Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TIVO Basic and Networking

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:50:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Is there a way to make (hack?) a machine with just TIVO Basic be able to
communicate through a network? I want to share recordings between two
machines.

Thanks

More about : tivo basic networking

Anonymous
August 20, 2005 4:50:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Art's Antique Radios wrote:
> Is there a way to make (hack?) a machine with just TIVO Basic be able to
> communicate through a network? I want to share recordings between two
> machines.
>
> Thanks

Hoo, boy, I know that my response will bring out the zealots, but it
seems to be need to be discussed about every other month.

The answer to your question is probably yes, and certainly no. ;-) Yes,
there are probably hacks around that enable networking on Tivo Basic, as
well as most everything else. But it is *not* going to be a widely
circulated or accepted hack on the (pseudo)legitimate Tivo hacking channels.

The reason being, of course, that technically, the hack you are
requesting is theft of service. Now before anyone goes off howling, I
realize leveling that at Art is like comparing someone reading a
magazine at a newstand without paying for it, to a bunch of criminals
loading stolen big screen TV's into the back of a truck. IOW, what Art
is asking for is probably the most minor of transgressions. But I think
the point I'm tyring to make is that a line has to be drawn somewhere
(hopefully not entirely arbitrarily), and this particular request is
slightly on the wrong side of it.

The most obvious question at this point would be "just where is this
'line'?" To the best of my understanding the unofficial line is here:

----
If a desired feature is unavailable for any price (either on an upgraded
unit, or for a subscription, etc) and can be enabled by hacks without
enabling other features that *are* available for a fee, then the
community will view it as ok.

If a desired feature *is* available for a fee and the hack is mainly
designed to avoid paying that fee, then the community will *not* view it
as ok.
-----

So hacking a Directivo to add networking is ok, but an SA Tivo with
Basic is not, and that isn't as arbitrary as it sounds. There are
probably a few exceptions (as with any rule), and I don't think
anybody's going to think someone should *remove* hacks that they've
previously enabled if a feature is subsequently released.

Of course there are sub-communities that will disagree with this, and do
anything they damn well please. But in general those elements will have
ethics that seem to strangely favor them having anything they want for free.

In this case, adding Networking is a pretty trivial feature, and would
be unlikely to really harm Tivo in any way. However networking *is*
available for a fee, and technically you are attempting to avoid paying
that fee. Yes, it is bundled with a whole bunch of stuff, but
unfortunately we don't get to decide how to sell the individual features.

If others disagree with me, where would *you* propose that line to be?
Keep in mind that Tivo must still (potentially) make money or you risk
losing service for everyone entirely. Also keep in mind that Tivo makes
money from subscriptions, not selling hardware (it's been shown in this
group several times, with good supporting facts, that Tivo loses money
on hardware).

BTW, Art (and this is not a rhetorical question), would it not make
sense to just pay the $7 per month for the unit and have full functionality?

Oh, and I'm not trying to pick on you Art, you just made a really nice
borderline illustration. ;-) It was a reasonable question.

Randy S.
August 20, 2005 9:05:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Art's Antique Radios" <art@myantiqueradio.com> wrote in
news:HICdnb6oQfSwzJreRVn-3Q@comcast.com:

> Is there a way to steal service from TiVo?

Probably. But if there were and I knew the method I certainly wouldn't tell
you.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Related resources
August 21, 2005 7:39:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:50:04 -0400, Randy S. wrote:

>Art's Antique Radios wrote:
>> Is there a way to make (hack?) a machine with just TIVO Basic be able to
>> communicate through a network? I want to share recordings between two
>> machines.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Hoo, boy, I know that my response will bring out the zealots, but it
>seems to be need to be discussed about every other month.
>
>The answer to your question is probably yes, and certainly no. ;-) Yes,
>there are probably hacks around that enable networking on Tivo Basic, as
>well as most everything else. But it is *not* going to be a widely
>circulated or accepted hack on the (pseudo)legitimate Tivo hacking channels.
>
>The reason being, of course, that technically, the hack you are
>requesting is theft of service.

<Snip>
I disagree, on the specific grounds that the recording of the
show is legal, and the location of the replaying of the show is
not tied to the specific unit that made the original recording.
Just as recording a show on a VCR in the living room and then
taking the tape into the bedroom for replaying it there is
accepted as fair use... So would recording on the Tivo in the
living room and then transferring the show into another unit in
house for re-playing there.

