Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calling Out TiVo

Posted by Hemos on from the here-comes-the-rockets dept.

ephraim writes "Forbes has an article by John C. Dvorak which summarizes the TiVo and similar devices as follows: "It's a way to steal programming." He justifies this remark by claiming that the main purpose of a TiVo is to "skip commercials" that pay for TV content. He also seems upset that people can use these devices to record content onto a hard drive without paying royalties to the content companies. Never mind the fact that the article has numerous factual errors (Dvorak claims that TiVo systems cost $500 and implies that the systems are difficult to use; he also makes a ridiculous comparison between MP3 file-sharing and TiVo). This guy seems to never have heard of the Betamax court case which legitimized time-shifting. "

29 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Lord Dvorak, the WHINER! by mosch · · Score: 5
    While I realize that columnists purposefully generate controversy in order to gain share, Dvorak's column on PVRs crossed the line from conversial to just plain wrong. He makes ignorant assumptions as to the use of the units based on no evidence, scientific or anecdotal. I'm quite surprised that Forbes would wish to be associated with the author of such drivel.

    The comparison of a PVR to mp3 file sharing is completely invalid. PVRs do not offer any method for obtaining content illicitly. They also do not offer a method to distribute the saved content to others, with the exception of "save to VCR", which even the MPAA would agree is legal.

    He seems to think that the only feature of a PVR is 'commercial skip'. Obviously he doesn't have a PVR, or if he does, he hasn't had it for very long. PVRs offer a convenient way to regularly record favorite programming. Your favorite shows are recorded, whether you're there or not, thus allowing the PVR owner to enjoy the original, unedited content, which they already subscribe to, at their leisure.

    Dvorak isn't too good with money, apparently. He insists that TiVo costs $10 a month. Anybody who has half a brain will instead opt for the $200 lifetime subscription, which is to cover the cost of the guide data, and software upgrades for their PVR. He should also consider shopping at a different electronics store, as his 'average' price of $500/unit is about $100-150 higher than the average price I've seen for 30 hour units.

    One valid point that Dvorak makes is that adding a TiVo to the system adds complexity. It seems like it "should" be complicated, but in reality it's not. Toss the TiVo between your signal source (cable box, or DTV reciever) and your receiver or TV. Done. Pretty difficult, eh? As for the complexity of the remote control, it actually simplifies things nicely. I actually prefer the TiVo interface to the interface presented to me by my DTV receiver. The only awkwardness is in recording pay-per-view events, which TiVo doesn't have guide data for, and can't do an on-screen purchase for.

    Dvorak describes the fact that a PVR requires access to a phone line to be "a hassle in itself". The fact that after setup, the phone is used only when you're not using it (usually late at night), and for short periods of time is ignored. He also rants about a bug in one PVR implementation as a reason to ignore the technology. If a single problem is reason to ignore a technology, then I'll assert that a single column is reason to ignore a pundit.

    Perhaps the most amusing show of Dvorak's ignorance is his implication that PVR technology only exists because broadcasters are unaware of it. Either CBS, AOL-Time Warner, Discovery, Showtime, Disney and NBC aren't broadcasters, or he's just dead wrong. They aforementioned companies are all equity investors in TiVo, Inc.

    In the second to last paragraph, Dvorak accidentally let's slip his real motivation for his rant. He had trouble getting a ReplayTV unit to work.

    Apparently this article is what happens when Dvorak has an electronics malfunction and an article due simultaneously.

    --
    "Don't trolls get tired?"

    1. Re:Lord Dvorak, the WHINER! by Syberghost · · Score: 3

      In the second to last paragraph, Dvorak accidentally let's slip his real motivation for his rant. He had trouble getting a ReplayTV unit to work.

      He tried to make it a replacement for his VCR, but after 8 straight hours of work, he still couldn't get it to blink "12:00", so he gave up.

      -

  2. TiVo & broadband? by abischof · · Score: 3

    I soon plan on discontinuing my Verizon service. And, I would like to buy a TiVO, but I realize that it requires a phone connection. So.. is there any way to get a TiVo that can make use of Ethernet, such as from my DSL? I mean, it's not like I don't have 'net access -- it's just not via the local monopoly.

