Copy protection

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

  1. Jul 30, 2009 #41 of 146
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,146
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH

    Advertisements

    Why should MRV bother content providers anyway? I don't see how it would reduce their revenues any significant amount.

    I agree TTG is another thing, although unfortunately the users like me, who just want to archive videos off-TiVo for later viewing, must pay the price to prevent piracy -- and I don't believe serious pirates are deterred by this anyway.

    Did someone mention Bit Torrent? How could MRV ever even approach the magnitude of that?
     
  2. Jul 30, 2009 #42 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    Sounds fine.

    I'm sorry if you saw that as an insult, I did not mean it as one. It was just a preface to my explaining how my recollection differed from yours. I type fast, too, perhaps too fast in this case.

    I agree that the new administration saw it that way, and that is why they sought lighter penalties. I guess I was thinking that the statement that the remedies were minor because the transgression was minor implied that those were the harshest remedies the Justice Department was able to get through the legal system, which very likely was not the case. But I see your point.
     
  3. Jul 30, 2009 #43 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    I don't think it does bother them. The "copy once" flag was created with removable media in mind, which is all we'd had for recording TV up to that point. With removable media, this just wouldn't be an issue. For all we know, content providers would be fine with being able to transfer shows between DVRs with non-removable media inside the same house, but there's no permission setting to allow that and not allow those who still have D-VHS recorders to make unlimited perfect copies.
     
  4. Jul 30, 2009 #44 of 146
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,146
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    I'm not sure what a D-VHS recorder is but how would that prevent a (mythical) TiVo decision to allow MRV even for CCI=0x02 ? We know this could be done inside the TiVo because there are hacks that do that (and more). Thus no new permission setting is required.

    I still don't see any legal or technical barrier to TiVo allowing MRV of copy-once content. I agree there could be cost factors although, considering the simplicity of the hacks that do this, I have a hard time believing they are large.
     
  5. Jul 30, 2009 #45 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida

    Advertisements

    I think the issue is that Copy Once requires a change in the CCI flag (to Copy Never) on the original (as well as setting the CCI flag on the copy to Copy Never, of course). How to ensure that that happens, avoiding all probability of abuse? Well, the only way to do that is to make that change at the very beginning of the transfer process, with the ability to complete the transfer, therefore, stored only in volatile memory (and I suspect even that could perhaps represent a risk of abuse, but let's ignore that for now). So given that, any interruption of that process, such as a power outage, or reboot of the TiVo box, will result in an inability to continue the transfer and therefore significant upset within the user. I suspect that that is why TiVo shows no interest in offering any other means of handling Copy Once: It would lead to inconsistency, confusion and upset.
     
  6. Jul 30, 2009 #46 of 146
    Brainiac 5

    Brainiac 5 New Member

    451
    0
    Aug 24, 2003
    Columbia,...
    The D-VHS recorder was meant to be the replacement for VHS. It recorded the raw bit-stream of a digital broadcast onto a tape that looked just like a VHS tape.

    What prevents TiVo from allowing MRV for CCI=0x02 is that the rules say you can record such a stream, but can't make a copy of that recording. Current MRV involves making a copy onto the other DVR.

    They could make it do whatever they want, but if it doesn't follow the rules then CableLabs will not approve it and they can't use CableCARDs in it. So TiVo or other companies cannot just change the behavior of their devices when the stream has a given copy protection setting.

    With the possible values that exist for the CCI byte, the only setting that would allow MRV is "copy freely." But this would allow people with D-VHS recorders to make unlimited perfect copies of their tapes. It would also allow TiVo-to-Go. There's no available setting that restricts these things that content providers would want to restrict and doesn't restrict the current implementation of MRV.

    If they change the way it works, so that the recording is streamed or moved (deleting the original copy), then that's true. But they can't legally allow the current MRV to work.
     
  7. Jul 30, 2009 #47 of 146
    steve614

    steve614 what ru lookin at?

    10,722
    0
    May 1, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    I would be okay with a "move" function for MRV. Make it so you can't watch the show on either DVR until the transfer is complete.
    Hell, go one step further and make it so that once the transfer is complete, change the CCI bit to "copy never" so that the show is limited to just that one move.
    ANYTHING to have a functioning MRV system.
     
