# Copy protection debate thread 2010



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

This thread is for continuing the discussion of copy protection issues that began in this thread, which was off-topic for that thread.

I'll start off:

(About copyright owners having or not having the right to tell you in what room you can watch their content.)



bicker said:


> Regardless, note that the copyright owner, if they so choose, can indeed restrict the right to view to specific rooms, i.e., the X movie theaters that they release a film into.


That's not because they have a right to restrict playback to a certain room; that's because they control the right to exhibit the work publicly. That has nothing to do with what you do in your house.



> And beyond that, the copyright owner can indeed restrict playback to specific playback devices, if they so choose, and such stock of registered devices are placed into the marketplace.


Not for any copyright reason. They can encrypt the content and make sure that only certain devices are sold with ability to decrypt it. Defeating this scheme would be illegal because it would be circumventing the copy protection, not because it would (necessarily) violate the copyright. If the content was not encrypted, they would have no legal right to tell you what devices you could use to play it back.



> No, his analogy fails to acknowledge different formats as different things.


And so does the law - as far as I'm aware, it says nothing on this subject.



> When you buy content, you're buying it in a specific format, even though you wanted to buy it format-agnostic.


It's well-established that if you legally own a copy of a work, or even if you received it on TV, you can make a copy for your own personal use. Note that copies from TV are definitely not in the same format as the original.



> No one is selling content to you format-agnostic. You're not paying enough for content to make offering it format-agnostic the most profitable approach.


Let's say I buy a paperback book, and glue a hardcover onto it (as my high school often did with books that we were issued). By your reasoning, is this illegal? After all, a hardcover version of the book would have cost more - we've changed the format to a higher-value one.



> Consumer behaviors, themselves, dictate this - this unwillingness to pay a premium for this premium aspect of what you're wanting to purchase.


The point is, before the DMCA, or even now in the absence of copy protection, this "premium aspect" isn't something that's separable from selling you a copy of the work. There simply isn't a legal basis for stopping you from copying it to a different format. Content owners may wish there was, just as consumers may wish that rampant piracy was okay due to any of a numerous set of justifications, but it just isn't.



> I think, rather, that what you're referring to is the fact that routine transgression is continuing to degrade the industry's ability to protect their assets. It's horrible that transgression is driving things. What's next? Routine shoplifting legitimizing set-your-own-discount attitudes? Sad.


Note that this happens both ways. Content owners have used the tactic of giving the impression that something is illegal for long enough that people start to believe it, or that a law is passed because we're so used to thinking it's illegal that actually making it so is not controversial. They've also been guilty of "routine transgression" resulting in the government giving up on enforcing a regulation.

I ran into examples of both of these when I was trying to get my D-VHS VCR to work on Comcast. Cable companies are required to make available a set-top box that has a working IEEE-1394 interface, which is what the D-VHS uses. I had a very hard time getting them to supply me with one, and when they did, it worked partially but not enough to be useful (it worked for a few seconds, then cut out, then came back for a few seconds, and so on). Eventually I had to give up, because they simply would not live up to their legal obligation to supply a working IEEE-1394 interface, and the FCC isn't doing anything to enforce that requirement.

When I told some friends about this adventure, they suggested that I bribe the cable guy that comes out(!) to make it work, since they thought I was trying to do something illegal. They couldn't imagine that it would be legal to record onto something that used tapes instead of a hard drive that you couldn't move around easily. They've been thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief that the law is whatever the content providers wish it is. Some Comcast employees that I talked to on the phone were like this too - some of them told me I couldn't record because "it's digital so it's illegal" - I have no doubt that they believed this even though it is false.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

I don't think you'll get too many responses here in an independent standalone thread; the debates tend to start in response to comments made in passing in other threads.

OTOH by creating this thread you will have a place to channel such off-topic debates. Is that something you're volunteering to do?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Unfortunately the cable companies have the right to flag anything they want as "copy once" except channels which are broadcast over public airwaves. (i.e. local channels) They even have the right to use the more restricted flags which actually forcibly delete the program after a set amount of time for premium channels and PPV.

TiVo could get around the use of the "copy once" flag by simply streaming the content to another room rather then copying it to another DVR. Unfortunately their multi-room viewing feature was designed back when most people were using 802.11b networks or 100Mbps USB adapters and there wasn't enough bandwidth to make streaming a viable option. Now that we're in an age where there is 802.11n, HomPlug AV and gigiabit there is no reason TiVo couldn't deploy a streaming system. They probably haven't yet simply because they haven't done much of anything with the software for many years.

Dan


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Copy protection is just pointless.
It restricts honest people and doesn't affect the pirates.
If they want to make it "fair", then shut down all torrent sites as soon as they pop up, or allow users to do what they want with content they legally obtain.
Don't make things difficult for just one side and not the other.

Regarding copy protection and cable, I say put the onus on the content owners, NOT THE CABLE COMPANY.
Cable companies apply copy protection even when content owners wish otherwise. They should not have that power.
I'll even go as far to say that cable companies apply the copy protection for the sole purpose of disabling features on 3rd party DVRs so the user will get frustrated and just opt for the equipment they provide.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That might be true, about them wanting to disable features of 3rd party DVRs. Or they might just be lazy and don't want to have to pick and choose which channels get "protected" and which ones don't. Either way it does kind of suck that the few unique features TiVo has over a cable DVR (i.e. MRV and TTG) can basically be rendered useless with a simple CCI bit.

Dan


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

anyone have the link to the FCC proposal looking for debate on limiting cable labs to hardware only certification.

If that could be made to happen then TiVo could drop the whole CCI bit thing, while keeping cable card certification, as being misused by broadcasters and let the content owners deal with the fact they allowed broadcasters to overstep their bounds.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

steve614 said:


> Copy protection is just pointless.
> It restricts honest people and doesn't affect the pirates.
> If they want to make it "fair", then shut down all torrent sites as soon as they pop up, or allow users to do what they want with content they legally obtain.
> Don't make things difficult for just one side and not the other.
> ...





Dan203 said:


> That might be true, about them wanting to disable features of 3rd party DVRs. Or they might just be lazy and don't want to have to pick and choose which channels get "protected" and which ones don't. Either way it does kind of suck that the few unique features TiVo has over a cable DVR (i.e. MRV and TTG) can basically be rendered useless with a simple CCI bit.
> 
> Dan


I don't think it would be a case of laziness, and actually the opposite. If the content owners applied the CCI byte appropriately before sending it off to the distributor, the content would pass through with no action whatsoever on the part of the distributor, and everyone is happy (except maybe the content owners who now have to apply whatever rules they intend ). As it is now, the distributor has the additional action of applying the byte to the entire _channel_, not just individual _programs_. It's probably harder for the distributors to go through and remove the copy-once (or greater) CCI byte for programs like Cable in the Classroom when they air on channels that the distributor liberally applies copy-once or greater restrictions.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Unfortunately the cable companies have the right to flag anything they want as "copy once" except channels which are broadcast over public airwaves. (i.e. local channels) They even have the right to use the more restricted flags which actually forcibly delete the program after a set amount of time for premium channels and PPV.
> 
> TiVo could get around the use of the "copy once" flag by simply streaming the content to another room rather then copying it to another DVR. Unfortunately their multi-room viewing feature was designed back when most people were using 802.11b networks or 100Mbps USB adapters and there wasn't enough bandwidth to make streaming a viable option. Now that we're in an age where there is 802.11n, HomPlug AV and gigiabit there is no reason TiVo couldn't deploy a streaming system. They probably haven't yet simply because they haven't done much of anything with the software for many years.
> 
> Dan





steve614 said:


> Copy protection is just pointless.
> It restricts honest people and doesn't affect the pirates.
> If they want to make it "fair", then shut down all torrent sites as soon as they pop up, or allow users to do what they want with content they legally obtain.
> Don't make things difficult for just one side and not the other.
> ...





ZeoTiVo said:


> anyone have the link to the FCC proposal looking for debate on limiting cable labs to hardware only certification.
> 
> If that could be made to happen then TiVo could drop the whole CCI bit thing, while keeping cable card certification, as being misused by broadcasters and let the content owners deal with the fact they allowed broadcasters to overstep their bounds.





orangeboy said:


> I don't think it would be a case of laziness, and actually the opposite. If the content owners applied the CCI byte appropriately before sending it off to the distributor, the content would pass through with no action whatsoever on the part of the distributor, and everyone is happy (except maybe the content owners who now have to apply whatever rules they intend ). As it is now, the distributor has the additional action of applying the byte to the entire _channel_, not just individual _programs_. It's probably harder for the distributors to go through and remove the copy-once (or greater) CCI byte for programs like Cable in the Classroom when they air on channels that the distributor liberally applies copy-once or greater restrictions.


I actually think that this whole thing is a result of 2 things:

The FCC thinking that the Cable Co's and MPAA would actually fairly apply the CCI byte to appropriate content. i.e. higher restrictions on premium content like recent MOVIES on HBO and less restrictive on things like I love Lucy reruns on whatever that channel is that does all the classic TV shows.
The Cable Co's and MPAA heavy handedly applying CCI bytes on everything except what the are explicitly prohibited.

The FCC did NOT want to get into you can do this with this show but that on that show and just gave general guidelines which were promptly abused. Just like ALL locks, they are made to keep honest people honest, but the real crooks just pick the lock and have at it.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> OTOH by creating this thread you will have a place to channel such off-topic debates. Is that something you're volunteering to do?


Yes - I was in another thread that got derailed by this, and this is an attempt to siphon off that discussion into this thread where it's on-topic.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> It's probably harder for the distributors to go through and remove the copy-once (or greater) CCI byte for programs like Cable in the Classroom when they air on channels that the distributor liberally applies copy-once or greater restrictions.


As far as I'm aware, they all use the same neat solution to this - they just don't remove the copy-once for any individual programs, ever. It's everything on the channel, including things you're supposed to be able to record, or nothing.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo could get around the use of the "copy once" flag by simply streaming the content to another room rather then copying it to another DVR.


What's frustrating is that the rules seem a bit too nit-picky in this regard. You could make a streaming interface that, to the user, is indistinguishable from MRV (although that would actually involve intentionally crippling it by adding a delay to simulate the "transfer!"), and that would be okay, whereas MRV isn't. The rules seem to be at too low a level. They were mostly written back in the era of VCRs, when they expected we'd be switching to digital VCRs (D-VHS) to record our HD content. Had things turned out that way, there wouldn't have been any need for MRV - you'd just take the tape out of the machine and take it with you to watch wherever you wanted.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What's frustrating is that the rules seem a bit too nit-picky in this regard. You could make a streaming interface that, to the user, is indistinguishable from MRV (although that would actually involve intentionally crippling it by adding a delay to simulate the "transfer!"), and that would be okay, whereas MRV isn't. The rules seem to be at too low a level. They were mostly written back in the era of VCRs, when they expected we'd be switching to digital VCRs (D-VHS) to record our HD content. Had things turned out that way, there wouldn't have been any need for MRV - you'd just take the tape out of the machine and take it with you to watch wherever you wanted.