The Supreme Court smacked down the claim that people had to watch
a show at the exact time is was broadcast, do you really think
any company would attempt to mandate that a show had to be
watched in a specific location inside your home? That because you
recorded it in the living room, you must watch it in the living
room?


>So hacking a Directivo to add networking is ok, but an SA Tivo with
>Basic is not, and that isn't as arbitrary as it sounds.

<snip>

>However networking *is*
>available for a fee, and technically you are attempting to avoid paying
>that fee.

No, the fee was not attached to networking.
The 'Service' is the guide data and the software that does all
the searching and manipulation and prioritization of that guide
data.

Plus, there is history. The service cost $X, and there was not
any official networking option. Then, networking was added, and
the cost of the service climbed $0. The networking feature added
zero additional cost to the service package, therefore the
networking feature is not in the category of 'Revenue Generator'

So, therefore networking is demonstrably a 'free feature' and;
because it is not part of the 'Fee Based Service Package'
enabling it is not 'Theft Of Service'.

Need another example of this? Try Microsoft, when they just
tossed Internet Explorer into all copies of Windows, without
raising the retail price. There's a high profile federal court
precedent that a feature that added no additional retail jump is
therefore not an inseparable piece of the package.

>BTW, Art (and this is not a rhetorical question), would it not make
>sense to just pay the $7 per month for the unit and have full functionality?
>

Immaterial. A cajoling style argument does not rely on precedent
or logic or rational thought. It relies on manipulation of
empathy and emotional feelings, which are notoriously illogical
and irrational.


Go ahead Art. Perform the 21st century digital equivalent of:
1) Ejecting the tape from the VCR
2) Walking to the other room
3) Pushing the tape into the second unit
4) Press 'Play'

'Nuff said. Goodnight.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:34:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>The reason being, of course, that technically, the hack you are
>>requesting is theft of service.
>
>
> <Snip>
> I disagree, on the specific grounds that the recording of the
> show is legal, and the location of the replaying of the show is
> not tied to the specific unit that made the original recording.
> Just as recording a show on a VCR in the living room and then
> taking the tape into the bedroom for replaying it there is
> accepted as fair use... So would recording on the Tivo in the
> living room and then transferring the show into another unit in
> house for re-playing there.
>
> The Supreme Court smacked down the claim that people had to watch
> a show at the exact time is was broadcast, do you really think
> any company would attempt to mandate that a show had to be
> watched in a specific location inside your home? That because you
> recorded it in the living room, you must watch it in the living
> room?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. One, we are not
discussing the "legality" of the action at all, rather the
*acceptability* of the hack by the Tivo-hacking community. So all your
legal arguments and legal precedents are inapplicable. Two, I was not
in any way saying that playing his video elsewhere was illegal, or even
unacceptable (can we please define "unacceptable" to mean "unacceptable
to the tivo-hacking community" from now on?). What I *was* saying is
unacceptable is the use of networking, which is available in a bundle of
other features for a fee. Yes, right now that is the only way to watch
the movies on a different device, but it isn't the *watching* that makes
it illegal.

>
>
>>So hacking a Directivo to add networking is ok, but an SA Tivo with
>>Basic is not, and that isn't as arbitrary as it sounds.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>However networking *is*
>>available for a fee, and technically you are attempting to avoid paying
>>that fee.
>
>
> No, the fee was not attached to networking.
> The 'Service' is the guide data and the software that does all
> the searching and manipulation and prioritization of that guide
> data.
>
> Plus, there is history. The service cost $X, and there was not
> any official networking option. Then, networking was added, and
> the cost of the service climbed $0. The networking feature added
> zero additional cost to the service package, therefore the
> networking feature is not in the category of 'Revenue Generator'
>
> So, therefore networking is demonstrably a 'free feature' and;
> because it is not part of the 'Fee Based Service Package'
> enabling it is not 'Theft Of Service'.

This makes no sense. Tivo has the option to add things to it's packages
, that doesn't make them *free*. Cox cable upped my cable speeds from
1.5 Mbps to 4 Mpbs for no additional fee. Does this mean I can stop
paying them and still get 2.5 Mbps for free? Obviously not.

