More on the Effect of Digital TV

EyesWideOpen writes "Here is an interesting article at Wired which mentions that existing DVR devices (Tivo, ReplayTV) aren't equipped to handle the digital TV signal that broadcasters are scheduled to start delivering in 2006. Also mentioned is a proposal being considered by the FCC that would allow cable companies to 'turn off' the firewire port, which DVR's will use to connect to digital televisions, so that some broadcasts can't be recorded. The proposal is being considered no doubt in response to fears like that of MPAA head Jack Valenti who has said that without proper security measures, the industry won't allow its movies to be broadcast because they don't want viewers to record 'perfect copies' of movies."

Comments

Only in America...

[lunenburg]

...can we have multibilliondollar corporations going to Congress and saying "If you don't change the rules to help us, we are going to cut ourselves off from selling our products with this new form of technology, in essence leaving ourselves in the realm of the horse-and-buggy as we enter the automobile age" ...

And actually have Congress give in!!! Remember that when the rapid advance of technology slows in the next few years.

Re:Only in America...

[lunenburg]

If what you mean is that only in America can a creator of something valuable go to congress and ask that protections be in place to prevent stealing by people who don't create things (but think that they should get them for free), then I agree with you.

Ah, I see you're falling into the thinking of "Big Hollywood == producers, ordinary folk == consumers." Because don't think for a minute that your garage band, self-published novel, or digital art gallery will get the same copy prevention technology as the MPAA and RIAA use. For no other reason than if anyone could mark content as "protected", then it wouldn't solve any sort of "piracy" problem. So what you're supporting is in essence a select group that can use technology as a "producer", while denying the technology to the mere mortals. Ok, gotcha.

The fact of the matter is that there is a subtle difference between ensuring the right of someone to attempt to make a profit, vs. ensuring the right of someone to demand a profit. What the MPAA/RIAA are asking for is the keys to future technological development, so that they can dictate what new technology comes about, and when. It's not anyone's concern but their own that they have developed and clung to a business model that makes the assumption that they are the only ones who can produce and distribute "content" on a global basis. Times change, technology changes. Plenty of formerly profitable businesses are on the scrap heap of history because they could not or would not adjust to a changing technological landscape. Yet you seem to think that the Congress has the right, nay, the duty to grant the MPAA/RIAA a special exception to this, and to prop up their profit models in the face of a changing landscape. Curious.

In a free-market economy, services pop up to fill a vaccuum. Big Hollywood has shown no inclination to fill the consumer's desire for digital media, so quasi-legal/quasi-moral industries have sprung up to fill the hole. Even now, Big Hollywood's attempts to fill the market are only halfhearted. They offer a small selection of music online, in restrictive formats, at fairly high prices, and wonder why people don't flock to them compared to the free filesharing services that popped up while they were ignoring the internet. Sorry guys, your loss. Do some market research, find out what people want, and give it to them. I daresay that if Big Hollywood offered their back catalogs in an open format at reasonable prices, a majority of people would go for that, if for no other reason than the quality control vs. P2P services. But no, they'd rather run to Congress and have MP3s, CD Burners, and firewire ports made criminal, rather than competing in the marketplace.

Congress' role is to protect the rights of the people, not Jack Valenti's paycheck. By bending to Hollywood's whims, Congress is most likely delaying or eliminating a marketplace where artists can sell directly to their fans without the expense of a middleman like the *AA, and where new and different musical artists and genres can gain exposure over webcasting stations that are not beholden to Clear Channel's top-10 directives. By granting control of digital technology to a group that fought the VCR all the way to the Supreme Court is shortsighted at best, illegal and immoral at worst.

So the issue is not one of protecting the rights of artists - that can be accomplished within the framework of current copyright law. The issue is that Congress should not prop up the profits and business model of any industry, simply due to its influence and campaign contributions.

As an aside, I'm also going to take from your post that you oppose the rights of people to have access to VCRs, audio tapes, Xerox machines, or pens, since they can all be used for, and have been used for, "stealing" from "creators."

What kind of crack is this???

[PD]

Of course my TiVo is compatible with a digital signal. All I need is my D/A converter, which I'll be using anyway.

Folks, you don't HAVE to eat what they're dishing out. Honestly, 525 scan lines and a mono speaker really is enough for me.

Same old Shit

[siskbc]

This is the same guy that said VCRs would kill the TV and movie industry 15+ years ago. The same people that were worried that people would tape everything they wanted off of the radio.

There are, and always will be, tangiable benefits to being able to buy a copy, assuming they price them reasonably. If people are willing to have crappy, off-the-air (even digital) copies, with no bonus footage that comes with DVD's, then that says something about the price of DVD's, doesn't it?

And anyway, how long does it take for movies to get to broadcast anyway? 2 Years? Who waits that long?

This guy is as paranoid as those freaks who have bomb shelters and 2 years of rations in their basements.

Simple Solution

[NumberSyx]

If my cable company renders my Tivo usless, I will no longer have any use for thier service and I will cancel. Sure I loose the cost of my TiVo, but it would only take about 6 months of not having to pay a cable bill to recover the cost of my TiVo.

Imperfect copies? Just how imperfect??

[ianscot]

Just how "imperfect" does something have to be before I'm allowed to watch it?

