Slashdot Mirror
New Yorkers Get a Taste of Digital Restrictions
InfoMinister writes "From SiliconValley.com, another peek into the future of Digital Rights Manglement. A software conflict at the set-top invoked copy restrictions on all unscrambled digital TV programming delivered to Cablevision's 3 million subscribers in metropolitan New York."
We at Cablevision like to shit all over our customers, and then call it an "accident."
I would imagine they will keep trying these sorts of things until people get used to it and stop complaining... like paying for access to newspaper web sites.
This isn't DRM in action, this is a plain and simple case of a bug. Sure some channels are "open" but they still need to be decoded by something. The config or code or whatever it is was done incorrectly so all channels were scrambled.
This isn't getting a taste of DRM, its the digital equivalent of your analogue signal being blocked by bad weather or the antenna falling off the roof.
DRM already exists on cable, that is exactly what subscribing to HBO is about, so they already have experience of it. This however is giving them the same experience on their TV that they know and love on their Windows box... failure.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Cablevision has raised rates everytime I look at the bill. Don't get me wrong, Optimum Online is very fast and nice and few problems occur. But lately, between Cable and the Modem and an $80+ cable bill every month, I'm getting very close to switching back to basic broadcast television. With such poor broadband subscriber sales, the last thing this company should do is restrict more consumers. I'm assuming money is somehow behind this. Anyway, I'm going to write an "upset subscriber" letter and I encourage anyone else affected by this to do the same. If this extends to all recordings on PVRs (I'm assuming only digital right now) then rest assured, I don't need the bandwidth and they will lose me as a customer.
that's my two cents.
Bill, can you factor this prime number for me?
Maybe it wasn't a glitch so much as it was a test of the system to see if it would work.
Cablevision isn't stupid - they can see the coming of the DRM Age, and a quick test to see how many people were affected by it now will help them guage the response when DRM is required.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
There is nothing illegal about time shifting.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Was this really an accident... or maybe a proof of concept! The conspiracy theorist in me thinks they may have intended just what they accomplished, showing the world how easy it is for them to block copying.
I don't konw about you "outsiders" but I remember in the Constitution they were concerned with MY rights. Where did this Digital Rights nonsense come from? You would figure after 9-11 people in congress would get their priorities straighten out. Oh well just one more reason to pay close attention on who is running for senate and house.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I'm not sure I see "the future of digital rights management" in this situation. The future IS that you will find more restrictions on what you can copy (barring court rulings that uphold consumer rights in the digital age). However, I think the idea that we won't ever be able to record any digital show (as seems to be suggested by this article) is a bit extreme. There are too many giant electronics companies that make big money off selling home video recorders -- they won't go quietly. Likewise, Joe Consumer WILL get up in arms if he can't record one football game on one channel while watching another on a second. Will we enjoy all the same freedoms that we currently enjoy? Doubtful. Will we find all our rights gone in the digital age? That's doubtful too.
The article points less to the future than to the present: software bugs keep people from being able to do what the set out to do. That's nothing new...
Life is short: void the warranty.
cablevision has always found ways to treating the customers like crap. This is just one example of this! They have been slow in providing broadband service.
i am going to shut up now
"He says rules are designed to reflect home use -- while addressing piracy fears that prevent Hollywood from releasing more high-quality content."
You see! I knew there was a reason Hollywood wasn't releasing high-quality content.
From the article:
``The content industry denies it will affect how consumers watch, enjoy and record television,'' said Kraus. ``
Isn't that exactly what the feature is designed to do? If it won't affect how we watch, enjoy and record television shows, then why did they invent it?
Yes, I know that the article goes on to say it is mainly for Pay-per view events and such, but it clearly has far wider potential, and it wouldn't have been designed this way if they didn't have the intention of using it to "Affect the way we watch, enjoy and record Telvision shows"..
