Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Mandating HDTV Copy Protection
HeavenlyWhistler writes "The Washington Post reports
that the FCC will make a ruling this month on whether or not to mandate
that all HDTV receivers implement copy protection when a 'broadcast flag'
is detected in the received television signal. Movie and TV studios
are pushing for this in an attempt to limit consumers' home-recording rights.
An October
8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin,
has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is
approved. While the comment period on the proposal (Docket 02-230) is over, the FCC web site will still let you submit
comments.
The EFF also discusses this issue."
I can't go out and look for it (over the net), that's bad. Now I can't even keep it if they send it out to me?
Wouldn't this be ridiculously easy to overcome with a gizmo that just filters out the broadcast bit?
broadcast_flag = broadcast_flag & 0 ;
woohoo..so much for broadcast flags
since most of the crap on television is not worth watching anyway i wont be buying a HDTV, and continue using my $99 dollar RCA from walmart for catching local news, if i want to watch a good movie i rent or buy a DVD...
This will really push HDTV - paying more for less? Hey, RIAA does this with CDs too and it works great, doesn't it?
Copyright violation is NOT theft so get over it.
The rest of your statement is just proof of how ignorant you are.
If this goes through, I for one will watch just enough of CBS to find out who advertises with them, and then write each advertiser, saying that I will never buy anything from them while they buy ad space from such dorks.
It is not worth the time to write to CBS, just hit them where it hurts, in ad revenues.
Just wait until they decide to use the "broadcast bit" to no longer allow people to record shows off of TV (after all, when people record shows, they then have the ability to fast-forward or even skip the commercials).
Not only that, but the broadcast networks have known for a long time that certain nights/times are better timeslots than others. If people start consistantly recording shows (either via a DVR like Tivo or the equivalent of HDTV VCRs), they might just watch a show in OTHER than their intended timeslot! [gasp!]
No I won't be able to digitally record all the Iron Chef episodes.
If a movie is shown on a television station, it is interupted every 30 minutes (in Europe, maybe the US is even worse?) for a shitload of commercials. If I really want to enjoy a movie, I wouldn't record it from tv, but I would rent a DVD, for which I pay about the same price as I would for a DVD-R in the near future.
Same goes for most shows that could be of any interest to me (although I can't rent those on DVD).
that's right. in case you haveN'T noticed, they're joined at the hype, buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead stock markup execrable.
only storIEs that matter to phonIE greed/fear based FUDgePackers, & their current/potentshill payper liesense hostages, from now on?
RIAA, MPAA, now the broadcast TV industry really just don't get it: the purpose of all this digital technology is to lower the marginal cost of copying and editing information. Every copy protection scheme is doomed to fail, even in a "trusted" computing environment. At the end of the day, it's all binary data and it costs NOTHING to reproduce it. If anything, the media should be embedding advertising and so on so they can sell commercial time on the traded files. It's an opportunity.
Incidentally, there would be substantially less file swapping going on of TV shows if the networks made them available on DVD or electronically. I'd love to be able to go FOX and buy the episode of the Futurama I missed the other night for a reasonable - considering it was free on the air price.
I hope congress and the FCC see Viacom's threat to halt HDTV broadcast for what it is: an attempt to ursurp the governement's power. In fact, I hope we all wise up to the increasing granularity of intellectual property and reverse that trend. At the end of the day, the people will wise up to it and the people absolutely will limit intellectual property rights.
-- $G
WHEN are these media people going to finally realise that if you can see it or hear it you can snag it ?
I've spent the last 6 months working with professional and broadcast level digital tv encoders and decoders, even writing a fair amount of software on both sides. This flag is pretty pointless, and is often a laugh when discussed at work.
With the hardware we build and work with, the sort which a broadcaster would use to both create and monitor their transport stream, the ability is needed to record and play back at will, thus, such a flag would pretty much be ignored by our systems if implemented. Besides, if you end up modifying the ATSC standard, in order to prevent breaking all previous encoders/decoders on the market, you would need to make such modifications to portions of the stream which are unused, and existing off the shelf parts would ignore such a modification. Thus, the protection starts off ineffective.
Even after the existing non compliant decoders/recorders/etc on the market are retired to due age or death, newer hardware which ignores such protections would still be available, you'd just have to pay a fair amount.
