Copy protection

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by jilter, Jul 12, 2009.

  1. Jul 29, 2009 #21 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida

    Advertisements

    But that's not Time Warner's fault: That's TiVo's fault. They're the ones who decided that it was too impractical to implement a means of securely providing support for Copy Once, and therefore treat Copy Once the same as Copy Never.
     
  2. Jul 29, 2009 #22 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida

    In general I agree with you, let fair competition decide who survives and what is the best business model is. BUT different rules come into play when you are talking about how the REALLY big boys can fairly compete with the small fry. Look at the microsoft anti trust case for example, they got smacked down for using their market share in windows to get an unfair advantage in the web browser market. That despite the fact that people could still download and install any browser they wanted, ie was bundled with the OS and that gave them an unfair advantage. Change the players and what is used to leverage something to say Comcast is using their market share as the only ISP in xxx to get an unfair advantage in the Video delivery (which includes both cable and internet) market.
     
  3. Jul 29, 2009 #23 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Look at how little Microsoft had to change, in that regard, to be compliant.

    And beyond that, your analogy fails because the ISPs aren't favoring their own web video distribution channel. Comcast, for example, in its web-delivered content offering, will STILL apply the bandwidth caps.
     
  4. Jul 29, 2009 #24 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    But they do make money (in fact most of its money) on their NON web based Video distribution that does not count towards a bandwidth cap. The comcast just views its broadband division as extra money that they can make off the same cable lines. They make most of their money from the cable TV bill NOT the broadband bill. If the cable co's had their way there would be no feature length or series length professional video on the internet at all because it is competiton to their TV business. Think about it If you were a comcast and came to the conclusion that if someone came up with a way to easily distribute the same content that you distribute for less money than you do except over the web would you want to figure a way to stop that. Well thats whats happened. Between OTA and services like Amazon, netflix and itunes, you can get 90%+ of the content you are providing for at $100 (Cable tv bill) for only $70 (Internet access + Netflix + downloads from itunes and amazon + OTA) once people figure it out and do the math for their individual tastes at lot of people could conclude that they will save a pot full of money dropping comcast tv and just use comcast for internet. A $100 bill vs a $50 bill. The thing that is holding internet distribution of video back is file size and download times. Wonder why our internet access is generally slower than other parts of the world? This is one of the reasons. Whats a good way to make it so they can increase the speed of the connection but have it so it doesn't compete with the TV service? Put in a bandwidth cap so you can't download a lot of large files (typically high def video).
     
  5. Jul 29, 2009 #25 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...

    Advertisements

    The reason for that is that after they were found guilty, the a new president was elected and the new administration didn't want to pursue penalties against Microsoft.
     
  6. Jul 29, 2009 #26 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    They came up with the copy freely/copy once/copy never scheme before DVRs. At the time, they were thinking we would all be using D-VHS recorders, or something like them. With D-VHS, you could record a copy once program onto a D-VHS tape, but you couldn't make a copy of the tape. There was nothing to stop you, though, from taking the original tape anywhere you wanted to watch it (like to another room in your house).

    I actually think that TV-recording technology has changed enough since they wrote some of the regulations that it might be a good idea to revisit them.
     
  7. Jul 30, 2009 #27 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Apples and oranges. Again, your analogy fails.

    Incorrect. It is a separate service.

    Since I've corrected some points you made, I felt it important to highlight that you did say somethings that were accurate. This is one of them.

    If I had my way, none of my competitors would exist either. That's a pointless observation.

    The more important aspect of this is that one service provider should not be expected to do the heavy lifting for a competitor, without being compensated for the value they're providing to the competitor's service. The competitor should do their own heavy lifting, or the customer should pay for that portion of additional value, separately.

    If the deal isn't worth it, bandwidth caps and all, then drop the service entirely. If it is worth it, then pay the bill, and move on. Very simple.
     
  8. Jul 30, 2009 #28 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    No, the reason for that is that they transgression was minor, so the remedy was minor.

    I know you want to demonize any big company and make anything they do sound far more horrible than it ever was. But your wanting doesn't make it so. Reality is what it is.
     
  9. Jul 30, 2009 #29 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    TiVo didn't come up with it. Beyond that, they had full control over deciding whether they'd implement Copy Once differently than Copy Never. They decided not to. Their choice. They could still implement them differently, now, in an update, if they wish. They choose not to. Their choice. TiVo's choice. TiVo's responsibility. Solely.

