - compared to S2 and THD units the S3 transfer rates are pretty darn good...
> Do I wish it could be much faster? Don't we all!!?


I don't expect it to be fast, just real time so I can watch while it's transferring.


----------



## dougdingle

Adam1115 said:


> I don't expect it to be fast, just real time so I can watch while it's transferring.


You do expect it to be fast if you expect real time transfer speeds. Based on current home network topology, and the 3's 100 Mb maximum rate, your expectations of real time transfer speeds can not be met. There is not a system existing today which can meet 100 Mb speeds, even if you connect two machines together directly. It's just not going to happen.

For one thing, there's a bunch of network overhead in every home network and networked machine. Cheap routers and hubs, unmanaged switches, TONS of packet collisions.

How fast are you able to transfer large files between your computers?

When transferring shows between my two S3's, I can begin watching in a few minutes after the transfer starts, and if I wait five minutes or so, I can skip commercials as well. That's with one wired and one wireless.

I am, frankly, amazed that it works that quickly, all things considred.


----------



## HDTiVo

dougdingle said:


> You do expect it to be fast if you expect real time transfer speeds.


What do you think the bit rate is?



moyekj said:


> TivoPony already explained that S2<->S3 there are conversions taking place that demand CPU resources and really slow things down.


What exactly did he say on that? Do you remember the post link?


----------



## moyekj

HDTiVo said:


> What exactly did he say on that? Do you remember the post link?


 Here you go (there's also a little blurb on THD units being slower due to "system resources"):
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=5624163#post5624163


TivoPony said:


> Oh, to set some expectations (I've mentioned this before, but will do so again here):
> 
> There are two 'types' of transfers - native and non-native. You won't see any reference in the UI to these terms, as it's rather techy, but so you know:
> 
> * Native transfers simply mean between like-generation platforms. Series2 to Series2. Series3 to Series3. Series3 to TiVo HD.
> 
> * Non-Native transfers refer to video shared across generations...Series2 to Series3 and vice versa.
> 
> Because the Series2 and Series3/TiVo HD platforms record in a slightly different MPEG format, some conversion is done during the transfer, making non-native transfers a bit slower.
> 
> Also, due to system resources, TiVo HD transfers are typically a bit slower at the moment. Speeding them up is something being investigated, but there is no additional information to share today.
> 
> There have been some reports of Series2 to Series2 transfers being slower than before, and we're investigating that as well. That is not intended or expected.
> 
> And yes, TiVoToComeBack (transferring video from your PC to your TiVo DVR) is supported, although HD content must have been originally recorded on a TiVo DVR to 'come back' as HD. HD content from other sources may be converted to SD and transferred to the DVR using TiVo Desktop Plus. Supporting HD transfers from the PC of non-TiVo content is being investigated.
> 
> Pony


----------



## Adam1115

dougdingle said:


> You do expect it to be fast if you expect real time transfer speeds. Based on current home network topology, and the 3's 100 Mb maximum rate, your expectations of real time transfer speeds can not be met. There is not a system existing today which can meet 100 Mb speeds, even if you connect two machines together directly. It's just not going to happen.


I've said several times that I'm talking about S3 --> S2, which means SD.

Why in the world do you think it can't be done fast enough that I can watch it? I've been doing it for FIVE YEARS with my S2 TiVo's. The only TIVO that can't keep up is the S3..!


----------



## Adam1115

dougdingle said:


> How fast are you able to transfer large files between your computers?


Are you kidding me? I can watch SD content from a computer on the networkr. I can do the same for HD.

In fact, I can stream SD content from the Internet. And from another S2 TiVo.


----------



## MichaelK

If you cant watch SD transfers in realtime (even with the 'translation')- I think your not typical. Perhaps you have something in your network setup slowing stuff down, but also you might want to nicely contact tivopony or tivojerry or someone to pull your logs - maybe there's a situation at your house that they didn't run into before and they need to know about it to correct.

I have 2 S3's and an S2 DVD-R unit (which generally behaved more sluggish than the S2 and S2dt i had before I got the 2 S3's). I can transfer SD from to and from the S2 well better than real time even when using the S2-DVR's 'extreme' bitrate setting. Between the S3's I can more SD and even HD faster than realtime. 

