http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4042-2004Jul21.html

TiVo's Plans Lead to Fight On Copyrights
Technology Would Allow Transfer of Programs

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page E01


Hollywood studios and the National Football League are seeking to
block the maker of the popular TiVo television recorder from expanding
its service so that users could watch copies of shows and movies on
devices outside their homes.

In filings with the Federal Communications Commission, the
organizations say the new technology could compromise the copyrights
of shows that broadcasters send over the airwaves in digital form,
which offers much higher sound and video quality than what viewers
typically get today.

The organizations fear that computer enthusiasts would capture those
programs and begin trading them online in the same way that millions
of music files are shared daily, which record companies have said has
cut into their profit. TiVo Inc. insists its system will not allow
such mass Internet distribution.

The battle is one of several being waged in federal agencies and on
Capitol Hill this summer, as content companies such as the movie and
music companies seek to keep control of copyrighted works that
increasingly can be digitally stored, copied, manipulated and
distributed by users. In turn, several public advocacy groups and
technology companies warn that the content companies are trying to
revoke long-standing consumer rights to "fair use" of artistic works.

With 1.6 million subscribers, TiVo is the leading provider of the
digital recorders that are revolutionizing television viewing. In
addition to copying shows for later viewing, consumers can pause live
shows, skip commercials and use other features to control the TV
experience.

To date, users generally have been unable to send copied programs to
another device, although some digital recorders include "burners" that
allow programs to be copied to a DVD and played elsewhere.

TiVo wants to make copies more portable, in stages. Sometime this
fall, the company plans to roll out a system that will allow programs
to be transferred from the TiVo box to a computer via a small device
attached to the PC.

The program could then be sent to other devices within the home and
viewed on them. Such devices, including laptops or desktop computers,
would be registered with the company and would share encoding and
decoding technology that prevents viewing by nonregistered devices.

Next year, TiVo plans to expand the system to allow programs to be
transferred to registered devices outside the home, such as at an
office, vacation cabin or even a friend's house across the country. A
maximum of 10 devices could be registered by the subscriber.

"TiVo has an interest in keeping everything secure," said its
Washington attorney, James M. Burger. "We are trying to bring
innovation to consumers."

But the system alarms the content industry, which promised to roll out
more digital programming over free television networks only after
insisting that the FCC adopt rules requiring makers of recording
devices to certify that they have technologies to prevent mass
Internet distribution.

Digital programming is far more appealing for online distribution
because the quality does not degrade as it is copied over and over.

TiVo was one of 13 companies that asked the FCC for approval, arguing
that its copy-protection system met the requirements. The Motion
Picture Association of America, Hollywood's lobbying arm, and the NFL
then filed objections to TiVo's plan.

"Our concern is grounded in the fact that the remote access is not
limited to the recipient's summer home or boat or office," said Fritz
Attaway, the MPAA's Washington legal counsel. "The people that can
receive the programming can be totally unrelated in any place on the
globe."

Attaway said that even if TiVo's system prevents mass Internet
distribution, if each of TiVo's customers add 10 devices to a
registered group, many potentially unrelated users would be able to
see the copied show.

The NFL, meanwhile, is concerned that a user could send a copy of a
game to someone in another time zone, where the game is blacked out.
Burger responded that at current bandwidth, such a transfer would take
144 hours.

Burger would not say what would happen if the FCC rules against TiVo's
system, saying the company respects the content owners' concerns and
wants to work with them. But TiVo would be at a significant
disadvantage if its device is not certified for the coming increase in
digital programming.

Mike Godwin, policy counsel for Public Knowledge, an advocacy group
for consumer digital rights, said the fight highlights the danger of
requiring technologies to be approved by government agencies.

"We've always thought that once the FCC got into the role of approving
content protection technologies that the content companies would
leverage this to use the agency to throttle various technologies," he
said.

An FCC official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he
is not authorized to speak for the commission, said a decision on
approved technologies is scheduled to be made in the next couple of
weeks.

Meanwhile, yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill
that would significantly broaden user rights. The bill would exempt
from copyright law technologies enabling users to zap objectionable
parts of shows and movies so the programming can be viewed by
children.

Directors and studios oppose the bill as giving people the right to
alter copyrighted material.

On the flip side, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony
today on a bill that would ban any technology that "induces" a
copyright violation, in a direct attack on file-trading services.

One of those scheduled to testify is Marybeth Peters, the government's
register of copyrights, who will endorse the bill, according to
prepared testimony obtained by The Washington Post. Peters plans to
testify that Congress might need to change the law to invalidate a
Supreme Court decision that established a key underpinning of fair-use
rights, which is that developers of technologies cannot be held
responsible for the actions of those who might use them to violate
copyright.

who the fuck are they to tell us what to spend our money on or take our dvdrs
fuck that thast privacy invasion of the communist degree
thast like saying you cant write down a poem or fax a copy of a report
thats retard politics man

With all the new copyright laws passed recently or potentially passing, I notice they tend to conflict a lot.

pretty ignorant

Per Mr. Godwin's comments: Is it any wonder that I've referred to such fascistic initiatives as the INDUCE Act as something of a "final solution" for any and all new technologies, a la Dr. Mengele pointing one way or the other to determine if his victims were to go to the work camps or the gas chambers / ovens?