ReplayTV 4500: No Hacking, or Else 357
mcglk writes "I was happy to see that SonicBlue had released its new generation of ReplayTV, the 4500. And it was $250 cheaper than the 4000. Except for that $250 one-time service activation fee. Worse is the agreement that goes along with it. Term1A basically says, No more hacking. Term1G says that they can enable or disable anything they want without notice. And Term2C says that if someone even alleges you are infringing on copyright, you can be shut down with no notice, no recourse, and there's nothing you can do about itthe agreement indemnifies them completely. I was really looking forward to getting one of these, too." Under that agreement, SonicBlue claims the right to destroy your device when you connect for updates.
Why NOT get one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy way out (Score:1, Insightful)
Your choices seem to be agree (and be able to use the device) or don't agree and not be able to use the recorder - a very expensive paper weight! - in which case you are told you may return the PVR for a refund.
Or have I missed something?
Read Tivos agreement lately? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't stand Replay for a myriad of technical reasons, but read Tivos license agreement [tivo.com] - it says all the same things, sometimes in nearly the exact same words.
"Using the TiVo Service. You may access and use the TiVo Service only with a product authorized to receive the TiVo Service and you agree not to tamper with or otherwise modify the authorized product..."
"TiVo retains the absolute right to immediately suspend or terminate your account, and terminate this agreement, if the charges to your credit card for the fees described in the "Subscription Fees and Payment Authorization" paragraph above are refused for any reason, if you breach any provision in this agreement, if you misuse the TiVo Service, and/ or if you alter the Recorder or use the TiVo Service in such a manner as to infringe upon the intellectual property rights of TiVo or any third party."
They have to say those kinds of things to keep their legal options open should someone do something they feel they have to respond to. Until they give some sign of enforcing their agreement more rigidly than Tivo getting your panties in a wad over what some standard legal disclaimer says is a bit premature. Of course premature and uninformed ranting is what Slashdot is all about these days, isn't it?
Re:Overreaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, no, they aren't. But lets just say they are for the sake of argument.
Just because an industry decides to go in a certain direction, it doesn't mean it is good for consumers. Alerting consumers to less-than-favorable policies is the first step to putting pressures on companies (and the industry) to change those policies.
Granted, consumers have to give a damn. In most consumer markets, issues like this are lost on the masses of that market. However, PVRs still remain an early-adopter market. Early adopters tend to be more tech-savvy and an issue like this may register to that market.
You are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally I wouldn't respond to such a troll but this kind of misinformation needs to be stopped. It is what leads to things like the DMCA.
Cat
Legally binding or not, that is the question (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I am no lawyer but would Microsoft for example be indemnified from the antitrust allegations if they put a clause to that effect in their licence agreement?
More often than not copyright notices and licence agreements are there purely for FUD purposes. I have always seriously doubted the legal grounds a company has to stand on if they claim things in a license agreement which nobody really reads, seeks legal council on or sign.
I would go out and buy one and claim that I never received the licence agreement! Would they then have to prove that I received, read and agreed to it before they can take further steps?
Come-on you Law-infested-geeks out there! What is the answer?
Re:Bring on the whining! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overreaction (Score:2, Insightful)
Consumers don't have to do anything. Especially they don't have to buy a product they don't like, or agree to terms they find unfair. But if they accept an agreement without bothering to read it they are just plain stupid and deserve what happens.
On the other hand, Sonic blue can ask you to agree to anything they fucking like. If they make money out of it they'll keep doing it.
Loophole in the first paragraph (Score:4, Insightful)
They are selling the service with the restriction, not the box. Use what is in the above quote to not agree to the service, then modify the hardware to suit your needs. Remember to not use their service, that would be theft of service since you did not agree to the terms.
Re:Why NOT get one? The EULA - that's why (Score:2, Insightful)
In the pre-EULA days, when you bought something, you owned it. Now both Sonic and TIVO are saying that despite you giving them money, they still own the device and can do whatever they want with it, including disabling it.
An example of where this will get unpleasant is if they start using the machine in some way that you hadn't anticipated. TIVO just force fed their UK subscribers a show the subscribers didn't ask for. What if the machine starts forcing you to wacth an ad before they'll let you see what you bought the machine for? What can you do? Not a thing according to the EULA.
