« Kids: Understand the USPTO's reality distortion field |
Main
| One IP Right to Rule Them All »
September 15, 2005
The meaning of TiVo's DRM bug
Posted by Wendy Seltzer
Cory picked up on PVRblog's coverage of what was eventually determined to be a bug: Users found their TiVos unexpectedly expiring recorded shows.
It might well have been a bug in this instance, but bugs like that don't just come from nowhere, with fully formed error messages alerting viewers that "Due to policy set by the copyright holder, 'Keep until I delete' is not permitted." Maybe it wasn't meant to show up here and now, on broadcast TV, but someplace in TiVo's corporate innards, someone decided that unrequested expiration was a feature.
Nothing in copyright law mandates this "feature." To the contrary, once you have a lawful copy of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine says you have the choice whether to save, lend, or discard it, while Betamax says timeshifting creates a lawful copy. If not copyright law, then copyright-holder muscle probably sits behind TiVo's design. Copyright holders work with Macrovision to implement extra-copyright controls, then jointly lean on TiVo to respond to them. Together, they restrict user rights beyond copyright.
The bug also illustrates the fallibility of proprietary technologies (particularly those with automatic update). "Update" doesn't always mean "improve" -- an update can take away functions you've come to enjoy, just because someone else objects. This misfeature of any DRM that implements "revocability" gives "planned obsolescence" a whole new meaning.
Like Cory, I've gone the MythTV route instead. With hundreds of people hacking on its open-source code, MythTV updates really are improvements. Its features are truly features, like commercial skip, time-stretch, transcoding and transfer to other media, plus an open-format music server on the side, giving full access to all the rights copyright reserves to the public. Sorry TiVo, you've been out-evolved.
Comments (11)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Markets and Monopolies
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Like YouTube for Business Documents
- › No You Can't
- › Like A Stack of Books 348 Feet Tall
- › How Much Potter Does Rowling Own?
- › Like Hope, But Different
- › It's More Complicated, And More Interesting
- › Can E-Zines Succeed?
- › Bye Bye (Buy?) Baidu
1. Copyfight Fighter on September 15, 2005 8:29 PM writes...
I smell a rat!
This is the thread from 'TiVo Community' that started it all:
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=3233033&&#post3233033
This is a jpeg from that thread that shows the shows 'flagged':
http://polyphony.org/tivo/IMG_2674.jpg
They are both Fox shows (King of the Hill, Malcolm In the Middle), broadcast from Winston-Salem, NC on the 10th (location identified in the same thread, later on the page).
Here's a link to a 'Broadband Reports' post (scroll down, see JP Grimmace) about the same thing happening on a homebrew computer-based PVR, involving Fox shows (The Simpsons, Family Guy) broadcast in Michigan, on the 11th:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/67465
Certainly, it may be a coincidence, (and is not verified) but the occurrence in 2 geographically separate areas involving the same network's content smells fishy.
Permalink to Comment2. Chuck on September 15, 2005 8:40 PM writes...
Wendy, you and Cory must live in some magical world where your rights are carved in stone with such perfect clarity that there is no possibility of them being interpreted other than as you see them. But for the rest of us who, like TiVo, operate in the real world, there is no such security. The Betamax ruling was made in a different time with a different court; it was fought by a much richer and more powerful company than TiVo, and the ruling applied to a device that, unlike a DVR, had legitimate uses beyond recording broadcast TV. No one, least of all TiVo, is eager to test that case again.
Maybe you and the other emotional children who are having your little blogspace tantrums over this issue believe it is TiVo's job to fight some endless, financially ruinous, and ultimately quixotic battle with The Man, but I'm sure TiVo's shareholders do not. Replay TV was destroyed. Napster was destroyed. Individuals who steal music are being destroyed. TiVo chooses not to fight the tide. I'm sorry if that disappoints you. But I tell you what: record some copyrighted movies with your MythTV, distribute them widely and flagrantly on the internet, and then maybe you can have the fun of financing a court battle all the way to the Supreme Court. Fight the good fight, Wendy. But do it with something more than silly little entries in your blog.
Permalink to Comment3. Justin Thyme on September 16, 2005 12:18 AM writes...
Actually it is a little more complicated than fear of lawsuits from the MPAA. CE companies are bound by a set of interlocking agreements that like it or not force them to put in features like this that consumers hate. Many people love the fact that unlike any other DVR from cable or satellite companies, they can save their shows to DVD.
Well, to do that, all DVD player recorders must have a CSS license. But a CSS license requires a macrovision license. When it came time to renew its macrovision license, Tivo was forced to accept the new requirement that all its products had to obey these flags.
Without it's macrovision license, not only it be illegal for them to produce DVD recorder Tivos, but but its TivoToGo features would be in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, MythTv is not yet an option for mainstream users. As for Snapstream and other 3rd party Windows providers- they will have a hard time escaping the requirements of Macrovision since support for it is being written into the operating system. For example, no application will have access to HD content without certified support for macrovision flags as well a number of other DRM certification requirements.
Ultimately, this is not a battle that the studios are going to win, but in the meantime companies that want to offer a real alternative to the cable, satellite and OS companies are simply going to have to bend with the wind or go the way of replayTv.
As a consumer you can participate in the victory of the cablecos or you can think a little more about the realities facing those who want to provide low cost Real alternatives that grandmothers have no trouble using.
Permalink to Comment4. Justin Thyme on September 16, 2005 12:35 AM writes...
Actually it is a little more complicated than fear of lawsuits from the MPAA. CE companies are bound by a set of interlocking agreements that them to put in features like this. Many people love Tivos because unlike any other DVR from cable or satellite companies, they can save their shows to DVD.
