TTG & MRV Coming in November for Series3 & TiVoHD

[mikeyts]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wilkinson

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

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

[Fofer]

Originally Posted by mikeyts

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

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

[formulaben]

Originally Posted by TiVoPony

Yes, even from a Mac.

Mac support is via Toast 8 or Popcorn 3.

Cheers,
Pony

Ubuntu support?

[Fofer]

Originally Posted by formulaben

Ubuntu support?

Good one.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by cgould

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

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

[bicker]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

Because they make more money that way.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by mikeyts

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

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

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

[rainwater]

Originally Posted by bicker

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

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

[mikeyts]

Originally Posted by bicker

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

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

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

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

[nathanziarek]

Originally Posted by Fofer

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

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

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

[nathanziarek]

Originally Posted by rainwater

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

++

[Fofer]

Originally Posted by nathanziarek

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

I've read all about it.

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

[ah30k]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

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

[nathanziarek]

Originally Posted by Fofer

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

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

[bryus]

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

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

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

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

[TexasGrillChef]

Originally Posted by dougdingle

What an unbelievable disaster that would be.

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

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

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

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

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

TGC

[bryus]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

TGC

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

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

[TexasGrillChef]

Originally Posted by rainwater

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

And that is exactly what I personaly find morally wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGC

[TexasGrillChef]

Originally Posted by ah30k

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

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

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

TGC

[TexasGrillChef]

Originally Posted by bryus

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

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

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

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

Exactly the point I have made many many times before.

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

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

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

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

TGC

[mikeyts]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

[nathanziarek]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

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

n

[CharlesH]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

[Redux]

Originally Posted by mikeyts

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

I don't think they understand it.

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

[bryus]

Originally Posted by nathanziarek

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

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

n

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

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

[tetzel1517]

Originally Posted by bedelman

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

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

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

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

[bicker]

Originally Posted by rainwater

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

DRM has to do with both.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by mikeyts

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

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

[bicker]

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

Originally Posted by TexasGrillChef

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

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

[rainwater]

Originally Posted by bicker

DRM has to do with both.

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