    Through Google, I did run across a TiVo Ethernet project, but I'd like some way to get those results without hacking up my TiVo -- I just want it to work!

    Alex Bischoff
    ---

    --

    Alex Bischoff
    HTML/CSS coder for hire

  3. Re:Yeah, when will the networks notice? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 3
    All those big time investors are in there to make sure that Tivo doesn't get a commercial-skip button (which it doesn't have). They are scared.

    I hope that soon somebody comes out with a Tivo-like device which skips all the program downloading crap and just gives us what we want: commercial skipping.

    I guess for now all we are left with are VCR's that can edit out commercials.

    --

  4. TV advertising is insulting by Malc · · Score: 3
    "It's a way to steal programming." He justifies this remark by claiming that the main purpose of a TiVo is to "skip commercials" that pay for TV content.


    Well maybe the TV companies need to find a better way of raising money. I'm sick of the constant barrage of crap, ignorant advertising. Either they think I'm very stupid, or the majority that they are targetting is very stupid... I'm hoping it's the former. If it's the latter, then the standard of advertising is a very worrying statement about society. Whatever, I don't watch "normal" television anymore, and part of that is due to the barrage of commercial shit.

    In recent years I've lived in Britain, Canada and the US. The highest quality television in these countries was on channels that raised their money via other means.
    1. Re:TV advertising is insulting by TGK · · Score: 5

      Again, the market comes into play on this.

      People want to watch TV shows but do not wish to watch ads.
      Consequently they skip the adds.
      If the ads are made more amusing and more interesting people will want to watch the ads as well.

      The clear example of this is the Super Bowl. My fiancee, who thinks football is a barbaric, mindless, tiresome practice that somehow vents our twisted societies need to experiance violence, religiously watches the Super Bowl every year explicitly for the comercials.

      The success of sites like AdCritic indicates that people will, if the content is good enough, actualy go out of their way to watch comercials. Hell, the 7up commercials had me laughing so hard I fell out of my chair once. Lo and behold I find myself drinking more 7up.

      If advertisers are pissed because people won't watch their shit the clear solution is to make better commercials.

      If you build it they will come

      This has been another useless post from....

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  5. Re:To play Devil's advocate... by Detritus · · Score: 3
    Interesting arguments.

    I think "free TV", in it's current form, is in a slow death spiral. About 85% of the population gets their TV via cable and/or DBS. The ratings for network programming have been declining for many years. Ad revenues haven't dropped at the same rate as the ratings, but I don't think that is going to last forever. The quality of network programming will continue to decline as they will have less money to spend on programming due to declining ad revenues. Why do you think "reality TV" is so hot? It's cheaper to produce than sitcoms or dramatic series. They have to compete with cable channels, which can outbid them for the rights to movies and have a more robust business model. Look at what has happened to AM radio over the last 50 years. The ratings and advertising revenues have declined to the point that it is a near-dead industry. With cable and DBS, the networks don't need their affiliates anymore. Instead of the networks paying the affiliates to carry the network feed, the networks will charge the affiliates a fee for access to the network feed. They may eventually drop the affiliates altogether and become cable channels.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  6. Who got robbed? by HardCase · · Score: 3
    Without conceding the point to Dvorak, my question would be this:

    If skipping the commercials is equivalent to stealing the broadcast, from whom was it stolen? Was it stolen from the advertiser who paid for the commercial time? Was it stolen from the broadcaster who based the advertising rates on the number of viewers watching the show? Who gets the money?

    Let me pose another question. There are a few Tivo-type devices on the market that only record from DirecTV broadcasts. Consider this (admittedly narrowly focused) situation:

    I've paid DirecTV an extra amount so that I can watch my local channels on the satellite dish. In other words, I'm paying a premium for a service that others get for free. Should I then be allowed to skip the commercials because I'm already paying extra?