What's on my Christmas list this year? A DTV decoder as well as a recorder/player unit, cost for both? About 15k. As sad is it is to ask, how important is your right to copy to you? Is it work 15 thousand dollars?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
If CBS stops broadcasting hdtv signals they'll have a nasty surprise when the FCC revokes the rights of broadcasters to use the regular spectrum they're using now.
Stop the HDTV push?
And give up all that money from spectrum allocation and sales?
Sorry, can't stop laughing. Um no.
--Dan
Evil bit. And we all thought it was just a harmless April fools' joke. :-P
FCC sources have also revealed a last-minute amendment to the proposed ruling which would require all HDTV broadcasts to comply with RFC3514.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
Sounds like just another reason to stick with the tvs I already have. What the hay, they all look just fine to me anyway. Especially when viewing DVDs.
Considering the fact that I have a lot of stuff that I record during the day to scan through at night and that if I can't record stuff then I won't ever see it at all and that I've been doing this for years, what is it now that has their drawers kinked? Well, exactly what it is is pay-per-view, total control, forever and ever, which is what they've been trying to get since the VCR was invented. So CBS is going to stop transmitting in HDTV, let them! Matter of fact, let them ALL stop transmitting in HDTV! Then watch as the Congress, after being attacked by a few million of the voters, tells CBS to transmit in HDTV or go out of business! If they can't provide an HDTV signal, then the stations that are affiliated with CBS can't transmit the signal, hence zero revenue for CBS and ASL of pissed-off viewers! They want hard-ball, then they'll get hard-ball!
Just turn the dumb TV off and do something else. While I still buy DVDs, I disconnected my cable three years ago and have never regretted the move.
Really, I have no problem with this!
If you really want to enjoy a movie repeatedly, you can rent/buy the DVD. If you really want to watch an episode of a soap that you might otherwise miss, you can still use a VCR ro record it.
As it happens, I don't actually have a TV ;-)
Tom.
Oh arse
So if they send a regular signal over the air, or through traditional cable services they don't have a problem with people recording the shows to watch later. If it's in the HDTV format though, you are not allowed to record it.
Can someone here please explain why HDTV content needs so much more protection? Is the format really that superior to regular TV? I'm not an audio or video expert and don't own a HDTV system so I don't know how great the difference may be.
The opinions expressed here are not mine, but those of these dang voices in my head.
I was worried I wouldn't be able to use my PVR to time shift, but it looks like this won't change a thing except for those who are picking up the free to air signal. I'm still against this on principal, but at least it wouldn't affect me (or most of us I would think) since I subscribe to satellite.
I know I read elsewhere that the FCC had previously rules that *digitial* TV (DTV) signals must have minimum recording rules (see this article for example). These specifically allow at least one time recording of a DTV signal for personal use. Yet, HDTV (high definition TV) may have difference restrictions? This seems really odd, and part of the problem is the slow process of implementing two different but new standards at the same time. I believe that HDTV will be carried by DTV in the FCC vision of things to come, so I would expect DTV rules to carry more weight than the HDTV rules.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Not only that, but the broadcast networks have known for a long time that certain nights/times are better timeslots than others
;)
Someone I work with has 2 VCRs setup at home to record different channels at 8PM on Wednesday nite, so he can watch a 3rd channel without missing the shows on the other 2.
On the other hand, Thursday nites after 9 or so there's nothing to watch unless you like CSI. Tuesday nites seem pretty slow at the moment, too. Guess that's why I've got games to play
As far as I'm concerned, let CBS take their crap off the air. The FCC is supposed to be forcing non-HDTV signals off the air eventually anyway, so they can take their pick. If the FCC mandates the copy flag being honoured, then the courts should overturn it on the same grounds as were used for the Home Recording Act and other protections of consumers' ability to time-shift and share music and video. Just because your content and our recordings are 'digital' or 'high-quality' doesn't mean that anything's changed. The VCR was going to ruin these guys, too, but now they're selling the shows on VHS and DVD and raking in even more cash.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Doesn't anyone know that the FCC is not on the public's side anymore. They even stopped regulating cable companies in 1999. I sent a letter complaining to the FCC about Comcast cable charging twice for channels when you purchase there digital package. You still have to pay for the standard package which have an overlap of 97 channels that your paying twice for. Do a google search to see who is in charge of the FCC and you'll get my point.
