# transfering saved video off the HR20?



## ZELLIS (Jan 5, 2007)

will the HR20 have the future capability of pushing saves shows off to a PC as MPEG 4 or whatever format via Ethernet connection or any other connection? it would be nice to save and burn to disk some of my recordings. im sure this would be a feature everyone would like.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I would not expect that feature to be added to either the HR20 or the R15


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

One of the biggest problems is the Digital Rights issues. In theory, perhaps a low rez copy might be possible, but that just isn't likely.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## ZELLIS (Jan 5, 2007)

do you know id D* is going to be making a version that can? maby with a DVD burner like the tivo unit?


----------



## Scott B. (Jan 22, 2007)

Take this with a grain of salt but a customer retention rep. told me that they were working on being able to transfer video to other portable media devises no time table on this though.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

johnyram said:


> Take this with a grain of salt but a customer retention rep. told me that they were working on being able to transfer video to other portable media devises no time table on this though.


That is the DirecTV2Go program.
There are two or three approved media devices... but the core "feature", is not available yet... and there have not been many details on it in a while


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ZELLIS said:


> do you know id D* is going to be making a version that can? maby with a DVD burner like the tivo unit?


None that I have heard of.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Digital rights management concerns make getting high definition copies a real problem and Directv would be facing legal problems if this were enabled without restrictions. I've been running the S-video and audio outputs to a Lite-On DVD burner but just picked up a Miglia Evolution box (analog TV plus S-video and audio inputs) for my Mac and with EyeTV software i can edit the saved content. I have a couple of extra hard drives connectedto the Mac with plenty of storage space. Hopefully at some time there will be a software upgrade allowing us to feed video back to the HR20 via ethernet.


----------



## katesguy (Jan 12, 2007)

I can copy anything off of D* as long as I am happy with 480. I use s video and red and white audio into an ADS Tech capture device which gives me MPEG2 files for editing and burning DVDs. I think they have MPEG4 capability with new equipment.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

Won't the Slingbox Pro work with getting a HD capture?


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

If my understanding is correct, Dish Network has a fire wire port on there PVR because if you PAY for content than you can back it up, beyond just saving it to your DVR. D* I think is trying to make the DRM people Happy by using the ESATA port, that way the content can only be played on the HR20, and only the HR20 that recorded it. That is not a nice way to play.

DRM is a sticky subject, because if you could just copy PPV movies, what is stopping you from making 200 copies and selling 199 of them. On the other hand the bulk of honest people will be the only ones harmed by this action, the person that only wants one backup copy for them self. 

For myself, I haven't payed for a music CD in the last 6 years. I'm simply not going to pay good money for 1 good song out of 12. I will on the other hand pay to get the few songs I do like, that is as long as I can use them as I see fit.


----------



## Nivek (Sep 21, 2006)

tibber said:


> One of the biggest problems is the Digital Rights issues. In theory, perhaps a low rez copy might be possible, but that just isn't likely.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I wonder if the anti-DRM stance in the music industry (see the story about EMI releasing its entire catalog on unprotected MP3) will flow over into the video market?

/Kevin


----------



## Nivek (Sep 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would not expect that feature to be added to either the HR20 or the R15


Maybe with the VIIV connection?


----------



## dwenn (Oct 26, 2006)

Drewg5 said:


> DRM is a sticky subject, because if you could just copy PPV movies, what is stopping you from making 200 copies and selling 199 of them.


Perhaps if we could all record the Digital Content we wouldn't be needing to buy black market versions?


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

You would think that since we're paying a "subscription fee" that we could then use the content as we pleased - just not to make a profit. That's the biggest concern... If anyone gets to make money, it *HAS* to be them...


----------



## WilsonFlyer (Jan 16, 2006)

dwenn said:


> Perhaps if we could all record the Digital Content we wouldn't be needing to buy black market versions?


Nothing would stop me anyway if that's what I wanted to do. What's your point?


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

dwenn said:


> Perhaps if we could all record the Digital Content we wouldn't be needing to buy black market versions?


Are you saying that you can't or, don't know how to record digital content? I presume that is what your saying. I don't nor will I buy 'black market' content. BM quality stuff is questionable at best.

I will rent (PPV/NETFLIX) movies, or I will buy one song I like on a crappy album. I have no problem making a copy of a movie, or song for myself. This way I know what I am getting is good.

One thing I love about DRM is the company's pushing to tighten it up are the same ones selling the equipment to get around the DRM...CD cloning, DVD cloning systems. Its all about the all mighty dollar.