    Let me also suggest that Dvorak is making a mountain out of a molehill...or maybe even out of nothing. Tivo is a dying company, as far as I can tell, and the number of people who use the systems are very small and growing at a very sluggish rate. I suspect that given the slow rate of growth and the cost (while less than Dvorak's quoted $500, still a little spendy), other technologies will overtake Tivo before enough of them are purchased to really worry anybody.

    -h-

  7. Typical Dvorak by HardCase · · Score: 5
    I suppose that this is going to turn out to be a flame on John Dvorak. I apologize in advance.

    John Dvorak typically writes his pieces for people who think that they're "digerati" when, in fact, they're really just the same sort of folks who, a few years ago, would buy a component stereo system from Radio Shack and call themselves "audiophiles".

    Nothing against those people, though, but I think that Dvorak does them a disservice by trying to make news instead of commenting on it.

    I don't see much of a difference between using a Tivo device to eliminate commercials and using a VCR to do the same thing. Both involve some sort of time shifting. In order to miss the commercials, you give up some degree of timliness in your viewing habits.

    Perhaps in the long run that's how we'll justify skipping commercials...if we want to see the show "as it is being broadcast", then the price we pay is commercials. If we choose to wait some period of time, then we get to skip them.

    I think, though, that Dvorak's claims of theft fall apart when you realize that a Tivo fits the idea of "personal use" even better than a video tape...you can always give a video tape of a program to somebody else, thus potentially opening a can of copyright worms, but who's going to record a few episodes of Survivor and then turn over their (much less than $500) Tivo? That's what I thought.

    -h-

    1. Re:Typical Dvorak by Azza · · Score: 5

      It's on a hard disk. It's just a matter of time until a device or hack comes along that lets you either a) copy it to a CD / DVD, or b) stream it across the net. And wow, we have the MP3 wars all over again.

      The problem is that to allow 'fair use' in the digital age, you also have to allow 'piracy' (crappy term, but I'll use it here for the sake of clarity). I can't see how the two can be separated.

      The content producers and distributors are fighting this by attempting to thwart 'fair use' as it's currently accepted. What they *should* be doing, IMHO, is a) understanding the situation b) accepting the situation, and c) finding new ways of generating revenue. Just like the MPAA did when VCRs came along.

  8. NOT a natural right by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 5
    Since when did it become the right of a broadcaster or provider of any other kind of content to require me to watch their commercials? I don't remember signing any license agreement.

    As people have said, what if i watch the commercials but don't run out and buy the products? Am i stealing? After all, i'm leeching off the guy down the block who zips out and buys the Jif peanut butter he saw being advertised. Without people like him, there could be no content, after all!

    So, um, if it's the right of content producers to force viewers to do stuff that gets them money, and anyone who doesn't do that is stealing, i have this to say:

    Send me $10!

    There. I rely on people like you to send me ten bucks -- without which, i would not be able to continue publishing content on Slashdot. If you don't like it, don't read my comments. But if you read my comments without sending me money, you're no more than a common criminal.

    And anyone who skips over my comments either manually or through technology is like a Tivo user skipping commercials. In other words, uh, a criminal. It seems.

    --

    --

    --
    Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

  9. Yeah, when will the networks notice? by JohnZed · · Score: 5

    I love Dvorak's comment that networks haven't gotten mad yet simply because they haven't taken notice of TiVo yet.

    Gee, well, let's look at the list of equity investors in TiVo, inc: CBS, AOL-Time Warner, Comcast, Liberty Media, Discovery communications, Showtime Networks, Disney, and NBC. So, gee, guess Dvorak believes either (a) NBC, CBS and friends don't count as "major networks", or (b) they invested in TiVo without having even a vague clue as to what the company would produce.

    Good research, Dvorak! And you get paid for this crap?
    --JRZ

  10. Re:John C. Dvorak... he lost it by IHateEverybody · · Score: 3


    I remember back when that was true, but as I recall, there was as many misses as hits. I first heard about DVD, MP3 and nickel-hydride batteries from his columns years before they became widely known, but if I recall correctly he also thought that push technology was going to become the next big thing. (anyone remember pointcast?)

