Slashdot Mirror


Anti-Copying TV Technology Creeps Forward

An anonymous reader writes: " After CDs, then comes TV? Although the technologies being spoken about are supposedly to prevent online sharing of television content as digital network television is born, the extents of the control being spoken of is alarming. When I purchase my next television recording device, will I be able to chose to record my favorite show while I am away from home? Will I be able to record one show while watching another? Or will I be at the mercy of the network ... only allowed to record should they *want* me to record. It could be possible to prevent the recording of first-run shows, forcing either-or choices (and affecting ratings and advertising rates,) rather than allowing us to watch one, record another."

40 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. OK, you *made* me do it by fleener · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I can't tape TV shows, I'll set up a video camera on a tripod, get a tightly cropped picture and use a timing device to record my damn shows. Or maybe I'll finally get so pissed off I withdraw from all corporate entertainment consumption.

    Dammit, could the entertainment industry be bigger assholes?

    1. Re:OK, you *made* me do it by Macka · · Score: 4, Funny


      Or maybe I'll finally get so pissed off I withdraw from all corporate entertainment consumption.

      You read my mind. This actually might be a good thing. I'll be more inclined to get out more. Well, perhaps as far as the local pub anyway :-)

    2. Re:OK, you *made* me do it by statusbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For communicating a method to circumvent copy protection.

      --jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    3. Re:OK, you *made* me do it by swordboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't worry... The only way that they can prevent copying is if they were to replace every TV in the world with TVs that can decode an encrypted signal *after* it enters the TV. Since this would be very cost prohibitive to undertake even within the next 25 years, you can expect that, until this day, there will be a device that can copy the video signal on standard 75ohm coax that is used in the tens of millions of TVs in use today.

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  2. Because as we all know ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the entire TV, music, and movie industries are on the verge of bankruptcy, because of those evil digital pirates. Yo ho ho and a bottle of TiVo, mateys! Let's take the Digital Main!

    Sheesh. The VCR was the best thing that ever happened to Hollywood. Recording and sharing _increases_ interest in the entertainment industry's products. Why can't they see that?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Because as we all know ... by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...They can't see that because they'd all rather have a dime today than a dollar tomorrow. It's not even their fault, really; they're answerable to shareholders, like everyone else.

      As long as people see the stock market as a short term, get-rich-quick environment, corporations have to look at their businesses that way. You want long-term stability and decent behavior? Buy into companies that act that way (and realize that you'll make less money in the short term).

      There's a lot to be said for US-style capitalism, but it seems we've hit the point of diminishing returns. Companies are incented to rape their customers for short-term profit so big shareholders can get out with a big profit... and then the company goes to hell while the shareholders move on to the next "fast growing" company, which has no choice but to do the same thing (by no choice, I mean that the majority shareholders, including corporate officers, all stand to gain by that behavior).

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    2. Re:Because as we all know ... by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The same is true in Music and Software.

      Where would Windows be today if tens of thousands of future MSCE's hadn't pirated the crap out of Windows 3.1 and MS Office? At least PART of Microsoft's success is due to the rampant piracy - especially with MS Office, where WordPerfect employed goofy copy protection, Microsoft did not, and people flocked AWAY from WordPerfect. When people went from home-hobbyist to legit, they bought licenses.

      Where would Adobe be today without the rampant piracy of Photoshop by tens of thousands of graphic art students (don't tell me this is not happening).
      They'd be the publisher of software that is so hard to use, an artist's costs are DOUBLED *JUST* to begin learning about how to use Photoshop. Photoshop has a HUGE learning-curve to do anything but the most basic operations. Their marketshare would be comparatively microscopic. But since people have pirated it, they can mess around with it, learn it, evaluate it's worth (find out that, hey, $600 really IS justified for this gem!).

      And it's been said MANY times, (it's like a broken record - no pun intended) that music sales have INCREASED due to Napster - because Napster tended to act as a free-promotion mechanism, and people may have kept a lot of MP3's they never intended to buy, but they also purchased a lot more CDs that they wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to.