It is about advertising, With advertisements increasing more and more people are using their VCRs and TVio sets to skip over the adds. Why should I watch a programmed one hour time slot when I can see it in 30 minutes or less?
I don't think the advertising networks have realised it, but they have hit market saturation with advertising. For example, I now get the majority of my news from the internet. It is faster and more condensed as I don't have to wait 5 minutes to hear what I want or a droids opinioon as filler.
For many of us, this is why we do not yet own DVDs or HDTV... you only wonder if for a premium price your paying to have them control your viewing habits...
A constructive move would be to pay for a specific show, no advertising and low rates. This way the 140 channels on my 150 channel cable feed could go dead.
HDTV is hardly 'real' nowadays, it's still a long way from being adopted by the public. Especially with a medium as widely spread as television, it's going to take years of broadcasting 'old' television signals to provide backwards compatability, so your mother and your grandma can still watch television the way they're used to do.
I think it's a reasonable guess to say that plain old television will stick around for another 10 to 15 years. (Or, as long as modern televisions continue to live...)
In about 10 year, the use of really broadband (I think in the order of a 10 Mbit symmetrical connection) Internet will have become a lot more widespread. Broadcasters will in that timespan have adopted the Internet as a broadcast medium. I will probably classify as an 'early adopter', but the moment I can watch television over the Internet, I will cancel my cableTV subscription...
What are the chances of HDTV beating Internet based TV-broadcasts to the proverbial cookie-jar?
Who gives a crap? Oh, that's right, the 10 people with HDTV sets. What a shame, they won't be able to watch The King of Queens in HDTV. Watch as those 10 HDTV owners switch to the remaining HDTV programming.
While the comment period on the proposal (Docket 02-230) is over, the FCC web site will still let you submit comments
Yeah, because, after all, the FCC really paid attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who wrote them about media consolidation. And of course the FCC listened when we complained about the changes to rules for 3rd-party access to cable internet networks, and about the attempts by internet providers to reclassify internet services as "information" services so they can weasel out of a shitload of regulations.
Let's face it- Powell and his cronies do whatever the fuck they want to. Correction- whatever the media companies want them to do.
Please help metamoderate.
The consequences of this will be thus: People will have to buy digital TVs. They'll find their VCRs and stuff are ineffective for most of the major programmes they want to watch. They'll say "Screw this", cut their cable subscription, and watch DVDs (or replacements) and read and use the Internet, etc.
I cut my cable subscription a couple of years ago and I can't say I regret it. It was so easy to just switch on and vegetate, flipping between a hundred channels of nothing. Now I actually have time in the day, for reading, for listening to music, for doing things I didn't previously do. Anything that undermines that overrated institution is good by me.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
HDTV has always been a "slow moving" process. Stations were given a frequency range to use for HD, and given a requirement of something like broadcast at least 30+ hours of HD content.
. pdf from your friends at DTLA - The group which digital/HDTV people will learn to hate real soon now. In short, it talks about adding a special descriptor to the mpeg2ts streams which deals with things like copyonce/copymany/copynever, and also things like retention, how long a show can exist in recorded format on a DVR/PVR unit.
:(
But nobody cared. STB's required to receive it back then (and still) too expensive for casual home user. Sales of analog TVs still outnumber those of HDTV-capable TV sets.
And now, they are going to make it even more difficult for people to enjoy this new-and-expensive technology? If anything, to increase HDTV adoption they should make the units cheaper, and allow people to do more with this new technology than they could do with their old analog equipment.
For new technology like this to catch on, people need incentives to use it, not more limitations compared to old technology. If I was in the market for a HDTV set now, I wouldn't buy it if I found out that my use of it would be restricted to only watching it, and not being allowed to timeshift/record what I wanted.
Oh, and on the topic of copy protection, the copy protection, the bits these people are talking about are most likely the DTCP_descriptor bits, described in detail at http://www.dtcp.com/data/info_dtcp_v1_12_20010711
Retention_State_Indicator Retention Time
000 Forever
001 1 week
010 2 days
011 1 day
100 12 hours
101 6 hours
110 3 hours
111 90 minutes
^ yes, sometimes they won't even let you have it for more than 90 minutes
sure enough, they were the most honest critics of EVERYBODY. now, just more&more carefuLLie wordead ?pr? ?firm? FUDgePacking.
r.i.p.
