Slashdot Mirror
News on TiVo, "God's Machine"
Brace for incoming TiVo news!
rtphokie pointed out that FCC chair Michael Powell got a TiVo for Christmas and calls it
"God's machine."
Powell also said he wanted to share TV shows with his sister -- but he might have to violate the DMCA to do it: TiVo wants to
join the home network
(thanks Insomniac), but parr pointed us to
TiVo's Thursday press release
in which they assure us that "every TiVo Series2 DVR contains a unique public/private key pair," so only "designated" units within your home can share programs, you "cannot send content outside the home," and transfers over your home network will be encrypted (no sniffing!). Meanwhile, on the WB (part of AOL-TW), everything old is new again, as producers and advertisers work to create a live variety show with
built-in commercials (free reg. req.) (thanks eternal_software).
And if you missed our earlier TiVoesque stories, check 'em out:
TiVo-radio wanted,
HDTV TiVo,
and
TiVo Rendezvous. Whew!
TiVo's Thursday press release in which they assure us that "every TiVo Series2 DVR contains a unique public/private key pair," so only "designated" units within your home can share programs, you "cannot send content outside the home," and transfers over your home network will be encrypted (no sniffing!).
So TiVo is going out of it's way to assure it's customers that the device has been purposely and explicitely designed so as to be less useful to them. What the fuck is going on here?????
Powell should've gotten a ReplayTV 4000 to share TV shows, and home movies like "Wings over the Gulf", with his sister...
Anyone got any good Tivo news?
Its annoying enough when you get the same jokes forwarded by e-mail from all your uncles and aunts. Now brace yourself for endless copies of the time Gilligan accidentally sleeps in the Skippers Hammock lining your inbox. Ah modern technology!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Um...which article in here, exactly, says that Powell wants to share programs with his sister but that he is aware he would need to break the DMCA to do it?
The sentence construction in the original posting suggests that Powell is actually aware of the law and its problems, and neither the article nor anything he as ever said proves any such thing.
Yes, it's semantics, but it's damn important semantics. One is playing what-if games where we say 'Gee, wouldn't it be k-rad cool if Michael Powell was breakin' the law, huhhuhuhuh?', the other makes a _clear-cut statement_ that an appointed government official is aware of the problems of a copyright law his department nor administration never gave a nod to.
Ha.
The post should read, 'Powell also said that he wanted to share shows with his sister. What Powell may not be aware of is that in saying so, he may ultimately have to break the DMCA to do it.'
If you're going to do so many stories on it, why not? And while you're adding icons, how about one for Google?
I'm sure there are many of us on Slashdot who have been kinda thinking about getting one of these PVRs, but don't know which is better: TiVo, ReplayTV, or the others.
Can a good Slashdot nerd who's researched the pros and cons of each give the rest of us a good intelligent recommendation? (Or at least point to a good URL you've found elsewhere?)
Thanks!
...transfers over your home network will be encrypted (no sniffing!)
Um, just because it's encrypted doesn't mean I can't sniff the encrypted data to try to work out the keys. How do you think you crack WEP?
Personally, I feel that the ability to share files is one of the least useful features of a PVR. If there is something I really want to see, its trivial to just record it myself. Plus with the way cable TV works, the same shows will often get repeated multiple times on the same day or the coming weeks, so if my friend comes to me and says "did you see this show, you gotta see it" I would just find it on the schedule and record it myself. Plus there is a going trend of network shows to appear on basic cable during the next two weeks. Not to mention that it will be repeated at least two or three times later in the TV season.
I do think that a major victim of file sharing TiVos will be HBO, as I can see "The Sopranos" and other non-basic cable shows to be most shared files out there, and I don't think that's right. I'd say a feature that isn't really necessary, is highly controversial, and in IMO most likely to be used illegally should be removed right now, especially if it threatens the overall survival of the excellent service.
For example, when I went home at Christmas, I told my parents to watch The Shield on FX because I figured they would like it. They got hooked and watched the first season marathon FX showed. Now, if FX hadn't been showing it as a marathon, my parents may have never caught up on the series enough to want to watch more. With file sharing, I or someone else who had the first season, could've send them the episodes to watch. You don't always want to know what you want to watch the first time it airs, and not everything gets a second airing.
Keifer enters president Palmet's office after a gun fight, blood stains on his shirt.
President Palmer: Here, try this new Tide detergent.
Keifer sprinkles Tide on shirt, blood dissapears.
Keifer, smiling towards camera: Wow! Tide really gets those stubborn blood stains out!
The media industry is already making the move into product placement as the means to make money. We've seen it in movies for years, but most TV shows and music have avoided it due to commercial sponsorship. The industrty realizes we can make digital recordings and edit out the commercials, so why not embed the commercials in the shows themselves. It's only a matter of time before Pepsi's new ad campaign involves their name being mentioned in 8 of the Top Ten songs on the radio....plus your still stuck with the advertizing if you buy the CD, or just "steal" it off the internet. Could be a good thing for the file swappers if they can now argue that the artist was paid by the advertizers
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
Let's look at this in the abstract. People love TiVo because it gives them the ability to watch entertainment they enjoy free from the distraction of intrusions they do not enjoy, and at a time that is convenient for them. Content owners do not like TiVo for precisely the same reasons. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the shows themselves.
... television shows?
Content owners (TV studios, "Hollywood") probably couldn't care less if people time-shift television. Why? Because for broadcast at least, the TV shows are almost the precise definition of a loss leader. If you time-shift your show, the local station or cable provider that is playing it has still paid the license fee to run the show. There is no change in the net income from the show. The show generates no more or no less revenue than it did before. If the show is a money-losing venture in itself - which most of them probably are - the the show is no MORE of a money-loser because it's been moved out of its time slot.
(Now, there is the possible exception that time-shifting screws up the studios' ability to generate statistics about viewing habits, etc., which could impact relationships with advertisers, but, well, keep reading.)
So, if a television show's movement through time has no impact or minimal impact on its revenue generating capacity for the studio which creates it (please note, the actors don't care because they've already been paid), why are the studios upset?
Advertising moolah.
This is not a revolutionary observation. I'm aware of that. But they're so angry about you time-shifting because you want to get rid of exactly the thing that gives them the profit motive to make the show in the first place. They can try product placement and inline ads as partial replacements for traditional block advertising, but the 30-second ad spot is still the cash cow.
And you're getting in the cash cow's way.
So the studio is upset. But let's take a step back and look at what the combat really means. (This is where this post gets flamable, so if you liked it before, stop reading.) TiVo owners are demanding a right, and spending their hard-earned money, to time-shift
What value are they to anybody? The studios don't care because they don't represent any real revenue. They will only make good shows if they think those shows will attract eyes to see ads crammed into the spaces between show segments.
And do they represent any real value to you? Eh, you might chuckle or cry or gasp or cower when watching, but after the 30 minute sitcom is over, what have you gained? A new skill? Truly reduced stress? Enlightenment? Not likely.
In fact, and paradoxically, the only benefit to the viewer in a usual TV watching session is in the ADS. It's like the old advice on how to pick up women: "Just walk up to one and ask her if she wants to f***. Nine times out of ten you'll get slapped, but that tenth time.. wowee..." That's how the advertisers see you. And with good reason: because 1 time out of 10, you're going to see an ad and think "Hey, that's neat..." And you might go buy it. If you ignore the ad the other 9 times, the advertisers don't really care, because there are 280 million other people out there deciding whether "Can you hear me now?" is going to provoke them to get or keep Verizon phones.
So, you actually derive more tangible benefit from that one time you actually are moved by an ad than you do from all the sitcom watching in the world, except in those instances where the sitcoms are so insidious as to be indistinguishable from the ads themselves.
My solution? No tv. I don't have to pay the cable company $520 a year for television I don't watch. I don't have to pay $400-6,000 dollars to replace my ten-year-old TV when it finally dies. I don't have to spend hours upon hours sitting in front of the brain control box, um, TV soaking up advertising. And I don't have to spend money to fight the advertising by buying a TiVo. I lose some entertainment, sure, but I have books, family, the Internet, and even my own imagination.
I'm not passing judgment on anybody, except the advertisers who attempt to monopolize your mind. But do me a favor, you Slashdot people I don't even know... Try going without TV (and TiVo) for a month. Completely without TV.
See if you really miss it.
"Built-in commercials" worked in the days of old because there was no such thing as syndication. A program aired once (usually live) and that was it. So you had sponsors paying for that airtime, and they got their advertising in.
Not so today.
When a program is recorded, space is left for the commercials. They usually don't even know who the sponsors are yet. Then the commercials are added later. A season or two later, if it's a popular program, it's all picked up for syndication (a wild process involving conventions and stations and networks and lots of wheeling-and-dealing). The station or network airing the program in syndication will be putting in a completely different set of commercials.
See the problem here? If the commercials are irrevocably embedded into the program, they can't be removed and replaced during syndication. That means it won't syndicate at all, because the cable networks and superstations of the world won't be able to put in their own commercials. They won't be able to make back the money they paid for the programming. So, they'll either choose other programming, or if this style of programming becomes dominant, the smaller stations and networks may go away entirely.
