Slashdot Mirror
All Digital TVs To Include Copy Restrictions
michael hirschorn writes: "The code would sit in the guts of your digital TV or set-top box and would essentially eat up any bit of programming deemed off limits." Deja vu. It's a recurring theme: every piece of electronics in your home will include code designed to prevent you from using it in any way that Hollywood doesn't like.
You pay to buy a license to the movies.
And that is half the problem; the world has gone licence mad. Everyone who's selling something is looking for ways to squeeze more and more money out of people, while everyone who is buying is doing their best to pay as little as possible. The sensible thing to do, it seems to me, is to strive to strike a balance. Unfortunately, neither side seems willing to even try; in my experience, though, it's Business that is the most die-hard in its stance. Consumers tend to be a little more willing to put up and pay up.
And as for TV shows, you're getting them for free.
So what is my cable provider charging me for each month? If I don't pay, I don't get to watch the shows. No, I'm not paying per show, but I am paying to receive the channels that they're shown on. Doesn't sound like "free" to me.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
And, as always, these devices will only hurt the average consumer who has never cost "content providers" any money at all
What? Sure you have! (Hear me out...)
The big-time pirates generally don't cost these companies much, since they sell in markets the MPAAers generally ignore due to too low sales.
No, copy restrictions exist to stop that casual copying. Your copy of the "Lion King" got trashed when your kid got curious about what was behind that little door? If you had a backup copy and don't buy a new one, that's money out of Mr. Eisner's pocket. Can't have that, thus we have Macrovision. Doesn't stop your content pirate -- even small-timers could just buy a "video stabilizer" -- but it stops your average consumer.
The RIAA knows just how much extra they made selling you the same music twice, first on vinyl and then on CDs. Now there's a new format, but they don't get a cut. Horrors! Kill it quick!
Illegal copies may be the rationalization, but let's be very clear here; it's the money that *legal* copying would keep out of their pockets that they're worried about. Ditto region coding, which exists supposedly so they can sell DVDs in the US while they're in the theaters elsewhere. So why is "Casablanca" region-coded? It's because exclusive distribution contracts keep the cash flowing in.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
...I plan to. I'm sort of casually boycotting DVD now. Unless "consumers" (I hate that term; I prefer the term "individuals") indicate to these industry consortiums that they aren't going to pay up if the restrictions are too annoying (as they did with DIVX), we'll be stuck with these sorts of things.
Unfortunately, people are going to see the much higher quality, and get suckered right in. (Much in the way I expect that most slashdot geeks have DVD players now because of the much higher quality, even if they are bothered by the legal assaults on DeCSS.) (And the general public probably doesn't even know about the assaults on DeCSS; if they do, they probably have the misconception that it's a piracy issue.)
-Rob
Regardless of all that though the point remains that we (Europeans) have got copy-protectionless digital TV here and now.
Sure you do, until your broadcast and media companies realize the windfall of cash they can get from going pay per view. Greed is not only an American trait (although I'll admit it's more prevelant here)
Coming from an American I find it a bit whiney to moan that it's not the will of the American people, it's the government.
Actually, its the corporations that now own the government. I and my mechanic friend may do everything in our power to prevent this, but our power doesn't compare with the power of the rich corporations, who can buy the government's power to do whatever they want. We face a pretty bleak future if there is nothing we can do to stand up to a corporate owned state that can do whatever it wants to us. And you guys wonder why we want to keep our guns? It's the only form of power we still maintain. I honestly hope it never comes to a revolution but how much should we take?
Finkployd
- Pay twenty bucks to have your brother-in-law's neighbor's electrician solder in that doo-hickey that defeats your TV's copy protection.
- Read a book.
From what I've seen in the news, HDTV is catching on a lot slower than originally anticipated. The protocol, as a political compromise, requires sets to support about a dozen digital TV formats, making HDTV equipment more expensive. Broadcasters, after being granted extra bandwidth from the FCC, are salivating at all the other things they could do with that bandwidth. Consumers seem pretty satisfied with the quality of regular TV.On top of that, movie-theater owners (Loews et al.) are financially crunched because they have more theater seats than they can sell; if I were a TV-industry executive, I'd look at that news and wonder how much money I should risk to lure consumers to HDTV.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
If I order pay-per-view for the next Super Heavy Weight fight, and tape it to watch the next day (Maybe I had to work) that doesn't mean I'm asking the boxers to come to my house and put on another fight for me. Nor would it mean the Packers and Broncos have to come play the Superbowl in my front yard either.
People that trade concert tapes are not promoting people to stay home and not go to concerts. You pay money to go to a concert (or go to the football stadium), and you get a live, visual, experience. Huge fans & completists that want as many concert tapes possible does not keep them from going to a conert. Ticketmaster prices might though.
Content providers are making money off of consumers. To stay in business they have to stay competitive to the consumers. They don't have the RIGHT to our money. They have to earn it, but the rewards can be high, of course. If they want to cripple their products, they shouldn't say Boo Hoo whent he consumers get mad.
If we were able to use VCR's when all TV content was "lo-fi", then why can't we use a similar type of Recording device once all TV content goes High-Quality?
Who is pushing the HDTV movement? Not me. THey are. A few years ago, they were even saying that all of our TV's would become obsolete once the change occurred. They are making all the rules, but they can't bitch and moan if the consumers complain. They work for our money.
If I want my future Tivo3 to record HDTV shows I'm not home for, why can't it record it in all it's splendor? Are they worried it'll cut into their DVD version they *might* sell? Bullshit, then add some features to it, put nice artwork on it, and do that. Or better yet, why don't they just come up with their OWN version of instant-access-online-watch-what-I-want-right-now service. They'd make a fortune. And do it now.
Rader
what about taiwanese/korean manufacturers? just like they have region-free dvd players, someone's gonna make a digital tv that lets you record what you want... don't worry about it too much.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Yes, 16:9 TVs are common over here in Europe. I was staggered on a visit to the US, going into the Sony Centre in Chicago and seeing only one widescreen TV among the dozens of flash TVs on show.
The DVD zoning situation is an example of consumer power! The fact is that Region 1 DVDs are usually a far better proposition for European buyers -- they come out earlier, they're cheaper, and they generally have more extra features. The situation is gradually getting better, but for the moment region-locked players don't sell. Most manufacturers seem to get around it by putting in a backdoor, then leaking said backdoor to the net. Needless to say the DVD consortium are none too happy, but screw 'em! A number of resellers also sell chipped DVD players.
The main problem brought about by the lack of 16:9 TVs in the States is the number or R1 DVDs that are non-anamorphic widescreen. This means us European viewers have to zoom the (already low resolution NTSC) picture in order to fill our screens. DVD buyers -- insist on anamorphic widescreen.
As for importing kit to the US -- I don't expect a step-up transformer should be all that expensive. I think less than $40. I suspect if you shop around a lot of the kit will be switchable to 110v, or even auto-detect the voltage -- do check this though.
