But I also wonder how a company like Tivo could make money if users could simply recompile the Tivo software to stop phoning home and billing them.
Ofcourse, that would be a major problem for Tivo if someone hacked it that way.
But why did Tivo build their system upon GPL software if they had the intention to subvert it anyway? They should have chosen a closed-source, commercial embedded OS instead of Linux if they wanted to control the software themselves.
But why did Tivo build their system upon GPL software if they had the intention to subvert it anyway? They should have chosen a closed-source, commercial embedded OS instead of Linux if they wanted to control the software themselves.
So they could get free software and appeal to all the people who say “It runs Linux? Kickass!”
I agree 100% with M on this. If you buy a radio would you accept restrictions stating that you can’t open the box and look inside? Restrictions that you can’t modify the thing as you want? Would you also accept restrictions on what you can do with food that you buy?
It is so sad to see people buying into the idea that you have to accept what you’re being given. As if the poor companies were on their bleeding knees trying to offer you perfect products at minimal prices. Realize that you’re being scammed and fight back. Teach the greedy bastards the hard way that they should respect people.
In short, buy it, hack it and make sure it works FOR you not AGAINST you.
Regards
Fake
Incidentally, what is preventing anyone from building their own Tivo-like box, sans DRM bootloader, and running the modified software on it?
If GPLv3 is adopted by critical components of the Linux stack, expect a big uptake in BSD-licensed kernels for consumer products. Then you won’t get ANY code unless the company is feeling nice that day.
GPL wants to mandate that software be free by restricting the developer. BSD gives these freedoms back to the developer, at the cost of not getting back the value-added code.
Well obviously, this means they have to write their own software. There’s no reason they should be allowed to use GNU/Linux in the way they have if the GNU/Linux programmers choose not to let them. Tivo is absolutely despicable (the product itself as well as their practices) and I would never buy one anyway, so I guess this doesn’t affect me personally as far as the DRM goes. But as a Linux user, it angers me to see Tivo use a loophole to take the hard work of the open source community and use it for a locked-down platform.
TiVo Series 2: $99.99
Humax PVR-9200T for FreeView in the UK: 164.80
Doing the tax/currency conversion shuffle, the TiVo should cost 51.25 before tax, adding VAT gives 60.22. Going the other way the Humax is 140.26 before tax, converts to $273.66.
However, that price for the TiVo seems to include a $150 rebate; if so the pricing on the Humax is much more competitive.
The Humax has no subscription fee and indeed no phone or Ethernet socket. (It does have a USB port you can transfer programmes through, and also has a serial port for applying upgrades, if you miss the over-the-air upgrade broadcast.) I’m not sure what OS it runs, but I don’t think it’s Linux. The most recent update finally implemented series link although I think they were waiting for a metadata spec from the broadcasters before it could be implemented. It also now finally supports Programme Delivery Control.
Anyway, if the premium for a commercial embedded OS is $25 or about 10%, why go with the one with the restrictive GPL?
Tivo is something from other world for people from poor countrys like mine (Brazil). Is not one of the purpose of the GPL to allow those people the acess of that?
Since the GPL has a clause forbidding the developer to forbid any “field of endeavour”, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a law forbidding any company from selling anything with a terms-of-use that forbids any field of endeavour?
In other words tinkering with code and tinkering with car engines are both protected. (Of course it may be illegal to add code which launches hack attempts and illegal to add a machine gun to a car, but it is illegal for the manufacturer or retailer to impose such restrictions.)
I believe Formula 1 engine parts are sold under do-not-open-or-inspect terms. (I’m not sure how such rules can be enforced and I strongly believe that unenforcable rules should not be enacted in the first place.) I’d like to see this practice outlawed – it’s okay for people to read the details of a patented invention, just not to make and sell it themselves.
The GPLv3 is a response to market demand among open-source contributers. The GPL was successful because developers didn’t want companies getting rich off of their free labor (otherwise they could could have just put it in the public domain). GPLv3 is a reaction to companies that have figured out how to circumvent the restrictions in GPLv2. It’s designed to insure that people are still willing to contribute to open source projects.
