ok im wondering, with the ethernet adapter is anyone working on a web server type system that runs on the replay, so that you can schedule shows via a web site, i know this hack is avialable for tivo, also im sorry i know im going to get flamed for this is anyone working on a way to bypass the monthly service agreement, or to put it this way is anyone working on a way to load say a nix os to the replay tv, so i could run say freevo on it? and for those of you that want to flame me for being cheap, do it im a 20 year old college student, remember when you were in college how poor you were because your money went to books, food and beer
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The reason that Replay almost went under is because the are supposed to collect monthly fees. Why do you you need to buy beer instead of paying for the service you use. Buy a few less six packs and spend the $10 a month on paying for the OPTIONAL service you seem to want. If you cannot afford it, DON'T USE IT. It is not a right, it is an OPTIONAL EXPENSE.
Please, keep this message, and after you graduate college, find a job, and work on the deisgn of a cool product, then see some bozo trying to find a way to not pay to use your device or steal it. remeber that the person was you 10 years earlier.
So keep you sad, broke college kid story, it does not wash. Obvisouly you had enough money to but the Replay, I suspect your have loads of money, and if not, skip the beer and pay for your services, or go without.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Lame excuse and justificaiton for stealing. If it makes you feel better, you continue to call it what you like. I would have more respect if you said something like "screw it, I am stealing it because I don't feel like paying." As for your answer....its lame at best.
So lets see, if I can break the security measures on your house or apartment (called locks, but security measures just the same), can I take you computer, TV, stereo, DVDs, DVD player, Replay, files, programs, any money or what ever? According to you, hey, if I can break your security, I have the right to take what I want. Right? You would be just fine with that so you say? Or do you have a double standard as I suspect. Your justification is just plain BS.
Personally, if I caught you stealing from me, I would have you arrested, and would not think twice about it.
Call it what you will, justify it any way you like, stealing service steals from the rest of us who pay for what we want by making us pay more to cover the service you use and do not pay for. I'll bet you download MP-3s, movies, and warez too, right? Same justificaiton?
Personally, your kind of attitude is why I and many of the designers I know do not want to design cool things like Replay and TiVo any more. We cannot make any money on it because assholes like you steal it rather than pay for it. How do you think this stuff comes to be designed? I suspect you do not think!
Nice going!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I don't think it is stealing. How can you steal something that is publically accessible and is free? The whole DMCA legislation is crap. I can understand illegality if someone was going to SELL the recording, but for personal use and distribution it should be legal. The only reason why companies go out of business is because of the DMCA legislation. I have NEVER seen a company go broke because of personal use and distribution.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I tend to agree, the DMCA is crap, and is the wrong way to solve a problem. I do not like it either. But here we are talking about you stealing the Replayh service (at least, that was what I was answering to)
But, if I say the whole idea of locks on doors is crap, and with a few picks everything is accessible and free, can I take all your stuff? The questions still stands as it is the same thing.
Sorry, if you are going around any lock (crap or not) to take something that you are not freely entitled to (in this case, the Replay service) and is a pay service, you are stealing it if you do not pay. It does not matter if you believe you SHOULD pay or not, or the law that makes it a crime to not pay is crap or not. It is stealing. If you believe that is OK, tell me where you live...I need a replacement TV!
This discussion is over, as you obvioulsy will never get this until you get caught stealing. Go have a beer and enjoy your free stuff.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
well i do have homeowners insurance then i get brand new stuff...dude obviously you missed the point of my article, the replay tv unit has alot of power just sitting there i paid like $350 for it and would like to unleash some of that power, kinda like the mod chip i put in my x-box, same principal,
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I personaly dont think that taking a machine I paid for and loading my own software on it is stealing.
If my software that I loaded on it was able to download service from Replay yes that would be steeling but just running my own software so that the hardware did not requrie the service is not stealing.
If replay wanted 550$ for each replay they sold. they should charge 550$ for each replay they sold.
This 10$ a month crap is just that crap. What exactly am I paying for.
Guide data ---- Bu!! S#!T
Guide date is available from numerus places on the web for free. And besides if that were the case then when we didnt pay our 10$ a month they would simply stop provieding guide data. But we would still be able to record and watch tv.
The plain and simple is that we are being charged 10$ a month to use something that we have already payed for.
So If he or anyone else can find a way to buypass registration and provide there own replay-like service I say more power to them. They are not stealing Replay service they are competing with it.
JM2C
Adam
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In theory, I actually agree 100%. There should be a "free" way to use the box. TiVo now has TiVo lite, a 3 day guide and reduced funcitons that work for free. I think that is very cool. But the price of the units that have that went up.
However, the Replay machine comes with a license, and buying it says you agree with that license, and that license states how it can be used. I did not say I fully agree with it, but they price the machine based on the fact that they will make money in the long run on the subscription service. If they did not, people would not pay what it actually costs to build the machine, and there would be no machines at all.
