# Shouldn't copying software be allowed for personal home use?



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

Back in the 1970s, a case went before the US Supreme Court: Networks and movie studios were accusing Sony of violating copyright laws by selling a product that allowed home users to record and play back copyrighted material.

The Supreme Court ruled in Sony's favor. Commonly referred to as "The Betamax Ruling", the court decided the recording and saving of programming for personal home use is legal and does not violate copyright law.

Fast forward to 2010: There are enough threads on this board about "copying" hard drives and setting up RAID "backups" to choke a donkey, not to mention a ton of free advertising for Hippauge's PVR device. _(It reminds me of my days in college when stores displayed rolling papers and bongs beside a sign reading "For Tobacco Use Only")_

Using the Supreme Court's "Betamax" ruling as a test, how is using a PVR any different from installing a Linux-based ("hackware") program to copy files off a DVR and into a format that's compatible with Windows Media Player? Aside from having the PC perform the decoding, both do exactly the same thing with the same end result: A copy of a movie or TV show for personal use.

I am not condoning the illegal resale of copyrighted materials; just asking what I feel is a legitimate question. I have many hours of content saved on my DVR and would prefer to save it in the event my current DVR bites it or I decide to upgrade to a newer model. Although I have advanced PC knowledge, I prefer a simple approach (my home network and existing PC) versus tearing apart my DVR and/or not being able to watch what I've already paid for and recorded when I eventually go to a newer model.

I know this seems like I'm beating this Board's ultimate "dead horse"; however I feel it's a legit question on the legal difference (if any) between a PVR and "hackware".


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

The Betamax FINAL Supreme court decision ruled that "time shifting" constituted fair use. While DVR's fall under the same ruling, the copyright owners and DirecTV have chosen to impose additional restrictions they feel are in their best interests.

You could record anything you want OTA onto a TIVO and then thru various methods transfer it to a hard drive or DVD retained for personal use and not streamed and it would be legal.

However, DirecTV has decided that you won't do that with their equipment, for whatever reason, they have not allowed independent hard drive storage. The drive must remain connected to the DVR that recorded the program. There are methods of transferring programming in SD format and no doubt there will eventually be HD transfers as well, but transferring programming is a "real time" process and personally not worth the time involved.

WIth TV programming readily available from on line sources and streaming movies quickly gaining in popularity, why go to all the trouble.


----------



## RoyGBiv (Jul 24, 2007)

There is a new law which addresses this issue. It has nothing to do with making copies for personal use. Instead, it involves any attempt to defeat copy protection schemes of digital media. So, it is still legal to make one copy for personal use as using a DVR as long as you are not defeating copy protection software. Once you "hack" the software to get around copy protection, it is now illegal, even if it is only one copy for your own use.

This law has not been tested in court, but it is hard to imagine anyone at this point trying to test it.

SMK


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Googling "digital millenium copyright act" should give more info, "but" we've got a new/different law(s) to deal with now and to use the "old law" requires the analog "loophole", which is what the PVR exploits.


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

Thanks for everyone's responses.



veryoldschool said:


> Googling "digital millenium copyright act" should give more info, "but" we've got a new/different law(s) to deal with now and to use the "old law" requires the analog "loophole", which is what the PVR exploits.


Don't shoot the messenger, but I have a feeling "DVR Copying Software" gets more hits on Google per day than the DMCA. I haven't Googled it myself yet; however I promise I'll keep anything I find in the "don't ask, don't tell" folder on my hard drive.

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

As to the difference between a PVR and “hackware”...”hackware” is a prohibited subject at DBSTalk and PRV’s aren’t. :grin:

What about service providers? They have to deal with the movie studios and broadcasters in order to deliver us the content. I wonder how favorable they would view a stance by any service provider that may allow coping programming for unrestricted use. Would that have any effect on our bills?

However, service providers aside, if I can record the video/audio signal from my DVR then I should be allowed to...as long as it’s for my own personal use and I’m not BitTorrenting the thing all over the web (it’s amazing what my daughter seems to get a hold of ).

BTW, if I can record an HD stream to an external PVR...what the heck would I need hackware for? :shrug:

Mike


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

MicroBeta said:


> What about service providers? They have to deal with the movie studios and broadcasters in order to deliver us the content. I wonder how favorable they would view a stance by any service provider that may allow coping programming for unrestricted use. Would that have any effect on our bills?


I think the question should be _How much of an effect has it already had on our bills?_ I may be showing my age here, but I remember when movies on D* were $1.99 each. Now they're $4.99 and up.

On a side note, I'd rather pay a bit more per channel and be able to keep what I want, so long as I could only subscribe to what I want. I don't give a rat's a$$ about NBA, NFL, Golf, chick channels (Lifetime, Oprah, etc.), Disney Channel, Sonic Tap or home shopping. In the face of "a la carte" channel and programming offerings becoming more available through online paid streaming, the Big Two satellite providers need to seriously consider the same.

If you subscribe to Time Magizine, does that force you to also subscribe and pay for Newsweek, Us, People, Road & Track, etc.? My guess is that _(even factoring in the base cost of the satellite service itself)_ my bill would drop substantially *and, more importantly,* it would force greedy pigs like Disney from slamming D* with huge fee increases that are passed on to us on a regular basis. They would have to offer deals to subscribers on their channels just as major magazines offer yearly subscriptions at about 80% off the newsstand price. The number of subscribers is a huge factor on if companies will pay to advertise on the channel and at what price.



