Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
"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 copies" - spare me.
... well I'll let you guess what it looks like)
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
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
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
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."