WIRED: TiVo has always been about empowering the viewer. Why change now?
ZINN: Macrovision changed its policy. So the question was, Do we want to have a Macrovision license with certain restrictions, or none at all? We decided that as long as the restrictions were limited to pay-per-view and video-on-demand, consumers would still have the choice. If they don't like a narrower window in which to view programming, they won't purchase it. That'll send a message to the content owners.
You're not legally required to have copy protection. Why not tell Macrovision to stuff it?
That was an option. But if there was no Macrovision license, we would run into a lot of copyright problems with things like remote access and "TiVo to Go" functionality. To innovate and give people more flexibility with broadcast content, we decided it was acceptable to allow content owners to apply protections to higher-value content.
What if the higher-value content is just the beginning? This could be a Trojan horse.
That would be a violent blow to consumer flexibility. You could end up in a situation where different products by different manufacturers would have different rules. I don't think we would go along with it.
With the cable companies in bed with the studios, TiVo could be the last line of defense for the DVR as we know it.
Sometimes I feel that way. We're aware of the danger, and the slippery slope. The danger is that DRM can tilt the balance of copyright so that ultimately there's no concept of fair use, because the content owners dictate what the rules are. But I think content owners are beginning to recognize that if you make things too restrictive, then consumers will find nonlegal ways to achieve what they want.