# GenieGo on rooted Android



## mreaves53 (Oct 25, 2008)

I tried to install GenieGo on my Mini PC Andrid Stick and was rewarded with a "can not install on a rooted Android" error. Does anyone know if there is a work-around for this problem? If there is not, a lot of folks will be disappointed with the app and thier Android stick.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mreaves53 said:


> I tried to install GenieGo on my Mini PC Andrid Stick and was rewarded with a "can not install on a rooted Android" error. Does anyone know if there is a work-around for this problem? If there is not, a lot of folks will be disappointed with the app and thier Android stick.


It is my understanding that rooted devices are not supported.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It is my understanding that rooted devices are not supported.


More to the point, rooted devices, be they Android or iOS, are actively unsupported.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> More to the point, rooted devices, be they Android or iOS, are actively unsupported.


Since the OP (and thread name) was about ANDROID DEVICES..._*that's the question*_ that was answered.


----------



## HiDefWatcher (Nov 15, 2006)

Go to the XDA Developers website and search for Genie Go apk. Someone has disabled the checking in the app and has made it availablefor download. I have it on my rooted Note 2 and it works fine.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HiDefWatcher said:


> Go to the XDA Developers website and search for Genie Go apk. Someone has disabled the checking in the app and has made it available for download. I have it on my rooted Note 2 and it works fine.


Interesting...that appears to be the older version of the client. There was a new public version released recently at the Google Market.

Generally there is some risk running these kinds of apps on hacked/rooted devices.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting...


there are always workarounds, you just need to look in the right places....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

peds48 said:


> there are always workarounds, you just need to look in the right places....


I'm very familiar with numerous things Android including the XDA site - some sharp folks. But I'm also familiar (as a Mod) from another site where rooted devices are regularly reported to get permanently locked up with certain apps that have been hacked to run on rooted devices. On that one site where I frequent..there are literally hundreds of posts of people looking to recover from that condition. So my point is that there is some risk.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm very familiar with numerous things Android including the XDA site - some sharp folks. But I'm also familiar (as a Mod) from another site where rooted devices are regularly reported to get permanently locked up with certain apps that have been hacked to run on rooted devices. On that one site where I frequent..there are literally hundreds of posts of people looking to recover from that condition. So my point is that there is some risk.


There are always risks! as a "jailbreaker" for many years I know this first hand. The point is that if you are looking to go to the "dark side" there are many websites that carter for this need, and DirecTV is NOT of them!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

peds48 said:


> There are always risks! as a "jailbreaker" for many years I know this first hand. The point is that if you are looking to go to the "dark side" there are many websites that carter for this need, and DirecTV is NOT of them!


I suspect no reputable provider supports jailbroken devices.

But yes...there are plenty of places that do support these things.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since the OP (and thread name) was about ANDROID DEVICES..._*that's the question*_ that was answered.


My point is that DIRECTV is actively trying to prevent the use of their mobile software on rooted/jailbroken devices. It is NOT an accident that they don't work and if a way is found to make it work, they'll actively try to put a stop to that workaround with each new release.

In the case of iOS, I think a lot of the anti-jailbreak stuff is built into the development tools.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> My point is that DIRECTV is actively trying to prevent the use of their mobile software on rooted/jailbroken devices.


Just like nearly all other services..it's no coincidence that "jailbreaking" has that name...it is a process designed to circumvent legal controls on products or services. Thank goodness most vendors are smart enough NOT to support such practices.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Correct, once a phone has been JB or rooted, the app developers no longer have control to their content. and my believe is that is not DirecTV blocking these devices, but rather is part of the agreement with the content providers


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Thank goodness most vendors are smart enough NOT to support such practices.