      In a society of law and order, we can bitch and moan all we want about whether or not these companies have a RIGHT to protect their own IP in the face of provisions like Fair Use. That's all academic. But it's certainly not in most company's best interests to do so. It's so blatantly obvious - and yet time and again, we see companies who are competing, don't often CARE if their software is pirated. It's a convenient way to gain marketshare - it's dumping, without actually dumping.

      But as soon as they achieve any kind of dominance (read: monopoly power!!!) they clamp down the screws. I think this is what bothers everyone deep down in the bottom of their hearts - people know right from wrong, they sense it, and it's easy to justify "stealing" IP from a monopolist who's abusing their position. The monopolists want their cake, and they want to eat it too, and us consumers along with it.

      If they weren't monopolies, I would join the "libertarian" crowd and say: hey, just let the free-market punish these assholes for their crappy business practices.
      But that would be the same as saying - gee, I hate the way my electric company raises my rates and I still get outages. Fuck it all, I'm going to move to another state.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    3. Re:Because as we all know ... by b0r1s · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dont allow the slashdot editors to hide information from you.

      READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

      Make sure you note the massive amounts of -1 moderations, all done simultaneously, obviously by an editor.

      Stand up. Make your voice heard. Tell the slashdot staff you will not tolerate editor moderation on large scales, such as this!

      --
      Mooniacs for iOS and Android
  3. Re:Current law...details by Random+Feature · · Score: 3, Informative

    In recent years:

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that consumers could "time shift" TV programs on VCRs to view later.

    Making cassette tapes or copies of CDs for personal use has been affirmed by court rulings, while a 1992 law allowed consumers to make limited digital copies of music, with royalties to be included in the price of blank tapes and discs.

    In 1999, a court ruled that portable digital music players could be sold and gave owners the right to move their music from PCs to the devices.

    The precedences are astounding, so what (other than money) are the "big boys" going to do to overturn these rulings?

    --
    I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
  4. Maybe it's not so bad by Ghoser777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally (and there are plenty of people who disagree with me, that's why they buy products like thys), I don't think there's much left on TV that's worth recording anymore. Instead of watching "When Animals Attck VIII", maybe this will get people to read more or do other stuff that's more educational or socially significant, like taking interest in children's education (and having kids focus more on their education because they're not watching as much tv). There are some quality shows, but commercialization and voyerism and other junk have really made network television really aweful.

    Then again, I guess the next step would be to copy protect books. Maybe they'll burst into flames if they detect a sufficiently bright light, such as used in copy machines.

    F-bacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  5. TV show trading by DanThe1Man · · Score: 4, Informative

    For thouse of you that don't know it, there is already TV show trading on the internet, mostly on IRC and on a few web sites. The problem for the TV networks is that people take out the commerials when they encode the show, so the networks don't get any advertiing dollars.

  6. How, without encryption... by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...are they supposed to be able to achieve this? The article's point about a 'flag' having to be universally accepted and followed is right on. But unless they try to actually encrypt the full signal, anyone could manufacture a non-compliant device, and it'd be an instant mega-seller. I don't even see the point of this initiative. Without the force of law or unbreakable encryption, it's useless.

  7. Re:Bah.. by b_pretender · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whooa now...

    Watch what you say. There's plenty of episodes of Junkyard Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer on television. These are my favorite two shows and also the only shows that watch. (actually, I'm being serious)

  8. The real Digital Divide by Speare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I see this as the real "Digital Divide," a recurring pattern using this new medium as a force to separate and distinguish the two classes, but in a new configuration. In the past, the producers were the paeons and the consumers were the elite.

    This development shows how this is reversing: the producers are the elite who have licenses to clone costless data and the consumers are the powerless drones who pay their wages and freedoms away per every view.

    Same class model we've had for centuries, and the digital realm is nothing new.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  9. Just opening the door for independents... by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that the tighter they squeeze people, the wider the door will get for independent people to make their own shows and publish them on the web.