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

I think the discussion here and on many other threads about copyrights and copywrongs is not helping us.

How abaout focusing on how to get the already recorded programing out of the box.

If a copyright law prohibits recording - what is the recording doing on my equipment (and please do not start again a discussion that it is leased equipment).

And to all those who still think that copying DVD's is illegal - it is not. 
What is eventually illegal is the braking of the encryption code that is required to see the content.
And the DRm itself is not prohibiting copying, but it is prohibiting braking of the encryption. And all this is because of the "fair use" doctrine that allows copying.

Now back to the subject:
*how to copy HD and any other content from the copy that is already on the hard drive of HD DVR?*

Why is it important that we know it: look what many music CD manufacturers did - the backed off and sell open digital content and they will be rewarded by sales.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Think the biggest problem outside of DRM is that what is on the harddrive is encoded with the same protection that they use across the sat.. It's not unprotected untill it is "played".. this means it would have to be "decoded" by the reciever to transfer anything.. If it didn't have this security anyone with a sat reciever could watch any program Directv had without any Directv account.. and that's NEVER gonna happen..
So what it boils down to is is would take serious programing work by directv to give you this abillity and I doubt they have much reason to do it..


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> I think the discussion here and on many other threads about copyrights and copywrongs is not helping us.
> 
> How abaout focusing on how to get the already recorded programing out of the box.
> 
> ...


How to copy HD material from a DVR: connect DVD recorder. Press record. 

Any other discussion relating to potentially bypassing the DRM or encryption is to be held at other sites as DBStalk can not allow topics that blatantly violate Terms of Service agreements or laws.

Thanks for understanding,
Tom


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> How to copy HD material from a DVR: connect DVD recorder. Press record.
> 
> Any other discussion relating to potentially bypassing the DRM or encryption is to be held at other sites as DBStalk can not allow topics that blatantly violate Terms of Service agreements or laws.
> 
> ...


Tom - I do not understand. Fear-mongering and misconceptions about what the law is or is not drive you.
Can you show a single application of the laws that you are so afraid off?
Can you name a case in which a judge of competent jurisdiction agreed with your interpretation of what the law allows.
As far as I can tell there is plenitude of cases from US, and other jurisdictions where DMR was introduced, where courts never interpreted the law as you think.

And by the way bypassing DMR is perfectly legal - braking it might be illegal - with emphasis on "might be". It is in your mind. Please do not confuse what the law states with the fact that you can take to court anyone for anything including false claims.

Haven't you noticed that they do allow copying officially - hook up to S-video or composite output and you can record the material at will. This alone proves that copyrights are not on their minds and this is an explicit and implicit permission to copy their content.

Thanks for understanding.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

l123 said:


> Tom - I do not understand. Fear-mongering and misconceptions about what the law is or is not drive you.
> Can you show a single application of the laws that you are so afraid off?
> Can you name a case in which a judge of competent jurisdiction agreed with your interpretation of what the law allows.
> As far as I can tell there is plenitude of cases from US, and other jurisdictions where DMR was introduced, where courts never interpreted the law as you think.
> ...


And how do you bypass the security if it's put on at Directv's sat uplink?


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would not expect that feature to be added to either the HR20 or the R15


Does that mean you would expect the HR21 to have that feature at some point?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> Tom - I do not understand. Fear-mongering and misconceptions about what the law is or is not drive you.
> Can you show a single application of the laws that you are so afraid off?
> Can you name a case in which a judge of competent jurisdiction agreed with your interpretation of what the law allows.
> As far as I can tell there is plenitude of cases from US, and other jurisdictions where DMR was introduced, where courts never interpreted the law as you think.
> ...


<moderator warning>I am neither fear mongering nor driven by fear. Bypassing DRM is not a topic to be discussed at DBStalk. Please read: DBSTalk User Agreement, particularly sections a, b, m, and now t. </moderator warning>

Yes, copying via composite and component outputs are allowed, tho HD content may be downrezed. But that is not what you proposed discussing, in my mind.

Breaking (not braking) and bypassing (really another form of breaking) DRM (not DMR) is very likely illegal. No matter what has or hasn't yet happened in the courts to date. I'm not a lawyer, but the *Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)* extends copyright law in Title 17 of the US code.

Do I have an optinion about DMCA? Yes, I think it goes a bit too far, especially in practice. Yes, there have been people who have been prosecuted under that law merely for having possession of multi-use equipment that _could potentially_ be used for breaking DRM.