> Need another example of this? Try Microsoft, when they just
> tossed Internet Explorer into all copies of Windows, without
> raising the retail price. There's a high profile federal court
> precedent that a feature that added no additional retail jump is
> therefore not an inseparable piece of the package.

Wow, is that off the subject! MS was slapped for IE, because browsers
were considered a competitive product and MS was using it's "monopoly"
on the OS to leverage an advantage to a different product. This in no
way applies to Tivo.

>>BTW, Art (and this is not a rhetorical question), would it not make
>>sense to just pay the $7 per month for the unit and have full functionality?
>>
>
>
> Immaterial. A cajoling style argument does not rely on precedent
> or logic or rational thought. It relies on manipulation of
> empathy and emotional feelings, which are notoriously illogical
> and irrational.

I was trying to say I didn't think Art was trying to do anything
heinous. But regardless of what you think, calling my post illogical
and irrational is ridiculous. You didn't even *attempt* my challenge,
if you disagree with me, where would *you* draw the line of acceptablity?

Randy S.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:02:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Greetings,

I don't want to get generally involved in this discussion,
I just want to make a couple of points.

If the original poster were to remove the hard drive
from his BASIC Tivo and install the hard drive into another
Tivo in another room, I would have no objection, and I would
not call it theft. This seems to be a closer match to the video
tape used in the VCR. The recording medium can be taken
from Tivo to Tivo.

By making a copy using the network, he is causing two copies
of the item to be in existence where there was originally but
one.

If he wants to install some sort of whole house video distribution
system such that the signal from ONE Tivo is distributed to every
TV set in the house, I would have no objection, and I would not
call it theft.

I wonder if the original poster would also complain about a
defective Tivo should his network hack also fail.

Larry Hazel
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Homer L. Hazel wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I don't want to get generally involved in this discussion,
> I just want to make a couple of points.
>
> If the original poster were to remove the hard drive
> from his BASIC Tivo and install the hard drive into another
> Tivo in another room, I would have no objection, and I would
> not call it theft. This seems to be a closer match to the video
> tape used in the VCR. The recording medium can be taken
> from Tivo to Tivo.
>
> By making a copy using the network, he is causing two copies
> of the item to be in existence where there was originally but
> one.
>
> If he wants to install some sort of whole house video distribution
> system such that the signal from ONE Tivo is distributed to every
> TV set in the house, I would have no objection, and I would not
> call it theft.
>
> I wonder if the original poster would also complain about a
> defective Tivo should his network hack also fail.
>
> Larry Hazel

All good points Larry. The only quibble I would have is that I think
making two copies is perfectly acceptable as long as they are for
personal use only. This is allowed with video tape and DVD's as well,
though the MPAA wants to restrict it because they can't actively prevent
the end-user from giving that copy to someone else. This does *not*
mean that using any means make that copy is ok, just that having a copy
is fine. If the means of making the copy broke other agreements or
legalities, it would of course be wrong.

Randy S.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 9:16:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Never thought that such a simple question would bring out the fire in a few
people.

I agree I never thought of it as a TOS since I owned what was recorded.

And since the TIVO Basic machine has a DVD burner, I can burn a DVD of
anything I record and walk it to another room.

I was just looking for the lazy man's burning and use my network.


"Howard" <stile99@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96B87B0F4B742stile@129.250.170.88...
> "Art's Antique Radios" <art@myantiqueradio.com> wrote in
> news:HICdnb6oQfSwzJreRVn-3Q@comcast.com:
>
>> Is there a way to steal service from TiVo?
>
> Probably. But if there were and I knew the method I certainly wouldn't
> tell
> you.
>
> --
> Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
> stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
> I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
> no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:54:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Art's Antique Radios wrote:
> Never thought that such a simple question would bring out the fire in a few
> people.
>
> I agree I never thought of it as a TOS since I owned what was recorded.
>
> And since the TIVO Basic machine has a DVD burner, I can burn a DVD of
> anything I record and walk it to another room.
>
> I was just looking for the lazy man's burning and use my network.

No, that's understood, at least by me. You really brought up a very
borderline case, obviously unintentionally, but it's very illustrative.
I also figured it'd bring out those that feel that virtually anything
goes.