MicroBeta said:


> BTW, if I can record an HD stream to an external PVR...what the heck would I need hackware for?Mike


Using the PC to do file conversions is a lot faster, not to mention shelling out $189 and adding another piece of clutter to my system. I think I already have as much wiring on my home theater as a typical nuclear power plant. :grin:


----------



## armchair (Jul 27, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> What about service providers? They have to deal with the movie studios and broadcasters in order to deliver us the content. I wonder how favorable they would view a stance by any service provider that may allow coping programming for unrestricted use. Would that have any effect on our bills?
> 
> Mike


I don't know the answer but I wonder what if any impact Dish Network suffered from allowing authorized user DVRs to copy/move recordings to an external USB HDD to view on other authorized receivers? The copy/move is file transfer speed and maintains original format & resolution. Although it's too slow and inconvenient for MRV purposes, I think it's an alternative to lost recordings when swapping DVRs (I think it's only a matter of authorizing a replacement DVR to view the content being that multiple receivers on account can view the same content).

Although in their case, it's not unrestricted use but limited to authorized receivers on same account which is the OP/TS's inquiry. It may be in Directv's corporate interest to not allow this feature for their own benefit but IMO, it's a feature that may interest patrons considering an alternative. (In the balance of likes and dislikes of the two, I'm OK with Directv for now.)

As others have suggested, including one moderator, maybe someday Directv users can do the same between their authorized receivers using eSATA w/o losing recordings when swapping DVRs. I currently have little interest in eSATA myself, but having a true storage capability would immediately peak my interest!


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

armchair said:


> As others have suggested, including one moderator, maybe someday Directv users can do the same between their authorized receivers using eSATA w/o losing recordings when swapping DVRs. I currently have little interest in eSATA myself, but having a true storage capability would immediately peak my interest!


In lieu of using a PVR or _(cough, nudge, wink)_ other measures, I would be OK with this solution if it included the following:


The ability to directly copy individual shows (versus cloning the entire drive) from the DVR's internal drive to an external drive without having to use a PC, networking or removing the internal drive from the DVR.

The ability to connect the external drive(s) to any authorized receiver on my account (current, upgrade or replacement) with an eSATA connection.

A guarantee that any recordings (or at least non pay-per-view recordings) would not expire or be unavailable to view so long as I am a DirecTV subscriber.

An added plus would be the ability for the DVR to recognize both the internal drive and external eSATA drive simultaneously - no need to disconnect the eSATA to see what's on the internal drive. If the DVR was especially intelligent, it could even ask which drive _(internal or external)_ you want to record a given program to and/or automatically switch recording to the external drive if the internal drive is full.

I know several people who _(through breaking copy protection on Blu-Ray, standard DVDs and/or Bit Torrent P2P downloading)_ have amassed up to 10TB of content on either a RAID server or individual hot swap drives - content the studios, networks and authors haven't received a cent of royalties on.

This would be a "win, win". I could keep as many favorites as I want and the studio execs could chill out and quit acting like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. _("NO COPY FOR YOU!!!")_


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

gman863 said:


> In lieu of using a PVR or _(cough, nudge, wink)_ other measures, I would be OK with this solution if it included the following:
> 
> 
> The ability to directly copy individual shows (versus cloning the entire drive) from the DVR's internal drive to an external drive without having to use a PC, networking or removing the internal drive from the DVR.
> ...


What exactly would these do that MRV doesn't already do? :scratchin

IOW, why would I need to move hard drives around when I can already watch anything from anywhere? :shrug:



> A guarantee that any recordings (or at least non pay-per-view recordings) would not expire or be unavailable to view so long as I am a DirecTV subscriber.


I have recordings on my DVRs that are years old including stuff from premium channels and AFAIK, PPV/Cinema recordings are the only ones that expire. 



> An added plus would be the ability for the DVR to recognize both the internal drive and external eSATA drive simultaneously - no need to disconnect the eSATA to see what's on the internal drive. If the DVR was especially intelligent, it could even ask which drive _(internal or external)_ you want to record a given program to and/or automatically switch recording to the external drive if the internal drive is full.


This I would love to see this. I would even go a step further and make it like my old TiVo. When I added a second drive to my old HDVR2 it automatically added it to the existing drive to create one single volume. It was completely transparent and immediately tripled the recording capacity. I didn't worry about whether it was internal or external and with MRV, Whole Home DVR Service, it wouldn't need to worry about which drive it's on.



> I know several people who _(through breaking copy protection on Blu-Ray, standard DVDs and/or Bit Torrent P2P downloading)_ have amassed up to 10TB of content on either a RAID server or individual hot swap drives - content the studios, networks and authors haven't received a cent of royalties on.
> 
> This would be a "win, win". I could keep as many favorites as I want and the studio execs could chill out and quit acting like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. _("NO COPY FOR YOU!!!")_


IMHO, we are not likely to see any changes to encryption/HDCP so that is pretty much a non-starter. However, I would love to see combining internal & external drives into a single volume so that I could very easily add capacity. That plus MRV is, IMHO, the best option.

This question is for everyone in this thread. Why would I want to move external hard drives around between my DVRs when I can connect an external drive to increase recording capacity by nearly five fold, and have access to everything on any DVR from any other receiver (including standalond receivers that I can't add a drive to)? What does have the ability to move external drives around do that MRV can't do.

I know some people would love to keep/archive their stuff, unencrypted and without having to separately record the DVR output via component, but I don't think that will ever happen.

Mike


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> What exactly would these do that MRV doesn't already do? :scratchin
> 
> IOW, why would I need to move hard drives around when I can already watch anything from anywhere? :shrug:


One example I could think of, and it's one that gets thrown out pretty regularly when this topic comes up, would be if I wanted to upgrade all my HR21/2/3's to HR24's. If I could copy the existing shows to an external drive, I could then replace all my old DVR without having worry about losing my existing recordings. Hopefully the process would be 2-way, so when I got the new receiver, I could put the shows from the external drive back on the new device.