It's kind of like forcing people to take a web browser or media player with an operating system, whether they want it or not. It puts people's eyeballs where you want them in the short term, but it screws up the flexibility for pretty much everyone else in the universe.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
is to create a Tivo Fund where we buy Tivos for all our elected officials?
It seems like you're leaving out a few parts if you did it under $300. Not to mention the fact that your homemade device probably isn't as easy to use.
Product placement is the obvious way to go, yes. Saleware shows and music will redefine the rules. Not just "Yes, you can copy this freely", but "we'll pay you to host our song/show" on your server.
If you think this is not possible, consider the TV shows that simply show funny or bizarre adverts from other countries. Product placement can be very well done and entertaining in itself, and the only limit to turning a Pepsi spot into a full feature movie is the director's imagination.
Is this the future of digital media art?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
It will be interesting to see how the public reacts to this show that is based (in part) around ads for products. I think these genius advertisers are finally getting the hint that people are phasing out traditional commercials (just like how we rarely notice banner ads anymore) and they're scrambling for something else.
There are already plenty of TV shows with ads in them - look at sports, for instance, with ads all over the various stadiums, and even with soccer which goes commercial-free and has an ad of the sponsor under the clock. I figure it's just a matter of time before regular TV programming adopts this form of advertising, with a little logo in the corner, or maybe shrinking the screen down ala MTV to give you some ad along the side and bottom of the screen.
And we'll probably get used to it, just as we've gotten used to the logos for the channel that are always on now..
we spend so much time bitching about stupid pols writing bad laws, but has anyone spent the time to setup the kewl things they are trying to legislate into vaporware????
maybe, we need to start a campaign to give great geekware to legislators and government officials for the sake of winning their hearts (or wherever powell's god lives) to our causes. if we can make enough lawmakers into violators of the DMCA and other heinous laws on the books, or proposed and show them why we feel strongly about this. or even have the EFF donate linux boxen to lawmakers. we will gain an advantage.
at any rate. i propose we start by giving a copy of the Linux Bar Monkey to Ted Kennedy and go from there .. . .
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
[link]
provides an interesting insight into the amount of time that people watch TV. Basically, the article states that if you follow these three steps, you, too, can become very angry at how much of your life and mind are being wasted.
1. Watch any TV show for 15 minutes without turning on the sound.
2. Watch any news program for 15 minutes without turning on the sound.
3. Watch television for one half hour without turning it on.
Putting adds in the content, or having the content members plug stuff is not new. Soap operas are called "soap operas" because they were shows pormoted exclusivley for a single advertiser. Some shows required the story to involve laundry scenes where the "whiteness of your whites" could be commented upon. Ed sullivan, groucho marx, and all the rest used to plug the products right in the show, reading the ads.
I imagine they went to the "modern" format of distinct ads becaause they were deemed more effective at catching viewer attention. Now the pendulum swings back.
A freind told me that in some european country, italy perhaps, there are certain shows or channels that only have ads at the begining and ends. The response of the adveritsers is to make comercials so good that you really want to watch. Which of course is sort odd segwaying back into making whole shows again with embedded comercials.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This is exactly why the working title of the WB's show is "Live from Tomorrow"... it's meant to be an SNL-like program that'll always be done live, and assumes that there's going to be no point in trying to rerun the show.
The idea is for this to be cheap entertainment, and to try to get ad dollars out of everyone who participates. (I.E... Selling the right to send the musical guest to record labels, since all the artist really is doing is promoting their album... selling the right to send the guest host to movie studios, since all that actor really is doing is promoting that movie, etc.) It's not clear if this is gonna work or not, the news headline is that the guy who backed Who Wants to be a Millionaire is willing to try.
BTW, the way this show is being set up is that the production company is actually going to pay the WB network for its airtime, rather than the WB paying for the show.
Too true - The Game Show network runs 40 year old game shows, like "What's My Line" and "I've Got a Secret", where the sets are covered with ads that are pretty laughable - some of them for products that don't even exist anymore (an anti-perspirant called "Dryette" comes to mind) ...
It wasn't very long ago that this letter appeared
/ 02 56214&mode=flat&tid=95
http://www.netparadox.com/
on slashdot
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/22
I don't recall seeing any follow up on this. It sorta looks like he's staying the course.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Are you referring to Princess Replay, Yoda?
This week I brought up Tivo twice in conversation. Once was to a mom who loves Oprah and watches it every day but is really mad when she misses it for whatever reason or someone calls in the middle of Oprah. I said "Well, you just need Tivo." She looked at me like I said "Oh, just re-route your flux capacitor.'
The other night I asked a business man who is one of those gadget freaks if he had tivo and he had the similar response!
How is it that people dont know what Tivo is? Why the hell does anyone who watch TV NOT have a Tivo? Listen to people like Adam Carolla on Loveline. He is just blown away by Tivo's powers. Don, Mike, Buzz, Rob of the Don and Mike show all have it and its just like going to the bathroom on how often they use it. It was a plot topic on King of Queens even! So, why the hell have people not jumped all over this thing?!
Now, I cant afford Tivo so what shows I really DO wanna watch (Sopranos) I record using my GF's All-in-wonder. If I didnt have an all-in-wonder, Id be saving up for a Tivo.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
If I could buy & download high-quality divx commercial free episodes of star trek or watnot for $0.50 (way more than they make on advertizing per viewer per 1-hour show) from fast servers, then I would buy every single episode of every star trek series ever made, and a whole lot more, instead of being forced to download them illegally because I can't afford to pay $600 just for all 7 seasons of ST:TNG on DVD, and they're rarely if ever on TV. Even in the absense of copy protection, this business model would work, because almost everyone would be willing to pay that meager price just to stay legit and use the fast servers. Free, fast, commercial-free, uncopyprotected sale of TV show recordings online for say, double the amount they would have made from advertizing per viewer if it were broadcasted (a very reasonable sum always below $0.75) would be very beneficial to the consumer and they would overwhelmingly give up piracy in favor of that system, so it would also be very profitable for the makers of the TV shows.
Repeal the DMCA!
What Powell may not be aware of is that in saying so, he may ultimately have to break the DMCA to do it.
Except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Distributing copies of home recordings is a violation of plain old copyright law, law which has been on the books since 1790.
But making snide remarks about a 200-year-old law makes you look kind of like an anti-establishment wacko, while snide remarks about the DMCA are always socially acceptable.
I write in my journal
Heh. I read the sentance and in my brain I read it like you said, he knows about the law and knows that if he wanted to do cool shit, he would be breaking the law. I havent read the article yet (heh) and probably wasnt going to because I have the jist of the article, that he doesnt like that law.
Yea, it is a pretty big difference and im glad someone saw it as insightful.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
NetFlix has more or less proven that the easiest way to transfer 3 hours of TV-quality video content is to put a DVD into a lightweight mailer and then put a 37 cent postage stamp on it. Using the mail is cheaper and faster than any internet-based solution to transfer that much data.
I really don't see net-based transfer of Tivo-recorded content to be a workable solution.
While most of what you say is very true, this is only a problem if viewed with eyes that are unready to change the business model from the ground up (which admittely includes just about the entire media industry).
If shows could be entirely paid for by embedded advertisements, then the business model the distribution of the shows would have to be different. Firstly, the producers would want to have as many viewers as possible, spreading over the Internet would be greatly encouraged. Secondly , while it is true that there would be no reason for syndicated channels to pay for the material if they cannot tack on their own advertisements, the original sponsors and producers, again looking for as many viewers as possible, would want the shows syndicated. So the business relationship would be inverse: producers would pay channels to show there shows.
The question that remains, of course, is that of the efficiency of the adveritising. It is obvious that if an advertisement in embedded in the program instead of tacked on, it will be less flexible both geographically and temporally (difficult to change for different markets, as well as for different times), meaning that advertisers are less likely to pay as much as they do today per viewer of the add. But there are several things that help moderate this. Firstly, brands and products are much more global today then when television started - there is probably no shortage of companies that are willing to market there product at every viewer of Friends (or whatever mind numbing sitcom we are being spoon fed this week). Secondly, a loss in advertising revenue does not necessarily mean the end of TV - there are what, five?, different Discovery channels in cable packages these days, will it really be the end of the world if they were forced to scale that back to one or two? Television has become much more efficient in just the last ten years or so - it is now possible to produce material for much less per possible viewer then it was previously.
Writing off the concept of embedded advertisements is premature. The nature of the information age (barring the bonds that MS and co. want to place on it) is that people are in control, down to the micro level, of what content they consume. In the long term, it is not possible in such a society to try to make people pay attention to things they do not desire - making it seem to them that they do desire it is advertisements only hope.
For less than $300 I just built a PVR using PowerVCR II software, a modest cpu based system and an 80 gig drive.
For about the same or a few dollars more, I have a TiVo that I didn't have to build myself. Not to mention the fact that my TiVo has more features, is more user-friendly, and works more reliably than your homebrew FrankenPVR ever could.