    It is possible with today's consumer technology for people to make movies and broadcast them on the internet. Video cameras are cheap, people are willing to act (although there's need for improvement heh), and TV quality visual effects are within the reach of people with a modest income.

    Until the day Hollywood consistantly creates stories that are worth paying for, they can't make these kinds of demands. Take a look at Final Fantasy. The people who are fans of that series are mostly interested in the story. They have their Playstation 2's, they have the $50 to buy the game, and they have the 40 hours to beat it. There isn't a TV show out there that can make that many people reschedule their lives around when the show is aired. Even though a show is half an hour to an hour long, nearly all of them aren't worth making sure you are home for that time.

    So go ahead Hollywood, spend your energy trying to protect your 'precious content', you're not going to squeeze more money out of people.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  10. Everyone will have more time for Slashdot by 2Bits · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Gee, I'm feeling squeezed.

    First, I stopped going to theater coz I'm pissed by MPAA. And I stopped renting movies for the same reason. Then I stop buying music CDs coz I'm pissed by RIAA. And I refuse to buy DVD player because of this stupid zoning scheme and DMCA.

    And now TV. Well, not that I watch any TV at all, as I don't even have cable. But still.

    Great, everyone just spends more quality time on Slashdot, then. Let it be the geek's new year's resolution.

  11. Re:That will be it. by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The TV in its earlier days was informative and delivered unique content. Exactly as radio was before that, and as newspaper was before that... and all these technologies had their high points, and they passed them.

    What would one read in a newspaper today, yesterday's news? Opinions of illiterate or unqualified journalists? Ads? Same happened with radio; rare a song now is played from start to end because radio people just love to mix and match the bait^Wsong with ads and useless chat that is not even worth the battery to tune to. TV is not far behind; ads drip from every little pause in content, and the content itself is of very low value, targeting lowest common denominator in the society.

    Is there something better than TV? Sure, and it is already here. One can have his movies on tapes, VCDs, DVDs or just in big .avi files, just click of a mouse to order at online shop (or Usenet). The one-way pipe (from fools on that end to fools on this end) is now being replaced with tons of chat/messaging software, from rocket-scientist's IRC to uncle Joe's Yahoo boards, where people can actually *talk* to each other, instead of being fed with corporate propaganda.

    The TV is losing its appeal, especially (for now) among people who know how to get better information from Internet. Joe Sixpack still uses TV; however he does so not because he loves it but because it is there. He loves beer much more, and if he can get his football elsewhere, he will. If he can't tape his play he would be mad, and the TV would be useless to him.

    In any case, there is no free market in broadcasting, and as such the monopoly (made out of several sister TV companies) is free to abuse the viewer in any way it wants. The only remedy is to stop using their services. They are not worth much anyway, and if a movie is good you can always buy it, free from ads, squishing, logos and other fluff.

  12. HAH! by curunir · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Technology Working Group has a better record of achievement, however. Formed in 1996 to come up with standards for protecting DVDs from piracy, the group has consistently agreed on standards such as the Content Scrambling System, which is built into DVDs and DVD players.

    I suppose they just succeded in making me buy a new monitor (...must...learn...not...to...read...online...stor ies...whilst...drinking...coffee...)

    --
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  13. Re:Fair Use and the courts? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Don't be a dumbass. Fair use is a privilege, not a right. You, and everyone else (this includes corporations) have the right to copy protect content however you please.

    You're right. Fair use does not guarantee that it should be easy to record a copy for personal use.

    However, broadcasting is a pivilege, not a right. Getting an easement on everybody's property for cable is a privilege, not a right. Parking a satellite in a geosynchronous slot is a privilege, not a right.

    I think that it's only fair that in return for using their government granted monopolies on these publicly owned channels for their content distribution, broadcasters, satellite and cable companies should not be allowed to thwart reasonable fair use by their customers.

    If they don't want to allow fair use, that's fine. They would just have to distribute their content in an entirely private distribution channel, like delivering DVDs via UPS.

