The Pet Peevo with TiVo

I'm sorry to see that my blog entry on recent controversies over freedom turned into a thread about TiVo. But since TiVo seems to be such a hot button, I would like to address that issue directly. I made the point in the discussion that TiVo did not license its hardware under the GPL (duh, GPL is a software license, after all), or even a GPL-like license. So all the fuss about what rights you have with respect to TiVo hardware is nonsense. Sure, you have the right to modify the hardware because you bought it. But you will void your warranty, and TiVo is under no obligation to provide you with the schematic, BIOS, or anything else to make it easy to modify the hardware. Having said that, let's cut through all the posturing about what rights we have, and get to the real issue here, which is what motivated TiVo to use a digital signature, and what would motivate people to modify the TiVo software and run the modified version on a TiVo box.

TiVo has a business model. Two of the most important aspects of this business model include:

  1. Charging its customers a monthly fee for program data, updates,and services.
  2. Collecting usage data for various purposes, including making deals with content providers and advertisers.

If it was easy to modify the TiVo code and run the modified code on your TiVo box, what would people be most motivated to modify? Be honest, here, because we all know that the first thing on people's list would not be to change the background color of the program guide. Here's what most people would want to change:

  1. They would stop the software from sending usage data to TiVo.
  2. They would modify the software to use publicly available program data so that they wouldn't have to pay TiVo a monthly fee.

In short, people want what the TiVo box has to offer without having to support TiVo's business model.

The folks at TiVo aren't stupid. They know these two things would be the first targets for modification. So TiVo made it difficult to run modified TiVo software on the box. Trust me, the folks at TiVo aren't wringing their hands over an evil plot to limit the freedom of it's customers. TiVo's just wants to remain in business, and that means TiVo has to try to prevent people from undermining its business model.

What are your motives?

I can understand why people don't want their TiVo sending usage data. Personally, I don't have a big problem with this. I have nothing about which to be ashamed, and I don't think the folks at TiVo run queries on the database so that they can say, "Hey, did you see this? Nick Petreley recorded three episodes of Dukes of Hazzard this week! Somebody alert the bad taste police!" Yeah, I can see that happening.

But it's a valid complaint because it does invade your privacy. TiVo's motive isn't evil, it's just trying to make money. But it's not evil to want to protect your privacy, either. It is one reason, albeit a very minor one, I am building a MythTV box. That's the logical and ethical solution to this problem. Don't buy a TiVo, or if you have one, stop using it and build a box that doesn't send usage data to anyone.

The fact that TiVo has a business model that is based on a monthly fee is not a valid complaint, however. It's another part of its business model, and it harms no one, because nobody is forcing you to buy the TiVo and use their services. You may not like that business model, but the fact that TiVo makes money on monthly subscriptions is what allows TiVo to create a product that is good enough that you'd want to have it and modify it. Collecting a monthly fee in order to pay your employees to make and provide this product does not constitute an evil motive.

Indeed, one could argue that it is unethical to undermine that business model by modifying their software to circumvent it. You want the best TiVo has to offer without having to comply with the business model that keeps TiVo afloat. Even if you don't think it's unethical, it isn't very smart. If enough people did this, TiVo would probably go out of business, and your source for "the best that TiVo has to offer" that you want to modify would dry up. Either that, or TiVo would switch from Linux to a proprietary operating system in order to stop people from undermining its business model, in which case you would have no ability to use any of its source code on a TiVo box, PC or any other box.

There's nothing wrong with disliking the monthly fee, but the most ethical solution to avoid paying the monthly fee is to buy or build a product that doesn't require a monthly fee. That's yet another reason why I am building a MythTV box.

Objection denied

I fully anticipate someone to point out that TiVo's business model fits one of the descriptions of evil in my other blog entry: "The attempt to satisfy one's own desire for power and/or wealth prohibits others from engaging in perfectly ethical practices, that is evil." The question is, "Is it perfectly ethical to circumvent TiVo's business model after you bought the product knowing that TiVo sustains itself by charging you a monthly fee?" I would argue that it is unethical to circumvent this business model. However, one need not establish that it is unethical to see that what TiVo is doing does not fit the definition of evil.

TiVo isn't prohibiting you from engaging in ethical practices. It doesn't prevent you from watching one show or another. It doesn't prevent you from recording a show for watching later (that is, after all, one of the things it does best). It doesn't prevent you from copying a show to another medium according to fair use. TiVo is complying with the GPL, so it isn't engaging in unethical practices with respect to its use of GPL code. Last, TiVo is not forcing you to buy a TiVo box. Some people have mentioned complaints related to DMCA issues, but if TiVo has to comply with them according to the law, that's a problem with DMCA, not the GPL or TiVo.

Here is a more clear explanation of what I meant by that definition of evil. Suppose DRM were implemented globally such that you could not possibly get the latest album by the band Slug Cookies except through DRM channels (no, there is no such band, at least not that I know of). You have no alternatives. If you want this music, you have to get it through DRM channels, and the DRM prevents you from fair use practices such as transferring the songs from your computer to a CD so you can listen to the songs in your car. This is what I mean by, "The attempt to satisfy one's own desire for power and/or wealth prohibits others from engaging in perfectly ethical practices, that is evil."