I write in my journal
Well, now that the Pope Powell of the FCC is on board..
Imagine the stunning marketing avenues and license approval for new tech that have been opened by this endorsement from the high priest of the EM spectrum.
Such clerical pontification can only do wonders for the promotion of any product. Hey Mike, how about the George Foreman Grill?
"Oh, I love it. I mean it's in Jesusez' kitchen."
Any thoughts on the new HUM-V?
"That is exactly the same car with which I expect Saint Peter will meet you for your ride up that long road behind the Pearly Gates."
Tell us about that new iPod.
"The Holy Ghost's very own walkman."
They should have sent this guy a freebie three years ago. Someone needs to promo him a High-Def TV set pronto.
If i were an actor in a television show, how would you structure that contract to force them to also be commercial pitchmen? Could they demand to be paid twice? once by NBC/ABC/CBS and a second time by coke or pepsi? or do they even get a choice in the matter? "if you want this job you'll be doing three commercials per episode or a yet to be named product!"
You make a good point, but you missed the important part. The value derived from watching tv is the entertainment.
You mention you like to read, as do I. I also happen to prefer to buy my books over borrowing them (although I do borrow some), just because I like having my own little library. So, everytime I, or you, buy a non-reference book, we are essentially paying for entertainment. Reading a book, despite what some think, does not necessarily improve you in any way (you can pick up new skills and reduce stress just as well with tv as with a book), you won't find "enlightenment" (assuming there is such a thing anyway).
Ever go to the movies, a concert, a play? All of these are like tv, in the fact that you are paying for the entertainment. Hell a lot of vacations are really people just paying for entertainment, of course there's a more tangible component to that entertainment.
Fine, if you don't get much enjoyment out of tv, don't watch it. I, however, find some shows rather amusing, and enjoy watching them. The great thing about tv is that it only requires partial attention, I often do something else while watching it. You can't do that with a book.
By the way, I never got into the habit of watching commercials (even long before TiVo). I'll gladly flip or do something else for those minutes, assuming I can't find a "filler show" to use during commercials, before I will sit there and absorb the advertising.
Is it possible that you just haven't found the right things to watch?
Maybe you didn't intend it, but to me your post comes off a bit "holier-than-thou", which is a sense I get from a lot of people who don't watch tv. I have gone a month without tv. I often don't watch it while I'm travelling. Still, I do enjoy it when I'm at home, and not doing anything in particular. You could make a similar case for surfing the web, it's not much better than tv...
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
It's sort of back to the future on this. Back in the days of radio, the various network orchestras were sponsored and had naming rights ("The CBS Ivory Soap Orchestra"). After the 30-second ad became prevalent (thanks to videotape), the idea grew that advertisers shouldn't integrate themselves into the show.
Now, with channel surfing and TiVos, advertisers and programming execs are going back to the idea of integrated advertising; CBS' The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn often has genuine sponsors ("And now, Craig explains human sexuality to the birds and the bees, brought to you by RadioShack"). Fox has been a trailblazer in this department: the season premier of 24 was commercial free thanks to Ford's sponsorship, a fact which Fox made known throughout the promos for the show (which ran during NFL games and the World Series). Fox Sports Net's The Best Damn Sports Show Period has elevated product placement to an art form: the set features a bar with spigots for Labatt Blue, Dos Equis, and Rolling Rock, and will soon be getting a deck sponsored by Home Depot with a grill.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with this, especially if it ends up bringing fewer commercial breaks.
Just so you know, these TiVos don't have file sharing. They have LAN streaming. Which means one TiVo on a lan can stream a show to another TiVo an the same Local Area Network. I am sure a hack could be made to send the show over the Internet, but it is not an official feature.
If i'm not mistaken, product placement is actually illegal in the UK, and it may be in other countries too.
Even 'live' shows like Saturday Night Live and Late Night with Conan O'Brien are rerun. A while ago, Conan used to be trying this same type of thing as well, except instead of integrating it into some bit, he would make it a bit in itself and make fun of the advertised product in some way.
Sharing TV shows non-commercially would not have violated the original 1790 law, which covered only "vending" of protected works.
Now the real question in the matter is: who gave it to him, and how can we thank them?
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
The innovative product tends to be less attractive. It's the scalability of the technology that is important. The net will scale to make moving GBs easier and cheaper than using the USPS. It just hasn't yet.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Some shows just won't work with embedded advertising. Some cartoons take a year to make, so unless it's a generic "Eat at McDonald's" ad, you can't put it in. Also, if you have something that's for a limited time (like a special type of pizza) you don't want that ad shown again in the future. Plus you'll want that add shown often during the limited time, so you'll have to find many different shows that will put it in.
Documentary type shows, like the Crocodile Hunter, would also have problems placing products.
Err, UPN is not picking the series up.
I don't know if anybody's seen BMW Films, but that's the sort of interesting thing that I think we're heading for. Basically, BMW hired a bunch of film directors (John Frankenheimer, John Woo, Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, etc.) and had them creat short films featuring BMW vehicles in prominent roles. They're actual shorts, with discernible plots, and no superimpositions of the specs of the cars or announcer voiceovers. They've had some success getting various cable and satellite channels (DirecTV even had a special channel that just looped them continuously) to show what amounts to a series of 10-minute ads for BMW.
In a related vein, DaimlerChrysler is shopping a series of films which were entered into a competition. Apparently, they had a contest where owners of Chryslers could send in homemade films featuring their cars for a prize. Some of the entries were good enough, in DC's estimation, to warrant packaging them into a series.
did you see the comment about the embedded commercials that they are having on the 'who wants to be a millionaire show'? well they do that here now in malaysia on one of the channels... it's the most annoying thing.... someone say on tv 'god i'm starved' and a friggin kfc commercial will pop up from the bottom to get the latest twister filled with creme cheese.... crap!
Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.
Now, you're the chairman of the FCC. You're deeply involved in the legality of the media business, which is currently chiefly concerned with the DMCA. You want to share recordings of television shows.
Do you seriously think he doesn't know the DMCA might be a problem there?
Do you seriously think he doesn't know the DMCA might be a problem there?
The FCC, under Powell's direction, has let the debate of a broadcast flag go through several comment stages without letting it be dropped, right up to the point where they must now decide whether to make it a binding recommendation to the industry. A broadcast flag would pretty much smash 'trading shows with your sister', much less 'recording anything the industry doesn't want you to' at all. Oh, and yes, I think PVRs will be forced to abide by broadcast flags.
So, Powell at once enjoys the flexibility a TiVO affords him, while not realizing he is about to blatantly recommend that this capability be squelched.
You better believe I don't think he sees the problem there. Or the broadcast flag recommendation would be a dead dog right now.
The thing is, disc-based technology is also being revised, so the USPS will also be increasing its data capacity over the years as well.
When you have a TB worth of data to move, I don't think the 'net will ever catch up to the speed of a van.
This is a unique problem for gameshows, but not insurmountable. Think of the "You Bet Your Life" reruns; the weird camera angles weren't always that way. They blew up parts of the frame to get rid of the DeSoto ads for rerun business. It DID make for some funky looking composition, but it worked reasonably well for the time.
--DocL
---
If it wasn't for half of the people in this country, the other half would be all of them -- Col. Stoopnagle
I wouldn't want Ted Kennedy to go the way of Boris Yeltsin...
yours,
kbs
Two things. First of all no one is forcing you. Second of all 600$ is dirt cheap. There are som 178 episodes (not counting all the extra stuff, like behind the scenes) of TNG. That is about 3 bucks per episode. If you can't afford that, you either live in Afghanistan or you are simply to cheap to buy, no matter what they were charged.
I sincerely doubt it. At
Some people will not be satisfied before you can get it for free. And then they will probably bitch because the download is too slow.
For
Rumagent
From what it sounds like, I would rather watch commercials than this 'live variety show'.
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
hypothetical You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. From my understanding of hypothetical, those examples are real, not hypothetical, because he said his parents did watch 'The Shield' and he did watch 'Buffy the Vampire'. Now he is using these examples to support the hypothesis over the Tivo would be usefulness, but that is not what is usually meant when hypothetical is used in front of scenarios, or examples, and that does not appear to be the way that you are using it. The scenario where there was no shield marathon and no Buffy reruns is the hypothetical one.
This will be an issue only when it takes a terrabyte to encode a TV show, which won't be happening anytime soon. With compression, a hour-long (42 min w/o commercials) program can be trimmed to a very watchable 150 MB, a full quality 450 MB, or a widescreen HDTV 800 MB - all quite doable on the average cable modem. I can grab 800 MB from usenet in about 2 hours on my home connection.
>>FCC chair Michael Powell got a TiVo for Christmas and calls it "God's machine."
Um OK. So we now equate God with an fancy, glorified VCR. Terrific.
I'm not religious or anything, but the only tech that I'd even come close to calling God's Machines are those that save or improve the quality of lives. Like artifical organs, medical equipment. For me, even the simple concept of an ambulance is about 10,000 orders of magnitude above a Tivo.
Not just human life. Any life.
Huh?