In light of precedent from the US Supreme Court in the VCR/Home Taping cases, this action would seem to trample upon the fair use rights of viewers to time shift recordings. However, that lovely piece of legislation affectionately known as the DMCA now provides an argument that Congress has legislately overruled SCOTUS precedent on fair use when it comes to digital content. Although I haven't checked the legislative history, I'm sure that Congress never dreamed the DMCA would hinder something like the adoption of HDTV.
You gotta just LOVE when Congress passes laws without sufficient debate or input from all potential affected parties.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Erm, who exactly are they supposed to be threatening? A) are they really likely to stop doing one of the few things that's likely to make them more revenue in a pretty damn saturated/stagnating US TV market? B) Why the hell do the FCC care if CBS wants to put themself out of business?
It's like McDonalds asking for a tax break on one of their menu items, because they can't make money on it, and their blackmail tool is to threaten to stop selling it.
Is the FCC committed to moving everyone to HDTV by some cutoff date? Does HDTV use a different frequency, and they want to reuse the old one?
I R'ed TFA, and I can't see anything that explains this.
As a consumer of American-manufactured electronic products and an owner of many, many copyrighted songs, movies, and other digital media, I strongly object to the proposal that implementation of "broadcast flag" support be mandatory in consumer video equipment supporting the HDTV standard. It is an inappropriate regulatory restriction on fair use rights granted to me by U.S. copyright law and will unnecessarily limit my choices, rights, and ability to enjoy copyrighted media that I legitimately own or have access to view.
The FCC should not implement rule making to satisfy the special interests of media conglomerates against the best public interest of the citizens whose communications infrastructure it is tasked with protecting for their benefit. Do NOT mandate compulsory compliance with the broadcast flag for HDTV transmissions. This is anti-consumer and an infringement on rights granted to US citizens under existing copyright law.
Thanks for your consideration,
Chuck Shotton
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
...personal recordings are what they're after. The fact is I'm getting almost all the TV shows I can't watch in Europe(and I'm interested in) from Bittorent, and for the last 6 months 90% of them were excellent HDTV encodings. Even if it is doubtful that exactly the p2p networks are the reason for such measures, I really think that illegal distributions may be on the top of it as they prefer to deal with it now rather than later.......
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Just because you lack a TiVO doesn't mean the FCC can't punish everyone else for using one.
This is not just about IP piracy in the common sense, it's also about stopping people from fast forwarding through commercials.
the 'industry' or the goverment? should money make the rules the money plays by?
as far as i can see the goverment could tell the industry to jump into a big hole(and turn green and fuck themselfs) if it doesn't intrest them to use the spectrum and give it to somebody else to transmit on, i'm QUITE SURE that there would be FEW takers for the transmitting rights. if they don't want it, fuck them, they don't have to transmit or build the cables and show the shows with adverts if they don't want to, it's not really like the world depends on them for living anyways.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Pay per view is sucking wind... People do not subscribe to it. What people subscribe to is pay TV like movie channels. (As I do as well). Well, based on these movie channels every now and then I record the movie on my VCR for later viewing.
As a result I have the flexibility of Pay per view, but pay only a MUCH lower monthly fee. Adding this "Do not record" bit the broadcasters are forcing people to get pay per view, since PPV can be anytime.
Will it work? Not a chance as I will be taking those little cables that come out of the back and using it to record my VCR.
There is another reason why this happens. There are too many actors who get paid too much and too few of spreading of the wealth. Not to say that actore should not be paid, but there are limits...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I assume the point here is that the information telling the equipment to not allow recording would be sent by the TV stations over the airwaves and would not be included in the signal from the cable and satellite providers. I think that believing this to be true is rather short-sighted. When those providers realize that everyone's equipment has the ability to turn off the ability to record a program, you will see them sending it on programming and then working out deals with the content providers to allow them to offer pay-per-view services that do the timeshifting for you (of course at a cost to you).
For example: Suppose I am a cable provider. I know that a particular show is getting great ratings. I do the following:
Don't be fooled into believing it won't be used for something that wasn't indicated at this time.
If only you had an account so I could make you one of my foes...
... I'd like to introduce you to the star of the show, Lawrence Goatse! Thank you!