--
well don't forget about commercials....if we can record it we can skip commercials...set our TVs to start recording then start watching everything 15 minutes later (ala tivo) since a major part of the industry is commercials they want it
My Home: Apartment6
That's right friend, it's the citizens of the USA that are trying to ram this down the world's throat. I took a break from my job as a programmer today to meet with the mechanic down the road, the coffee shop clerk, and the local firemen to discuss our further plans to control and censor digital signals around the world. Hell, all us Americans have a hand in this. I'm suprised nobody caught on to this earlier.
I believe you are making the mistake of generalizing that all Americans are behind anything an American (or for that matter Global, and last time I checked Sony was from Japan) company does. This is not an American problem, it's a corporate and government problem, so before you assume that the universally hated USA is behind this, check with the corporations in your back yard. Are they opposing this or right behind it?
Need I remind you of RIP? Do you think it's just our Government and Corporations that are tring to to censor and control things? Please, we have one of the less strict Governments when it comes to censoring the net.
Finkployd
does this mean that the bread companies will be able to make toasters that will only toast their brand of bread?
.image what this can do to the sex toy industry!
Or, Ford garage door openners, the door only opens for a Ford?
Or Vidal Sassoon hair dryers. They'll only dry hair that's been washed with Vidal Sassoon hair?
Wow. .
** Martin
What we need is a content provider that streams content on the net or makes mpeg files available for downloading and viewing at any time. The trick is how you might make money doing this, since your users could easily fast forward through any commercials and web banners seem to be a pretty weak revenue source.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Anybody notice a trend? Corporations invoking their controls over hardware you own? Do people want to invest in a device that restricts what they watch, when they want? More importantly, why aren't our leaders squashing these oppressive ideas right away?
You guys still watch TV? I thought I'd get out of touch with society after quiting cold turkey, but surprisingly few of my daily conversations revolve around TV programs. It's wonderful to have my life back again with time to do more productive and interesting things.
The minute someone comes out with an HDTV which can be neutered with a 'secret menu' everyone will pounce on it... ...
Same for HDVCR, HDVD or any other future Digital TV gear
As a matter of fact, in Europe, there is a thriving market of DeMacrovision and DeRegionCoding of DVD players.
I've already got my Fair Use Rights Enforcement System (SIMA CopyMaster) and am not afraid to use it
---
Yes, but supposedly you are a representative democracy. Didn't you elect your representatives to do this? How come no one who stands up to corporate-government power in the US has any chance of winning elections?
Because first, the voters must find out that they exist, are running, and that they will stand up to corperations. Unfortunatly, the primary means of finding out about a cantidate are television, radio, and newspaper. All three are owned by........THE VERY SAME CORPERATIONS THEY WANT TO STAND UP TO! I'm sure you can do the math from there.
It's amusing that Sony makes region free DVD players :)
I don't believe they do: however many resellers chip Sony DVD players to remove region fixing, Macrovision etc, then sell them as new with their own warranty.
--
Competing standards in mobile phones do suck just like having multiple incompatible PC hardware standards would suck. I like the fact that I can go anywhere in Europe and still have my mobile work, but I would have to pay a fortune for a mobile that would work everywhere in the US. Since the next step in the industry will be mobile wireless computing and the multiple incompatible mobile standards are hindering mobile adoption in the US, you should be concerned. Europe will have 3G (high-speed wireless) well before the US thanks to GSM, so how can it be a bad thing? Also GSM allows for multiple frequencies, so how can there not be frequencies for GSM but there are for three competing standards?
If you're in Region 1, maybe - but here in the UK, apparently 80% of DVD players now have region coding disabled. A non-techie friend is planning to buy a DVD player for home, and I asked what he was looking for; in the list of "must-haves", he mentioned it must have region coding disabled - something along the lines of "I'm not dumb enough to pay money for crippleware!"
Plenty of people whine about MP3 being inferior quality, and no match for a CD. I can't hear the difference, TBH - and if MP3 is so poor, why are the RIAA and co so worried about Napster? Similarly, if analogue TV is so crap, WTF have we all been paying money for it all these years?!
Basically, if digital TV is crippled in this way, I won't go for it. Here in the UK, even if I do go for digital, it'll be through a set top box - which produces a nice unprotected analogue signal for my VCR and TV. You want me to "up"grade to something, where the only "advantage" is that you can prevent me doing what I want? Forget it.
Why on Earth would the electronic manufacturers be against it? They get to force everyone to buy new TVs and they can claim it's not their fault. Win win for them.
Finkployd
Don't buy this junk. Just 'cause it's "digital" doesn't mean you got to buy it.
Only use the tools and toys you like. Nobody's twisting your arm here. It's your house, not your job.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
I have had my TiVo for a month, and I watch a lot more TV, but see far fewer commercials because I fast forward through them. I expect if TiVo catches on that we're going to start seeing blipverts any day now.
I've had my TiVo for 7 months and while I do watch fewer commercials, I do watch *some* of them. And the ones I watch I tend to notice. NBC has been putting the TiVo Select flag on their promos and I find that I use it even if it's to check that I did have that show scheduled in To Do. I think the value to advertisers is still there.
Then again, I did watch a lot of those Amazon.Com Glee Club commercials that were on last month just for yuks (amazon dot com, say it don't spray it!), but I didn't buy a damn thing from them.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I'm sorry you feel the need to equate the entirety of the American population with a few unscrupulous corporate types. We're really not ALL that bad.
First, I am a Citizen of the U.S.
While saying ALL Americans may be unfair, I have to admit that as a whole, American corperations and government seem to be more controling, and the rest of the people as a whole seem more tolerant of it.
The MPAA would never propose any of this if they believed that even 25% of American consumers would throw out the TV and play a board game or *GASP* have a conversation rather than put up with and pay for blatantly hostile consumer electronics.
Mr. Potty-mouth rap-star can say whatever he wants and it's freedom of speech.
I can't blanket-block phone solicitations in my home because it would violate their free speech.
I can't require spammers have my permission before they fill up my HD with their BS because that violates their free speech.
I can't watch what I want to on my TV unless some company says I can.
Gotcha. So what we're saying here, is that the Soviets really did win the cold war and Josef Stalin is alive and well and in a bunker in Washington DC directing all of this.
If the technology doesn't let the people do what they want, then they don't have to buy it. I certainly won't. Dollar votes are the only ones that count anymore.
--
+++ Out Of Cheese Error +++
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Digital TV is here, now, in Europe. No built in copy control. Satellite, cable and broadcast digital television.
All of the above employ Macrovision selectively -- specifically on the Pay Per View movie channels. They don't use Macrovision on other channels because they know time-shifting using a VCR is such a basic consumer expectation. By contrast, taping a PPV movie is not necessary (in the broadcaster's eyes) since you have 4 opportunities every hour to watch the film from the beginning.