For a streaming solution to work I'd think that the TiVo would have to re-encode the video into a format capable of being streamed. Last I checked this would involve making a copy unless the re-encoding was done on the fly. Do any of the current HD TiVo's have the ability to do that? If not, streaming won't come to a TiVo near you until the S5 is released.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

If D-VHS had caught on, I'm sure someone could have found a way to have the tapes encoded during record so that they would only be playable on the machine that recorded them. 
They probably could have done the same thing with DVD recorders. I wonder why they didn't? It must not be illegal to record something at home and be able to take it anywhere you want and replay it.
So why is it an issue now? It's because the cable companies want control that they shouldn't be allowed to have.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> For a streaming solution to work I'd think that the TiVo would have to re-encode the video into a format capable of being streamed.


The video could be streamed without changing the format, if the networking is fast enough. After all, it's a bit-for-bit copy of the MPEG-2 that was received off the air - which was streamed.



> Last I checked this would involve making a copy unless the re-encoding was done on the fly. Do any of the current HD TiVo's have the ability to do that? If not, streaming won't come to a TiVo near you until the S5 is released.


Well, I could imagine someone arguing that generating a temporary transcoded copy on the same hard drive is a bit of a grey area with regard to the rules. Or, maybe they could delete sections of the file as they are transcoded. But I think you're right, if they have to transcode the video, they won't do it unless the hardware supports doing it on the fly.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Brainiac 5 said:


> What's frustrating is that the rules seem a bit too nit-picky in this regard.


I believe Ben, bjdraw on here, from Endgadgethd has mentioned in the past that cable labs has thought about modifying the rule, but what that entails who knows. I have thought about writing cable labs, but I don't think it would help if they would even respond.

I could see two ways they could modify the copy once rule. The first is the recording no longer counts as the first copy. Instead you would be able to copy it to another TiVo in this case, but then couldn't copy the copy. You would possibly still be able to copy the original again though.

The second would be the copy once rules remains as it is, but instead copy once behaves like copy freely on Cable Labs certified hardware. If the device already respects the DRM, there should be no problem copying the show to any certified device most likely limited to your own network. You still wouldn't be able to edit the file though, but you could copy it to other TiVos and Windows 7 PCs.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

steve614 said:


> If D-VHS had caught on, I'm sure someone could have found a way to have the tapes encoded during record so that they would only be playable on the machine that recorded them.


They'd certainly like it that way.



> They probably could have done the same thing with DVD recorders. I wonder why they didn't? It must not be illegal to record something at home and be able to take it anywhere you want and replay it.


Right, it's not illegal.



> So why is it an issue now? It's because the cable companies want control that they shouldn't be allowed to have.


It became an issue basically by accident. The rules were never meant to restrict where you could watch your recordings - they thought there would be D-VHS and things like that, where the tape was something you could carry around, and they chose not to restrict that. There's no restriction about watching a recording somewhere other than where you recorded it; the problem with TiVo's MRV is just that it involves making a copy.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Heck TiVo might even be able to get around this with MRV as is if they simply changed it to move the recording rather the copy it. They could lock the source recording until the copy completed so it couldn't be watched on more then one TiVo at a time and then they could do a full delete (i.e. not put it in recently deleted) when it was done. If it failed mid way then they could delete the partial recording on the destination TiVo and leave the original on the source TiVo.

It wouldn't even really require a UI change. They could simply make it so the "Watch on this TiVo" button changed to "Move to this TiVo" if the recording you selected was protected from being copied.

Dan


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Heck TiVo might even be able to get around this with MRV as is if they simply changed it to move the recording rather the copy it. They could lock the source recording until the copy completed so it couldn't be watched on more then one TiVo at a time and then they could do a full delete (i.e. not put it in recently deleted) when it was done. If it failed mid way then they could delete the partial recording on the destination TiVo and leave the original on the source TiVo.
> 
> It wouldn't even really require a UI change. They could simply make it so the "Watch on this TiVo" button changed to "Move to this TiVo" if the recording you selected was protected from being copied.
> 
> Dan


I don't believe it will work that way. I know on Media Center you can move the file since this is how the WHS moves the files to the server in power pack 3, but I don't believe you can play it back on anything other than the original PC except for streaming like you could before you moved it. I don't have any copy once content I can test with though.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> TiVo might ...
> ...
> They could ...


Yes, they *could*, but they *won't.* Certainly not for the S3, which is the bulk of the installed hardware out there.

The fundamental problem is that TiVo top management, aka Tom Rogers, is obsessed with "deals". The details of how well a product functions (or in this case, doesn't function) don't seem to concern him in the slightest. Through his actions in the last five years, the man has IMO epitomized the antithesis of "visionary".


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Yes, they *could*, but they *won't.* Certainly not for the S3, which is the bulk of the installed hardware out there.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that TiVo top management, aka Tom Rogers, is obsessed with "deals". The details of how well a product functions (or in this case, doesn't function) don't seem to concern him in the slightest. Through his actions in the last five years, the man has IMO epitomized the antithesis of "visionary".


Ok. We get it. You don't like Tom Rogers.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> Unfortunately the cable companies have the right to flag anything they want as "copy once" except channels which are broadcast over public airwaves. (i.e. local channels)


And yet, they still will do it for local channels. (I am looking at you, Time Warner).

This is a major gripe of mine. letting cable companies do whatever the hell they want. It makes "TiVo to Go" and iTiVo on my Mac essentially useless.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they are copy protecting your local channels then you should complain to the local franchise authority and/or the FCC. It is actually illegal for them to do that.

I think Time Warner is in a unique position. Their parent company is an actual content provider and a member of the MPAA, so they actually have a vested interest in all this copy protection crap. (Comcast will be in the same boat once the NBC/Universal deal goes through) The other cable providers are just content distributors and have no real stake in the whole copy protection debate. (other then possibly to ruin TiVo's extended features and get more people to switch to their in house DVRs)

Dan


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Dan203 said:


> If they are copy protecting your local channels then you should complain to the local franchise authority and/or the FCC. It is actually illegal for them to do that.


There are lots of threads discussing this. It does no good.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

jsmeeker said:


> There are lots of threads discussing this. It does no good.


Sometimes it does. When I got my first HDHR many years ago, I called up my local Comcast support to ask why I could not get my local CBS. Comcast was encrypting it and accused me of trying to steal their signal since I wasnt using one of their receivers (though I had one and was leasing it from them) in this particular room.

I informed them of the FCC rules against encrypting the locals and informed them I was filing a complaint with the FCC. They had it fixed within 2 days, and I never filed with the FCC. The Comcast guy was very rude and arrogant.

Another option is to call your local affiliates engineering department and inform them whats happening. The engineers usually are very helpfull.


----------



## qz3fwd (Jul 6, 2007)

orangeboy said:


> I don't think it would be a case of laziness, and actually the opposite. If the content owners applied the CCI byte appropriately before sending it off to the distributor, the content would pass through with no action whatsoever on the part of the distributor, and everyone is happy (except maybe the content owners who now have to apply whatever rules they intend ). As it is now, the distributor has the additional action of applying the byte to the entire _channel_, not just individual _programs_. It's probably harder for the distributors to go through and remove the copy-once (or greater) CCI byte for programs like Cable in the Classroom when they air on channels that the distributor liberally applies copy-once or greater restrictions.


My Comcast changes CCI flags on a per program basis as well as during the program, meaning the CCI flag changes to 0x00 during commercials, and 0x0Z (z=0,1,2...) during the program. A movie can be 0x00, while a TV show can be 0x01 on the same channel. They means they are actually using the 3 bit mix_information field set to 11x.

BTW-there are also bit settings for moving of content, analog output restrictions, digital output restrictions, dividing (editing) programs.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I think Time Warner is in a unique position. Their parent company is an actual content provider and a member of the MPAA, so they actually have a vested interest in all this copy protection crap.


This situation changed somewhat, about 1 or 2 years ago. Time Warner Inc (the content creator, ticker TWX), spun off Time Warner Cable (the content delivery company, ticker TWC). If you can trust Yahoo, the claim is "Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE:TWC) operate independently of Time Warner Inc. as of March 12, 2009."

But they still probably work together to screw "the little people". E.g., according to Yahoo, Jeffrey Bewkes, the CEO of TWX, is listed as a "key executive" of TWC. Yahoo doesn't list his exact role at TWC, but I think we can safely assume it's not "consumer ombudsman".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> That's not because ... Not for any copyright reason....


You're equivocating. The comments I was replying to were categorical, and so my replies took issue with that. The reality is that it is their (the copyright owners') content. They can offer what they wish; you can accept or decline their offer. How they ensure you take only what you've agreed to, i.e., what they offered, will vary. Some means and measures to ensure that have special protections; others are simply protected by more general tenets of law.

Remember that copying something without copy protection can still be a violation of the terms and conditions of sale, still making it wrong. Wanting something doesn't constitute foundation for an entitlement. And Fair Use is supposed to apply only to uses that serve a public interest. The tenet has been abused just once, and note that no one has the guts to fight copyright owners aiming to have that decision revisited, because pirates know that if the courts get a second look at it they're going to realize the screw up they made in that one case and fix the precedent.



Brainiac 5 said:


> It's well-established that if you legally own a copy of a work, or even if you received it on TV, you can make a copy for your own personal use.


Within certain parameters, it is not a violation of statute, but still can be a violation of terms and conditions.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Note that this happens both ways. Content owners have used the tactic of giving the impression that something is illegal for long enough that people start to believe it, or that a law is passed because we're so used to thinking it's illegal that actually making it so is not controversial.


Sorry, but you've fallen into the trap that pirates have crafted for you. See above. It has always been the case that a sale is based on a mutual agreement on terms and conditions. You cannot insist on buying thing the way you want them offered. You have to find someone willing to sell you what you want how you want it offered. Alternatively, you have to agree to terms and conditions as offered. That's the general case in the mass-market, when a seller is offering for sale to thousands or millions of customers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Copy protection is just pointless.


No, it is not pointless. So many people try to distort the reality in this regard. It is not 100% effective. That doesn't mean it is pointless. It cuts out a substantial amount of the casual piracy. That's real money. It's only "pointless" to you, perhaps, because it isn't your money.



steve614 said:


> Regarding copy protection and cable, I say put the onus on the content owners, NOT THE CABLE COMPANY.


Both cable companies and copyright holders have legitimate and substantial foundation for wanting to protect the broadcast.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

bicker said:


> No, it is not pointless. So many people try to distort the reality in this regard. *It is not 100% effective*. That doesn't mean it is pointless. It cuts out a substantial amount of the casual piracy. That's real money. It's only "pointless" to you, perhaps, because it isn't your money.


Okay, "pointless" may have been the wrong word to use there. But when the average joe can go on the internet and find information and tools for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, it is essentially 0% effective.
Is "futile" the right word? 
As it stands now, the only people affected are the honest ones.
When the industry makes copy protection 100% effective and starts cracking down on the *real* pirates, I might change my opinion.



bicker said:


> Both cable companies and copyright holders have legitimate and substantial foundation for wanting to protect the broadcast.


So, cable companies using copy protection in order to control the DVR market is legitimate?
I know that's not the *only* reason they use copy protection, but I'd be willing to bet that if TiVo didn't have MRV, copy protection would be much less widespread.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

bicker said:


> Both cable companies and copyright holders have legitimate and substantial foundation for wanting to protect the broadcast.


