Slashdot Mirror
Philips Targets Wireless TV Retransmission At Home
cadfael links to this EE Times story, excerpting: "Philips is attempting to start yet another industry initiative to tackle digital rights management, this time focusing on the wirelessly networked home. 'At stake here,' said Leon Husson, executive vice president of consumer businesses at Philips Semiconductors, 'is the "free-floating" copyrighted content that will soon be "redistributed" or "rebroadcast" to different TV sets throughout a home by consumers using wireless networking technologies like IEEE802.11.'"
Not Expressed Written Consent :)
put the what in the where?
Imagine! Video beamed right to your TV through the air. What's this world coming to?
Always encrypt with rot13 TWICE for extra security.
After all, I could just run coax to all the TVs in a house. Is this somehow different because it's wireless???
I mean, whenever I buy a special package, i.e., a pay-per-view, I can watch it on all the TVs in the house...
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
This is a huge problem. You know, I have friends who are all the time buying 802.11 gear ($200+), and content encoders/decoders ($100/each and requires a PC to run) just so they can broadcast cable from the living room to the bedroom.
Oh wait, no that was a dream world. Sorry, I'm just not seeing how wireless piracy is a big problem, especially since, by focusing on wireless piracy WITHIN the home, there's an implicit assumption that the transmitter of the content has the rights to view it in the first place... otherwise, the focus wouldn't be in-home transmission, but rather how the content got to the home in the first place...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Just when we were starting to like them for that whole red-book thing...
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
What is going on here? Didn't Philips just try to prevent 'digital rights management?
Say I have a DVD player in my computer, which is in my bedroom. But my TV is in my living room. What's the difference between buying a DVD player and putting it in my living room, or streaming the content to a wireless receiver at my TV??
Unless doing that is somehow illegal (which is unbeknowst to me), I don't see a problem with it at all. I own the media, so why does it matter if I stream it to a different TV in my own house?
This seems like an attempt to get people to pay if they want to stream the content which they purchased to another location in their own home.
Enough already! This is getting ridiculous, soon we're going to get fined or executed or something if you're watching your TV and someone who does not have a valid MSNBC license to see that programming walks in the room and happens to look at your screen.
Here's something I'd like Hollywood and their friends to think about: at some point protecting one's IP becomes more expensive than stopping possible pirating. And while the cost will be passed on to consumers, that just makes entertainment devices that much more expensive, meaning fewer of them will be sold with a lower profit margin.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The problem with this digital rights management solution, just like all of the others, is that they cannot force people to upgrade. Although there is a certain segment of the populace that will desire to own the latest and greatest everything multimedia, and therefore trip himself into owning devices embedded with DRM, the average American won't want to spend the extra money to upgrade.
Therefore, unless you give them a major incentive, the RIAA/MPAA is foiled again. No upgrades means that all of the time they spent plotting up yet another scheme to control what we can and can't watch is ruined by consumer apathy.
If they really wanted people to upgrade, they would (a) develop a new, proprietary format, (b) stop release of all current and future products on CD/VHS/DVD, (c) release ONLY on aforementioned proprietary format. Eventually, enough people would switch to make it worth their while.
Even with this, though, people will find a way around the Digital Rights Management schemes, as they also do.
To use a famous quote, "Where there's a will, there's a way." And when it comes to copying CDs, VHS tapes, or DVDs, there is most certainly a will.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
Keeping aliens from infringing on copyrights. Engineers will have to figure out a way to track down all the radio signals that have left Earth in the last 100 years and block them as to prevent alien beings from enjoying content they have not payed for.
This is related to the article too because phase 2 of the plan is to prevent all wireless transmissions of anything so aliens that have reached earth cannot use thier moon-transglobifiers to enjoy content they haven't paid for. The aliens will just have to rent a house and order cable like everyone else.
At what point will some create an analogy quick reference card for these people. This is so stupid I may have a stroke. How is this ANY different from sneaker netting a VHS tape? I know its technically a broadcast, but from a REALISTIC standpoint? Big deal, my neighbor just MIGHT be able to pick it up, or he could just ask to borrow a videotape.
Apoplexy now!
This certainly seems analogous to me. How can they justify this. It is effectively telling me what I'm allowed to do inside my own house!
That's crap.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I can see the point of a wireless computer network, especially if you are using handheld devices or laptops. What I really don't see the need for is basically stationary devices needing wireless connections. Even most apartments have cable connections already accessable from any point in the room or allow you to make the changes to do that. If you are super neat and tidy and you had seeing any sort of cabling running around, I am sorry for you.
I just don't see the justification for all the work (as far as rights go on "redistributing" this) and I really don't see the necessity of investing large amounts of money into something that is ridiculous.
Use the cable line. It isn't that big of a deal. Unless you have a room that you want to put the TV in the middle of the room I don't see the feasability of this.
This is the same phillips, I believe, that just a few short days ago was championed for saying that copy-proofing CD's was against the logo rules.. I love how fast this community can change its mind about someone, based soley on them attempting to protect their interests.
If you want to see a place where other peoples intellectual products belong to the community, move to a communist country. (Not that there are/were ever any truly successful communist countries, in the true sense of the word communist..). I still prefer capitalism.
One existing specification, called Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP), defines a cryptographic protocol for safeguarding audio/video entertainment content against illegal copying, intercepting and tampering as it traverses high-performance digital buses, such as the IEEE1394 standard.
Once again, we are shown that digital rights management hardware is by definition defective. They seem to think their only protection from profit stealing pirates (gasp! seeing stuff on another TV?) is to make broken equipment.
I, for one, will be voting with my wallet. F*** phillips, and anyone who follows them. I thought the hardware guys where on the side of logic and fair use...
