Slashdot Mirror
New HDTV Encryption Obsoletes Sets
Brian Weatherhead writes "I wrote an article, detailing the MPAA's control over your HDTV. Their new standards will make any HDTV bought before 2002 obsolete!
Consumers will be upset to say the least." Talks
about the different formats for video signals, and
copy protection methods for those signals. And yes,
if this goes down, anyone with an HDTV without DVI input
could very well be watching 480p signals when HDTV
standardizes. Fortunately at the rate this stuff has
been happening, those TVs will long since have died.
But one thing is for sure- with the DMCA, and these
new video formats, PVRs could become a thing of the
past.
This is EXACTLY why I've avoided buying an HDTV. They are expensive, nobody is broadcasting in HDTV yet, and political stuggles over format were bound to happen. I wouldn't go so far as proclaiming the death of DVRs. People like them. And, as long as there is a a demand some one will come up with a supply. I'm just sick of hearing about groups like the RIAA and MPAA using our Constitution like a roll of toilet paper. When is someone going to stand up for the individual?
if I can derive a video signal via hw or sw my 2000 set will play
I repeat, do not buy this stuff if it won't let you do what you want to do. This should serve as a good reminder that the corportations are not in the game to make you happy.
But one thing is for sure- with the DMCA, and these new video formats, PVRs could become a thing of the past.
;)
If it's viewable, it's recordable. If there's money to be made modding TVs and PVRs to be recordable, someone will be selling mod-chips.
"But that's illegal!"
That's for the courts to decide. Perhaps the primary purpose of mod-chips will be allowing viewers to exercise so-called 'fair use' rights of a personal copy for private viewing, and piracy is only an unintentional side-effect.
You know, like Napster.
People knew what they were buying in to.
The problem with things like this is the fact that people don't know they're being cheated. If everybody knew that recording your favorite episode of while you're out for dinner is illegal under the DMCA due to the (Begin Rant) legal crap the sleazebag lawyers who work for the MPAA think up (End Rant), then people would not buy it.
So if people knew what the MPAA, etc... is doing behind our backs, they wouldn't buy it - instituting a sort of boycott. Then, maybe the MPAA would realize that we are the source of their money and better suck it up and make us happy.
We're always complaining about how deep corporate pockets can be, but if we have a probem with it - then don't buy it - we're the ones giving them that money.
A point everyone seems to be overlooking is that this article is referring to next generation DVDs, not broadcast HDTV. The latter must be broadcast "in the clear," but the MPAA has been only been willing to release relatively low-resolution formats.
At the current rate of HDTV adoption, there is no chance of the FCC agreeing to allow encrypted broadcasts - one of the FCCs rules is to promote the use of the airwaves, and nothing stops that quicker than calling the early adopters who invested thousands of dollars "suckers."
Being unable to view high-res DVD-NGs on older HDTVs sucks, but it's not as bad as the broadcast getting encrypted.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
If they would just sell DVDs for $11.99 and and provide movie downloads for $5.99, only a very few would bother pirating their stuff. Forget the encryption mumbo-jumbo. Make it easy for your customers to have a good experience.
Every time somebody sneaks snacks into a movie in their purse, the movie industry loses a few dollars of revenue that should have been spent on outrageously priced candy. However, if people were strip-searched entering the theaters so that the few 'snack-pirates' would be caught, there would be a huge backlash, so they live with the illicit food munchers. As it happens, 99% of the people buy the food in the theaters anyway. No need for high-tech countermeasures or a Concessional Millenium Snackfood Act to protect the theater owners..
It's too bad that the media corporations can't seem to apply real-world customer relations common sense to the digital realm.
And what if the court you are tried in is Judge Kaplan's court?
Where the only parts of the law that matter are those that can be used to find you liable, and not those that can be used to exonerate you.
And what will people do when the DMCA is tightened so that even owning a mod chip becomes an automatic felony with a 10 year prison sentence?