  8. Jul 30, 2009 #48 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the hard work is delivering internet data from the head-end to the consumer? I suppose in a way you are right, the websites are not paying for that they are paying for the upstream part, the consumer is paying for the downstream part from the head-end to the home (most home use traffic is inbound not out). I guess we just see things a bit differently.

    And if the "Reasonable amount of coverage, as defined by the terms and conditions" becomes anti competitive I hope the DOJ smacks them with a lawsuit. When I signed up for my broadband it was for unlimited bandwidth. In fact it still is, fortunately the bandwidth caps haven't come to my area yet, If they come I may just reevaluate my position.

    I'm glad we agree that that isn't a bad idea, but please, don't put words in my mouth (I can get my own foot in my mouth by myself), I never said I would unilaterally impose anything. I said "A solution that I think would be better for everyone is..." I was voicing an opinion as to what a possible solution could be, in this case what I thought would be fair to all parties. Another possible solution would be to have a tier of service that was unlimited at a reasonable cost (no more that 1.5 times the next lower tier or something). But then the arguement will breakdown into how much a byte of data cost to transmit. Ironically there was a congressional hearing about that a few weeks ago, it was about how much money does it cost to send an SMS via cell phones. At .10 a message (about what you pay for a message if you don't get unlimited messaging (why that is separate from regular data is another arguement for another place butt...)) I think it comes out to something like $100 a MB.
     
  9. Jul 30, 2009 #49 of 146
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    but why not create an "unplayable" copy on the second box. THen when the copy is complete and verified ONLY then mark the orig as copy no more then send a signal to set the copy to a playable copy no more?

    sure there's a few milliseconds where that too could fail. But not minute and minutes or hours like could in fact happen in your example.

    in fact such a system could be used to "move" content also. Just replace the step to mark the orig as copy no more to destroy it.

    plus there's many wiser folks in the world than I- I'm sure there's even some logic that could be developed to make it even less likely to fail.

    I think perhaps part of it is perhaps that tivo's encryption is not yet approved by cablelabs and maybe tivo doesn't want to use the approved options?
     
  10. Jul 30, 2009 #50 of 146
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    that happened to my system. Comcast bought Patriot Media. Patriot tagged EVERY digital channel that wasn't a rebroadcast local. Even as Comcast added a few here and there those new digitial channels got flagged.

    Last month they sent the notices that they are going all digital. I got bummed and assumed that now I'd be losing even the analogs i have now.

    BUT i was pleasantly surprised when i looked and saw that a short time before they had shut ALL THE FLAGS off- even on the premiums. I guess someone from the mothership saw to it that when they go all digital that all the flags are stripped. I couldn't be happier.

    Good luck to the OP that they go all digital soon and the mothership sees to it that the system gets switched over to be in line with the corporate policy.
     
  11. Jul 30, 2009 #51 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    Probably because one of the features of MRV is the ability to start viewing almost immediately, and having some content that could and some that couldn't would confuse the unenlightened masses creating service calls about why they couldn't watch "Buckaroo Banzai" before it completed its transfer.:confused:
     
  12. Jul 30, 2009 #52 of 146
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,146
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    The law needs to be changed so that MRV isn't considered to be a violation of "copy once." Again I ask: what would be the significant damage to content providers if several copies exist on several TiVos in one household?

    I don't know why I even care. I only have one TiVo. What I want is TTG so I can transcode to MPEG4 and archive for later viewing.
     
  13. Jul 30, 2009 #53 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    Because according to the MPAA, RIA and others you are a criminal and must be treated with suspicion. The only possible reason anyone would ever to copy any content would be to sell it for piracy and legitimate reasons.
     
  14. Jul 30, 2009 #54 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    I was a bit young at the time to really understand (or care) the why's but wasn't that because they were using there monopoly to also stifle competition? Not having choice, no 3rd party handsets, only Bell equipment could be connected to "there system"? No competition stagnates innovation.
     
