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."

9 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Testing 1,2,3 by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  2. The Future? by gunnk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The Future? by zaffir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think one single PVR manufact has attempted to lobby against DRM requirements. Intel and AMD were certainly opposed to the SSSCA for a while, but now that they see a chance to make tons of cash on it, why should they? Remember, they've both signed on for MS's palladium, and they're two of the biggest forces in the tech industry. Everyone else seems to just not care.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
  3. Won't Affect us? by z_gringo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re: Cablevision by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > 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.

    Don't fear the rabbit ears.

    I ditched premium cable ages ago, for exactly the reason you describe. More recently my apartments quit carrying basic cable, so I went out and found a pair of rabbit ears. I haven't regretted it.

    Yes, there's hardly anything on but trash, but there's still more on than I ought to spend the time watching. I get ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB, and PBS. If they each only have two hours of fun stuff per week, that's still a whopping 12 hours eaten out of my 112 waking hours per week.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. Re:Not DRM... its a bug.. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM already exists on cable, that is exactly what subscribing to HBO is about,

    WRONG!!!!!

    I can videotape HBO all day long, then I can take that videotape and copy it 90 billion times. or I can record HBO with my Tv capture card and thne copy that Divx 90 bajillion times..

    there are NO DRM restrictions on cable. is is nothing that prevents me from recording the shows on EVERY channel including pay-per-view for my use and time shifting.

    Yes, I record pay-per-views. and watch them twice! Oh the horror! I am causing the downfall of Cable TV!

    Get real, and get a grip... there are NO Digital Rights Managements controls in Cable TV. The DCT 3000 and the DCT 5000 do not have the capability.
    Those two Digital cable boxes are in the majority of cable systems. anything else is a minority or a beta-test. (Cox, Chartet, AT&T/Comcast use Motorola DCT 3000's and 5000's... and I believe that AOL/timewarner does to, althoug I do not know that for a fact like the others.)

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  6. DRM =! Digital Rights Management by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. The critical point by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. What should anger people by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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