Maybe the S2-dvd-r is using same sort of encoding settings that hte S3's use and that's why it works well? 

I'm on a wired network. The S2 DVD-r doesn't have ethernet built in so I'm using an linksys usb dongle for that.

Do you have any wireless adapters in play?


----------



## ah30k

I could never watch S2 -> S2 transfers in real time. I think people forget to specify their recording quality when stating S2 transfer times. I use Best and can't get anywhere near realtime.


----------



## HDTiVo

ah30k said:


> I could never watch S2 -> S2 transfers in real time. I think people forget to specify their recording quality when stating S2 transfer times. I use Best and can't get anywhere near realtime.


This makes me think of a question for Adam:

S3 Best is extremely high bit rate...over 7mbps. Are you transfering that to an S2?

(Also S3 high is nearly 6mbps, higher than S2 Best @5.5mbps)


----------



## gbrandenstein

TiVoPony said:


> Yes, even from a Mac.
> 
> Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pony


For the same functionality that Windows users get for FREE, Mac users have to purchase a $70.00 piece of software??  Am I the only one that feels that this is unfair on Tivos part? What does Tivo have against Macs??


----------



## bizzy

dougdingle said:


> For one thing, there's a bunch of network overhead in every home network and networked machine. Cheap routers and hubs, unmanaged switches, TONS of packet collisions.


Collisions!? Hubs!?

Good god man, join the rest of us who finished the 1990's almost a decade ago.


----------



## SullyND

gbrandenstein said:


> For the same functionality that Windows users get for FREE, Mac users have to purchase a $70.00 piece of software??  Am I the only one that feels that this is unfair on Tivos part? What does Tivo have against Macs??


Welcome to last year.

Look up TiVoDecode Manager. It's free and it rocks.


----------



## bkdtv

Does anyone know of an *easy to use* program for Windows that will accept high-definition MPG files and convert them to lower-resolution MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 AVC for portable media players? Ideally, it would have built-in profiles for common video players.

(I'm aware of many such programs, but they aren't easy to use. This is not for me, it is for the stickied FAQ.)


----------



## moyekj

bkdtv said:


> Does anyone know of an *easy to use* program for Windows that will accept high-definition MPG files and convert them to lower-resolution MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 AVC for portable media players? Ideally, it would have built-in profiles for common video players.
> 
> (I'm aware of many such programs, but they aren't easy to use. This is not for me, it is for the stickied FAQ.)


 I thought Tivo Desktop Plus is supposed to be able to do this.


----------



## MichaelK

gbrandenstein said:


> For the same functionality that Windows users get for FREE, Mac users have to purchase a $70.00 piece of software??  Am I the only one that feels that this is unfair on Tivos part? What does Tivo have against Macs??


the same thing every other software company does- limited market so they have to decide if it's worth their limited resources to develop for macs. Tivo decided not to spend their own money to develop for macs so they let roxio do it for them- unfortunatly roxio makes money selling that software.

I'm not sure- but do a search I think you can hack some of the tivodesktop functionality for free with open source stuff.


----------



## MichaelK

moyekj said:


> I thought Tivo Desktop Plus is supposed to be able to do this.


sure does- very simple and easy. But not free. I guess the OP is lookign for free too?

That I've never found.


----------



## bkdtv

moyekj said:


> bkdtv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of an *easy to use* program for Windows that will accept high-definition MPG files and convert them to lower-resolution MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 AVC for portable media players? Ideally, it would have built-in profiles for common video players.
> 
> (I'm aware of many such programs, but they aren't easy to use. This is not for me, it is for the stickied FAQ.)
> 
> 
> 
> I thought Tivo Desktop Plus is supposed to be able to do this.
Click to expand...

It does.

But Tivo Desktop Plus doesn't help you if you want to convert recordings _after_ you've removed the commercials with another program.

For example, suppose you want to remove the commercials with VideoRedo and then encode the MPG into a format your iPod will accept.


----------



## morac

bkdtv said:


> It does.
> 
> But Tivo Desktop Plus doesn't help you if you want to convert recordings _after_ you've removed the commercials with another program.
> 
> For example, suppose you want to remove the commercials with VideoRedo and then encode the MPG into a format your iPod will accept.


