TIVO Basic and Networking

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
16 answers Last reply
More about tivo basic networking
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
    news:dedl3f$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.
  11. 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:dedl3f$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.
  12. 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:dedl3f$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.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

    "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in
    news:dee3sd$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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tivo Networking Basic Home Theatre Product