Instead, they come here for the help they need.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> and my believe is that is not DirecTV blocking these devices, but rather is part of the agreement with the content providers


Whether it is happening at the demand of the content providers or not, DIRECTV is the entity that is doing all the heavy lifting. If you believe that the content providers have any kind of control over the content once it hits your DVR, you're surely suffering Kool Aide poisoning.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Whether it is happening at the demand of the content providers or not, DIRECTV is the entity that is doing all the heavy lifting. If you believe that the content providers have any kind of control over the content once it hits your DVR, you're surely suffering Kool Aide poisoning.


that is exactly my point. the have to control it before it gets to your DVR and or mobile device. I guess you drank all that poisonous Kool Aid... !rolling


----------



## Bohica (Jan 6, 2008)

Just download and install SuperSU. You can "hide" SU access and GenieGo works like a champ. You have to make sure it is hidden before running GenieGo or it resets the settings. It is an easy fix.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Instead, they come here for the help they need.


Uh.........no.........they don't.

Just like promoting anything that circumvents legal use of products or services is not condoned here.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Uh.........no.........they don't.

Just like promoting anything that circumvents legal use of products or services is not condoned here.
It's not illegal to circumvent the GenieGo's root check "feature". 

I have a rooted phone and I live without the few apps that actively root check my phone. Thankfully, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime and Netflix all work just fine without circumventing anything.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> that is exactly my point. the have to control it before it gets to your DVR and or mobile device. I guess you drank all that poisonous Kool Aid... !rolling


The control is being exercised at the device level. The DVR is instructed by DIRECTV software to not forward content for nomad encoding and the device software won't install on rooted/jailbroken devices.

Both methods of limiting the content are well beyond the reach of the content owners.

DIRECTV is uniquely in control of what you're not allowed to do.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

It's not illegal to circumvent the GenieGo's root check "feature". 

I have a rooted phone and I live without the few apps that actively root check my phone. Thankfully, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime and Netflix all work just fine without circumventing anything.
while jailbraking or rooting is not illegal, circumventing security features certainly is. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dualsub2006 said:


> It's not illegal to circumvent the GenieGo's root check "feature".


The GenieGo/nomad doesn't have a root check feature. That's done on the device side.

Arriving at a workaround for root checking on the device more than likely involves illegal activities.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

while jailbraking or rooting is not illegal, circumventing security features certainly is. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
You're just wrong. 

If I have a rooted phone and want the GenieGo app on it, and I change settings on my phone to hide root so that I can install it, I've broken no law. None. 

If I use my rooted phone to then steal the stream, now I've broken a law. 

D* could say, rightly so that I violated their TOS and cancel my account, but I would not be in violation of any law anywhere just by sidestepping root check on my phone. 

I haven't bought a GenieGo because I can't use it on my rooted phone. Personal choice.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

The GenieGo/nomad doesn't have a root check feature. That's done on the device side.

Arriving at a workaround for root checking on the device more than likely involves illegal activities.
The GenieGo Android app has root check built in. Masking root on my phone, using settings on my phone is not illegal. At all. Its just not.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

The GenieGo Android app has root check built in. Masking root on my phone, using settings on my phone is not illegal. At all. Its just not.
just because you don't think it is, does not makes it so....


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

just because you don't think it is, does not makes it so....


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
And just because someone thinks it is illegal (or might be) doesn't make it so. 

Just find the law and show it to me. I'm big enough to admit I'm wrong.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Let me be a little more specific here. The most common method to bypass root check on the device instead of modifying the app is to disable the super user binary. That's the app that grants su rights to apps.

There are a number of ways to disable the su binary, the easiest being any of a number of Play Store apps that will do it for you. 

When you disable su, your phone is still rooted, but no apps that require root function, because the permission gateway is, in essence, gone. 

Find the law that says that temporarily disabling the super user binary, which kills root access on your phone so that an app that checks for the su binary to run is a crime. 

There are other exotic ways to mask root from apps, but the Poindexter requirements rise substantially, and only the true propeller heads venture off in that direction. 

The average user will use an app that disables su binary, and thereby disables all of the monkey business stuff that D* is trying to protect against. 