It is obvious you are not very "business wise" and I fully understand your anger at the way Replay set it up, but on the other hand, Replay is (was) in the business of making money too, not giving away cool hardware so you can hack it into something free and go around the license. if you do not like it, DON'T BUY IT. No one forces anyone to buy the device.
You may not like it, but if everyone had the "screw you" attitude towards a legit company that is trying to survive on subscription revenue, these companies would never create anything new in the first place because people like you and this other guy simple want to exploite it for free at everyone elses cost. Or the thing would be so costly, you would and he would be complaining about the cost instead. With you two, they could never do enough FOR YOU!
A VERY juvenile, selfish attitude, and one that cares nothing for anyone else but yourself. What a great world it would be if everyone though "Screw you, what's in it for me?" Unfortunately, it is becomming that way fast.
Just curious, people "buy" a cable modem. SHould they be able to hack it to get free internet access because they own the device? You buy software, do you then copy it to all your friends because you "own" it and can do what you want? Where do you draw the line and pay for what you use?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The difference between breaking into someones apartment and stealing thier stuff and "stealing" mp3's or movies etc. Is that on the one hand you are depriving an individual of property... IE scarcity comes into play there is only one item and two people want it but can not both have it. On the other hand you have digital data that can be copied over and over again for virtualy free (minus energy costs) without ever hurting anyones ablity to use the data the way they did previously.
What if we could end material scarcity?
An interesting topic more throughly expounded upon here : http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:GgDJ30uDIcAJ:www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html+john+gilmore&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In many ways I agree, there is less "material loss" when you copy something that is already out there, but your logic is flawed if you think no one is hurt by stealing a copy. This same argument would say, for example, stealing cable TV hurts no one because it does not "use up" a cable connection. Or stealing satellite TV is OK for the same reason. The person who takes it free does not compromise the signal to everyone who does pay. But the people who DO pay end up paying more in the end. Why? Read on.
What your comment tells me is that you have never created anything that can be distributed electronically, and feel it is OK for others to pay more for something so you can get it free. Right? After all, as long is it does not effect your ability to get something free, why should you care? Well, because it is still theft when you take something of value and do not pay.
For example, if a movie in a theatre is not sold out, is it OK for you to sneak in and watch it for free because you watching does not hurt anyone else, and watching does not degrade the quality?? By your argument, yes, this would be perfectly OK. I say no, it is not. Lets take this to the extreme. If only one person pays and the theatre is empty I have sat in such a show), how many people should be able to sneak in free? How much would the theatre have to charge the paying customer to make money? How far can you take this argument? 2 pay? 3 Pay? How about half the theatre? Sure, as some point, one person in a theatre of 100 is no big deal, unless of course you consider that if you can sneak in, why cant someone else?
But lets take your reasoning towards another extreme. In the most extreme case, an artist creates something, and sells it only ONCE, and then everyone else gets it free because it does not hurt anyone to copy the digital copy. What price does the artists charge the one buyer? He/She would have to pay enough to cover the cost of making the original. So the one person pays a huge amount to cover your "free" copy. Obviously, this is not going to happen because the cost would be too high for one person to buy.
So how many have to buy? Extrapolate this to two people buying, then three, then fifty. Where do you draw the line? The cost of producing a movie or video or movie is not free, and they recover their cost and profit if they are good and luck by selling these "copies" of the material to buyers. If one can copy it for free, why cannot someone else, and someone else, until more are copying free than buying.
And how do you decide who is paying and who is not? You seem to be the free person. How is that fair? What if you are one of the few who paid and many others got the same thing for free? How do you feel then?
The real bottom line is that if you do not care, you do not care, and will continue to steal things with the feeling that it hurts no one. But in the long run, if enough take that attitude, it will hurt because either the cost goes up, or the makers stop making these things because they cannot make money on them. So it does hurt.
Lastly, where I DO agree here is when companies calculate their loss generated by free copies. The studios and publishers like to say that they loose the equivalent of the cost of one item when someone copies it for free. This is nonsense. As you point out, there is no material loss, so they cannot claim that loss. In addition, most of the people who copy for free would not buy the item if they could not copy it for free, so I would not count that as a loss revenue either. So if digital copying was eliminated, the studios would not see an equal number of additional sales from the people who copy, as most would still not buy. Some, would, so there is some loss still.
In any case, the copying of digital material may not have a material loss, but the costs for your free ride are picked up by others, and to think otherwise is foolish and ignorant.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If a person is in the buisness of creating art for money than prehaps they condidered the wrong career. Artists should create for the love of creation. Even those that release works under licences such as creative commons (http://creativecommons.org/) still often recieve recieve renumeration, via donations and people desireing hard copies that there is some monetary incentive. Granted that forcing that idea on others may not be entirely moral... but hey socital growing pains.
In the case of the movie theatre example, it comes down to mass distribution fees, there are many other mediums such as the internet and various protcals therein, such as Bittorrent which do provide an excelent method of distributing digitized content w/o the overhead of trying to make a profit off art lovers.