    With the current corporate-controlled political climate, however, I doubt that my argument will get very far.

  14. I got me an old top-loading 4 head VCR! by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bet it won't even notice whatever content protection scheme they put in!

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  15. Re:That will be it. by sabinm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only to a certain extent. for instance. Larry Lunchpail already has local blackout on his satellite dish and he isn't coating anyone with blood. Look at it this way. I pay 50 bucks a season to see all the NFL games I want, plus some NCAA. Except, for that 50 bucks, I can't see my home team, because it's blacked out by the national stations in my area. I have to watch their medium or not at all. Much more than that, if my favorite team makes it to the playoffs, or ANY televised game, then I'm stuck switching back to my less quality games through my antenna. So basically, I've paid 50 a season for the worst games and no playoffs. And Larry Lunchpail laps it up! no complaints. this has been going on since the satelite tv started. The only alternative I see is not worrying about the drivel they put up anyway, and watch PBS until they scramble that signal too.

    --
    http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
  16. Ahhhh goats! by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's too bad there isn't a slashbox to filter out these whiny fucking threads. Think about it for a second, way back when there were three television broadcasters! You didn't get to pick shit that was on television. You were damn lucky if the TV had anything for your lazy ass to watch or you just watched what was cool. Then came cable and satellite. You had even more choices of what to plop your lazy ass in front of as long as you were willing to pay for it. VCRs also came about which allowed you to record stuff to watch later (held up by court statute known as time shifting). The you could program your VCR to record shit even if you weren't around to press buttons. Broadcasters even worked with the VCRPlus folks to give channel guides codes that would let people even more easily program their VCRs to record shit they weren't around to watch. Now in the transition to digital broadcasters want to break all of this because people can make exact copies of what was broadcast.

    The problem lies in the fact that they make money from the potential eyes of viewers. Ratings allow broadcasters to charge more money for the time they sell to advertisers. They make their money in this fashion. However if they are broadcasting digital information rather than analog exact digital copies would be made. Big deal you say but it IS a big deal. It requires a bit of effort to filter commercials out of analog signals on a VCR (they look for a fade to black and stop recording until the video fades back in). The percentage of VCRs and people who take the time to do this is small so broadcasters don't bitch much about it. With a digital signal it is fairly trivial to scan a datastream for a pattern or flag denoting the transition to a commercial and since this is trivial a PVR or equivilent can easily nix the commercial from the recorded video. Since the only difference between a PVR and digital signal decoder is a storage device to record the video stream this had broadcasters a bit worried. If a majority of people with digital receivers can both time shift and remove commercials from video feeds the broadcasters can't make didly squat. Their traditional metrics become useless and advertisers can't be assured their advertisements will even be seen.

    Broadcasters don't care about the small fraction of people who would go to all the trouble to trade copies of video over the internet. Most people won't bother even if they have the bandwidth. It's scores easier to flip on your TV at a certain time of tell a PVR or VCR to record something than it is to first find it and then second download it to your computer. Broadcasters will however be taken to court if they break compliance with statutes saying people have the right to record video for personal use. To keep from getting legally fucked in the ass this way you're going to see non-linear break commercials. Characters will drink a Pepsi and wear Reeboks and chase a bad guy through the Gap end will hang out at a Starbucks. Advertising will be like it was depicted in The Truman show where they broadcast constantly. Everyday items would be product placement and actors would be spokespeople during the shows they performed on. The crap acting you see in commercials now is going to take place inside your favourite drama or sci-fi adventure. Also expect more of those fucking tickers at the bottom, top, and sides of your screen.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  17. Re:For the last fucking time by TheMCP · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's television. It's not bread, water or sleep. It isn't procreation. It isn't required to subsist. It *isn't an inalienable right*.
    Actually, it *is*. The FCC grants the right to use the airwaves to television stations on the basis that they are supposed to serve the public. They're allowed to make a profit on doing so, but they're supposed to serve us. If they're going to take away our fair-use rights, the FCC should look at taking away their licenses to broadcast.
  18. Re:hmm... by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have a feeling they're trying to create a market for the over-priced DVD episodes of TV series. Who in their right mind would pay $20+ for two episodes on DVD when they can get tolerable quality with an SVHS recorder ($4 for premium blank tapes), or use a capture card and crunch it down with their own DVD-R burner ($5/disk)?