    You are again misdirecting your frustration.

    Yes, piracy has become so much more of a problem that it is probably time to provide content owners more ways of protecting their assets.
     
  10. Jul 30, 2009 #30 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    the order of your quotes was changed so I could address them.

    Thank you for acknowledging places where we agree.

    That is the same thing. The people providing level 2 support (once you get passed the generic people reading a script) are not in the same. they have data services and cable services (What ever they call their service divisions). the money is even tracked separately.

    The problem is the competitors (as you called them) are already paying for business class internet access. The consumers are already paying for internet access. The service that is being providing for (the heavy lifting) is internet access. The Customers are having their billing changed from unlimited bandwidth access to a capped amount. This discourages customers from using high bandwidth internet services including Internet based HD video, which is a competitor to your ISP's cable TV services which is where they are making most of their money which you said was true.

    So what is happening is the cable TV companies see a drop in revenue from TV customers that have both TV and internet are dropping cable and their internet usage skyrockets. So what do they propose to do? Have their internet services put a cap in place so that it becomes too expensive to use the internet as an alternative.

    That IS the point. Any company would want to eliminate their competition, that's normal business. It's legal too as long as you don't hold a monopoly or are using anti competitive practices to keep it or leverage into other areas. That is what I'm saying, The broadband companies are also providing Cable TV and telephone and they hold virtual monopolies in the areas that they serve. If you are lucky your choices for broadband will be, your cable TV provider, your telephone provider, (and I hate to say it because the "broadband" they provide is usually pretty poor from what I've heard) satellite. They want to use their monopoly (or at best Duopoly) in their internet area to affect the bottom line of their cable TV services by eliminating a competing service that is internet based. And as I pointed out above both the user (customer) and competitors are paying already for internet access access.

    If you are really lucky you may have some other local provider, but their market penetration is usually pretty small and for the purpose of this could be ignored.

    A solution that I think would be better for everyone is instead of counting how many bits of data flow and paying for that (This is what hey want to do now), is tier the services based on how fast the bits flow. Ultra low speed access is $5 per month, low speed is $10 normal speed is$15, high speed is $20, Ultra high speed is $30, and the PTPAYBBEAYPWYHOF speed (peel the paint as you blow by everyone as you pass with your hair on fire) is $50. You can adjust the pricing and number of tiers but you get the idea.
     
  11. Jul 30, 2009 #31 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    Okay, you seem to remember it a lot differently from how I do. :rolleyes:

    You don't remember there was talk about breaking Microsoft up into an OS company and an application software company? That was a real possibility at the time. The reason that option went off the table was that a new administration took over and announced that they wouldn't seek any such penalty. It wasn't that the Justice Department couldn't get a more severe penalty than they did (they almost certainly could have); the reason they got the penalty that they did was the new administration had them back off.

    I'm not sure where you're getting that. :confused:

    I do not want to "demonize any big company." In fact people who are like that irritate me to no end. Being big does not make a company evil in any way, shape or form. On the other hand, it also does not make them immune from doing something wrong.

    Note that I didn't say anything about whether what Microsoft had done was good, bad, or indifferent. I only mentioned what happened in the case. In fact, until the change in administration I think that Microsoft was going to get a raw deal. Their legal team made a lot of mistakes and the case went very badly for them, I would say probably worse than they deserved. They were in line for some big-time penalties until the Justice Department backed off. But deserved or not, the reason they got got off as lightly as they did was that the prosecutors dropped the demand for heavier penalties, not because the judge wouldn't have granted them.
     
  12. Jul 30, 2009 #32 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here, did you think I said that TiVo came up with it?

    Copy once is implemented differently than copy never. Copy never doesn't let you keep the show for more than 90 minutes after it's over (as per FCC regulations).

    They could, and working within the current rules would certainly be the the easiest path. Of course, the options available are not completely ideal - they could stream, but some people's networks might not be able to keep up with an HD stream. Or they could implement a "move" operation, but presumably you'd have to wait for the entire thing to transfer before watching it (I'm thinking you wouldn't be able to watch any part of the show on the 2nd DVR while it still existed on the 1st one).

    When did I express any frustration? An at whom am I misdirecting it? The FCC because I said it might be useful to revisit the copy protection rules? I didn't say I was angry and indignant that they aren't doing so, I just said that things have changed since they made those rules and it might be a good idea to review them.