    Dvorak hated push technology largely because he thought that it was just a big scam to shove a lot more advertising down our throats. It's kind of ironic that he now condemns TiVo and its PVR brethren because they allow us to have less advertising shoved down our throats.

    Some pundits just don't age well.

    --
    Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  11. Re:Damn what a flippin moron by OmegaDan · · Score: 5
    More then that ... I pay for TV, I get a 50$ bill every month from Adelphia to prove it ... I pay 50$ for the signal every month, and I can do whatever I want with it :)

    As the consumer, I don't care or have to care wether CBS gets a cut of that 50$ ...

    I think the fact is that Networks have existed in the coincidence that people *were willing to watch commercials* ... that coincidence is coming to an end -- just like the banner add revenue crisis :) ... At best television is a loss-leader revenue model, give away something for free, hope people make it worth your while ... remind you of anything else thats failed latley ? ...

    I believe the add-banner and commercial problems are coming from a complete advertising overload ... EVERYWHERE you look theres advertising ... after awhile it just blends into the background ... and who pays attention to the background?

    What I'd like to see is a DirecTV + TIVO device that downloads the shows *I* want to see via sattelite onto its hard drive as well as providing a few realtime channels (news, etc...) ... I'd pay 1$ a month to download *new* simpsons episodes without commercials, which is more money then fox has ever gotten from me so far!

    --
    Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
  12. It all the same Drek by Code+Archeologist · · Score: 5

    Its kind of funny really, when you take it all in perspective. My Grandfather told me when he was working for Magnavox that there was quite the to do about the fact their remote controls were going to have MUTE buttons. Yep there were threats of law suit and all manner of huffing and puffing... it never really hit the press back then though because most people didn't care. And really nothing really came of it and nobody got into any big fight about it, and nobody lost anything from it. Same story, different inovation.

  13. Facts about Betamax by Eloquence · · Score: 5
    You can read more about the Betamax decision here. The Home Recording Rights Coalition still works to protect fair use against corporations, but the EFF seems to be better equipped for the "Digital Millennium" (yuck).

    --

  14. Dvorak says going to the John. . . by kfg · · Score: 3

    during commercials is theft!

    Shame on all of you ip thieves out there, depriving all those hard working sponsors of their right to blast you with intelligence insulting propaganda.

    Have you no shame?

    KFG

    1. Re:Dvorak says going to the John. . . by vslashg · · Score: 3
      during commercials is theft!

      But remember, folks, if you're going to ignore ethics and steal from the networks anyway, at least don't forget to wipe.

  15. Damn what a flippin moron by NeMon'ess · · Score: 5
    By his logic getting up between shows to grab a drink is stealing television since you're watching the show but not the adds. I suppose he thinks that channel surfing or using the mute button to silence commercials is a bad thing as well. Perhaps he'd like to force us to look at the billboards we drive past. If we choose not to view advertising that's our choice. Advertisers don't like us for that but that's their problem. Long live TIVO.

  16. Mind-Shifting by L+Fitzgerald+Sjoberg · · Score: 5

    Personally, I think this pales in comparison to the practice of "mind-shifting," or memorizing plots, funny bits, and catch phrases from television shows in order to experience them -- or worse yet, share them with others -- without having to watch the commercials or pay the copyright holders.

    I'm petitioning congress to outlaw quoting television shows to your friends without also quoting at least one ad from that show. For instance, "EX-cellent, Smithers! The Joy of Cola!"

    --
    If you don't want my koalas, baby, don't shake my eucalyptus tree.
  17. I don't understand Tivo by metis · · Score: 3
    Why would anyone want to skip the commercials? The commercials are the only part of TV programming that looks like somebody actually was trying to think creatively while producing. The commercial breaks are nuggets of gold in a sea of horseshit.

    Yesturday I was mentally somewhere else when they started showing a commercial for the Monty Pyton DVD set. Boy, I never, never, laughed so hard watching TV since I moved to the USA.

    Why not have the Tivo remove the programming and allow us to see the commercials uninterrupted?

