So long, losers.

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in news:dgjmnq$pmu$1
@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>> you troll
>
> Hmm, this thread seems to be attracting obscure posts. I'm not getting
> the reasoning for Jack's at all. Unless he's *purposefully* trying to
> be obscure.

As far as I can tell, he's just trying to be stupid (IE, not even trying to
pick up anyone's point) and insulting. He's toed the line for quite some
time...as I said in his other abusive thread, he doesn't even look at
threads anymore, he has one agenda and pursues it blindly. But it's
ok...he's gone now.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <dgif9i$nq8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Howard wrote:
>> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:
>>
>>
>>>Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
>>>recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
>>>and they were all without any "protection".
>>
>>
>> That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
>> restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
>> at all...which was kind of the point.
>>
>> For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the link,
>> it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
>> computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
>> problem.
>>
>> Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
>> losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
>> replacement will be free of any problems...
>>
>> Well, good luck with that.
>>
>
>Yeah, I think Howard's OP was a bit unclear. It took a minute for me to
>see what he was driving at, but he's right, DRM is pervasive. It's
>there because the broadcasters and MPAA folks are forcing it into *all*
>devices, not just Tivo. They do it by blackmail, either add it in, or
>they won't allow you to display their content. Either they won't
>deliver it to you, or they'll sue the pants off you.
>
>The only possible way around the DRM is home-brew systems that are too
>small potato to sue. However don't be surprised if the DRM gets
>packaged into the hardware eventually. If that happens, even the MythTV
>and Freevo folks are going to be up the proverbial creek since they
>could do whatever they want with the software, if the Tuner card won't
>allow specific digital streams to be recorded, then there's little they
>can do.
>
>Randy S.


Already being considered
http/www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050720_191403.html

 

[john]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Howard" <stile99@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D4B9D5E1E36stile@129.250.170.88...
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:
>
>> Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
>> recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
>> and they were all without any "protection".
>
> That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
> restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
> at all...which was kind of the point.
>
> For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the
> link,
> it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
> computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
> problem.
>
> Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
> losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
> replacement will be free of any problems...


My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of the
80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of the
> 80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?

Yeah, you would think. And you should be able to copy music you
purchase as many times as you want as well. But the media companies
have managed to convince the politicians that they have the right to
trample all over the customer's rights in order to protect their own.

They're scared of digital media because it can be easily copied and
distributed an unlimited number of times with no loss in quality.

Randy S.

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"john" <jabitzerjr@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jeMXe.3211$P34.3003@okepread07:

> My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of
> the 80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?

There was an episode of South Park that featured a record executive. He
basically kept being an ass and flagrantly breaking the law, and whenever
anyone called him on it, he would say "I am above the law!" before putting
his really bad comb-over back into place.

Alas, this was not a parody of a record exec, it was a darned good
imitation. It goes for all recording industries, video as well as audio.
The law? A minor inconvenience. Your rights? Even less importance.
You? Nothing but a criminal.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.