    This isn't about preventing "piracy", it's about finding a new way to steal a few more dollars from the consumer.

    Personally I would have less issue with a pay-per-view approach provided that:

    1. Price per 1 hour episode is no more than $1
    2. No commercials, previews, ad-banners, or other such nonsense is included
    3. The data stream is 100%. No bullshit blurring, bitrate reduction, or other nonsense like DirectTV uses. If I gotta pay, I want unreduced 1080p (not 1080i), with full 5.1 sound.
    4. A guarantee that there will be no dropouts, glitches, etc.
    5. I can make a non-duplicatable archive copy using a durable media like DVD.
    6. No monthly service charges. If you want me to pay per episode, I'll only pay for what I want to watch, not for all the hundreds of hours of useless tripe.
    7. No time slotting. If I subscribe to a series, I expect it to be deposited for viewing or archive on a weekly basis, to be viewed when I have time and the inclination.

    All in all, I don't have an issue with protecting the content from wanton copying and redistribution. I'm rather shocked at the number of people I know who already see first-run theatre movies captured by DV cameras and transcoded to crippled-bitrate MPEG4; I can understand the content provider's concern over the issue as bandwidth increases.

    As to the advertising revenue, do these morons really think I buy anything because I saw it on TV? I select purchases based on rational evaluations and independent 'net reviews, not based on some glitzy TV advertising or the biased sound-bite reviews provided by print media or ZDNet and it's affiliates.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  19. It's been said before... by AnalogBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but i'll say it again..

    If you're going to bitch,

    bitch productively!

    If you put the same effort you do here, into legit politics (wow. now *THATS* an oxymoron), the least that's going to happen is you're voice will be heard. The most? The sky's the limit.

    Just do yourself a favor. When writing your congressperson or representative:
    1) Don't troll
    2) Don't flame
    3) Don't mention your /. karma. They won't care.
    4) Don't start with "I didn't vote..", or, especially, "I didn't vote for you, but..."
    5) Above all, write intelligently.

    P.S. Inconspicuously hinting that your wealthy father could make a sizable donation to the rep's campaign wouldn't hurt.

  20. Re:But by aiken_d · · Score: 3

    Hmmm... what do you think the odds are that we'll see a bill proposed that would change that? Can't have all that valuable intellectual property just sent out to anyone, now can we?

    (I don't think I've ever used the word "intellectual" in reference to broadcast TV content before.)
    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  21. Buy-Back Amnesty Program by guttentag · · Score: 4, Funny
    If they really want to prevent people from recording TV shows, they should do what some police departments do: "buy back" the dangerous equipment.

    To get guns off the streets, some police departments hold an annual(?) amnesty day on which you can bring your gun (or "someone else's") to a designated place and they will buy it from you.

    I'd like to see ABC, CBS and NBC bidding for my VCR. They probably wouldn't offer cash for the VCRs, though. They would each have their own version of TiVo that tracks your viewing habits, and they would invite you to trade in your clunky old box for a shiny new Big Brothe-- I mean, Personal Video Recorder. NBC would of course offer a discount on the MS HomeStation (since NBC and MS are so close) and a free Passport account.

    Of course, I'll always have my computer's video card hooked up to the cable box...

  22. Reality Check by Kasreyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...When I purchase my next television recording device, will I be able to chose to record my favorite show while I am away from home? Will I be able to record one show while watching another? Or will I be at the mercy of the network ... only allowed to record should they *want* me to record..."

    Here's Captain Obvious with Clues for the Clueful!