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

MicroBeta said:


> What exactly would these do that MRV doesn't already do? :scratchin
> 
> IOW, why would I need to move hard drives around when I can already watch anything from anywhere? :shrug:


The key is being able to keep your existing recordings in the event the internal HDD crashes or you upgrade to a newer model DVR. I'll concede moving hard drives from one active DVR to another is not an issue.

The other major plus would be the ability to use multiple hard drives through an external hot swap drive bay. If you eventually amass hundreds of HD movies and TV shows, you will be getting into many, many TB of data _(Think of the external hot swap bay as a 21st Century digital 8-track deck and you'll get the idea. )_ For those of us who only have one D* DVR, this is a big issue.



MicroBeta said:


> I have recordings on my DVRs that are years old including stuff from premium channels and AFAIK, PPV/Cinema recordings are the only ones that expire.


If the the DVR or internal HDD crashes and you don't have a back up, everything you've saved on it expires.



MicroBeta said:


> This question is for everyone in this thread. Why would I want to move external hard drives around between my DVRs when I can connect an external drive to increase recording capacity by nearly five fold, and have access to everything on any DVR from any other receiver (including standalond receivers that I can't add a drive to)? What does have the ability to move external drives around do that MRV can't do.


I wasn't aware D* had upgraded to a whole house DVR option similar to AT&T's U-Verse. I stand corrected. :goofygrin



MicroBeta said:


> I know some people would love to keep/archive their stuff, unencrypted and without having to separately record the DVR output via component, but I don't think that will ever happen.


It doesn't hurt to dream.... :soapbox:

An unrelated tip on buying and upgrading hard drives: If your DVR supports it, look for drives labeled "RAID/Enterprise" or at least "AV". Although a few bucks more than standard-grade HDDs, they have better heat resistance. Constant use for hours at a time (play or record) generates a lot more heat - especially if placed in an entertainment center cabinet with limited airflow.

RAID/Enterprise drives are built to withstand 24/7 server use (they do not have to be used as part of a RAID setup). AV drives are a step down but still more heat resistant than standard drives. I worked at a major computer components retailer and saw this first hand.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Getteau said:


> One example I could think of, and it's one that gets thrown out pretty regularly when this topic comes up, would be if I wanted to upgrade all my HR21/2/3's to HR24's. If I could copy the existing shows to an external drive, I could then replace all my old DVR without having worry about losing my existing recordings. Hopefully the process would be 2-way, so when I got the new receiver, I could put the shows from the external drive back on the new device.


Upgrading or replacing a defective receiver is the only reason I can think of.

You have to question whether there is enough of a call for this to code it into the firmware. IOW, what percentage of subs would make use of this feature?

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

gman863 said:


> The key is being able to keep your existing recordings in the event the internal HDD crashes or you upgrade to a newer model DVR. I'll concede moving hard drives from one active DVR to another is not an issue.
> 
> The other major plus would be the ability to use multiple hard drives through an external hot swap drive bay. If you eventually amass hundreds of HD movies and TV shows, you will be getting into many, many TB of data _(*Think of the external hot swap bay as a 21st Century digital 8-track deck and you'll get the idea*. )_ For those of us who only have one D* DVR, this is a big issue.


Back in my I-usta-be-in-IT days, I was hot swapping SCSI hard drives in ProLiant NT Servers 15 years ago ("huge" 500MB drives !rolling) so I completely understand...and yeah, in the '70s I had a couple of 8-track players...what of it.  :lol:

Seriously though, I think mass archiving is something that is very rare among subscribers so I doubt you would see the hot swap ability any time soon...or ever for that matter. I think the very few people who would want to do this should be assembling their own HTPC's and start archiving. The percentage of the 18 million+ subs who would even do this is so small as to be insignificant (in numbers not as people )



> _If the the DVR or internal HDD crashes and you don't have a back up, everything you've saved on it expires_.


I've had a dozen+ hard drives in various machines in my house, not counting DVRs, and it's actually pretty rare that hard drives fail. Back in my I-usta-be-in-IT days, the hospital I worked at had about 3200 PCs over the various facilities and of the failures I've seen, hard drives comprised the smallest percentage. Maybe it's just my experience but I've seen more PC cards, memory, and power supplies fail than hard drives. :shrug:

(of course as I type this, I actually have a drive going in one of my DVRs...Irony )

Now if you want to transfer a drive to a new DVR because the old one failed, I'll go along with that. AAMOF, at a minimum I believe that techs should have the ability to either transfer the data or the whole drive so people don't just lose everything if the a DVR dies or is upgraded...I don't see it happening but I think it's something DirecTV should look into; especially considering how easy it is to amass dozens of hours of programing and the fact that the smallest drives currently shipping with DVRs allow for 100 hours of MPEG-4 HD.


> _I wasn't aware D* had upgraded to a whole house DVR option similar to AT&T's U-Verse. I stand corrected. :goofygrin
> 
> It doesn't hurt to dream.... _:soapbox:
> <snip>.


The official roll out of the Whole Home DVR Service happened last spring I think and it was probably in testing for a year or more before that.

I like the idea of being able to save my recordings and transferring them to a new DVR but, IMHO, the number of people who would need this is so very small that I can't see it becoming a priority. Then, you take into account that MRV precludes having to ever move a hard drive between receivers and that just puts the final nail into that coffin. Of course I could be wrong...it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. :grin:

Mike


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

MicroBeta said:


> Maybe it's just my experience but I've seen more PC cards, memory, and power supplies fail than hard drives. :shrug:
> 
> (of course as I type this, I actually have a drive going in one of my DVRs...Irony )


Although I haven't had any HDD issues with my current DVR _(knock on wood, going on 3 years)_, my concern is the quality of entry-level HDDs as a whole seems to be dropping.

I'm basing this statement on both personal experience (I moonlight building and repairing PCs) and what I saw working at a large computer parts retailer.