The fact is that, today, you can buy an album on CD and engage in all the fair use practices you want. Nobody is forcing you to use a DRM-based method of obtaining the same music. Likewise, you do not have to buy a TiVo in order to enjoy the benefits of having a DVR. You can get a cable box with DVR capabilities. You can build your own box with MythTV, Freevo, or one of the commercial alternatives.

The bottom line is that TiVo made good on its obligations to the GPL. It released its source code. If you don't like what you can or cannot do with that source code, don't download it. If you don't like what you can or cannot do with the TiVo box, don't buy one. You have alternatives. Nobody is restricting your freedom to buy or build alternatives that work exactly the way you want them to work.

Back to the point

For those who missed the point of the other blog entry, or just ignored it, here it is in a nutshell:

I have a feeling that, now that we have finally reached a point in history where most people realize that open source is a Good Thing, the people who used to have to fight over this issue are feeling marginalized and ignored. Perhaps they are feeding their need for attention by finding new controversies to exploit, or by seeking out ways to rail against anything that rubs their open source idealism the wrong way.

I, for one, am glad that we've reached a point where we don't have to fight as hard to make people understand the benefits of open source. Not everyone is educated, and not everyone who is educated at all is fully educated, but I'm glad it's not as big a struggle as it used to be.

I can only hope that people will understand the difference between fighting for the GPL and fighting about DRM. I can only hope that people who understand the superiority of open source will learn to be confident enough about it that they don't have to feel threatened by praise for something that is not open source. We all need to be careful to discern the difference between software, hardware, policies, licenses, and how they are used, and whether or not there is evil intent involved.

P.S.

I will gladly admit to having bad taste in many respects, but I have never seen an entire episode of Dukes of Hazzard.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually, we don't need nVidious's drivers open-sourced

Anonymous's picture

We don't need nVidia's source code. All we need are the programming specs for the chipset. Then we can write our own drivers. Same for ATI, by the way.

I advocate that everyone start buying Intel chipsets with the integrated video. Why? Intel actually did open-source their drivers for their integrated video chipsets, and now they can be included in stock X.org. This is a Good Thing.

As for TiVo, screw 'em. I don't even own a television; there's nothing good on anymore except for maybe the Discovery Channel. If they want to pull a Linksys and move to a proprietary OS, hey, fine by me; my happiness doesn't depend on their use of Linux.

you are fool linksys did not

Anonymous's picture

you are a fool linksys did not comply with GPL. they used GPL software made changes but did not give back. Tivo used GPL software made changes and gave back. Tivo!=Linksys. Linksys stole and got caught. Tivo did the right thing and gave back.

Beyond you

Anonymous's picture

The world is not *only* you. And this discussion is not *only* about TiVo. It is about being friendly to all companies that support Linux. Case in point, TiVo contributed source code to the community - source code that with some modification can be used on a PC. And for being linux suporters they get ... "screw 'em" ??? With friends like this who needs enemies. With friends like this, support for Linux will dry up in no time. The monopoly will rule us all.

re: Beyond you

Anonymous's picture

"With friends like this who needs enemies. With friends like this, support for Linux will dry up in no time. The monopoly will rule us all."

Linux doesn't exist to destroy microsoft. I know, I know, it's hard for someone who thinks it does to take a step back and realize that it was Never created for that. The linux kernel was created to provide a Free unix style kernel. The GNU stack was created to provide a Free set of unix styled software. Microsoft plays into neither of those reasons. As a part of the community I don't want "support" of this nature. It's caustic and doesn't help the community. It stops tinkering and hinders my Freedoms.

True

Nicholas Petreley's picture

And for being linux suporters they get ... "screw 'em" ??? With friends like this who needs enemies.

Exactly. I wouldn't blame TiVo if it dumped Linux in favor of some proprietary OS or *BSD. That would solve the problem. 99.9% of TiVo owners would be just as happy as they are now. There'd be nothing for FSF fanbois to cry about anymore when it came to TiVo.

re: True

Anonymous's picture

gee I wonder why they didn't go with a propietary OS or BSD in the begining then. Huh. I guess they should have thought about abiding by the spirt of the GPL PRIOR to using GPLed software to create such a "wonderful" system.

I guess that it's ok for them to use Free Software as they see fit, but it's NOT okay for me to do the same.......... Convienent for them wouldn't you say?

Everyone who supports Linux with drivers deserves praise

Anonymous's picture

Under Linux, there is no good 3d acceleration for anything but NVIDIA. ATI is comming up to speed but not quite there yet - I wish them all the best with their closed sourced drivers. Intel video chips have no 3d accelerated drivers under Linux. That is not surprising: Video cards are very complex and the driver writers communicate many details directly with the hardware designers. It's much harder to do that with external people using written documentation - especialy for innovative devices that tend to change often. Intel video is not a top performer yet but even being relatively simple doesn't help with having 3d drivers for it. When they do come up with something modern in the future, they will likely go closed source too (this is exactly what ATI did). I'll be fine with it, no problem.

