I realize you want all these things but the reality is these programs are not yours to do with as you please (nor are they ours).
That is not the point. There are certainly laws against copyright infringement, and I am not suggesting they be violated. The simple fact is, however, the majority of TiVo users out there
ARE able to move their recordings around as they see fit. The majority of MSOs do not copy protect their broadcasts. That is a fact, and one you are ignoring.
By the way, they don't belong to the content providers who you claim are pushing for this, either. They belong to the content owners - usually a studio. Exactly why people who don't own the content should be allowed to dictate what the end user's equipment can or cannot do with the content is a real puzzle, to me. A car dealer cannot sue you if you violate the patents on an automobile, nor in any other way prevent you from doing so. Why should the wholesaler (the content provider) or the retailer (the CATV system) have any say whatsoever in the matter? (Yes, I know it's because that's what the law says.)
I also realize that you want to move the recordings around your network as you see fit and that for the most part would fall into the honorable intentions category but this is actually where the problems begin...the intentions quickly go from honorable to less than honorable because the next thing ya know they end up on a usenet server somewhere...now that's not to say that you do that BUT enough do where it has become a problem.
The issue is not some hypothetical problems, but whether Brighthouse and certain other MSOs are copy protecting their broadcasts due to contractural obligations, or simply as a matter of policy and then attempting to deflect the perceived responsibility for the decision to the content providers. After all, the customer does not buy directly from the content provider, so what does it matter if they think the content provider is an @%^@$$%?
In the following, I am going to use the term "you" to refer to the CATV systems in general or Brighthouse Networks specifically, not you, personally.
All of the above considered your frustration and efforts should be directed at the content providers and the rules they set forth for us to rebroadcast the material to you.
First of all, my only frustration is being lied to. I don't suffer from the problem in the least. I'm not a Brighthouse customer, and I have no issues with the CCI byte. I have severe issues with anyone who lies in an attempt to deflect blame for anything.
Secondly, most of the content providers have publicly stated they have no such restrictions set forth in their contracts, and as I already mentioned, a number of them have specifically stated they do not wish to have their content protected. Again, Mark Cuban is a good example. So either they are lying, or you are. Which is it? The fact the majority of CATV systems are not copy protecting their broadcasts strongly suggests the latter.
I can freely move all the content in my house around any way I choose. I could even, if I so chose, copy the content to DVDs and start selling it on the street. It would be illegal to do so, and the copyright owners could rightfully have me thrown in jail if I did. Neither you nor the content providers could, however, because it is none of your business. For some reason, the FCC doesn't realize this and for some bizarre reason thinks it has some responsibility to the broadcast industry, and must protect their perceived interests, real or imagined.
For the record, I do not ever copy content to DVDs or distribute them on the street, for money or otherwise.
Then and only then will things change. In the meantime you can continue down the path of blaming cable providers for this, that and the other thing in preventing this but it just isn't so despite what you may have read, been told or have concluded and your frustration and efforts in that direction are wasted.
These are the indisputable facts:
1. You claim to have contractural obligations.
2. No such obligations are in evidence. (Feel free to point to some.)
3. Every CATV system in the country has similar contracts with the very same providers as Time Warner, Frontier, Brighthouse, etc.
4. The majority of MSOs do not copy protect their content.
5. There is no law requiring you to enter into a restrictive contract.
These facts add up to some strong conclusions:
1. At the very least, you are not acting as an advocate for your customers.
2. Either you are lousy negotiators, acquiescing to contractural restrictions the majority of MSOs are not countenancing, or...
3. You are lying through your teeth, and there are few or no such contractural obligations guiding your policy.
In the meantime I have passed on your frustrations and I want you to know that it isn't that we don't care...we have rules and contracts we have to follow too.
There is one and only one rule you have to follow, and that is the FCC regulations which clearly state that you, and only you, have the responsibility for deciding whether or not to set the CCI byte, to reset it, or to pass through the content provider's settings. 'Not a very restrictive rule, for you, is it? The statement, however, is typical of the obfuscation we regularly encounter. It suggests, without actually stating as fact, there are multiple regulations at play, suggestively from multiple sources. The rule (singular) is clearly spelled out in the so called "Plug-N-Play" FCC ruling of 2003, pulled from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
As to the vague insinuation your hands are tied by contractural agreements, why should we believe you? Because you say so? Because there is no way you would ever attempt to deflect responsibility for internal policy by suggesting there are external influences tying your hands?
I used to work for an MSO (Time Warner). One reason I quit was because their strategy for just about everything was to come up with some arbitrary and capricious policy and then lie through their teeth to try to deflect blame. By the reports I continue to get from sources within the organization, this problem has not gotten any better. We never could believe a single word that came from any exec's mouth back then. Why should it be different now?