Maybe I'll write to them and tell them that I won't buy crippled equipment from them that purposely interferes with radio transmissions- and I think the FCC would also take issue with this.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Is it just me or is now a really good time to start buying uncrippled hardware? I've noticed that the current generation of devices (PVR, MP3 Players, DVD+RW, CD-RW, Hard Drives etc.) do not have DRM technology included. I've also noticed that the next generation of hardware will have this technology included, possibly at gunpoint by the content providers. I will be buying lot's of tech soon to avoid the DRM cripples that are due in all our hardware. I will also be closely monitoring the computer situation to buy my next machine just before they encrypt the BIOS and only allow DRM enabled operating systems to run on these systems. If you don't think this will happen, you have learned nothing from 100 years of corporate behaviour. If they can, they will. Usually just because they can.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
I, as have many others, have been doing this for years. Back in the day when most households only had one VCR, there was a little gizmo called the rabbit that allowed you to watch the VCR on multiple TV's. More recently I picked up a little device from SmartHome that allows me to send audio visual signals through walls using a 2.4 Ghz signal. VIOLA! Wireless rebroadcasting of recorded shows. I have been watching taped recordings of shows as well as dvds on more than one tv in my house for some time now, I guess because there is no computer involved it's all ok. 2.4Ghz is so 1990s. -peel
Computers never mkae mestooks. - Atari 800
The question is really going to become .. are Titus and Rugrats and Roswell really worth it once we're /forced/ to actually not bend the rules? Does anyone else wonder if consumers and content creators have entirely different economies in their heads?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Image a world where you can channelsurf what your neighbors are watching, live or recorded. Maybe have a "private" setting for what you don't want others to see. That would be a hell of a P2P type network.
Makes one think...
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
>it would likely put the entire industry out of business
You talk about it like it's a bad thing. I was wondering if content producers have entirely different economies in their heads. Ie, when push comes to shove, and we have to pay for as much as we're consuming, is Hollywood truely a viable business given the percieved amount of revenue-generating touchpoints the future holds for entertainment consumers?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them.
Every time their content is redistributed within the home? So, to compare with the present, they want to charge me to not only buy or rent the video, but also each time I play it? This is just pure evil.
One thing's for sure: if this isn't extremely cheap, ie $0.05 for each replay or something like that, it will never work, because "content" just isn't that important. I'll just go outside and play fetch with the dog, or have people over for a BBQ. I'm sure most other sane people feel the same way.
~ now you know
Imagine being able to watch the same show on multiple TVs inside your house without paying extra for each additional TV. People that do that should be shot! Do they have no ethics?
I have a website. It's about Macs.
This is mostly a moot point, until a TV can be so integrted as not to need an external source in this is all moot. The industry will not for 100 years agree on a standard for that. The signal leaves whatever device you are playing from AND MUST be understood by your common average dumb TV set, NTSC, PAL what have you.
NOW that said that is the weak link and an Ideal place to transmit from or encode to an alternative Digital Medium, I just got Mplayer encoding right, and guess what was horking all kinds of signals off line, my 300 gig box is just about ready to start filling up with TV shows, movies, races,etc. I want, as soon as I can get the damm remote working with this box.
Because of the above set up I dug out an OLD (15 year plus TV transmitter, I had , you hook it up and Channel 3 gets vid audio. Im too lazy to wire the upstairs and may be moving soon, so my 32" tv in the bedroom gets REBROADCASTED signaal. They sell these things on ebay for 30 bucks, they work like a charm, you could make your own with 1/3 of that in parts, no IC , all coils trimmers and pots.
My computer has a tuner card as well, and antenna and I can catch anything I want off my "TIVO KILLER" EITHER via the network, or antenna, I would LOVE to put a box in my trunk and pump over 802.1b so my kids can watch flciks on drives, upload a playlist the night before from my computer in the house to my car in the drive. (I do plan on doing this with my MP3's)
Sooooooo.....
As long as a TV can understand the signal there is NO possible way (at present) to keep that signal from being rebroadcasted. With TONS of MONEY being pouredinto this sort of DRM research its amazing our TV sets dont cost $3000 !
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Back in the 80s it was perfectly legal to use the wireless Rabbit (remember those?) to transmit TV signals from the living room to the bedroom. This went for broadcast, rented movies, etc. Heck, you can even legally transmit on the FM 88-108 MHz band as long as it follows FCC Part 15 (no external antenna, and under a certain wattage... 100mw I think). Considering that these allowances were made for home-based Fair Use usage, I would consider this a clear-cut violation of Fair Use rights just like copy protected CDs. If you want to make *public* broadcast over 802.11 illegal... Well it already is. Just like it would have been illegal to use the Rabbit back in the 80s to re-transmit cable for the whole neighborhood.
So, this is yet another area in which we can enjoy our superiority to average non-geeks. While they "pay per play" on their new HDTV sets and are forced to pay for content, we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labor. We've worked hard for this right, and there's nothing "they" can do to take it away from us. We deserve it.
Until they start to cripple the computer hardware that your tools run on. Encrypt the BIOS, only allow DRM enabled OS's to access hardware, legislate open and free alternatives away as "enabling" devices that cost producers their IP. Forget fair use, that is already history. Welcome to the future, where you either work for a corporation or you're part of the problem. Get used to it!
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
You can pick up a neat little device at Radioshack which will allow you to broadcast video on any cable channel you specify. So if you've only got one Satellite receiver, you can watch the content from it on multiple TV's without needing another receiver. This is all with wires...
This is soooo getting out of hand. I think it's important to remember that copyright law was written at a time when they had no means to control much other than whether you got a copy of the media or not. Now they think they can tell you everything you do with it anytime you want.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
it would likely put the entire industry out of business.
You mean just like Libraries put the publishing industry out of business? (If millions of people can borrow books *for free*, why would they ever pay for them?)
Or the radio station will put live performers out of business? (Why would *ANYONE* pay to see a live performance, when they can listen to it for free over the airwaves?)
Or the home VCR put the movie industry out of business? (Why would anyone pay $5.00 at a movie theatre when they can watch it at home?)
This argument has been used for decades, (every time a new technology comes out, IIRC) and so far it's proven false every time. Stop crying wolf, nobody's buying it.
The thing that strikes me about all of the attempts that I have seen to implement DRM, is that they all work on the principle that the consumer is a thief. If the content owners keep making this argument, and implementing it in hardware, it will actually spawn rampant thievery. After all, today I buy CDs (and rip them to MP3s immediately) and DVDs. If I cannot play a CD in my computer, I'll get it from a pirate online so that I can listen to it. How long, then, until I decide to skip the step of buying the CD in the first place? And it will be the same with movies at some point, I'm certain.
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Dear executive bigwig,
This letter is a plea for you to give up your insane obsession with rights management. YOU. JUST. CAIN'T. DO. IT. As the daily march of new technologies makes it easier and easier to transmit and transport data in various forms, it becomes obvious that attempts to stop this from happening are doomed to failure. Despite the successful destruction of the free-wheeling Napster, the trading of "illegal" materials continues, largely unabated.