I realize that it's not free... prehaps a return to the patron model like in the Rennisance. Wealthy people contract for works of art to be accomplished... Michalangelo, Shakespere... both had wealthy patrons and I'd hardly say they were sell outs.
Aside from that, the point of the aforemetioned article was that our current society operates on the priciples of scarcity, and that we all need to come to terms with how we want to deal with the areas wherein scarcity no longer applies or else we will not be able to accept larger technological growth that virtually eliminates scarcity to a large degree.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If a person is in the buisness of creating art for money than prehaps they condidered the wrong career." ([sic] spelling errors are original posters not mine) What a totally asinine an ignorant thing to say. Because you wish to steal art for free, they should go into another line of business. Sorry, but this wins for stupidest thing I have heard so far. Sorry, I usually do not succumb to insults, but this is rich! What do you do for a living? What happens when someone finds a way to steal your work or cause it to be done for free? I am sure you will scream a different story.
Artists should create for the love of creation. So says a non-artist I suspect, or lat least someone handed a silver spoon! Just curious, do you give your work away free because you love to do it? You must love to do it, you choose it a as profession. Should lawyers work for free because they love the law? Should programmers work for free because they love to program? Do you honestly believe this crap you are spewing? Give me a break!
As for you comments on scarcity, the article proposed no scarcity as a reason for why stealing was not a problem because no scarcity of product is created when a digital copy is made. That original concept is flawed, as was the argument about no harm, no loss, because even in the silly examples I made, some harm can be demonstrated. Who are you or I to decide what is reasonable harm to someone else? Again, what crap!
Yes, I agree that we need to find a way to compensate people properly for their work. Yes, I think movie studios and record companies are a bunch of greedy thieves. Yes, I believe the RIAA sucks big time! Yes, I agree that it is very difficult to see so many become billionaires off our hard earned money and then scream about the theft of a few songs. On the surface, it is wrong because these companies have found a way to get the government to back them in their greed. That ALL SUCKS! Would I like it to be free. Of course, but it is totally unrealistic.
In my view, if these greedy bastards would simply spend the money they do on security and copy intervention towards reducing the cost of the item to a reasonable price, most of the problem would go away. Yea, bozos like the original poster (and probably you) would still want it for free, there are always a few ignorant people who cant do the right thing for what ever twisted reasoning they will invent. So be it.
But all that aside, the question of taking something that is sold and copying it for free still stands as the basic question, scarcity aside. It IS STILL STEALING, EVEN if you do not like the law or concept, EVEN if you believe no one is hurt, because you are taking something that does not belong to you and not paying for it. You can justify stealing any way you like but it is still stealing. As long as your conscience can live with itself, there is nothing anyone can say or do to change that. If society becoming a bunch of thieves is part of socital [sic] growing pains, then perhaps it is time to send some back to the nursery for more lessons on morality.
What I am at a loss to understand is why I try and convince people like you? You have obviously already made up your mind that you have the right to steal digital items. Why should I bother, no one is going to change.
I am done with this topic, a waste of time to try and show people a different way of thinking about art. What is really sad is that there are no others in this forum that will speak up. Are you all a bunch of thieves?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
wow. whoever the person is here who is defending common sense and decency is 100% correct. you morons are talking about RIGHTS? you have a RIGHT that has something to do with ReplayTV? newsflash: an entertainment device is not a RIGHT. when you buy something you are entering into a CONTRACT with the seller. if you don't like the terms of the contract (i.e. device doesn't work without service), go buy their competitors' product. if enough people did this, they would change their design. since you bought their product anyway, you supported a company whose product design you do not like. that's just stupid.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
And thank you too. It seems so simple to me, but obviosuly, we are a minority view here. I guess being "in the business" and having helped design product such as this, I take it rather personally when someone wants to cheat the contract because they do not like the deal. Simple answer...do not buy it!
In reality, I do not like the monthly fee either, so I paid the lifetime charge. In retrospect, I should have paid monthly, because now the cost to upgrade is too high, and service does not transfer. Oh well. But I paid!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
You just hit the nail on the head. I DID PAY the flat rate charge. Then I PAID ANOTHER flat rate charge for the SAME THING I already PAID for. The business of NOT transferring the flat fee service to another machine may make sense to some but it is just plain wrong, as I see it. Now, I'll look (and find) a way to clone the ID. Nature abhors a vacuum.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I know I complain about people stealing, but here I agree 100%. The unability to transfer the service to a new unit, EVEN if I had to pay $50 to do it, is crazy. Why would any company put in place a method to ensure that people wither do not buy a newer unit, or try and rip it off.
Yea, I know, lifetime of the unit, but it is why I still own my original unit. I am not paying a full subscription lifetime fee again.