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Well, actually, the point is that the LEGAL subscribers were not getting their service. There's a slight difference there. I know that when i pay for something, i want it to work. I would hope the rest of the world feels the same.
mechanicos ergo cogito
High quality content... Not a whole lot of that seems to come out of Hollywood any more. Depending on how you interpret that quote, it could mean that Hollywood has generated all kinds of great, high quality stuff, but they just aren't releasing it because they're afraid of piracy. If that's true, then why generate the content in the first place? :-)
It's not really clear if time shifting is "illegal". There seems to be a mass delusion that it is not right for Bussinesses are entitled to restrict when and how their products can be used. In cases like a book I own or a CD i own, sure reality and courts as well have said that i can read or listen at my pleasure, otherwise I dont really own it. On the other hand how many times have you seen advertisments for "Full body massages, half price, available for a limited time only, one per customer". When I go to the movies or even rent one, it's for a limited time. If I want to view it again next year I have to rent it again. What about copies? well that's the argument isn't it. Should bussinesses have the right to restrict copyRIGHTed work. well that's what the RIGHT and COPY in copy right means. you maynot like this but that does not make you right.
You've just discovered that all governements on this planet have sold out to big corporations. You may now go out and drink a glass of champagne.
You would figure after 9-11 people in congress would get their priorities straighten out.
Sure! And after WWII everyone was friends for ever! Come on, man, wake up.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
More high-quality content? You mean they actually produced anything worth watching in the last decade?
Not sure where you've been lately since the U.S. government has mandated DRM for all practical matters via the DMCA and related laws.
Perhaps the time has come for some sort of legal recognition of common access rights for some technologies...
- You don't have a conversation quota that you can't exceed.
- You aren't blocked from using the roads - there is open access to everyone.
That's because these are commons.
Perhaps, at some penetration point, there needs to be recognition that a technology forms a cultural commons and should be open to all without barriers.
In the same way that monopolies are regulated as a special case, perhaps it would be sensible to have a body of law governing the use of commons.
I would think it would need to:
- Guarantee access
- Prevent enclosure
- Promote innovation
- Provide for the designation of new commons
Lawrence Lessig are you reading this?
(Bozo's big thought for the day. Now back to work...)
First off, I think this is some frightening stuff here. The article quotes something along the lines of saying that this doesn't impede the home user, it is too prevent high-quality pirating of these works. This is ludicrous. What gives anyone the right to limit the quality at which I record stuff?? Why wouldn't I want to use Firewire if it brought me the best quality?? It is limiting and against my rights as a subscriber and consumer.
Secondly... I can't believe these things are in place already. I don't have Cablevision, I get ATT Digital Cable... but my service sucks. I don't even have digital capabilities coming out of the cable box. I have a crazy sound/video system, but I am stuck with composite video and stereo audio coming from an rca connection.... I get screwed like this and they have all this copyprotection up and running already? This is a damned injustice.
"The future looks like the world where you press record and it doesn't work and you don't know why. You no longer control the media you pay for." - Some guy who can't record.
Well.. I hate to break it to this guy, but you've never _really_ controlled the media you pay for. Your only control is the very limited ones the media companies afford you under extremely narrow conditions. Step outside of the bounds of those conditions and you are now a pirate according to the powers that be.
- Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
All such restrictions are pointless. They only lower quality of their services for average users. (it's same with music CDs that are unplayable on PCs). It's obvious that if show can be watched, it can be recorded in same quality as well. Of course you need right equipment for that, and only people who will profit from recording of aired show will have it. They are doing right the opposite of what they intended, and they might lose customers because of that.
Hey Cablevision! Before you start alienating your viewers with all this DRM hoo-hah, maybe you should consider letting them watch the Yankee games without going to a sports bar.
Cablevision has refused to carry the YES Network since the beginning of the season, resulting in many fans becoming pissed off and a booming demand for satellite service. And yet they still have the balls to run commercials saying how customers need crappy Long Island news channels and boring local programming instead of a popular sports team.
If I end up living and working on Long Island, I'd consider Cablevision for their cable modem service alone. Give me a dish any day.
For more information, click here.
(I know, I've been trolled. Don't care. Haven't had coffee yet.)
49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
You mean that you expect things you DON'T pay for to NOT work?
If it ever gets to the stage where something I buy refuses to do what I want it to do then the time comes to stop buying stuff from the big companies. :)
However saying that it won't happen, there will always be a market for mod-chips and the like to enable users to do what they want. Regardless of what digital rights management software/hardware is included.
DVD players and games consoles are prime examples of the type of mod-chip market already present. Going back earlier in time Macro Vision blockers for your old VHS machine also exploited this kind of market need.