What if a competing service that doesn't monkey around with the basic service springs up and offers their wares at a lower price? Can you switch to them? Nope - the EULA forbids modifying the software. If Sonic or Tivo figure out that you switched, they can legally turn off your machine.
The really ridiculous thing about all of this is there isn't enough worthwhile stuff on TV to warrant watching TV in the first place. How many times have you gotten up after watching TV and thought "That was a waste?" Maybe deleting the ads would have improved the signal to noise ratio but now the machine you bought to skip the ads is beginning to force ads down your throat.
Not a worthwhile purchase in my book.
Does this violate merchantability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Whining (Score:3, Insightful)
I am stillllll waiting for someone to come up with a generic programmable VCR like PVR device that doesn't come with all those strings and monthly payments attached.
I thought free markets were supposed to provide what is in demand. It must just be the two of us then.
This is bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, pshaw!
Look, people can argue about the ethics of true copyright violation; and, in fact, people have offered reasonable arguments concluding that there's nothing wrong with it. I disagree. Many other people disgaree, as well.
But what all of us agree upon is that within the boundaries of fair use, we should be able to do what we want with copyrighted material. It is absolutely ridiculous that everyone's ability to utilize content in a way that the law has recognized as benign is essentially illegalized in order to control the people who are violating copyright law. It's outrageous.
Now, since we all agree on this regardless of whether or not we fundamentally agree on the legitimacy of intellectual property, shouldn't we concentrate on this battle first?
And what SonicBlue is doing is to enforce copyright protections while still fighting against draconian controls. Hooray for them! Everyone who complains about this and everyone that uses a ReplayTV to violate copyright laws are undermining the effort to fight against these outrageous laws that effectively invalidate fair use.
Re:Overreaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again
Why should they be?
Because healthy, happy, non-screwed-over customers:
* Buy more products and services from them in the future; and
* Tell their friends and acquaintances how great the company is, and encourage other people to become customers; and
* Don't involve the company in expensive lawsuits.
Well-run businesses that take the long-term view realize this and treat their customers with respect. After all, the customers are the people who are feeding them.
The trouble is, poorly run businesses are rampant, and almost nobody cares what they're doing 20 years from now. Most companies don't seem to look much farther than next year (many no farther than next quarter).
Do you want the whole world to be looking out for you? Oh no, you can't have a car that goes too fast, you might crash! You can't have inline skates, people have broken bones with those!
This is off-topic fluff, we're not talking about laws designed to "protect" you whether you like it or not, we're talking about a company reserving the right to screw their customers royally, taking their money and withholding service, and hiding this fact in the fine print of a contract they expect less than 5% of their market to read.
You can't have a home loan because it would be unfair to make you pay interest!
This one is actually on topic. Many strict Christian (and I assume other religions) sects consider Usury (the charging of interest) to be a sin. In the early days of the US, many of the northeast states had laws written by strict Christian fundamentalists, and it was actually illegal to loan money for interest. As the population became less fundimentalist, the people made a conscious decision to allow limited Usury (there still are limits on how much interest can be charged) for the practical consideration of having a market for loans.
Consumers don't have to do anything. Especially they don't have to buy a product they don't like, or agree to terms they find unfair. But if they accept an agreement without bothering to read it they are just plain stupid and deserve what happens.
People have been conditioned (I suspect deliberately) to not read boilerplate contracts. They are long, hard to read, and often oddly worded to make them more confusing. More and more often lately, most people only have access to read the contract after they have already paid their money.
While this contract is actually accessible online, most consumers won't even see it until after they've already shelled out $450 for the product. Not agreeing to it means they will have to return their product, something that is anywhere from annoying to impossible depending on the circumstances.
On the other hand, Sonic blue can ask you to agree to anything they fucking like. If they make money out of it they'll keep doing it.
Actually, they can't. There are laws limiting what can be agreed to in contracts. In most states, there are laws further limiting what can be "agreed" to in a non-negotiated contract (such as a boilerplate terms of service). I am not a lawyer, but I suspect if they use this agreement to disable the device of a New York State customer within 90 days of the customer purchasing the product, they will be in violation of NYS law.