I would wait on two or three people per day with the same issue: The HDD they used for video recording and playback crashed within several months after purchase. The complaints were mainly on budget priced product (currently something like a $59 1TB drive) or cheaper external drives. Many of these customers openly admitted they were video packrats, saving hundreds of movies in a digital library _(Can you say "Bit Torrent", boys and girls? Sure you can. :evilgrin _

Current cheaper HDDs aren't designed to spin at redline for hours at a time; hence the failure rates. As for the customers who I convinced to spend the extra $40 on a RAID drive, I never had a single complaint.


----------



## chili555 (Oct 12, 2010)

I am new to the forum, so pardon me if my questions are uninformed. I am asking the questions in order to _become_ informed.

Is it illegal to record DirecTV programming on to a hard drive or DVD? What is your citation? If it is, why do DVD recorders, Moxie, Tivo, et al exist without legal challenge from DirecTV, Dish, Disney, HBO, etc.?

Is Linux considered here, by its nature 'hackware?' Do you consider its use prima facie proof of wrong-doing? Do you believe the availability and use of MythTV is illegal? May I have a citation, please?

I understand that removing a hard drive from a leased DVR is probably violative of DirecTV's Terms of Service.

I also understand that sharing and/or selling DVDs recorded from DirecTV is illegal in many ways.

However, given the Betamax case, isn't recording still recording even if it's a hard drive or a DVD or some future solid-state device?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

chili555 said:


> I am new to the forum, so pardon me if my questions are uninformed. I am asking the questions in order to _become_ informed.
> 
> Is it illegal to record DirecTV programming on to a hard drive or DVD? What is your citation? If it is, why do DVD recorders, Moxie, Tivo, et al exist without legal challenge from DirecTV, Dish, Disney, HBO, etc.?
> 
> ...


Recording to a video capture in a PC or a recordable DVD is allowed. Actually I don't see anyway to prevent it...via component/composite anyway.

It's no different the recording TV on our VHS machines in the '80s. Certainly using a recordable DVD machine is not "hackware". Now anything that removes/bypasses/overrides HDCP, that could be considered hacking.

I don't know where the line is but taking the output and simply recording it to something like tape or disk isn't an issue.

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> I don't know where the line is but taking the output and simply recording it to something like tape or disk isn't an issue.
> 
> Mike


[not the expert here, but...] it's illegal to make a digital copy, where isn't not to make an analog copy [Betamax]. To my knowledge all DVD, video capture cards, etc. have/use an analog connection, unless connected to a Vidicam.


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

veryoldschool said:


> [not the expert here, but...] it's illegal to make a digital copy, where isn't not to make an analog copy [Betamax]. To my knowledge all DVD, video capture cards, etc. have/use an analog connection, unless connected to a Vidicam.


Since my last post _(rant?)_ on this issue a few days ago, I thought of how it (at least in some cases) _*is legal*_ to make a digital copy.

In their licensing agreements, Microsoft and most other software companies specifically allow the end-user (customer) to make a back-up copy of the CD or DVD containing the software in the event the original disc is damaged or destroyed. This does *not* allow free-for-all use of the intellectual property rights. Activation of the software is required using a unique code that will be rejected if the activation request exceeds the number of installs (licenses) purchased.

D* and Hollywood should show subscribers the same consideration by allowing us to back up/copy individual programs from the DVR to an external HDD directly using the eSATA connection. Even if we were not allowed to convert the files to a common format _(MPEG, AVCHD, etc.)_, we should be allowed to play them back on a newer DVR licensed to us due to an upgrade or replacement of a defective unit.

Honestly, if D*'s main satellite competitor wasn't dropping channels every time they get into a pi$$ing contest with a network, I would seriously consider switching since they already offer the ability to back up shows and play them on newer replacement DVRs.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Couple of points here:


Microsoft doesn't encrypt their CD/DVDs.
The DVR does encrypt the files and "brand them" to the hardware.
What "we think" DirecTV should do, doesn't mean anything at the end of the day. We've wanted them to change branding to access cards/accounts, but nothing has changed in 4 years, so....
While I've still got my first HR20s, it would be a PITA to have one fail and not be able to view recordings that were on an eSATA, but that's the way it is.
These can be off loaded to a DVD, but not in HD and the recordings can't be edited in any way.
Using a video capture/ PVR will allow this, but it's time consuming and still exploits "the analog loophole".
"Bit for Bit" HD copying seems to be the holy grail to Hollywood.


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

veryoldschool said:


> What "we think" DirecTV should do, doesn't mean anything at the end of the day.


It may not mean anything today, tomorrow or even next year. Depending on how many people share this view, however, it could have a long-term negative effect on DirecTV's subscriber base and retention rate.

Companies that don't pay attention to what customers want (and are going to competitors to get) eventually shrink or die. Blockbuster, GM and Circuit City are examples of once dominant companies downsized or eliminated due to this. Ironically, major Cable TV companies are still trying to recover from the same mistake: In the infancy of both DirecTV and Dish, cable companies saw satellite as the alternative of last resort for hicks who couldn't get cable service. It wasn't until cable guys did a few million disconnects on homes with new grey frisbees on the roof that they figured it out. :scratchin

Streaming, downloading and file sharing (legal or illegal) are reaching a quality, quantity and ease of use on par with satellite. How long it takes DirecTV to realize this will impact their profit (or loss) in years to come.


veryoldschool said:


> "Bit for Bit" HD copying seems to be the holy grail to Hollywood.


What I'm ranting for is *copy protected* bit for bit copying. "Holy Grail?" Bit for bit copying is more like a drinking fountain: BitTorrent, eDonkey and hundreds of other sites offer anything and everything digital. Based on the small number of lawsuits filed against home users for copyright infringement, it appears tens of millions of P2P/torrent users feel comfortable with the risk every day.

