Digital TV Still Indecisive

/dev/trash writes "The logjam between Hollywood and Silicon Valley seems to be over. According to this article on cnn.com. It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy"" If it was only that simple- the article makes it sound like there isn't a lot of progress being made.

Comments

Over or just starting..for us atleast

[cOdEgUru]

Kraus said it right :

"The only consensus this group seems to be arriving at is that there is no consensus," Kraus said.

One thing I dont understand is these groups fanatically oppose any consumer intervention, meaning you and I, though we are ultimately affected by these decisions, have no way of participating. I rate these money mongers at the same level as Mafiosi thugs.

Also once this bill is passed, we would have no way of sending copyrighted material to our office computers or any other ones.

Re:DAT died...

[Microlith]

Apple had a copy prevention flag too.

Set one bit and supposedly the Apple OS would not copy a file. This was, inevitably, ignored by everything including apple's own software shortly after it was implemented.

Of course, it wasn't *legally* mandated, but you never know what might happen.

Digital TV could bring so many advances to homes

[forged]

To me, Digital TV means so much more than a new class of devices with just more copyrights protection built-in. I don't think that we can escape this entirely, and perhaps there is a compromise in the air. What I am looking for as a consumer, is the following:

For once, screw NTSC, PAL and SECAM. I still can't figure out why various countries chose to have different broadcast signals in the first place. Hopefully Digital TV will make this a moot point, once we all share the same "format" (and it better be good :)

Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.

Imagine for a moment what a good-looking picture on your big-screen TV might looks like. A picture with shard details and glorious colors. Not like anything you can get from NTSC equipment, and to a lesser degree on PAL/SECAM too.

As you can see, I'm really looking forward to Digital TV. I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit. I just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..

What about sneaker net?

[Rev Snow]

I know some school teachers who occasionally see a television program that is relevant to their class. They record the program on video tape, then carry the tape to school and play it for the class on the school's VCR.

Would this kind of use be permitted under the proposed DRM scheme?

Re:Your Telivision Will Not Be Revolutionized

[Hard_Code]

Oops..that got mangled, try again:
Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
by John Litzenberg
This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience
the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have the option to view programming that reflects
actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work

because your television will not be revolutionized.

You will not have more information at your disposal,
but a great deal more disposable information;
you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging
or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints
of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life;
nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment
that will best equip you to face other human beings
who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence
because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D.
by absorbing the litany of T & A, S & M, B & D and R & R
on CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN,
people who have important things to say
regarding the fragility of relying on modern convenience
will not be able to set up independent broadcast towers
because the FCC, FBI and CIA will make sure
that you do not find these programs included as part of "Must See TV,"
and they will certainly not be sponsored
by Mobil Oil Corporation and the Fortune 500.

You will not be able to immediately gain access
to the viewing public without waiting nine months
on a list for new programs, waiting only to be passed over
by a Committee for Fairness in Television
because your views are not deemed interesting enough
to command a favorable Nielson share.
Nor will you be able to select features for your viewing pleasure
that have not been hand-picked by the owners of the airwaves
and their supporting advertisers.

Your television will not be revolutionized.
Your television will not be revolutionized.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

You will continue to experience a decrease in rapid eye movement,
increasing cases of attention deficit disorder among your babies and children,
and on-going, invasive modifications to your DNA
caused by the barrage of an electron machine gun
you have invited into your home to expose "viewers like you"
to a thousand points of artificial light.

You will continue to form images subconsciously inside your physical brain
without the benefit of seeing them outside your head,
and without the ability to blink and shut them out or slow them down
so as to maintain the facility to selectively choose
the sound bytes and sound tracks and sound effects and
hypnotic waves of electricity that will influence
your spending patterns, your methods of recreation, your opinions on procreation,
your impression of reality and
your overall sense of physical health and well-being.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

Your retention of information will continue to decrease,
while the available percentage of brain cells at your disposal
will continued to be used up by phrases from sitcom theme songs,
by deductive meanderings on who shot J.R., and
by images of politicians wrapped in flags and kissing babies,
eating chitterlings, slicing pizza and
spreading lox on bagels.

