Slashdot Mirror
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.
political: we manage to get every country ticked at us.
social: we are self absorbed, unthinking, and cannot function socially without coffee and television
education: our system is a mess. there's not enough money to pay teachers. the ciriculum is dumbed down. half the students can't pass basic minimum requirement tests.
ah, but we have Patriotism(TM) and that makes us right!
What they don't seem to understand is that as long is it can be viewed it can be copied into a format that can be distributed online. Maybe the copy won't be as clean, but if it can be viewed it can be copied, and if it can be copied, it can be distributed.
. . .unless all chnages made to the source are submitted back to the authors and the original and modified sources are distributed with any complied binaries.
You are not the customer.
Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.
At least until debroadcastcss is developed. Gee, they don't even seem confident that it will work...
...because it had such a copy prevention flag.
While you can go to the store and choose between two boxes, one that can record/replay anything and one that can't (and assuming all else being equal) the box with the copy prevention will stay on the shelf.
You can already see this with DVD players. Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more. Almost all DVD players can either be configured by the supplier or the owner to play any region disk and the makers are unlikely to end this any time soon (nobody wants to end up with warehouses full of DVD players with the wrong region set...)
...is still crappy content. When will the networks learn?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Is a flag for "Don't Allow Broadcast Company to be a Rights-Trampling Monopolist".
I suspect they aren't going to hold up the rollout to include this one though.
-- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy
Oh please let this be true! Pretty please?
Everybody keep quiet until these goofballs come up with something totally ineffective. They have not failed us yet!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
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..
I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.
Until and unless Big Brother Hollywood is going to pay for my internet connection, they'd better not even think about imposing that kind of draconian supervision over my viewing habits. If they should try to do so I will either organize a class action suit against them, or sue them on my own. Whether it is 2 bytes or 2 gigabytes, I'm the one paying for the bandwidth and their use of my resources against my will constitutes tresspess of chattles and arguably theft in precisely the same way junk faxes and SPAM do.
Now, if Hollywood is going to offer me free 100Mbit bandwidth to the internet, I might briefly consider making a Faustian bargain with them, exchanging my privacy for faster pr0n downloads, but I suspect even then I would consider it only briefly before rejecting it. Some things, like individual privacy and freedom, aren't for sale at any price (at least by me, though it seems the masses of mindless drones that populate our western democracies, indeed perhaps the entire planet, aren't as discriminating as one might wish).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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 :)
Uh... riiight. Whatever.
HDTV is a North American only standard. Japan has it's own analog high definition standard. Various countries in Europe have their own standards (e.g. - the UK. Not sure what the status is of other countries at the moment).
Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format [slashdot.org] better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.
There are already ongoing efforts for an HD DVD standard. Blu-ray is one of them. The name of the other (which is a single company, not a consortium) escapes me at the moment. If there's any relation to the HDTV broadcast standards then it'll be more because the hardware is already setup to deal with specific resolutions than for any other reason.
I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit.
Some of the issues are not solvable. The 8VSB broadcast standard sucks wind. It doesn't fulfill it's goal properly - multipath transmissions kill it dead, and its current operational range is pathetic. If you live within 25 miles of a HD tower you'll probably get reception. If under 50, you may. If 75, you'll be lucky. Over 75? Forget it, the signal won't be strong enough to get a picture.
just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..
No, they're making all new and improved mistakes. The FCC apparantly got neutered in the past couple decades and they haven't done anything that is in the consumer's interest regarding HD. Removing the "must carry" clause for cable when it comes to HD was the nail in the coffin. At this point they're just throwing dirt on top (no recording standards, no cable box standards, no encryption standards, etc.).
I love the idea of digital. I've seen HD and it's absolutely stunning. But the rollout has been so mismanaged that I'm increasingly of the opinion that HD is doomed to become the next DAT.
Right now, I have the incentive to download music from the net and burn my own CD's. That incentive is that I normally only like 1-2 songs per CD and I'm not going to pay $18 for two songs. Movies are different, it's worth it for me to pay $20 (ish) for a DVD because it will take a couple of hours to download and put the whole thing together (today). The trick for the recording/movie/tv studios is to set a price point for their media and create a distribution channel where its not worth it for me to download from the internet. Why should I pay for rock/movie stars to go to the space station when the answer to all their problems are just lower prices and common sense distribution?