I think Hollywood already knows copy protection is a dead horse. The decline in prices of DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs, the free "digital copy" included with most DVD purchases and even PPV DirecTV movies available on the same day as retail release are proof of this.

Without endorsing or providing a "how to" guide, I'll just state the facts: "Hackware" _(although possibly illegal)_ is available for any DVR connected to a home network; removal of the internal HDD is not required. If Hollywood and DirecTV want to make such activity less tempting, a simple and legal licensed backup method might just do the trick.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

gman863 said:


> What I'm ranting for is *copy protected* bit for bit copying. "Holy Grail?" Bit for bit copying is more like a drinking fountain: BitTorrent, eDonkey and hundreds of other sites offer anything and everything digital. Based on the small number of lawsuits filed against home users for copyright infringement, it appears tens of millions of P2P/torrent users feel comfortable with the risk every day.
> 
> I think Hollywood already knows copy protection is a dead horse. The decline in prices of DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs, the free "digital copy" included with most DVD purchases and even PPV DirecTV movies available on the same day as retail release are proof of this.
> 
> Without endorsing or providing a "how to" guide, I'll just state the facts: "Hackware" _(although possibly illegal)_ is available for any DVR connected to a home network; removal of the internal HDD is not required. If Hollywood and DirecTV want to make such activity less tempting, a simple and legal licensed backup method might just do the trick.


It's not that I'm trying to promote DirecTV's side on this, but only to suggest/point out what might be different here:
DirecTV has to provide assurances to their programing providers that this digital content stays "locked down", or at least they've taken "do diligence" to do so. If they can't do/show this, then the provider will stop providing.
DirecTV is merely the middle man here, but must comply with the current laws.
What an end user may do is beyond their control, but DirecTV has no interest in making it easy for them.
At some point in time, the laws may change or Hollywood may take a different view.
I may drive faster than the posted speed limit, but it doesn't make it legal. Maybe I haven't been ticketed, and maybe "everyone else" drives as fast, but this still doesn't change the law.
The real issue here is the draconian "digital millenium copyright act" that congress was bought & paid to pass so the Betamax "mistake" doesn't repeat. Since Sony now is a content provider, I don't think you'll be seeing them challenging this law either.


----------



## gman863 (Oct 7, 2010)

Maybe we need to stage a coup and take over the top spots on DirecTV's Board of Directors. Based on your posts, it seems like both of us have a better grasp on the issue than they do.

:rant:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Upgrading or replacing a defective receiver is the only reason I can think of.
> 
> You have to question whether there is enough of a call for this to code it into the firmware. IOW, what percentage of subs would make use of this feature?
> 
> Mike


I know it's been a few days since you asked, but saw this when the thread came up again.

How many normal subs really use TVApps?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I know it's been a few days since you asked, but saw this when the thread came up again.
> 
> How many normal subs really use TVApps?


So you're going to answer a question with a question? 

Ok, I know a couple of people who use TVApps. That's a couple more than I know who want to move their recordings around.

Mike


----------



## CTskydiver (Jan 19, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> So you're going to answer a question with a question?
> 
> Ok, I know a couple of people who use TVApps. That's a couple more than I know who want to move their recordings around.
> 
> Mike


I don't use TV Apps, but understand there are people who do and don't begrudge them for it. (I used to use the sports score app, but it is so slow to respond I just use my iPhone these days).

I do, however, desperately want the ability to view my archived recordings on any future replacement or upgraded DVR.

I haven't had my box die yet (knock, knock), but both my mother and sister each had boxes die and lost recordings. My sister even pays a premium for MRV and leases FIVE DVR's but when her living room box suddenly died (the first of her HD boxes) none of that helped her view the year's worth of programming recorded to the external attached to that device.

We pay monthly DVR premiums to be able to indefinitely time shift our content. We do not get refunded a dime when we lose that ability due to a failure of leased hardware.

Logically, there is no reason for this. Recordings should have been DRM locked to the customer ACCOUNT from the very beginning, not a specific hardware ID. It wouldn't have cost DirecTV anything more to set it up that way in the beginning. Content providers wouldn't have cared one way or the other.

It might cost something to make the change now, retroactively, but it is a change that should be made. And is worth making. I suspect it wouldn't even be that difficult a change to make.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

A commonly misunderstood piece of the "Betamax" decision is that it applied to broadcast (OTA) TV only. There has never been a case brought before the Supreme Court regarding programming not delivered OTA. As noted earlier, it was about time-shifting, not copying or place-shifting.

Since then, though, other laws, such as the DMCA, reduce what rights you might have had regarding recordings of programs, no matter what the source.


----------



## bear263 (Dec 25, 2007)

Most households now a days have more than 1 DVR, wouldn't it just be easier to have the ability (through MRV) to move the recordings to another DVR, replace the bad reciever, and then move the content back? This seems like a simplier solution and easier for D* to add to the software. :scratch:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Yeah, but how often do DVR's fail? Are the number of failed DVR's, on a percentage basis, so large at to need this?

I think it would be pretty cool to be able to transfere eSATA drives between DVR's on an account but there's got to be a better argument then failed receivers.

Mike


----------



## CTskydiver (Jan 19, 2009)

MicroBeta said:


> ... but there's got to be a better argument then failed receivers.


Isn't that enough? You might think the odds are so low of your receiver failing that it doesn't matter, but imagine if you were one of the unlucky ones. How would you feel to loose hundreds of hours of premium content you paid a small fortune for and spent a ridiculous amount of time collecting and maintaining?

...Because of a silly DRM restriction that is totally unnecessary?