Of course, Macrovision is fairly trivial to defeat -- there are off the shelf devices to do so.
At least some digital broadcasters are perfectly happy with the concept of timeshifting: Sky Digital (Rupert Murdoch's digital satellite network) is working in partnership with TiVo -- there'll be a TiVo unit released in Europe this year containing two Sky Digital decoders.
To an extent I can sympathise with content owners' desire to prevent or dissuade home recording for posterity. My wall full of Simpsons VHS home recordings probably explain why I haven't bought any of their prerecorded tapes... Mind you -- they're getting a big chunk of my money the moment they put an entire series, in order, on a DVD box set.
--
Once Digital TV takes off it will become harder and harder to buy non-digital equipment not fitted with these restrictions. So eventually, for the vast majority of people, it will be the choice between obtaining an information feed, and agreeing to the restrictions, or losing the ability to obtain an information feed in the first place.
That's, of course, assuming no substantial counter-media can be brought about, but that would seem unlikely at this stage.
The irony is DivX wasn't actually that bad. The consumer got to chose between a rental model and owning a copy of whatever it was they wanted to watch. The digital TV proposals are a bigger threat, as there's no suggestion that that sort of choice would be on offer.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
True.. it is sad, very sad.
::grin::).
::grin::).
As it is, a friend of mine lives in a city that doesn't carry Fox Kids programming (for some reason 'Animated' automatically equals 'Kids' for some reason). I taped a bunch of stuff for her including "The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot" (based on the comic book of the same name). Unfortunately the series was cancelled after a six week run. Fortunately I've got it all on tape (I just need to move them all onto ONE tape
As far as I know this series was deep sixed and I couldn't find it if I wanted to, so I'm glad I taped it (if only for the some of the lines, like the one I'm using as my SIG). The inability to do that sort of thing would infuriate me as a consumer, even though I rarely keep things I've recorded past about a week. I also found a tape filled with some of the most god-awful stuff from the 80's while cleaning out a drawer of old tapes ("Rubik the Amazing Cube" and "Teen Turbo" to name just a few... if you recognize the names then you know how bad they are
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You know, this copying pay-per-view movies argument has always struck me as kind of funny.
My dad got a DSS system about 5 years ago, and started taping the pay-per-view movies whenever he rented them. He's pretty fanatical about it, tapes and keeps every movie he buys, even if he doesn't like it. He once got mad that I didn't tape Mortal Kombat while I was home one Christmas break. It didn't matter to him that he wouldn't watch this movie if you paid him: I bought it over the DSS, he wanted it taped. Last time I checked, he probably had over 100 movies he'd recorded from the DSS and various other TV broadcasts.
Now, Dad's VCR is old enough that when he bought it, it was a big deal that it was a 4-head model: it's a good machine, but definitely showing it's age. I asked him one day why he didn't upgrade, pointing out that even though his still works, he could get a new one that would record in much better picture quality. He told me he really didn't care about picture quality that much: what he had was good enough for him.
The funny thing is, I don't think he probably watches any of these movies on tape. It's almost reached collection status for him. If he sees a movie on pay-per-view that he thinks is good, or has heard good things about, he rents it, tapes it, lables it, and put's it in a drawer. My mom will sometimes watch them, or they'll get pulled out if a niece or nephew comes over to borrow it, but that's about it. So in my dad's case, taping has probably added to the number of pay-per-views he's bought. Sometimes he'll rent and record shows he's not interested in, just on the off chance that someone in the family will want to watch it.
My point is, how long have people been recording TV shows, sporting events, pay-per view movies, etc? About 2 days after the VCR was invented. It hasn't hurt Hollywood one bit. Just because people will suddenly have the ability to make digitally-perfect copies doesn't mean that they'll all start their own pirating business. The vast majority will do just like my Dad does: record them, save them, and watch them once in a great while.
Hollywood, like the record industry, would do themselves a favor (and make a butt-load of money in the process) to embrace this new technology. It's not unreasonable to want payment for the product, but give your consumers viewing/listening options, and they will thank you for it.
Not a chance. My little sister is 16. She's online every day with her friends, IM'ing away and trading MP3s on Napster. She just got a CD-RW to enable her to copy CDs and burn MP3s to disk and all that. And it's not just her - damn near the entire net-enabled population between middle school and college is having a hell of a good time trading music. You think they're going to just give that up? You think that the teenagers of the world are going to just sit back and let corporations tell them what to do? You seem to be forgetting that one of the hallmarks of youth is rebellion against whoever and whatever you're not supposed to be doing. :-)
Rather, I see a generation growing up that doesn't particularly give a damn about overly restrictive copyright laws and is going to keep on having fun and using technology to do so in ever more interesting ways. I just hope that we get people in the legislature who see this way before too long.
seems like a reasonable idea to me, but what happens if you leave your TV on? or watch some really bad show--can i get my money back? :)
i think ultimately the TV networks (bandwidth permitting) need to move to some sort of TV-on-demand. i think that people have already shown an interest in this with Napster: i think the real drawing point to Napster is that you can have a song anytime you want to hear it. it's that immediate gradification that's important.
first off, i should note that i don't own a TV. i hate TV, i hate most of what's on it, and i hate the way it works (networks feed you the stuff when they want it). however i would watch quite often if there were TV on demand. here's how i figure it would work:
consumers would pay a monthly fee (like they do now for cable) to have access to the "basic" shows (this pays the cable provider mostly). (Movies, Sports and Porn would be more for instance). the real difference, however, is that you get to watch whatever you want whenever you want. if i sit down at the TV and want to watch "Seinfeld" for instance, i chose it from a menu, and the show "streams" to me. note that fast-forwarding would not be possible, so commercials could stay the way they are now.
now ignore the vast bandwidth requirements for just a moment, and follow me :). the ability to watch shows whenever you want completely does away with the idea of "prime time." now of course, shows would have to be "aired" at a certain time (ie, you can't watch it before 8pm on Thursday because the show hasn't been finished/released yet), but any time after that you can watch. getting rid of primetime doesn't matter though. instead of advertisement prices being based on timeslots, they're based on popularity of the shows. the added benefit of TV-on-demand is that the networks will have exact ratings of who watched what and when. not to mention the fact that advertisements can constantly be changed to suit the relative popularity of the show, and the popularity of the episode. i think both networks and advertisers would agree this is the best way to do it.
now appart from this, you'd still need to have a "just whatever's on" type of option, otherwise you'd never really know about new shows and you'd watch only what you had seen before (and eventually get very bored of it). the difference is that the TV set knows what you've watched in the past, so when you just turn on one of the "whatever" channels, it can be better tailored to what you like. everybody will like this: consumers are more likely to see TV shows they'll enjoy, and will watch TV more often (you'll hear "there's nothing on" much less often). networks are happy because people watch more TV, and they get precise ratings. advertisers are happy as they get great market research data, exact ratings and better tailored advertisements.
note that this kind of setup completely eliminates the need for VCRs or Tivo completely! network providers can still charge extra cash for "Pay Per View" events, and "specialty channels" (really just "specialty shows based on a theme") can be added to a base "package."
of course the only thing this does require is amazing amounts of bandwidth to each home. but the day that this much bandwidth is available shouldn't be too far off.
what do you guys think of a setup like this? i'd love it!