I mean, "fullscreen" movies on most cable outlets have a significant part of the original widescreen image lopped off. Isn't that imperfect enough for Jack Valenti? How about if he takes the sound down to simple mono and superimposes a silhouette of himself at the bottom of the screen, delivering meant-to-be-funny lines about the movie MST3K-style? Is that bad enough? Or does he need the cable company to agree on subpar cabling, too, so I get some ghosting?

The Federal Communications Commission is considering a proposal that would allow cable companies to turn off the firewire port.

So I buy a TiVO because I really, really don't want to miss your programming but you scheduled "Cheers III: the redemption of Cliff" at 1 AM while I'm at work. You, in response to this infamous behavior on my part, hack my machine so I can't see it? Way to twist your head up your *ssh*le. What industry thinks that way?

General Public Response

[philipsblows]

First, is it possible for HBO et al. to broadcast Macrovision copy protection on their signal so that one cannot record such broadcasts? I know TiVo honors copy protection (on video tapes primarily) so I wondered.

My actual question, along a similar avenue, is whether the general public would repond in anger or in apathy to any real implentation of copy protection. Macrovision can be filtered out (but the copy of a VHS tape may not be worth the trouble) and CD copy protection hasn't caught on enough to trip up the masses. But what if copy protection just started appearing without warning, like that HBO scenario?

What is going to happen when the RIAA and the MPAA finally purchase the right representatives and get all of these laws and practices changed in their favor? Will people simply not watch some programs since they can't record them? Will there be an uprising after people are effected by all of this nerdy stuff they read about on the internet for so long? Will people simply go with the flow and accept the reductions in freedoms?

For every form of copy protection I've ever seen (dongled software, MS keys, macrovision, DAT copy bits, exploding paper, etc) there always seems to be a workaround to circumvent the protection and allow the copy... if that becomes impossible (it might at some point, they could get lucky) what will the public at large do?

I have to admit, I would almost (ALMOST) like to see all of these protections get implemented just to see what happens.

Unfortunately, I think the public at large will be angered, and they might even lament their inaction as it was all unfolding (that would be now), but they will feel and be powerless to make any changes. They will still patronize RIAA and MPAA properties and in time people will forget that we used to be able to tape movies to watch later.

Alternate scenarios encouraged...

"Perfect Copies"???

[coupland]

Apparently Jack Valenti hasn't watched a movie on TV recently. They're 33% commercial with half the interesting scenes cut out to accommodate and all the swear words overdubbed by people who sound nothing like the original actor. Perhaps he's more worried that people will be expecting a 99-cent flurry long after the promotion is over...

"Any one of you DARN GOOFS move and I'll execute every GOSH DARN last one of you!"

Ok MPAA....

[Restil]

Go ahead. quit offering your movies for broadcast. Hey, while you're at it, quit offering them up for rental, as they can be copied there too. Better not sell them either.
And gosh darn it, people are making illegal copies of your movies while they're still in the theatre, better quit having movies shown in theatres. Can't risk having anyone steal your precious products.

Oh, btw, you now make NO money, but at least you're secure in the fact that nobody has made a perfect copy of your movie. Must be a great relief huh? :)

-Restil

Let me get this straight...

[Guppy06]

"Jack Valenti [...] has said that without proper security measures, the industry won't allow its movies to be broadcast because they don't want viewers to record 'perfect copies' of movies."

Alright, so you're saying that if you don't deny digital recording of digital television, you won't sell your product to TV broadcasters. So you're getting less money from fewer sales to broadcasters and you're also getting less money from people who might have bought a real copy if they were exposed to your movie via TV. All in all the consumer gets to keep more of their spending cash, or at least buy other things while MPAA sales dwindle.

Does anybody not see this as the MPAA shooting itself in the foot? Broadcasters only buy movies to fill up time slots they don't bother to try to fill with their own programming and only tend to buy movies (instead of airing more reruns) so they can compete with all the other broadcasters showing movies. Yank the movies out of the equation, you have a poorer MPAA while the broadcasters just fill the time slots with more reruns. Wah.

Of course, the MPAA doesn't give a rat's ass about customers, they (like all other corporations, by definition) care only about the investors. If they weren't so damned worried about appearing profitable to Wall Street, they'd be all for letting customers make their own perfect digital copies.

Perfect?

[telstar]

"the industry won't allow its movies to be broadcast because they don't want viewers to record 'perfect copies' of movies."

• Why don't they start by making a couple perfect movies, and
• then they can worry about people making perfect copies.

Have you seen the quality of Digital TV ??

[MeerCat]

"Perfect copies" - spare me.

Here in the UK we can get Digital TV over the airwaves, by satellite or over Cable, and ALL of them have terrible picture quality (funnily enough the adverts are the only parts that they seem to pre-compress and spend some time and effort doing properly), because the broadcasters MPEG encode on the fly, and try to get a much higher compression ratio than their hardware will allow. This is most obvious with live TV (news and sport especially, and when the news footage was already compressed to come over the satellite, then expanded and re-compressed ... well I'll let you guess what it looks like)

Digital TV is nearly unwatchable at times - when the picture isn't breaking up and freezing then the MPEG artefacts and the blurred textures render stuff unwatchable. Go to a TV shop, and get them to show you BBC1 on analog and on digital on 2 adjacent TV's and you'll never want digital TV.

My wife runs a DVD mastering studio, and she just kills herself laughing at the picture quality over Sky etc.

--
T