If your local affiliates are up to speed (this biggest question mark at the moment, IMO), or you've got Dish or DirecTV, there's quite a bit of astoundingly impressive HD content out there right now, and with HD sets in the sub-$2K range, it's more accessable than most people think.
I agree. The whole idea of over-the-air broadcasts is that anybody with the proper receiver can pick up the signal. So, if we can all receive the programming for free, why can't we make a near-perfect copy of it for our friends?
The "content owners" say that we don't have the right to re-broadcast, basically because if everybody could re-broadcast then their syndicated shows would be less desirable and they couldn't keep making money selling the same product. Also, we could remove the advertising if we wanted to, or theoretically replace it with our own to subsidize our costs.
But let's focus on that last part - if we take out the advertising, then the audience that we re-distribute to won't go out and buy a new Jeep after watching our copy of the show. So the companies that advertise through the "content owners" don't get that additional exposure. But guess what? If we don't re-distribute, then our second-generation audience won't see it anyway. They also won't see the program, or the network's watermark in the bottom corner, so they may be less interested in getting the broadcast feed next time it's on. And that means nobody is going to tell them to drink Sprite ("Don't listen to celebrity testimonials, drink Sprite and be like me, the Famous Athlete").
The "content owners" are confusing "free advertising" with "loss of control" - yes, they aren't the only providers of the Andy Richter show now, but they have a distinct edge over the P2P network - they have the newest episodes, best quality, and are most convenient (most of us don't run the ATI All-in-Wonder out to the TV), and it's the same price to consumers. All that the P2P networks have is time- and space-shifting.
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
But yet, they keep coming back for more...
If you think this makes the US different, you've clearly never been to Europe.
Oh the irony of misspelled words in "our edumecation is bad!" rants.
Fuck patriotism, we have John O'Brien, Landon Donovan, and Brian McBride.
WE WON, YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! We will dispose of every pansy-assed Euro team that gets in our way.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Would this kind of use be permitted under the proposed DRM scheme?
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."
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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.
Milo
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
a) digital doesn't necessarily mean hdtv
b) it is actually easier to timeshift digital TV, the BSkyB Sky+ package does this, just capturing the transport stream, no messy analogue stage.
c) You can build your own digital tv shifter, google for 'VDR'
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
You're deeply, deeply out of touch.
You can buy a 40"-ish DTV for $1500 now. 50" sets are $2500, and 62" sets are $3500. This is, of course, the low end on each. But you can buy one of those $2500 50" sets, have someone come and calibrate it properly for about $200 and end up with a set that's better than an uncalibrated $6000 50" set.
Digital TV's are selling, and they're selling very well indeed. If you look at the circulars in Sunday papers you'll see that the majority of large screen (>36") sets are digital ready, either in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratios.
The thing that is not selling is the digital receivers - which are down to about $500 now (maybe less). And those aren't advertised in the circulars either. Because they're not selling. People are buying the DTV's to be "upgrade ready" and to get way, way better picture quality from DVDs and (usually) NTSC broadcasts. Even a crappy scalar built into the sets is better than watching interlaced.
Why aren't people buying the receivers though? Well, it's a few factors. First, 8VSB sucks and a lot of people simply can't get reception. Since the FCC declined to require cable must carry rules for digital broadcasts (despite the fact that 80% of the US gets all TV from cable, and it's been this way for 15 years) most people can't get a signal. Rabbit ears don't cut it for 8VSB, and people aren't going back to the 1960s and putting huge ass antennas on their roofs.
Second, there's no broadcasting. The networks have done a miserable job of holding up their end of the bargain. Fox is deliberately dragging its feet and broadcasting in only 480p where they're broadcasting digital at all.
Third, the connection standards are pretty non-existant. There's no recording standards, no encryption standards, and no definite cabling standards. All of these have been vaguely proposed, and vaguely accepted, but the studios and broadcasters keep whining that it's not sufficient and keep wanting to go back to the drawing board. The cable industry has only done preliminary steps on a cable box interface standard -- allegedly finished, but now we get to watch them fight over patent and royalty issues for a few years. And those of us in the know haven't bought digital yet because of this. It's entirely possible that any DTV without the proper DVI connector will wind up not being able to display anything better than NTSC quality in a couple years when all of the above issues DO get ironed out. I have a good bit of money earmarked toward a very large DTV, but I'm not spending it until some of this gets figured out.