I think the fact is that Tivo Basic is something Tivo would rather not
have as it causes perception problems like this. It's mainly there for
DVD integrated models (now, not counting legacy boxes), so that
discontinuing your service doesn't render your DVD recorder completely
useless. You have a dual purpose box, and it seems that Tivo believes
that it wouldn't be fair to require a fee to use the DVD recorder
features, so they enable a very basic set of Tivo features for free for
those units. They purposely disable the complete set folks don't buy
them just to avoid paying the subscription fee.

Randy S.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 2:58:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Services = the Software/Guide data relationship. Let's look at
> the tivo website for a little guidance, shall we?
>
> From the website:
> "Why do I pay for the TiVo service?
> Think of the TiVo service as the brain behind easy-to-use TiVo
> features like WishListTM searches and Season PassTM recordings.
> It's always working for you, even when you're not home, to
> automatically find and record the entertainment you want to
> watch, and to find you related programming you might like to
> see."
>
> Wow! Who knew that the TiVo website could support my contention
> that the core 'Service' is the software/guide data relationship?
> Oh, that's right. *I* knew that!
>
> So, the continuing payment is for the guide data! Because even if
> you buy a lifetime subscription, you absolutely MUST keep the
> thing calling home for guide data or it becomes a doorstop. THAT
> is my grounds for saying the Tivo revenue stream revolves around
> the guide data. Everything else is just trimmings.
>
>

Oh, god, it's S**n all over again. Look, you found a statement that
says that Season Pass and Wishlists are *part* of the services offered
by Tivo. No one would contest that. But nowhere in your supposed
*proof* does it say that those are the *only* services provided by Tivo.
In fact we know that they *aren't*, Tivo supplies lots of other
services. If you look on this page (which is reached by clicking on
"Tivo Service" on http://www.tivo.com/1.0.asp which is the "What is
Tivo" page):

http://www.tivo.com/1.2.asp

Items listed on this page specifically mentioned as part of the Tivo
service are:

- Wishlist searches
- Season Pass recordings
- Tivo On-line scheduling
- Home media features, which include:
- sharing digital photos from your PC
- playing digital music from your PC
- Tivo-to-go
AND *GASP*
- MULTI-ROOM VIEWING!!!!

Note the title of that web page: "Tivo SERVICE"

And please don't make the same mistake here that you keep making
elsewhere, these are only *some* of the features of Tivo *service*, it
is not a complete list.

Randy S.
August 23, 2005 3:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:D edl3f$15ae$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> I think the fact is that Tivo Basic is something Tivo would rather not
> have as it causes perception problems like this. It's mainly there for

Precisely. What would have been a really great product just attracted the
thieves like moths to a flame. Any thoughts of extending it to other boxes
has been completely eradicated.

I mean, our buddy Art here thinks he 'owns' something (his own words) just
because he recorded it. When up against the typical American and his sense
of entitlement, the eyepatches come out.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
August 23, 2005 3:33:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2005 23:33:58 GMT, Howard wrote:

>"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
>news:D edl3f$15ae$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:
>
>> I think the fact is that Tivo Basic is something Tivo would rather not
>> have as it causes perception problems like this. It's mainly there for
>
>Precisely. What would have been a really great product just attracted the
>thieves like moths to a flame. Any thoughts of extending it to other boxes
>has been completely eradicated.
>
>I mean, our buddy Art here thinks he 'owns' something (his own words) just
>because he recorded it. When up against the typical American and his sense
>of entitlement, the eyepatches come out.

I own the recording of my nephew's baptism. I recorded it on my
camcorder. I copied it to pc via the Tivo. The recording on the
tivo is mine, I own it. The recording on the PC is mine, I own
it. The copies I burned to cd are mine, I bought the blanks, I
created the content, I gifted them to my sister.

Are you going to dispute my claim that I own that recording? Each
version of it? At what point does my claim of ownership become
invalid? Was it illegal to transfer my property to pc via tivo?
If any of those recordings are no longer under my ownership, then
who now owns them? Can I go after any of those companies/people
for theft? Can they come after me for theft? What did I steal?