I think that Slashdot has gone long enough without TiVO having it's own topic. Here's a few good reasons:
/. reader has one, and watching the future of TiVo will be one of the mosting interesting battlegrounds in the coming DMCA/MPAA/etc. conversations.
1) Very little besides TiVo is interesting on this "television" that provides so-called "entertainment."
2) It'd be relatively easy to seperate the TiVo topics from under the "Television" heading, as they all have the uniquely-capped word in them.
3) Apparently every
Just my $.02
Does your TiVo act as a jukebox as well?
And it's quite easy to use.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
A site that gets into more detail than you probably need is pvrcompare.com. It compares Tivo, ReplayTV, and UltimateTV and has a page of links to reviews from other sources.
The trend in the US is exactly the opposite of what you say. The amount of data you can fit on a disk and mail is increasing, while the amount of data you can transmit per unit time is decreasing. This is occuring through advances in optical storage, and association of broadband ISPs with large media companies that have an interest in you not being ablt to transmit very much data (since they both want to be the only source of information and entertainment, and assert that the data you're transmitting is probably stolen from them anyway).
Why would you go through the trouble of downloading a song that has advertising embedded in it? Or listening to such songs on the radio,
or watching programs with such advertising.
Is the stuff so good that you just can't put it down?
This kind of reminds me of Powell's description of the television device being "God's Machine".
Reading that statement, I was at a loss. I kept wondering," In what context can the device be seen as "God's Machine?". In the context of a kitty litter scoop being God's machine, in it's ability to seperate the wheat from the chaffe? And once God's machine has completed its task, what are you left with? Just smaller pieces of poop.
It's kind of like Cantor Dust. No matter how closely you look at the dust, it's always the same. You can't seperate the non-chaotic dust from the orderly dust, because there is no orderly dust. People who stick so resolutely to television are tragic because what they're doing is desperately trying to seperate the corn from their poop, without realizing there is no corn.
The feeling of control the TIVO gives is an illusion, since from a very fundamental level, television is not designed for your benefit. There is no way of tricking the system into providing quality information, since the system
has no quality information to provide.
So, I've started wondering lately. Is the TiVo going to cut down on the TV I do watch?
I got my wife a TiVo for our anniversary last year. She LOVES it.
We spent the first while or three configuring the thing, then selecting all the shows we liked. We told it to record EVERYTHING, first runs and reruns. We spent hours a day watching it. We recently realized how much time we spent watching it. For 2 months, we spent 2-4 hours a weekday watching TV, and more on the weekend. It was entertaining, but there was more to life. Part of it was just getting through it so we would have the hard drive space (on an 80 hour unit) to not miss anything.
So, we pared it down to the TV shows we really enjoy, and first runs of those.
I'll be honest. We fast forward through the commercials. Not all of them, we actually stop, rewind and play ads that catch our eye with a visual joke or breathtaking nature view (or the like). Mostly those are for products, like a cola or a car or other tangible thing. I don't think we've ever stopped to watch a TV ad for a TV program. Which brings me to this observation: If we're not exposed to new shows, how will we decide what new shows to record? Will we just reach the point where the TiVo records a show a week that's requested? What happens when that's cancelled?
We don't watch TiVo's recommendations. They're just WAY off. TiVo may as well get paid to record episodes that the networks want us to see that we haven't specifically "thumbs downed" as far as I'm concerned, they're that relevant most days.
So, now we limit ourselves to an hour of TV a day. We see only the show or two that we really want to see, and nothing else. When the new season stops, will we bother to turn the TV on? I don't know. With Firefly and Birds of Prey going away, we may not bother.
So, here's my real question. If TiVo is going to help us find only shows we want to watch, are we going to get to the point where TiVo hasn't found any first runs that we want to watch? Will we then not turn the TV on every day? If we get to that point, will we eventually just forget that we have a TV?
I did a little write up on epinions to describe the machine shortly after we got it because I didn't see many reviews on the TiVo 2. (If you're not into blatant plugs, don't click the link -- it's my write-up.)
and costs you $12.95 a month to sit there...
Nice... where can I get a VCR that costs me $12.95!!!!!
Yes, but if everybody did that, your USENET server would be crammed with people downloading it, slowing down your performance.
You might not need to move a TB, but NetFlix has to move more data than that through their system every day. It'd be impossible for them to afford that kind of bandwidth on the Internet, but the USPS has no problem giving them a reasonable price.
Assumptions are dangerous and don't make great quotes. Bad writing causing a false quote is even worse. It's irrelevant what we think he thinks. We need to make him understand continually until we get a verifiable great quote.
You mean your friends don't already load your mailbox with "viral" adverts? You know, clever little skits that demonstrate some mass produced shit. OK, mine don't either so I doubt this will become a problem until everyone has enough bandwith so that sending such a thing will be no more anoying than a page of text to the reciever. Then it will become the same problem that chain jokes are today.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
you would be breaking the DMCA law by sniffing, not that you "can't" sniff....and you would never want to break a law, correct ?
Do you mean to tell me that someone is actually trying out a piece of technology that they want to legislate? Heresy!
I'm being sarcastic, of course, but if Michael Powell starts opposing the DMCA, that might ALMOST get him off my shitlist.
I thought that he was saying that even with the reruns, it would have been useful to have used show-sharing to catch up on the old episodes.
Does your TiVo act as a jukebox as well?
Uh. My TiVo is connected to my TV. When I'm at home, my iPod is connected to my stereo.
And it's quite easy to use.
Yes, I'm sure it passes the mom test quite handily. "Okay, Mom, all you have to do is log in, then go to 'Start,' 'Cyberlink,' 'PowerVCR II.' Okay? Then click this button here that looks like... well, okay, it kinda looks like the Devil's ATM machine. All right, click that and then select the file you want to watch. Like if I wanted to watch an 'Oprah' episode from two weeks ago, I'd just pick '4_CH4_11_16_10_7.0000.' Got it? Mom? Mom? Where ya goin', Mom? Mommy? Don't you love me any more, Mommy? Oh, Mommy, no!"
I write in my journal
I just love how they mention 'Encryption' and they act like it's virtuall impossible to get at the goodies. The data's all there, it's just inaccessible at present.
I have every faith that SOMEONE will eventually figure out how to factor large primes really quickly. I'm sure that in the hari-kari that will undoubtedly ensue I'll find a moment or two to chuckle how all encryption schemes are suddenly rendered useless.
Spread the RC luvin'
"every TiVo Series2 DVR contains a unique public/private key pair," so only "designated" units within your home can share programs, you "cannot send content outside the home," and transfers over your home network will be encrypted (no sniffing!)
I read the "TiVOGuard" portion of the press release. But it leaves me curious about how they determine the bounds of one's 'home'. Is this subnet masking or something that determines what IP addresses are inside my home? What if someone wants to designate their own weekend cottage or parents' home as shareable? Care to speculate?
Instead of commercial "slots", what they can do is have generically shaped "prodcuts" (like cerial boxes and detergent bottles and candy bars) that get digitally altered to appear as the sponsors merchandise. Similarily, even appliances or wall decorations could be added/removed altered to advertise anything you want in syndication.
It just alters the contracts for syndication to allow digital alteration of content - that's all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
'that "every TiVo Series2 DVR contains a unique public/private key pair,"'
I love it! When the *AA sues you for distributing copyrighted content, you can claim it's just a PBS program or a video you made. If they crack it, you can have the case thrown out(IANAL) and sue them for violating the DMCA.
Many in Hollywood have railed against the machines, saying they could cut into TV advertising revenues if fewer people watch the commercials that underwrite broadcasters' business.
(Story continues after advertisement)
Actually I just went back to see what the advert was for, having forgotten, and it turns out to say "Your memory may not be optimized!". I'm just going to go and lie down, before my irony lobes over-heat.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
Works like a charm and there is no "unique key" for each machine :)
Download your copy from www.mythtv.org.
Sounds like another part of the Trueman show is coming true...
My Replay 4500s are very stable. I haven't had any problems with them.
Also, my Replays have no problems determining which shows are repeats. If an episode is already on the Replay, it does not record it a second time.
On LawMeme, Ernest Miller says this about the "God's Machine" quote:
This gives me an idea. Perhaps we should start a fund to buy every member of Congress a TiVo or, preferably, a ReplayTV. If enough money is raised, perhaps one device for every member of the federal judiciary as well, at least the appellate level.
Apologies if this has been posted already, but I couldn't find it anywhere on here.
"And yes, there is a small collection of shows that just don't attract enough of a niche to make them profitable for even cable networks to rerun, but I will sacrifice them for the 99% of other good-enough shows."
I wouldn't The assumption your basing your argument on is that the selection process is better than it actually is. The good stuff bubbles to the top and the bad stuff settles to the bottom. And the majority audience is capable of making the distinctions necessary to make it work well. The history of television has shown that on average, both the audience and the media producer/managers are rather bad at this, and the "quality" content out there suffers greatly. The light-bulb, MacOS and powered flight would have never been invented if candles, Dos and walking were "Good enough". "Good enough" produces mediocre software and terrible media content among other things, and ultimately at best, stagnates a society, and at worst, regresses it.