Martin Piper
Owner - ReplicaNet and RNLobby
Now assuming you yourself read the article, you will observe that this was caused by a bug that triggered the DRM software, NOT caused by the DRM software itself.
No matter how hard you try to pin this one on DRM, it still goes back to simple human error.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I suppose Cablevision is already writing the 3 million checks for lost service? Rabbit ears won't be a possibility in the future, because the TV bands will be shifted out of the way to make room for 3G and Digital TV. Blocked TV I've paid for is still blocked.
Can we cut the crap here and start calling them Digital Restriction Mechanisms or something. If the whole of slashdot starts doing it, then maybe other sites/media will take it up. If anyone asks you what it stands for its not Rights Management, this is a cheap marketing tactic, dont let then get away with it.
This is pretty offtopic i know..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
What recording rights ?
"Cablevision said it is scrambling to eradicate the bug, identified three weeks ago."
Wow, only 3 weeks to turn off a flag on the boxes. Already I'm impressed with the quality of their engineering.
If you want something pay for it.
If what you are paying for doesn't provide what you want, stop buying it.
People complain they can't do this, they can't do that, and that their provider for service X doesn't do or permit action Y.
Well fine, either don't use that provider, someone is willing to provide almost any service for a price. Pick your service, pick your price, you might get it you might not, if you can't afford it, that is your problem.
Services for sale, heavily restricted internet access (ie library). Unrestricted internet access dedicate (personal T1).
You could view a movie (rental/cable).
If you pay enough you can buy the rights to a movie including distribution, but sadly most people don't think it is worth the money, so they dont' buy it.
This is a free market, you are free to buy their service or not buy their service. If you don't like it too bad.
Every month I open my cable bill and I'm like, 'damn thats a lot of money'... I've just dropped to basic + internet and will save $45 next month. I'll save $500+ over the next 12 months. Will I miss the extra channels that much?
Is this post off-topic? maybe, maybe not... Voting with your wallet is certainly a way to influence what goods/services get or continue to be offered at which prices...
Cablevision says it does not prevent recording on more familiar consumer devices, such as a videocassette recorder or a Tivo-like digital video recorder
Really means.. Oh the analog hole and the Tivo that we don't have control over (yet). If they could take it away they would take it away. I suppose Macrovision might accidently slip its way into the cable lines next. This is a perfect example of what rights you are losing due to the media cartels. What are your advantages to using this?
He says rules are designed to reflect home use -- while addressing piracy fears that prevent Hollywood from releasing more high-quality content
Another twisted comment. So I guess for the last 20+ years that the VCR has been around, Hollywood has been holding off on quality content because they knew it would be copied. Now that there is suddenly a chance of controlling it, the really good actors and directors that were "holding out" are going to start making shows. I do not foresee any change of the quality of programming based on this.
And the movie studios and broadcasters ultimately get to decide what shows to protect
If this concept is FULLY explained to the potential consumer and not hidden as a footnote on page 25 it will not sell! Why would you pay hundreds of dollars for a piece of equipment that has a strong chance of not recording what you really want to record in high quality digital?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
There's one point the DRM opponents should be harping on here. The industry has claimed that there's provisions in the systems that insure fair-use rights can't be restricted. The 5C rep says the same in the article. Yet, here we have it, those rights that were supposedly protected were shut down completely at the accidental flip of a switch. DRM opponents should drive home the fact that this shows that those provisions aren't any insurance that fair-use rights can't be interfered with, they're merely a promise by the industry that while they can shut down fair use any time they want they won't actually do it. If they decide to go back on that promise, maybe because a major studio decided to twist their arms, the people affected have no recourse and no way to recover their fair-use rights.
Keep hammering home that point.
Isn't that this happened. IT's that "digital" technology as it's been implimented has been done in such a way as to KEEP any control from the consumer.
With an analog cable TV, an analog VCR can be used to record anything from it you want.
Not so with digital. I believe it's unethical to sell something to someone and then tell them how they can use it AFTER the sale...
Frankly, if we ever have a chance to wake up rageing hordes to burn down the offices of Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen, the two individuals we have to thank for the fact that DTV has been implimented in this way, it will be the day that Joe Blow can't record a show or movie from TV.
This is a "right" that most people have enjoyed since the 1980's. It's something nearly everyone has done, even the most nontechnical. Once taken away, they WILL react.