I know you can have VideoRedo save trimmed TiVo recordings as .TiVo files and TiVo Desktop will recognize them (including the meta data). I haven't tried to then convert it to another format, but I would think that would work.


----------



## MichaelK

i *think* the latest tivo desktop allows after the fact conversions of .tivo files so that might work.


----------



## Georgia Guy

ah30k said:


> I could never watch S2 -> S2 transfers in real time. I think people forget to specify their recording quality when stating S2 transfer times. I use Best and can't get anywhere near realtime.


Until the 9.x updates, I had no trouble at all watching S2 to S2 transfers as they were taking place. All my recordings are in "best" on my S2's, and I've used both wired and wireless, and I could transfer an hour show in 25 minutes, or less.

Now, with the 9.1 and 9.2 updates, it takes 2 or 3 hours to do an S2-S2 transfer of an hour show. I even switched back to wired, thinking that might speed it up. It didn't. But the S3 is still very fast, like the S2's used to be.


----------



## Laserfan

morac said:


> I know you can have VideoRedo save trimmed TiVo recordings as .TiVo files and TiVo Desktop will recognize them (including the meta data).


I just tried this today with an S3 HD .TiVo using VRD and it didn't work--when I put the saved files into my Tivo Recordings folder they don't appear there from the S3... 

Changed .tivo to .TiVo, changed their names to the originals' names; no worky.


----------



## mikeyts

Though I've had problems with messed up playback of stuff I've trimmed in VideoReDo, when I edit .TiVo files and rewrite them to the TiVo Recordings folder (or any subfolder thereof) they show up on the Now Playing List in both TiVo Desktop and under the "MyComputerName" item on my S3's Now Playing List. In fact, if I write them out in that directory tree as .mpeg files they show up in TiVo Desktop and on TiVo, sans meta-data.


----------



## Adam1115

HDTiVo said:


> This makes me think of a question for Adam:
> 
> S3 Best is extremely high bit rate...over 7mbps. Are you transfering that to an S2?
> 
> (Also S3 high is nearly 6mbps, higher than S2 Best @5.5mbps)


AHHH!!

Thank you!

I think you've solved my mystery.

Yes, all of my recordings are best, and they are bigger than the S2 best. I'm sure that's why it is different.

I'm still not sure I understand why it can't transfer at 7-8 mbps though on wired ethernet....


----------



## MichaelK

I'm wondering if the S3 best isn't equal to the S2 dvdr's 'extreme' setting and that's why I get decent speeds from my S2 to/from S3- there's no 'conversion' going on?


----------



## HDTiVo

Adam1115 said:


> AHHH!!
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> I think you've solved my mystery.
> 
> Yes, all of my recordings are best, and they are bigger than the S2 best. I'm sure that's why it is different.
> 
> I'm still not sure I understand why it can't transfer at 7-8 mbps though on wired ethernet....


Its the S2 and the adapter, they are too slow. Various adapters are faster/slower, but I don't remember ever getting more than 8mbps. In recent times I think my better adapters give me around 6mbps.


----------



## morac

HDTiVo said:


> Its the S2 and the adapter, they are too slow. Various adapters are faster/slower, but I don't remember ever getting more than 8mbps. In recent times I think my better adapters give me around 6mbps.


It also depends on what S2 you have. The older models (240) are faster than the newer ones (540). I think the DT is somewhere in between or possibly slightly faster than the 240.


----------



## HDTiVo

morac said:


> It also depends on what S2 you have. The older models (240) are faster than the newer ones (540). I think the DT is somewhere in between or possibly slightly faster than the 240.


That's right. I am using 240's.

This is not MRV, but I just used TTG from a TiVo HD for an analog Best movie which I estimate went about 7.7mbps. If that were MRV THD to THD, it would be what, 20-30% higher? So native ethernet MRV THD to THD is around 10mbps and it is not surprising to see S2s w/ adapters below 7mbps. Then there is also that issue of S3/HD to S2 conversion.


----------



## matstars

This is so confusing!


----------



## wmcbrine

matstars said:


> This is so confusing!


You necroed a thread from 2007 to say that?


----------



## morac

wmcbrine said:


> You necroed a thread from 2007 to say that?


Seems on par with the rest of his posts.


----------