Here, Replay (and TiVo) need to have a fee to transfer your service. If they did this, they would get an extar $50 from lifetime members AND get them to buy new hardware. Where is the flaw in that, since if they do not upgrade, they still are using the same service for no additional money?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Simply because they can, and will continue to charge, without any justification. Free Enterprise, "If you don't like it, buy from someone else" philosophy. They got your money for the lifetime of each unit, and know that if not you, someone else will buy, taking your place. They know that so many uninformed consumers will keep on buying.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
>Simply because they can, and will continue to charge, without any justification.
They have all the justification they need: Its their product, their company, and its the way THEY decided to run their business. If you do not like the way they run their business or the terms of buying their product, you are free to simply not buy their product. No one is forcing your or anyone else to buy a Replay. But if you choose to do so, it comes with terms and contract of service.
Go build your own if you do not like it. A cheap PC with a large HD, a TV/Tuner graphics card like an ATI or Hauppauge and your all set. You can drive these cards from free internet guide services, and it works quite well actually. THERE, a free Replay like system. But if you want the real Replay, there is a charge for the service. Very simply logic.
But this simplistic view of Replays business would be the same as saying something like, Coke charges too much for its drinks, therefore, I should be allowed to simply steal it from the store because I do not agree with their price structure. Same thing.
Personally, I think the business model stinks too. I would like it to be free, its not. But I really think that the lifetime service SHOULD transfer to a new unit, as it would encourage existing customers to buy newer and better units. I paid $1400 for my original Replay, would love to upgrade, but I am damned if I will pay another lifetime fee. They penalize their early subscribers most, the ones who paid so much for their units and kick started the company, but get stuck with an old unit. How do I respond to this? I bought a TiVo and a Dish PVR. I voted with my wallet and I will never buy a Replay again. That simple!
>Free Enterprise, "If you don't like it, buy from someone else" philosophy.
Uh, hello? This is the way the Markey works in this country, and in much of the world. I did not like it, I bought from someone else. But to think that you should get a service for free because you do not like it is stupid.
>They know that so many uninformed consumers will keep on buying.
They HOPE there are enough customers that will agree to their terms and price. If not, they go out of business, or change the model. So maybe if you wait long enough, it might change. But uninformed? I do not think so. I think it is more that they feel the deal is OK.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Could someone kindly post a link to any mods that would allow me to use my SECOND rtv unit as a pvr? I ALREADY PAID the one-time charge for service and I simply won't make the same mistake twice. Until they allow a cash paying, legit customer to transfer the service to a second unit in the same household, I'll seek any and all hacks that correct this injustice. Flame on me if it makes you feel better. Yes, I DO understand the concept of subsidized hardware costs but I DO NOT accept a flawed marketing concept that fails to acknowledge the needs of a legit customer.
--Star_of_Toronto@lycos.com
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It is a strange marketing strategy that PREVENTS long-time loyal prepaid customers from upgrading to new hardware simply because of an existing "lifetime" payment for a service. Now, when I figure out how to hack around the problem, I'll share it with this board. Nature does abhor a vacuum, just as customers abhor corporate abuses!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As one of those that usually flames the stealing of service, you will receive no flame here as in this case, I agree 100%. Why would any company create a plan that encouranges people NOT to buy new hardware? Dumb. I pad a lifetime subscription, I also paid $1400 for my first unit way back when it was 30 hours, so why should I have to pay even more for being an early supporter if I want to upgrade? Does not make sense.
I too look forward to this hack, if and when found!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
None of the money from ReplayTV goes to the "artists" that made the movies, it goes right into ReplayTV's pocket. How can they justify charging a monthly or lifetime fee? They should just build the programing into the price upfront and then give the programming information out free, instead of deceiving consumers with a low upfront price. When I buy a VCR, I don't have to pay a monthly or lifetime fee to record free programming off TV or cable that I already paid for. Why should I have to pay for TV programming information that is free on the internet? Their distribution costs are very minimal, all profit. Their business model is totally screwed up. Freevo is the only way to go!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The monthly cost is not for the right of recording the video, it is for the cost of the guide data, its prep for the replay, and the right to use that data on a personal recorder.
The guide data is collected and formatted for the Replay unit, with additional info and data to help run the unit. A comapny called Tribune Media is one of the largest guide collectors and formatters, and they charge commerical enterprises for the right to use their service and data.
Not sure how you could justfy them doing all this work for free? As for the data being free on the internet, EVEN if Replay used that data, someone would have to collect it and format it for the replay, filter it for the channels you receive, etc. etc. And if you read the disclaimer on the net data, it is not for commerical use. In addition, I find it full of errors and ommisions, and not completly correct for my cable system.
I am sure you would like it free, the interent has put that mindest into most people's minds. I would like it free too, but the fact is that there is VERY little profit in the guide data until they hit a VERY large number of subscribers, and they are not there yet. If you do not like the cost, do not buy the unit. All that is in the agreement when you bought the unit. You may not like it, and if not, sell the device. but violating the agreement becuase you think free is the only way does not make you right, just cheap!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
ok im wondering, with the ethernet adapter is anyone working on a web server type system that runs on the replay, so that you can schedule shows via a web site, i know this hack is avialable for tivo, also im sorry i know im going to get flamed for this is anyone working on a way to bypass the monthly service agreement, or to put it this way is anyone working on a way to load say a nix os to the replay tv, so i could run say freevo on it? and for those of you that want to flame me for being cheap, do it im a 20 year old college student, remember when you were in college how poor you were because your money went to books, food and beer
Yes..you are going to get flammed. I'll start!