I'll await a link to the law.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

So it doesnt appear to work on rooted Android, now get over it...oh my what a travesty....there are some consequences to your actions. Take ownership, dont blame others.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The ready availability of tools commonly used in committing crimes doesn't make them any less of a crime.

You've made modifications to the phone software that is in violation of the phone software license.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So to review the comments:

1) GenieGo is not designed to work on a rooted device.
2) Users who attempt to use GenieGo on a rooted device do so at their own risk
2) These policies will likely never change.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

From Wikipedia:

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works.* It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself*." (emphasis added)

So, the key question is: "Is the root check of the app an implentation of access control?" If it is, then defeating it is a crime under the DMCA whether or not you actually copy and distribute the content.

Actually, I think the bigger issue is that the app isn't supported on MANY Android devices (like my HTC Droid). I side loaded the original and it works fine, except that it THINKS my non-rooted phone is rooted. So I side-loaded the apk that had the root check removed. Unfortunately, DirecTV has used non-standard characters in the filenames of the new version, making it much harder to defeat the root check in code. Since my phone is not rooted, "hiding su" won't work. As a result, I can't get the latest version to work at all.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

My Nook Color, if not rooted, would only be able to download apps from Barnes & Noble and I seriously doubt that Genie Go is available there. By rooting the device I am able to run stock Android firmware (Jelly Bean), which gives me access to many more apps via Play Store. If Genie Go is still not available, I'm at least no worse off than if I hadn't rooted the tablet.


----------



## mreaves53 (Oct 25, 2008)

What do you do if the Android device you by comes rooted. I have not tried to circumvent anything. I have a Mini PC Android stick that I use to stream content to my TV. Becuase the company that makes and sales this device choose to sale it rooted, I am blocked by D* to use technology that I pay for. Something about this doesn't seem quite right.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

mreaves53 said:


> What do you do if the Android device you by comes rooted. I have not tried to circumvent anything. I have a Mini PC Android stick that I use to stream content to my TV. Becuase the company that makes and sales this device choose to sale it rooted, I am blocked by D* to use technology that I pay for. Something about this doesn't seem quite right.


You chose to buy the rooted device....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> You chose to buy the rooted device....


...more than likely knowing, up front, that the device was rooted.

That DIRECTV delivers the software with root/jailbreak checking has been known for some time.

That said, DIRECTV is not to blame for what your hardware vendor has offered you. DIRECTV has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the content that they deliver and rooting/jailbreaking threatens their ability.

While DIRECTV's compatibility list is as stale as Easter pastries, it makes no promises about working with but a handful of devices so its not really appropriate to be indignant about the software not working with an obscure device. Disappointed, surely, but not indignant.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mreaves53 said:


> What do you do if the Android device you by comes rooted. I have not tried to circumvent anything. I have a Mini PC Android stick that I use to stream content to my TV. Becuase the company that makes and sales this device choose to sale it rooted, I am blocked by D* to use technology that I pay for. Something about this doesn't seem quite right.


Nothing wrong with that. your device is just not supported by DirecTV. this is no difference as a tablet or smartphone or OS not supported.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Let's be careful here. This site does not support any discussion of breaking the law OR of any thing which in spirit or in action violates DIRECTV's customer agreement.

At this point I'll allow a theoretical discussion of rooting and as many complaints about it as you like, but if the discussion turns into a how-to or anything even remotely close, the thread will be closed and those involved will be infracted.

I believe in free speech and I believe that an owned device is yours to do with as you please unless you break the law or a contract. We're not here to "rat you out" but we have our rules and ask that you obey them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

is unfortunate that JB'ing and rooting have become synonyms of bad things. When JB'ing started, it have no wrong doing in mind. JB'ing started because some folks believed that their iPhones could do so much more that Apple was allowing, such as installing custom wallpapers, backgrounding and more personalization. unfortunately, JB breaks the security built in the OS and this is where some folks (Devs?) took advantage and started doing "wrongful" things, such as not having to pay for apps, or IAP among other things. The "openness"of the system meant that no overseeing is/was possible for fear it will turned in to a "wall garden" Apple app store. 