    You're ALREADY at the mercy of the network. Who cares about what you can record? You only *watch*, in the first place, the programs they *want* you to watch. (insert Twilight Zone theme here). You seem to be operating under the misconception that TV viewers were ever offered any choice of any variety, which they were not. So please, lose the outraged squawking, it's just plain silly. Either watch TV and accept the crud they shovel at you, or DON'T WATCH TV. This is known, among adults, as a Decision.

    End clue session, exit's to your left...

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  23. Important issues to realize. by Restil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are used to a certain status quo. They expect to be able to record TV shows. They expect to be able to watch what they want, when they want to. And despite efforts to restrict this in the past, people are legally allowed to do so.

    Certainly, almost anything worth watching can be obtained in an illegal way. I can download any popular TV show off the internet from SOMEWHERE, although these methods most certainly violate copyright. And while quite a few people partcipate in these activities, the greater majority doesn't and won't because its more trouble than its worth.

    However, if people are suddenly unable to do what they've been used to doing for many many years, then some of these other methods might start appealing to them. TV shows will still get copied, just as DVD's are converted to DivX's. The underground scene will not be affected by this, at leat not in the long run. But the average consumer will find it annoying, and they will be driven to seek out other ways to obtain their media content.

    And when they download an episode of "Friends" off the internet, they realize that they can watch it whenever they want. Not only that, but there are no commercials. And they can obtain ANY episode of "Friends" from the first season on, and all they have to do is be patient. If they're going to go to the trouble to do this once, they might realize its not that much trouble after all and might use this method to obtain other TV shows.

    And eventually, they might start realizing they simply don't NEED their cable/satellite/whatever anymore because its become less convienent than obtaining it from the internet, not to mention there's no additional cost as long as they already have broadband.

    Except for the few that still only recieve the broadcast stations, people pay money monthly to watch their programs. They do actually expect something in return, and one of those things is the ability to do so as they wish. In the blind rage of the media corporations to prevent the evil "pirates" from stealing their precious programming and distributing it for free to the less than 1% of the audience who bothers to make use of it, they will alienate the remaining 99%.

    Way to go guys!

    Way to go.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  24. When an advanced civilization... by NSupremo · · Score: 3, Funny

    finally contacts us by sending one of our own signals back to us leave it to some asshole to find a way to sue them.

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
  25. What We Can Do About It by kevina · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I can tell you one thing. It is in the long run not going to work. See The Coming Storm. And we can prove to them that it is not going to work by shoving the issue down there throat NOW. How, one of two ways:
    1. Convince TiVo to make there device a truly 100% open programmable device with the ability to store content unencrypted and to be able to transfer the content onto your computer. Such a device will be 100% legal but you bet they will get sued beyond belief which is probably the number one reason isn't right now. So, in order to prevent this from being a reason convince EFF to provide them with legal assistance and funding to fight the battle in court.
    2. We, the open source community can develop such a device ourself. I am in fact planning on doing just that. For more details see This Message that I posted to the livid-user mailing list. If you are interested fell free to email me at kevin at atkinson dhs org.

    Choice number 1 will defiantly be preferable as it will get more public attention, however, choice number 2 is something we as geeks can defiantly do.

  26. I'll second that by StandardDeviant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, by all means read the whole thread. I also stuck a link to it in my signature, which hasn't changed in something like a year previous. If any moderators (or god forbid the chimpanzees that have tied up the editors and taken over their consoles) see this post, consider that if you look at my record, I'm consistently giving back to the slashdot community by trying to post worthwhile comments and do my metamod every day. In other words, while most likely I'll get a -1 Troll or offtopic for this, I think this thread reflects legitimate concerns in the slashdot community.


    A side note to anyone at Andover.net/OSDN/VA who happens to read this. Remind yourself that when Slashdot became corporate, the userbase became your customers, and indirectly your source of revenue through advertising. Piss us off too much, and watch your revenue stream trickle off...

  27. I can. by jrs · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I can see it, I can record it.
    If I can hear it, I can record it.

    Copy protection dosen't work.