The reason that Replay almost went under is because the are supposed to collect monthly fees. Why do you you need to buy beer instead of paying for the service you use. Buy a few less six packs and spend the $10 a month on paying for the OPTIONAL service you seem to want. If you cannot afford it, DON'T USE IT. It is not a right, it is an OPTIONAL EXPENSE.
Please, keep this message, and after you graduate college, find a job, and work on the deisgn of a cool product, then see some bozo trying to find a way to not pay to use your device or steal it. remeber that the person was you 10 years earlier.
So keep you sad, broke college kid story, it does not wash. Obvisouly you had enough money to but the Replay, I suspect your have loads of money, and if not, skip the beer and pay for your services, or go without.
hey the way i look at it if someone can crack my security measures then they have that right
WARNING: FLAME ON!
Lame excuse and justificaiton for stealing. If it makes you feel better, you continue to call it what you like. I would have more respect if you said something like "screw it, I am stealing it because I don't feel like paying." As for your answer....its lame at best.
So lets see, if I can break the security measures on your house or apartment (called locks, but security measures just the same), can I take you computer, TV, stereo, DVDs, DVD player, Replay, files, programs, any money or what ever? According to you, hey, if I can break your security, I have the right to take what I want. Right? You would be just fine with that so you say? Or do you have a double standard as I suspect. Your justification is just plain BS.
Personally, if I caught you stealing from me, I would have you arrested, and would not think twice about it.
Call it what you will, justify it any way you like, stealing service steals from the rest of us who pay for what we want by making us pay more to cover the service you use and do not pay for. I'll bet you download MP-3s, movies, and warez too, right? Same justificaiton?
Personally, your kind of attitude is why I and many of the designers I know do not want to design cool things like Replay and TiVo any more. We cannot make any money on it because assholes like you steal it rather than pay for it. How do you think this stuff comes to be designed? I suspect you do not think!
Nice going!
I don't think it is stealing. How can you steal something that is publically accessible and is free? The whole DMCA legislation is crap. I can understand illegality if someone was going to SELL the recording, but for personal use and distribution it should be legal. The only reason why companies go out of business is because of the DMCA legislation. I have NEVER seen a company go broke because of personal use and distribution.
I tend to agree, the DMCA is crap, and is the wrong way to solve a problem. I do not like it either. But here we are talking about you stealing the Replayh service (at least, that was what I was answering to)
But, if I say the whole idea of locks on doors is crap, and with a few picks everything is accessible and free, can I take all your stuff? The questions still stands as it is the same thing.
Sorry, if you are going around any lock (crap or not) to take something that you are not freely entitled to (in this case, the Replay service) and is a pay service, you are stealing it if you do not pay. It does not matter if you believe you SHOULD pay or not, or the law that makes it a crime to not pay is crap or not. It is stealing. If you believe that is OK, tell me where you live...I need a replacement TV!
This discussion is over, as you obvioulsy will never get this until you get caught stealing. Go have a beer and enjoy your free stuff.
well i do have homeowners insurance then i get brand new stuff...dude obviously you missed the point of my article, the replay tv unit has alot of power just sitting there i paid like $350 for it and would like to unleash some of that power, kinda like the mod chip i put in my x-box, same principal,
The replaytv runs on vxworks
http://www.windriver.com/success/sonicblue_replaytv.html
I personaly dont think that taking a machine I paid for and loading my own software on it is stealing.
If my software that I loaded on it was able to download service from Replay yes that would be steeling but just running my own software so that the hardware did not requrie the service is not stealing.
If replay wanted 550$ for each replay they sold. they should charge 550$ for each replay they sold.
This 10$ a month crap is just that crap. What exactly am I paying for.
Guide data ---- Bu!! S#!T
Guide date is available from numerus places on the web for free. And besides if that were the case then when we didnt pay our 10$ a month they would simply stop provieding guide data. But we would still be able to record and watch tv.
The plain and simple is that we are being charged 10$ a month to use something that we have already payed for.
So If he or anyone else can find a way to buypass registration and provide there own replay-like service I say more power to them. They are not stealing Replay service they are competing with it.
JM2C
Adam
In theory, I actually agree 100%. There should be a "free" way to use the box. TiVo now has TiVo lite, a 3 day guide and reduced funcitons that work for free. I think that is very cool. But the price of the units that have that went up.
However, the Replay machine comes with a license, and buying it says you agree with that license, and that license states how it can be used. I did not say I fully agree with it, but they price the machine based on the fact that they will make money in the long run on the subscription service. If they did not, people would not pay what it actually costs to build the machine, and there would be no machines at all.