- j
The mass public is too apathetic to get off their soggy arses and demand that they receive better treatment. The hullabaloo you read on Slashdot is an extreme minority view (and even those who cry loudest will are too likely to do nothing).
The mass adult public will be disgruntled, but they'll accept it.
The *kids*, on the other hand, will grow up believing that the normal way of the world is for corporations to have ulimate control over everything.
This begins to sound like a paranoid statement, but I think there's a kernel of truth to it: Corporate America is making moves towards creating a society in which Corporate Government is the accepted norm, and in which citizens are, first and foremost, passive consumers of goods and, secondly, passive labourers in production of goods.
Indeed, it's like the old mining towns, reborn on a national scale. You work for the company and you spend your money at the company store, live in the company house and drive the company car.
We're condemning our kids.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Then again, this is the entertainment industry we're talking about. These are the same jackoffs who thought 40-bit encryption would be enough to protect their (generally worthless, come on, who would want to protect "a very brady sequel"?) intellectual property on DVDs.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
No... CDs don't offer the record industry better control. Those were just a ploy to increase profits. Wait for audio dvds. That's where they'll take to take back control. That's when they'll probably lower prices to get people to accept them quicker.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why is this such a concern to the industry? It's debatable about whether DeCSS would be used for piracy, given how easy and cheap it is to rent movies with current technology. Are TV execs really that worried about bootleg copies of Will and Grace running amok on the 'net? Or even the next Superbowl? I simply can't see how the benefits outweigh the costs.
"I have no idea why these gun nuts think that a few hours of practice a week will enable them and a few of their friends to stand up to a US army battalion."
I think the idea is that things can become so intolerable that entire military divisions can become sympathetic to an antigovernment cause,
as happened against the British, and as happened when the "south" divided from the "north".
If this isn't a possibility, then things aren't
intolerable enough yet, and the revolution must wait. I think it will not occur until "they" take away cable tv. As long as they have that,
they think they are free.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
...and then they'll be thrown in jail as soon as they tell anyone else about it, publish details on the web etc. Unless they do it outside the USA of course, where we have no DMCA. Then they'll just get their ISP account nuked, sacked from college / job / whatever thanks to pseudo-legalese letters from the MPAA/RIAA etc.
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
As I understand this proposal, in return for upgrading my TV and VCR, i get:
If I have already invested in a TV, VCR, or video digitizer for the computer, it will be worthless in about 5 years because the FCC thinks that's a small price for me and everyone else to pay in exchange for a few million more profits for a tiny incestuous group of multi billion dollar companies.
It is worth noting that HDTV is HEAVILY dependant on early adopters who have willingly shelled out a few grand for a TV that only works on one or two channels. No doubt, the purchace was made on the presumption that in a few years, all channels would benefit from it. A TV that, as it turns out, will only display snow in a short while since none of this copy prevention crap even existed when it was bought. Evidently, these new wonders of technology were obsolete before they were even plugged in.
We are supposed to trust the 'generosity' of an industry that has ALREADY gone back on one pledge before the technology even came into existance. Considering that the MPAA has been trying to kill the VCR (and later TiVo) from day one, we are to believe that they won't decide to set the copy never bit on everything but commercials?
Tell me again why I should get my wallet out and grin?
What's to prevent companies, especially international ones, from putting backdoors in? Raite and Apex do that with their DVD players. I wouldn't be surprised if some rogue digital tv maker did the same. US laws don't apply to the whole world!
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.
Don't you get it? We geeks don't have enough collective buying power to make a difference. All Joe Monday Night Football is going to say is Woah! Look at that resolution! Cool! And since any DVD he'll buy is region 1, he doesn't even know region coding is there and doesn't care because he's never gonna buy an import DVD.
Just wait till he gets home from a tough day on the second shift and the nice copy of the game his friend made won't play! That's the part that has to be gotten across. The many $$$ worth of new stuff you're buying is subject to becoming just so much random junk at the MPAA's whim.
Annoying, unfair stuff from the content provider as expected, but it's pretty hard to tell what this system will actually do from this article. My favorite quote:
"If you want to watch a high definition TV program on an analog TV set, the signal will be downgraded so it's not HDTV-quality anymore."
Ohmygod. You mean I can't display 1080 lines of resolution on my old crappy TV set? No real suprise there. To watch high-res signals, you kind of need a high res display device. I don't think it's copy protection that's keeping your 10 year old RCA TV from displaying HDTV...
That being, rather than inserting law or enforcement between the parties, the government neatly sidesteps it, as freedom of speech. Granted there are laws here and there, but they usually are backed by some other constitutional clause, like 'for the general welfare.'
Suddenly, the government is going to allow private industry to regulate what can be seen. How about if the content producers and the media manufacturers get together and agree to only make sets that work for approved signals. Then, just so americans _have_ to have one, they make new content available only through these new means. Just like that they've bottled up what the government can't or won't.
Maybe Sony can make me a phone that can't be reached by machine dialers in boilerrooms that ring just as I'm sitting down to a big bowl of grits and a good ol Hee Haw rerun.
--
+++ Out Of Cheese Error +++
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This doesn't seem to have stopped the sales of controlled substances in the US. With a bit of work I'm sure I could purchase some illegal drugs. PSX mod chips make their manufacturers good money (either directly through sales of the chips, or indirectly through sales of imported games). So long as there is a sizable market of customers, someone will be willing to take the risk for the money. Capitalism cuts both ways.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Wrong, on point three. The Consumer Electronics Association (ie the major consumer electronics producers) are fighting this idea, they are afraid that consumers will think these copy protection schemes are completely daft and won't buy into it, thus preventing CEA members from selling any of this new expensive new digital kit. If you read the article you'd also kmow that the CEA is considering taking legal action to prevent this proposal from happening, based on the 1984 Supreme Court Betamax decision that gave the smack-down to the MPAA/broadcasters over fair use, it was the decision that confirmed that consumers have the right to time and media shift content for personal use all they want. IMO if the CEA gets this to the SC the MPAA will get handed another beating, as the controls they are seeking with this scheme go far beyound the bounds of legal copyright protection.
On a side note I can't help but wonder if Sony's internal politics are nearing a point of civil war, as a both a major consumer electronics manufactorer and a major "content" publisher the two factions must be near blows over this issue. Executive meetings must be getting pretty heated, with electronics VP's and content VP's at each others throats. I for one would love to hear from a Sony insider about how the company's culture is dealing with this particular schizophrenia...