I can only agree with half that statement. Absolutely the copyright holders have reason to protect the broadcast if they so desire. The part I don't agree with is the legitimacy of the cable companies (who aren't the copyright holders for all content they provide; those that are should protect accordingly if they so desire) having a stake in the protection. The cable companies should honor what the copyright holders protect or not protect.

Not to be argumentative, but what are the legitimate reasons for the cable company applying a non-x'00' CCI byte to content the copyright owner wants to freely share?


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> You're equivocating. The comments I was replying to were categorical, and so my replies took issue with that.


No, quite the opposite - I'm trying to be more precise. It's important to consider WHY something is illegal so that you know when that reason does and does not apply. For instance, it's illegal to drive 200mph while wearing a red shirt. The reason it's illegal is the driving 200mph; the part about wearing a red shirt is completely irrelevant. Likewise, it is illegal to circumvent the copy protection on a movie, make a copy, and watch it in another room. In this case, it's illegal because you circumvented the copy protection; whether or not you watch it in another room is completely irrelevant. Watching it in another room WITHOUT circumventing the copy protection is perfectly legal.

From what you said about the statement being categorical, I'm thinking that the reason you take issue with the statement that they can't control what room you consume the content in is because there are cases where they actually can, is that right? (When I put it that way, it sounds like a pretty good objection. ) What I'm trying to say is that although you may be able to achieve that effect using other rights, there is no specific right to control in what room you consume the content. As an analogy: I have no right to prevent people from looking at me. However, I have a perfect right to stay indoors in a room with no windows, which allows me to achieve the effect I want. So there _is_ a case where I can prevent people from looking at me. But since the right that's allowing me to achieve that effect is NOT the right to prevent people from looking at me, they are free to do so if I leave my house.



> The reality is that it is their (the copyright owners') content. They can offer what they wish; you can accept or decline their offer.


This is the heart of the matter. Intellectual property is intangible; the market in it is created artificially by granting copyrights and patents that you can own. A copyright grants the owner certain specific rights and not others; they can offer "what they wish" only with regard to these rights. For instance, publishers and authors would prefer if you could not sell used books. However, controlling the sale of a book now in someone else's possession is not a right granted by copyright, and the copyright owner has no control over it.



> Remember that copying something without copy protection can still be a violation of the terms and conditions of sale, still making it wrong.


If you sign some kind of contract, it could be a breach of contract. However, except for computer programs most works are sold without such a contract, such as books, DVDs, CDs, etc. Even my cable company did not require me to sign anything saying that I wouldn't record non copy protected content.



> Wanting something doesn't constitute foundation for an entitlement.


Correct, and that goes for the content owners as well.



> And Fair Use is supposed to apply only to uses that serve a public interest. The tenet has been abused just once, and note that no one has the guts to fight copyright owners aiming to have that decision revisited, because pirates know that if the courts get a second look at it they're going to realize the screw up they made in that one case and fix the precedent.


You're referring to Sony vs. Universal, the "Betamax case?" Actually, as a rationalist I have to agree that home recording does not seem to fit the legal definition of "fair use." If I were a Supreme Court judge, and fair use was the only argument (I'm not sure if it was or was not), I would have been forced to rule against Sony regardless of the way I may personally want things to be. However, I think that point is mostly moot now, since the Audio Home Recording Act explicitly made home recording of music legal, and the DMCA specifies circumstances under which cable companies cannot copy protect material, implying that recording such material is legal.



> Sorry, but you've fallen into the trap that pirates have crafted for you.


No, I just ALSO haven't fallen into the trap the content providers have crafted for me.



> See above. It has always been the case that a sale is based on a mutual agreement on terms and conditions. You cannot insist on buying thing the way you want them offered. You have to find someone willing to sell you what you want how you want it offered. Alternatively, you have to agree to terms and conditions as offered. That's the general case in the mass-market, when a seller is offering for sale to thousands or millions of customers.


The concrete example I gave is a case in which certain "mutual terms and conditions" CANNOT be imposed for legal reasons. The cable company is required by law to provide a box with a working IEEE-1394 interface; if the terms and conditions say otherwise, that aspect of them is legally unenforceable. However, the cable companies have violated this requirement for so long that the FCC has given up enforcing it except in a token way, and no one is bothering to make equipment anymore that relies on something the cable companies won't provide. As I said, I spoke to a number of people who couldn't believe that something like D-VHS could be legal. It's much like the situation with the pirates, but in reverse.


----------



## vurbano (Apr 20, 2004)

orangeboy said:


> Ok. We get it. You don't like Tom Rogers.


Its a good point. S3 is the bulk of Tivo's out there. If S3 owners have been screwed by cable compaines turning on copy protection and robbing the Tivo of a major function i.e, MRV, then what lunatic is going to plop down thousands of dollars in Premeires and lifetime service to outfit their houses? ONLY those to whom MRV isnt important. IMO, that is called shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Heck TiVo might even be able to get around this with MRV as is if they simply changed it to move the recording rather the copy it. They could lock the source recording until the copy completed so it couldn't be watched on more then one TiVo at a time and then they could do a full delete (i.e. not put it in recently deleted) when it was done. If it failed mid way then they could delete the partial recording on the destination TiVo and leave the original on the source TiVo.
> 
> It wouldn't even really require a UI change. They could simply make it so the "Watch on this TiVo" button changed to "Move to this TiVo" if the recording you selected was protected from being copied.
> 
> Dan


That is an interesting concept. Now if some enterprising developer creates a "virtual TiVo" that runs on a PC and announces it's presence on the LAN, TiVo ToGo may have a solution as well. Of course the MRV/TTG requirement for a subscription on the "virtual TiVo" would be quite a hurdle to overcome...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Heck TiVo might even be able to get around this with MRV as is if they simply changed it to move the recording rather the copy it. They could lock the source recording until the copy completed so it couldn't be watched on more then one TiVo at a time and then they could do a full delete (i.e. not put it in recently deleted) when it was done. If it failed mid way then they could delete the partial recording on the destination TiVo and leave the original on the source TiVo.
> 
> It wouldn't even really require a UI change. They could simply make it so the "Watch on this TiVo" button changed to "Move to this TiVo" if the recording you selected was protected from being copied.
> 
> Dan





innocentfreak said:


> I don't believe it will work that way. I know on Media Center you can move the file since this is how the WHS moves the files to the server in power pack 3, but I don't believe you can play it back on anything other than the original PC except for streaming like you could before you moved it. I don't have any copy once content I can test with though.


the Cablelabs rules SPECIFICALLY call out that such a solution is OK.

Tivo is just too frigging lazy to implement it. I dont know why- but maybe the Tom Rogers is a putz comments are on target?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

MichaelK said:


> the Cablelabs rules SPECIFICALLY call out that such a solution is OK.
> ...


http://www.cablelabs.com/opencable/udcp/downloads/DFAST_Tech_License.pdf

see section 3.5.2


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

vurbano said:


> ...If S3 owners have been screwed by cable compaines turning on copy protection and robbing the Tivo of a major function i.e, MRV, then what lunatic is going to plop down thousands of dollars in Premeires and lifetime service to outfit their houses?...


Seconded. Tivo will need to find an entirely new set of folks willing to buy their hardware, because those of us who are finding major feature sets disabled on their existing hardware are most likely not going to be repeat customers.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

DaveDFW said:


> Seconded. Tivo will need to find an entirely new set of folks willing to buy their hardware, because those of us who are finding major feature sets disabled on their existing hardware are most likely not going to be repeat customers.


No secret I guess. But I'm done until TiVo fixes MRV. I'll keep what I have at present, but no new hardware for me until it's fixed and if analog goes away entirely before then I'll be exploring alternatives.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

steve614 said:


> Okay, "pointless" may have been the wrong word to use there.


However, it would have been the only word to justify disparaging copyright owners trying to protect their property. As such, they're fully justified, both legally and rationally, doing so - which was my point.



steve614 said:


> But when the average joe can go on the internet and find information and tools for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, it is essentially 0% effective.


You've again used "the wrong word". It is not "essentially 0% effective". Come up with real information and stop trying to justify your disappointment by trying to make the practice sound different from what it does. It does discourage some casual piracy. And as such, you can't legitimately convert your personal disappointment about the fact that copyright owners seek to capitalize on that fact into legitimate criticism. They have the right, legally and morally, and it is a reasonable and responsible action that they're taking.



steve614 said:


> Is "futile" the right word?


No, Steve. The right word is, "I, Steve, don't like it."



steve614 said:


> As it stands now, the only people affected are the honest ones.


You've again used "the wrong word" - in this case, "only". Casual pirates are affected. Stop trying to deny the fact that this legitimizes the practice of copy protection. Stop trying to convert your personal dislike into something more than it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> Not to be argumentative, but what are the legitimate reasons for the cable company applying a non-x'00' CCI byte to content the copyright owner wants to freely share?


Distribution, itself, carries with it that right. It does. There is nothing you can do today to change that fact. We've quoted the law chapter-and-verse for you. If you want more, you're going to have to get yourself elected to Congress or something like that.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> No, quite the opposite - I'm trying to be more precise. It's important to consider WHY something is illegal so that you know when that reason does and does not apply.


Not unilaterally. That's unwarranted arrogance, not preciseness.

Taking something someone hasn't offered you isn't legal.



Brainiac 5 said:


> This is the heart of the matter. Intellectual property is intangible; the market in it is created artificially by granting copyrights and patents that you can own.


And as such, the products thereof are just like physical products and you should respect the rights of the copyright holders, as such. You and other folks in this thread don't. That's the problem.



Brainiac 5 said:


> However, except for computer programs most works are sold without such a contract, such as books, DVDs, CDs, etc.


Incorrect, though I'm surely you'll deny all the tenets of law that apply, because they refute your assertion. That's basically where this argument always goes: People who want to take what wasn't offered them insist that they have rights that they don't have, and insist that copyright owners don't have rights that they do have. Very predictable.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

bicker said:


> you're going to have to get yourself elected to Congress or something like that.


... elected, or appointed, to judgeships. There's where the crucible will emerge for all this, eventually, long after all of us are dead.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

bicker said:


> orangeboy said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be argumentative, but what are the legitimate reasons for the cable company applying a non-x'00' CCI byte to content the copyright owner wants to freely share?
> ...


Yes, I understand that it carries the right. What I want to know is _why_ it has that right? What's the distributer's stake in the game? I can't believe they went and petitioned for that right with "We want the right to stifle DVR competition".


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Because you're seeing only how it adversely affects you, rather than how it benefits them. There is no way to explain "why" to you, if you insist on seeing things only from a consumer's standpoint.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

bicker said:


> Because you're seeing only how it adversely affects you, rather than how it benefits them. There is no way to explain "why" to you, if you insist on seeing things only from a consumer's standpoint.


Actually it doesn't adversely effect me; I took my dog out of the fight when I went OTA only about a year ago, and I'm unhindered by CCI bytes. 

And the crux of my question is how it does benefit them, other than stifling competition of 3rd party DVR makers, which goes against the spirit of what the FCC wants.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

bicker said:


> Not unilaterally. That's unwarranted arrogance, not preciseness.


I'm not sure what this even means - how do you determine why something is illegal in a "unilateral" vs. (presumably) "bilateral" way? And aren't you getting a little over-excited with the "unwarranted arrogance" thing? 