Corporatism != Free Market
Comment removed based on user account deletion
" They Shall Never Take Our Remaining Freedom Away! Terrorists shall never deprive Americans of their essential liberties.
The Bush Administration's strategy for ensuring this, apparently, is to leave us with none left to lose. "
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Anyway, that's been my experience, I'm no longer paying $45 CAN for crummy service and only about 5 channels of worthwhile content in a 100.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
I mean, when did it become that we HAVE to make sure Hollywood push out more crap. With a notable few exceptions, would our lives be any different without the hordes of movies that see how many cars can blow up, or how many people can be killed with a soup spoon. Or without the billions of recordings of the Backstreet boys.
Every time I read about why some company is putting in DRM (Digital Rape Mechanism), they reason it out saying so Hollywood can give us high-quality content. BAH! That is the biggest load of crap there is....enough ranting, haven't had my coffee yet....
Secure multi-mediation is the future of all webbing...
Let me guess IT consultant; you're an MCSE?
I'd love to see a month go by of restricted service, followed by a huge angry mob of New Yorkers going down to Cablevision and 'fixing' the problem.
Too bad it's not hosing up analog RCA outputs too.
I think the t(h)reat of death and dismemberment by the largest city in the U.S. would stop any little pussy company from fscking with my fair use rights.
this is ridiculous!
The trend here is if Hollywood has its way, this is what the future looks like,'' said Joe Kraus, co-founder of dig italconsumer.org, an advocacy group.
am i to believe that joe kraus, some guy who works for a site that likes italian consumers cares about DRM and its implications for american liberties!!! =)
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
An attorney for the consortium of technology companies that developed the 5C copy-protection technology said just the opposite is true. He says rules are designed to reflect home use -- while addressing piracy fears that prevent Hollywood from releasing more high-quality content.
Hollywood doesn't realize that piracy is rampant right now because it's not worth paying for the good-quality copy. They're very foolishly making a chicken-and-egg problem out of this when they dont' need to be: Consumers say "If you don't make quality stuff we'll just pirate it because it's not worth paying for." and Hollywood says "We're not going to make quality stuff if consumers aren't going to pay for it.
To put it more simply, I paid for "Fellowship of the Ring". I downloaded "Dude, Where's My Car?"
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Now I've told people that I haven't had a TV for years and they look at me like I've got 3 heads! One of them (my sister) actually works in Hollywood. I keep harping on her about the quality of crap that comes out of her stupido err studio but she says (and I quote) "it's to deliver an audience to an advertiser." She knows nothing about DRM etc etc... just how to sell colas & jeans and make plump girls bolemic and depressed.
To hell with Nostradamus, this is just like in the movie "Hackers" when the evil Di Vinci virus took over the oil supertankers, but the heros stopped it by overloading the Gibson supercomputer with Windows laptops!
How dare CableVision impair my ability, nary my HUMAN RIGHT to copy this movie!
Mmmm... a young, nubile Angelina Jolie
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
An attorney for the consortium of technology companies [...] says rules are designed to reflect home use -- while addressing piracy fears that prevent Hollywood from releasing more high-quality content. [...] Cablevision violated strict licensing agreements when it imposed copy bans on generic cable programming -- shows that consumers should be entitled to copy freely.
If the rules are intended to protect the consumer then that will be reflected by the penalty applied to cablevision for violating the "strict license agreements." What penalty? Exactly.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
``5C worked awfully hard to put these encryption rules into its agreement
5C paid good money for these laws and/or imposed-policies.
to achieve a certain level of consumer recording rights.
A level not to execeed the right they had before, but rather at times to get 'very near' the level of rights they used to have.
Having fought for it, we don't intend to relinquish it.
Look, we won, so suck on it.. suck on it long and hard bitch
So, no, there's no alternative
Yes there is, satellite, or just don't have cable.
You don't need to have cable TV, or even TV at all, but you choose to spend your money that way.
In your situation, I'd just not watch TV, or you could move. Likely it isn't worth the cost of moving or cutting down the trees to get better reception or satellite, but that is another choice you aren't making.
Why you'd pay for a service that isn't worth the money is beyond me, obviously you either think cable is worth the money although you'd prefer better service, or you're a moron. I'd guess you think it is worth the money compared to the alternatives, and you'd just like to have superior service for that money.