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Can't watch DVD. No DVD player for my Linux laptops, so I don't buy DVD products. Another side effect of copy protection schemes...
Perhaps unfortunately, one of the best ways to boycott HDTV sets and tell your friends why you are doing so.
;-)
;-), it's up to you to let them know about these problems. Write letters to all sorts of places, if you're annoyed enough. Local editorial pages, representatives, the FCC, etc.
Ever since I heard about the concept of HDTV, I have been excited about the possibility of it finally coming to fruition. It's both good and bad that HDTV is coming out now. It's good because TV signals are overdue for an upgrade, IMHO. Our analog sets of today are very much based around 1930's technology. Fortunately, there have been a lot of smaller improvements in the meantime
On the bad side, I'm not sure that our technology is quite as good as it should be for what we are trying to accomplish. I get annoyed when I see compression artifacts in DVD movies running in the several Megabit/second range. I worry that we will end up with lower video quality than we should have -- if HDTV video gets used in court at all, what would prevent us from seeing things that aren't there (or vice-versa) because of compression artifacts? Though I'm probably just paranoid on the subject.
Also, we have the problem that sparked me to write this message -- overzealous copyright holders that are all too willing to pull one over on an unsuspecting public. The same public that doesn't bother with the news, especially when it comes to technology (and they get it over TV anyway, which probably wouldn't report on itself..)
So, we have to avoid buying these sets. It's not all that hard for me, as I don't have enough money for one. We also have to inform people. If you know anyone who has been thinking about getting an HDTV (look for your buddy with the Jaguar
If things go all to hell, you may still be able to knock a station off the air by telling the FCC that the station has not been working in the public interest. I'm already planning on doing something similar to my local CBS affiliate, as they always found time in their newscasts to cover the stupid Survivor show rather than real news last fall.
--
Yeah, right, like all the people languishing in jail who use PSX mod-chips and DVD region-free...
----------------------------
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
Why? Because without the broadcasters and cable companies and satelite dishes, TVs have no audience. You think Sony and RCA and all those comapnies can sell a TV that can't get cable or satelite dish pickups? Not enough to make it profitable.
They don't even need to include a box that blocks out certain things... they just scramble -every- channel, and say you can't watch it unless you have a descrambler. Which also happens to block stuff out.
No more buying a Pay-Per-View wrestling match and taping it for a friend. They'll have to wait four months and pay twenty bucks for the DVD.
No more taping the Super Bowl. No more taping the last episode of your favorite show. The entire home recording industry will cease to exist.
It's all a chain... just like DVD players near-universally have region coding (because otherwise mmovie companies wouldn't put out the discs), so too will this come to pass.
Once analog signals are turned off and replaced completly with digital (I predict 5-10 years)
Last I heard, when they were just starting to roll out digital TV, here in the UK the plan was to stop broadcasting analogue in 2 years or so; that puts it mid 2002, if memory serves me.
I don't know about the US, but I think you may be a little off at 5-10 years.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. No one owes you entertainment, or even distribution of entertainment. If enough people don't like how something is distributed AND don't use the aforementioned something, a new distribution channel will beat out the old, unpopular one.
In short, grow up and quit your bitching.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
The sound and video eventually must go to some output device. At that point, any user can jump and record it. It might not be fast or easy but it will always be there. I don't care if the speaker and monitors decrypt at the very last instant, there is always something you can do. Worst case scenario, you can always slip a microphone in and record the music, throw a video camera in and record the video. Are they going to ban microphones and video cameras? It can't be stopped. They should only worry about mass for profit copying and maybe even mass non-profit copying. The fact is, to go after Joe Home User is a waste of money. It costs much more to try to prevent Joe from copying a movie for a friend show than the money Joe takes away when his friend doesn't buy the movie. Are they going to try to ban watching movies in groups? "Warning, Movie Player detects 5 watchers. You are only licensed for 3 watchers. Please press the BUY button to purchase more licenses and continue watching your movie. Have a nice day!" Come on...
-- soldack
CableLabs, the organization that proposed this to the FCC, is funded and controlled by the cable TV companies. Let your local cable TV company know what you think of their spending your money on this stuff.
Here's your crack...high-end digital video camera with high quality dolby 5.1 microphones recording off of a high-end home entertainment system. How would the video camera know that what I was recording was copy protected and not some home movie? Hidden frames? What about all the technology without the copy protection on the market? Will it all just magically break? They can make copying more of a pain, but they can never make it impossible. By making it a pain they get rid of their biggest worry: mass copying.
-- soldack
If there was ever a way to destroy an industry, this seems like it. It appears that if the MPAA and television networks get what they want, they will seriously damage the entire VCR, and the newly growing TiVo-style device market. Along with the digital TV market, and probably television in general.
I can't say I'd be totally upset at them committing what looks like it could very well be suicide, maybe someone else would come along who doesn't worship only the almightly dollar. (in America? hahahaha not a chance)
There are just way too many restrictions they're trying to get here. I know they like the copy-never idea so they can prevent the erosion of the idea of prime-time and the like which devices like TiVo are killing, and by preventing you from taping a show for a friend, or for later, they can look toward services where they can make you PAY to watch it if you didn't catch it at the "free" time (doesn't anyone else think this would be a great marketing idea? like a 'pay archive' of shows).
There has never been any sort of problem with people "copying" shows off of TV in ways harmful to the industry. I don't see how most of those controls are justified in any manner whatsoever except looking toward future profits. Profits they might very well never get if they get their way.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
How are they planning to enforce this? No CD burner available today has this access control built in, and they will be usable for years to come. Even if/when CDRs do have it built in, it wouldn't be that hard to alter the drivers for it.
Easy, unless your computer is willing to have a 'conversation' with the TV assuring it that all the hardware is compliant and that the software is officially sanctioned (that is, proprietary and incapable of talking to the burner), the signal from the video out jack simply won't be readable. You'll record nothing but static.
Under the proposed plan, programs recorded from a given TV will only be viewable on that TV. So, not only will I be unable to view my recorded programs in my den if I recorded them on my living room TV, I'll also have to trash my entire library of recordings when I replace the TV I record them from.
And, as always, these devices will only hurt the average consumer who has never cost "content providers" any money at all, while the big-time "content pirates" will easily find ways around them.
But the thing I hate the most about this whole situation is that, once again, it points out that businesses think I'm a thief and should be treated like one.
When you pay for cable, you are paying in part for the cable itself, and in part for the fees of producing the show (actors, crew, producers, etc.) You are NOT paying to own a small piece of the show, no matter how you argue it. I don't understand why people still think this.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
to forget all about digital tv. why would I every buy one? yes, I know, it's supposed to replace analog & shit ... but if nobody buys it, as has happened thus far with hdtv, do you really think they'll turn off the analog channels?
sulli
RTFJ.
I can tell you from personal experience that a VCR increased the amount of television I watched. If I'm not home, I can still see the show and the commercials.