<moderator warning>We can very carefully discuss DMCA so long as specific techniques are not described and that political parties are not mentioned. And only in terms of the original topic, getting content off an HR2x DVR. </moderator warning>

Thanks for understanding,
Tom


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Regardless of its legality and regardless of the propriety of DRM generally and the DMCA specifically (in fact or in practice), at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because the TOS forbids it and as far as we (and by "we", I mean DirecTV subscribers) are concerned, the TOS (to which we are parties) is the "law" governing our use of the DirecTV services and equipment. I hate to say it, but thems the breaks -- breaks "we" affirmatively agreed to when we signed up, I might add. Unfortunately, if you don't like it, your only option is to go find a different provider that has a TOS you like better.

--Mav


----------



## l123 (Sep 18, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Regardless of its legality and regardless of the propriety of DRM generally and the DMCA specifically (in fact or in practice), at the end of the day, it doesn't matter because the TOS forbids it and as far as we (and by "we", I mean DirecTV subscribers) are concerned, the TOS (to which we are parties) is the "law" governing our use of the DirecTV services and equipment. I hate to say it, but thems the breaks -- breaks "we" affirmatively agreed to when we signed up, I might add. Unfortunately, if you don't like it, your only option is to go find a different provider that has a TOS you like better.
> 
> --Mav


I love it. There are a lot of assumptions right there. Terms of use - you make it into a contract - but is it?. I think in many contract issues the operative terms are: "meeting of minds" and "negotiation". I wonder when this occurred. And please tell me when did you read the TOS: (1) before you bought the stuff; (2) after you bought the stuff; (3) never - ?
Just because they wrote it down does not make it into the rule that the users must obey blindly. In fact there are many rules of law related to services that contradict TOS's. And many TOS's are violated by the epeople who wrote them.
There is no private law here - unless it is a legally binding contract. Obviously there is a difference of opinions about it. And in our society only the court can determine if it is a binding document. Not me, not you and not the moderator. The rules on this board are based on fear not on actual law. The Judge says what the law is or is not - this is why we have the courts.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

l123 said:


> I love it. There are a lot of assumptions right there. Terms of use - you make it into a contract - but is it?. I think in many contract issues the operative terms are: "meeting of minds" and "negotiation". I wonder when this occurred. And please tell me when did you read the TOS: (1) before you bought the stuff; (2) after you bought the stuff; (3) never - ?
> Just because they wrote it down does not make it into the rule that the users must obey blindly. In fact there are many rules of law related to services that contradict TOS's. And many TOS's are violated by the epeople who wrote them.
> There is no private law here - unless it is a legally binding contract. Obviously there is a difference of opinions about it. And in our society only the court can determine if it is a binding document. Not me, not you and not the moderator. The rules on this board are based on fear not on actual law. The Judge says what the law is or is not - this is why we have the courts.


You kinda are skipping over one key point. Most of the contracts of which you refer that do exist and are legally binding include clauses that say two things: 1) you will follow the current TOS; 2) if you don't the contract allows your service to be discontinued.

The contract is legally binding and because you did acknowledge said contract either by continuing to use and sometimes pay for the service or by an even more binding voice or signature approval.

And in the case of contradictions between law and TOS, good contracts and TOS include verbiage indicating that law prevails (duh) and such contradictions do not throw out the whole of the contract, only those specific sections in conflict.

As to if this is "fear" or "reasonable consequences" is all in the mind. Since they don't have power over me beyond the service itself, I think of it as reasonable consequence. I screw up, I get denied service. I don't have to live in fear of that.

Going back to the original point, DRM is both a matter of TOS and law.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## CrazyforYeshua (Feb 23, 2008)

Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but my manual says you can save to VCR, or DVD, so how is that different? You are still copying content.
If they put the ability on the HR's as was on the TiVo, how can it be illegal?


----------



## adp9 (Jun 3, 2008)

Would a slingbox pro work for streaming HD quality video from my DVR to my computer? I basically want to watch/edit recorded shows in HD quality on my Macbook Pro


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

adp9 said:


> Would a slingbox pro work for streaming HD quality video from my DVR to my computer?


Welcome to DBSTalk

The Slingbox Pro will down-convert the HD resolution to 480i. It will not disply HD.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

with a slingbox you can only stream what is presently being played right? you can't watch one and stream another correct?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> with a slingbox you can only stream what is presently being played right? you can't watch one and stream another correct?


