| |||||||||||||
tivoisation through legal means?tivoisation through legal means?Posted Jun 20, 2011 17:54 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: tivoisation through legal means? by eMBee Parent article: FSFE on AVM v. Cybits
I have multiple Tivo's, all of which have modified software on them.
Tivo did not prevent people from loading new software on the hardware they own.
(Log in to post comments)
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 18:06 UTC (Mon) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]
But you can't access TiVo's service anymore, right?
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 18:21 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
no, I happily use Tivo's services, plus the additional software that I have installed on the systems.
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 21:58 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Unless Tivo has changed policy you must crack the signed boot-loader system before you can install a modified kernel. The last time I did this it was a very involved process that would be nearly impossible for a non-Linux user. On the other hand, most people keep the stock kernel and crack the root password and install their own processes and software. Though that is not the same as doing the kernel hack.
Tivoisation is called that because Tivo locked the kernel to the hardware. Without cracking the boot loader encryption you can't load a custom kernel and that is what RMS has a problem with and why he called it Tivioisation, in that it's free software but there are software and hardware restrictions that prevent the replacement of the kernel on that system even though it's open source and GPL.
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 22:10 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
yes, I did have to hack the firmware to load my own software, but that's not a major thing even for non-experts to do nowdays (look at 'rooted' or 'jailbroken' phones, there are a lot of them out there, and a lot of them are not owned by computer experts)
or what it's worth, I agree with Ingo and Linus, that availablility of the code is what matters. If Tivo is doing something special in their kernel, what's most important is the ability to see what they did and decide if it's something that benefits other users (and if so modify the upstream kernel). I can get/build other hardware to run the software on. If a particular vendor chooses to lock down their hardware, it is up to me to decide if I want to support that vendor by buying their hardware, or buy their competitors hardware instead.
In the phone world we are seeing this happen. Initially the vendors all went in the direction of locking things down, but now a growing number of them are being pressured to not lock down the bootloader. This isn't because of the license of the software, but because there are enough vocal users that they are getting the message.
forbidding locking down hardware will limit a lot of 'good' uses as well as a lot of 'bad' uses, and I don't see it as being worth it.
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 23:14 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
I agree too, and I think this is the key point:
> I don't see it as being worth it.
License choice is really a question of economics - which choice is expected to produce the greatest value. Of course everyone has different metrics for assessing value, and different expectations for the results of a particular choice, so we can expect people to make very different choices as to what they think will produce the most value.
But it really is a question of value, of worth, of economics. Trying to dress it up as a question of morality or ethics or fairness is just deceiving oneself (or possibly attempting to deceive others).
tivoisation through legal means? Posted Jun 20, 2011 23:42 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
possibly a better way of putting my overall thoughts on the lockdown issue.
the vendor should have the right to create a locked down device.
but I then have the right to modify any device I have purchased in any way I want, including modifying it to bypass any lockdown the vendor created.
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 21, 2011 8:19 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] but I then have the right to modify any device I have purchased in any way I want, including modifying it to bypass any lockdown the vendor created. But that's the thing: you don't have such right. Not anymore. Your supposed "right" was quite explicitly outlawed decade ago. That's why GPLv3 was needed: this is patch to account for changes in law. Two decades ago GPLv2 was adequate because your position was acceptable. Today it's not enough. P.S. I don't see what's the big hoopla is all about. In a world where "market pressures" made it possible to replace OS there are absolutely no problems with GPLv3 anti-Tivoization clauses and in a world where market didn't work (please don't say that "market always work" because it's just not true) it's important and needed.
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 21, 2011 18:08 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
please provide a link showing the law that outlawed me making modifications to devices that I own, the link you provided does not do that.
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 22, 2011 1:14 UTC (Wed) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283) [Link]
Google for "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" (abbreviated as "DMCA") and I believe you will find what you're looking for.
While you're at it, look up "DeCSS" and you will find a famous instance of (ab)use of said law.
Also look for "Dimitri Sklyarov" while you're at it. U.S. law doesn't only apply to U.S. citizens and residents, nor only to events which happen in the bounds of the U.S.
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 22, 2011 1:23 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the DMCA is a blow against being able to do what I want with my equipment, but even that's limited to when I'm bypassing restrictions in accessing other people's work (almost exclusively music/movie media files)
the more dangerous things in my opinion are the lawsuits going after people creating mod-chips for game consoles (I really don't understand the logic there)
but if there really was a law passed eliminating the right to modify things that I have purchased (as a general statement), that would be a much bigger issue.
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 22, 2011 1:37 UTC (Wed) by baldridgeec (guest, #55283) [Link]
So you don't see any possible argument that the way Tivo locks down the firmware is a "prevention method" which is meant to keep you from installing a custom kernel?
Even if I were more optimistic and agreed with you myself, you should note that a court doesn't even have to agree in order for them to be able to make your life hell. They just have to present an argument which is prima facie plausible, and the DMCA gives them that argument. That's where the mod-chip lawsuits are coming from anyway (and ALSO the Sony v. Hotz case, which you would have noticed if you had read the Groklaw link.)
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 22, 2011 2:09 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
they don't need _any_ legitimate reason to make your life living hell if they decide to do so, all they need is money to pay lawyers.
I am familiar with the Hotz case.
if you decide not to take any risks, then you must completely give up interacting with anyone, let alone writing or using software
But that's the problem: you don't have such right... Posted Jun 22, 2011 18:53 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
If you don't want them making your life hell, don't live in the US :-)
If somebody tried a stunt like that in the UK they would find (a) they would get a *large* bill from the defendant, and (b) assorted people (probably *including* the lawyers) would find themselves enjoying a short stint at Her Majesty's Pleasure :-)
If prosecuting your client's case means you end up a defendant, I can't imagine many lawyers being prepared to take the money ...
Oh - and we have a case like that going through our courts at the moment. The general consensus seems to be that the lawyer involved is heading for disbarment - that he's committed professional suicide.
Cheers,
Ah! Posted Nov 4, 2011 9:14 UTC (Fri) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
Hum, my understanding of the infamous libel case in the UK (chiropractors) showed that to be able to defend yourself in UK you need big pockets and waste a lot of your time.
So even though I'm not in the US or in the UK, your "If you don't want them making your life hell, don't live in the US :-)", even with a smiley, is very, very wrong..
|
|||||||||||||