It is obvious you are not very "business wise" and I fully understand your anger at the way Replay set it up, but on the other hand, Replay is (was) in the business of making money too, not giving away cool hardware so you can hack it into something free and go around the license. if you do not like it, DON'T BUY IT. No one forces anyone to buy the device.
You may not like it, but if everyone had the "screw you" attitude towards a legit company that is trying to survive on subscription revenue, these companies would never create anything new in the first place because people like you and this other guy simple want to exploite it for free at everyone elses cost. Or the thing would be so costly, you would and he would be complaining about the cost instead. With you two, they could never do enough FOR YOU!
A VERY juvenile, selfish attitude, and one that cares nothing for anyone else but yourself. What a great world it would be if everyone though "Screw you, what's in it for me?" Unfortunately, it is becomming that way fast.
Just curious, people "buy" a cable modem. SHould they be able to hack it to get free internet access because they own the device? You buy software, do you then copy it to all your friends because you "own" it and can do what you want? Where do you draw the line and pay for what you use?
The difference between breaking into someones apartment and stealing thier stuff and "stealing" mp3's or movies etc. Is that on the one hand you are depriving an individual of property... IE scarcity comes into play there is only one item and two people want it but can not both have it. On the other hand you have digital data that can be copied over and over again for virtualy free (minus energy costs) without ever hurting anyones ablity to use the data the way they did previously.
What if we could end material scarcity?
An interesting topic more throughly expounded upon here : http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:GgDJ30uDIcAJ:www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html+john+gilmore&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
In many ways I agree, there is less "material loss" when you copy something that is already out there, but your logic is flawed if you think no one is hurt by stealing a copy. This same argument would say, for example, stealing cable TV hurts no one because it does not "use up" a cable connection. Or stealing satellite TV is OK for the same reason. The person who takes it free does not compromise the signal to everyone who does pay. But the people who DO pay end up paying more in the end. Why? Read on.
What your comment tells me is that you have never created anything that can be distributed electronically, and feel it is OK for others to pay more for something so you can get it free. Right? After all, as long is it does not effect your ability to get something free, why should you care? Well, because it is still theft when you take something of value and do not pay.
For example, if a movie in a theatre is not sold out, is it OK for you to sneak in and watch it for free because you watching does not hurt anyone else, and watching does not degrade the quality?? By your argument, yes, this would be perfectly OK. I say no, it is not. Lets take this to the extreme. If only one person pays and the theatre is empty I have sat in such a show), how many people should be able to sneak in free? How much would the theatre have to charge the paying customer to make money? How far can you take this argument? 2 pay? 3 Pay? How about half the theatre? Sure, as some point, one person in a theatre of 100 is no big deal, unless of course you consider that if you can sneak in, why cant someone else?
But lets take your reasoning towards another extreme. In the most extreme case, an artist creates something, and sells it only ONCE, and then everyone else gets it free because it does not hurt anyone to copy the digital copy. What price does the artists charge the one buyer? He/She would have to pay enough to cover the cost of making the original. So the one person pays a huge amount to cover your "free" copy. Obviously, this is not going to happen because the cost would be too high for one person to buy.
So how many have to buy? Extrapolate this to two people buying, then three, then fifty. Where do you draw the line? The cost of producing a movie or video or movie is not free, and they recover their cost and profit if they are good and luck by selling these "copies" of the material to buyers. If one can copy it for free, why cannot someone else, and someone else, until more are copying free than buying.
And how do you decide who is paying and who is not? You seem to be the free person. How is that fair? What if you are one of the few who paid and many others got the same thing for free? How do you feel then?
The real bottom line is that if you do not care, you do not care, and will continue to steal things with the feeling that it hurts no one. But in the long run, if enough take that attitude, it will hurt because either the cost goes up, or the makers stop making these things because they cannot make money on them. So it does hurt.
Lastly, where I DO agree here is when companies calculate their loss generated by free copies. The studios and publishers like to say that they loose the equivalent of the cost of one item when someone copies it for free. This is nonsense. As you point out, there is no material loss, so they cannot claim that loss. In addition, most of the people who copy for free would not buy the item if they could not copy it for free, so I would not count that as a loss revenue either. So if digital copying was eliminated, the studios would not see an equal number of additional sales from the people who copy, as most would still not buy. Some, would, so there is some loss still.
In any case, the copying of digital material may not have a material loss, but the costs for your free ride are picked up by others, and to think otherwise is foolish and ignorant.
If a person is in the buisness of creating art for money than prehaps they condidered the wrong career. Artists should create for the love of creation. Even those that release works under licences such as creative commons (http://creativecommons.org/) still often recieve recieve renumeration, via donations and people desireing hard copies that there is some monetary incentive. Granted that forcing that idea on others may not be entirely moral... but hey socital growing pains.