Since now operating systems are more up to par with what JB wanted to do, the JB community has since been shrinking. and also add to this that JB is becoming more difficult, "hackers" realized that there is not much to gain for the great effort, besides personal accomplishment


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

peds48 said:


> is unfortunate that JB'ing and rooting have become synonyms of bad things. When JB'ing started, it have no wrong doing in mind. JB'ing started because some folks believed that their iPhones could do so much more that Apple was allowing, such as installing custom wallpapers, backgrounding and more personalization. unfortunately, JB breaks the security built in the OS and this is where some folks (Devs?) took advantage and started doing "wrongful" things, such as not having to pay for apps, or IAP among other things. The "openness"of the system meant that no overseeing is/was possible for fear it will turned in to a "wall garden" Apple app store.
> 
> Since now operating systems are more up to par with what JB wanted to do, the JB community has since been shrinking. and also add to this that JB is becoming more difficult, "hackers" realized that there is not much to gain for the great effort, besides personal accomplishment


Good points. It is also unfortunate that the term "hacker" has acquired a nefarious conotation (while it originally meant something quite different than it currently does). It is unfortunate that some have taken advantage of openness to pursue illegal activities. Fortunately, the free software movement still lives.


----------



## mreaves53 (Oct 25, 2008)

By the way, I had no idea the device I was purchasing was rooted.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Diana C said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." (emphasis added)
> Right, but if I had a Genie Go, and if I used an app to mask root on my phone, I haven't circumvented anything.
> ...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dualsub2006 said:


> Diana C said:
> 
> 
> > From Wikipedia:
> ...


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Yes you did, you circumvented root check
You can have your opinion. 

If a person that were using an on device root check block still had access to SU, and could do all of the things that D* is trying to guard against, I'd agree with you. 

You don't have access to SU when a root check blocker is used. You aren't circumventing or working around anything. You're temporarily disabling root access on your phone. 
Me? If an app blocks root users, I don't use that app. In this case, it is THE reason why I don't have a GenieGo. 

I'm not willing to do the extra steps needed to use it, and I'm not reverting to stock for this.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I consider an Android tablet to be a subset of a Linux computer (which it is). A Linux computer without root access (either a root login or sudo) is completely useless to me. I even use root on my Macs at times. I prefer to do without apps which would cripple my control of my hardware. I see no reason why one would want to use root with Genie go, however.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bobnielsen said:


> I consider an Android tablet to be a subset of a Linux computer (which it is). A Linux computer without root access (either a root login or sudo) is completely useless to me.


What you consider it and what a large percentage of the population use it for may well be a null join. Android is less for the computer hacker and more for the media consumer and that doesn't require rooting.

Of course the TS's problem is that the device featured rooting (not uncommon among Android TV devices; several advertise it) and that makes the content providers nervous.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dualsub2006 said:


> Right, but if I had a Genie Go, and if I used an app to mask root on my phone, I haven't circumvented anything.
> 
> What I've done, in essence, is to temporarily disable root on my phone to use the app.
> 
> None of the copy control of the app has been disabled or circumvented.


As I said, the question is whether or not circumventing the root check in the app constitutes bypassing an access control mechanism. I suspect that would be a question for a jury, should anyone ever be prosecuted for it under the DMCA. Until then, everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

As I said, the question is whether or not circumventing the root check in the app constitutes bypassing an access control mechanism. I suspect that would be a question for a jury, should anyone ever be prosecuted for it under the DMCA. Until then, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
you're too hung up on the word circumvent. 

You'd no more be prosecuted for disabling root on your phone to use the app than you would be reverting to stock and unrooting it to use the app. 

You aren't circumventing root check by disabling the SU Binary, you're temp unrooting it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

What's the difference if the result is the exact same?