This is especially important now that I have a new baby. When she starts crying, we hit the pause button and that happens often. If it wasn't for a DVD player and a VCR, we would see anything.
It may finally be possible to designate "Weekend at Bernie's" a 'view never' program.
Maybe I'm missing some of the nomenclature here, but how is a digital TV different than a computer monitor? I'd sure like to hope that these TV's (or large, flatscreen digital monitors, which is what they are) have the capability to display a computer signal on them. If this is the case, then you just don't use the tuner that's in the TV and replace it with a computer with a digital out video card, and your problem is fixed.
Piracy will always be there, this is about control. Consumers are stupid, but as we saw with Divx, they aren't THAT stupid. Those digital TV's are hella expensive, and if you think I'm going to drop a few grand on something that won't do whatever the hell I want with it, then you're dead wrong, and I think a lot of people think along the same lines.
..don't panic
Look, I have a 3rd dan black belt with 16 years of training and I have no illusions about my ability to stand up in hand-to-hand combat with members of the armed forces.
16 years of training versus a few weeks of basic training, only a few days of which covered hand-to-hand.
Hmm. Makes me wonder how badly you've been slacking off for 16 years that some bozo who barely graduated from high school and took a three-day "try not to die in a strategically disadvantageous position" course could wallop your ass.
I have no idea why these gun nuts think that a few hours of practice a week will enable them and a few of their friends to stand up to a US army battalion.
Strange. I seem to recall the British saying the same thing about the Zulus at Isandhlwana; the Soviets saying the same thing about the mujahedeen in Afghanistan; the French Foreign Legion saying the same thing about Ho Chi Minh at Dien Bien Phu; and the American saying the same thing about Ho Chi Minh during Vietnam.
Short answer: history shows that you're amazingly, staggeringly wrong if you think insurgencies are ineffective.
But they clearly state in their products that you can't copy them. [...] You are NOT paying to own a small piece of the show, no matter how you argue it.
These aren't fundamental truths fiated from on-high; they're matters of public policy. I don't care what "they" state, and I don't care how "they" interpret my payment. I want unlimited right to copy and store shows for non-commercial use. If this conflicts with some lofty principles, I want those principles outlawed immediately. It's my goddamn country, and I want laws that serve me and the 99.999% of the population not in the "rich Hollywood slob" category. Are you trolling or forgetting that this is a democracy?
Sure you do, until your broadcast and media companies realize the windfall of cash they can get from going pay per view. Greed is not only an American trait (although I'll admit it's more prevelant here)
Digital TV in UK already has the ability to use copy protection - every digibox has a macrovision encoder built in. However it is only turned on for pay per view, nor is likely to be turned on for anything else in the future. How can I be so sure of this? Besides the non commercial BBC, video recording are actually included in the ratings for a programme up to three weeks after it was shown - so the commercial broadcasters still (theoretically) get paid when you watch the video recording. I say theoretically because you would have to be in one of the 4000 homes that actually create the ratings in order to have effect, but if the statistics of ratings hold true then it shouldn't matter. As for fear of Tivo's, well Sky actually have quite a hand in TiVo's UK service - providing the subscriber management and technical backend. Not only that but they are soon to release there own combind Digital Sattelite/TiVo like box.
Actually, its the corporations that now own the government. I and my mechanic friend may do everything in our power to prevent this, but our power doesn't compare with the power of the rich corporations, who can buy the government's power to do whatever they want. We face a pretty bleak future if there is nothing we can do to stand up to a corporate owned state that can do whatever it wants to us. And you guys wonder why we want to keep our guns? It's the only form of power we still maintain. I honestly hope it never comes to a revolution but how much should we take?
So your much hyped (to the point of sacred) Constitution has failed then? Really? There is nothing you can do except hold on to you gun untill revolution version 2 comes? You think the corporations can't afford bigger, better guns than average person on the street? Maybe you should actually try democracy. Thier seems to be quite a few americans on slashdot who don't like what is going, yet do nothing about it (other than complain about it to the rest of the world and/or consider moveing to canada). Organize a political movement. With so many apathetic non voters out thier it shouldn't be that hard to make a difference . So what if it is only niche - as long as it's vocal enough then people will listen - just look at the Green party in Europe. Niche they are, and while they are no where near in control thier voice is often heard and taken into account by the more mainstream groups. They certainly don't get thier own way, but at least they get some concessions in thier favour. An example here would be that while there would still be copy protection you would still have some right to make personal recordings. So no one would be entirely happy - but that's the point of compromise - better for every one to be unhappy than for one side to be happy and one side looking to violence as thier last and only recourse.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
I think it all comes down to whether Republicans want to be more friendly to the big business of entertainment or the big business of consumer electronics. Which group gave more money to the party?
Let's wait and see what happens.
--
"How many six year olds does it take to design software?"
dinner: it's what's for beer
Sucks to be you. New paradigm, new rules. Some folks might do this accidently, but if this system ever saw the light of day, you just KNOW that there's be an auto-off feature after every show. So even if you started watching Wheel of Fortune and left the room, the TV would turn off once Pat's made his last lame-ass joke and said goodnight.
Part of the problem with current TV is that the only way we can say what we want is either get a Neilson box, or vote with our wallet. The latter is extremely crude: almost a binary proposition. (You like TV? Get cable. Don't? Cut your cable.) With a pay-per-show system, you get what you want, when you want, and for as long or as short as you want.
There really is way too much TV nowadays, and commercialism is going too far. I'd dearly love to see this happen, just get less exposure to the both of them.
Mr. Ska
...to go into the TV repair business... Can you imagine how many people will want to keep their old "I can watch anything - even if it's not in HDTC" televisions in working order?
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
Personally I decline to play ball. I would like digital TV, but if I'm treated like a criminal then I'll find my entertainment elsewhere. It is not necessary to be a media consumer. I repeat... you don't have to consume media. Most people will continue, and it bums me out to see the industry do this stuff, but I'll get my kicks elsewhere.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Unfortunately, the offshore manufacturers will still be subject to MPAA control if they want to ship their products to the US, because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibits 'circumvention devices', and any unlicensed electronics which decode the digital bitstream would come under the prohibition. That is one reason why the MPAA and RIAA purchased the DMCA in the first place.
The problem will be that the transmission signal will be different than the decoded picture signal. A completely different packet format.
It would be like trying to record a TV signal on an audio cassette recorder. Yes, you could theoretically build a recorder that handles the transmission signal, but to record a 19.3 Mb/s signal takes some skill and is beyond the reach of most people.
I work in one of these large media mega-corps. The goal of all this is to prevent the casual user from engaging in copying programs. They (I should say we), all know that there will always be ways to get around the system. If you have to actually go out and buy a Macrovision fixer, most people won't do it.
The real loophole will be through the professional TV gear. No broadcaster will allow themselves to be saddled with these handicaps and concerns. Currently, professional broadcast gear ignores SCMS and all other copy protection systems. This won't change with DTV gear.
-----
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
They're against it because these mandated copy controls lower the value of their product, and so they will either sell fewer units, or have to sell them at a lower price.
--
..and miss Iron Chef? Never!
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Most European TVs these days accept both NTSC and PAL signals from DVDs, games consoles and the like. I'm not sure where you'd stand recieving analogue RF signals, but you could get around that with a VCR tuner or something. More of a worry for Americans would be that Americans use Component Video for high quality video inputs, Europe uses RGB.
--
It's good to hear that the CEA is objecting, at least. That means there's at least one industry organization that's willing to stand up to the MPAA/RIAA/etc.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
You can buy region-free DVD players in the US. MPAA member Sony, for example, sells one through DVD City. Of course, the MPAA is trying to counter this, but my guess is that the cat-and-mouse game will be won by the hardware makers (and consumers).
sulli
RTFJ.
What's the fascination you Americans have with control and censorship? you just don't seem happy unless you're attempting to exert control over others.
Digital TV is here, now, in Europe. No built in copy control. Satellite, cable and broadcast digital television.
But, I guess you'll have to go invent your own standards and multiple versions of them if your mobile phone industry is anything to go by.
Deleted
I think if you were the artists involved you would think differently.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
It seems to me that the few people capable of creating PSX mod chips or DeCSS or whatever are going to grow tired of the harassment that inevitably comes with distributing things like that. As the means of tracking those people down gets better their numbers (or willingness to crack) will almost certainyl decline.
I for one would rather put some effort into trying to make sure that the people who make TVs, DVD players, movies, etc. know that I do not want them to dictate when and where I use a product that I legitimately bought. I would rather there be no need to sit back and wait for someone else to crack some new crypto. Eliminating it in the first place seems to be a much better strategy than hoping someone will crack it for me.
Icebox
However, there's not a chance in hell it will get implemented.
oh yes, this a know, i'm just putting down the ideal case. quite frankly i don't even give a shit, as i don't own a TV, nor to i plan to buy a TV anytime in the forseeable future. there aren't enough quality shows on TV to justify owning one.
but yeah, this whole content-delivery bullshit is a funny little battle to watch from afar ;)
- j
So, I predict this will lead to a dyslexic lobby akin in power to the NRA. They will demand and recieve research funding the likes of which haven't been seen since trinity and the scourge of dyslexia will be finally conquered.
--
Divx being the failed Pay-Per-View DVD alternative. It had some of the same problems. The funny thing is that this new scheme seems to have even more restrictions and problems and yet lacks any of the arguably positive traits of Divx. They'd better find a damn good way to force this on people or I seriously doubt it'll fly.
I have to agree that this seems pretty suicidal. I certainly don't plan on paying any more than I do now for basic cable (and I only have that because it made my cablemodem service cheaper). I would simply give up tv completely before I'd buy into this scheme. I already only watch a couple of shows semi-regularly. I could live without those.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"How realistic is the worry that people might feel constrained? This is how the copy protection module will affect viewing:
Hmmm...all I see is No, No, No, No, NO, NO!. Just the way I, as a consumer, want to be treated -- like a 2-year-old.
Remind me again why I want these things...
________________
________________
Private Essayist
His nominee as replacement for Janet Reno was one of the few people fighting FOR the rights of individuals to be able to encrypt data without being forced to turn over keys to government agencies.
Of course you won't see this on the slashdot front page, as just about everyone with editorial control has some kind of irrational fear of republicians in general and Bush in particular.
I think it all comes down to whether Republicans want to be more friendly to the big business of entertainment or the big business of consumer electronics. Which group gave more money to the party?
I work for money. I choose to use some of that money to contribute to organizations that share my goals and philosophies, and expect them to lobby on my behalf. I don't begrudge companies that do the same, so long as they are not a monopoly (in the legal sense, in which case they have some pretty tight limits on what they are allowed to do).
IMHO... Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Other than becoming outlaws and hacking our TVs, I'm not sure whatelse can be done. With any luck, maybe this situation is being overblown a bit by the conspiracy theorists. Including me.
But I doubt it.
It's getting worse. Copy protecting will not just be an issue of you not being able to copy your favorite CDs, but it will become an invasion of privacy. In order to "enforce" their copyrighting, companies will monitor what you're doing. Sure, they'll make their mistakes such as not patenting things and the DeCSS incident (e-mail me if you want the code). However, as time goes by new formats will appear and Hollywood will stop producing for the older "non-protected" formats. You'll soon end up with movie players that decrypt the disc, encrypt the output (no in-between recorders will work), and have a TV that decrypts the input.
Of course, even with remote checking, hacks will happen. So now what do they do? They make your regster your machine, and make a license agreement that says that they can come into your house and check your equipment any time that they wish.
Think it's rediculous? Not really. All you need is a few major film companies to decide to use a particular format and refuse to publish in any other format. Either you watch their movies their way, or you don't watch them at all.
Now let us say that you get a boot-let machine and now you're going to order your favorite film, right? They'll think of that too. Each machine will have its own unique key, and in order to have anything sent to them, they'll have to call a service center, send their key and a phone number. The center calls back the number and verifies the key. Oops, now you're registered and they've got your address.
Next argument: you don't have a license on your machine. Their take: so what? We'll place a license on the film saying we can check the equipment your use to watch it, and since they've got your phone number, you're out of luck AGAIN.
Ok, so you've got your machine now, but they can't stop you from using it right? Of course they can. You've just violated their agreement by using non-approved equipment to view their materials. Next step: Court, then a fine, and jail time.
Now, please don't say they won't go that far because nobody will buy it. Give it five years and at this rate people will become apathetic. It's like the book "Animal Farm". You slowly ween them of their food/rights, and then they don't notice. And don't expect people to not go with it just because of the fact that they don't like it. Just wait 'till all the blockbusters are licensed like this. It's their way or the highway - agian.
Be afraid...be very afraid...
Like Karma doesn't matter...
Moderators: -1, nested, oldest first!
SIG: HUP
What are you on? Perhaps a minority of the most extreme zealots would abstain from TV for a while in protest. Would it matter?
.. eh.. TV ;)
:)
If you were right, if this would really drive people away from their TV sets for a while, then this technology would be the greatest since the invention of
"The world is watching America, and America is watching TV" said a wise man
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
We've been on the same one since TV started: stations/networks buy shows, broadcast them for free, and get revenue by selling commercial time during said shows. The more popular the show, the more they can charge for ad space (just look at the Superbowl).
Well, fuck it. Here's what I propose: EVERYONE gets a cable into their home. Zero monthly fee. Nada, zip. Don't turn the TV on and you never pay a penny. What happens instead? The cable provider instead acts like a library, but with user fees. You want to watch a show? You pay for it - say, $0.25 for a Simpsons rerun. Want as many Simpons episodes as you can handle? Buy a subscription for $3.00/month.
