TiVo and the satellite TV service Dish Network (and its parent company, EchoStar) have been embroiled in a series of legal actions over TiVo’s claims of patent infringement. Last year, TiVo won a $200 million judgment against Dish, but a federal appeals court recently decided that it will review that decision and the claim that [...]
I find it strange that Tvio was given patents on what was being used in computers at the time unless the patents pertain to a specific method/implementation of time shifting.
IIRC At present nearly every computer that has the capability of receiving TV signals such as media centers has the capability of time shifting, at least all of mine do.
Roger, I don't pretend to understand the patent process in this country, but I will be the first to admit that nothing surprises me when it comes to patent disputes. The PTO appears to award patents first and ask questions later, if ever. The appropriate time to defend a patent appears to be when it becomes the focus of a lawsuit. It seems to me to be an extremely inefficient process that just runs up the legal fees, and does not give a patent holder any confidence that they will be able to prevail in court. It seems to me that the deep-pockets party can almost always count on winning if they want to spend enough, burying the smaller opposition under a pile of expensive paper.
Who's right in this TiVo vs. Dish dispute? I really don't know. Yes, computers can now record television broadcasts, but did TiVo file a patent on that before these products shipped? Does TiVo deserve to protect the concepts that they developed, and its shareholders deserve to earn a share of money that is based on that? Should Dish be obligated to pay licensing fees on ideas that were publicly discussed before TiVo got their patents? It's muddy water, and I don't expect that it will get resolved soon.
Does anyone besides me remember Replay TV? My memory (and it could be totally wrong) has them selling product even before TiVo. Theirs did the same thing, only they got pushed aside quickly, and you just don't hear from them now. Checking with Google I find they're now owned by DirecTV, so they're still operational, and they're how DirecTV keeps from being embroiled in the patent mess with Dish and TiVo. But, what's different about them? And how does that fit with the Dish/TiVo thing?
Has anyone noticed that there are NO equivalents to the old VHS on the market? Apparently this is due to locking up the simple notion of recording a broadcast? Seems rather a disservice to the public at large. Personally we have always boycotted TiVo, and Replay, feeling that monthly fees for what could be done with a VHS are unwarranted. And, our Mac Mini does the job just fine.
Because I'm not involved with Mac, I'd appreciate hearing what's required to have a Mac Mini record a program. Do you get a program grid from some source the computer can use? Or, do you set the recording time and channel based on some other source? Dish (and I'm sure DirecTV) makes it painless. Just click on the program block and decide how many times - except for local stations Dish doesn't know about (there are more than a few). Those require complete manual programming - but they do end up with the video file on the Dish DVR for viewing when we want.
Our Mac Mini has been our multi-media center for 4 years. We receive broadcast TV (over-the-air) using an external USB digital tuner, and EyeTV software. The software includes a program click - click and shoot. There are several competitive alternatives for the software and the hardware. Our Sharp LCD TV has a Firewire port, allowing recording directly from the TV without an external tuner - but in that mode, as the Sharp has no second tuner, one can't watch a different program while recording. Thus the external tuner is nicer.
DirecTV made a settlement with Tivo on the patent issues. At the time DirecTV was selling Tivo powered DVRs, and I believe a new version of Tivo powered DirecTV DVRs are on the way now.
Tivo and ReplayTV were both introduced in 1999. If you've never used a modern DVR then you don't understand that you're paying for a comprehensive, complete and up to date online program guide and the ability to do smart recordings (record a show any time it's on with or without repeats, etc.) It costs these companies money to keep this guide up to date and distribute it, so why shouldn't they get a monthly fee? Would you be willing to do that type of work for free?
akirby, I agree that if someone creates something and chooses to charge for it, then using that product without paying for it is akin to stealing. I've made much of my living with this sort of business model, so I tend to side with the content creator.
However, there are lots of models that do not charge the end user. They find other ways to fund the service. What do you pay for Google searches? Google has invested millions (if not billions) in equipment, labor, and other costs to make the search (and other applications) possible, yet they are free. In the area of program listings, those are still broadcast over the air for free and can be used by digital video recorders. TitanTV has a similar free service on the Web which can link to TV tuner card software such as that from Hauppauge so that you can program your computer to recorder over-the-air video for free just like you could with a VCR. The problem is that this free-to-the-consumer model makes it more difficult for TiVo to justify their subscription fees.