The only way this will be stopped is with the propogation of police powers not seen out side of "1984" by George Orwell. There are simply too many channels available -- both on and off the Internet -- for transmitting this data. Stopping it will require buy-in from the community in toto, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.
Plus you guys have really come across as assholes recently, y'know?
- Rev.One day, you will be able to buy a DVD that forces you to sit through 15 minutes of previews and advertisements before you get to your movie. And it will be illegal to own a DVD player that will simply skip that crap and let you view the flick. It's coming, folks, it's coming.
It also seems to be a contradiction. DirectTV can transmit from their satellite to almost every square foot of North America, but if someone grabs that signal on their private property and decodes it then the person who received it is legally responsible, not DirectTV. But here, for some reason, they believe it is necessary for the sender to have some kind of permission to transmit with a range of a few hundred feet?
Who even cares? I suspect DirectTV provides a lot more free content to pirates than neighbors transmitting via RF do or will.
Everyone thought that Internet was great, that the new economy was great, and that all this communication and information would enlighten and unite the world. That was until companies started realizing exactly what that meant...
Scenario 1: Ubiquitous wireless home networking. I can get up from the football game and there is a networked screen in the bathroom, etc... In fact, I think somebody did a commercial that illustrated that vision.
Scenario 2: I can't network anything without paying twice for content I've already bought, and the devices that do it cost more because they have to support real-time encryption. Because of this, I choose not to buy the devices and simply do the "bathroom and snack rush" during commercials.
This just makes no sense. Once the content is in the home, why should they care how many outlets it comes out of? This is like the electric company charging me more for installing a new socket, even though I'm using the same number of kilowatt-hours.
Ordinarily I dismiss some of the things I see on /. as AIP/paranoia, but I have to concede to the /. crowd that controls like this for intrahome networking violate fair use, and probably a number of other things.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Are people like Phillips automatically assuming that the majority of the public is going to rip them off?
It doesn't take a genius to steal cable but, really, what is the percentage of people who legitimately pay for cable rather than steal it? I'd be willing to better the overwhelming majority pay for it.
And it's not as if the customer hasn't paid for the content here. So what if Joe Consumer broadcasts the Superbowl via wireless to the TV in his bathroom? If Joe Consumer is a paying customer, it shouldn't matter.
The vast majority still pay for their content. Each time I hear a story like this, I get the feeling that many large companies are simply fighting against imaginary enemies.
My sigs always suck.
I was puzzled by this concept, myself -- surely I have the right to broadcast my cable TV signal to as many televisions or computers in my own house as I see fit?
But if we're talking about Wi-Fi, then the problem isn't just inside my house. I'm essentially empowering any Wi-Fi receiver within my broadcast range to see what I'm watching on my own system -- whether it's television, cable TV, pay-per-view, or pre-recorded home video.
Think of the potential problems. A student in a dorm room could broadcast a rented DVD to every other student in their building, a clear violation of the big "at-home use" FBI warning you see at the start of the movie. A pay-per-view sports broadcast could be sent to everyone in my apartment building. My next-door neighbor could pirate my cable TV feed just by tuning into/cracking my Wi-Fi frequency. It's not a problem if we're talking about broadcast television signals, but anything else is a major violation of copyright, essentially turning my home system into a small pirate broadcast station.
This scheme appears to add a lot of hardware and complexity to any consumer electronics equipment that supports it. What is the benefit for the end user? Nothing that I can see. In fact, the end user is saddled with new and annoying restrictions on how content can be viewed. When will these idiots realize that their content is not that valuable? We aren't talking about a video conference of the National Security Council.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Except that for those 80-100% of 'honest people' have no idea how to make copies, much less record stuff typically in the first place. The VCR, as a prime example, without tools like VCR+, is very hard for average people to program, though I'm sure most geeks know their way around it. It took the intervention of this VCR+ system or things like TiVo with interactive program guides to get the common man familar enough with VCR programming.
So it's very doubtful the common honest person is the one they are putting this in place for.
As a few others have stated, while the tech they are trying to describe will prevent the wireless signals from going to other TVs in the same house, it's more than likely they're trying to make sure that a nearby neighbor cannot pick up on your wireless emissions and effectively 'steal' the signal, just as people used to do with cable. And those that would steal it would not be the honest people, but instead those with both the intent and the means to work out how to do it.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
There is, unfortunately, precedent for this, at least in the US (though it strikes me as something probably implemented elsewhere in the world, too).
There are laws on the books that (IIRC) forbid even listening to certain radio frequencies (or, more accurately, criminalizes having equipment capable of picking up those frequencies), because those frequencies are used by police and/or military (or something of the sort). In addition, there are the more familiar laws which (again IIRC) criminalize decoding of cell-phone transmissions.
While I can understand why they WANT to criminalize such things, as you point out, it sets a disturbing precedent. The signal is being sent through MY (and your and everyone else's) property. It is as if Government, Inc. has legslated permission for couriers to walk through your house any time they want, and requires you to cover your eyes whenever they do so, lest you see things the courier is carrying....
With a precedent like that, Government Inc can add laws, if they want, that criminalize receiving certain other channels (including 'channels contained copyright-protected materials such as satellite television broadcasts') 'without proper authorization' (e.g. broadcaster-sanctioned equipment only).
A side effect of things like this that REALLY bugs me is that it inhibits personal educational experimentation. Want to learn about electronics and radio transmissions by building your own receiver? You'd better have the existing skills and ability to design the circuits to specially block out reception of the 'special' frequencies or you're breaking the law. (And this is BEFORE the DMCA, which basically just extended this same prohibition to a ridiculous degree, to include non-broadcast material).
Personally, I think that if Government Inc. would spend the time and money making decent encryption available, instead of 'don't look' laws, the issue would be moot by now....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yes. It is (according to legislators/MPAA). See 'Macrovision'. Ever wonder why those 'Macrovision decoder' boxes were criminalized?...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The ultimate copy protection scheme is right around the corner. Word has it that the major studios will encode their movies on celluloid "film" and maintain exclusive proprietary rights to the product. In order to view it you will have to purchase a "ticket" and attend a "theater" which will post the showing times on the lighted billboard outside.