    That would certainly be something they could look at if they reviewed the copy protection rules. As you yourself often say, they need to provide balance between the affected parties.
     
  13. Jul 30, 2009 #33 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    This is true, but I'm not sure what can be done about it now. The only viable solution I can see is not to allow one company to provide both cable TV and Internet. But since several large companies are already doing it, I don't see any way to undo it. Nor would it necessarily be desirable overall - if Comcast didn't provide my high-speed internet, I wouldn't have any. It's a bad situation in that the cable TV/ISP companies have a conflict of interest between their two businesses, but I don't know what can be done about it. :(

    Many companies already tier service by speed, that doesn't seem to make them want to control the number of bits any less.
     
  14. Jul 30, 2009 #34 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    That is not the case. They're not paying for the heavy lifting involved in getting their transmission down the pipe from your service provider's head-end to your home.

    But not absolutely unlimited -- that's the whole point of the cap. The basic fee for access covers a reasonable amount of usage, as defined by the terms and conditions. There is no excuse for charging different customers the same amount when there are magnitude of difference between the value each derives, because of a quantum different in utilization, and therefore load on, the service facility.

    And if the consumer doesn't like the terms and conditions, they can do without the service. If consumers do so, then the supplier will have no customers and will have to change their offering or go out of business. That's capitalism.

    I don't think that would be a bad idea, but one consumer doesn't get to unilaterally impose the terms and conditions on a mass-market service provider. Instead, the mass-market service provider gauges by market research what service offerings are going to be most favored by consumers in general.
     
  15. Jul 30, 2009 #35 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Yes, a lot differently: I remember it correctly. :rolleyes:

    You don't remember that there was talk about impeaching G W Bush? Talk is meaningless. What was the actual result of the legal case?

    From the one-sided, anti-business perspective.

    Your use of the word "they" was vague. However, any other intention on your part would be non-sequitur. My contention is that the concern raised was about how TiVo implemented Copy Once. That implementation was TiVo's decision alone. It had nothing to do with anything anyone else did or didn't do.

    I think what you meant to write was that you deny being frustrated. Wording your denial as a question is ridiculous IMHO.
     
  16. Jul 30, 2009 #36 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    Like you said they could break up the companies. They did it to ATT (I think actually Bell Telephone but you know what I mean). Is it the best solution? Probably not. But it is something that needs to be monitored to ensure that undue leveraging isn't applied. there are things you can do as a small company with low market penetration that large companies with high penetration shouldn't ever be allowed to do.
     
  17. Jul 30, 2009 #37 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    It would appear you don't.

    Whether they deserved it or not, they were found guilty. The Justice Department got everything they asked for (which at the end wasn't much).

    Which there wasn't any of in my message. I merely stated what happened in the Microsoft case. As I clarified, knowing that the case went badly for Microsoft and that they could have gotten a worse punishment if the Justice Department had asked for it does not equal my thinking that they deserved that.

    This Microsoft thing is rather off-topic, so let's just agree that we remember it differently.


    You're right, sorry about that. I meant the FCC.

    Okay, I deny being frustrated. Although given the choice I'd like to be able to use MRV, I don't have that choice and am pretty okay with the way things are.
     
  18. Jul 30, 2009 #38 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Definitely not. I was there at the time, and lemme tell you, that set the whole industry back a bit. It would have been far better for the government to actually do some hard work, and make it attractive for new competitors to enter the marketplace, rather than callously destroy something that people had worked to build and that was working well.
     
  19. Jul 30, 2009 #39 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    No, it would appear that you don't. (Hint: Instead of making inane and insulting assertions about what we each think the other does or doesn't understand, how about we just grant that we both do understand and just disagree. Otherwise, I'm fully prepared to parrot back every idiotic insult you launch at me. I type really fast so it doesn't really cost me much.)

    Because the transgression wasn't anywhere near as grievous as arch-consumerists would want you to believe.
     
  20. Jul 30, 2009 #40 of 146
    blacknoi

    blacknoi Active Member

    460
    45
    Jan 23, 2006
    All political stuff aside, I just want to watch True Blood on my living room S3, that was recorded on my Bedroom HD unit. But the CCIx02 prevents me from doing that.

    Tivo: Please figure out a way to "stream" the shows instead of making a copy to satisfy the 02 CCI bit, but not scare movie studios and content providers.

    Thank you.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements