TiVo Plans More Functionality Reductions

TiVo has been in the news recently with a couple of plans to make their service less useful than it could be: first, TiVos will now auto-delete pay-per-view and video-on-demand movies, and second, TiVo is making sure that you can't use a TiVo to view NFL games outside the specified market area. TiVo's lawyer explains.

Comments

Glad I have myth

[FictionPimp]

I'm just glad I have mythTV. Sure I might have a problem if I have to switch to digital cable, but I dont have to worry about people deleting my videos before i'm done with them.

Should read

[Phixxr]

Should read "Tivo plans to shrink customer base".

-phixxr

Re:Should read

[gad_zuki!]

Oh please. The fact the big media hasn't destroyed the tivo company is something of a miracle. All tivo is doing is obeying corrupt american IP laws. Fight this at the grassroots, then in DC. Complaining to tivo for the laws of your republic is counter productive.

TiVo Shoots Self in Foot

[Trikenstein]

I can see how they would do this to reduce their legal costs, but it has to be costing them subscribers.

PPV

[SuiteSisterMary]

I don't understand the problem. With Pay Per View, you are QUITE SPECIFICALLY buying a license to watch a movie once. You are PAYing PER VIEW.

There's no ambiguity about buying physical media vs the content, about buying a license, and so on. You're paying to have a movie playing to your sat/cable box at a specific time and date. Done.

Re:PPV

[0123456]

Of course, as usual, you completely ignore the difference between renting a DVD and not returning it -- i.e. depriving the owner of their property -- and copying a PPV movie and keeping it, which only deprives the distributor of potential future income that you were probably never going to give them anyway.

So quite why your post is rated 'Insightful' is beyond me.

Re:PPV

[Dun Malg]

They're clearly just doing this to be assholes and try to further put control on what people can record and keep even though the material in question, along with their profits, is completely irrelevant.

Or, more likely, they're doing it to stave off possible legal challenges from the purveyors of PPV movies and NFL football. Said purveyors may have already made an issue of it behind the scenes.

Re:PPV

[Waffle Iron]

With Pay Per View, you are QUITE SPECIFICALLY buying a license to watch a movie once. You are PAYing PER VIEW.

That may be what the provider intends, but unless there is law backing that up, I am entitled record it and view it later as I please.

Standard copyright case law allows me to timeshift, and I didn't sign any contract with the cable company that said I specifically couldn't record a PPV show.

There's no ambiguity about buying physical media vs the content, about buying a license, and so on. You're paying to have a movie playing to your sat/cable box at a specific time and date. Done.

As I just pointed out, you're just plain wrong. I don't need a license as an end user because standard copyright law allows me to timeshift the show without one. There is no license. I payed to have the movie play on my box, and I'm entitled to save it for later viewing.

Re:PPV

[Richard_at_work]

How about renting it, copying it and then returning it. You are keeping a permanent copy for a rental price, if you want a permanent copy why not purchase a permenent copy in the first place? Oh thats right, because the arguement 'I wouldnt have bought it anyway, so it isnt hurting anyone' comes into play as it normally does on slashdot. If you werent going to buy it anyway, what entitles you to a free copy? I think $19.99 is a very good price for what I get on a DVD.

Re:PPV

[Richard_at_work]

Because it's a perfectly good and valid argument: if someone looks at my house, considers buying it, but then decides to build a copy instead, I have no right to demand they pay me money.

No, it isnt a perfectly good and valid arguement, and that analogy is just plain laughable.

The simple fact is that 'intellectual property' is an attempt to artificially create scarcity in an environment where there is none: at best it's a moronic abuse of government power, at worst it will prevent a truly information-based economy from arising. It's nothing more than the modern equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers conspiring with the government to keep those new-fangled automobiles off the road.

If there wasnt an artificial scarcity on hard to produce, easy to copy items then really how many films would we be enjoying now? How many authors would be producing best sellers? How many musicians would be producing works? How many computer/console games would be being released? I will tell you now, not many at all. When it comes down to it, the majority of items produced for this 'artificial scarcity' are produced for money, not love, and without the artificial scarcity we would have rather less entertainment.

Like it or not, Hollywood is a huge industry which employs a massive amount of people. Those people arent doing it for love, they are doing it to eat. Would they be there if their wages were on a charity basis? Hell no. They are there for the same reason you are at work, money. There may be a very few at the top end that are doing it for love.

If we had to rely on amateur works to fill the void this industry would leave behind, then the world would be a dull place. Sure, youd get some gems (like Linux) but then you would get tonnes and tonnes of drivel (majority of sourceforge). Tell me when the last popular free book written in modern times came. Tell me when the last popular free 3d FPS was released. Tell me when the last amateur film made it big, got shown in cinemas world wide. You cant. For the most part, a lot of people dont have the resources to produce Doom3 or Titanic in their spare time (for that is what they will be doing, they have to earn money to eat as well).

Next time you claim the artificial scarcity is an abuse of power, just think of the diversity and entertainment value that that scarcity has produced. Unless theres money involved, chances are it wouldnt happen otherwise as people dont have the resources. Software is an exception, because resources required are small for entry into this field.

Too Many KneeJerk Responses

[FortKnox]

I'm reading too many "Well I'm glad I don't get TiVo" or "This will KILL TiVo."

No, what will kill TiVo is all of television, TV, and sporting leagues suing the pants off of them for providing something that the can prove is illegal (like viewing NFL games outside the specified market area). This is a setup to allow people to share shows amongst TiVos, but making sure they have a legal basis to not get sued.

TiVo has already been hacked (and TiVo doesn't punish for it), so how long do you think it'll be between when TiVo allows program sharing and someone hacks it so you can avoid these new rules?

probably due to new tivos with dvd-r

[acomj]

The new Tivos have a dvd-r. It would cut down on selling of sports dvds if you can just "burn your own" so content makers are going to freak. It still doesn't seem to restrictive since I don't watch pay per view or the NFL.

like this one tivo / burner from pioneer

Business vs. Business

[prisonercx]

You know, it's funny how this looks like a blow to consumers, when actually it's a blow against other businesses. How much revenue does TiVo and the NFL really think they are going to lose with this technology? This technology, in the consumer space, competes only with those "all games nationwide in a sport" package like DirectTV's NBA League Pass. How many consumers will both a) want to buy that package and b) be technically proficient and financially liquid enough to set up TiVo's around the country to stream all the games to their house? Not too many, entirely too much effort to get around paying ~$200/season.

Where I can see this being used is the sports bar market (for example). You get a bunch of sports bars nationwide which agree to stream each other the games from each market. Now the major cable/dish networks lose the revenue from each of those bars buying a premium sports package. Multiply this by tens of thousands of interested businesses, and it adds up to a significant amount. It seems to me that this is the real issue at hand.

Well, I've owned a Tivo for

[bob670]

about 3.5 years now, I surely couldn't live without it at this point. But I guess the question I have is, who does this really effect? I don't think the average Tivo owner really cares as long as they get what they pay for. And in most cases you are "Paying Per View" for one view of that movie in a certain window, so as long as it's clear you have to watch it by a certain date, what is the issue? Same thing with the NFL, they share revenue based on a fairly complex formula, something like Tivo could really screw that up.

These debates always boil down to those who are willing to pirate and those who aren't, but we can mask it as a "Fair Use" or "Consumer Rights" issue to keep the post count rolling. As far as Tivo goes, I watch a show, I delete it, I don't need to archive it for historical purposes and I have no right to do anything else with it. If it's really great I'll buy it on DVD and if it's like most shows I won't care. I'll bet I am in the majority of Tivo owners on this usage pattern yet people act like this policy somehow infringes on my right to use the device and it's content as described.

I know it's hard for some of you to accept, but not everyone purchases consumer electronics to discover exploits and alternative uses, and most people are willing to accept some limitations for the added convenince that Tivo brings. Most people aren't pirating off ST:DS9 and editing out the commercials for their personal archive or for uploading to usenet. It's hardly a stretch to imagine your downloaded copy of Gigli is time limited and you have no friends, so stop playing that hacked version of Counter Strike Source with the aimbot you just found and watch your damn rental.

Victimhood

[Roadkills-R-Us]

TiVo is a victim. They're a victim of doing the right thing. The whole "information wants to be free" thing has gotten insanely out of hand. This is a logical waystation for us to be at, sadly enough, given society today. "If I want it, I should have it, and it doesn't matter that I signed a contract saying something different. Besides, it's not *really* theft, it's just a movie."

[Wish I could offer you a job, but (a) we're not hiring and (b) we're not in Ohio. But integrity and understanding right and wrong are high on my list for qualifying applicants. And getting harder to find.]

a counterpoint to the Tivo will die threads

[seibed]

I have a Tivo, I quite like my Tivo and deleting PPV movies and NFL doesn't make a spot of difference to me because I don't watch them and I don't care. I suspect that 95% of consumers out there are the same way, so its only 5% of people that are even going to weigh the decision. I don't think PPV is competing heavily against the "watch it many times" market becuase then you'd just buy the DVD or Rent&Rip, hell there are 1$ DVD rentals everywhere... PPV is way overpriced IMHO anyway.

I Would/Will be Furious - Bait & Switch!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Buy a TiVo lately? Sometime in the next few months, your machine will quietly download a patch that makes it respond to a new copy protection scheme from software maker Macrovision.

To reduce functionality after you've bought a unit sounds like fraud. Bait & switch. Like buying a fast sports car, and then having them download a patch into your engine computer that speed limits it to 85MPH so that the car company won't be sued for selling fast cars. I'd be looking for a class action lawyer to sue the pants off of TiVo if my box suddenly stopped doing something it used to do -- regardless of any license agreement that may have come with it.

And it's such a great way to advertise to new customers. Buy the new TiVo. It does less than the old model!

Now my question is: will this apply to my Dish Network PVR?