It's sad we've all been so corrupted by IP theft. Thank God Phillips is there to keep us in line.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
If this isn't a clear cut case of "We can't let people talk freely to one another because they might say things we think are damaging to us!", I don't know what is.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
What could prevent it would be competition from independent content producers, so the current corporations will tie up all the formats in proprietary protocols and laws to the point where it is impossible to produce content without a license and it is impossible to get the license unless you sign away your content to some big corporation.
The first step in preventing this is to restore copyrights to their original length. Well, what are you waiting for? You have a letter to your Congressperson to start writing.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I disagree:
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
item 4 is ver interesting IMHO.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are we not all supposed to move to HDTV broadcasts at some point in the near future, practically mandating a huge wave of upgrades by practically everyone?
That's why all of the DRM stuff is pushing as hard as it can, to be ready to be installed during this wave of migration.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Cable TV companies will end up being the first line of tech support for this stuff. But they don't profit from it. Look where we are now. Call Macrovision and try to get tech support for one of their copy-protected CDs that won't play on your CD drive.
They haven't even touched on the possible IP violations caused by the trasmission of copywrited material by light to your eyes.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Either they're really smart or their right hand doesn't know what their left hand is doing :)
What I'd like to see stopped is verbal rebroadcasting of tv shows. Every day of your life, you get to listen to a rehash of "Friends" or "Everybody Loves Raymond" through the cubicle farm. You know, "-and then Chandler said" conversations. This has got to be illegal, if only on infliction of emoptional distress. I'd buy anything that would stop these pirates.
/* No Comment */
the law
here it is (a)1 is of particular interest:
Sec. 111. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions
(a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted. -
The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if -
(1)
the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system, and consists entirely of the relaying, by the management of a hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment, of signals transmitted by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, within the local service area of such station, to the private lodgings of guests or residents of such establishment, and no direct charge is made to see or hear the secondary transmission; or
(2)
the secondary transmission is made solely for the purpose and under the conditions specified by clause (2) of section 110; or
(3)
the secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no direct or indirect control over the content or selection of the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of the secondary transmission, and whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others: Provided, That the provisions of this clause extend only to the activities of said carrier with respect to secondary transmissions and do not exempt from liability the activities of others with respect to their own primary or secondary transmissions;
(4)
the secondary transmission is made by a satellite carrier for private home viewing pursuant to a statutory license under section 119; or
(5)
the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.
(b) Secondary Transmission of Primary Transmission to Controlled Group. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (c), the secondary transmission to the public of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509, if the primary transmission is not made for reception by the public at large but is controlled and limited to reception by particular members of the public: Provided, however, That such secondary transmission is not actionable as an act of infringement if -
(1)
the primary transmission is made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; and
(2)
the carriage of the signals comprising the secondary transmission is required under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission; and
(3)
the signal of the primary transmitter is not altered or changed in any way by the secondary transmitter.
(c) Secondary Transmissions by Cable Systems. -
(1)
Subject to the provisions of clauses (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection and section 114(d), secondary transmissions to the public by a cable system of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or by an appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico shall be subject to statutory licensing upon compliance with the requirements of subsection (d) where the carriage of the signals comprising the secondary transmission is permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission.
(2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (1) of this subsection, the willful or repeated secondary transmission to the public by a cable system of a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or by an appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico and embodying a performance or display of a work is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509, in the following cases:
(A)
where the carriage of the signals comprising the secondary transmission is not permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission; or
(B)
where the cable system has not deposited the statement of account and royalty fee required by subsection (d).
(3)
Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (1) of this subsection and subject to the provisions of subsection (e) of this section, the secondary transmission to the public by a cable system of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or by an appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and sections 509 and 510, if the content of the particular program in which the performance or display is embodied, or any commercial advertising or station announcements transmitted by the primary transmitter during, or immediately before or after, the transmission of such program, is in any way willfully altered by the cable system through changes, deletions, or additions, except for the alteration, deletion, or substitution of commercial advertisements performed by those engaged in television commercial advertising market research: Provided, That the research company has obtained the prior consent of the advertiser who has purchased the original commercial advertisement, the television station broadcasting that commercial advertisement, and the cable system performing the secondary transmission: And provided further, That such commercial alteration, deletion, or substitution is not performed for the purpose of deriving income from the sale of that commercial time.
(4)
Notwithstanding the provisions of clause (1) of this subsection, the secondary transmission to the public by a cable system of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a broadcast station licensed by an appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, if
(A)
with respect to Canadian signals, the community of the cable system is located more than 150 miles from the United States-Canadian border and is also located south of the forty-second parallel of latitude, or
(B)
with respect to Mexican signals, the secondary transmission is made by a cable system which received the primary transmission by means other than direct interception of a free space radio wave emitted by such broadcast television station, unless prior to April 15, 1976, such cable system was actually carrying, or was specifically authorized to carry, the signal of such foreign station on the system pursuant to the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission.
(d) Statutory License for Secondary Transmissions by Cable Systems. -
(1)
A cable system whose secondary transmissions have been subject to statutory licensing under subsection (c) shall, on a semiannual basis, deposit with the Register of Copyrights, in accordance with requirements that the Register shall prescribe by regulation -
(A)
a statement of account, covering the six months next preceding, specifying the number of channels on which the cable system made secondary transmissions to its subscribers, the names and locations of all primary transmitters whose transmissions were further transmitted by the cable system, the total number of subscribers, the gross amounts paid to the cable system for the basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast transmitters, and such other data as the Register of Copyrights may from time to time prescribe by regulation. In determining the total number of subscribers and the gross amounts paid to the cable system for the basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast transmitters, the system shall not include subscribers and amounts collected from subscribers receiving secondary transmissions for private home viewing pursuant to section 119. Such statement shall also include a special statement of account covering any nonnetwork television programming that was carried by the cable system in whole or in part beyond the local service area of the primary transmitter, under rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission permitting the substitution or addition of signals under certain circumstances, together with logs showing the times, dates, stations, and programs involved in such substituted or added carriage; and
(B)
except in the case of a cable system whose royalty is specified in subclause (C) or (D), a total royalty fee for the period covered by the statement, computed on the basis of specified percentages of the gross receipts from subscribers to the cable service during said period for the basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast transmitters, as follows:
(i)
0.675 of 1 per centum of such gross receipts for the privilege of further transmitting any nonnetwork programming of a primary transmitter in whole or in part beyond the local service area of such primary transmitter, such amount to be applied against the fee, if any, payable pursuant to paragraphs (ii) through (iv);
(ii)
0.675 of 1 per centum of such gross receipts for the first distant signal equivalent;
(iii)
0.425 of 1 per centum of such gross receipts for each of the second, third, and fourth distant signal equivalents;
(iv)
0.2 of 1 per centum of such gross receipts for the fifth distant signal equivalent and each additional distant signal equivalent thereafter; and in computing the amounts payable under paragraphs (ii) through (iv), above, any fraction of a distant signal equivalent shall be computed at its fractional value and, in the case of any cable system located partly within and partly without the local service area of a primary transmitter, gross receipts shall be limited to those gross receipts derived from subscribers located without the local service area of such primary transmitter; and
(C)
if the actual gross receipts paid by subscribers to a cable system for the period covered by the statement for the basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast transmitters total $80,000 or less, gross receipts of the cable system for the purpose of this subclause shall be computed by subtracting from such actual gross receipts the amount by which $80,000 exceeds such actual gross receipts, except that in no case shall a cable system's gross receipts be reduced to less than $3,000. The royalty fee payable under this subclause shall be 0.5 of 1 per centum, regardless of the number of distant signal equivalents, if any; and
(D)
if the actual gross receipts paid by subscribers to a cable system for the period covered by the statement, for the basic service of providing secondary transmissions of primary broadcast transmitters, are more than $80,000 but less than $160,000, the royalty fee payable under this subclause shall be
(i)
0.5 of 1 per centum of any gross receipts up to $80,000; and
(ii)
1 per centum of any gross receipts in excess of $80,000 but less than $160,000, regardless of the number of distant signal equivalents, if any.
(2)
The Register of Copyrights shall receive all fees deposited under this section and, after deducting the reasonable costs incurred by the Copyright Office under this section, shall deposit the balance in the Treasury of the United States, in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury directs. All funds held by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be invested in interest-bearing United States securities for later distribution with interest by the Librarian of Congress in the event no controversy over distribution exists, or by a copyright arbitration royalty panel in the event a controversy over such distribution exists.
(3)
The royalty fees thus deposited shall, in accordance with the procedures provided by clause (4), be distributed to those among the following copyright owners who claim that their works were the subject of secondary transmissions by cable systems during the relevant semiannual period:
(A)
any such owner whose work was included in a secondary transmission made by a cable system of a nonnetwork television program in whole or in part beyond the local service area of the primary transmitter; and
(B)
any such owner whose work was included in a secondary transmission identified in a special statement of account deposited under clause (1)(A);
(C)
any such owner whose work was included in nonnetwork programming consisting exclusively of aural signals carried by a cable system in whole or in part beyond the local service area of the primary transmitter of such programs.
(4)
The royalty fees thus deposited shall be distributed in accordance with the following procedures:
(A)
During the month of July in each year, every person claiming to be entitled to statutory license fees for secondary transmissions shall file a claim with the Librarian of Congress, in accordance with requirements that the Librarian of Congress shall prescribe by regulation. Notwithstanding any provisions of the antitrust laws, for purposes of this clause any claimants may agree among themselves as to the proportionate division of statutory licensing fees among them, may lump their claims together and file them jointly or as a single claim, or may designate a common agent to receive payment on their behalf.
(B)
After the first day of August of each year, the Librarian of Congress shall, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, determine whether there exists a controversy concerning the distribution of royalty fees. If the Librarian determines that no such controversy exists, the Librarian shall, after deducting reasonable administrative costs under this section, distribute such fees to the copyright owners entitled to such fees, or to their designated agents. If the Librarian finds the existence of a controversy, the Librarian shall, pursuant to chapter 8 of this title, convene a copyright arbitration royalty panel to determine the distribution of royalty fees.
(C)
During the pendency of any proceeding under this subsection, the Librarian of Congress shall withhold from distribution an amount sufficient to satisfy all claims with respect to which a controversy exists, but shall have discretion to proceed to distribute any amounts that are not in controversy.
(e) Nonsimultaneous Secondary Transmissions by Cable Systems. -
(1)
Notwithstanding those provisions of the second paragraph of subsection (f) relating to nonsimultaneous secondary transmissions by a cable system, any such transmissions are actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and are fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and sections 509 and 510, unless -
(A)
the program on the videotape is transmitted no more than one time to the cable system's subscribers; and
(B)
the copyrighted program, episode, or motion picture videotape, including the commercials contained within such program, episode, or picture, is transmitted without deletion or editing; and
(C)
an owner or officer of the cable system
(i)
prevents the duplication of the videotape while in the possession of the system,
(ii)
prevents unauthorized duplication while in the possession of the facility making the videotape for the system if the system owns or controls the facility, or takes reasonable precautions to prevent such duplication if it does not own or control the facility,
(iii)
takes adequate precautions to prevent duplication while the tape is being transported, and
(iv)
subject to clause (2), erases or destroys, or causes the erasure or destruction of, the videotape; and
(D)
within forty-five days after the end of each calendar quarter, an owner or officer of the cable system executes an affidavit attesting
(i)
to the steps and precautions taken to prevent duplication of the videotape, and
(ii)
subject to clause (2), to the erasure or destruction of all videotapes made or used during such quarter; and
(E)
such owner or officer places or causes each such affidavit, and affidavits received pursuant to clause (2)(C), to be placed in a file, open to public inspection, at such system's main office in the community where the transmission is made or in the nearest community where such system maintains an office; and
(F)
the nonsimultaneous transmission is one that the cable system would be authorized to transmit under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect at the time of the nonsimultaneous transmission if the transmission had been made simultaneously, except that this subclause shall not apply to inadvertent or accidental transmissions.
(2)
If a cable system transfers to any person a videotape of a program nonsimultaneously transmitted by it, such transfer is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509, except that, pursuant to a written, nonprofit contract providing for the equitable sharing of the costs of such videotape and its transfer, a videotape nonsimultaneously transmitted by it, in accordance with clause (1), may be transferred by one cable system in Alaska to another system in Alaska, by one cable system in Hawaii permitted to make such nonsimultaneous transmissions to another such cable system in Hawaii, or by one cable system in Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, to another cable system in any of those three territories, if -
(A)
each such contract is available for public inspection in the offices of the cable systems involved, and a copy of such contract is filed, within thirty days after such contract is entered into, with the Copyright Office (which Office shall make each such contract available for public inspection); and
(B)
the cable system to which the videotape is transferred complies with clause (1)(A), (B), (C)(i), (iii), and (iv), and (D) through (F); and
(C)
such system provides a copy of the affidavit required to be made in accordance with clause (1)(D) to each cable system making a previous nonsimultaneous transmission of the same videotape.