That is correct.


----------



## adp9 (Jun 3, 2008)

FINALLY! I found something that will take an HD source and convert it to .mp4 for my mac...

blackmagic-design.com/products/videorecorder/

It comes out in JULY so only one month to wait! I'm stoked, now anyone can take HD content saved on your DVR and save it to your computer for editing etc...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

adp9 said:


> FINALLY! I found something that will take an HD source and convert it to .mp4 for my mac...


Nope. Here's what it says on the site:



> Uses regular video input to capture from VHS machines, televisions, Video-8 cameras, and any other composite video device


Note - composite, not component - analog, not digital.

Also, at the bottom of the page, the following disclaimer:



> Capture from DVD players is only supported when capturing DVD home recorded videos and not copyrighted DVDs. Please ensure you have copyright ownership of any video captured or distributed with Blackmagic Video Recorder. Please note that stealing video is illegal.


:nono2:


----------



## yanksno1 (Jun 4, 2004)

Athlon646464 said:


> Nope. Here's what it says on the site:
> 
> Note - composite, not component - analog, not digital.
> ...


Are you sure your looking at the right product? Here's the full link in case you want it. It does show component hookups. The only thing I question is the composite input does have a check to it, so I'm not quite sure what that means. But those are component hookups, so shouldn't it work?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

yanksno1 said:


> Are you sure your looking at the right product? Here's the full link in case you want it. It does show component hookups. The only thing I question is the composite input does have a check to it, so I'm not quite sure what that means. But those are component hookups, so shouldn't it work?


The only thing they will do (there are two versions) is take in SD video and convert it to a variety of formats for viewing later. S-Video is the best they will do. Here is a news release that explains it better than I can:

http://www.macworld.com/article/132975/2008/04/blackmagic.html

:nono2:


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

does have component inputs however it states that the recording format is SD only.. 
looks like a cool idea for Ipods tho..


----------



## bmerrow (Jul 26, 2007)

What about this http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

bmerrow said:


> What about this http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html


That looks like HD  got to have some serious horsepower in pc tho..


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

bmerrow said:


> What about this http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html


Looks like a Home Run ... believe Sony also has something like this for transfering from their HD HDD camcorder.


----------



## dotbombjoe (Apr 6, 2008)

Just to answer a question that continually appears, there is a big difference between SD and HD content. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Archiving content from HR2xs via any outputs that result in SD quality video is supported, most likely because the copyright holders haven't really cared about protecting that as much as the HD content because it doesn't have as much risk to their earnings.

If people can download HD versions of whatever show or movie they want to see then (illegally but free) many will choose to do so. So the copyright holders are taking the precaution to limit that possibility to some extent.

So, that is the answer to the question of "why can we do it for SD and not HD...it is the same thing right?" No, it isn't.

Another issue to consider is who is controlling the situation. Directv probably doesn't have much control over any of these issues. They have contracts with people that own video content. Those contracts dictate what they can and cannot provide as their service. Directv can obviously impose further restrictions if they choose. To one extent or another both the copyright holders and Directv are probably roadblocks to being able to archive HD content but certainly the copyright holders are the bigger issue.

As far as the law goes, it will be quite some time before there is much definition to it, but those cases are coming and over the next few years, we'll know more.

I'm not a fan of DRM or the DMCA but as a business owner, I will say I think most people have absolutely no appreciation for copyright, why it is important and why it should be respected. Too many people think the world belongs to them. We need a balance.


----------



## adp9 (Jun 3, 2008)

Athlon646464 said:


> The only thing they will do (there are two versions) is take in SD video and convert it to a variety of formats for viewing later. S-Video is the best they will do. Here is a news release that explains it better than I can:
> 
> :nono2:


It takes HD video as well, that is the whole point, if you look on the site it clearly shows an HD camcorder among other things. You can use the component out on your DirectTV box and it would work fine for HD

Straight from the website:
"Get the highest quality video capture from any component video or regular video device"


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

houskamp said:


> That looks like HD  got to have some serious horsepower in pc tho..


No, nothing beyond what is a 'basic' pc these days. It works as advertised (had mine for almost two weeks now), and solves the 'problem'. Also, I might add, that several video cards (including both NVidia and AMD/ATI) have specialized HD/video processing chips which offload the video processing from the cpu, doing all the h264, vc1, Mpeg2, and WMV9 decoding, including Inverse telecine (2:2/3:2) pulldown correction).

