[mythtv-users] Switching away from comcast to online streams

[Stephen P. Villano]

On 1/27/14, 11:16 AM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
> On 01/27/2014 10:53 AM, Stephen P. Villano wrote:
>> On 1/27/14, 10:43 AM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2014 10:26 AM, Stephen P. Villano wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/14, 7:09 AM, Michael T. Dean wrote:
>>>>> On 01/26/2014 01:13 PM, CACook wrote:
>>>>>> Well I'm not asking permission.  I am paying for all my content, but
>>>>>> I am recording it as I please with the R5000-HD.  Let it be known
>>>>>> that this device is widely reviled by Myth devs for purely political
>>>>>> reasons, but I have single-handedly kept it running up to the latest
>>>>>> Myth nightlies.  However I have stopped trying to convince people,
>>>>>> and am just taking care of myself now.  Devs hate it for purely
>>>>>> emotional and political reasons, that's too bad. Their justification
>>>>>> is they are frightened that it may circumvent DMCA and they may
>>>>>> get a
>>>>>> cease and desist... but this shows they don't understand it.
>>>>> No, devs hate it because it seems to be a direct violation of Dish
>>>>> network's Terms of Service.
>>>>>
>>>>> See
>>>>> http://www.dish.com/legal/
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://www.dish.com/downloads/legal/Residential-Agreement.pdf?WT.svl=video-plan-agreements-files
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (especially section 4.G. "You agree that you will not try to
>>>>> reverse-engineer, decompile or disassemble, /nor will you tamper with
>>>>> or modify, any software or hardware contained within any receiver of
>>>>> Smart Card. Such actions are strictly prohibited and may result in
>>>>> the
>>>>> termination of this Agreement, disconnection of your Services and/or
>>>>> legal action.")
>>>>>
>>>>> and #5 at
>>>>> http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Mailing_List_etiquette#Anything_else_I_should_be_aware_of.3F
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> An even simpler and more concerning item to consider, DMCA. That makes
>>>> doing such a thing not only a violation of the TOS of Dish
>>>> networks, but
>>>> a violation of US federal law.
>>>>>>      An actual commercial company provided many years' support
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> R5000 (SageTV) and -never- got a cease and desist, because it does
>>>>>> -not- (Read: *NOT*) circumvent encryption nor provide free content.
>>>>> Right, but Terms of Service...
>>>> I'd rather violate eleven providers TOS than deal with the hassle of
>>>> violating federal law. The eleven could get me into a civil court, the
>>>> latter a criminal court.
>>>>
>>>>> So please don't discuss the R-5000 on this list.
>>>> I disagree, save for the conditioned above. If one wishes to discuss
>>>> circumventing DRM, that most certainly does not belong on the list.
>>>> However, if one is simply trying to make the device work with
>>>> MythTV in
>>>> a manner compliant with DRM, TOS of the providers and the law,
>>> But you seem to have agreed, above, that the use of custom-mod'ed
>>> R5000 hardware is a violation of Dish TOS, and the list prohibits
>>> discussion of topics that are in violation of ToS/ToU, as mentioned in
>>> the linked "Mailing list etiquette" wiki page, above.  ("Similarly,
>>> discussion of topics that are in violation of the Terms of
>>> Service/Terms of Use of any service (including cable or satellite TV
>>> or web services, such as video streaming sites or television listings
>>> sites) is prohibited.")
>>>
>>> So, you're saying, "It should be discussed, save for the fact that
>>> it's a violation of Dish TOS and may be a violation of DMCA?"  If so,
>>> doesn't that reduce to, "It should not be discussed"?  If so, I don't
>>> know why you're disagreeing...
>>>
>> Is the base model one that is in violation of Dish TOS, hence also the
>> DMCA? If not, can and should not such a device be discussed if someone
>> wishes to make it work with MythTV (a compliant device, that is)?
>> Or is the base model, the one from the manufacturer one that is
>> non-compliant in the first place?
>> That is my only point, compliant devices. I'm not disagreeing with the
>> policy of not discussing non-compliant devices that also quite likely
>> are in violation of federal law.
>>>>    should
>>>> that also be prohibited from the list (assuming that the requester
>>>> being
>>>> a rational and sane individual)?
>>> No, but since this was discussion of use of hardware that's in direct
>>> violation of Dish TOS (and may or may not be in violation of DMCA),
>>> I'm asking that the discussion be moved elsewhere.
>>>
>> I've been filled in on the backstory of this individual. I agree,
>> non-complaint hardware that violates Dish TOS and quite likely the DMCA
>> should not be discussed.
>> I only was suggesting that a device that *is* compliant with the law and
>> one's provider (or intended provider) TOS can and should be discussed.
>> Only those devices, not ones modded to evade lawful and compliant with
>> TOS usage. My understanding of the device in question is that the base
>> model, unmodified, is compliant with the law and Dish TOS. If I'm
>> mistaken, please let me know.
>>
>
> Oh, I see where the disconnect is.  My understanding is that "R5000"
> is the name of the modification that's applied to Dish STB hardware to
> allow direct capture of digital content by intercepting content after
> decoding but before encryption for the protected path and/or a name
> used to refer to the post-mod'ed STB.  TTBOMK, Dish never offered a
> receiver called the "R5000" (there was at one point an Echostar
> DVR-5000, along with DVR-7000 and other models, but they're unrelated
> to the modification being discussed).
>
If that is the case, a modification of the Dish STB, the only place it
would be lawful would be in an academic setting where the technology is
being taught. It most certainly would not be a device in compliance with
either law or the TOS of any provider I'm aware of.
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users