It is no longer just a game of tecnological cat and mouse. We are the mouse, and the gov't will stomp us to death if we try to run away from the cat - it is a no win situation - UNLESS WE GET THE LAWS CHANGED OR OVERTURNED.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Either the courts are going to keep passing dehabilitating laws such as the DMCA and allow the RIAA and Movie industry to keep screwing its customers or its going to realize "Oh gee... I didn't realize that all this piracy was a result of the entertainment industry fattening its wallets with the money of joe consumer, who doesn't really have the money to buy a hdtv but is told by the guy at "Tv world" that he needs it to watch tv and movies". I think that at some time, like with the recent napster thing, that maybe the courts will realize that they are here to defend the best interest of its citizens... not its corporations. Everyone bitchs about this... but i don't see anyone standing outside of radioshack, best buy, audio visual or circuit city with little flyers and such. I mean the hippies do it for starbucks, etc... why don't the nerds unite. We should use our knowledge of technology for good purposes and spread the info that joe consumer doesn't have. I'm sure this could lead to laws like the dmca, etc being looked at more seriously by the courts and maybe even some hilarious hyjinx along the way.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
I heard there was this thing called VHF that also lets you receive some television stations for free.
Not for long. NTSC is being phased out. In 5 years when all broadcast is digital, and encrypted, you won't be able to watch TV for free without buying a special tuner or violating the DMCA.
Why *won't* HDTV w/ encryption sell?
DVD's seem awfully popular -- and they're encrypted. That's why Jon Johansen has been in hot water.
Joe Consumer doesn't even realize that these connections *ARE* encrypted. All they see is a pretty, clear picture on the TeeVee and neato effects from their 20000 speaker surround-sound setup.
*YOU* might not buy it, but the rest of the idiot masses that shop at Best Buy and Walmart and Frys *WILL* buy them, because they're the latest, coolest K-RAD toy.
This really just sucks. Alot of the early adopters, who are also the best customers of this sort of technology, are likely to be screwed over.
However, there is a good chance for those manufaturers to promote some really strong customer loyalty from those same customers. The manufaturers had best oppose this, loudly and they had best put their money behind it. The next bit, is that they will want to provide to all the customers who own an earlier model HDTV with a converter box to convert the signal to something their TV can handle.
As long as we are at it, why dont the DVD and TV manufaturers take a lesson from the PC industry, and create some removable hardware cards that can be used to adapt their hardware in the event of a standards shift? This feature alone could put a TV manufaturer ahead of the game since it appears obvious that encryption standards will be a moving target.
I dont exactly like the current Copyright situations, but at least the hardware manufaturers can make things easier for the consumers.
END COMMUNICATION
Cinematique said:
> what about fair use, you cry? give me one good example where you *need* to copy a movie that you own
Fair use? Let's suppose I want to use clips from a movie in a class I'm giving about filmmaking. Not the whole movie - just a few scenes. Almost everyone would agree that this should not be illegal. Indeed, it is in the publishers interests that I can do this so that future artists can create new content. And yet, this is not possible.
But copying is not the real issue - it's about control. Look at the DVD furore about DeCSS. Professional pirates don't need to break encryption - they make bit perfect encrypted copies using professional mastering encryption. However, DeCSS (and the DMCA) makes it illegal for me to write my own DVD player so I can watch *my* DVD on my Linux machine.
I could (maybe) accept the loss of ownership if the consumer saw some benefit - e.g. if I could pay $2 to watch a time-limited movie over the net, or continue to pay $15 to buy the DVD. But as proposed, I don't have that choice.
I'm not saying Copyright is wrong - content producers need protection. But a balance must be struck.
And I mean a nice Sony 36" Color NTSC set. I bought it about 3 years ago.
The thing will probably last me another 20 years.
In fact, I have no intention of replacing it until it dies, during which I can only hope this content control bullshit is sorted out.
If I'm going to so much as subscribe to anything on HDTV, there had damn well better be some way for me to record the shows I want to see. I don't really watch TV now, but I did when I had a satellite feed. I'd do it all over again, but I'd have a satellite TIVO this time.
I'm bitching because I would love to eventually set up my home theater with a widescreen HDTV setup, but I will seriously think twice about it with content controls...even if they don't affect my viewing habits.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
It does not matter how much encryption is used on a sugnal, it always has to be decrypted, in order to be put on the screen.
So you can always get your signal from there. Sure some more hacking will be required, but that doesnt stop people from putting chips in their consoles.
2. HDTV Programming while becoming a bit more common, is still few and far between by comparison.
3. Who actually watches that much TV anyway? (Sorry, but really) The only things I watch on TV anymore are low-res, low-quality by nature. (Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, and I only watch them when i happen to be bored and they are on)
As I remember it, there's some kind of loopwhole where providers can use the HDTV space to provide more low res channels and thats about all I see happening in the forseeable future. I regard HD as dead in the water.