Well, to legally manufacture a a DVD player recorders Tivo was required to have a CSS license. But a CSS license requires a macrovision license. When it came time to renew its macrovision license, Tivo was forced to accept the new requirement that all its products had to obey these flags.
Without it's macrovision license, not only it be illegal for them to produce DVD recorder Tivos, but but its TivoToGo features would be in jeopardy.
Unfortunately, MythTv is not yet an option for mainstream users. As for Snapstream and other 3rd party Windows providers- they will have a hard time escaping the requirements of Macrovision since support for it is being written into the operating system. For example, no application will have access to HD content without certified support for macrovision flags as well a number of other DRM certification requirements.
Ultimately, this is not a battle that the studios are going to win, but in the meantime companies that want to offer a real alternative to the cable, satellite and OS companies are simply going to have to bend with the wind or go the way of replayTv.
As a consumer you can participate in the victory of the cablecos and Microsoft or you can think a little more about the realities facing those companies like Tivo and Snapstream who want to provide low cost alternative DVRs that grandmothers have no trouble using.
How long do you realistically think it will take Myth gets to a place where they can offer something that mainstream users would be able to easily set up and rely on like they rely on other CE appliances?
Permalink to Comment5. Justin Thyme on September 16, 2005 12:41 AM writes...
Actually it is a little more complicated than have the good points you make about fair use and copyright law.
CE companies are bound by a set of interlocking agreements that them to put in features like this. Many people love Tivos because unlike any other DVR from cable or satellite companies, they can save their shows to DVD.
Well, to legally manufacture a a DVD player recorders Tivo was required to have a CSS license. But a CSS license requires a macrovision license. When it came time to renew its macrovision license, Tivo was forced to accept the new requirement that all its products had to obey these flags.
Without it's macrovision license, not only it be illegal for them to produce DVD recorder Tivos, but but its TivoToGo features would be in jeopardy.
Support for these statements including links to original material may be found in notes I wrote in the Tivo community thread referenced by "copyright fighter".
Unfortunately, MythTv is not yet an option for mainstream users. As for Snapstream and other 3rd party Windows providers- they will have a hard time escaping the requirements of Macrovision since support for it is being written into the operating system. For example, no application will have access to HD content without certified support for macrovision flags as well a number of other DRM certification requirements.
Ultimately, this is not a battle that the studios are going to win, but in the meantime companies that want to offer a real alternative to the cable, satellite and OS companies are simply going to have to bend with the wind or go the way of replayTv.
As a consumer you can participate in the victory of the cablecos and Microsoft or you can think a little more about the realities facing those companies like Tivo and Snapstream who want to provide low cost alternative DVRs that grandmothers have no trouble using.
How long do you realistically think it will take Myth gets to a place where they can offer something that mainstream users would be able to rely on like they rely on other CE appliances?
Permalink to Comment6. Justin Thyme on September 16, 2005 12:45 AM writes...
Oops.
Permalink to Comment7. UpChuck on September 17, 2005 2:13 AM writes...
Wow, Chuck.
Where did Wendy say that she was using her MythTV setup to "widely and flagrantly" distribute copyrighted material on the internet???
She said, she wanted "all the rights copyright reserves to the public".
Pull your head out of your backside, Chuck.
There are a lot of us who want fair use, without violating anyone's copyright. Don't be such a sanctimonious prick.
Permalink to Comment8. CopyrightFAN on September 19, 2005 12:48 AM writes...
I'm quite sure that any of the pvr/dvr mfg'ers would love to be "the iPod of video"... shifting millions of units and racking up profits while the content industry reels under the scourge of digitally enabled piracy.
If Macrovision's technology will prevent the decimation of the movie business that has befallen the music industry, then I'm 100% behind them. Better technology integration with licensees will eliminate these bugs with time.
Without protection from digital enabled piracy, its inevitable that the incentive to invest in expensive entertainment products (movies, music, games) would evaporate. Its already come to pass in music... there are 30 percent *fewer* artists under major label contract today than there were in 1996, resulting in less choice and less diversity to the mainstream consumer, not more. The only rights specifically denoted in the first ratified version of the US Constitution is protection of intellectual property; the amendments known as the Bill of Rights was added years later.
I haven't come across a so-called "fair use advocate" (my term is "copyright hater") who's ever been responsible for exploiting a catalog of creative content to recoup costs or fund, develop and invest in creative works.
Its a pity that the culture of "ripping and trading" music products has been fostered and encouraged by those who wish to achieve disproportionate intermediation in the value chain... building empires on stolen intellectual property.
Permalink to Comment9. Commons Music on September 19, 2005 3:44 AM writes...
"...there are 30 percent *fewer* artists under major label contract today than there were in 1996, resulting in less choice and less diversity to the mainstream consumer, not more"
Source of that statistic?
Also, assuming it's accurate, I would like to tell you to take a little look at this, which is a fascinating piece on the ills of major labels as written by Courtney Love. Being off a major label doesn't mean bad things. Some of my favorite artists are on indie labels, or no label at all. This doesn't mean I don't like many major label artists, but it also doesn't mean I'm restricted in choice or diversity. Major labels don't create diversity, lots of artists creates diversity.
Permalink to Comment10. Thomas Jefferson on September 20, 2005 4:12 PM writes...
"The only rights specifically denoted in the first ratified version of the US Constitution is protection of intellectual property; the amendments known as the Bill of Rights was added years later."
Boy, the right to the "protection of intellectual property." That's some text I'd sure like to see cited.
Permalink to Comment11. YouWillBeAssimilated on July 6, 2007 10:12 PM writes...
This is just the kind of preposterous commercially-driven law-bending that makes companies rich, pirates smarter, and us poor lawful consumers in big trouble.
Permalink to CommentThis whole copyright business is way, WAY out of hand.