These people like this 'Tom Robertson' here are so completely missing the point it's really beyond comprehension. IF the video is able to be displayed on a monitor, any discussion about DRM or other things that may interfere are just fluff.

But if they want to continue the 'perception' that getting HD video off DirecTV or indeed, any provider, is somehow impossible or requires some kind of illegal act, then again, it defies explanation. But they probably are simply 'toeing' the 'party line'.

ANY attempt by ANY provider (cable, satellite, or otherwise) to limit the component outputs of their STB's will result in immediate slapping of Federal suits. The threat to do that, from several national organizations, has been why NONE of those involved has moved on any of the devices that deals with the HD analog/component signals for many years, including the host of AV receivers that 'up convert' SD component inputs to >480i (including 1080p).

HDMI/HDCP is a different animal, and is covered by current laws. But we're not talking about that.

The HD-PVR, which is based on an h.264 encoder chipset, will be joined by several 'clones' by the end of this year.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

1948GG said:


> ANY attempt by ANY provider (cable, satellite, or otherwise) to limit the component outputs of their STB's will result in immediate slapping of Federal suits.


Let them slap away. These litigious organizations of which you speak will lose. The broadcast flag is a legal device and it will be used with regularity and purpose.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

I believe you'll find the current status of the Broadcast Flag - as far as the federal courts are concerned - is that it is illicit.

Yes, I realize that means nothing to the MPAA, most politicians, etc.. But, for the moment, the law tends to support Fair Use.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

adp9 said:


> It takes HD video as well, that is the whole point, if you look on the site it clearly shows an HD camcorder among other things. You can use the component out on your DirectTV box and it would work fine for HD
> 
> Straight from the website:
> "Get the highest quality video capture from any component video or regular video device"


You may have to define "clearly". It may show what appears to be a HD camcorder, but that is not really an implication that this device handles HD video. That would be a huge leap to a conclusion. A Budweiser commercial often shows beer being enjoyed by leggy swimsuit models, but somehow they never seem to be around when I order a Bud.

You can send the component out of your HD DVR into a DVD recorder as well, but that doesn't mean that the DVD recorder will accept it in any format other than 480i.

Everyone is guessing here, and no one seems to have any solid proof one way or another, but here is my guess: If a manufacturer has a device that will capture video via component at HD resolutions to a PC, that capability would likely be prominent in the literature, rather than conspicuous by its absence.

On the other hand, this item:

http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html

Seems very intriguing. It can capture HD video to DVDRs (conventional off-the-shelf nickel-apiece DVDRs) using your PC's DVDR drive that can be played back in any Blu-Ray player.


----------



## Draconis2941 (Aug 30, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Seems very intriguing. It can capture HD video to DVDRs (conventional off-the-shelf nickel-apiece DVDRs) using your PC's DVDR drive that can be played back in any Blu-Ray player.


I don't have the device but I have used the technique to get HD out of a regular DVD-R. Google AVCHD


----------



## adp9 (Jun 3, 2008)

TomCat said:


> You may have to define "clearly". It may show what appears to be a HD camcorder, but that is not really an implication that this device handles HD video. That would be a huge leap to a conclusion. A Budweiser commercial often shows beer being enjoyed by leggy swimsuit models, but somehow they never seem to be around when I order a Bud.
> 
> You can send the component out of your HD DVR into a DVD recorder as well, but that doesn't mean that the DVD recorder will accept it in any format other than 480i.
> 
> Everyone is guessing here, and no one seems to have any solid proof one way or another, but here is my guess: If a manufacturer has a device that will capture video via component at HD resolutions to a PC, that capability would likely be prominent in the literature, rather than conspicuous by its absence.


I understand what you are saying but either way you are going to get a quality transfer from your DVR that you previously couldn't do with composite, that is good enough for all of your HD content that you want to retain - that is all I'm saying


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ed Campbell said:


> I believe you'll find the current status of the Broadcast Flag - as far as the federal courts are concerned - is that it is illicit.


Perhaps you could direct us to some of this case law. I wasn't able to find anything other than a lot of ranting by the EFF and similarly minded organizations as well as talk of the "analog hole" (this is where component recorders come in).

In that the DC Circuit vacated the FCC policy, it comes down to congress and as you pointed out, this doesn't make a very good case for the flag going away and further suggests that there is considerable flag support at the next legal level.

The EU seems to be on board with something like the Broadcast Flag as well.


----------