We have all seen how product placement works. You see it in movies almost all the time (Thank God there were NO Nike's in LOTR). What I want to know is why haven't they taken Digital TV to a new level for advertisement. Imagine if at the end of the credits of a show you could receive a virtual presentation of the set, and the objects of the set are manufatured and retailled on the web. Think about that one for a second, you got your celeberity endorsement from the get-go, you got your customer base as well, and you have their attention, all they need is a way to buy it( ie "Man I like Sienfeld's couch. Who makes that anyway? Oh it's by berkline and I can buy it now for $450."And with Tivo you could save those with a minimum of fuss, much less a DVD compilation of a season. If interactive menus can be created, why can't we have interactive credits to indulge our crass consumerism?
TANSTAAFL
File sharing w/ the ReplayTV is GREAT. I bought the 40 hour model and move files to cheap 120GByte hard disks (the equivelent of 120 hours each) on my PC to either archive or watch later (streaming back to the ReplayTV).
Makes for cheap(er) expandable storage than buying the larger more expensive models.
So, the Chairman of the FCC has declared PVRs to be "God's Machine."
How can we use this to our advantage? Does that mean that laws attempting to make using PVRs illegal would be unconstitutional, due to the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State?
Must-sell TV: WB combines ad, show
(Saturday, January 11, 2003 - Page R7)
New York -- Striking a blow against viewers who skip through TV commercials, a new variety series will blend commercials into its program fare, offering a seamless hour of entertainment mixed with salesmanship.
The series will air for six weeks this summer on the WB, with Michael Davies, best-known for ABC's Who Wants to be a Millionaire?,as its producer, according to a story in yesterday's New York Times. Its working title is Live from Tomorrow.
The show, which Davies described as "a contemporary, hip Ed Sullivan Show," is a response to worries among advertisers and network executives about the rising popularity of personal video recorders that allow viewers to zap commercial breaks.
The new plan -- actually a throwback to long-ago days when sponsors owned network TV and radio shows, and packed them with product plugs -- will marry the show with two main sponsors, Pepsi and Nokia, and four secondary sponsors, Davies said.
The show might send an entertainer to the Nokia headquarters to take part in its internship program for a feature, Davies said, or charge a movie studio for an appearance by a star of a film the studio wants to promote.
Though the new show would be the most comprehensive response to ad-zappers, it isn't the first. Since premiering three years ago, CBS's Survivor has successfully sold product placements of beer, cars and snack foods within its program content. But these rather blatant endorsements only supplemented conventional ad breaks, rather than replacing them altogether.
AP
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Don't forget, there is still the good old VCR. If I miss a show that I want, and somebody I know has it on TiVo, I'll just ask them to download it to tape and mail it to me. I know that's not as sexy as sending it over the web, but it still works.
and at the risk of offending the ./ Gods. My submission mentioned nothing about the DCMA but it did mention his desire to share programming.
This is a very very good thing IMHO.
production company is actually going to pay the WB network for its airtime, rather than the WB paying for the show.
In other words this is "paid programming". Yum! Prime-time infomertials!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
From News Factor this morning.....
The DVR (digital video recorder) pioneer is offering software that enables customers to share the content delivered to their TiVo recording hardware throughout the home. The service uses Wi-Fi (802.11b) wireless technology to turn the DVR into a networked entertainment center.
Remote Recording
TiVo's home networking software will be rolled out this spring, at a cost of US$99 to subscribers with Series2 DVR units. Activation of additional units within the home will cost $49 per DVR. The software will be downloadable via broadband or phone line to any TiVo Series2 box.
Following activation, the DVR will connect over a Wi-Fi or wired network with Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) or Windows PCs. All required applications will be available at the company Web site.
In addition to streaming entertainment throughout the home, subscribers will be able to access their DVR remotely and schedule it to record from virtually any location, much like they currently do at home.
Another problem I forsee is the law (well regulations rather than law). Here in the UK product placement in shows is not allowed, plain and simple. If you are selling the product (i.e. infomercial, shopping channel etc) that's fine, but it has to be obviously an advertisment (including the "This is an ad" text if required). But regular TV shows cannot advertise, and have to avoid making brands too obvious. For instance shops will sell made up brands, presenters will refer to "a popular cola flavoured beverage" etc etc.
Now this may not be the case in the US, but a lot of your shows get sold over here, so unless they were edited we couldn't buy them. I believe that's the case for much of europe. Therefore, your network is going to lose all that lovely foreign money (believe me, it's a lot of cash).
Just a thought...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I have to wonder why they are now deciding to do this?
None of this really matters to me though... I am one of the many who have ditched their 'land' line in favor of a cell phone. My motivation for doing this was that I hate Qwest, but that's another matter. Since I don't have a regular phone line, I can't have a TiVo. I do have a home network with a fairly fat DSL connection to the internet.... when will TiVo start putting in useful features like an ethernet connection rather than some encryption scheme? That way, people like me who want a TiVo, can get a TiVo.
If you are watching a tv show while it is airing, tivo can't help you skip the commercials. If you record a tv show on a vcr and watch it later, you are going to skip the commercials anyway. What makes tivo such a huge threat to the industry? The biggest threat is from the advertising industry itself, they way they keep plastering companies fecal matter logos all over everything. It's already pissing people off, and they are just gonna get more pissed off in the future. It just shows that they have no faith in their product when they have to cram their product down your throat rather than let the product speak for itself.
The idea has been given credibility because Mr. Davies, a native of Britain, produced ABC's landmark "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," the program that started the reality television craze in the United States and changed the face of prime time.
Reality shows got their biggest boost over a decade ago, when the lower production costs (fewer actors & writers needed) of reality shows helped launch Cops and America's Most Wanted around the time of a writers' strike. Besides, I'd say "Survivor" was a lot more of a "reality" show than WWTBAM, which is just a game show. What made Millionaire so big was the stakes--it's a lot neater to see someone win mil for Trivial Pursuit-type questions than watch some braniac get $20k on Jeopardy or $5k for playing hangman on Wheel of Fortune.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
There are other ways of embedding commercials in the program. Witness watching syndicated reruns of Star Trek: TNG on TNN.
Ticker bar at the bottom, occasional popups. At first, the image was squished vertically -- totally unwatchable by any standard. Now the image isn't squashed anymore, and they're honing the amount of "acceptable" space that the ads and ticker can take up.
I've also noticed some strange time dillation effects and cuts that seem somewhat shorter and awkward -- presumably to make more time for standard commercials.
After watching a single Friday night TNG marathon (usually 5-6 episodes in a row, although not sequential -- another gripe for another day) I've stopped really noticing the ticker at all. Although the ticker these days is more for self-promoting of shows and the like. Perhaps they've had a hard time selling space?
The only thing that really bugs me still is that there's obviously either some lossy video compression at work, or a subtle squishing of the screen taking place as whenever you see a distant starfield, you can see stars do bad scan-line shimmering. Also, I'm not sure that their source tapes/DV are of the best quality, as the color is pretty far off on older episodes.
I'm not saying that tickers and pop-ups are a good thing. But it's at least possible to overlook or get used to them after a while, and still enjoy the show.
He said advertisers had to respond to the ways technology had changed viewing habits, beginning with the remote control...
Right. It started with the channel changer. Advertisers have survived a few decades of remotes, first with the ability to change channels during an ad, later with the VCR-granted ability to fly through them. Not to mention the old standbys--going to the bathroom or getting a snack. Yet we still get breaks filled with 30-second commercials, 6 times an hour. I don't think tivos will change the face of TV that much, even when cable & sat providers start making them standard. I still know a whole lot more people with regular cable than digital cable.
But he noted that advertisers were also responding by trying to make their commercials more entertaining. "Advertising is becoming art," he said. "You don't need it, but it's fun to look at."
Eactly. Advertisers just need to use their brains and make good stuff. I'd rather watch the $CAR ad with the guy licking the door handle, or the one where the guy unplugs to fridge so the food will spoil and they have to go to $RESTAURANT, than half the shows on TV. Note to Madison Avenue: You need to go beyond "Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
You miss my point entirely - by "good enough", I mean that enough people like it to make it profitable to broadcast, not the quality of the programming. The quality issue solves itself. Can you find an example of a quality television show that hasn't seen the light of syndication? They are few and far between. Entire networks (TV Land, Sci-Fi) have been based upon release the quality and/or niche shows from the past. The vast majority of "quality" shows from the past are available in reruns or VHS/DVD.
and thats fine. I hope to be one too in a few years after I graduate.
I currently download episodes of certain series because they are online 6 months before they are broadcast (UK). It takes forever to download. I've got a cable modem, with 512k downstream, and use edonkey. I rarely get above 40-50k a second, and with downloads constantly stopping etc. I find it takes forever. I'd easilly drop 50 cents, or even upto a dollar, for each of 3 or 4 shows each week. Even my time is worth money, and searching through edonkey, leaving my computer on 24/7, etc. takes my personal time.
If they gave me what I want, they'll get more money, and I'll have more time, and get more enjoyment. Everyone wins. Broadcast TV will still exist (I hope - thats what I'm gonna be doing next year) for those times when you are knackered and just want to flick through hundereds of adverts for something thats not cringe-worthy.
the fact that the RIAA and their complaints in the article about us stealing revenue by skipping commercials. That used to be the advertised reason back in the day to go to cable, a promise of less commercials. I can't believe that we can pay so much just for the privilege of watching their drivel and then be told I am bad guy for editing out the all the crap with my tivo.
"God created TiVo to entertain the faithful."
-- Collected Sayings of Fremen Geeks.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of...a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
This sig no verb.
Several people have already mentioned the major problem with embedding commercials in TV shows: Does the advertiser pay again for reruns and syndication?
But nobody's mentioned another very big reason why this will never happen -- local advertising. How can you do ANY local advertising if the ad is embedded in the show?
The advertising companies are wasting money with their "shotgun" approach to distributing commercials:
:) It's not my fault that they are losing advertising revenue because their delivery method is ineffective and antiquated.
I am not in the market for a new PC: "Dude! I'm not getting a Dell!"
I live in a great apartment about a mile from work - I am not interested in a new mortgage or refinancing a current mortgage: "Die, Ditech.com. Die!"
I'm a guy. I don't care about having an "organic" experience if/when I wash my hair nor do I care about feminine hygiene products.
I am not in the market for a new car.
I don't eat fast food and don't care what the lastest Super-Duper Fast Food Combo is.
Bottom line: my time is valuable and advertising agencies are wasting *MY* time by wanting me to watch commercials for things I don't givie a hairy rat's ass about. I can watch two "1-hour shows" in an hour and a half on my Tivo by nuking the majority of the commericals. That means that I've freed up a half hour to do something that I like - like read Slashdot.
Give me targeted commercials. Let me rate the commericals with "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on my Tivo and have TiVo download commercials from a TiVo commercial database based on my ratings for commercials *and* TV shows and then insert those commercials on the fly. Maybe do something like reserve 20% of the commercial space for loading new commericals for user rating.
If I could get targeted advertising for sci-fi stuff, shows that I'm actually interested in, motorcycling, travel information, and home decorating information, etc.,I would be more inclined to not nuke them with the 30-second skip.
I think the old saying goes:
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
You have tread upon the fundamental rule of Slashdot: do not let the facts get in the way of a good Anti-{Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, DMCA} story.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Hi, welcome to Canada, the land where Tivo doesn't want to sell machines, and so blocks their use. Thanks but no thanks.
Recording the Sopranos on your TiVo and sending it to a non-HBO subscribing friend would be just as legal or illegal as recording it onto a tape.
How come no-one has written an algorithm to remove the channel logo? Should be possible with some image recognition and...
Curtains for windows?
If ISPs weren't managed by halfassed windows monkeys, proper multicast would have taken care of many of these issues.
Except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the DMCA. Distributing copies of home recordings is a violation of plain old copyright law, law which has been on the books since 1790.
The 1790 law is mostly irrelivant today except it forms a basis for today's law. US copyright law underwent a major revision in 1976 to conform with the Bern convention. The 1976 law, the DMCA, and several "minor" amendments like the HRRA (Home Recording Rights Act) and the Bono act form the basis of most of current US law.
I believe acts like taping a show and giving the tape to a friend or relative are allowed by the HRRA. Its unclear if this is allowed if there is no physical tape. I'm unsure what the DMCA has to say about it as well.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
From the article:
...
Powell said he intended to use the TiVo machine to record TV shows to play on other television sets in his home, and even suggested that he might share recordings with his sister if she were to miss a favorite show.
"I'd like to move it to other TVs," he said of his digitally recorded programming. A number of products already allow that.
He says nothing about the DMCA or copyrights.
I suspect Mr. Powell is aware of copyright law. On the other hand to have the FCC chairman give an enthusiastic endorsement of PVRs and indicate a desire to share recorded material with others is a pretty major coup. I'm sure Mr. Valenti fuming right now.
Now to get Sen. McCain using a PVR as well
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I believe acts like taping a show and giving the tape to a friend or relative are allowed by the HRRA.
I believe you are incorrect. Taping for use within the home is allowed, but giving that tape to a friend is distribution, and so is not allowed. Making a copy for a friend is definitely not allowed.
I write in my journal
I'm really amazed at the number of replies that seem to support the MPAA view of sharing recorded content. What happened to all of the F*CK the MPAA replies along with "I'll do what the hell I want with my electronics and content I buy/record its not my problem that your business model is broken"
The fact is you can do this with old-fashioned VCR. I used a friend's collection of taped Babylon 5 episodes to catch up when I started watching. I also used his tapes to watch season 5 since I didn't have cable at the time. I think there clearly is a desire on the part of the consumer to share shows they record with their PVRs even if some don't see this as legitimate.
The questions are: Is sharing shows recorded with a PVR copyright infringement? If it is infringement who is liable for the infringement? The person recording the show? The manufacturer of the device? The network over which the distribution occurs? Is there a solution that fairly balances everyone's intrests? Without requiring some draconian DRM scheme?
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I can see a method that could be used to break it.
All you do is set up something to pull the data off the output port when its going to the TV, compare it with the output being sent to another Tivo unit, and figure out the pattern to the differences.
Would that be easier to do than a simple brute force attack? Actually, would it take less time is what I mean, its obviously a more complicated method...
And, did I just violate the DMCA?
That's a really interesting point. Heck, imagine if a show had been sponsored by a now defunct company like Kosmo or Pets.com. What the heck would they do with that in syndication?
I think this would be much more difficult for the new variety show one of the networks is proposing that has contestents make up songs about the sponsor and stuff since that's content that would need to be altered. If it's straight up product placement, it wouldn't surprise me if things were changed using computer imagery. IIRC, I read an article a while ago that said TNT is already doing this on Law and Order by changing sodas the cops are drinking and background signs to showcase sponsors.
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
.....first, before these "enhancements". It would be quite easy....they just need to start selling them in Canada.
All this talk about embedded advertising seems to be assuming one thing: that users of ad-skipping features on ReplayTV and potentially Tivo don't actually watch ads. Why is this? The ad-skipping function is a thirty-second jump command, which is generally equivalent to *one* thirty-second spot, or at most two fifteen-second spots. So the feature doesn't block out every single ad; it only blocks out an ad that you've decided you don't want to see. So the content providers' argument hinges on the belief that people don't want to watch ads. There's a pretty obvious solution to this, but first a few preliminaries.
First of all, did anyone notice that AdCritic is back up? What does AdCritic represent? It provides the ability for a viewer to watch commercials that he or she wants to see. The key phrase is "wants to see." By the content providers' logic, there is no such thing. But history has proven otherwise.
Anyone remember medicine shows? Of course not, there's nobody that old here. But we all remember reading about them in school -- giant entertainment extravaganzas put on for the most part by confidence swindlers and snake-oil salesmen. Now who knows whether anybody believed the medicines would actually work as advertised, but the point is that people would watch these advertisements, fully aware of what they were, purely for the entertainment value. People bought the vials of stuff anyway, knowing full well that it probably wouldn't work.
The medicine show isn't dead; you can see it in the John West Salmon ad with the Taekwondo bear, or in the original "Think Different" ad, or heck, in the ads Tivo ran at launch. People didn't care that these were commercials; the fact is, they were *good*. And people *watched* them, and perhaps bought their product despite other wisdom.
The solution here is to stop making ads that people want to skip, and replace them with ads that people will rewind through and watch again. Is it that hard? Well, yeah, it is. But if the old model doesn't want to die (and no amount of litigation is going to prevent that), it's a solution that they'll all have to try to adopt sooner or later.
Does your TiVo act as a jukebox as well?
If you have a TiVo Series2, activate the new media options, and have a PC with MP3s on a share then yes it does.
And with a better user interface than you have.
Personally, I have a S1 TiVo, and I wouldn't use this feature anyway. The audio outputs on the TiVo aren't up to snuff in my opinion.
And if you only spent $300 on your HTPC, yours aren't either.
I treat TiVo suggestions as another level of recording. I've got so many shows thumbed up and thumbed down at this point that TiVo suggestions works as a "I'll record this for you if I dont have anything better to do". Only on occassion does it pick up a show I've not given a thumb rating to (such a new show) and when it does it's usually VERY accurate.
If you turn off TiVo suggestions and use TiVo simply as a movie storage device (like many people seem to do). You are missing out on one it's most potentially powerful features.
But there is a ground swell movement from the broadcasters to try and ... influence the current regs.
UK TV advertising is in the (relative) doldrums at the moment, and their worried.
Other countries like Italy, have a large portion of thier daily TV schedule, consisting of variety shows. Personally I like that type of show. Problem is they have fallen to the wayside in North America, with TV broadcastors opting for the types of commercials we see now adays. I don't see what would be so bad about bringing them back to the mainstream. Some of the product spots are quite funny.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
Distributing copies to sister = fair use. The DMCA is the only law that might apply.
Distributing copies to sister = fair use.