Look at DVD's, which became dirt-cheap because you can't copy them. Thanx to the uncrackable.... eh..
Look at DVD's which have regions to avoid... eh... and ofcourse dvd-players can only play 1 region.. no cracks available... eh... well..
What was I trying to say?
Are they going to give the money back to those people that bought a dvd recorder to record their favorite tv-show because they can't be there at that time? Oh... but ofcourse... they've already implemented that great idea of View on Demand.... eh... well... they could...
Next thing we'll be seeing is that we are not allowed to reproduce ourselves...
For example, they could insert advertisements every 15 minutes. Delete more of the movie so that it will fit into the time slot. Edit the movie to change dialog and obscure the naughty bits. Put a distracting logo on the screen while it is playing. Run ads for upcoming shows on the bottom third of the screen. Squeeze the credits and run voice-over for other shows. Cut the sides off the movie so you can't see the entire picture at one time. Interrupt the show (but never the advertisements) for "breaking news".
If they did these things, I hardly think that they would having any piracy problems to worry about.
Oh yeah, this is a smart move.
Although, HDTV was doomed from the start with the FCC screwing up the formats, allocations, basically every aspect.
and now with cable companies rolling out HD in a very lame way by only supplying massively compressed channels effectively removing any advantages fo HDTV. Anyone that buys a $13,000.00 HD Plasma TV should be insanely pissed when they get home and get a slightly better but widescreen version of regular TV from that cable provider.
I recently researched HDTV. the cable channels look just like the regular channels but with more visible artifacts. off air RARELY transmits anything but regualr DTV.. very VERY little HD content is broadcast. and there is no such thing as a HDTV DVD... so I would have been better off with the $2500.00 Daewoo Enhanced DTV.
Now they want to make it 100% impossible for me to record the programming... Nice.. no Tivo,no DVHS, no way of timeshifting because of one thing..... Greed.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Complain to your elected representives. I wrote to my represientatives as soon as I read about it.
My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
Don't worry, I'll fix your sink. And by "fix your sink" I mean I'll have sex with you. And by "have sex with you" I mean I'll fix your sink. And by "sink" I mean your reproductive organ. And by "reproductive organ" I mean that thing between your knees. And by "that thing between your knees" I mean... well that one's pretty self-explanatory.
In broadcasting industry, it's the other way around: they rely on the fact that people won't stop watching their favorite content (show, artists, etc), so these fans will accept whatever they dictate, no matter how annoying it will be for them.
This behavior will increase popularity on broadcasters that won't use "the evil bit", and eventually will make them the market leaders. If (I hope) they won't get greedy or misadvised, they will be better at respecting users.
I think this will happen with all the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft in their respective fields.
.. or licence fee goes mainly to BBC1, the non-advertising supported channel. If you wanted to watch the advertising supported channels only, you still have to pay the licence fee.
My world is crumbling... I won't be able to record American Idol in its full HDTV glory.
Oh wait, I don't watch that shit or any TV for that matter. I hope Viacomm does pull all programming. No more MTV, CBS, TNN.....ahhh a lot less crap on TV...
Oh wait again.. TV is all crap... that's why I cancelled cable and through out my broadcast antenna. Fuck 'em all.
More so in the UK - where it's shown on BBC2, which has no commercial breaks. It also seems somewhat short sighted given that the show ends up being released on DVD too.
... people writing letters to the FCC will stop what the money wants. Sorry, but this is a done deal, so get used to breaking to rules in order to copy Law & Order in HDTV.
Don't like it? Then I suggest you buy your own congresscritter in order to get some voice that matters. We're the unwashed masses, folks, we're here to provide eyeballs for the rich and powerful.
If most of the people didn't resign themselves to the low quality and lack of imagination of the broadcasted media and got some other entertainment, things could change.
And I mean things changing in the media. The law of offer and demand would apply, so that the media would have to re-attract their consumers by offering new quality in their products.
However lots people (at least in my country) simply sits down watching whatever they show on the TV set because that's easier than thinking for a while in order to get themselves some proper entertainment. This way, indeed, demand is assured, and the media don't have to work hard at all. Here in Spain each channel only barely tries to marginally surpass each other's rubbish, standardizing on the lowest common denominator.