Come now. You aren't thinking of the complete spectrum of things
possible. You need to be a little more specific when you start
thinking of throwing accusations of pirating around.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:34:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jason wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2005 23:33:58 GMT, Howard wrote:
>
>
>>"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
>>news:D edl3f$15ae$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:
>>
>>
>>>I think the fact is that Tivo Basic is something Tivo would rather not
>>>have as it causes perception problems like this. It's mainly there for
>>
>>Precisely. What would have been a really great product just attracted the
>>thieves like moths to a flame. Any thoughts of extending it to other boxes
>>has been completely eradicated.
>>
>>I mean, our buddy Art here thinks he 'owns' something (his own words) just
>>because he recorded it. When up against the typical American and his sense
>>of entitlement, the eyepatches come out.
>
>
> I own the recording of my nephew's baptism. I recorded it on my
> camcorder. I copied it to pc via the Tivo. The recording on the
> tivo is mine, I own it. The recording on the PC is mine, I own
> it. The copies I burned to cd are mine, I bought the blanks, I
> created the content, I gifted them to my sister.
>
> Are you going to dispute my claim that I own that recording? Each
> version of it? At what point does my claim of ownership become
> invalid? Was it illegal to transfer my property to pc via tivo?
> If any of those recordings are no longer under my ownership, then
> who now owns them? Can I go after any of those companies/people
> for theft? Can they come after me for theft? What did I steal?
>
> Come now. You aren't thinking of the complete spectrum of things
> possible. You need to be a little more specific when you start
> thinking of throwing accusations of pirating around.
>
>

I'm sure Howard was referring to broadcast content. No one would
contest that, unless you signed it contractually away, content created
by you is owned by you. Admittedly, a literal interpretation of his
statement could be construed as wrongly covering the example you present.

I would also disagree that Art claimed he owned the content mentioned in
the OP. He just wants to watch it in another room, on another device,
which is permissible under fair use, even if the content is not owned by
him. However the *method* of transfer that he wanted to use requires a
fee that he didn't want to pay. And Art's already noted that he has
other methods (burning to DVD) which are perfectly legal, he was simply
trying to save some effort and time. I'm sure he's very amused by the
active thread he started ;-).

Randy S.
August 23, 2005 8:10:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:D ee3sd$q60$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> I'm sure Howard was referring to broadcast content. No one would

Of course. The troll's strawman means nothing...and in fact, is
irrelevant. Even if this WERE recorded onto a box with TiVo basic,
regardless of WHO owns it, full service is needed to share it between
boxes.

> I would also disagree that Art claimed he owned the content mentioned in

Message-ID: <Ae-dndwEGuMm05feRVn-oA@comcast.com>

"I agree I never thought of it as a TOS since I owned what was recorded."

Again, even if Art meant he recorded it from a camcorder, full service is
still needed to enable multi room viewing.

And if he DID record it from a camcorder, then sharing the video is easy.
Much easier, in all senses of the word, than using MRV even IF he had it
enabled. To boot, as you (and he) mentioned, the box with TiVo Basic has a
friggin' DVD burner.

> the OP. He just wants to watch it in another room, on another device,
> which is permissible under fair use, even if the content is not owned by
> him. However the *method* of transfer that he wanted to use requires a

I honestly wish that I could still assume that everyone's intentions are
good, even after they've shown this to be incorrect. However, I just can't
agree that sharing was the point of Art's post, since he knows full well he
has a method of sharing already. The point was to get something for
nothing.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:09:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>I would also disagree that Art claimed he owned the content mentioned in
>
>
> Message-ID: <Ae-dndwEGuMm05feRVn-oA@comcast.com>
>
> "I agree I never thought of it as a TOS since I owned what was recorded."

Ok, yep you've got a point. However, he is allowed to copy it and watch
it elsewhere for personal use under fair use, though not because he
"owns" it. It does seem to be a common thing for people to mixup
ownership with fair use rules.

>
> I honestly wish that I could still assume that everyone's intentions are
> good, even after they've shown this to be incorrect. However, I just can't
> agree that sharing was the point of Art's post, since he knows full well he
> has a method of sharing already. The point was to get something for
> nothing.
>

I doubt he thought of it that way, which I is why I brought it up in the
first place. Usually this comes up because folks want to enable Tivo
Basic on an S2 box so they don't have to pay the subscription, and that
is a much more egregious request than what Art wanted to do. However,
as you point out, it's only a matter of degree.