In the case of the movie theatre example, it comes down to mass distribution fees, there are many other mediums such as the internet and various protcals therein, such as Bittorrent which do provide an excelent method of distributing digitized content w/o the overhead of trying to make a profit off art lovers.
I realize that it's not free... prehaps a return to the patron model like in the Rennisance. Wealthy people contract for works of art to be accomplished... Michalangelo, Shakespere... both had wealthy patrons and I'd hardly say they were sell outs.
Aside from that, the point of the aforemetioned article was that our current society operates on the priciples of scarcity, and that we all need to come to terms with how we want to deal with the areas wherein scarcity no longer applies or else we will not be able to accept larger technological growth that virtually eliminates scarcity to a large degree.
If a person is in the buisness of creating art for money than prehaps they condidered the wrong career." ([sic] spelling errors are original posters not mine) What a totally asinine an ignorant thing to say. Because you wish to steal art for free, they should go into another line of business. Sorry, but this wins for stupidest thing I have heard so far. Sorry, I usually do not succumb to insults, but this is rich! What do you do for a living? What happens when someone finds a way to steal your work or cause it to be done for free? I am sure you will scream a different story.
Artists should create for the love of creation. So says a non-artist I suspect, or lat least someone handed a silver spoon! Just curious, do you give your work away free because you love to do it? You must love to do it, you choose it a as profession. Should lawyers work for free because they love the law? Should programmers work for free because they love to program? Do you honestly believe this crap you are spewing? Give me a break!
As for you comments on scarcity, the article proposed no scarcity as a reason for why stealing was not a problem because no scarcity of product is created when a digital copy is made. That original concept is flawed, as was the argument about no harm, no loss, because even in the silly examples I made, some harm can be demonstrated. Who are you or I to decide what is reasonable harm to someone else? Again, what crap!
Yes, I agree that we need to find a way to compensate people properly for their work. Yes, I think movie studios and record companies are a bunch of greedy thieves. Yes, I believe the RIAA sucks big time! Yes, I agree that it is very difficult to see so many become billionaires off our hard earned money and then scream about the theft of a few songs. On the surface, it is wrong because these companies have found a way to get the government to back them in their greed. That ALL SUCKS! Would I like it to be free. Of course, but it is totally unrealistic.
In my view, if these greedy bastards would simply spend the money they do on security and copy intervention towards reducing the cost of the item to a reasonable price, most of the problem would go away. Yea, bozos like the original poster (and probably you) would still want it for free, there are always a few ignorant people who cant do the right thing for what ever twisted reasoning they will invent. So be it.
But all that aside, the question of taking something that is sold and copying it for free still stands as the basic question, scarcity aside. It IS STILL STEALING, EVEN if you do not like the law or concept, EVEN if you believe no one is hurt, because you are taking something that does not belong to you and not paying for it. You can justify stealing any way you like but it is still stealing. As long as your conscience can live with itself, there is nothing anyone can say or do to change that. If society becoming a bunch of thieves is part of socital [sic] growing pains, then perhaps it is time to send some back to the nursery for more lessons on morality.
What I am at a loss to understand is why I try and convince people like you? You have obviously already made up your mind that you have the right to steal digital items. Why should I bother, no one is going to change.
I am done with this topic, a waste of time to try and show people a different way of thinking about art. What is really sad is that there are no others in this forum that will speak up. Are you all a bunch of thieves?
wow. whoever the person is here who is defending common sense and decency is 100% correct. you morons are talking about RIGHTS? you have a RIGHT that has something to do with ReplayTV? newsflash: an entertainment device is not a RIGHT. when you buy something you are entering into a CONTRACT with the seller. if you don't like the terms of the contract (i.e. device doesn't work without service), go buy their competitors' product. if enough people did this, they would change their design. since you bought their product anyway, you supported a company whose product design you do not like. that's just stupid.
And thank you too. It seems so simple to me, but obviosuly, we are a minority view here. I guess being "in the business" and having helped design product such as this, I take it rather personally when someone wants to cheat the contract because they do not like the deal. Simple answer...do not buy it!
In reality, I do not like the monthly fee either, so I paid the lifetime charge. In retrospect, I should have paid monthly, because now the cost to upgrade is too high, and service does not transfer. Oh well. But I paid!
You just hit the nail on the head. I DID PAY the flat rate charge. Then I PAID ANOTHER flat rate charge for the SAME THING I already PAID for. The business of NOT transferring the flat fee service to another machine may make sense to some but it is just plain wrong, as I see it. Now, I'll look (and find) a way to clone the ID. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I know I complain about people stealing, but here I agree 100%. The unability to transfer the service to a new unit, EVEN if I had to pay $50 to do it, is crazy. Why would any company put in place a method to ensure that people wither do not buy a newer unit, or try and rip it off.
Yea, I know, lifetime of the unit, but it is why I still own my original unit. I am not paying a full subscription lifetime fee again.