No, absolutely not. Cite me a precedent anywhere that includes the distribution of home recordings under the banner of "fair use." You won't find one.
Home recording is considered fair use specifically because it occurs exclusively within the home. Once you pass home recordings outside the home and exchange them with others, you're no longer in the realm of fair use. You're breaking the law.
The DMCA is not involved here. All of this stuff is covered under original copyright law.
I write in my journal
No, absolutely not. Cite me a precedent anywhere that includes the distribution of home recordings under the banner of "fair use." You won't find one.
I quoted someone else's use of the term, but "distributing" doesn't really apply if the only person to whom you're giving copies to is your sister.
Once you pass home recordings outside the home and exchange them with others, you're no longer in the realm of fair use. You're breaking the law.
That's not at all true, afaik. Where do you get that from? It's nowhere near as cut and dried as that.
One of the reasons the Napster case was interesting was that in the end, one of the major issues that made Napster's operation "illegal" was that they profited commercially from people's exchanging of music. Without the profit factor, the illegality is much less obvious.
Another factor mentioned in the Napster case was the sheer volume of distribution. I recall the judge saying (although perhaps not in the final judgement) that there had to be a line somewhere between the fair use sharing of copies, and the sharing on a mass scale being done by Napster. Implied in this was that fair use sharing on a minor scale, without profit involved, is legal.
I don't believe there's any way, under ordinary copyright law, that giving recordings of a TV show to your sister could be construed as illegal.
In fact, one explicit basis for the legality of this would be that timeshifting of TV shows has been found to be legal. Given that, if my sister asks me to timeshift shows for her, and no money is involved, I believe I can do that without even technically violating copyright law.
Unfortunately, there seems to be widespread ignorance of quite how favorable regular copyright law is to the ordinary citizen. So people don't realize quite how much has been lost with the DMCA.
I quoted someone else's use of the term, but "distributing" doesn't really apply if the only person to whom you're giving copies to is your sister.
According to which law? "Yeah, trafficking in stolen merchandise is illegal, but it doesn't really count if the only person to whom you're giving the merchandise to is your sister." "Yeah, conspiracy to commit fraud is illegal, but it doesn't really count if the only person with whom you're conspiring is your sister."
Nope. Doesn't work.
Where do you get that from? It's nowhere near as cut and dried as that.
Read MCA v. Sony, and the Audio Home Recording Act that codified the home recording exemption.
One of the reasons the Napster case was interesting was that in the end, one of the major issues that made Napster's operation "illegal" was that they profited commercially from people's exchanging of music.
No. Napster was facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Unlike the VCR, in Sony v. MCA, there is no non-trivial legitimate use for a technology like Napster, so there were facilitating a crime, plain and simple. The profit aspect of it-- which didn't even come up until quite a while after Napster's genesis-- never applied.
I recall the judge saying (although perhaps not in the final judgement) that there had to be a line somewhere between the fair use sharing of copies, and the sharing on a mass scale being done by Napster. Implied in this was that fair use sharing on a minor scale, without profit involved, is legal.
First of all, judicial opinions do not imply. They state, and that which they do not state is not to be inferred. Okay? Judge Patel wrote in his district court opinion that the prima facie case for direct infringement had been established by the fact that "virtually all Napster users" engaged in the unauthorized exchange of copyrighted works. It's the fact that the exchange was unauthorized that makes it illegal; the idea that a little sharing between friends and family is okay is incorrect. Furthermore, the finding that nearly all Napster users were using the system for illegal purposes meant that Napster was a direct contributor to the infringement.
"For the reasons set forth below, the court find that any potential non-infringing use of the Napster service is minimal or connected to the infringing of the activity, or both. The substantial or commercially significant use of the service was, and continues to be, the unauthorized downloading and uploading of popular music, most of which is copyrighted."
Judge Patel goes on to explain why downloading music for personal use is still a commercial use-- because you're getting something for free that you would normally have to pay for, you're gaining a commercial advantage even though you're not selling the music you download. That's one of a long list of reasons why unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials-- for friends, or family, or whatever-- is not fair use.
I don't believe there's any way, under ordinary copyright law, that giving recordings of a TV show to your sister could be construed as illegal.
It's the part where it says only the copyright holder has the authority to make copies. Pretty cut-and-dried, really. Fair use is an extremely limited exemption-- read 17 USC 107 for details-- and does not apply to the distribution of complete and unmodified copies of works to any person, for any reason.
Given that, if my sister asks me to timeshift shows for her, and no money is involved, I believe I can do that without even technically violating copyright law.
It's legal to timeshift for your own purposes. There is no legal protection for "timeshifting by proxy." However, if a prior arrangement existed between you and your sister that you would record Oprah on her behalf because she would be unable to do so herself, and you then turned over the original recording (not a copy, but the original) to her at a later date, that would almost certainly be non-infringing.
But making copies to give to friends or family is not legal.
Unfortunately, there seems to be widespread ignorance of quite how favorable regular copyright law is to the ordinary citizen.
Unfortunately, there also seems to be a widely held opinion that "fair use" means whatever the hell a person says it means in a given context, and that's not remotely true. All the information a person needs to make a critical judgment is out there, freely available to all. Why people don't take ten minutes to read the statute is beyond me.
I write in my journal
I think you should re-read 107, and also a bit about how it's usually applied. The issues I mentioned are there: "whether such use is of a commercial nature", "the nature of the copyrighted work" and also "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." For advertising-supported shows in particular, fair use seems obvious, as confirmed in the timeshifting decision. Of course, these decision have to be made in court, they involve balancing of interests and interpretation, and are not black and white. If I was recording stuff off a premium subscription channel, the situation would be greyer.
Part of the reason big copyright owners wanted the DMCA is that it allows them to sidestep all this greyness and make it black and white: "you circumvented my protection, you're in violation of the law". It was never that simple with the copyright act.
I have read that, and more. I think that you're simply interpreting fair use more narrowly than judges typically have, which is your right, but has no bearing on what people are actually allowed to do, until a court case rules in your favor. If you can point me to a case where uses of the kind we're talking about are found infringing, I'd love to see it.
In MCA vs Sony, assuming you really mean SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., you could substitute "timeshifting" with "giving a copy to my sister", and factoring out the fact that we're talking about the activity, not the equipment, almost exactly the same issues apply. I believe a court would find that use non-infringing.
A couple of pertinent statements from the above decision:
This goes directly to your claim that "It's the fact that the exchange was unauthorized that makes it illegal". The Supreme Court in this case disagreed with you: This case was specifically concerned with timeshifting, but the same issues seem to apply to sharing with one's siblings. For a sibling-sharing case to be problematic, a plaintiff would have to show, among other things, that such use causes "nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works".In short, I believe your interpretation is flat wrong.
Even the fact that it involves a family member would likely be a consideration in an assessment of fair use.
Are you a judge? If not, then it's not up to you to interpret the law. The law says that the distribution of home recordings without authorization is not allowed. It doesn't say "except to family members." It doesn't say "except when nobody gets hurt." It doesn't say "except" at all. Home recording is allowed; distribution of home recordings to third parties is not.
If you want to bring a case before an appellate court to get this interpretation of yours tested, be my guest. I think the odds are better than fair that you'll be found wrong by the judge.
Part of the reason big copyright owners wanted the DMCA is that it allows them to sidestep all this greyness and make it black and white: "you circumvented my protection, you're in violation of the law". It was never that simple with the copyright act.
The anti-circumvention remedies in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright infringement. This is a common misconception. The anti-circumvention remedies make it unlawful for a person to circumvent a system of access control. This is orthogonal to the question of authorization to copy. One can copy encrypted media with the encryption intact and be guilty of copyright violation without being guilty of unlawful circumvention. One can decrypt encrypted media without copying it and be guilty of unlawful circumvention without being guilty of copyright infringement. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I have read that, and more. I think that you're simply interpreting fair use more narrowly than judges typically have, which is your right, but has no bearing on what people are actually allowed to do, until a court case rules in your favor.
You've got it backwards, dude. The law says that copying copyrighted material without authorization is illegal, period. It then lists exceptions to this prohibition. The copyright law defaults to prohibiting copying, not allowing it. Until a judge says that a certain act which would otherwise be infringing is non-infringing, that act is against the law, and you can and should be punished for it.
Do you want TiVo put out of business by a costly lawsuit? Do you want mandatory encryption on your TiVo? If so, then by all means keep pushing the envelope. For myself, I will continue to stay within the bounds of the law, and hope that others do the same, so we can continue to go about our business without government interference.
Remember, it's the quacking duck that gets shot.
If you can point me to a case where uses of the kind we're talking about are found infringing, I'd love to see it.
It doesn't work like that. If you can point me to a case where this act (distribution of a home recording) has been found non-infringing, I'd love to see it.
This goes directly to your claim that "It's the fact that the exchange was unauthorized that makes it illegal". The Supreme Court in this case disagreed with you:
You're trying to use quotes from MCA v. Sony to refute quotes from the Napster case, and taking them out of context at that. You should know better than that.