> Taking something someone hasn't offered you isn't legal.


Well, that depends. I gave the example of selling used books - the publisher of the book never offered to let you do that, and would prefer that you didn't, but it's legal. The copyright owners have _limited_ rights.



> And as such, the products thereof are just like physical products and you should respect the rights of the copyright holders, as such.


That's just the thing, they're _not_ like physical products. In fact many of the rights you're arguing for are ones that you would not have over physical products (like control over how it's exhibited, or preventing people from making a copy of it, assuming doing so doesn't involve patented technologies). You should respect the rights of the copyright holders, but those right aren't exactly the same as for physical products.



> You and other folks in this thread don't. That's the problem.


You have a very low threshold for deciding who doesn't respect the rights of copyright holders - I believe I'm closer to your view than anyone else here.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> > However, except for computer programs most works are sold without such a contract, such as books, DVDs, CDs, etc.
> ...


I'd like to hear further explanation of why this is incorrect. When I buy a DVD, I do not sign any contract, nor is there even a "you agree to this contract by opening the shrink wrap"-type contract. The DVD is protected by copyright law, with the copyright owner having all the rights and limitations that apply from copyright law, no more and no less. If that's not correct, I'd be interested to hear more about why.



> That's basically where this argument always goes: People who want to take what wasn't offered them insist that they have rights that they don't have, and insist that copyright owners don't have rights that they do have. Very predictable.


Many people do that, I agree. However, in my case, the only right I said that copyright owners don't have is to decide what room of your house you consume their content in. I don't see why this is so controversial; you agreed that I can unplug my TiVo, take it to another room, and plug it in and watch it there. This doesn't imply that TiVo can MRV anything they want - current MRV is still limited by the fact that transferring copy protected content would be circumventing the copy protection and illegal. The sentiment I expressed about this is that it's a shame, because it's somewhat of a technicality; you could make a streaming solution that, to the user, is indistinguishable from MRV and it would be totally legal.


----------



## net114 (Dec 29, 2000)

Well as a photographer, writer, and now part owner in a company that makes Android apps, I can tell you that copy protection in general doesn't work for what it's intended. 

The Android market has a real problem with piracy. Some people blame this on the fact that as a customer service, Google allows app buyers to get a refund within 48 hours. Unfortunately, some of them backup the app before the refund, then restore it to their phone. 

But that's not the reason. The reasons for piracy have NOTHING to do with how well an app is protected or the method of its protection. It has everything to do with the person downloading and/or illegally installing the app. In other words, the "pirates" are going to steal it one way or the other. 

In our experience so far, when we have tried to implement copy protection, it only served to piss off our honest customers, and prevent them from making a legal backup of their paid app, so they could restore their phone in emergencies. 

Those who stole the app, they found a way around this, so it wasn't effecting them at all. 

So we have to rely on our app being low priced (.99), so its a low barrier to cross. (Why go through all that when it's just .99?) And we rely on most people wanting to do the right thing. They don't intend to "steal" our app and sell it somewhere, they just want to have a usable app that is reasonable to use and doesn't cause them a hassle. Heck, in a direct comparison, we wouldn't care if someone GAVE our app to a friend to try, and we hope that some percentage of those friends will come back and buy our app. This is why you have updates, and try to make your product always worth having. 

There's a new licensing system Google is implementing that we are going to try, and this would be great for Tivo I think. Basically, when the app is activated for the first time on a phone, it calls back to Google ONCE to say "yes, I'm a purchased app". If the person has switched phones, it won't matter, because it is linked to their Google checkout. 

If they share it with someone, it will come back as "No i wasn't purchased here", but we can adapt this to let that person use the app for a time and decide if they want it. (A kind of share ware). 

What if everyone on your MRV network has an approved code, and ANY file transferred would play because the code matches. These are the legitimate owners. Seems like a simple idea. Tivo is keeping the files "protected" within your MRV network, and users don't have to rerecord shows over and over again on multiple boxes. Studios can rest assured that the shows are only seen in your MRV. (Yes, someone will find a way around it, but maybe its a compromise way that doesn't have to LOCK DOWN what you rightfully recorded). 

Anyway, I know that system isn't perfect either, and if we get complaints we will shut it off. However, we have about a 30% steal rate on our app, which is way high if you knew the costs involved in making it vs. the profit of each download. We have to pay 30% to Google, and we have overhead expenses just like any company does. (Although we keep ours low). 

I would rather go with no copy protection at all, or even give our app away for free and ask for honest users donations, then to make the people who were loyal to us and paid, suffer. 

Long post, sorry its late.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

net114 said:


> What if everyone on your MRV network has an approved code, and ANY file transferred would play because the code matches. These are the legitimate owners. Seems like a simple idea. Tivo is keeping the files "protected" within your MRV network, and users don't have to rerecord shows over and over again on multiple boxes. Studios can rest assured that the shows are only seen in your MRV. (Yes, someone will find a way around it, but maybe its a compromise way that doesn't have to LOCK DOWN what you rightfully recorded).


TiVo has that now. Each TiVo/PC has to have the same Media Access Key to play a recorded show. Apparently that type of restriction didn't pass muster for Cable Labs or the CCI enforcement wouldn't have been an issue.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Stormspace said:


> TiVo has that now. Each TiVo/PC has to have the same Media Access Key to play a recorded show. Apparently that type of restriction didn't pass muster for Cable Labs or the CCI enforcement wouldn't have been an issue.


Its the ability to move a program to your computer that gives TiVo the problem (TiVo-To-Go) as there is almost no copy-protection when the file is on your computer.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

lessd said:


> Its the ability to move a program to your computer that gives TiVo the problem (TiVo-To-Go) as there is almost no copy-protection when the file is on your computer.


The copy protection is still on the files you transfer to the PC. Breaking that protection has been made trivial however, but it still prevents the "casual pirate" from copying shows. I know several people that don't bother decrypting their shows, they just want a copy on the PC to 1)Supplement space not available on the DVR, or 2)Take them on the road to watch elsewhere. Of all the people I know that have TiVos, most don't even use the option to copy the shows to a PC.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

lessd said:


> Its the ability to move a program to your computer that gives TiVo the problem (TiVo-To-Go) as there is almost no copy-protection when the file is on your computer.


Yes, I think the main problem is that the copy protection is not granular enough. There isn't a way to say that you can MRV it between the TiVos in your house, but not transfer it to a computer. TiVo just wasn't a scenario they had in mind in when the designed the copy protection flags.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, I think the main problem is that the copy protection is not granular enough. There isn't a way to say that you can MRV it between the TiVos in your house, but not transfer it to a computer. TiVo just wasn't a scenario they had in mind in when the designed the copy protection flags.


This has nothing to do with it though otherwise Windows 7 and Ceton would have never got Cable Labs certification. Also since whem you move content in Windows 7 you arent making a copy you can actually move copy once content, but only the original pc that made the recording can play it iirc.

They just need to make it so copy once either doesn't count the original recording or copy once content acts like copy freely content on Cable Labs certified devices.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

innocentfreak said:


> This has nothing to do with it though otherwise Windows 7 and Ceton would have never got Cable Labs certification.


I don't know if it has _nothing_ to do with it - what you say is true, but the copy protection for tuners like the Ceton in Windows 7 is much stronger than what TiVo uses. For one thing, they've taken steps to stop you from hooking your own DirectX filter into the chain of filters that decodes and displays the content, which is one of the ways to remove the protection from a .tivo file.



> They just need to make it so copy once either doesn't count the original recording or copy once content acts like copy freely content on Cable Labs certified devices.


I'd be all for not counting the original recording and only allowing copies within your MRV network. It would be a huge negotiation, though, to get explicit permission to do it that way.

I don't think they'd want to do the second suggestion, allowing copies between Cable Labs certified devices, because some such devices use removable media (such as D-VHS). That would seem to open up a lot of possibilities that they don't want. (In fact, that's what the copy once flag is for in the first place - you can record to D-VHS, but can't make copies of that tape.)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Yes, I think the main problem is that the copy protection is not granular enough. There isn't a way to say that you can MRV it between the TiVos in your house, but not transfer it to a computer. TiVo just wasn't a scenario they had in mind in when the designed the copy protection flags.


actually that was a choice by TiVo in order to keep original cable labs certification on track. 
So there never was an actual 'ruling' by Cable labs on whether MRV solely within a blackbox setup of multiple DVRs would have been ok.


----------



## vectorcatch (Nov 21, 2008)

ZeoTiVo said:


> So there never was an actual 'ruling' by Cable labs on whether MRV solely within a blackbox setup of multiple DVRs would have been ok.


This is interesting. I mean I understand during the initial certification needing to push the product through and not wanting hiccups as it is probably measured in months/years.

I would wonder if TiVo has gone back to CableLabs about getting a "ruling" on this now. This seems like something that is little risk with a high reward. Now I could see there being a financial impact if CableLabs wanted money to recertify, but getting that answer would be better than what we are experiencing now.

As can by seen by some rookie posters on these forums and other users I have talked to, they believe this is a TiVo limitation/problem. It seems TiVo is very apt to blame the Cable Companies and CableLabs, but the perception is that it is a TiVo problem. Instead of whining about it they need to deal with it and either get it certified or adjust their technology.

Successful companies are built by finding solutions to problems using today's circumstances, not tomorrow's regulations.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

If TiVo went to CableLabs to re-certify, I don't think they would be successful because, well, it's "Cable"Labs, not "Independent"Labs.

If that makes sense.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

steve614 said:


> If TiVo went to CableLabs to re-certify, I don't think they would be successful because, well, it's "Cable"Labs, not "Independent"Labs.
> 
> If that makes sense.


They might not have to recertify if they just get Cable Labs to change their rules like some of the other companies have had success with recently.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> actually that was a choice by TiVo in order to keep original cable labs certification on track.
> So there never was an actual 'ruling' by Cable labs on whether MRV solely within a blackbox setup of multiple DVRs would have been ok.


Didn't Tivo fall asleep at the switch there? This problem has existed for a long time now, and could be seen coming a mile away. Why didn't they apply for a new certification?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> Didn't Tivo fall asleep at the switch there? This problem has existed for a long time now, and could be seen coming a mile away. Why didn't they apply for a new certification?


actually TiVo has petitioned the FCC to reign cable labs back to the hardware certification that was their original charter from the FCC. If TiVo can get that done then they can move on MRV code again without having cable labs in the loop


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm on getting a 2nd Premiere until MRV is a reality for all content. I sold my 2nd PRemiere instead of opening it. SCrew that crap.

I don't see why streaming from PRemiere to Premiere isn't here though(other than Tivo only employing 1 software programmer working from home.)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

net114 said:


> But that's not the reason. The reasons for piracy have NOTHING to do with how well an app is protected or the method of its protection. It has everything to do with the person downloading and/or illegally installing the app. In other words, the "pirates" are going to steal it one way or the other.


While that is true to an extent, if something is easy enough to steal then even honest people will do it. The trick is striking the right balance between something that is complicated enough to deter honest people from stealing while not negatively impacting the experience of your paying customers.