From what I can tell the only reason DRM was introduced in the first place was because with digital copying you get a picture perfect reproduction. This means that no matter how many times you copy the video it will always be prestine. The odd thing is that your average Joe will record it for themselves and probably never buy the hardware to make a copy for a friend. On the other hand your average commercial pirate is going to pay for the technology that allows him to by pass DRM, since the whole point is about selling the copies for profit.
I wonder whether the industry would simply be better off making recorders that simply reduce the quality of the recording to VHS quality. Sure this means there isn't much point in buying a DVHS player, but given that most films that you will buy will be on DVD, is there any point anyhow?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Isn't that the exact definition of EULAs ?
...perhaps DRM will lead to a new renaissance in reading. Books, you know? Nice, analog, books. No mod chip required.
My DSL alone is fifty bucks, and no-frills cable (no HBO or other premiums) is around $55-$60 now.
What you're paying $80 for would cost me well over a hundred. Which is why I use a rabbit ears. I still get 3x the stations I had as a kid.
What's ironic is, what you're saving in cable, you're making up in spades in your rent and utilities.
I don't know why (except for the monopoly) cable is so high here, 30 miles south it costs half what it does here.
...enormous amounts of money for a next-generation digital recording device that couldn't record ordinary TV.
This should be a good selling point.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
My quick scan of the article got to "Cablevision said it is scrambling to eradicate the bug". So you will be able to resume recording your favourite programs once we have succeeded in scrambling the broadcast signals? Well, at least this avoids the analog loophole. Anyway...
I've often said the only time anyone watches News 12 (or reads Newsday, for that matter) is because they know they're going to be on/in it. We've only been keeping Basic cable to get a couple bucks knocked off our Optimum Online bill (I -think-). And yup, we use DirecTV. I won't mention the fact that there's *still* nothing to watch.. whoops.
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
Extending [the backup right of software] to other digital media isn't a stretch at all.
In practice, the backup right existed until October 1998, when this was passed.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you want something pay for it.
What if what I want is "out of print"? Should everybody who wants a copy be forced to buy a hundred thousand copies just to create enough volume demand to make the publisher think that it is reasonable to run another lot?
If what you are paying for doesn't provide what you want, stop buying it.
"What I am paying for" with tax money includes poor representation in Congress of the rights of the consumer. If I stop buying that, I go to jail for tax evasion.
someone is willing to provide almost any service for a price.
Not necessarily. AOL Time Warner refuses to license Speedy Gonzales at any price.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you read the article then you would have noticed that the problem has been ongoing for three weeks. If they were 'testing' it, then why haven't they fixed the problem after such a long time.
This just says it all.
They negotiated carefully behind closed doors to limit our rights and now are pissed that things changed. Even this guy who says that they weren't too far admits that the whole goal was to limit our rights. Perhaps 5G is intended only for PPV but there'll be other "agreements" and other restrictions once digital copying is ubiquitous.
"Sorry you have read this document 'The US Constitution' too many times, it will now be removed from your system"
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What are your advantages to using this?
The advantages to the cable companies of using digital restrictions management include at least the following:
The cable companies are desperately holding on to their right to show movies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So, no, there's no alternative [to the cable monopoly]. (Just far enough away for off-the-air to suck, too many trees for satellite)
According to what some of the Slashbots claim in articles about the unavailability of cable and DSL service, your local real estate company has the alternative: Move to a different house with better service. Move to a different city if necessary.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Isn't that the exact definition of EULAs ?
Nowadays, most EULAs on mass-market proprietary software have a notice on the box along the following lines: "Your use of the Software is governed by a License inside this box. If you do not agree to the terms, you may return the content of this box to the vendor." Through your SIGNATURE on your charge card slip, both you and the store agree to these terms. And it's recently been ruled binding.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Digitally restricting rights to information...
If you don't pay for HBO you don't get it. Their license does not include DRM on the recordings but there certainly is Management of access even though the information is available to the box.
I know that few can see that this is DRM, and that the "new" DRM ideas are just extensions to many of these ideas but applied to commodity items rather than big ticket elements like live sports broadcasts.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Books, you know? Nice, analog, books. No mod chip required.
What if the books you are required to use for school, etc., are available only in a digital, encrypted, pay-per-view format? Then you have Richard Stallman's dystopic short story, "The Right to Read".