The high court ruled in the Betamax case that home recording is non-infringing, in largest part, specifically because the act occurs entirely within the home. Distributing home recordings nullifies the strongest justification for a finding of fair use in that case. So while a device that merely facilitates (non-infringing) home recordings was found to be legal, a device that facilitates (infringing) distribution of home recordings would most certainly not be found to be legal. A TiVo with program-sharing facilities is more akin to a Napster than it is to a Betamax, so Napster is the case we should look to for precedent.
This case was specifically concerned with timeshifting, but the same issues seem to apply to sharing with one's siblings.
That's the dumbest leap of logic I've heard... well, today, anyway. The issues in MCA v. Sony most definitely do not apply to a hypothetical case involving distribution of home recordings.
I write in my journal
You're wrong there. It is up to every citizen to interpret the law as best he can, to guide his own actions, since ignorance is no excuse. You've been interpreting, too, and we're arguing about that interpretation.
It doesn't say "except" at all.
It does say "except", and that's the whole point. And the exceptions are deliberately vague and broad, for activities which fall outside the commercial realm, which is what has allowed the same law to continue to be applied to new situations - up until recently, when lobbying money shifted the balance dramatically.
You're trying to use quotes from MCA v. Sony to refute quotes from the Napster case, and taking them out of context at that.
Not at all. You were quoting the Napster case to support your position. The quotes I gave are all generic quotes related to the interpretation of copyright law and the fair use exemption. Read them again. Read them in context, if you like. I considered their context before quoting them.
Do you want TiVo put out of business by a costly lawsuit? Do you want mandatory encryption on your TiVo? If so, then by all means keep pushing the envelope. For myself, I will continue to stay within the bounds of the law, and hope that others do the same, so we can continue to go about our business without government interference.
That would all make sense, if I thought we were talking about going outside the bounds of the law. The fact that the FCC chairman publicly mentioned plans to commit such an act perhaps ought to tell you something. Yeah, me and the FCC Chairman, we're such scofflaws!
Remember, it's the quacking duck that gets shot.
I'm beginning to see where our differences really lie. I consider this sort of attitude to be truly dangerous and undemocratic, and is how we end up with bad government. You're basically telling me "don't stick your neck out, comrade."
You should stand up for yourself, "and hope that others do the same, so we can continue to go about our business without government interference".
The reason the Sony/Universal case applies in this case is that because the use is noncommercial. Your interpretation of the case as being about the activity being "entirely within the home" seems naive. In the case we're talking about, you could change that to "entirely within the family", and the issues are essentially the same. In particular, the use would need to cause "nonminimal harm" to the copyright holder's commercial interests.
The anti-circumvention remedies in the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright infringement. This is a common misconception. The anti-circumvention remedies make it unlawful for a person to circumvent a system of access control. This is orthogonal to the question of authorization to copy. One can copy encrypted media with the encryption intact and be guilty of copyright violation without being guilty of unlawful circumvention. One can decrypt encrypted media without copying it and be guilty of unlawful circumvention without being guilty of copyright infringement. The two have nothing to do with each other.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or just missing something huge. The whole point is that the DMCA gives copyright holders an alternate way to legally control their content, where copyright doesn't give them the control they want. The whole point, for them, is that the issues are orthogonal - they can say "ok, we can't get you on copyright violations because of fair use, but we can get you on DMCA violations." In this respect, the DMCA as originally written effectively gave copyright owners the ability to take away rights that citizens had under prior copyright laws. We have fair use rights, we just can't always exercise them.
It is up to every citizen to interpret the law as best he can, to guide his own actions, since ignorance is no excuse.
We're not talking about some legal grey area here. The law is very clear, and it has been repeatedly upheld by the appellate courts. The unauthorized distribution of copies of copyrighted works is not lawful.
And the exceptions are deliberately vague and broad, for activities which fall outside the commercial realm
You need to read the statues again. The exemptions are exceptionally narrow, not vague or broad.
The quotes I gave are all generic quotes related to the interpretation of copyright law and the fair use exemption.
That's a falsehood. The issues dealt with in the Betamax case are most definitely not generic. They are very, very specific. Please quit misrepresenting the facts, okay?
You're basically telling me "don't stick your neck out, comrade."
I'm telling you that you're an idiot if you think that what you're talking about it really not against the law. It is, and if you do it, you deserve to be punished for it. I just hope that that punishment doesn't end up affecting us all. I'd hate to lose a privilege that I enjoy exercising just because some idiot who thinks he understands the law decided to use it for illegal purposes.
Your interpretation of the case as being about the activity being "entirely within the home" seems naive.
It's not my interpretation, friend. It comes straight out the decision of the district court. You'll find the phrase "entirely within the home" in the text of the decision; Justice Stevens later cited this point in the decision for the high court.
The fact that recording with a VCR takes place entirely within the home is key to finding that the practice is noncommercial. If you start handing out tapes, it moves from the realm of the noncommercial into the realm of the commercial, and can no longer be considered fair use by the standard outlined in the statute. Judge Patel's opinion in the Napster case reinforces this interpretation; the fact that somebody is getting something which they would otherwise not have had (a copy of a copyrighted work) makes it a commercial transaction, even if no money is changing hands.
In particular, the use would need to cause "nonminimal harm" to the copyright holder's commercial interests.
Easy to prove. How many TV shows have been rereleased on DVD? Home recording itself does nonminimal harm; I'm sure it only stands because of the precedent of the Betamax case. The distribution of home recordings is not, and cannot be interpreted to be, lawful because it would, if allowed, have a significant financial impact on the copyright holders.
The whole point is that the DMCA gives copyright holders an alternate way to legally control their content, where copyright doesn't give them the control they want.
If somebody goes to the trouble of wrapping an access control mechanism around their content, it should be illegal for somebody to come along behind them and circumvent that mechanism. If you put a lock on your door, it's illegal for someone to come into your house, isn't it? Same issue.
You're trying to make this out to be about control. That's obfuscation. The DMCA is, in fact, about giving legal protection to the rights of copyright holders.
We have fair use rights, we just can't always exercise them.
More typical liberal-speak. There's no such thing as "fair use rights." The idea is a fiction. You have no right to make fair use of copyrighted works. What the statute says is simply that fair use, when it occurs, is non-infringing. But if a copyright holder wants to prevent you from making fair use of his works-- by contract, or by the imposition of an access control mechanism, or what have you-- that is his right. The DMCA merely gives legal recognition to that right.
I write in my journal
Unless it's non-infringing. We were talking about a non-infringing case, whether you like it or not.
If somebody goes to the trouble of wrapping an access control mechanism around their content, it should be illegal for somebody to come along behind them and circumvent that mechanism. If you put a lock on your door, it's illegal for someone to come into your house, isn't it? Same issue.
Not at all, because the kinds of "property" in question are very different. If I put a collar with a lock around your neck, should it be illegal for you to unlock it?
You don't seem to know much about the history and purpose of copyright, or you're deliberately ignoring that. Which brings me to:
You're trying to make this out to be about control. That's obfuscation. The DMCA is, in fact, about giving legal protection to the rights of copyright holders.
Admit it - you work in the RIAA legal department, don't you?
Or, I've been trolled by the most dedicated troll ever to haunt /.
We were talking about a non-infringing case, whether you like it or not.
Prove it. The presumption in copyright law is that an unauthorized use does infringe, unless a court rules that it does not. How does show-sharing-- which is the distribution, without authorization, of a home recording-- qualify as non-infringing? Can you cite precedent? Or can you interpret 107 for us in such a way that you come to the this conclusion?
If I put a collar with a lock around your neck, should it be illegal for you to unlock it?
Far and away the most absurd analogy I've ever heard. Are you one of those "no intellectual property" whackos who believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with anybody's works or ideas?
Admit it - you work in the RIAA legal department, don't you?
I wish! I bet those guys get paid a fortune.
I write in my journal
It was in response to your absurd analogy about a lock on one's house. There's no comparison.
Are you one of those "no intellectual property" whackos who believe that people should be free to do whatever they want with anybody's works or ideas?
No. But as I said, I think you're conveniently ignoring the history and concepts behind copyright. The people you're defending are in fact doing damage to the public domain from which they derived their work. They've succeeded recently in selling a wildly exaggerated concept of their "rights" - one which you certainly seem to have bought into.
I'm a copyright holder myself, and I earn royalties from software. I understand and support the concept of copyright. However, what the RIAA, Disney, and their ilk have turned this into is little more than government-sanctioned corporate welfare for an essentially obsolete mode of doing business - or at the very least, a model that is bloated and not currently subject to the competition that it should be subject to (a lot like Microsoft).
Although I don't support widescale file-sharing on the scale of something like Napster, I think there's a very real sense in which that's simply a tough negotiating position on the part of consumers. It's a behavior which in large measure the record companies have brought on themselves, by ignoring technological advances for decades, by fighting their customers, and ignoring customer desires.
Closing the iron fist isn't going to help them. They're going to learn some hard laws of economics eventually, and the laws which you've been defending won't be able to save them. The people who allegedly break those laws won't be that different, in spirit, from people who burned their Vietnam draft cards.