Randy S.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:14:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

<Jason> wrote in message news:59agg1lhqri6jo038o8p8n4bpaimk2s32j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:50:04 -0400, Randy S. wrote:
>
>>Art's Antique Radios wrote:
>>> Is there a way to make (hack?) a machine with just TIVO Basic be able to
>>> communicate through a network? I want to share recordings between two
>>> machines.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>>Hoo, boy, I know that my response will bring out the zealots, but it
>>seems to be need to be discussed about every other month.
>>
>>The answer to your question is probably yes, and certainly no. ;-) Yes,
>>there are probably hacks around that enable networking on Tivo Basic, as
>>well as most everything else. But it is *not* going to be a widely
>>circulated or accepted hack on the (pseudo)legitimate Tivo hacking
>>channels.
>>
>>The reason being, of course, that technically, the hack you are
>>requesting is theft of service.
>
> <Snip>
> I disagree, on the specific grounds that the recording of the
> show is legal, and the location of the replaying of the show is
> not tied to the specific unit that made the original recording.
> Just as recording a show on a VCR in the living room and then
> taking the tape into the bedroom for replaying it there is
> accepted as fair use... So would recording on the Tivo in the
> living room and then transferring the show into another unit in
> house for re-playing there.
>
> The Supreme Court smacked down the claim that people had to watch
> a show at the exact time is was broadcast, do you really think
> any company would attempt to mandate that a show had to be
> watched in a specific location inside your home? That because you
> recorded it in the living room, you must watch it in the living
> room?
>
>
>>So hacking a Directivo to add networking is ok, but an SA Tivo with
>>Basic is not, and that isn't as arbitrary as it sounds.
>
> <snip>
>
>>However networking *is*
>>available for a fee, and technically you are attempting to avoid paying
>>that fee.
>
> No, the fee was not attached to networking.
> The 'Service' is the guide data and the software that does all
> the searching and manipulation and prioritization of that guide
> data.
>
> Plus, there is history. The service cost $X, and there was not
> any official networking option. Then, networking was added, and
> the cost of the service climbed $0. The networking feature added
> zero additional cost to the service package, therefore the
> networking feature is not in the category of 'Revenue Generator'
>
> So, therefore networking is demonstrably a 'free feature' and;
> because it is not part of the 'Fee Based Service Package'
> enabling it is not 'Theft Of Service'.
>
> Need another example of this? Try Microsoft, when they just
> tossed Internet Explorer into all copies of Windows, without
> raising the retail price. There's a high profile federal court
> precedent that a feature that added no additional retail jump is
> therefore not an inseparable piece of the package.
>
>>BTW, Art (and this is not a rhetorical question), would it not make
>>sense to just pay the $7 per month for the unit and have full
>>functionality?
>>
>
> Immaterial. A cajoling style argument does not rely on precedent
> or logic or rational thought. It relies on manipulation of
> empathy and emotional feelings, which are notoriously illogical
> and irrational.
>
>
> Go ahead Art. Perform the 21st century digital equivalent of:
> 1) Ejecting the tape from the VCR
> 2) Walking to the other room
> 3) Pushing the tape into the second unit
> 4) Press 'Play'
>
> 'Nuff said. Goodnight.
>

That was an excellent post.
August 27, 2005 8:04:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:14:29 -0500, mrlopez wrote:
>
><Jason> wrote in message news:59agg1lhqri6jo038o8p8n4bpaimk2s32j@4ax.com...
>> Go ahead Art. Perform the 21st century digital equivalent of:
>> 1) Ejecting the tape from the VCR
>> 2) Walking to the other room
>> 3) Pushing the tape into the second unit
>> 4) Press 'Play'
>>
>> 'Nuff said. Goodnight.
>>
>
>That was an excellent post.
>

Thank you. It's too bad I'm shouted down by people who think that
you must abandon the no-monthly-fee tivo basic and pay
12.95/month just to be able to watch a program in room B when it
was recorded in room A.

Really, it's like going to a car dealer and being told "No, to
receive the full-size spare tire with your car, you must buy
option-package-C" which includes plenty of things that you have
no desire for... And being told that it is illegal to obtain your
own full-size spare because "The company offers that option for a
fee, by circumventing that option you are committing a crime".

Bah.
!