Lost Recordings for the second time in 6 months.

rolland411jr · ‎10-29-2011

AT&T has done it again!! For the second time in 6 months I have LOST all of my recordings on the DVR due to some kind of malfunction or "update" or whatever you call it. When we turned the thing on this morning, all that came on was a red X with 2 dots under it. I rebooted the system and when it finally came back on all of my recordings were GONE. This is terrible service. From now on I am going back to my trusty old VCR. I'm glad I have 2 of them in great shape and that VHS tapes are still readily available in this area. This is one case in which old "dinosaur" technology is vastly superior to new. DVR service doesn't even compare to VCRs. No VCR ever lost recordings for me. If you don't want to take chances with your recordings, do it the old fashioned way. AT&T U-verse DVR service is for the birds.

mibrnsurg · ‎07-15-2008

Sorry, but no HD programs will record due to DRM and SD programs might be prohibited by Macrovision on the DVR to the VCR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrovision

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-288-2020, After he gets acct info, press # a bunch of times, get a menu from Mr. Voice recognition
Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
I Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

Dixie.Girl · ‎10-30-2011

This statement is untrue.
There ARE some/plenty of channels and programs that you can record from the STB/receiver to VHS/DVD....I've done it plenty of times.

The funny thing is that U-Verse blocks all of these recordings - by law, you can record the programming for personal use --- just cannot distribute it. Why AT&T should handle controlling people's recordings is bogus...other cables providers don't do that...

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

There are some recordings that you will be able to record to an dvdr or vcr and some you can't. The reason why ATT instituted the DRM feature was to comply with certain laws, IMO. Some people use third party devices to get around it, some don't. YRMV.

jbdet313 · ‎09-23-2011

Macrovision and other DRM measures can easily be overcome for personal archival uses. The RIAA and MPAA say they're adversely affected unless they use these methods to "protect" their investments. Really? If their business models were in such dire straits, explain to me how their "stars of the moment" keep inking higher and higher payouts from them.

Prohibition was similar to this, and look how that turned out. "Fair use" is basically followed by the majority of the population of people, in almost everything you encounter. Infringe on it, people will devise ways to get around restrictions placed on them. These companies spend MILLIONS developing these technologies, and they can be dismantled for relatively nothing.

Do some homework online. The REAL computer people (not the MCSE or "university-educated" people), the self-taught ones, have overcome these actions for years already ... and will continue to do so.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

jbdet, a couple of comments:

1. While from a technical sense, Macrovision and DRM can indeed be "overcome", you need to be careful of the laws of the land. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) specifically makes it illegal (i.e. a crime) to subvert protections on copyrighted works under most circumstances, even if said copyrighted work can be made use of under "fair use" provisions. Blanketly stating "oh, you can always get around that" can be construed as irresponsible, since that can easily land someone in hot water.

2. Your statement against MCSE or "university-educated people" borders on anti-intellectual and in my opinion, is a symptom of a big source of friction in this country. There is an attitude that came about during the 2001-2005 time frame that somehow any "experts", "scientists", etc. don't know any more than laymen and are somehow not to be trusted. While there are indeed a minority of people whose credentials are much larger than their actual knowledge, that is certainly not the norm and sweeping that generalization to all experts is counterproductive and harmful. There are "computer people" who are indeed true experts in their field, BOTH self-taught and credentialed -- do not make the mistake of using a credential or a learning path as a litmus test to identify non-experts.

There are a high number of political examples of this attitude and why it's harmful, but I shan't get into them here.

jbdet313 · ‎09-23-2011

SJ, don't think that I somehow disparage folks who gain expertise or training through traditional educational methods. Think back, though, to the infancy of the internet. Remember those stories of websites being hacked? You had two camps: the "white hats", who only exploited the holes in the software, caused no damage, but pointed out to the administrator what they need to do -- or else the bad guys will come along and do lots of damage. Then you had the "black hats", who WERE the guys finding the holes and doing damage. Those administrators treated the white hat folks -- who were warning them -- as black hats. Why? To cover their behinds, because of either their company's lazy approach to IT and funding it similarly, or because of their own lack of training, and complete understanding of what they're working with. Most of those from both factions were self-taught, and caught stuff WAY before the developers -- who, in most cases, actually HAD the "book-training", and gained their position because of that piece of paper saying they "know" what they're talking about. Completely untrue, in the real world, though.

The DMCA is built to protect against PROFITING off of copyrighted works. The dirty little secret, back in the days of KaZaa and Napster ruling the P2P roost, was that the RIAA completely buried and disregarded a notable, reputable university survey of downloaders -- who, when asked about their downloading activities, cited that they were MORE likely to buy the WHOLE CD, if ... wait for it ... by downloading a couple tracks, and they felt the work was 'worthy' of their money. Imagine ... instead of hearing two "top 10s" all over the radio, and those two are the ONLY decent tracks on the 10-track CD priced at $15, those individuals were seeing if it really was worth them spending their money on the other 8 tracks. WHILE the RIAA and their labels are handing the "artist" a couple million and an expense account -- that consumers were fully paying for.

The DMCA and its supporters like the RIAA and MPAA have yet to throw a big stink over everything that's available on YouTube, for example. Sure, you find SELECT "artists" who run around sending threatening letters to take down their works (like Prince, or whatever symbol he hides behind these days), but they are MORE than happy to leave things up if it gains them additional FREE publicity.

So NOW you're going to tell me, that because we've advanced such that DVD-quality can easily be obtained via HD in millions of homes around the world, that these artists are going to be somehow harmed if I decide to watch their content, at my own personal time schedule, on a repeated basis ... AND by doing such that I'm going to somehow jeopardize their business model? There are a HUGE amount of people out there that couldn't edit and convert content to replicate what they see on the screen, in a satisfactory enough archival manner, and would be more apt to go out and spend money on a DVD, just to avoid the bother. So, the minority who actually have learned how to do so, are the ones that'll bring these studios to their knees?

Instead of trying to always "protect" their content, I'd think a lot of people would be more than happy if they spent that money on creating stuff that gave them REASON to buy it in the first place. If a film or TV series doesn't get great reception by the public, why is that somehow the PUBLIC'S fault?

As to this thread's questions regarding Macrovision and the like, the public will end up winning out.

Most people are more than happy to give credit where credit's due, and in regards to creators/actors getting paid for their works being exhibited on their TV screen. You're paying for that in your subscription fees and advertising you're exposed to. However, when it ceases to be a two-way understanding, that's when the public closes the wallet. After all, without those consumers' wallets being opened, those folks don't get paid.

ShaunMN · ‎03-03-2011

Hey folks, lets try and stay on-topic please. Thank you

Remember to always mark items that you find useful as "Accepted Solutions”, you can even mark multipleposts in a single thread. This will help other users find this information too!!

jwillin · ‎11-05-2011

What about the shows you have setup to record? The yare not showing up in the list of recorded tv. Why is this?

spd2demun · ‎07-28-2007

Have you tried pulling the plug on the DVR? Wait about 30 seconds, then plug back in. Give it about 2 min. or so after coming back up to repopulate the list of scheduled recordings.

jwillin wrote:

What about the shows you have setup to record? They are not showing up in the list of recorded tv. Why is this?

RCSMG · ‎12-10-2007

Hopefully you are not experiencing the early stages of dvr failure. If you are unable to get satisfaction with this issue send Alex a PM. He is an ATT Community Manager on the forum. He has helped many people with a variety of issues.

http://forums.att.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/318276