As for DVRs, Panasonic used to have recorders that included an internal hard drive. It appears that the only models that they have now are ones that write to DVDs, which is not much use for HD, but you may still be able to find some of the older models on the market. The problem is that most U.S. households have a subscription TV service, and these often offer DVR-type functions for a low cost. The only people who need a no-subscription-fee DVR are those of us who only get our programming for free over the air, and it's probably too small a market to target with a piece of hardware.
alfred, I certainly do hope that you are not implying that those of us who use alternate (purchased) products to record television are stealing from TiVo!
akirby, some of us don’t care for or need that “comprehensive, complete and up to date online program guide” and can live happily with the EyeTV program matrix and/or the broadcast ATV grid (which are in fact comprehensive, complete and up to date).
Some of us see the bulk of available content as that “vast wasteland” noted by Minow years ago.
alfred, I certainly do hope that you are not implying that those of us who use alternate (purchased) products to record television are stealing from TiVo!
Certainly not. If you had some way to "unlock" a TiVo so that you could use it without paying the subscription fee, I think that would be wrong. But I've got no problem at all with using a competing solution that does not cost you anything; that's what I do with TitanTV all the time.
There are only 3 ways for Tivo to get paid - one time with the hardware, via user subscription or by advertisements.
The only way for Tivo to provide free service is with advertising or sponsorship, and without a web page interface or hyperlinks to support sponsors or advertising they would have to insert ads into the guide data or end up with pop up ads while you're watching TV with Tivo.
What you get for "free" over the air is paid for by advertising, including the PSIP guide data. But you only get PSIP guide data for broadcast channels. Tivo gives you a complete guide for all channels, not just broadcast.
Personally I'd much rather pay a few bucks per month than put up with advertising. I also don't mind paying for good DVR software like Tivo because it enhances the viewing experience significantly.
Other folks want free tv and don't mind the advertising to pay for it. If that's what you want then you don't need Tivo or satellite or cable DVRs.
But I've got no problem at all with using a competing solution that does not cost you anything; that's what I do with TitanTV all the time.
And that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean that Tivo should be free or that they're wrong for charging a subscription fee for the service they provide. If you don't want it don't pay for it. I've seen a lot of people imply that Tivo should not charge a subscription fee and that's ridiculous. As you say there are options for those that want it free.
akirby, I don't disagree with most of what you say. I certainly have no problem with paying a reasonable fee for a product or service that I think delivers value in return. And I understand that many people view their bills from TiVo or cable or satellite in that way, and I have no problem with that. It's not what I choose to do, but I agree that other choices can be just as reasonable. (And I just saw your follow-on message; I definitely don't believe that TiVo is wrong to charge a fee or that I should be able to get it for free. It may not be the most effective business decision that they can make, but if that's their model, then so be it and best of luck to them.)
I will disagree with the assertion that "there are only 3 ways for Tivo to get paid - one time with the hardware, via user subscription or by advertisements." If there's one thing we've learned from the new Internet economy is that there are many new ways to model a revenue structure. Not all of Google's services are directly funded by ads. When I look at Google Calendar, there's not a single ad in sight. Pandora has some ads, but I suspect that they get the bulk of their revenues from commissions on the sale of CDs and MP3s that they play on their streaming Internet stations.
Here's a fourth way that TiVo could get paid: information. I bet that they know more than Nielsen about the viewing habits of American television homes. That information could be bundled and analyzed and sold for a lot of money. (I don't know whether TiVo does anything like this already, but I'd be amazed if they don't.) And who would know more about how to replace the lost effectiveness of TV program commercials than TiVo, since they provide some of the primary tools to skip over them?
So there are other revenue streams available, and I expect that there are other models that could work for TiVo.
There are only 3 ways for Tivo to get paid - one time with the hardware, via user subscription or by advertisements.
Personally I'd much rather pay a few bucks per month than put up with advertising. I also don't mind paying for good DVR software like Tivo because it enhances the viewing experience significantly.
Other folks want free tv and don't mind the advertising to pay for it. If that's what you want then you don't need Tivo or satellite or cable DVRs.
Amen to that. I pay a lot for satellite service and for the ability to have the DVR on local channels along with the menu/guide. Strange though, the top end DISH DVR doesn't seem to have much sensitivity for OTA so we ended up getting them in SD off satellite.
I also agree with the patent and copyright issues. A comparable issue would be Microsoft and DOS. DOS is a generic "Disk Operating System" which every computer has in one form or another and did well before MS was given the patent, or was it copyright for the acronym which had been in general use for some time. Many referred to Personal Computers, or PC's before the name was given to IBM. I had a "PC" well before IBM even built them. It was an Ohio Scientific C28P with 48K of dynamic RAM and a 1 MHz 6502 CPU. It's still stored in the basement, right beside my Amiga 2000.
Now I'd dearly love to have something that would directly record HD on DVD, but where do you find a board, or video card that takes HDMI "input"? Now they are trying to shut off even the SD outputs from satellite and cable. However I do take issue with not being able to record "in HD" what I pay for. To me they industry did an end run around fair use so we no longer even have that except in a much more limited form than a decade ago.