You will not be able to take your message to the streets
or distribute pamphlets questioning the party line
at union meetings or city council sessions,
because your fellow citizens will be safe at home,
unified only in the respect that they are all watching re-runs
of the same shows so it can be assured there will be a topic of conversation
when we are all turned loose to exercise
our First Amendment rights
assisted by a new and improved level of communication
brought to you by the Association for the Preservation of Technological Megalomaniacs.

You will not be able to tell the difference between an embrace
offered by a virtual reality image of your dead father
and the gentle purring of a live kitten grasping your shoulder;
but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom
vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports,
or candid interviews with starvation victims
in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast,"
and may be convinced exists
only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator,
or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching
carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands
resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis,
sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling,
all of which may or not be created using special effects.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television,
in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence
and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week,
and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes
or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections
or wash-and-go shampoos.

You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts
of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa,
but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like,
"When did you first realize that you were different from other children?"
and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes
in between paid advertisement programs
showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home,
and they will be given equal air-time,
and each will be gently disclaimed:
"The opinions expressed by guests on this program
do not necessarily reflect the views of this network,
do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers,
and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."

You will continue to find yourself in a world
that has an increasing number of methods for communication,
and alarmingly less and less to say.

You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that
"the medium is the message,"
and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning,
"Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume,"
and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra
that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.

Your television will not be revolutionized.

Re:And no, its not a a piece of flamebait.

[IronChef]

If digital TVs were $100 I still wouldn't buy one -- because there are no PVRs that can time shift HDTV content. I hate to sound like a commercial, but my ReplayTV has revolutionized how I watch TV, and I am not going back.

Re:Where's the Value?

[milo_Gwalthny]

This is a good point. In the magazine world, publishers assume a "pass-around" rate: for every copy sold, several people read it. This rate is different for each type of magazine (ie. computer mags have a higher pass-around rate than business mags.)

The magazines use this number to get higher ad revenue ("well, sure we only sell 100,000 copies, but 500,000 people read it.")

You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.

Unless you use those damn Tivos to skip the ads.

Copy local or copy never, but not copy once

[Rogerborg]

I don't think that this article says or even implies that there's a "copy once" bit.

What it implies is a new standard for gateway digital devices that will pass content only to other devices of the same class, and (I suspect) over a proprietary, non-IP network. Then (whatever actual encoding is used) there's going to be an identifying watermark that the receiving device must look for. It will either be a simple identifier (so that you can copy from one PVR to another if you plug them together) or a "copy never" bit so that you can stream it to another PVR, but this second PVR will not make a copy, it will only stream on to a display. Technically, there might be a "copy once" bit, but only on the original broadcast, so once it hits your PVR, it's "copy never".

If it's the former case, and you can make copies by plugging two PVR's together, I think that's fair enough, because I can take my PVR round to my brother's house and make a copy of Buffy for him. That's raising the bar far enough, as it effectively restores the situation that case law has decided is fair use: making a few copies explicitely for known friends and family.

However, that theory is replete with flaws. For one, it doesn't match the way the industry has been going. It's far more likely (I suggest) that it will be a "copy never" bit, and only local streaming will be allowed. For another, there's still that bloody great gaping hole at the tail in either case: sending to a display. Because unless the display also has to be one of these new devices, you just stream to a video capture card, then it's straight onto the internet with the content, and people will download it and stream it to their own non-compliant display devices.

That's the sting. It has to cover display devices (TV's, monitors) and it has to be mandatory. Don't think this will stop with PVR's. For it to have even a hope in hell of making a difference, every display device sold will have to be compliant, and it will have to refuse to show content without the watermark. That means that PC video cards will also have to watermark their content. You see where this is going? It snowballs pretty rapidly. But unless they get everything, there's little point in them pushing ahead with it.

To support this rather alarmist attitude, ask yourself this: if this is truly an industry consensus, why does it need to be legislated?. I suggest that the answer is that for it to work, it has to be mandatory, and it has to be across the board: every channel, every cable decoder, every PVR, every TV, every monitor, every video card, every DVD player, every VCR. Everything.

Wake up, the coffee is brewing. This is Son of SSSCA, yet again. They're just hoping nobody notices this time until it's too late. Please, please, get out that pen and paper, and ask your elected representatives to have a good, long, hard look at this, because it has the potential to be as bad as you can possibly imagine, and then a whole lot worse.