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.
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...)
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.
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.