----------



## Joe C (Mar 3, 2005)

bear263 said:


> Most households now a days have more than 1 DVR, wouldn't it just be easier to have the ability (through MRV) to move the recordings to another DVR, replace the bad reciever, and then move the content back? This seems like a simplier solution and easier for D* to add to the software. :scratch:


That's exactly how unsupported MRV on the DTivos works.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

CTskydiver said:


> Isn't that enough? You might think the odds are so low of your receiver failing that it doesn't matter, but imagine if you were one of the unlucky ones. How would you feel to loose hundreds of hours of premium content you paid a small fortune for and spent a ridiculous amount of time collecting and maintaining?
> 
> ...Because of a silly DRM restriction that is totally unnecessary?


No, that isn't enough.

My point was to question whether or not there are enough failures to make it priority for DirecTV.

Like I've said a couple of times in this thread, I think it's a good idea. However, what would it take to make it a priority on DirecTV's part?

I doubt there are enough failed DVRs to make DirecTV to implement something.

There needs to be something else to bring it to the limelight. Otherwise it's a non-starter. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CTskydiver said:


> How would you feel to loose hundreds of hours of premium content you paid a small fortune for and spent a ridiculous amount of time collecting and maintaining?


I would feel like an idiot for using the wrong device/medium for this.
"Hundreds of hours"?
DVRs were never made for archiving long term. 
DVD & Blu-Ray disks are what to use.


----------



## CTskydiver (Jan 19, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> I would feel like an idiot for using the wrong device/medium for this.
> "Hundreds of hours"?
> DVRs were never made for archiving long term.
> DVD & Blu-Ray disks are what to use.


Blank blu-ray discs are so expensive, and the process of archiving via disk so labor and TIME intensive that this is not at all a practical solution.

If DVR's weren't meant for archiving, why put a hard drive bigger than 120 GB in one? A 1.5 TB disk holds well over 300 hours of content. I could (and have) copied that to an equivalent replacement drive costing about $100 and the process takes just a few hours.

To archive to disc would take well over 300 hours, and cost an ungodly fortune.

No one has yet explained to me why it would be either difficult or expensive for DirecTV to rewrite their DRM so that recordings are tied to the User Account and not the DVR.

I'm sure any cost incurred would be more than recouped by offering customers a flat, one-time fee to free their existing content from their current box when the time for an upgrade (or a DVR failure) comes around.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> What exactly would these do that MRV doesn't already do? :scratchin


Facilitate a much larger, easier to access and much more readily organized library of content than is currently afforded by the existing EHD switching scheme.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CTskydiver said:


> Blank blu-ray discs are so expensive, and the process of archiving via disk so labor and TIME intensive that this is not at all a practical solution.
> [...]
> To archive to disc would take well over 300 hours, and cost an ungodly fortune.


Are you sure? Blank 25GB Blu-ray discs can be had in quantities of 10 for about $1.40 each. The computer homed burners are getting dangerously close to passing under the $100 mark. As for the time required, I shouldn't take much longer than sum of the the run times of all of the programs to send them to a computer.

This is about what it cost (in time and money) to store a movie or two a few years ago on a DVD recorder or 20 years ago on VHS.


> No one has yet explained to me why it would be either difficult or expensive for DirecTV to rewrite their DRM so that recordings are tied to the User Account and not the DVR.


Nobody can explain it. It is just something DIRECTV hasn't seen fit to offer their subscribers.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

CTskydiver said:


> Blank blu-ray discs are so expensive, and the process of archiving via disk so labor and TIME intensive that this is not at all a practical solution.
> 
> If DVR's weren't meant for archiving, why put a hard drive bigger than 120 GB in one? A 1.5 TB disk holds well over 300 hours of content. I could (and have) copied that to an equivalent replacement drive costing about $100 and the process takes just a few hours.
> 
> ...


MTBF of 1.5 million hours doesn't mean a hard drive will last for 171 years before it fails.

What kills hard drives is, well running them. In a DVR the hard drive is running 24/7. This is about as poor a system for long term archiving of video as you could possibly have. Anyone who believes that a DVR is a good means of archiving their video is just plain wrong.

A couple of guys working for Google studied hard drive failures (they've got a few of drives over there) and found that...
_...once SMART found that a drive was having scan and reallocation errors, that drive was 39 times more likely to fail over a two-month span than a drive that reported no such errors. So, "first errors" are a good sign of failure. _​Link

The point is that once it starts to go it will go pretty quickly. This means if you're using you DVR as your primary source of video and also as the sole means of "backup" you will need to be very diligent in testing the drives to ensure your "archive" is still viable.

However, rule number one of backing up your data has always been to never use the primary working system _as_ your backup. This is an incredible foolish thing to do and saying that since they have a large drive in them means they are meant for archiving is just as foolish. You never, never use the working system as the backup. You know what that called? It's called not having a backup.

A DVRs sole purpose is to time shift TV programming and nothing more. Expecting DirecTV to give you tools to make it also an archiving system is never gonna happen. Nor is it a very smart way of creating a "backup" of important data. Heck, a Blu-Ray burner can be had for ≈$125-ish and disks are < $2/each. Now that's a backup system.

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CTskydiver said:


> If DVR's weren't meant for archiving, why put a hard drive bigger than 120 GB in one?


The largest stock DirecTV drive can hold 100 Hours. Seems like this might cover someone going on vacation.
Yes, archiving to disk is time consuming, so one would need to do this much more frequently than to wait until you have "hundreds of hours" to archive.
How much time and effort do you spend here:


> How would you feel to loose hundreds of hours of premium content you paid a small fortune for and spent a ridiculous amount of time collecting and maintaining.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> It's not that I'm trying to promote DirecTV's side on this, but only to suggest/point out what might be different here:
> DirecTV has to provide assurances to their programing providers that this digital content stays "locked down", or at least they've taken "do diligence" to do so. If they can't do/show this, then the provider will stop providing.
> DirecTV is merely the middle man here, but must comply with the current laws.
> What an end user may do is beyond their control, but DirecTV has no interest in making it easy for them.
> ...