I can't imagine that the industry would screw over the millions of people that will have bought HDTV sets by the end of this year. More likely, is that they might start offering different levels of service - at the standard rate, you get 480p analog, but at a higher rate, you can continue to get 1080i. If there's money to be made from selling to the capabilities of the existing sets, they'll do it.
All of these ignorant little schemes whereby the movie/music/content industry slowly work towards implosion will most likely be killed within the next couple of years. Look at the Charly Pride fiasco - they seemed to get enough people together to get a class action lawsuit and force a settlement out of the industry. What happens when 24-49 year old people begin to feel the effects of the RIAA/MPAA's poor business decisions and governmental influencing?
More and more people are getting connected, want to take advantage of all that "new" technology. What will happen when millions of those people are forced into adopting that technology and find that it does little that they want it to and far less than what they've been able to do in the past. Lawyers are probably chomping at the bit waiting for this day to come so that they can chew into the cash cow that is the RIAA/MPAA.
Most of us here are of a small vocal minority. In the "grand scheme" of things it's seen that we have little power over the outcome of these decisions. But is that in fact true. Everyday I come in close contact with at least 20 people, 10 of which I have regular conversations with. Almost every person within my sphere of influence knows about these issues because I've taken the time to communicate them and worked it into conversations about things that are already happening in their lives. How many people within your sphere know about these issues? What will you do to change that?
This issue stirs up so many past issues not just in the music industry but also in how the government is run (US and Global), how laws are passed/enforced/judged, Intellectual Property, "freedom" of information, telling the truth - ethics in company and government communication, etc. It's crazy that there's a connection between wanting to tape Dawson's Creek and the need for US government political finance reform. That connection shouldn't even be there, companies should not be able to shape the policies of a government, only individuals should have that power. No corporate junkets, hosting, food, clothing, ad time, benefit dinners, fund raisers, trips, private meetings. These are PUBLIC officials, everything that they do outside of their personal life should be OPEN AND AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY. If individuals mass and make requests that are beneficial to the corporations then GREAT that means it's probably beneficial to the public/consumer also. I don't want to hear that Merk/Medco, Phillip/Morris, SONY, AOL/TW endorse candidate X or that GM's local union whatever endorses candidate Y. I don't want to hear about how many lobbyists that MS has hired out from under AOL. I definitely do not want to hear about how some company or corporate rights group is influencing the EU or China or India or other foreign government. That's just crap and more and more they are the reason that the US gets shat upon by other countries. India and Pakistan population were mad because several companies pulled out after 9/11 and that meant jobs and livelihood lost to those people, people already underpaid for their quality work.
We should limit companies ability to influence any government. Companies should not be allowed to voice their issues through the same means meant for individuals. Does that mean that I think government should ignore the needs of business - No - I just think that it should be through a seperate channel that takes the issues and stores them like data and all of that government/corporate/public communication would be free and viewable to the people (public would be anonymous by request... comments would be posted without ID). The government should take the data and be proactive in it's use, not reactive to the corporate needs but forecast those needs based on what the public is telling them is the real need. I know that's all idealistic, but why can't idealism create realism? Why can't what we dream and think be manifested into something tangeable?
The average Joe does not yet see these issues as a problem and won't until they effect him or someone he knows. Therefore it's our task to communicate how it is or will be soon effecting us (and them) and make it very REAL for average Joe. The other issue is that the people we really need on our side couldn't care less about this issue because they are struggling on issues of food or daycare or healthcare and not "can I watch my otaku goodies". Until we show them that, eirily enough, this does/can/will effect them then we won't have the votes necessary to really do some damage
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Aren't [hardware manufacturers] tired of being played around by the "culture industry"?
The problem is, quite often the hardware makers are also the culture industry. Take Sony, for example.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
What we have here is unique in our history. Now we have a controlling body that is an equal opportunity/affirmative action oppressor of information and media. There is the elite few and the rest of us. We pay taxes on media so they can grow and spread their empire to the rest of the New World.
Want to trade videos of your son's birthday party with the family? You must use the MPAA tax paid approved recording media so the elite can get their cut. Its all to support their vision of making sure the Top Artists have a decent home.
When you buy media sponsored by the RIAA or MPAA, you are supporting their lobbying efforts to help squash our independent recording technology. Patents and copyrights are only going to become more draconion. Its already a criminal offense to watch DVD's on my Linux box (I'm one of those nuts that just can't get along with Windows.) When will the persecution begin? Raids! Fines! Prison time!
I foresee HDTV with DVI cacking it just like Circuit City's DIVX crapola.
In general, modern problems have medieval solutions...