Will I retire or break 10K?
The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C)
This looks like a loophole that would legalize DeCSS. The only problem is, why wasn't 2600's lawyers able to use it?
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this?
This looks like something the Elcomsoft lawyers should look into.
"Digital Rights Management" just screams "euphemism".
We need a name for the underlying technological implementation
of this social engineering scheme that is descriptive, unambiguous,
accurate, and that has a nice acronym. I humbly propose the term
"Fair Use Circumvention Kit" (F.U.C.K. for short).
The acronym itself could doubly serve as the actual application
of the technology. For example: "We don't want the consumer to be
able to digitally remastered Gidget reruns, so we'll
FUCK the signal so we can FUCK the consumer."
So I'm supposed to uproot my family [...]
<sarcasm>
If changing your cable company is worth that much to you, yes. You should have considered the practices of a cable company and the availability of alternate sources of television before settling down in your current location. The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee you a right to good, cheap entertainment. </sarcasm>
Seriously though, if anybody else has a solution to cable monopolies, please stand up.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The only problem is, why wasn't 2600's lawyers able to use it?
2600's lawyers tried using the "adversely affected" clause, but the Librarian of Congress rejected 2600's pleas in his first subparagraph (C) report.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I did say almost any service, key word, ALMOST.
You can buy legal services, personal items one would want to keep private, morally wrong things, and illegal and dangerous items.
I didn't say you can buy ANYTHING, but almost anything.
I guess it's true.
Higher quality screen resolution for lower quality entertainment, completely controlled by the lowest-quality human beings on the planet. Doesn't it just make you want to go out and get a digital television?
With a cable subscription, you're subscribing. You have not purchased the content being provided. You have not purchased any exclusive or specific right to make recordings of that content.
I doubt they're pulling a bait-and-switch by signing up customers with promises of utter IP freedom before locking down restrictive clauses. Read the fine print in the contracts, I'm sure it already states that many forms of copying may not be legally allowed, technically feasible or not.
Broadcast television viewers have even less right to complain: nobody sold you anything but the TV, which yes you bought on the good faith that there would be broadcasts for it to receive. Stations which put these signals into the air have zero obligation to you on what they have to let you do with the contents of those signals.
Perhaps Hollywood has already won by converting the masses to media consumers rather than just witnesses: when was the last time you bothered to record (rather than purchase) a broadcast movie? television show?
Neither are particularly worth the hassle any more - if they are, get a Tivo. The point being that media has a very short shelf-life anymore, people don't spend so much energy revisiting collections of TV shows they've taken from the airwaves over the years; even these are being released in seasonal packs on DVD, which you can *then* actually by and claim your fair use rights about.
The Simpson's have hit the nail on the head again:
CBG: "As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me." Bart: "What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them."
Any spoon would be too big.
You can piss off a whole lot of people, but you can never stop everyone. And it only takes one.
Why watch cable, it just breeds idiots..
"it is a example of how copy-blocking can be used to set limits on how individuals use the most ubiquitous of technologies -- the television set" but its NOT entirely accurate is it?
"the problem only affects subscribers who attempt to record programming through the IEEE 1394 interface, a high-speed digital connection known as Firewire " which is an Apple created technology.
This could be used by Inter and M$ to attack the only competitor they have in the home market.
This should be brought before the FTC as anti-competitive restriction.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Check and see if the coop board is following the FCC's rules on dishes. FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas
Or, if you have a window that faces the right way, set up the dish inside, in the window. (An apartment I used to live near was setup like this.)
So it's already been 3 weeks, and they have not fixed the problem? The problem my friends should be easy enough. Turn off the copy protection!
Oh, but then other people may be able to get access to channels they are not paying for. - WELL TOO BAD! It's your fault for taking the easy way out on designing your digital coding and using cheaper, older set top boxes to rip into customers.
I can't believe Comcast charges $7 a month to lease the boxes. These pieces of crap are worth $60. It's a scam!
My advice get an antenna. - If you still need your Sopranos fix, get the dish.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
From the r.h.f. archives:
EULA for your check.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Truely
: )
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."- Albert E.
call me callous but the only difference betwen Spam in my email box and the TV set re-re-running "Petticoat Junction"as filler between the ads is that I can delete Spam without having to read more than the subject line.