In short - it's best if the driver is written by the manufacturer. If they can open-source it - great, if not - it's not the end of the world. I would still thank them for supporting their hardware on my OS of choice. It's better to use a closed sourced driver under Linux than to use a closed sourced driver under windows. Linux would quickly go away if there was no decent support for 3d acceleration. And we have that mainly thanks to NVIDIA - they deserve only praise, they are our friends.

Factually incorrect on several counts here

Anonymous's picture

"Under Linux, there is no good 3d acceleration for anything but NVIDIA."

Not correct. There is the OpenChrome 3D driver for the UniChrome chipset. Also, Intel's 3D drivers are now themselves open-sourced.

"Intel video chips have no 3d accelerated drivers under Linux."

Also not correct. Please see http://intellinuxgraphics.org/index.html.

"Intel video is not a top performer yet but even being relatively simple doesn't help with having 3d drivers for it."

Now, there I'll agree, with a qualifier. Intel 3D video indeed doesn't have the same performance that ATI- and nVidia-based boards have. But remember that *most* computers do come with integrated Intel video, and pretty much everybody but hardcore gamers are quite happy with the Intel video chip's performance. Since the Intel drivers are now open source, they will be included in stock X.org, thus things will "just work" without fuss. AIGLX in fact works very nicely on an Intel video chipset.

"When they do come up with something modern in the future, they will likely go closed source too (this is exactly what ATI did)."

Nope, not true, at least the part about ATI. ATI didn't go closed source for "coming up with something modern." ATI's cards, up to and including the Radeon 8500, the last chipset for which they provided programming docs, was an outstanding performer for its day and quite "modern." ATI had their reasons for going closed-architecture, but clearly chipset modernity wasn't one of them. And as for "closed source," I don't care if ATI's drivers are closed source; that's a separate issue. I *do* care that they no longer provide chipset API documentation, though.

"In short - it's best if the driver is written by the manufacturer."

Not necessarily. Even 3Com steers people to Donald Becker's GPL'd 3C90x Ethernet driver. ATI for years wrote, and still writes, buggy video drivers, as you yourself noted. Back when ATI was publishing chip programming specs, the XFree86 team was writing drivers for ATI chips. The drivers included with stock XFree86 were far and away superior to any drivers that ATI itself provided. You really want to see quality drivers? Just look at OpenBSD's work. *That* is quality.

"And we have that mainly thanks to NVIDIA - they deserve only praise, they are our friends."

Again not correct. nVidious is not our friend. It wants user lock-in just as much as Microsoft or Apple. If it were our friend, it would publish the programming specs, i. e. the API, so that *we* could write *our own* driver. We don't need nVidia's driver open-sourced. We *do* need the programming API. Ralink, Realtek, and LSI provide that documentation. *They* are examples of "our friends," not nVidious.

re: Everyone who supports Linux with drivers deserves praise

Anonymous's picture

It's better to use a closed sourced driver under Linux than to use a closed sourced driver under windows. Linux would quickly go away if there was no decent support for 3d acceleration.

I'm curious. why do you think it's better to use a closed source driver under linux than windows?

Oh and trust me, linux was fine before there were 3d accelerated drivers, and although it may not gain marketshare, it wouldn't fade into the night without it.

Farnsworth you are an IDIOT!!

Anti-Farnsworth's picture

Farnsworth you are an IDIOT!! It is people like you who give "free/open source software" advocates a bad name.

re: Farnsworth you are an IDIOT!!

Anonymous's picture

And it's people like you who resort to name calling that give humans a bad name.

White Paper
Linux Management with Red Hat Satellite: Measuring Business Impact and ROI

Linux has become a key foundation for supporting today's rapidly growing IT environments. Linux is being used to deploy business applications and databases, trading on its reputation as a low-cost operating environment. For many IT organizations, Linux is a mainstay for deploying Web servers and has evolved from handling basic file, print, and utility workloads to running mission-critical applications and databases, physically, virtually, and in the cloud. As Linux grows in importance in terms of value to the business, managing Linux environments to high standards of service quality — availability, security, and performance — becomes an essential requirement for business success.

Learn More

Sponsored by Red Hat

White Paper
Private PaaS for the Agile Enterprise

If you already use virtualized infrastructure, you are well on your way to leveraging the power of the cloud. Virtualization offers the promise of limitless resources, but how do you manage that scalability when your DevOps team doesn’t scale? In today’s hypercompetitive markets, fast results can make a difference between leading the pack vs. obsolescence. Organizations need more benefits from cloud computing than just raw resources. They need agility, flexibility, convenience, ROI, and control.

Stackato private Platform-as-a-Service technology from ActiveState extends your private cloud infrastructure by creating a private PaaS to provide on-demand availability, flexibility, control, and ultimately, faster time-to-market for your enterprise.

Learn More

Sponsored by ActiveState