I'm not exactly sure how Android apps work, but I have an idea that might help prevent people from stealing your app using the refund method you described.... When someone purchases your app you take store their email address and/or Android account name in a web database. Then when they launch the app for the first time ask them to enter information and store it locally. Now have the app periodically check in with the web database to see if that user is still valid and if not lock the app down. This way if a user requests a refund on the app you can simply remove their info from the DB and the next time the app checks in with the server it will lock itself down. If the customer pays for the app and doesn't ask for a refund then they'll never even notice the protection is there.

Dan


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> While that is true to an extent, if something is easy enough to steal then even honest people will do it. The trick is striking the right balance between something that is complicated enough to deter honest people from stealing while not negatively impacting the experience of your paying customers.


Its more about making it easier to get a legal copy in formats that people want rather than more complicated to steal. Reason being, getting illegal copies is stupid simple and the sophisticated pirates are not affected. Anyone that has a friend that can find it (or a teenager) is all the most computer illiterate needs. I think it is a fact unfortunately that pirate sites will always be around and in a sick way that is the competition, pirate sites giving it away. Its not right and its not legal, welcome to the real world. Yes go after the pirates every chance you get but realize its a never ending battle. The best they can do is minimize the losses by competing with free illegal, by having better features easy to find, easy to get at reasonable prices.

And what is a feature that we are talking about here, the ability to transcode this into whatever form we want. Having a customer pay a price for your content and being able to do that will mean you wont be able to get money fo rall versions, Bluray for home, DVD for the car player, mobile player (iPod) versions. Although you could still off each version separately for those that don't want to do it themselves. But it does give people a legal way to get what they want and companies still get money like it or not the competition is their content own but for free. legal downloads of music I think has shown that this model works.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Wasn't that the whole point of the "digital copy" initiative? Practically every BluRay these days comes with a digital copy that plays on an iPod/phone/pad or windows plays for sure device.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

morac said:


> Wasn't that the whole point of the "digital copy" initiative? Practically every BluRay these days comes with a digital copy that plays on an iPod/phone/pad or windows plays for sure device.


Thats a good point but it should be EVERY BluRay not PRACTICALLY every BluRay. Keeping it on topic for a TiVo forum, we should be able to do that with content we record on our TiVo's also. Any legally acquired content should be able to be used by the person who acquired it for their personal use on whatever device they choose.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

JWThiers said:


> Thats a good point but it should be EVERY BluRay not PRACTICALLY every BluRay. Keeping it on topic for a TiVo forum, we should be able to do that with content we record on our TiVo's also. Any legally acquired content should be able to be used by the person who acquired it for their personal use on whatever device they choose.


There's two issues with TiVo being able to do this:

1. Unlike "digital copy" files that come with BluRay which are pre-encoded to play back on portable devices, TiVo only has a MPEG-2 copy of the file to deal with. This means to generate a portable copy would require transcoding. TiVo Desktop can do this for unprotected content, but not for protected content since it can't reencrypt the file which leads me to...

2. There is no universal copy protection/encryption scheme. If there was things would be a lot easier as a protected file could be played anywhere. That's what killed copy protection for music files. I think it's only a matter of time before it does so for video files as well, but I don't see that happening for a long time.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The difference between music and video is that there are a lot more factors that go into video then there is that go into audio. With audio you can create a single file, say 256kbps AAC, and it will sound basically the same on an iPod or a high end home theater system. However with video what looks OK on the iPod's 3" screen may not look so great on the 50" flat screen in the living room. If they simply encoded everything to maximum so that it looks good everywhere then smaller devices would waste space and electricity storing and decoding the files that are much higher quality then what they require. This forces the content providers to create multiple versions of everything, and in their minds if they have to create multiple versions then you should have to pay for multiple versions. Not to mention the bandwidth required to download large HD files is considerable and can be very expensive. Music files are what a few MB each? I think comparing the video industry has a lot more hurtles to overcome then the music industry and it will be a long time before they simply throw in the towel and go to a single DRM free version that can be used on whatever device you want.

Dan


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I remember a time not all that long ago when music files were so large that .MOD files were preferred because of their relatively small size. Better compression and broadband made these obsolete.

I don't see video files as being any different. Like I said it will take a while, but it will happen.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

morac said:


> There's two issues with TiVo being able to do this:
> 
> 1. Unlike "digital copy" files that come with BluRay which are pre-encoded to play back on portable devices, TiVo only has a MPEG-2 copy of the file to deal with. This means to generate a portable copy would require transcoding. TiVo Desktop can do this for unprotected content, but not for protected content since it can't reencrypt the file which leads me to...
> 
> 2. There is no universal copy protection/encryption scheme. If there was things would be a lot easier as a protected file could be played anywhere. That's what killed copy protection for music files. I think it's only a matter of time before it does so for video files as well, but I don't see that happening for a long time.


These are reasons why copy protection rules need to be reworked. The copy protection that BluRay uses is is cracked easy enough with available software so it is more of an annoyance to people that are really looking to archive their personally owned BluRay Discs. That takes care of getting content onto a server that Tivo can use. More onerous is the CCI byte preventing getting content off your tivo or MRV'ing. IMO the CCI byte is being abused by the cable companies. The FCC gave specific requirements for copy never (CCI0x03) as PPV type channels Content is only briefly on the DVR. But then very vague requirements for 01 and 02 basically saying at a minimum OTA content must be 01 and premium content as 02 but really left it vague as to what specific requirements should be. Thought being IMO a larger portion of content than we have now would be 01. IMO the copy once should only be used for premium movie channels HBO/Max etc. premium sports channels (NFL etc.), but most content being 01.



Dan203 said:


> The difference between music and video is that there are a lot more factors that go into video then there is that go into audio. With audio you can create a single file, say 256kbps AAC, and it will sound basically the same on an iPod or a high end home theater system. However with video what looks OK on the iPod's 3" screen may not look so great on the 50" flat screen in the living room. If they simply encoded everything to maximum so that it looks good everywhere then smaller devices would waste space and electricity storing and decoding the files that are much higher quality then what they require. This forces the content providers to create multiple versions of everything, and in their minds if they have to create multiple versions then you should have to pay for multiple versions. Not to mention the bandwidth required to download large HD files is considerable and can be very expensive. Music files are what a few MB each? I think comparing the video industry has a lot more hurtles to overcome then the music industry and it will be a long time before they simply throw in the towel and go to a single DRM free version that can be used on whatever device you want.
> 
> Dan


Ideally, one would have the HD source and transode it down for smaller devices.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> Actually it doesn't adversely effect me; I took my dog out of the fight when I went OTA only about a year ago, and I'm unhindered by CCI bytes.


I don't buy that line of reasoning. You're still projecting a consumerist bias to your appraisals of the situation, rather than presenting a balanced view.



orangeboy said:


> And the crux of my question is how it does benefit them, other than stifling competition of 3rd party DVR makers, which goes against the spirit of what the FCC wants.


However, every time this has been discussed, folks taking your side of the issue refused to grant the validity of any possible benefits to the copyright owners that have been presented. Why should anyone believe that inquiries along those lines are sincere, and that answers will be accepted? It seems just like a cynical means of trying to find yet-another thing to complain about, without adding anything constructive to the discussion.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm not sure what this even means - how do you determine why something is illegal in a "unilateral" vs. (presumably) "bilateral" way?


Fairness dictates integration of many perspectives, rather than just one (unilateral). As I pointed out to orangeboy, above, all the chest-thumping about this stem from unilateral, consumerist bias. There is little to no consideration and respect for the fact that perspectives, other than consumerist focus, has as much weight.



Brainiac 5 said:


> And aren't you getting a little over-excited with the "unwarranted arrogance" thing?


Sometimes it seems like people are simply not seeing any point other than the ones that they themselves put forward. I repeatedly grant the validity of the consumerist bias as one of many perspectives - it seems that consumerists don't acknowledge the validity of opposing perspectives, without it being presented most forcefully, and even then, very infrequently.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Well, that depends.


No it doesn't depend. If you buy X, then you get X. You don't get to take X + Y. You just don't. Buying X and taking X + Y is indefensible.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I gave the example of selling used books - the publisher of the book never offered to let you do that, and would prefer that you didn't, but it's legal.


You're overlooking the First Sale Doctrine.



Brainiac 5 said:


> The copyright owners have _limited_ rights.


But it includes the right to protect their work from being copied in this manner, in this context. The First Sale Doctrine could apply, but it only would allow you to take the original item you purchased and sell it to someone else. You can't keep a copy yourself. You can't sell them a copy. And none of this allows you to take what they sold you in a format other than the one they sold you license to. It just doesn't. I know you want it to. But they don't want it to. And our society's decision, so far, is that in that dispute, they win.

And they should win because otherwise you can kiss high-quality video entertainment goodbye, afaic.



Brainiac 5 said:


> That's just the thing, they're _not_ like physical products.


Get over it. In this way, they are "just like", you should repsect their right "just like" and you should regard your purchase "just like". Again, I know you wish it were different. And again, your perspective doesn't prevail over theirs in this regard.

And note that if, some day, it did, then they should start charging you a lot more, because you'd be getting so much more. That could kill the business model completely. I don't just mean kill the existing model, but actually preclude any business model that would foster high-quality video entertainment. Get used to the webisodes you can find on YouTube because that's all your wet-dream may support.



Brainiac 5 said:


> In fact many of the rights you're arguing for


Which are rights that they currently have.



Brainiac 5 said:


> are ones that you would not have over physical products (like control over how it's exhibited, or preventing people from making a copy of it, assuming doing so doesn't involve patented technologies). You should respect the rights of the copyright holders, but those right aren't exactly the same as for physical products.


But these rights are among those that are the same. Again, even though you don't want them to be.



Brainiac 5 said:


> You have a very low threshold for deciding who doesn't respect the rights of copyright holders - I believe I'm closer to your view than anyone else here.


Then present both sides of the argument, at least, to demonstrate that.



Brainiac 5 said:


> I'd like to hear further explanation of why this is incorrect.


This has been rehashed in these forums so many times, I have no inclination whatseover to Google the old threads and copy-and-paste what I've written in the past. You'll say blue; I'll say red. I will contend you're wrong; you'll contend I'm wrong. And it will get nowhere.



Brainiac 5 said:


> Many people do that, I agree. However, in my case, the only right I said that copyright owners don't have is to decide what room of your house you consume their content in.


Where in the copyright law does it say that? I think this is the core of your problem: You think that the copyright law says what rights the copyright owner has. That's not the case. The copyright law outlines the limitations on the rights the copyright owner has - it says what the copyright owner cannot assert.

As it is, what "room of the house" isn't the issue, right now. It is you trying to break the protection that they put in place, because you want to move the content to a different room. You're not allowed, and shouldn't be allowed, to break the protection. You don't have a right to move the content to another room. At best, even if you were right about most of what you've said, you have the right to move it but only if you didn't have to break copy protection. The fact that you'd have to break copy protection to move it means you don't have the right - that the copyright privilege is NOT limited in the way you want it to be.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

bicker said:


> orangeboy said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it doesn't adversely effect me; I took my dog out of the fight when I went OTA only about a year ago, and I'm unhindered by CCI bytes.
> ...