(3)
This subsection shall not be construed to supersede the exclusivity protection provisions of any existing agreement, or any such agreement hereafter entered into, between a cable system and a television broadcast station in the area in which the cable system is located, or a network with which such station is affiliated.
(4)
As used in this subsection, the term ''videotape'', and each of its variant forms, means the reproduction of the images and sounds of a program or programs broadcast by a television broadcast station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as tapes or films, in which the reproduction is embodied.
(f) Definitions. -
As used in this section, the following terms and their variant forms mean the following:
A ''primary transmission'' is a transmission made to the public by the transmitting facility whose signals are being received and further transmitted by the secondary transmission service, regardless of where or when the performance or display was first transmitted.
A ''secondary transmission'' is the further transmitting of a primary transmission simultaneously with the primary transmission, or nonsimultaneously with the primary transmission if by a ''cable system'' not located in whole or in part within the boundary of the forty-eight contiguous States, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico: Provided, however, That a nonsimultaneous further transmission by a cable system located in Hawaii of a primary transmission shall be deemed to be a secondary transmission if the carriage of the television broadcast signal comprising such further transmission is permissible under the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission.
A ''cable system'' is a facility, located in any State, Territory, Trust Territory, or Possession, that in whole or in part receives signals transmitted or programs broadcast by one or more television broadcast stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, and makes secondary transmissions of such signals or programs by wires, cables, microwave, or other communications channels to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. For purposes of determining the royalty fee under subsection (d)(1), two or more cable systems in contiguous communities under common ownership or control or operating from one headend shall be considered as one system.
The ''local service area of a primary transmitter'', in the case of a television broadcast station, comprises the area in which such station is entitled to insist upon its signal being retransmitted by a cable system pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, or such station's television market as defined in section 76.55(e) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on September 18, 1993), or any modifications to such television market made, on or after September 18, 1993, pursuant to section 76.55(e) or 76.59 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or in the case of a television broadcast station licensed by an appropriate governmental authority of Canada or Mexico, the area in which it would be entitled to insist upon its signal being retransmitted if it were a television broadcast station subject to such rules, regulations, and authorizations. In the case of a low power television station, as defined by the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, the ''local service area of a primary transmitter'' comprises the area within 35 miles of the transmitter site, except that in the case of such a station located in a standard metropolitan statistical area which has one of the 50 largest populations of all standard metropolitan statistical areas (based on the 1980 decennial census of population taken by the Secretary of Commerce), the number of miles shall be 20 miles. The ''local service area of a primary transmitter'', in the case of a radio broadcast station, comprises the primary service area of such station, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
A ''distant signal equivalent'' is the value assigned to the secondary transmission of any nonnetwork television programming carried by a cable system in whole or in part beyond the local service area of the primary transmitter of such programming. It is computed by assigning a value of one to each independent station and a value of one-quarter to each network station and noncommercial educational station for the nonnetwork programming so carried pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission. The foregoing values for independent, network, and noncommercial educational stations are subject, however, to the following exceptions and limitations. Where the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission require a cable system to omit the further transmission of a particular program and such rules and regulations also permit the substitution of another program embodying a performance or display of a work in place of the omitted transmission, or where such rules and regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this Act permit a cable system, at its election, to effect such deletion and substitution of a nonlive program or to carry additional programs not transmitted by primary transmitters within whose local service area the cable system is located, no value shall be assigned for the substituted or additional program; where the rules, regulations, or authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on the date of enactment of this Act permit a cable system, at its election, to omit the further transmission of a particular program and such rules, regulations, or authorizations also permit the substitution of another program embodying a performance or display of a work in place of the omitted transmission, the value assigned for the substituted or additional program shall be, in the case of a live program, the value of one full distant signal equivalent multiplied by a fraction that has as its numerator the number of days in the year in which such substitution occurs and as its denominator the number of days in the year. In the case of a station carried pursuant to the late-night or specialty programming rules of the Federal Communications Commission, or a station carried on a part-time basis where full-time carriage is not possible because the cable system lacks the activated channel capacity to retransmit on a full-time basis all signals which it is authorized to carry, the values for independent, network, and noncommercial educational stations set forth above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by a fraction which is equal to the ratio of the broadcast hours of such station carried by the cable system to the total broadcast hours of the station.
A ''network station'' is a television broadcast station that is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or more of the television networks in the United States providing nationwide transmissions, and that transmits a substantial part of the programming supplied by such networks for a substantial part of that station's typical broadcast day.
An ''independent station'' is a commercial television broadcast station other than a network station.
A ''noncommercial educational station'' is a television station that is a noncommercial educational broadcast station as defined in section 397 of title 47
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The 4 prong plug is what was used before the rj-45(I think...) came out. You can get converters at Radio Shack to allow that type of plug to work in a modern system.
Best Slashdot Co
Ok, I'm all for fair use rights (if you couldn't tell by the sig and the link), but I'm looking at this in a different light. I don't see this as squashing fair use. Encrypting means the PPV that I paid for and I'm broadcasting within my house can't be swiped by the dude next door who sets a receiver close enough to his outside wall. My set of devices are all keyed to a certain encryption, so I can watch what I want anywhere I want in the house, but nobody can intercept it. That actually protects my rights, most specifically privacy.
:)
This also keeps people from setting up "pirate" TV stations and such to broadcast the latest boxing match (*cough*fixed*cough*) to everyone on the block. I admit that might be a flawed reason because of FCC and whatnot, but I'm trying to demonstrate the logic here. This doesn't seem so much like a "copy-protect" as a "transmission-protect" method.
It's worth following, though
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
It seems that the only way consumers in the future will have freedom to use the content they have paid for (think of it as media functionality) is to turn to pirated works. And once they have put forward the effort and expense to track down a suitable pirated work, one has to wonder how often the consumer will feel like bothering to purchase the legitimate product for that added bit of moral highground.
Content owners seem deturmined to shoot themselves in the foot. And its the various technology companies, and their sales/marketing team, that are assuring the industry of an oportunity ("them's feet are good eatin'") and selling the shotguns.
I presume there's a way for Philips to collect a fee for this or both them and the cable provider.
For the most part I don't watch much TV anymore, particularly since losing first ABC then WB (and winding up with 2*NBC) in my market, but this is probably in reality a minefield. I have doubts about whether it'll come to pass, like 50% of what I've seen at CES of the past.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It seems that with all the DRM - advertising and content sponsorship will be at odds with the content providers - or is it that instead of getting advertisers to pay for our consumption of content, we are now going to pay for it ourselves?
Doesn't it seem like content rights holders are going to go head to head with the content distributors?
Advertisers want their advertisements to be seen by as many people as possible. Content distributors (TV networks) rely on advertising to pay for the content. DRM generally (though not always, I suppose) want the consumers to pay for the content. Why should we, as consumers, start paying for so much content when advertisers used to always pay for them for us?
I must admit, I find myself in a quandary.
On one hand I love technology and the ways it frees me to do what I want with what I have. I can rip CDs to mp3s and listen to them on my iPod or computer without lugging around tons of discs. I love short movie files of stuff I can find on the internet, like movie trailers. I love the fact that I can record TV shows to a hard drive or a DVD to play back later. I have a lot of fun playing the latest games, but I hate to have to jump through hoops to play them when they require passwords and other forms of protection.
On the other hand I hate the abuses these technologies open up. I firmly believe that artists, songwriters, performers, and programmers should get paid for their hard work. I have no problems with companies charging for a good product. The problem is that all of the things I like about technology can be used to subvert the process of compensating all of these people for their work. Eventually piracy can lead us down the road to crippling the free movement of data and the ease-of-use that comes with it.
So my question is how do we balance things? How can we ensure that the Fair-Use laws are upheld, yet still prevent the pirates from having free reign? Can a balance be struck between fair compensation and freedom to use a product? Does anyone here have any ideas that don't go to the one extreme of no protection of copyright or the other extreme of total lock-down of data?
Sapere aude!
Hmm... so let me see if I understand this. If I take my computer, rip all my DVD's to DivX, then get a wireless card, anybody close enough to me in my apartment complex can potentially watch those movies.
Okay, fair enough. Given the range of 802.11, I think maybe 6 people are close enough they'd get a decent signal. Which is fine because I think I wouldn't be able to handle much more than that since a dvd rip is roughly 1 megabit.
For this to happen, all 6 of my neighbors would have to not only have computers (I think 2 of my neighbors have computers), wireless cards, and I'd have to talk to each one to give them information on how to hit my computer to get the info.
I just don't see this happening. First off, with all the neighbors I've had in the past, I can only think of one that'd actually even try it, let alone rely on it.
Secondly, I'm the only guy I know that has a computer permanently hooked up to a television. (gotta put my demo reel on VHS somehow!) I can't imagine any of my neighbors watching a movie on anything but their television.
Third, for all the trouble this would take, I'd have better luck just sending them the movie over ICQ than by trying to get all this wireless bs worked out. As bandwidth improves, wireless as way to transmit it is even less interesting.
I think wireless networks will take off, but I have trouble seeing people sharing their networks to other people. Who'd want to? I'd be afraid of security issues. I don't want my neighbor finding a way into my computer and reading my torrid emails to my girlfriend.
I think the industry is solving the wrong problem. Instead of trying to encrypt very specific files over 802.11, how about trying to figure out how to make money on this. Check out http://www.intertainer.tv for an example. You pay them $4, and you can watch a full length movie immediately. That's a better service than I'd ever care to provide, and they can make money on it.
"Derp de derp."
That law states that it is not infringement to copy media (or whatever) for personal use.
That dosen't mean that the vendors are required to allow you to make the copies. They can do their best to prevent copying. It's just not infringement if you get around their block.
copy protection and digital rights management over the wirelessly connected home has gained "a sense of urgency,"
Even if you accept the most extreme position on protecting IP, there is absolutely no legitimate interest in people moving content from one place to another within the home.
The only reason it has "gained a sense of urgency" is that it would be required for a universal end-to-end iron-fisted lockdown on everything.
Digital Rights Management is an embodyment of the worst possible authoritarian regime. It MUST have total control of everything. Anything not under total lockdown is a potential leak that threatends to bring it crashing down. Everything must be devoured or destroyed.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I would agree with you that "pro-recreational drug use " in your own home should be illegal IF the following was true.
1: If you leave your house while high, you are put in a work detail for 2 weeks (doubleing every time you do this)
2: If, for any reason, you HARM anyone (wife, husband, child, pet, other human) while under the effects of drugs you are executed.
3: If you cause ANY disturbance while high you have to pay a large fine (> $5,000 USD)
The digital variety go for some $3000 and go up from there. It's part of why they don't have digital TV in the hands of the masses- it's not lack of ability to mass produce them, it's a lack of desire to put content out that they can't control 100% because someone could make a digital copy of the feed. Since there's not that many digital stations out there right now, the makers aren't ramping up production so the units for sale out there are limited production units and therefore expensive as all get-out.
When the content providers start realizing that most of this is like worrying about locking up excrement in a fire safe, perhaps they'll lighten up and realize like they did with videotapes that it's better to sell the tapes cheap- in this case, they'll make a hell of a lot more money if they killed region coding and made DVDs mostly priced at $10-20 like most videotapes (I don't care what "added value" they're putting in the DVDs- it's NOT worth a 50-100% increase in the price in most cases...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Ya know, I don't think we'd need to worry about the government implementing the Matrix, it's going to be the RIAA and MPAA, and Microsoft.
Why the hell would they think it's cost effective to prevent somebodies next door neighboor from grabbing a signal for some WWF pay-per-view event. By spending millions of dollars in man hours and equipment, they're going to protect themselves from the theft of a $7 show, that the thieves probably wouldn't have even watched if they had to pay for it.
How does one talk to a law?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Being drunk is being under the effects of a drug, so the above would apply...
Next time, please understand what you are responding to before you reply...
... that won't get to sell you another copy of the DVD, because the one you already own is device-encoded for a computer and you want to play it on a TV?
Nope, no sig
From the tone of this article, it seems like they want to "up the stakes" and make you buy a copy of a movie PER SET or "rendering device" - ie, DVD player, etc (or at least have the ability to).