Here, Replay (and TiVo) need to have a fee to transfer your service. If they did this, they would get an extar $50 from lifetime members AND get them to buy new hardware. Where is the flaw in that, since if they do not upgrade, they still are using the same service for no additional money?
Simply because they can, and will continue to charge, without any justification. Free Enterprise, "If you don't like it, buy from someone else" philosophy. They got your money for the lifetime of each unit, and know that if not you, someone else will buy, taking your place. They know that so many uninformed consumers will keep on buying.
>Simply because they can, and will continue to charge, without any justification.
They have all the justification they need: Its their product, their company, and its the way THEY decided to run their business. If you do not like the way they run their business or the terms of buying their product, you are free to simply not buy their product. No one is forcing your or anyone else to buy a Replay. But if you choose to do so, it comes with terms and contract of service.
Go build your own if you do not like it. A cheap PC with a large HD, a TV/Tuner graphics card like an ATI or Hauppauge and your all set. You can drive these cards from free internet guide services, and it works quite well actually. THERE, a free Replay like system. But if you want the real Replay, there is a charge for the service. Very simply logic.
But this simplistic view of Replays business would be the same as saying something like, Coke charges too much for its drinks, therefore, I should be allowed to simply steal it from the store because I do not agree with their price structure. Same thing.
Personally, I think the business model stinks too. I would like it to be free, its not. But I really think that the lifetime service SHOULD transfer to a new unit, as it would encourage existing customers to buy newer and better units. I paid $1400 for my original Replay, would love to upgrade, but I am damned if I will pay another lifetime fee. They penalize their early subscribers most, the ones who paid so much for their units and kick started the company, but get stuck with an old unit. How do I respond to this? I bought a TiVo and a Dish PVR. I voted with my wallet and I will never buy a Replay again. That simple!
>Free Enterprise, "If you don't like it, buy from someone else" philosophy.
Uh, hello? This is the way the Markey works in this country, and in much of the world. I did not like it, I bought from someone else. But to think that you should get a service for free because you do not like it is stupid.
>They know that so many uninformed consumers will keep on buying.
They HOPE there are enough customers that will agree to their terms and price. If not, they go out of business, or change the model. So maybe if you wait long enough, it might change. But uninformed? I do not think so. I think it is more that they feel the deal is OK.
Could someone kindly post a link to any mods that would allow me to use my SECOND rtv unit as a pvr? I ALREADY PAID the one-time charge for service and I simply won't make the same mistake twice. Until they allow a cash paying, legit customer to transfer the service to a second unit in the same household, I'll seek any and all hacks that correct this injustice. Flame on me if it makes you feel better. Yes, I DO understand the concept of subsidized hardware costs but I DO NOT accept a flawed marketing concept that fails to acknowledge the needs of a legit customer.
--Star_of_Toronto@lycos.com
It is a strange marketing strategy that PREVENTS long-time loyal prepaid customers from upgrading to new hardware simply because of an existing "lifetime" payment for a service. Now, when I figure out how to hack around the problem, I'll share it with this board. Nature does abhor a vacuum, just as customers abhor corporate abuses!
As one of those that usually flames the stealing of service, you will receive no flame here as in this case, I agree 100%. Why would any company create a plan that encouranges people NOT to buy new hardware? Dumb. I pad a lifetime subscription, I also paid $1400 for my first unit way back when it was 30 hours, so why should I have to pay even more for being an early supporter if I want to upgrade? Does not make sense.
I too look forward to this hack, if and when found!
None of the money from ReplayTV goes to the "artists" that made the movies, it goes right into ReplayTV's pocket. How can they justify charging a monthly or lifetime fee? They should just build the programing into the price upfront and then give the programming information out free, instead of deceiving consumers with a low upfront price. When I buy a VCR, I don't have to pay a monthly or lifetime fee to record free programming off TV or cable that I already paid for. Why should I have to pay for TV programming information that is free on the internet? Their distribution costs are very minimal, all profit. Their business model is totally screwed up. Freevo is the only way to go!
The monthly cost is not for the right of recording the video, it is for the cost of the guide data, its prep for the replay, and the right to use that data on a personal recorder.
The guide data is collected and formatted for the Replay unit, with additional info and data to help run the unit. A comapny called Tribune Media is one of the largest guide collectors and formatters, and they charge commerical enterprises for the right to use their service and data.
Not sure how you could justfy them doing all this work for free? As for the data being free on the internet, EVEN if Replay used that data, someone would have to collect it and format it for the replay, filter it for the channels you receive, etc. etc. And if you read the disclaimer on the net data, it is not for commerical use. In addition, I find it full of errors and ommisions, and not completly correct for my cable system.
I am sure you would like it free, the interent has put that mindest into most people's minds. I would like it free too, but the fact is that there is VERY little profit in the guide data until they hit a VERY large number of subscribers, and they are not there yet. If you do not like the cost, do not buy the unit. All that is in the agreement when you bought the unit. You may not like it, and if not, sell the device. but violating the agreement becuase you think free is the only way does not make you right, just cheap!