I didn't think I was projecting any bias one way or another. I merely asked a question so I can understand the purpose of a distributor's actions. Actually, wouldn't dropping cable television in favor of OTA be more _anti_-consumerist than not? Is cable television productive? As a way to live within my means, I thought it best to spend my money in other ways.



bicker said:


> orangeboy said:
> 
> 
> > And the crux of my question is how it does benefit them, other than stifling competition of 3rd party DVR makers, which goes against the spirit of what the FCC wants.
> ...


My question isn't about the copyright/content owners. Absolutely they should have the content protected as they see fit. It's about the distributors that seem to have the same rights, if not more, since they can apply protection without regard to the owners wishes.



bicker said:


> Fairness dictates integration of many perspectives, rather than just one (unilateral). As I pointed out to orangeboy, above, all the chest-thumping about this stem from unilateral, consumerist bias. There is little to no consideration and respect for the fact that perspectives, other than consumerist focus, has as much weight.
> 
> Sometimes it seems like people are simply not seeing any point other than the ones that they themselves put forward. I repeatedly grant the validity of the consumerist bias as one of many perspectives - it seems that consumerists don't acknowledge the validity of opposing perspectives, without it being presented most forcefully, and even then, very infrequently.


Again, no chest thumping here. Yes, I'm a consumer. But I'm also a shareholder, wanting businesses to succeed (be it TiVo, TWC, IBM, whomever). There's been a lot of discussion on this, but I have not yet heard an answer to my question, other than the speculation that I put forth myself regarding shutting out 3rd party vendors. If that is the only reason, then so be it.

But I'll ask again: How does the distributor benefit from applying the copy protection byte without regard to how the owner wants their content protected?

A balanced discussion might be had if at least one opposing perspective is ever brought to the table.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

orangeboy said:


> But I'll ask again: How does the distributor benefit from applying the copy protection byte without regard to how the owner wants their content protected?


It disables MRV on the Tivo. If the customer wants MRV they must go with the cable company DVR.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

bicker said:


> Fairness dictates integration of many perspectives, rather than just one (unilateral). As I pointed out to orangeboy, above, all the chest-thumping about this stem from unilateral, consumerist bias. There is little to no consideration and respect for the fact that perspectives, other than consumerist focus, has as much weight.


I agree that "Fairness dictates integration of many perspectives, rather than just one (unilateral)." That should include the anti-consumer point of view you have and the consumer view I have.



bicker said:


> No it doesn't depend. If you buy X, then you get X. You don't get to take X + Y. You just don't. Buying X and taking X + Y is indefensible.
> 
> You're overlooking the First Sale Doctrine.
> 
> But it includes the right to protect their work from being copied in this manner, in this context. The First Sale Doctrine could apply, but it only would allow you to take the original item you purchased and sell it to someone else. You can't keep a copy yourself. You can't sell them a copy. And none of this allows you to take what they sold you in a format other than the one they sold you license to. It just doesn't. I know you want it to. But they don't want it to. And our society's decision, so far, is that in that dispute, they win.


He didn't overlook first sale doctrine he explicitly said sale of a used book. He gave an example of first sale in action. First sale had already occurred and he made no mention of making a copy of a book for him to keep.

And actually Copyright laws don't prevent you from transcoding to another format. If it did we couldn't rip CD to MP3 legally. The DMCA (part of copyright law) prevents you from breaking copy protection. But even the DMCA does not prohibit transcoding.



bicker said:


> Get over it. In this way, they are "just like", you should repsect their right "just like" and you should regard your purchase "just like". Again, I know you wish it were different. And again, your perspective doesn't prevail over theirs in this regard.
> 
> And note that if, some day, it did, then they should start charging you a lot more, because you'd be getting so much more. That could kill the business model completely. I don't just mean kill the existing model, but actually preclude any business model that would foster high-quality video entertainment. Get used to the webisodes you can find on YouTube because that's all your wet-dream may support.


It will kill the business just like mp3's killed the music industry. Oh wait the industry didn't die, they adapted to changing technologies and found a way to make money and still take their customers wants into consideration. Funny how that works, pleasing your customers.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> It disables MRV on the Tivo. If the customer wants MRV they must go with the cable company DVR.


But it doesn't disable MRV on the Moxi. And many cable providers don't have an MRV solution like DirecTV or FIOS does. If someone is really interested in MRV, you'd think a cable company would recommend a Tivo or Moxi vs. losing the customer entirely.

Cable companies view Tivo as a pain to support, but not as an enemy. They're not doing things to intentionally cripple third-party boxes. They just don't care if something they do negatively affects them.

I honestly don't think TWC knew ahead of time that CCI bytes would cause problems with Tivos. And I don't think they care today. All TWC will tell you is that it's a flaw only with Tivos, and to go use their DVR or go get a Moxi instead.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

BobCamp1 said:


> ...Cable companies view Tivo as a pain to support, but not as an enemy. They're not doing things to intentionally cripple third-party boxes. They just don't care if something they do negatively affects them...


Then why do it at all? I've been asking all along how it benefits the distributor. Since there doesn't seem to be consistency amongst the distributors (according to this poll), the benefit (if it exists) hasn't been realized by those not copy protecting the content.

Can someone/anyone fill in this blank?:
The distributor has the right to copy protect content _*regardless of the content owner's wishes*_ because _________.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

orangeboy said:


> ........Can someone/anyone fill in this blank?:
> The distributor has the right to copy protect content _*regardless of the content owner's wishes*_ because _________.


I'm not aware there are any, or at least a non-trivial number of, cases in which cable distributors are copy protecting regardless of the content owner's wishes.

Rather, the legal position has been outlined in responses sent out by TWC, e.g., in **this post**, as follows:


> Time Warner Cable, like other distributors of multichannel video programming, negotiates the distribution rights for the content it carries independently with individual rights holders. These bilateral commercial negotiations take into consideration many different factors, including the content protection and digital rights management requirements of the rights holder; applicable law, license and regulations; and the interests of subscribers. Each of these commercial negotiations, and the terms of the agreements that result, are unique to the specific distributor and programmer involved. Accordingly, Time Warner Cable cannot comment on the rights and obligations of other distributors under their separately negotiated agreements. With respect to Time Warner Cables content protection settings, however, they are established in accordance with applicable law and its own agreements with programmers.


In other words they're saying what they do doesn't violate any laws, and doesn't violate their agreements with copyright holders. I believe the consensus among legal beagles on this forum (e.g., bicker) is that they are within the law. Since we don't have access to their agreements with programmers we can't determine if they are violating them, or what the terms are, etc.


----------



## DaveDFW (Jan 25, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> Can someone/anyone fill in this blank?:
> The distributor has the right to copy protect content _*regardless of the content owner's wishes*_ because _________.


"those actions are permitted by 47 C.F.R. 76.1904(b)(1)(ii)."

Maybe the question should be, "Why does the FCC permit content providers to set copyright restrictions on material these providers do not own?"

Was it anti-consumer sentiment? Effective lobbying by the cable industry? Maybe it was just a simple oversight? The problem for us is that the providers generally aren't doing anything that isn't allowed. If the rule is unfair, the rule needs to be changed.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

DaveDFW said:


> "those actions are permitted by 47 C.F.R. 76.1904(b)(1)(ii)."
> 
> Maybe the question should be, "Why does the FCC permit content providers to set copyright restrictions on material these providers do not own?"
> 
> Was it anti-consumer sentiment? Effective lobbying by the cable industry? Maybe it was just a simple oversight? The problem for us is that the providers generally aren't doing anything that isn't allowed. If the rule is unfair, the rule needs to be changed.


I think that puts it in the right perspective.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

BobCamp1 said:


> But it doesn't disable MRV on the Moxi. And many cable providers don't have an MRV solution like DirecTV or FIOS does. If someone is really interested in MRV, you'd think a cable company would recommend a Tivo or Moxi vs. losing the customer entirely.


Moxi went out of business. There aren't that many Moxi units out there. Also doesn't affect a Win 7 HTPC, but not alot of those either.

If the cable company DVR doesn't offer MRV, then enabling the CCI byte creates a more level playing field for the cable company to compete with Tivo. If the cable company DVR does support MRV, then that gives them a competitive advantage over Tivo.

The cable company would have to weigh the number of customers they lose by disabling MRV versus the number of DVR customers they gain. I suspect they gain more DVR customers than they lose.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Just answer the question Bicker
How does copy protection that the content owner has not asked for benefit the cable company?

and I will add
and how should that be balanced against the legitimate wishes of consumers to be able to watch that show on another DVR in their house?


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> I'm not aware there are any, or at least a non-trivial number of, cases in which cable distributors are copy protecting regardless of the content owner's wishes.
> 
> Rather, the legal position has been outlined in responses sent out by TWC, e.g., in **this post**, as follows:
> 
> In other words they're saying what they do doesn't violate any laws, and doesn't violate their agreements with copyright holders. I believe the consensus among legal beagles on this forum (e.g., bicker) is that they are within the law. Since we don't have access to their agreements with programmers we can't determine if they are violating them, or what the terms are, etc.


I am in agreement that laws are NOT being violated, I am arguing that a loophole is being exploited allowing the cable companies to be more restrictive than they need to be. And so the law needs to be clarified to allow for the legitimate concerns of the content owners (stopping piracy) and also allow consumers to do things like move content around our personal home networks and allow consumers to view the content on any devices they own with content that they have legally obtained (either by recording or purchase).

Also about consumers not knowing what the agreements between content owners and the cable companies say, it has been widely acknowledged that Mark Cuban and HDNet wanted his content from his station to be set to copy freely. What hasn't been widely acknowledged why HDNet isn't on many cable companies anymore The rumor was one of the reasons was the CCI byte.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

DaveDFW said:


> "those actions are permitted by 47 C.F.R. 76.1904(b)(1)(ii)."
> 
> Maybe the question should be, "Why does the FCC permit content providers to set copyright restrictions on material these providers do not own?"
> 
> Was it anti-consumer sentiment? Effective lobbying by the cable industry? Maybe it was just a simple oversight? The problem for us is that the providers generally aren't doing anything that isn't allowed. If the rule is unfair, the rule needs to be changed.





dlfl said:


> I think that puts it in the right perspective.


And (hypothetically) there may be some obscure law that permits me to put a dress on a donkey. While it may be legal to put a dress on a donkey, it doesn't explain the benefit of doing so.

I'm not questioning the legality of the distributors applying copy protection or not; I was hoping for an answer other than "because they can".


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

orangeboy said:


> I'm not questioning the legality of the distributors applying copy protection or not; I was hoping for an answer other than "because they can".


Because they are lazy. It's a lot easier to simply set and forget the CCI bit for a channel rather than remember to turn it on and off. It would be better if the content providers could set a flag in their video that the distributor could key off of. Maybe such a thing exists and the distributors don't want to upgrade their system to use it. Dunno.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> Because they are lazy. It's a lot easier to simply set and forget the CCI bit for a channel rather than remember to turn it on and off. It would be better if the content providers could set a flag in their video that the distributor could key off of. Maybe such a thing exists and the distributors don't want to upgrade their system to use it. Dunno.


the content owners can set the CCI byte in the content as they make it, some do and content providers even override it with their setting


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

orangeboy said:


> And (hypothetically) there may be some obscure law that permits me to put a dress on a donkey. While it may be legal to put a dress on a donkey, it doesn't explain the benefit of doing so.
> 
> I'm not questioning the legality of the distributors applying copy protection or not; I was hoping for an answer other than "because they can".