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

What's the difference if the result is the exact same?
Which result is exactly the same?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You are watching something on a rooted phone. 

that is not supposed to be able to happen. 

The app and it's process is being manipulated in some way to get it to work when it should not be working.

Or is the phone not actually rooted when this is happening?


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> What you consider it and what a large percentage of the population use it for may well be a null join. Android is less for the computer hacker and more for the media consumer and that doesn't require rooting.
> 
> Of course the TS's problem is that the device featured rooting (not uncommon among Android TV devices; several advertise it) and that makes the content providers nervous.


I wonder how Directv deals with the Mac app. All it takes is using sudo to have root privileges.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

The app and it's process is being manipulated in some way to get it to work when it should not be working.
No, it's not. 

And I'm not actually doing anything as I won't buy a GenieGo because it blocks rooted devices.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dualsub2006 said:


> You aren't circumventing root check by disabling the SU Binary, you're temp unrooting it.


Brief curiosity: Is this "temporary unrooting" for the duration of using programs that will not function on a rooted device or is it something run to allow the protected app to start - test for root - and then one turns back on the rooting while the protected app continues to run?

If the "temporary unrooting" allows the protected app to run on a rooted device after the rooting is turned back on then "circumventing" is an accurate term. It is removing the protection from the app. (The app should not need to check for root every second of operation to see if the device was temporarily unrooted.)

If the "temporary unrooting" cannot be disabled until the protected app is closed one could make the argument that the protected app is not circumvented but the device is still a "rooted device" ... and content owners have the right to protect their content.



dualsub2006 said:


> And I'm not actually doing anything as I won't buy a GenieGo because it blocks rooted devices.


So what is your interest in the matter? Do you expect DirecTV to lift the restriction on their software and allow rooted devices?

I expect more control on content ... not less.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

dualsub2006 said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> And I'm not actually doing anything as I won't buy a GenieGo because it blocks rooted devices.


Maybe to be clear the app is being manipulated into thinking something about the device that is not accurate?

Again I'm not trying to argue im trying To understand how this works and James I think asked the question very well as well.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> Maybe to be clear the app is being manipulated into thinking something about the device that is not accurate? Again I'm not trying to argue im trying To understand how this works and James I think asked the question very well as well.


Yup - you both were quite clear.

Not sure why anyone would struggle understanding it.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Brief curiosity: Is this "temporary unrooting" for the duration of using programs that will not function on a rooted device or is it something run to allow the protected app to start - test for root - and then one turns back on the rooting while the protected app continues to run?

If the "temporary unrooting" allows the protected app to run on a rooted device after the rooting is turned back on then "circumventing" is an accurate term. It is removing the protection from the
I don't have specific knowledge about how the GenieGo app works, but I can tell you how the Google Play Movies app worked when it blocked root back in the day. 

If you disabled SU, started Play Movies and then used the app switcher to enable SU, going back to Play Movies caused another root check and it wouldn't run. 

Hulu+ also started it's life blocking rooted devices, and it did the same thing. If you switched away from Hulu+, switching back after enabling SU (or if you switched away to answer the phone) caused a root check on resume. 

Does GenieGo rescan for root when a user switches away and then back again? I don't know, but their remote app for the phone reloads when switching apps, so I'd lay good money that it does. 


So what is your interest in the matter? Do you expect DirecTV to lift the restriction on their software and allow rooted devices?

I expect more control on content ... not less.
I don't expect anything, I'm engaging in a discussion on the topic. If they never stop blocking rooted devices, I'll never own a GenieGo and I'm fine with that. 

I wrote for an Android website for years, and I researched this topic heavily when Google did block rooted devices, so I know more about the topic than I should.

There's a lot of truth about what can be done on a rooted Android or a JB iPhone. There's also a misconception about how easy stream stealing is and the quality of the end product. 

There's lots more that I could say on this topic, but I don't want to enable anyone to do bad things, and I don't want to walk any closer the line when it comes to forum rules. 