  15. Jul 31, 2009 #55 of 146
    HTH

    HTH No Avatar Selected

    4,076
    4
    Aug 28, 2000
    Lincoln, NE
    TWC already register high on the conspiracy against TiVos when they put the mystro software on the Scientific Atlanta boxes. It is impossible to use them with a Series1 TiVo and Series2 TiVos require tweaking to padding in order to work around the apparently designed-in problem of preventing accurate channel changes according to the schedule.

    I've posted about this before. The city of Lincoln, NE was going to impose sanctions against TWC for the problems customers had due to being an unwilling beta test market and suffering through failure to deliver service through their own DVRs during the beta (such as one free month of service), but nothing has come of that.
     
  16. Jul 31, 2009 #56 of 146
    sinanju

    sinanju Active Member

    876
    62
    Jan 3, 2005
    The Mafiaa would prefer you not use a TiVo at all. Their business is taking away your court-confirmed rights of fair use so their patrons can rent those rights back to you.
     
  17. Jul 31, 2009 #57 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    They are, with the bandwidth cap in place.

    Only if you think that the ISP should subsidize the cost of the downstream part of the heavy lifting, instead of it being effectively paid-for by either the web video distributor or the web video consumer. Or if you think that the general customer should pay those costs thereby subsidizing the order-of-magnitude greater consumption on the part of those few consumers who use the service for web video.

    If you believe either of those things, then I guess we see things a bit differently. I see things such that people pay for what they get, not expecting others to subsidize their heavy consumption.

    That's just the point: Such a condition cannot be anti-competitive. It is an internal condition. It doesn't prevent another ISP from doing business, offering service without such a condition. Your logic has no legal merit; it seems to be nothing more than consumerist nonsense.

    Eventually it won't be. Things change. The terms and conditions of your service explicitly says so. Accept the reality.

    Such a small multiple is not necessarily "reasonable" -- that kind of capricious limitation sounds like nothing more than more consumerist nonsense. Pricing that is based on value is reasonable. If you get X times as much value from heavy usage as you get from light usage, then it would be reasonable to charge X times as much. Just like if an airline flies you to a destination X times more desirable, they charge you X times more, even if that someplace is a city that you fly through to get to someplace else, that is not so desirable, and therefore they charge X times less for.

    Only in a socialist economy. In a capitalist economy, great companies price goods and services priced based on value. In a capitalist economy, only suckers (like TiVo) price things based on cost (and to be fair to TiVo, it's only because they cannot find a way to move into the big leagues, and price based on value -- but they're trying).

    That's a fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism, actually.

    Again, it all comes back down to value. I understand that you don't like paying for services based on what they're worth. You'd rather just pay how much it costs to provide you the service and deign to give your supplier a pittance of profit as if it were a standard gratuity. That's a patronizing perspective, not patronage. No one spends billions of dollars a year building and feeding a massive infrastructure to provide service, just for the privilege of earning gratuities. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Jul 31, 2009 #58 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    I suspect because that design could more readily be exploited to create multiple copies. However, someone from TiVo would have to confirm that; as I indicated in my earlier message, I'm speculating about why they made the decision that they actually did make. You seem to be speculating about why they made a decision that they didn't make? I'm not sure I understand that.
     
  19. Jul 31, 2009 #59 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    I doubt it has anything to do with "someone from the mothership" making a capricious decision to override local policy. Rather: I suspect that for greatest efficiency of implementation Project Calvary has certain standard (iron-specific) procedures that get applied. For example, we know that one of the things they cannot do in an "all-digital" system is encrypt expanded basic. Since the project relies on using DTAs, and DTAs don't support encryption, they had to remove encryption from all digital expended basic channels (presumably going back to relying on physical traps for asset protection, where transgressions are most prevalent). So clearly one part of the procedures for getting ready for Project Calvary is to make such changes.

    By the same token, unless CCI flags really interfere with something specific in Project Calvary, I wouldn't be surprised to see the flags reinstated at some later date.
     
  20. Jul 31, 2009 #60 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Good point. It goes back to what I said in my earlier message about this, about trying to avoid confusion on the part of the customer.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements