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."
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
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.
"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.
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? :-)
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.
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
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
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.
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...
The ones granted to copy owners by copyright law and fair use, confirmed in a string of cases starting with (for video) Sony v. Betamax.
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.
Yea, it's silly.
If they make high-quality content, what are they going to do instead of releasing it? Leave the tapes in the warehouse? Even a cinema release has a piracy risk.
And if they don't make the content, what are they going to do instead? There won't be extra jobs suddenly springing up in the economy to accommodate them.
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
" 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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
...perhaps DRM will lead to a new renaissance in reading. Books, you know? Nice, analog, books. No mod chip required.
...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.
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
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.
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
So I'm supposed to uproot my family, take my kids out of the best school in the state (yes it really is), quit my job and find a new one, have my wife quit her job and find a new one, all because my local city council, in its infinite wisdom, decided to grant a monopoly to [INSERT CABLE COMPANY HERE]?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Except for 1201(c)(1), which basically says nothing in the DMCA eliminates rights under copyright law, and the judge's ruling was based on rights under copyright law.
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.
So the true cost of getting the service you want exceeds the benefit of that service.
Econ 101 strikes again.
Econ 101 strikes again.
Econ 101 and the law of supply and demand doesn't take into account government granted monopolies.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
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.
"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.)
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.
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.
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?
The cost of the service you want (the direct cost, moving to get it)
Exceeds the benefit (fun tv)
So you don't buy it. That is economics.
This has little/nothing to do with "the law of supply and demand"
Actually I don't think 2600 tried to invoke 1201(c)(1). They tried some other clauses that didn't turn on standard copyright law. That left them arguing for making precedent, which judges tend to not like to do.
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.
What am I giving up? My knowledge, creativity, time, and labor. (Well, as is often pointed out, I am not out my knowledge and creativity, but I am my time and labor).
I do not think I am "entitled" to annuity. I think the law gives me an annuity to encourage me to produce. There is no requirement that law be "natural." To the contrary, law is where reason trumps power. In a natural state, the brutes always win.
Society gets back the work when the copyright expires. That's the social benefit. I believe in copyright and most other forms of IP law. But I would be perfectly content if copyright went back to a 14 year protection. Life of the author plus 80 years is insane. Life of the author is the most I think we as a society should swallow.
The real problem, IMHO, is corporate ownership of IP. What does "life of the author" mean if the owner is a corporation?
Thomas Jefferson did a beautiful job of explaining both the "natural" condition of ideas, and the very good reasons for law to constrain temporarily this natural condition. Read his writings (which, mercifully, are in the public domain).
You must understand that "nature" protected creation prior to IP law. When a book had to be copied by hand, you didn't have to worry much about copying. That's why IP law was not only not needed, it wasn't even tought of. When printing came along, this changed a bit.
Of course, printing coincides with the Renaissance, and I don't think that is a mere coincidence. All that information freely reusable fueled the process. But I think it would not have been sustained if law hadn't offered protection. Certainly we never would have moved past a pure patronage system.
So, yes, I do believe I am entitled to an annuity, but I don't necessarily assume that I am so entitled for the rest of my natural life, nor that my heirs are entitled to an annuity from my work, nor that a corporation is entitled to "buy" my annuity and maintain it indefinitely.
IP law is a give and take. Once the "give" goes beyond what is required to encourage production, then I think I would agree with what you seem to argue: that it is a harm to society, not a benefit.
So I think people who argue for "no IP" are deluded, and people who argue for the extension of IP are likewise deluded.
I don't think corporate ownership or IP beyond life of the creator are ever reasonable. It's off topic, but let me reveal how radically I think along these lines. I wonder if the world would not be better if there were no income or property tax AT ALL, but there was a 90% estate tax. Period. I don't know for sure, but what if it worked this way? Unfettered income during your life, but BAM, it gets taken away upon death? Would the world be worse off? Would you? (I would allow marriage to extend the estate tax payment until both people in the marriage die).