Maybe to be clear the app is being manipulated into thinking something about the device that is not accurate?Again I'm not trying to argue im trying To understand how this works and James I think asked the question very well as well.
I'll test the GenieGo app and let you know if it can be gamed as James has suggested.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Yup - you both were quite clear.

Not sure why anyone would struggle understanding it.
Nobody is struggling to understand anything. There's a discussion going on, and unless a moderator comes along and says shut up, discussion is why the forum exists.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

I'll test the GenieGo app and let you know if it can be gamed as James has suggested.
I forgot, Super User is built into my ROM and I can't disable it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dualsub2006 said:


> There's a lot of truth about what can be done on a rooted Android or a JB iPhone. There's also a misconception about how easy stream stealing is and the quality of the end product.


Quality is not the issue when it comes to copyright law. The providers and content owners tend to focus on protecting higher quality content more than low quality content but it is all legally protected content. The owner of the content gets to decide how their content is distributed - regardless of quality.

If they consider rooted devices enough of a threat that they don't want their content distributed to rooted devices then that is their choice. Working around their choice is circumvention of the protection they have enabled.



dualsub2006 said:


> There's lots more that I could say on this topic, but I don't want to enable anyone to do bad things, and I don't want to walk any closer the line when it comes to forum rules.


That is very much appreciated.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Quality is not the issue when it comes to copyright law.
No, a low quality rip is no less illegal than a high quality rip. 

Quality, and ease of ripping have everything to do when a bad guy is deciding how to do the bad things that he does. 

A rooted Android device or jailbroken iOS is neither the easiest or highest quality way for a bad guy to do bad things. Not by a long shot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> Quality is not the issue when it comes to copyright law.





dualsub2006 said:


> No, a low quality rip is no less illegal than a high quality rip.


You said "no" then agreed with me.



James Long said:


> The providers and content owners tend to focus on protecting higher quality content more than low quality content but it is all legally protected content. The owner of the content gets to decide how their content is distributed - regardless of quality.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

if quality was not an issue, then I have hard seeing why there are "tons" of "cams" rips on the "wild"


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> if quality was not an issue, then I have hard seeing why there are "tons" of "cams" rips on the "wild"


"Quality is not the issue" is referring to the fact that the copyright is violated regardless of the quality of the illegal recording.

Perhaps one who goes looking finds low quality work because that is the best the copyright violators can do ... and the viewing audience accepts lower quality because they are not paying for it. Low quality is better than nothing?

One thought I had after making my last post in this thread ... while the quality delivered to portable devices may not be the "optimal" quality that copyright violators really want it is a video quality that paying customers are receiving and are generally satisfied to watch. So it isn't complete garbage.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dualsub2006 said:


> You can have your opinion.


It is not anyone's opinion that you disabled SU. It is a fact that you stated.


> You're temporarily disabling root access on your phone.


This is equivalent to using fake ID (which is now prosecuted as identity theft in many jurisdictions). It is a misrepresentation of the facts used to install copyrighted software in violation of the software's license. In this case, the license is the DIRECTV software EULA that specifically prohibits "tampering with the technology".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Uh.........no.........they don't.
> 
> Just like promoting anything that circumvents legal use of products or services is not condoned here.


Yet solutions to the TS's problem are detailed in posts 5 and 17.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

harsh said:


> It is not anyone's opinion that you disabled SU. It is a fact that you stated.This is equivalent to using fake ID (which is now prosecuted as identity theft in many jurisdictions).


Uh, your opinion is that doing so is a crime. And you've now expanded the crime to identity theft. SU is built into my ROM and I can't disable it without flashing a new ROM. 


harsh said:


> It is a misrepresentation of the facts used to install copyrighted software in violation of the software's license. In this case, the license is the DIRECTV software EULA that specifically prohibits "tampering with the technology".


That's an inaccurate statement. Nothing needs to be changed on a rooted device to get GenieGo to install. I installed the app from Google Play with no issue.