Selling viewing information has been a touchy subject with a lot of people. Doesn't bother me but there would be a public outcry if Tivo started doing that such that an individual's viewing habits were being used by a third party.
Alfred - advertising doesn't have to be ads. Paying for higher priorities on search strings, etc. are all just different forms of advertising. Either the user pays or some type of sponsor pays in return for some benefit. You can't do it for free.
I completely agree that someone has to pay; I've been banging that drum for years. I'm only saying that it used to be that the consumer paid: either with subscription fees, or time watching commercials, or a combination. The new economics of the Internet, however, are making it possible to look to other parties for the revenue.
You are a "newbie" - so, the multitude of prior posts & replies re: "Recording DTV" have escaped your viewing!
VCRs did allow endless analog recording, without restriction.
NO artists were properly reimbursed ..
Back in '98, Congress (then) devised a new Law regarding all manner of "Protections" for these Artist / Managers / etc., called the " Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 " - - - google or whatever that, as well as "Do Not Copy" - Digital Rights Management {DRM} and so on.
"IF" you had your total income dependent upon the Music, Motion Pictures, etc., which was created by or in which you specifically participated, - - - wouldn't it be completely unfair for the rest-of-the-globe to have it w/o paying you a cent as proper Royalities?
Those various monthly "fees" - - whether by TIVO, the local cable DVR rental or whatever - - simply DO allow for a mechanism to do so!
I completely agree that someone has to pay; I've been banging that drum for years. I'm only saying that it used to be that the consumer paid: either with subscription fees, or time watching commercials, or a combination. The new economics of the Internet, however, are making it possible to look to other parties for the revenue.
Alfred
I don't disagree, but I think there is a difference between doing something with a computer browser or other software and doing something with a DVR.
My issue is that most of the time I do not want whatever comes along with "free" - commercials during movies, e.g. I refuse to watch movies on TNTHD and FXHD just because of the commercial interruptions.
If it could be done without impacting the user then fine - otherwise I'll pay.
I agree. When it comes to adds, and particularly adds on top of what ever I'm watching which is quite common now days, I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee. I already pay a substantial fee for my satellite service. However when I pay to watch something, I expect to be able to record it which is often not the case. What I view as worse is the only way my DVR records is in a proprietary format which does not allow me to play said program or movie on any other machine which means I've lost at least part of the "fair use" of that material.
We used the VCR to allow viewing of a broadcast at a later time, when we were unavailable for real-time viewing. We never saved, or traded in, recorded shows. Why should *anyone* be paid extra for this single delayed viewing, still including the commercials?
As an MSEE well versed in digital communications and computers, I personally have no problem operating our Mac-computer-based media center; however, other family members see it as somewhat more of a challenge. Thus a digital VCR equivalent is sorely missed.
In my simple view, the TiVo patents appear to be a prominent source of the choke-hold on commercial availability of simple VCR-equivalent recorders that laymen can use. Alfred seemingly discounts the huge population - 10s of millions - who receive only over-the-air broadcasts; some of us by choice.
The problem at present is not just the patents, but the movie and recording industries demand to control the use of their products even for the legitimate end user.
Alfred seemingly discounts the huge population - 10s of millions - who receive only over-the-air broadcasts; some of us by choice.
To be clear, I'm not discounting the 14 million or so viewers who are OTA-only. I do expect that the vast majority are lower-income, but please remember that I'm one of the ones choosing to be OTA only. I don't have a cable or satellite subscription, and while I'm a FiOS customer, it's only for phone and Internet: no television service.
So it's not me who's discounting this group; it's the manufacturers. I still own the Panasonic analog-tuner hard drive DVR that we used for years, and we loved it. There are DVRs that work over the air for free, but as far as I can see, the only current models record just to DVD; they don't have hard drives. It would appear that the manufacturers don't think that it's worth putting a hard drive into one of these boxes. So go pound on Panasonic's door, or get some VC capital and build one yourself; maybe the manufacturers are wrong and there is a sufficient market to justify challenging TiVo in this space.
The problem at present is not just the patents, but the movie and recording industries demand to control the use of their products even for the legitimate end user.
They can demand all they want, but without the law of the land behind them, they can't do anything about it. Unfortunately, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was more or less snuck past the public without their full understanding of just how much damage it did to the Fair Use Doctrine regarding copyright. If you don't like it, I'll be glad to point you to the addresses for your federal legislators if you want to tell them you want it to be repealed.
I already pay a substantial fee for my satellite service. However when I pay to watch something, I expect to be able to record it which is often not the case.
Roger - could you explain this? What service and what is it you're not allowed to record? I can't think of anything that I can't record with DirecTV.