    --
    -- look, cheese ahoy!
  18. Re:Once again, the submitter gets it wrong by RedWizzard · · Score: 5
    Nice troll.

    First of all, he is not saying that the primary purpose is to steal programming, he's saying that is going to be a future use similar to what is happening with MP3, and of course, he's right.

    Second of all, the Betamax case has nothing to do with anything. The question is about whether anonymous mass distribution of copyrighted material qualifies as fair use, and the answer is again "no"

    The Betamax case is relevant because it says that it does not matter if one of the uses of a device is copyright infringement so long as the primary use is legitimate. You already admitted that the primary use was not copyright infringement. Unless we see the widespread distribution of Tivo movie files across the Net in some organised way (a la Napster) you and Dvorak will have a hard time convincing anyone that these devices are anything other than a legitimate VCR variant.
  19. It never ceases to amaze me... by ZanshinWedge · · Score: 4
    How all these people always have the wrong solutions. People don't want to watch commercials, and technology exists to allow them not to. Solution: outlaw the technology and force people to watch commercials. Ingenious! That takes a special level of intelligence to come up with that. Why don't they think about other business models. There are other business models for multimedia content ya know. For example, HBO seems to do well without commercials. This technology, the TiVo, is here to stay, you can't subjugate people into doing things they do not want to do. TiVo represents just one aspect of how multimedia (TV and movies especially) are changing. The old "broadcast" model is growing obsolete and is morphing into a more "content on demand / interactive" web like model. Content will be archived, content will be available when and how you want it. Content will be stored, formatted, and priced, to the viewer's needs, not the needs of the network or the advertisers. TiVo represents how this "revolution" will occur even without the active participation of the media producers. Eventually there will come a time when TV enthusiasts don't need to change their life to fit the TV schedule. They will be able to watch what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want. VCRs have already shown us a glimpse of the possibilities, and TiVo (and similar technology) shows us how simple extensions to those possibilities can change things profoundly. Now it is possible to go on vacation and you can simply come back and catch up on your favorite TV shows.

    In the future the transformation of multimedia "broadcasting" will be even more profound. Right now everything is driven by the need for a substantial market and for a substantial profit margin. In the future there will be much more smaller niches available. Imagine every movie and every episode from every TV show being available for varying costs at your convenience. That is a substantial shift from today. For one, I predict you won't see quite as much crap as you do today. There won't be "channels" in a traditional sense, so media providers won't be forced to either "cut content down" or "add in filler" to make up a 24 hour day. Multimedia content providers and creators will be able to produce as much or as little content as they feel is necessary. Ultimately it will be a good thing for the television industry as well as it's viewers. But in the meantime we have to deal with outdated notions and people resistant to change. Those who resist the flow of change and the wishes of the populace do so at their peril. The future is coming, it's time to accept it and plan for it, not to deny it.

  20. Re:An observation. by ZanshinWedge · · Score: 4

    I find it interesting that anyone would describe not viewing the commercials in a TV show as "stealing" television. Nobody ever signed a contract with the television channel stipulating that they would recieve programs in exchange for watching commercials and buying an appropriate amount of the products advertised. That is in essence how "free" TV channels pay for content, but we, the viewers, are not active participants in that contract. If we choose not to watch commercials that is not our problem. Perhaps in the long run it means that the show's producers will need to find a new business model, but it does not mean that we are legally, or morally I would say, obligated to watch commercial advertisements and buy those products advertised. I pay my money to watch HBO, I pay my money to rent and buy DVD movies, I pay my money to buy CDs, I pay my money to buy books, I never signed a contract with NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, or even the Discovery channel. If I choose to fast forward through commercials on taped programs on those channels, or to "surf" during commercials when watching the broadcast, or to use the bathroom or refil my drink or get a snack, that is my choice, it is up to them to figure out how to deal with it.

  21. Mr. Dvorak isn't exactly reliable... by Arthropoid · · Score: 5

    Among his reasons why the Mac won't succeed:
    From the San Francisco Examiner, Feb. 19th, 1984

    The Macintosh has no slots for expansion and is therefore restricted in versatility

    Well, Microsoft is currently pushing a legacy free, closed box PC as the new consumer utopia...