I threw the set out years ago. My watching is limited to "The Sopranos" last Sunday at my local bar and the rest of the time, my back is to the set and I'm talking with people.
Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenty can hang onto their crap until its all squeezed out between their fingers. They can't make me watch it or the damn commercials.
The Web was supposed to let us FIND what we wanted, when we wanted, where we wanted. Well that got fucked up by the very engines that were supposed to help us. Instead Google et al. drown us in irrevancies because they search on an entire document instead of a phrase or a meme.
In the meantime, Madison Avenue has taken this opportunity to kill the goose that laid their golden egg by eliminating the messy content/ad-matrix.
Between reruns of shows with less and less content, trimmed to make more room for the ads, and the pap we're getting in new shows, there's nothing worth wasting the electricity for.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It took them over 30 years to provide digital cable and enhance the consumers viewing pleasure and only a year or two to screw the consumer by blocking recording on digital devices. I believe I now know how this "innovation" stuff works.
You sound like a walking, talking Onion story.
I used to work at directv and during beta testing of the directv/tivo box they "accidently" enabled the macrovision on the unit. NO vhs copies could be made of any of the programming. They eventually turned it off. But realize that the ability to disably analog coping is in the unit. They just need to turn it on. The inclusion of "5C" is not a minor deal. It is a requirement put on by the studios if a service provider wants to include IEEE 1394 (firewire) capability to a box. It just needs to be "turned on".
And if I pay cash?
Very few people pay for software licenses with currency and coins rather than checks or charge cards. If people start doing that to circumvent EULAs, Microsoft will require software retailers to accept a signature.
Even then, a signature may not be necessary, as the existence of the EULA (offer) and the rejection mechanism (acceptance) were known to you when you handed over the cash (consideration).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Futurama and Malcolm in the Middle have me in their sway as well, but you've got the right idea.
Actually, though, I haven't watched more than half an hour of TV a week in several months. I wonder if the start of the season will suck me back...
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. --H.L. Mencken
Rights are something you have regardless of whether someone wants to take them away. You don't "manage" rights (unless you're God, maybe).
If they can be managed, they're not rights, only privileges.
Digital Restriction Mechanism -- Yes, that's it.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Here's the link on expiring electronic books
And Richard Stallman's take on it: The Right To Read
.
Shut up, you goddamn vanilla eating, butterscoth hating terrorist!
Someone modded this a TROLL?! Geesh, some of these moderators and their vanilla, man...
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Really. So I'm Joe Ordinary User, and I heard from my MSCE cousin that XP is the world's greatest thing. Today being payday, I cashed my paycheck this morning, and knowing I was going to buy XP, I held out the $200 for WinXP Professional Upgrade. So I pay cash.
Where have I signed any acceptance of an EULA? I'm Joe Sixpack, not a geek, why would i know about the EULA and rejection mechanism prior to handing over the consideration?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I'm Joe Sixpack, not a geek, why would i know about the EULA and rejection mechanism prior to handing over the consideration?
The existence of the EULA, along with the way to reject it, was printed on the outside of the box for crying out loud. You "reasonably should have known".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fast forward 70 years. The cool guys everyone wants to be like are those dangerous hackers with their tribal tattoos and garish wardrobes. (See Hackers) If Jack and Jane Whitebread hear that Bobby Fatpipe and his motley crew of roughnecks are going to all the trouble to steal Species IV: More Nudity and Bombs, then they will want to see it too. But they'll pay b/c they don't know how to be cool on their own.
IP Theft creates street cred!
Evidence: the recent documentary episode of the Twilight Zone hosted by Forest Whitaker. The bad boy offers to share his stash of "jack," "wheat," and MP3s with the sexy new girl right before he gets turned into fertilizer for not conforming to community standards. MP3s are dangerous now, akin to booze and the ganja-weed. Dangerous things are cool. More pirated content is better. QED.
"As a writer myself (with a book out under copyright), I want my annuity from my act of creation"
Why do you think you're entitled to an annuity?
This isn't a troll.
But you write a book. You sell it. You expect that I will be prosecuted by the government to enforce your copyright if necessary.
What does society get back?
That's the crux of the matter. There's no "natural" right to IP protection, so what are you giving up in return for your unnatural monopoly on your ideas?