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."
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'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.
I think the point they were getting at was: "Now they have a taste of what it will be like when DRM bugs"
Can all fish swim?
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? :-)
> 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
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.
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...)
"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
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.
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.
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
I thought that was the interesting part.
The most discriminating customers, who had spent the most money on their home entertainment equipment were the only ones affected.
This is where this is going to be a big problem. How the hell are they going to convince anyone to buy "the new digital" stuff when people see stories like this and start hearing anecdotal evidence from people that this did affect.
The abuse of the consumer is reaching unhearlded heights in this country, I think in this battle the consumer will speak with a closed pocketbook.
Just this week my cable company called to try to get me to switch to digital cable, the upside was a few more channels, the downside $30 more a month! I'm sorry but I want more value for my dollar than that. The same goes for digital TV's, sure they're cool, but not $2000 cool. That's where the industry is going wrong. We're not buying enough of this new stuff, so they will be trying to mandate. That is where the true battle will be.
" 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.
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.
I know this is a troll or a joke, but up until the DMCA we had established in the courts, and then later by statute, that consumers of intellectual property had so-called "fair use" rights. So long as our friend was copying and repeatedly watching for himself, he was within the law (not necessarily so under the DMCA, one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen). You see, I do believe in the idea of intellectual property law as a method to encourage cultural production by granting a time-limited monopoly on its use.
The natural world used to protect the consumer's rights. Once you bought a book, it was basically impossible to keep you from reading it more than once, or to prevent you passing it on to a third party. No big deal -- once that third party has it, if you want to read it again, you need to buy a new one.
Not so with digital media. They can count how many times you read it. They may, in future, be able to tell when you pass it on. They certainly can tell when you copy it. They can have perfect control. Fair use goes right out the window.
I have gotten angry on other discussions with the IP thieves who say "everyone copies software." I don't. I don't download mp3s. But I do want my fair use rights. If I want to copy a CD onto a cassette or make a CD of my favorite songs, or time-shift a broadcast, or re-read a book, then I think I should be able to.
As a writer myself (with a book out under copyright), I want my annuity from my act of creation. But do I really need my lifetime plus seventy years? I'd like to see copyright capped at life of the author, or, say, 50 years from filing to expiration. I'd like to see the DMCA repealed. It wasn't necessary. And it makes a pencil a circumvention device. It's ridculous. If we are going to have software patents, they ought to expire faster than patents for "real" inventions -- say in 3 years. I'd rather not have software patents.
On my more radical days, I'd like to see it impossible for corporations to own IP. I'd like to see it such that only individuals may own it. An awful lot of the abuse of these laws (IMHO) comes from corporations owning the IP. I mentioned that I wrote a book. One of the prices I had to pay to get my work published was that the publisher holds the copyright. I don't really own my own book. Yes, I'm being modestly compensated, but not so well as I might. I'm not accusing my publisher of anything -- I walked in with my eyes open -- but a lot of eager young bands, for instance, aren't aware of what not owning their music might cost them. If corporations couldn't own IP, this particular kind of abuse would diminish dramatically.
So, despite my convictions about the wrongness of copying and distributing copyrighted works, there is plenty wrong on the IP ownership side as well.
There is some comfort to be taken in the fact that this has erupted before. The copying machine and the VCR both caused firestorms. Things worked out. Not necessarily perfectly, but decently for all concerned. There is hope that this newest will as well. But there is no room for complacency. The entertainment lobby learned from their losses in the courts over Xerox and Sony. This time the did a legislative pre-emptive strike (the DMCA). This fight will be harder and there isn't room to sit on the sidelines.
If you haven't already, I urge you to check out the EFF. Think about it, and if you agree with them, consider contributing. We need a lobby that has at least a significant fraction of the power of the entertainment lobby if we want the idea of "fair use" to continue to exist.
You can piss off a whole lot of people, but you can never stop everyone. And it only takes one.