+1 :up:


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

JWThiers said:


> I am in agreement that laws are NOT being violated, I am arguing that a loophole is being exploited allowing the cable companies to be more restrictive than they need to be. And so the law needs to be clarified to allow for the legitimate concerns of the content owners (stopping piracy) and also allow consumers to do things like move content around our personal home networks and allow consumers to view the content on any devices they own with content that they have legally obtained (either by recording or purchase).
> ...


Just a clarification. The specific "permission" in this instance is from the CFR- Code of Federal Regulations.

Basically a Law was passed by congress allowing the regulatory agency (in this instance the FCC) to create the regulation that cable is following.

To get this changed the FCC just has to change their rule.

Just like getting a law passed there's politics involved but it's different to fiddle with a regulation then to pass a law. It's like the Obama administration has threatened if congress doesn't pass a climate change bill regulating CO2 that they EPA (a regulatory agency like the FCC) will make their own rules and go around congress to do it.

You see how fast the EPA or OSHA or other agencies change stuff once a new president gets elected (either by the guy about to leave office making new rules on the way out the door or the new guy on the way in throwing all those old rules out)- so the FCC could quickly make change the few sentences required to "end the loophole" but they dont. So I guess they figure not enough people are hosed or its just not worth the effort. (You'd be hard pressed to get me to believe that this current FCC is in cables pocket)


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> Because they are lazy. It's a lot easier to simply set and forget the CCI bit for a channel rather than remember to turn it on and off. It would be better if the content providers could set a flag in their video that the distributor could key off of. Maybe such a thing exists and the distributors don't want to upgrade their system to use it. Dunno.





ZeoTiVo said:


> the content owners can set the CCI byte in the content as they make it, some do and content providers even override it with their setting


Way back when the S3's came along there was a headend engineer from texas who worked on moto gear and he explained that although the earliest hardware/software for the whole cablecard/CCI system was cobbled together and used 'tricks' and the like to get legacy stuff to get cablecards to work.

But right around the time the S3 came along he explained that all new hardware and current firmware at the time respected any CCI bytes injected upstream of the headend. What's more he said the headend software made it impossible to change the the flags to a less restrictive downstream byte. So the cableco can make things more restrictive but not less.

Now he could have been completely full of crap but if I was Moto Or SciAtl I would write my code exactly that way so as not to get sued. So there's just not reason that the content owner or the channel's uplink to the distribution system doesn't just set the flags and then NO ONE down stream every needs to touch it.

In fact if I owned the content I wouldn't want to have to relay on 10,000 different head end switches to have their bits set correctly to protect my content.

And if I was a lawyer who worked for comcast or TWC or whomever I wouldn't want to take on the responsibility of protecting someone elses content if they had the techology to just handle it themselves without me having to get involved and become liable for my employees mistakes. I'd tell HBO or paramount or whoever that if they want their stuff protected they should just add the flag that i wasnt going to take responsibility for that. (TWC's lawyer apparently did the next best thing and said- OK just lock it all- lock every last thing down- that way mistakes are minimized)

It makes no sense for the middlemen to be involved- on so many different levels.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

(About "taking something that wasn't offered to you" not being legal: )


bicker said:


> No it doesn't depend. If you buy X, then you get X. You don't get to take X + Y. You just don't. Buying X and taking X + Y is indefensible.


If Y is something that the seller does not have the right to withhold or sell separately from X, then yes, it is. In such a case there's no such thing as selling just X; it's X + Y or nothing.



> You're overlooking the First Sale Doctrine.


Um, no - I'm _pointing out_ the existence of the First Sale Doctrine.



> But it includes the right to protect their work from being copied in this manner, in this context.


I'm not sure what "this manner" and "this context" you're referring to, but from the later parts I'm assuming you're talking about copying to a different medium? In that case, no it doesn't (at least not always). For audio recording, for example, copying to another medium is specifically allowed by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.



> And none of this allows you to take what they sold you in a format other than the one they sold you license to. It just doesn't. I know you want it to. But they don't want it to. And our society's decision, so far, is that in that dispute, they win.


Of course the First Sale Doctrine doesn't allow you to do that - it was an example of something the copyright holders would like to prohibit but can't; it has nothing whatsoever to do with copying.

Now, on copying to a different format: "society's decision, so far, is that in that dispute, they win?" I'm not sure what you're talking about. Recording from TV onto tape or hard drive is copying from one format to another, yet it's been found to be legal. Recording from vinyl or CD onto tape or into an MP3 file is copying from one format to another, but that in and of itself hasn't been found to be illegal. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 explicitly makes it legal to copy even from a format that has copy protection built in to another format, if the copy protection is respected.



> And they should win because otherwise you can kiss high-quality video entertainment goodbye, afaic.


Whether they _should_ win is a whole other issue I'd rather not weigh in on here, because I'm not sure what side I'd be on. In the case of high-quality video, the fact is that a lot of it is protected by having copy protection, so you can't copy it and what format you'd theoretically copy it to doesn't matter. On the other hand, over-the-air broadcasts can be recorded onto any medium you want, and that hasn't destroyed high-quality video entertainment yet.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> > That's just the thing, they're not like physical products. In fact many of the rights you're arguing for are ones that you would not have over physical products (like control over how it's exhibited, or preventing people from making a copy of it, assuming doing so doesn't involve patented technologies). You should respect the rights of the copyright holders, but those right aren't exactly the same as for physical products.
> ...


In what way do you mean they are "just like" physical objects? I'm sure there are some ways in which they are like physical objects, but I'm not sure what you're referring to here specifically.



> And note that if, some day, it did, then they should start charging you a lot more, because you'd be getting so much more. That could kill the business model completely. I don't just mean kill the existing model, but actually preclude any business model that would foster high-quality video entertainment.


If you're referring to being able to copy to a different format, the fact that you can do that hasn't killed the industry yet. Besides, you can use copy protection to prevent such copying; there's no need to make illegal the specific act of copying from one format to another.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> > are ones that you would not have over physical products (like control over how it's exhibited, or preventing people from making a copy of it, assuming doing so doesn't involve patented technologies). You should respect the rights of the copyright holders, but those right aren't exactly the same as for physical products.
> ...


No they aren't - did you read what you're replying to? If I sell you a physical object, I don't have any control over how or whether you exhibit it to the public. If I sell you a cardboard box, you're perfectly free to cut out pieces of cardboard and make a copy of it. These are rights given by patent or copyright that you don't have over physical objects. As you say, get over it - they simply aren't the same, no matter how many times you say they are.

(About a customer not agreeing to any contract that sets out its own terms beyond copyright law when buying, for instance, a DVD: )


> This has been rehashed in these forums so many times, I have no inclination whatseover to Google the old threads and copy-and-paste what I've written in the past.


I'm sure I've read a lot of those threads, and I don't remember any explanation of how one mysteriously agrees to a contract that they never see when buying things like books or DVDs. I know you've asserted it before, but to my knowledge you've never backed it up with any evidence. I could be wrong, and perhaps a sentence or two could correct me, but that's what I recall.



> You'll say blue; I'll say red. I will contend you're wrong; you'll contend I'm wrong. And it will get nowhere.


If I were irrational that would be the case, but I assure you I'm not, so try me. I'm genuinely curious about where the notion of this contract/agreement comes from.



> Brainiac 5 said:
> 
> 
> > However, in my case, the only right I said that copyright owners don't have is to decide what room of your house you consume their content in.
> ...


It doesn't have to say that in copyright law; it's something that's outside the scope of copyright law. Copyright law is mainly about copying; it doesn't have anything to say about how or where you consume a work unless you're exhibiting it to the public.



> I think this is the core of your problem: You think that the copyright law says what rights the copyright owner has. That's not the case. The copyright law outlines the limitations on the rights the copyright owner has - it says what the copyright owner cannot assert.


Not really - read the law. It first explicitly lists what rights a copyright grants, and then lists the limitations on those rights. The main rights are given in section 106:



> (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
> 
> (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
> 
> ...


Note the absence of the right to determine what room you perceive a work in, to determine whether someone can eat strawberry jam while perceiving a work, and to determine whether someone can perceive your work while standing on their head.



> As it is, what "room of the house" isn't the issue, right now. It is you trying to break the protection that they put in place, because you want to move the content to a different room. You're not allowed, and shouldn't be allowed, to break the protection.


Yes, if you're talking to me then what "room of the house" _is_ the issue. I've stated many times that breaking the copy protection in order to watch something in another room is plainly illegal. What I'm responding to is your assertion that a copyright owner has a direct right to determine what room you watch in, which they don't. You seem to misunderstand that statement to mean that their lack of such right somehow overrides their right to enforce copy protection, which is in no way what I am saying.



> You don't have a right to move the content to another room. At best, even if you were right about most of what you've said, you have the right to move it but only if you didn't have to break copy protection.


Yes, therefore, as I've said, it's perfectly legal for content that is not copy protected.



> The fact that you'd have to break copy protection to move it means you don't have the right - that the copyright privilege is NOT limited in the way you want it to be.


This is the misunderstanding that I mentioned above. I'm not saying that you have some right to move the content that overrides the rights that the copyright holder has. I'm also not talking about a limitation of copyright - I'm talking about a right that isn't granted by copyright: to determine what room you watch something in. I can pick up my TiVo and move it to another room and watch it there - no one is going to sue or prosecute me for that. Therefore moving the content from one room to another is not illegal. I _cannot_ make a copy and watch that in another room if it is copy protected - it's the breaking of copy protection that's illegal, not the watching in another room.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Not really - read the law. It first explicitly lists what rights a copyright grants, and then lists the limitations on those rights. The main rights are given in section 106:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you are a bit confused as to why MRV is not permitted by copyright law. It has nothing to do with what room you are in and everything to do with #1 in section 106 that you quoted above.

TiVo's implementation of MRV makes a duplicate copy which is prohibited under copyright laws. That's why picking up the TiVo and moving it to another room is okay, but using MRV is not okay. That's also why something like "Whole House On Demand" or Moxy Mate is okay because no copies are made in either case.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

I can just imagine the Time Warner execs laughing their donkeys off, saying: "It drives those TiVo nuts crazy that we won't tell them why we copy protect." That is if you could believe they would bother to read this forum. 

BTW there may be a new TV series coming out called "Dress My Donkey", which amazingly will be the first TV show in history to have no apparent purpose or value.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

morac said:


> I think you are a bit confused as to why MRV is not permitted by copyright law. It has nothing to do with what room you are in and everything to do with #1 in section 106 that you quoted above.


Actually I'm not confused - you're exactly right and that's exactly what I was saying. Bicker seems to think that there is some right of the copyright holder to determine what room you watch their content in; my argument is that there isn't, and the fact that they can stop you from watching in another room for a completely different reason doesn't mean that there is.


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

morac said:


> I think you are a bit confused as to why MRV is not permitted by copyright law. It has nothing to do with what room you are in and everything to do with #1 in section 106 that you quoted above.
> 
> TiVo's implementation of MRV makes a duplicate copy which is prohibited under copyright laws. That's why picking up the TiVo and moving it to another room is okay, but using MRV is not okay. That's also why something like "Whole House On Demand" or Moxy Mate is okay because no copies are made in either case.


PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH ON COPYRIGHT LAW! In order to violate copyright law, you must share copyrighted materials w/ others outside your household in ways that do not fall under the "fair use" exemption.

Any content on your TiVo belongs to you. Does not matter where it came from, if it was obtained legally, it's yours. And you can do whatever you wish with it. Except violate what is stated above.

The restriction of MRV for some content has nothing to do w/ copyright law. Neither does the CCI flag. It's about content control. Basically, because the amount of money invested by the large media corporations into generating content. Hence they have an interest in how it's used and shown. But they try to enforce a zero-tolerance policy which is impossible to actually sustain.

Remember that loony preacher in Florida? The one threatening to burn a specific holy book of a religion he new nothing about? An act if followed thru would have potentially have lead to the deaths of countless American's oversea's?

Yeah he could have photocopied it also...

The idea that MRV is actually restricted by law is ludicrous. The problem is expensive litigation. Which TiVo does not want.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

MeStinkBAD said:


> The idea that MRV is actually restricted by law is ludicrous. The problem is expensive litigation. Which TiVo does not want.


That's not actually true. FCC regulations allow cable broadcasts to be flagged with copy controls, and device manufacturers are required by law to respect those controls. So if the CCI flags are set to copy once (as many companies' are), then a device cannot legally make a second-generation copy.

There is _some_ room for interpretation, as evidenced by the fact that Motorola DVRs don't count the DVR copy as the "one copy," but TiVo is understandably more reluctant to enter a grey area than the cable companies are.


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

dlfl said:


> I can just imagine the Time Warner execs laughing their donkeys off, saying: "It drives those TiVo nuts crazy that we won't tell them why we copy protect." That is if you could believe they would bother to read this forum.
> 
> BTW there may be a new TV series coming out called "Dress My Donkey", which amazingly will be the first TV show in history to have no apparent purpose or value.


LOL best post I've read in a long time...


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> That's not actually true. FCC regulations allow cable broadcasts to be flagged with copy controls, and device manufacturers are required by law to respect those controls. So if the CCI flags are set to copy once (as many companies' are), then a device cannot legally make a second-generation copy.


Yes, but no one regulated by the FCC (i.e. OTA) for television broadcasts actually bothers with the CCI flag because the government owns that particular spectrum, and will not allow any content to be restricted with the CCI flag.

FCC does not regulate this aspect of the cable industry though.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

MeStinkBAD said:


> Yes, but no one regulated by the FCC (i.e. OTA) for television broadcasts actually bothers with the CCI flag because the government owns that particular spectrum, and will not allow any content to be restricted with the CCI flag.


You have it a bit backwards. The CCI flags are only for cable; for over the air, there was going to be the "broadcast flag." However, the courts ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose such rules on over the air reception equipment.



> FCC does not regulate this aspect of the cable industry though.


The FCC _does_ regulate that aspect of the cable industry, and it was given explicit authority to do so by law.


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> You have it a bit backwards. The CCI flags are only for cable; for over the air, there was going to be the "broadcast flag." However, the courts ruled that the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose such rules on over the air reception equipment.
> 
> The FCC _does_ regulate that aspect of the cable industry, and it was given explicit authority to do so by law.


Brainiac, forget the FCC. It's not important and I regret my prior statement. You already stated that Motorolla's DVR's don't treat the CCI flag the same way TiVo does. This is enough.

I assume you agree this isn't about copyright. But how the CCI flag is interpreted. Am I correct?


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

morac said:


> I think you are a bit confused as to why MRV is not permitted by copyright law. It has nothing to do with what room you are in and everything to do with #1 in section 106 that you quoted above.
> 
> TiVo's implementation of MRV makes a duplicate copy which is prohibited under copyright laws. That's why picking up the TiVo and moving it to another room is okay, but using MRV is not okay. That's also why something like "Whole House On Demand" or Moxy Mate is okay because no copies are made in either case.


TiVo still allows you to copy CCI flagged content using the "Save to VCR" option.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

MeStinkBAD said:


> I assume you agree this isn't about copyright. But how the CCI flag is interpreted. Am I correct?


Yes, I agree that it isn't about copyright per se but about the requirement to enforce copy protection. And yes, if TiVo could treat the CCI flags the way the cable companies' own DVRs do, then they could do MRV.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Brainiac 5 said:


> but TiVo is understandably more reluctant to enter a grey area than the cable companies are.


Cable companies can do whatever they want without fear of repercussions from CableLabs. After all, isn't CableLabs part of the cable industry?
I think the issue here is the power cable companies have and, of course, CableLabs is going to back them up.
They should NOT have the power to speak for the content owners and arbitrarily set the CCI bit. The technology exists that allow a content owner to set the CCI bit for themselves. If they choose not to implement the CCI bit, then the default should be copy freely.
Right now it's win-win for the cable companies. They can stifle innovation and hurt the competition, and it's all perfectly legal.
Unacceptable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We can go back and forth all day on whether or not the cable companies have the right to do this, or whether they should, but my question is... where's TiVo in this fight? There are options for getting around this problem but TiVo seems to be just ignoring it and letting their customers suffer. The cable companies don't care if their policies limit the features of your TiVo. In fact, if anything, they have a vested interest in limiting the abilities of TiVos because it drives more customers to choose their in house DVR instead. However TiVo should be looking out for it's customers. They should be exploiting every available loop hole and workaround available to them to make sure every feature they offer works for every user. Whether that means changing MRV to "move" the file rather then "copy" it or offering some sort of streaming, they should be doing it! Instead they just ignore the problem or blame it on the cable companies. There was a time when TiVo actually listened to it's customers and came up with innovative features that actually improved the product. But for the last few years they've been stagnant. They have barely put in the effort to fix the most basic issues with their software, let alone done anything innovative or exciting. It's very disappointing. 

Dan


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> ... where's TiVo in this fight? There are options for getting around this problem but TiVo seems to be just ignoring it and letting their customers suffer... TiVo should be looking out for it's customers. They should be exploiting every available loop hole and workaround available to them to make sure every feature they offer works for every user.


I have heard that QTips are handy for drying behind the ears.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I don't understand your comment... I bought my first TiVo less then a year after they were released, and I've been a member/moderator of this forum almost as long. I'd hardly consider myself wet behind the ears, if that's what you were getting at.

And if you disagree then why not elaborate?

Dan


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> I don't understand your comment... I bought my first TiVo less then a year after they were released, and I've been a member/moderator of this forum almost as long. I'd hardly consider myself wet behind the ears, if that's what you were getting at.
> 
> And if you disagree then why not elaborate?
> 
> Dan


I think he is talking about all the other DVR co.s that have solved these problems and have a great DVR business on-going, what were the names of these great DVR co.s ??


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

There haven't been any "great" ones, but both Moxi and Windows MCE have managed to work around the issue. I don't understand why TiVo can't when two companies with significantly smaller user bases can.

Dan


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> There haven't been any "great" ones, but both Moxi and Windows MCE have managed to work around the issue. I don't understand why TiVo can't when two companies with significantly smaller user bases can.
> 
> Dan


If TiVo did this MRV streaming how much would guess their sales would increase?, I know the complaints in this form would drop.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

lessd said:


> If TiVo did this MRV streaming how much would guess their sales would increase?, I know the complaints in this form would drop.


No warning on the Tivo web site that MRV could be severely restricted by the cable company. New customers aren't being warned . Existing customers can potentially lose functionality they once had. If they can add new functionality to stream from Netflix, then surely they could have added functionality to stream from one Tivo to another. Tivo would have been better served to preserve the existing MRV functionality via streaming rather than add streaming from external sources.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

shwru980r said:


> No warning on the Tivo web site that MRV could be severely restricted by the cable company. New customers aren't being warned . Existing customers can potentially lose functionality they once had. If they can add new functionality to stream from Netflix, then surely they could have added functionality to stream from one Tivo to another. Tivo would have been better served to preserve the existing MRV functionality via streaming rather than add streaming from external sources.


I found this on the tivo.com site:



> When you have more than one TiVo box connected to your home network through broadband, you can, you can easily transfer *non-copy protected* HD shows between them. Simply connect all of your TiVo boxes to your home network and you can enjoy the convenience of multi-room viewing.


Source - looks ugly because it's a "popup"

I don't disagree about the streaming MRV as being a solution to MRV. Though it doesn't address the problem of TTG and copy-protected content.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

shwru980r said:


> Tivo would have been better served to preserve the existing MRV functionality via streaming rather than add streaming from external sources.


Streaming from external sources is actually easier, because they can encode them however they want (specifically, they can use a more efficient codec so that the required transfer rate is much lower). The TiVo records digital TV as-is, so it's in MPEG-2, which is not a very efficient codec.

I'm willing to bet a lot of people's networks aren't up to transferring a high-def show by MRV in real time; if that's the case, they wouldn't be able to stream it either.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Brainiac 5 said:


> I'm willing to bet a lot of people's networks aren't up to transferring a high-def show by MRV in real time; if that's the case, they wouldn't be able to stream it either.


The maximum any MPG2 encoded program will be is 19.2 Mbps because that's the channel limit. Many programs are encoded at a lot lower than that. Any home wired network set up within the last 10 years should be able to handle that. For wireless 802.11n will work.


----------



## Brainiac 5 (Aug 25, 2003)

morac said:


> The maximum any MPG2 encoded program will be is 19.2 Mbps because that's the channel limit. Many programs are encoded at a lot lower than that. Any home wired network set up within the last 10 years should be able to handle that. For wireless 802.11n will work.


Okay, true (although a lot of people may be using older wireless). I guess that more to the point is that the S3 & TiVo HD don't seem to be able to keep up with the required speed - at best I can transfer HD in just ever so slightly faster than real time, despite being able to get much faster transfer rates between my computers on the same network. The Premiere I don't know about; maybe they could do it with that...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Brainiac 5 said:


> Okay, true (although a lot of people may be using older wireless). I guess that more to the point is that the S3 & TiVo HD don't seem to be able to keep up with the required speed - at best I can transfer HD in just ever so slightly faster than real time, despite being able to get much faster transfer rates between my computers on the same network. The Premiere I don't know about; maybe they could do it with that...


I have the N network and I get about 1.2 Xfer between two Series 3 (original) TiVos, when I tested the Premiere I got about 3x (a one hour HD program took 22 minutes to go from a TP to the Series 3 (original), so the TP is much faster (I not using the TP now because of other problems, I am going to wait out the software upgrades to hopefully get a reliable TP as all my Series 3 are.) I did not try between two TP but I will bet you would get great speed then, without doubt streaming would be possible, but will you be able to skip commercials, pause, and rewind using streaming ? Another problem, now when using MRV I can watch in one room the same program when xfering that program to another room, with streaming that may not be allowed with copy protected programs, thinking about streaming there are a lot of issues that have to be solved to do it legally and be as convenient as watching the program on the TiVo that it was recorded on.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I think S3/TivoHD streaming MRV would be possible (based on my experience with the current speeds for the transfer method), however Tivo would probably have to set minimum system requirements, and separate the MRV protocol from the TivoToGo protocol.
I don't know much about writing software, but that may involve more than TiVo is willing to invest.


----------