And again we run into the conundrum of allowing content providers and content owners to be one in the same. When Sony provides both the means to copy and the restriction to NOT copy, it means that they control what and how to do the copying. You also run into the fact that in many cases the cable and satellite companies also control content, so it's in their best interest to lock down what the individual can do. Copyright laws are being "winged" as they cannot keep up with the advances of modern technology. And since the money is not with the consumers but with these content providers, it is easy for them to control regulation. Really does it make any sense that you can copy analog, but not digital? A copy is a copy is a copy. The fact that it's easier to proliferate illegal copies digitally should have no bearing on the decision. The sale of said copies is illegal, even if it was on tissue paper. If you can copy via analog, you should be able to copy digitally FOR PERSONAL USE.

Now as far as backing up your HD. That should be allowed, and there's no reason that they couldn't back it up into a format that is incompatible with anything than the host equipment. So, for instance, you back your DVR drive to some external media. They could create something that puts it into a format that the file can only be read from a drive connected to your DVR (either internally or eSata). Or, perhaps a better solution, once bandwidth issues are eliminated, back it up on some server "in the cloud" owned by DirecTV, so that if you have an equipment swap, it will download your content back to the new equipment. Then D* can control your content fully and still provide a backup service. As someone who had a faulty eSata cable and would lose content every time my DVR rebooted, that would have been a godsend.


----------



## CTskydiver (Jan 19, 2009)

Yeah, this is getting a bit off topic. I have backed up my DVR's hard drive on occasion (which is easy enough to do with a Gparted disc), and having two working hard drives with basically the same long-term data set on them is fine enough a backup solution for me. 

The problem comes with the part I CAN'T control. The DVR itself. If it blows a capacitor, or it's power supply fails, or anything else in it's hardware decides to stop working ... it doesn't matter that I've backed up the hard drive. If the DVR can't boot, I can't watch my content. DirecTV will happily replace the bad DVR, but you still can't watch your content - it is all encrypted and DRM tied to that specific piece of hardware.

It could just as easily be tied to the customer account. If it was, it could be played back on any DVR authorized on that account. No content providers would have had any problems with that, as any subscriber could have ORIGINALLY watched and recorded their content on any of the other DVR's on their account anyway (if they had any).

So basically, this was just a simple lack of foresight by whoever wrote the original encryption controls. I'm still convinced it would be an easy oversight to correct. DirecTV pushes software updates all the time. I don't see why this simple change couldn't be included in one of them.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

CTskydiver said:


> So basically, this was just a simple lack of foresight by whoever wrote the original encryption controls. I'm still convinced it would be an easy oversight to correct. DirecTV pushes software updates all the time. I don't see why this simple change couldn't be included in one of them.


First off, I agree with everyone here that keying the recordings to the account rather than the machine makes perfect sense. Had it been set up this way in the first place, all would be fine. But we all now have a bunch of data that was recorded under the original system. I suspect the fix for this isn't perfectly straight forward, as it has to be implemented *without invalidating all our existing recordings*.

I have no idea what the data format is, but there is probably a fixed-length field for the receiver ID number. If this field is not large enough for the account ID, then it would not just be a simple matter of recording the account ID number on recordings from now on, and doing a simple OR test to compare the field data with the machine and account IDs.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Everyone seems to think that the feature they want is just a simple matter of writing some code an pushing it to the boxes. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> Everyone seems to think that the feature they want is just a simple matter of writing some code an pushing it to the boxes. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Probably most of the people that think that have absolutely no idea what could be involved in changing the code to accommodate that change.


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> Probably most of the people that think that have absolutely no idea what could be involved in changing the code to accommodate that change.


I will most certainly admit to that. But I believe that there have been posts saying that Dish ties recording to the customer account and that external drives can be moved from one dvr to another.
If _Dish_ can do that, I believe that D* could do it if they wanted to. (After all, D* is much better and smarter, IMO, than Dish.)


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rsblaski said:


> I will most certainly admit to that. But I believe that there have been posts saying that Dish ties recording to the customer account and that external drives can be moved from one dvr to another.
> If _Dish_ can do that, I believe that D* could do it if they wanted to. (After all, D* is much better and smarter, IMO, than Dish.)


I don't think anyone is saying that DirecTV can't do it. If they are then they're not correct.

However, it is much more difficult than most people thnk to change what's already been done then it is to start from scratch. That's all I was trying to say. :grin:

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that DirecTV can't do it. If they are then they're not correct.
> 
> However, it is much more difficult than most people thnk to change what's already been done then it is to start from scratch. That's all I was trying to say. :grin:
> 
> Mike


+1

I could see it happening say in the next generation of dvrs, but it may just not be feasible with the current platform without a total code re-write for the HR series. Was it even possible with the older Direct HDTivo's? I know there was some hacked firmware for some of the older tivo's that could be used to more easily get at the recordings, but thats not really what we're talking about here.

This thread isnt really even titled correctly, we're not talking about copying software here, this is much more akin to being able to copy something like streaming netflix, which if it was possible to do, that delivery system would get overhauled virtually immediately. D* is a digital stream that within their closed system you can receive in your home, and digitally store for shifted viewing or at a much later date...It isnt and has never been meant as a way for anyone to amass huge libraries of material that they can transfer to a different medium or format, which of course would mean someone would try to freely distribute it. This stuff doesnt fall under any reasonable definition of fair use or personal use, no matter how much someone thinks it should.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, I have 7 DVRs and 3 of those DVRs Backup the other 4 DVRs in case one Fails.

With MRV I can always access either the Primary Recording or the Designated Backup Recording until I decide that I don't need either the Backup or the Primary.

Very simple operation and it also allow me to have 350 Series Links and 13,000 Gigibytes of Storage Capacity and the Ability to Backup those Recordings I deem necessary to keep and watch later on down the road.

