Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Yorkers Get a Taste of Digital Restrictions

Posted by michael on from the imagine-a-chip-stomping-on-a-human-face-forever dept.

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."

4 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. It is a bug, but it's also DRM by Chewie · · Score: 4, Informative
    Will someone read the goddamn article for once? I blockquote:
    This software conflict somehow triggered a copy protection scheme known as 5C, which is designed to prevent mass duplication of television shows and movies. It labeled all digital programming off limits to copying. For now, the glitch prevents viewers from digitally taping any cable show using a next-generation digital videotape recorder called DVHS, the HDTV Insider newsletter reported. These devices recognize the programming as copy-blocked -- and turn off.
    It is clearly a DRM issue. (Score:4, Insightful) my ass.

    (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
  2. Re:Still NOT a DRM Issue by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the original parent post:

    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

    Which is a total and utter misunderstanding of what 5C is.

    5C most certainly is DRM. It serves no purpose to the consumer except to place artificial restrictions on what, when, and how you can watch shows being broadcast over DTV or digital cable.

    Was it human error that caused it to be activated in this circumstance? Sure. But it's still DRM.

  3. Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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."

    THAT is one of the best comments on this I've ever seen... You are right. By calling DRM "Digital Rights MANAGEMENT" instead of "Digital Restrictions Mechanisms" we are OURSELVES aiding their marketing!

    Wish I had mod points. And I will be using your name for DRM from now on.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  4. Re:Recording rights? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually that would probably be incorrect too. There was a case back in the early 80s (I forget the exact cite) involving copy protection to make computer disks unbackupable and contract terms that prohibited making backups or breaking the protection to make backups. The court ruled that copyright law granted the copy owner the right to make backups of what they owned, and that prohibiting backups or making them impossible was illegal (the judge didn't just find the contract terms unenforceable, he found them to violate copyright law). Extending that to other digital media isn't a stretch at all.