It also sounds like they want to limit (ie, take away) the ability to have a central video source and switchboxes, etc that distribute the signal to one or more TVs (this can be done pretty cheaply and easily today - at one time, it was high end audio/video only - and in some cases, still is I imagine - there probably exist multi-drive multi-DVD changers out there, which can sit in a "media closet", with TVs and special transmitter/ remote systems to allow selection of different movies on different sets - it sounds like they want to gut this market as well!).
You know something? I think the "consumer" (I hate that word) is out of the loop - it isn't "what the consumer wants" that drives these corporate behemoths toward profits - it is "they will take this, and like it" - and stupidly, the majority of the sheeple do!!! WTF?!
I am sick of it! SICK OF IT ALL! Damn it, I want what I want - not what they want - f--- that!
When will all of this end? How long has this been going on? At least since 1995 or 1996 - I am tired of this - I want it over! Give us a corporate controlled totalitarian police state with full surveilance and lock down for all sheeple OR MOVE THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!!!!
I can't begin to really express the way I feel. I know a lot of you feel the same way - SO WHY AREN'T WE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT? WHY DO WE JUST SIT HERE AND COMPLAIN? IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN _DO_?
I swear - this is like some bad dream. Outside, the sun is shining, life goes on, most people are in ignorant bliss - how I wish I could join them. How I wish I could go and buy a DVD player, a pile of DVDs, and not feel a twinge of guilt. I can't do that. I have expressed here before how I feel I am doing a disservice by owning a 19 inch monitor with a SONY Trinitron tube - simply because it is made by SONY. I am tired.
Tired.
I suppose I will fight on, though, however I can...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
And hah hah, it's all funny, except for this: The computer as digital operator allows us to take all the communications that flow through our homes and do really neat things with them... and these content bastards are going to just screw it all up wanting to sniff every signal I send and impose all sorts of cumbersome rights management bullshit on my gear? Fuck them. I'm sick of these pissant media mobesters content tail wagging the giant, potential filled dog of digital media and communications technology. I'll buy another Phillips product when hell freezes over.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
If you think that they are _going broke_, I have some beautiful oceanfront property in Wyoming you might be interested in.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
My point wasn't so much that the /entire/ industry would go out of business, but rather that the industry would have to scale back. Yes, I can live without the EMIs, the Sonys. I can't live without someone else handling the distribution and promotion, but it doesn't matter to me if my fan bass is 1% that of the Britteny Spears' of the world, and that the media company that represents me is 0.5% the size of Sony's music devision. My comment was more about scale and whole 'number of fans' versus 'number of fans who are willing to pay X dollars per concert, listening, viewing, etc' ..
"Old man yells at systemd"
...maybe this technology might bring a more viable option for encrypting 802.11x traffic. Right now WEP is useless, and unless you encapsulate everything zipping around the network in encrypted tunnels you are fair game for "wardrivers."
We need a practical means of strong crypto for wireless. If this need coincides with the questionable need for the MPAA and the RIAA and other entities to nickel and dime us every time we look at their precious content that's beside the point.
The threats to the doctrine of Fair Use need to be addressed. Reasonable Intellectual Property rights (emphasis on REASONABLE) need to be preserved, but so does the doctrine of Fair Use.
However, a lot of these ideas I've read about in the article sound like great ideas for solving the current wireless (In)security problems.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Why cannot people grasp that the copyright is a priviledge, not a right?
You may argue that some provision for a copyright is mandated by the constitution, but that would be satisfied by a 1 year term. Certainly by a 5 year term.
The copyright exists at all only to encourage the distribution of literature, art, technical information, etc. Any version which does not act to so encourage the distribution has no validity under the constitution of the US.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
When God spoke to him last night he said it was ok to use any part of the collective works to be known as "the Bible" in any manner that was consistent with the spirit of the work. Final arbitration should be referred to J. Christ & Assoc.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
They're looking at the future where most people will have the equipment this will take.
I do agree that the solution you present is the best, it does mean they might have to compete, and they would want that, would they?
this is what this boild down to, all the cable companies don't have to compete with each other because they hace exlusive rights to the wire that runs into your home, but with the Internet, anybody can become a content provider, and they can do ot pretty cheaply compared to the cable companies since thay won't havt to lay down the infra-structure... hmmmm I need to speak to a VC.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Don't Steal Music."
It's on every single iPod/iTunes commercial.
Not for long, at the rate we're going in this country. Voting with your wallet is a good thing, but not if it becomes the ONLY way you can effectively vote.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You just walk right up to it and start talking. Be warned, however, that it's about as effective as speaking to a congresscritter if you aren't handing them a big bag of money.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thanks, I was going to ask him if he thought inviting people into his dorm room was a "major copyright" violation. I'm waiting for Hilary and friends to demand that people watch DVDs on personal headsets, with blinders in dark windowless rooms.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Yes, indeed, it is the same Philips.
Philips Intellectual Property and Standards, including CD digital audio and the Red Book.
Philips Semiconductors, the ones who are in a tizzy about wireless "broadcasts" within a home.
Will you enter the bathroom labelled "female"? After all, female has got m-a-lee, must be the same!
...and while it seems to help a bit, it doesn't seem like the ultimate solution.
I have this feeling, that if all of the geeks who are against this "stood up" and said "ENOUGH!", it would only be a whisper amongst shouts of the mob of ignorance and apathy that surrounds us.
Depressing to say the least.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Bolstered support by saying that putting copy protection on CDs was A Bad Thing(tm), lost it (and then some!) by saying that we can't watch a show on more then one TV.
Not like a CatTV splitter doesn't work just as well anyways. ^_^
Seriously though, uh, if I am PAYING (currently around $90 a month mind you) to watch something on a cable box, why should I have to pay MORE to move that signal to a nearbye TV? Or hell mabye I just MOVED my TV and I don't want to have to MOVE the cable box as well (especialy if the wires are already stretched to their limits, quality degrades FAST over standard RF/CATTV wires as their length increases, REALLY fast, wireless would probably have less issues anyways).
Or mabye I just have one of Phillips flat screen TVs (I wish!!!) and I have an obsession with hanging it up in different parts of the room and I do not want to have to rewire my complete A/V center each time I do so.
Hell, there is an idea for you, wireless A/V boxen that automaticaly configure themselves! That'd save me a ton of trouble, bleh.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
There you have it. It's a legal right granted, as opposed to a natural one, like say, human rights. In other words, it is granted, on the condition that the fruits of copyrights benefit society. As opposed to the unconditional one, where withdrawing that right would constitute a crime.