I don't have to spend time offloading material to a DVD and besides you can only record to DVD in 480p so why bother. With MRV it is easily accessible and my 3 DVRs cost me less than $200 thanks to an offer from Directv.

RICH584 does the same thing for Archiving as he has 12 DVRs and 18.5 Terabytes of Storage Capacity so we are pleased with out Archival Process.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> Everyone seems to think that the feature they want is just a simple matter of writing some code an pushing it to the boxes. :shrug:


I would guess that much of the heavy lifting of using files recorded on another DVR had to be done to make WHDS work. It doesn't seem like a huge departure to reseed the decryption hardware with the key from the recording DVR when doing local playback versus WHDS playback.

It might also limit the embarrassment of sending out "refurbished" DVRs with content left on them.


----------



## sdirv (Dec 14, 2008)

Getteau said:


> One example I could think of, and it's one that gets thrown out pretty regularly when this topic comes up, would be if I wanted to upgrade all my HR21/2/3's to HR24's. If I could copy the existing shows to an external drive, I could then replace all my old DVR without having worry about losing my existing recordings. Hopefully the process would be 2-way, so when I got the new receiver, I could put the shows from the external drive back on the new device.


I've never personally thought of my DVR as a media to store movies I wanted to keep. It's strictly a time shifting device (for me). I started out "life" with a collection of movies on VHS tape, hundreds of movies (better than collecting cats I suppose). Couple years ago I decided to move those movies over to DVD, but the media was so old that the "project" was an utter failure.

Since those early days though, I started "collecting" movies on DVD (some now on Blu-Ray). The use of a DVR and a DVD recorder made that collecting easier, as did getting/copying DVD's in the mail from Netflix. I buy Blu-Rays, but not many....

But then as I started utilizing D*'s VOD and Netflix streaming services a LOT, I started thinking about what I was doing.....I pay for all the premium channels, with DVR service and my DVR hooked up to the internet I've got tons of stuff on VOD.....and now with Netflix I'm streaming just about any title I can think of, and getting the rest on DVD in the mail.....

So...why am I still collecting hard copies of anything. I'm able to watch just about anything I please either instantly or within a couple days.....

I may as well be collecting cats.......


----------



## Mark L (Oct 23, 2006)

I just go and get the torrents, much simpler

Let the other people do the work.

I got all 4+ seasons of Dexter in HD

Throw that on the external HD, connect that to the Roku, and when they make USB available in November, it'll stream onto the plasma


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The whole copying software/media content issue is a classic "right thing vs legal thing" dilemma. I agree that when you pay for something, what you do with it (barring resale/profit) should be your own personal business.

However...usually in these cases...the lawyers win. :eek2:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> I would guess that much of the heavy lifting of using files recorded on another DVR had to be done to make WHDS work. It doesn't seem like a huge departure to reseed the decryption hardware with the key from the recording DVR when doing local playback versus WHDS playback.
> 
> It might also limit the embarrassment of sending out "refurbished" DVRs with content left on them.


Whole Home DVR Service just means there are more modules/subroutines that need to be addressed if changing the encryption to account number vice RID.

IMO, depending on how Whole Home handles encryption it could make it even more complicated. Unless we know how the firmware is put together neither of us can say for sure either way.

With that said, it's been my experience as both a coder and as an SQA auditor, that it's usually more complicated than it seems on the surface. Whether or not that applies to this situation I really have no idea.

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MicroBeta said:


> Whole Home DVR Service just means there are more modules/subroutines that need to be addressed if changing the encryption to account number vice RID.


I can't imagine that using a variety of numbers would be intentionally coded out of the needed modules. That's a SQA time bomb.


> IMO, depending on how Whole Home handles encryption it could make it even more complicated. Unless we know how the firmware is put together neither of us can say for sure either way.


No argument from me.


> Whether or not that applies to this situation I really have no idea.


Yet you do seem to be bent on the idea that it is more complicated than not. More often than not with software, flexibility has to be expressly coded out.

Replace the RID based encryption seed with an account code upon activation and everybody is happy.

A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.


That would seem to be the clear base goal.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> I can't imagine that using a variety of numbers would be intentionally coded out of the needed modules. That's a SQA time bomb. No argument from me. Yet you do seem to be bent on the idea that it is more complicated than not. More often than not with software, flexibility has to be expressly coded out.
> 
> Replace the RID based encryption seed with an account code upon activation and everybody is happy.
> 
> A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.


I'm not bent on anything in particular. My point is simply that we don't know how things are coded. We don't know how the calls are made. We don't have any idea if there is a single routine that checks the RID that sets a flag. If that's the case then it's a pretty simple change; no denying that.

However, there are those that are "bent" on saying it is a very simple thing to implement and DirecTV should just do it. I'm playing devil's advocate by pointing out that it may not be as easy as code it and go. All we have to go on is that it has not yet been implemented. To me this can only mean three things; it's still in the works and is coming, it is too complicated to change the current firmware, or they don't want to implement it. The last two are killers and we don't know if the first is even being considered. This is all we "know", which ain't much.

Would it make a difference if the RID is hard coded on the system board and account number is on the access card? I have no idea but it's certainly another thing to consider. :grin:

Is it possible that how things are currently encrypted might be described in some carriage contracts? What impact could that have on making changes?

I'm just pointing a larger picture for the purposes of discussion and not stating it is a certain way...it's just a discussion. I'm just sayin' :grin:

However, I do have to disagree with you on one point. Flexibility usually has to be coded into the firmware. It's very easy to code something that serves a particular purpose but doesn't play well with changes down the road. Keeping everything flexible doesn't just happen as a matter of course. It takes diligence.

Mike


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That would seem to be the clear base goal.


+1. I agree.


----------