The app did, however, display the no rooted devices screen because I couldn't disable SU. All of this happened well in advance of any EULA screen being displayed.

[opinion] The software isn't being tampered with, root is being disabled. A phone with SU disabled is no more capable of nefarious deeds than an unrooted device. [/opinion]

I'd bet you're no more a lawyer than I am, so that's all we're doing here, slinging opinions. Only now we're venturing off into serious crimes like identity theft, which is utterly ridiculous.

I'm going to leave this alone now, because regardless of opinions nobody is going to change minds.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dualsub2006 said:


> . [opinion] The software isn't being tampered with, root is being disabled. A phone with SU disabled is no more capable of nefarious deeds than an unrooted device. [/opinion]


Not sure with Android, but with Apple, this is def not the case. as such DirecTV does not allow JB devices.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dualsub2006 said:


> [opinion] The software isn't being tampered with, root is being disabled. A phone with SU disabled is no more capable of nefarious deeds than an unrooted device. [/opinion]


Well, once you have root access, it is theoretically possible to install a device driver that intercepts data on it's way to the display driver and capture it in a file. Once installed and loaded, you wouldn't need SU access for it to work. This is what the copyright holders are concerned about.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

Well, once you have root access, it is theoretically possible to install a device driver that intercepts data on it's way to the display driver and capture it in a file. Once installed and loaded, you wouldn't need SU access for it to work. This is what the copyright holders are concerned about.
Good that you called that out as a theory, because it was never much more than that. 

Google improved (read as added) encryption for the video and audio streams in Android back in the Gingerbread days. 

To my knowledge, that encryption hasn't been cracked. 

The security is tight enough that Google is adding video screen capture to KitKat. App developers have had to go to extensive measures to generate realistic demo videos of their apps, because it has been impossible on-device for years.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

I've just had a conversation with someone that has completely changed how I think about this. 

Stream capture is likely the last thing that D* is guarding against by blocking rooted devices. 

I'm not going any further than that, but if what I've come across is accurate, I get why they are likely doing it.

EDIT: It applies to jailbroken iOS devices as well.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

dualsub2006 said:


> I've just had a conversation with someone that has completely changed how I think about this. Stream capture is likely the last thing that D* is guarding against by blocking rooted devices. I'm not going any further than that, but if what I've come across is accurate, I get why they are likely doing it. EDIT: It applies to jailbroken iOS devices as well.


How does Directv deal with Mac computers? Gaining root access is as simple as typing "sudo" before a command typed into a terminal window.


----------



## dualsub2006 (Aug 29, 2007)

How does Directv deal with Mac computers? Gaining root access is as simple as typing "sudo" before a command typed into a terminal window.
I'm just not going to go there, other than to say that there are reasons why it's not the same issue on Mac. At least nowhere near as big an issue. 

And that assumes that what I was told is accurate, which personally, I trust my source. 

I ordered a GenieGo today, because I now feel completely different about the whole topic.


----------



## Homeuser (Jul 31, 2014)

I have a ROOTED Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1. I do not have any custom ROM's installed. I only ROOTED it to get rid of the AT&T Bloatware that was constantly causing my Tablet to Lag/Freeze. Since then, I have enjoyed this device again. I have installed RootCloak and added the GenieGo app to the list. The app runs, but when it buffers the Video, that is when it crashes.. Did or does anyone have it working on their Rooted Device yet?


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Homeuser said:


> I have a ROOTED Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1. I do not have any custom ROM's installed. I only ROOTED it to get rid of the AT&T Bloatware that was constantly causing my Tablet to Lag/Freeze. Since then, I have enjoyed this device again. I have installed RootCloak and added the GenieGo app to the list. The app runs, but when it buffers the Video, that is when it crashes.. Did or does anyone have it working on their Rooted Device yet?


If you haven't already you might want to check this out: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2180417
I don't have a GenieGo so I don't know if the answer is in there. Good luck.


----------