  28. Re:Mute button.. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Funny

    Watching a show where the sound keeps cutting out every few seconds sucks no matter what, and that's what you're left with if you do what you suggest.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  29. Re:Because as we all know ... correction by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Sorry, you're dead wrong on one point -- WordPerfect has NEVER had copy protection of ANY sort (at least from v4.1 onward), and still doesn't, other than an easily-defeated serial number. Conversely, Word2.0 and 6.0 (there were no Word v3/4/5 for PC, only for Mac) DID have a rudimentary sort of copy protection -- the installer wrote back to the first diskette, "personalizing" it with the registered user's name. And now M$Office has full-blown Activation.

    WordPerfect started losing market share when some suit-encumbered moron decided to restrict tech support to registered users (this was really the key point, not WPCorp's slowness in adapting to Windows). Previously, totally free toll-free tech support was available to ALL WordPerfect users, including for pirated copies, as WPCorp recognised that the best way to lock in a customer base is to get them using your product in the first place. And it worked -- people pirated one version, but bought the next (well, I bought 16 "nexts" and counting). That deliberate winking at borroware, along with near-total printer support, made WP the market leader.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  30. FCC has mandated digital tv by 2006 by yerricde · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only way that they can prevent copying is if they were to replace every TV in the world with TVs that can decode an encrypted signal *after* it enters the TV.

    The Federal Communications Commission (US analog to Canada's CRTC) has mandated that TV stations go digital by January 1, 2006, when the FCC will terminate television stations' analog spectrum licenses.


    Updated!
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:FCC has mandated digital tv by 2006 by gorilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but the schedule they set is not being followed in the slightest, and even the FCC chairman admits that the date might slip, and unless things change they will slip.

  31. I'll sacrifice my karma to second this post! by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There is a conspiracy of suppression on Slashdot these days. Some of the best posts I've read have been at -1, including some of the funniest things I've ever read and some of the best, on-topic posts (often moderated as "offtopic").

    I don't know whether this suppression of ideas is political, financial, or otherwise or whether it is carried out by the editors of Slashdot at the behest of advertisers or simply by holier-than-thou moderators who are 14 years old and have points to burn.

    The point is that now, to get at the cream of the crop, I often have to read at -1 and suffer through the "real" trolls as well, while only the non-controversial posts seem to stay visible to to 0+ readers.

    This post will no-doubt be moderated to -1, offtopic within five or six minutes, but I notice that there is no acceptable meta-forum anywhere at Slashdot for discussing the mechanisms of Slashdot itself. That such a forum does not exist in spite of the "free" ongoing ad dollars it would no doubt generate seems to indicate that at least some of this suppression is indeed carried out by the editorial staff or by corporate.

    It's nice to see this issue get some attention.

    By all means, please read the thread discussed in the parent comment to this one, it's really quite enlightening.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  32. Deliberate by RatFink100 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the original story again - this is a story that could have been posted any time in the last few, or even next few weeks. Nothing happened yesterday to trigger this story - other than the anniversary of that landmark case - probably deliberate.

  33. Copy protection will never work by sklib · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that any mode of copy protection is rather flawed. Take audio: Let's say you can no longer rip music straight off of a CD. Well, you can always play the CD and just record the sound that comes out with your sound card. Certainly this is somewhat slower and degrades the quality a little, but it's hard to notice unless you're an audiophile, in which case you won't be using mp3 anyway.

    When it comes to capturing TV for example, if you get a TV card, the process of viewing and the process of capturing (it seems to me) are identical no matter what you do. Even if the software that comes with the tv card won't let you record, something will. Even if you have to read from the frame buffer of your video card to get the picture and plug your sound card into itself to get the sound, both of these are still options.

    Since I live in a dorm room, my only TV is in fact my computer, and I've been recording shows into divx'd avi's for quite a while now, and I can't complain about the quality at all.

    So basically even though it may be more inconvenient to record some signals, it will always be possible, so I don't think there's a reason to make a big fuss about it...

    --
    -S