Granted big companies like Google or IBM would contribute regardless (and probably don’t like any restrictions that prevent them from making money on the code they’ve contributed). But the majority of free software is still written my volunteers, and if those volunteers saw their wark getting stolen for profit I suspect most of them would stop contributing.
I also wonder how a company like Tivo could make money if users could simply recompile the Tivo software to stop phoning home and billing them.
Un-ask the question. If their business model requires customer lock-in enforced through hardware restrictions, that’s a flawed business model. The question isn’t “how could that business model make money”, it’s “why should such a business model be rewarded or encouraged”.
I believe TiVo owns HARDWARE patents on these things. Here’s a PDF (sorry, Jeff) on the recent court case TiVo won against EchoStar:
I guess it comes down to a simple choice:-
From Tivo’s point of view, they needed to provide a guarantee and support for the hardware and to make a profit. If customers could change the software, the support cost becomes prohibitive, and if the hardware failed as a result the consumer loses out. A commercial OS would drive up the unit cost and decrease the profitibility of the machine. If Tivo failed as a business then we might not have such choice, or any choice, in digital recorders today.
So, it could be argued that the new GPL will lead to a stifling in innovation. It will certainly reduce the number of companies / entrepreneurs that would consider using Linux if they had to allow consumers to modify and run the code(1). Which in my book is a bad thing. I want to see Linux used in more places as a real alternative. And to do that, you have to allow people the opportunity to make a profit and if that means a fixed, unchangable platform then so be it. At least it will slow the juggernaut that is certain large software developers.
You could argue that Tivo should not have used the loss-leading hardware business model, but that would have lead to less uptake of the system by consumers due to higher prices which would have reduced the profit Tivo made. Is buying loss-leading hardware and then modifying the software (whether or not it’s Linux) to avoid paying the profit-making fees, theft?
(1) Imagine, for example, the implications of allowing people to modify and run code on a Linux based medical diagnostic system or the engine management system in your car.
“Incidentally, what is preventing anyone from building their own Tivo-like box, sans DRM bootloader, and running the modified software on it?”
It’s only the OS that’s open-source. The UI that runs on top of it was written by Tivo and is closed-source. Running the “modified” software would just get you a Linux box that supports the Tivo hardware.
marko, do you know what ‘sarcasm’ is?
To glxr: does it anger you that I use Linux and stuff like Open Office and don’t contribute anything back to the community. In fact, I am making a profit in doing so - I’m a programmer and use the tools to aid me in my development of closed-source software. So what’s the difference between me taking and using free software to make a profit and Tivo?
Why closed-source? Well, it’s a lot less hassle than getting a call from an irate client who’s just lost all their business data after their twelve year old nephew who ‘knows about computers’ tried to make improvements to the system.
Skizz: how is that different from a “twelve year old nephew who ‘knows about computers’” doing hard disk cleanup and deleting all his documents? That’s something your client should argue with his nephew, not with you.
I understand why Tivo wanted to lock down their hardware but the bottom line is that they made a very bad technical decision. They could have licenced Windows or QNX. They could have use one of the BSDs. But no, they chose the one option where they had to share their code!
I loved having my 2 Series 2 all hacked to hell and gone until Tivo decided to quit sending me guide data because I wouldn’t let them update my software. Eventually I had to give in and now I just have my size upgraded series 2’s… 
Oh well, it’s not a Dish or DirectTV DVR.
Bah, I just pirate any TV shows I want to watch from the internet. I can’t get great foreign shows like “Project Catwalk” and “Yakitate!! Japan” from my local cable company anyway.
And what if I just learned of a new show, and I want to start watching it from the beginning? With cable/satellite, I might have to wait months before the rerun season begins, or even years before syndication begins, to see everything from the beginning, if even that is available. With piracy, I can download entire seasons (or even full series!) from start to finish.
Products like Tivo can’t compete with a fast internet connection.
People are missing the point if Tivo want to use GPL software they have to obey the licence, if they want free but not GPL use BSD, if they want a licence that does not allow people to change the software use a commercial system (QNX, Windows CE…)
And if someone does modify their Tivo then Tivo don’t have to support the modified software, just force the user to reload the default software before they will help them (this seems to be fairly standard practice elsewhere “breaking this seal void the warentee” etc …)