Don't get bent out of shape (Score:3, Insightful)
Note, too, that if you do disagree with the policy, and yet still purchase, you will have lost. Sonic Blue will have gotten your money, and that tells other companies that people accept this asanine policy. Don't buy!
Also, remember that click-through licenses are as yet unenforceable (but keep watch the DMCA, SSSCA, and sister laws). But I doubt any of us wants to be the guinea pig to drag this through the legal system.
As for me, I will not be buying this product, but I will be writing Sonic Blue to tell them just exactly why I won't be buying. To make it easier for you, here is Sonic Blue's contact page [replaytv.com]. I urge you to send them a similar letter if this policy bothers you.
Bad old days when you couldn't own your phone.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You just rented "service," equipment and all, at a monthly rate, and you could do with it only what the telephone company wanted you to do with it.
It should be clear at this point that the pendulum is swinging back, and that the Tivos, the cable providers, and the software vendors of the world are trying to turn back the clock to that comfortable time when you didn't own and couldn't control ANYTHING in your house that was wired for communications.
It's only a matter of time before video recorders and computers are not sold at all. You simply get to choose the one that's provided free (or for a $1000 installation charge?) with your subscription service.
Re:Not Whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Recording the data stream, keeping it all perfectly synched, allowing fast forward/skip/rewind at various speeds/intervals and still keeping it synched, the program guide data, the user interface, reasonable indexing of recorded data, and everything else - these aren't simple problems. The first being the hardest. And the guide data isn't free - you have to pay someone for it. To get it in the level of detail and quality that TiVo has you have to pay a good bit (more than what you can download from the net or hack off your cable/DSS).
Free markets do provide what is in demand. But nobody believes that the average consumer will $2k for one of these boxes - which is about what you'd have to charge to recoup R&D costs since you have no ongoing revenue.
There's a reason that TiVo and Replay have done well. And why nobody's sufficiently duplicated them yet on the PC. One of these days you'll realize that.
There isn't much of a free market here folks (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, there really isn't a free market. The copyright cartels, and their goons, are strongarming ReplayTV, TiVo, and other PVR manufacturers into disabling features they don't like (commercial skipping) and possibly even requiring features they do like (embedded commercials, coming to a PVR near you?).
Those that want to make a kick ass PVR and sell it face the daunting certainty of being sued into oblivion by such household cartels as the MPAA and, if the device allows the sharing of music, the RIAA. So long as these monopolists can send their IP lawyer/thugs around shutting down businesses they don't like, intimidating the rest, and even absorbing the more successful (mp3.com), no free market will ever really exist because consumers will be prevented from having the choice of buying what they want altogether.
The invisible hand of the free market doesn't work when this sort of coercion is in play, and whether the terms of this particular license are to protect Replay from the copyright cartels (and whatever court orders their copyright priveleges may result in), or to take advantage of their customers down the road is quite irrelevant. Either way, it is the customer, that's you and I folks, who gets screwed, and the only viable alternative is to give up a little convinience and roll your own GNU/Linux based PVR [expressivefreedom.org] (it is with pleasure I hear the screaming and wailing of the naysayers now, as I watch my Max Headroom episodes in resolutions they can't even dream of
As for me, I will not be buying this product, but I will be writing Sonic Blue to tell them just exactly why I won't be buying. To make it easier for you, here is Sonic Blue's contact page [replaytv.com]. I urge you to send them a similar letter if this policy bothers you.
That is excellent advice
Perhaps if people read things more carefully (Score:1, Insightful)
"ReplayTV has the absolute right to immediately suspend or terminate your account, and terminate this Agreement, if you (a) breach any provision of this Agreement (including but not limited to altering the ReplayTV 4500 unit or related software)..."
Could it be that the esteemed slashdot editors didn't read carefully enough to realize that "including but not limited to altering the ReplayTV 4500 unit or related software" describes a users action that would violate the license agreement, and not ReplayTVs response to any violation? Because without misreading that there is absolutely nothing in that agreement that says Replay will destroy your box for violating the license, nor is there anything that isn't in Tivos agreement as well. Is it possible slashdot was more interested in a sensationalist story then in getting the facts right?
Nah, couldn't be.