Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Shouldn't copying software be allowed for personal home use?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,338 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 21 October 2010 - 06:43 AM

The whole copying software/media content issue is a classic "right thing vs legal thing" dilemma. I agree that when you pay for something, what you do with it (barring resale/profit) should be your own personal business.

However...usually in these cases...the lawyers win. :eek2::(
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,974 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:52 AM

I would guess that much of the heavy lifting of using files recorded on another DVR had to be done to make WHDS work. It doesn't seem like a huge departure to reseed the decryption hardware with the key from the recording DVR when doing local playback versus WHDS playback.

It might also limit the embarrassment of sending out "refurbished" DVRs with content left on them.

Whole Home DVR Service just means there are more modules/subroutines that need to be addressed if changing the encryption to account number vice RID.

IMO, depending on how Whole Home handles encryption it could make it even more complicated. Unless we know how the firmware is put together neither of us can say for sure either way.

With that said, it's been my experience as both a coder and as an SQA auditor, that it’s usually more complicated than it seems on the surface. Whether or not that applies to this situation I really have no idea.

Mike

Edited by Mike Bertelson, 21 October 2010 - 07:52 AM.

µß
Since it costs 1.66¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 3.32¢ worth.  That 3.32¢ is my own and not the 3.32¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#53 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,991 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 21 October 2010 - 08:18 AM

Whole Home DVR Service just means there are more modules/subroutines that need to be addressed if changing the encryption to account number vice RID.

I can't imagine that using a variety of numbers would be intentionally coded out of the needed modules. That's a SQA time bomb.

IMO, depending on how Whole Home handles encryption it could make it even more complicated. Unless we know how the firmware is put together neither of us can say for sure either way.

No argument from me.

Whether or not that applies to this situation I really have no idea.

Yet you do seem to be bent on the idea that it is more complicated than not. More often than not with software, flexibility has to be expressly coded out.

Replace the RID based encryption seed with an account code upon activation and everybody is happy.

A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#54 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,338 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 21 October 2010 - 08:19 AM

A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.

That would seem to be the clear base goal.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#55 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,974 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 21 October 2010 - 09:13 AM

I can't imagine that using a variety of numbers would be intentionally coded out of the needed modules. That's a SQA time bomb. No argument from me. Yet you do seem to be bent on the idea that it is more complicated than not. More often than not with software, flexibility has to be expressly coded out.

Replace the RID based encryption seed with an account code upon activation and everybody is happy.

A positive side effect (from DIRECTV's standpoint) would be that nobody could MRV their DVR with one from another account (if even possible now) as they would have incompatible seeds.

I’m not bent on anything in particular. My point is simply that we don’t know how things are coded. We don’t know how the calls are made. We don’t have any idea if there is a single routine that checks the RID that sets a flag. If that’s the case then it’s a pretty simple change; no denying that.

However, there are those that are “bent” on saying it is a very simple thing to implement and DirecTV should just do it. I’m playing devil’s advocate by pointing out that it may not be as easy as code it and go. All we have to go on is that it has not yet been implemented. To me this can only mean three things; it’s still in the works and is coming, it is too complicated to change the current firmware, or they don’t want to implement it. The last two are killers and we don’t know if the first is even being considered. This is all we “know”, which ain’t much.

Would it make a difference if the RID is hard coded on the system board and account number is on the access card? I have no idea but it’s certainly another thing to consider. :grin:

Is it possible that how things are currently encrypted might be described in some carriage contracts? What impact could that have on making changes?

I’m just pointing a larger picture for the purposes of discussion and not stating it is a certain way...it's just a discussion. I’m just sayin’ :grin:

However, I do have to disagree with you on one point. Flexibility usually has to be coded into the firmware. It's very easy to code something that serves a particular purpose but doesn't play well with changes down the road. Keeping everything flexible doesn’t just happen as a matter of course. It takes diligence.

Mike

Edited by Mike Bertelson, 21 October 2010 - 09:18 AM.

µß
Since it costs 1.66¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 3.32¢ worth.  That 3.32¢ is my own and not the 3.32¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#56 OFFLINE   Richierich

Richierich

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,485 posts
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 21 October 2010 - 04:38 PM

That would seem to be the clear base goal.


+1. I agree.
*
DIRECTV CUSTOMER SINCE 1997
Here's My Setup




Protected By... spam firewall...And...