    The machine uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'

    If Dvorak didn't use a GUI based system (my bet is a PC, seeing how he is so viruntly anti-Mac) to write his article, and to do all his work for the past 7 or 8 years (conservative estimate), I will eat my own shorts.
    Who out there in the general martketplace even knows what a 'font' is?

    I would bet that about 90% of the public knows at this point; and most knew by the early 90s

    What businessman knows about point size or typefaces or the value of variable point size?

    See the comment above...

    The Macintosh uses icons to represent functions as though there was some intuitive knowledge on the part of the user as to what these icons mean.

    Did you know what sounds the letters in the alphabet represented before you memorized them? Sever anti-GUI trend here...

    Mr. Dvorak is one of the worst 'major' PC columnists in almost all regards (accuracy, predictions, impartiality). I don't have time to list more of his hilarious mistakes, but if you put anything Apple in front of him, he will immediatly say it will fail and is inferior to anything PC.

    --

    Arthropoid, the Right Clam for the Job
  22. Plus... by tswinzig · · Score: 5

    Mr. Dvorak is one of the worst 'major' PC columnists in almost all regards (accuracy, predictions, impartiality).

    Plus his keyboard SUCKS.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  23. TechTV by DaSyonic · · Score: 3

    I saw an episode of Silicon Spin on TechTV where John C. Dvorak (who hosts the show) made similar claims. Some guy from TiVo was also there, and they were talking about how TV will make money now that TiVo is 'stealing' TV stations profits, and while the TiVo guy tried to explain how TiVo works to him, and how there are advertisements/channels getting put on TiVo preinstalled now, and other such things, John simply seemed to completely ignore him and say that TiVo is illegal and wont last long. It really got me mad personally, as he was someone whom I respected in the mainstream computing world. And especially since TiVo is quite accepting to geeks who want to basically do what they want with the equipment THEY paid for. However since his working with TechTV he has become quite clueless to facts, and more interested in getting ratings. This was all about 2 months ago too...
    I personally gave him feedback, but only received an automated response. It really shows where he stands...

    --

    Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
    James Brents
  24. Ok, Dvorak is a spank but... by geomcbay · · Score: 3
    Ok, so his article is filled with trollish bullshit...but on one level there IS a point here. Advertisements DO pay for network TV and subsidize even cable TV, at least for the channels that aren't full blown "premium" channels.

    Technology IS getting to the point where its easy for Joe Sixpack to "zap" the commercials (the fact that VCRs could do this years ago is meaningless considering the average person can't set the clock on a VCR or set it to record a program without some hand-holding VCR+Plus type dealie)... When these devices become commonplace and nobody is watching TV commercials, that IS a problem...The money is going to have to come from somewhere...If the dot-bomb economy proved anything its that advertisements that nobody pays attention to aren't going to pay the bills. So where does the money come from?

    Will all TV channels be "premium" in the future? Will the networks mix the advertisements & the programming together (ie. even more gratituous product placements..say one every 1.5 minutes?)

    Its easy to dismiss Dvorak as a loon, but there are some tough economic/cultural questions that will need to be answered some day soon...

  25. Silliness by ryants · · Score: 3
    On top of that, both UltimateTV and TiVo charge customers $10 a month to use the device. None of that money goes to the networks or programmers whose material is being re-recorded and saved to the hard disk.
    I wonder if Panasonic (maker of my VCR) and the makers of my no-name VCR tapes send cheques to NBC and FOX?
    At least with MP3, attempts have been made to collect fees to share with the artists and producers. The issue hasn't even been raised in this video-bootlegging scenario.
    Uh... what bootlegging?
    Someday, though, all the barriers may be resolved and every TV just might have these capabilities built in. Perhaps that's when someone will notice the looming issue over intellectual property that has been largely ignored until now.
    Yeah... the looming issue that has been ignored is that intellectual property is bunk.

    Ryan T. Sammartino

    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"