This will do a few things:
- Instantly weed out the shitty shows that never get bought.
- Eliminate the need for commercials, as you're paying directly for the show.
- Reduce the amount of time us couch potatos waste in front of the boob tube. We'll be more conscious (espeicially if we get a runny tally of our monthly bill) of how much TV we watch, and what we watch. No more 3am informercial surfing.
To introduce new shows, they'd have to have a couple "free unlimited use" channels going, or otherwise we'd eventually end up watching nothing but news and reruns. Maybe those channels can have commercials, and you get a rebate for each 15 minutes of commercials you watch (or something like that).Ah, TV that I control with my wallet. THAT would be great.
Mr. Ska
I dunno, it seems likely that once word of mouth spreads ("Hey, my JVC/Panasonic/RCA DTV doesn't record Star Trek: Mysteries!") they won't be able to sell very well, whereas any old analogue TVs would still sell like hotcakes...
Or *monitors* hooked up to digital converters, to TiVO like devices, with the ability to record, stream, and copy, will become all the rage.
I mean, there's no reason for Sony to not sell a 30" monitor and a $40 DTV adaptor for the PC/monitor, right?
Unless these guys are pressuring and targeting folks like ATI and Pinnacle, etc, PCs should still have the capability to recieve channels and view TV...
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Republicans are not likely to listen to Hollywood.
Hollywood=evil, child-corrupting, exploiting, anti-christian corporate juggernaut from hell.
Hollywood had it's ear in the white house for 8 years. It's all over for them.
Watch the bloodletting as Republicans enact all kinds of silly censorship regulations, and eliminate all funding for public broadcasting.
(exception to my generalization: REAGAN was the greatest friend Hollywood ever had - when he deregulated the industry, he single-handedly helped them build the Death Star they have today)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
oh yeah, don't forget that when you turn off your TV, and open a book, you're being a sucker punk ass bitch for the multinational oligopoly that is the publishing industry.
Soon, all books will be electronic, pay-per-read on proprietary devices only.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Many journalists have pointed out that Bush' new ministers mostly are from the big old industrial type of businesses (e.g. oil-industry) and therefore have very little knowledge about IT. They will probably listen to the most powerful lobbyists, i.e. Hollywood and the big businesses.
OK, first of all you don't have NEARLY the marketting clout that Sony, RCA, etc. have. Good luck.
But here's the problem--it looks like if you don't have the appropriate box in your TV, then you won't see everything, but rather you'll get nothing but static.
Furthermore, there's a good chance that even if TVs that worked and didn't censor could be made, they'd be illegal! Yes, that's right--TV sets that aren't licensed from the appropriate body (surprise surprise--it's the MPAA again!) will most likely be illegal.
Oh Brave New World that has such people in it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
But now the republicans are in power. And they're tough on crime, boy. Better watch out.
If Texas is a model for the way the rest of the country will go, prison rape instances will be up 90%, as will executions and spurious parole denials, and prison labor profits going to politicians buddies who own the "privatized" prisons.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't think this will happen.
Why? Who is more powerfull lobby group? Sony, Panasonic and the other eletronic equipment makers or Hollywood? If the eletronic equipment makers are agaist it then there is a good chance it is not going to happen. They will simply poorly implement the whole copy-protection schemes or not at all.
Bush and his idiots friends don't know anything about this stuff and they don't care much for Hollywood either. I personally think this is a slamdunk for the eletronics makers.
Linux O Muerte!
And promptly be sued, or most likely prosecuted by the US government. I don't see DeCSS succeding in making region codes usless. No set top DVD player has DeCSS code in it, what happens when no TV can view an non approved digital signal?
Finkployd
I understand what this implies for a tv-addict such as most users around.
I personally don't own a TV set and I don't intend to ever acquire one as this is so mind-occupying that it would definitely prevent me from being productive.
My personal problem is that they intend to merge the Internet with their TV-network so that you'd actually have to pay for each of these even if you don't want one.
There's also this copy protection thing which could have disastrous effects if it can't be enabled on demand by the TV broadcasting company:
According to the GNUArt philosophy, you can broadcast free Art which anybody could copy and modify for his own needs.
What I'd dislike would be the impossibility for this Free Art License to be honoured because of such practices.
So, my point is : OK. If it's your stuff and you don't want people to copy it, then you can copy-protect it. But if it is intended to remain Free, then you don't have the right to block its diffusion as it is not yours.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Dude, fostering consumerism and conformity has been sort of the unstated goal of American society for a loooooong time (e.g. public schools were essentially founded in this country for two reasons: a) to enable Mom and Dad to work in a factory, and b) to turn Son and Daughter into obedient worker/consumers). If anything, you could argue that America of today is less consumerist than it was 50 years ago (and we have "those dirty hippies" and beatniks to thank for that, by and large).
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
"JACK VALENTI: Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. (indicates DMCA) Your friends up there on the Slashdot...are walking into a trap. As are your Rebel geeks! It was I who allowed the Slashdot to know about our new copy protected digital media. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best lawyers awaits them. Oh...I'm afraid the DMCA will be quite operational when your friends arrive."
ROFL
Please oh please would someone fly into the MPAA headquarters and destroy their main leagalise generator? Of course I suppose we'd first have to shut down their Corporate Shield being generated from the Lobby Group orbitting Capitol Hill.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
This will be crackable if there is sufficient motivation. The obstacle that will then hinder the development, distribution, and use of devices/software that defeats it will be DMCA.
And I think I know a way to beat DMCA legally.
The trick is not just for hackers to crack the protection, but to adopt it. DMCA's definition of circumvention is to bypass without authorization. If you have authorization, you're not circumventing.
Assuming that there are no legal obstacles (e.g. patents) that prevent Joe Schmoe from creating copy protected content, then Joe Schmoe can release his home movies in this format, and explicitly grant everyone the right to defeat his protection. In other words, he creates a file that has a "don't copy" bit set, and then as the copyright owner, he tells everyone that they are allowed to copy it. This will castrate DMCA. And it will cause tools that copy the file but ignore the don't-copy bit, to not necessarily be devices that bypass without authorization.
The real catch will be that there may be legal barriers to creating copy protected content, such that the only legal way to do it would be to sign an agreement where the copyright owner agrees to follow certain rules. (Similar to how someone who publishes a CSS-protected DVD must get a license from DVDCCA. (Ah, but must they really, since CSS' workings are no longer a secret?)) But in order for this to happen with FCC-blessed standard for television, FCC will have to do something that is blatantly corrupt: they will have to give a monopoly to a private organization. When they do this, it must be fought and more importantly: exposed to the public eye.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What makes you think you should be able to copy them?
Because we feel like it. It's our country, not some Hollywood exec's.
Independence Limited.
Freedom of...
Choice is made for you my friend.
Freedom of...
Speech is words that they will bend.
Freedom no longer frees you.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer