1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TTG & MRV Coming in November for Series3 & TiVoHD

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by TiVoPony, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. mikeyts

    mikeyts Stream Warrior

    2,390
    2
    Jul 10, 2004
    San Diego,...
    I don't think that the content providers have anything against the Fair Use clause of the copyright law since it has nothing to do with their business. As written (and it has never been modified or appended), it gives journalists, scholars and researchers the right to make productive use of portions of copyrighted work (but no substantial part of the whole) in their own works. It was intended to prevent copyright from impeding the free public discourse on ideas which were first introduced in copyrighted work. A narrow majority of the 1984 Supreme Court made a very inventive interpretation of "productive use of no substantial part of the whole" by scholars and journalists to cover "casual, non-productive use" of whole copyrighted works (as broadcast on free, over-the-air television) by anyone.
     
  2. nathanziarek

    nathanziarek New Member

    105
    0
    Sep 1, 2006
    Close. NBC decided not to renew its contract, meaning no new shows comes December. iTunes (Apple) retaliated and said they were going to dump NBC immediately. To date, all the NBC stuff is still up there, and NBC claims all new episodes up to the contract expiration in December will be, so we'll see where the rubber actually meets the road. I don't understand why Apple won't let NBC price their content at any price (and find a nice market equilibrium at probably less than $1.99) and I don't understand how NBC, whose show The Office was practically made by iTunes, doesn't understand the implicit value in the store. But, I'm a low-paid web developer, not a high paid exec. What do I know?

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

    n
     
  3. CharlesH

    CharlesH Member

    1,061
    1
    Aug 29, 2002
    Sacramento...
    You don't have to sell the copies to infringe the copyright. Giving them away also infringes the copyright. The point is whether copies are being distributed in a manner not authorized by the copyright holder, not whether the distributer has made any money in the process.
     
  4. Redux

    Redux No intent to annoy

    1,564
    0
    Oct 19, 2004
    I don't think they understand it.

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

    bryus Member

    52
    0
    Mar 15, 2004
    Englewood, CO
    NBC has the same disconnected view as the record industry who argue that record sales are dropping due to piracy. They fail to mention fewer albums are being released or that the quality of new music has declined.

    Entertainment execs have a deliberate inability to link a cause with it's actual effect. It's really no surprise that they can't draw the connection between iTunes and a show gaining an audience. It would really blow their mind to make the connection that giving away content is profitable, like in the case of independent musicians who let podcasts play their songs for free to drive sales.
     
  6. tetzel1517

    tetzel1517 New Member

    33
    0
    Dec 29, 2003
    Washington, DC
    What is this "tab" of which you speak, and how do I access it? It's not a huge deal because I've downloaded other programs off my S2 to my Mac using some open-source software tools, but if there's a way to do it within TiVo Desktop, that'd be pretty sweet.

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

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    DRM has to do with both.
     
  8. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    Abso-friggen-lutely. The consumer products we discuss here will always be dominated, in their engineering and the structure of their offering, by the preferences and purchasing behaviors of folks who are far less "into" this stuff than most anyone here is.
     
  9. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    I believe a lot of things, but that doesn't mean my beliefs will affect the reality of the situation.

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

    rainwater Active Member

    7,057
    1
    Sep 21, 2004
    Can you name a major DRM scheme used for video content that hasn't been broken yet? Again, they may say that is what it is about, but they are not stopping people who really want to crack these schemes. It is only affecting the average consumer who doesn't even care about stealing content.
     
  11. bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    As many people in this thread have pointed out, DRM does stop many people from pirating digital content.

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

    saberman Member

    248
    1
    May 4, 2004
    A current example is the Apple cellphone. It was only supposed to work on the AT&T network and had firmware and software to restrict it to the AT&T network.

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

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

    PaulS Member

    674
    1
    Sep 16, 2002
    Southern NH
    I don't believe Blu-Ray's "BD+" scheme has been broken yet.
     
  14. rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,057
    1
    Sep 21, 2004
    Are any discs even using BD+ yet?
     
  15. rodalpho

    rodalpho New Member

    486
    0
    Sep 12, 2006
    There's actually a software hack out now that's pretty much point and click. The iphone has been out for a month and a half. Not that that has anything to do with DRM, so going back on topic...

    DRM only hurts honest customers. Pirates gleefully circumvent it.
     
  16. sommerfeld

    sommerfeld Lucky (?) 200 member

    272
    0
    Feb 26, 2006
    Arlington, MA
    The problem with DRM is not that it fails to prevent all transgressive behavior, but that it also interferes with much entirely non-transgressive behavior.

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

    bicker bUU

    10,382
    43
    Nov 9, 2003
    Georgia
    The reality is that DRM succeeds in preventing a substantial amount of transgressive behavior. Why would you even imply that the number of folks who transgress "because of" DRM comes anywhere close to the number of people who don't transgress because of DRM. That's an incredibly outrageous -- an utterly incredible -- assertion.
     
  18. nathanziarek

    nathanziarek New Member

    105
    0
    Sep 1, 2006
    Proof? I don't have any contrary, but I figure there are a four different types of people:
    1) My mom, who wouldn't know the difference between a CD and DVD, but uses them without issue
    2) My wife and I, who have no need or want to pirate, even casually, and are limited by what we can legally do (put a DVD on our iPod) because of DRM. They may or may not know how to crack the DRM, but regardless, it never "leaves the house."
    3) People who crack the DRM because they want to use their media anywhere, and might share a video or two with friends (but probably not seed a torrent or anything)
    4) Pirates, who crack the DRM and pirate the media wholesale.

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

    TexasGrillChef New Member

    1,792
    0
    Sep 15, 2006

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

    thanks

    tgc
     
  20. TexasGrillChef

    TexasGrillChef New Member

    1,792
    0
    Sep 15, 2006
    Well I still have the right to give away my car, or a BOOK (Original copy of course) or anything else I buy....

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

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

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

    Boston Tea Party anyone? Camden 28 anyone?

    TGC
     

Share This Page