I guess lots of people will continue to consume that rubbish, even if the offered quality further decreases by means of annoying technical restrictions (stupid or not) to the use of the contents.
If people never react to this gradual degradation of their lives, then they truly deserve it.
The parent post may be seen as a righteous and sensible way to encourage those trying to impose new limitations to drop them. Worse goods should get less demand for them, not increased benefits to the "seller" (be the "purchaser" the TV watcher or the advertisement contractor).
And so... On what basis has the parent post been modded down? Perhaps because it's untechnical (Hey! It's a bit! Let's flip it!)? Perhaps because the moderator actually depends on watching TV for entertainment? I actually would like some enlightenment on this.
It's not really yours.
Plus, it'll get circumvented anyway.
CBS ... has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Wouldn't it be nice if:
"FCC, acting today in response to extortionist threats from the CBS network, decreed that all CBS affiliate broadcast licenses would be suspension in 30 days unless all programming was available in the new, mandated, HDTV format. The suspension will last until all programming is digitally available."
Oh well. If only the government were ours.
Ok lets talk some true facts on hdtv and the fcc.
First of all, cbs can't do anything to the fcc because the fcc will fine them into hell for stopping broadcast. Its a government mandate that they have to do it by a certain date. It also looks really bad for them.
Second, people saying the fcc is not on their side are off their rockers. The fcc just demanded that cable companies must activate the firewire slot on the digital cable box. Many companies weren't going to do this for the obvious reason youll be able to dump straight into your computer but now they have to.
Third, people need to stop saying no one has hdtv because plenty of people do. It's finally reached an affordable level. You can get a 27 inch hdtv for around 500 or 600 dollars. I know, I know, this might take away from buying that ubersweet new water cooling device that might get you that extra 2 frames in half life, but maybe itll be worth it.
fourth, on the issue of the government again and the cost of hdtv. The government has created a timeline where they have mandated that manufacturers have to produce certain size hdtvs by certain years as well as already have the decoders built it. Thats right even if you have a 15 inch hunk of junk its going to be hdtv compatible somewhere down the line.
So please for the sake of all man kind stop talking out of your collective asses.
NJ Local Music Scene
Furthermore, do you really want to record a football game on a VCR at standard resolution when the original was high-definition with 5-channel sound?
That also depends on your HDTV tuner still supporting a legacy analog output. Eventually those will be phased out.
And that new HDTV Tivo? Oops, sorry, this program has been deleted because the 3-day expiration date set by the copyright holder has been reached.
If HDTV is going to have built-in copy-protection, then the simple result is that I'm not going to buy a HDTV. If this law passes, they're going to crush the market for HDTV before it ever takes off. Not to mention, the only reason I watch ANY TV is because I have a TiVo which lets me watch the shows I want when I want to. TV isnt important enough to me to schedule my life around. These anti-copy technologies more often hurt the people honestly using them. Like the ACC MP3s you buy from iTunes- it's supposed to only prevent you from making tons of duplicates of the same CD, but instead it's a constant hassle- it wont record at all onto CDs. The same goes for the recent case where TurboTax pissed off millions of customers with its copy protection. And finally, as someone so rightly said, if it can be seen or heard, it can be and will be recorded.
I submitted a comment on the FCC page concerning the constitutional purpose of copyright.
I am not in favor of copyright violation. I do think unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material should be illegal. However, the US Constitution clearly intends for all copyrighted material to eventually enter the public domain.
Current lengths of copyright are too long in my opinion. Technological mechanisms that prevent copying altogether are simply unconstitutional. That is fact, not opinion. All copyrighted material must allow the recipient to retain a persistant copy so that they may excercise their constitutional right to distribute copies after the copyright expires.
Other countries may vary, but permanent copyright is clearly unconstitutional in the United States.
An October 8 articlestates that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Mel is the COO, not the CEO! Sumner Redstone, who is quite up there in years, is still quite alive and kicking and is still the CEO of Viacom.
Just keeping the facts straight!
Sound waves should be free!
...just hold the shift key down and start recording :-)
I'm a great believer that every action has many many consequences and if you look at this type of action its pretty apparent the people taking it either aren't thinking about consequences or are just plain moronic.
CBS decides to stop broadcasting in HDTV, I have to think this is a bluff. They are in a poor enough competitive position as it is. From a personal perspective the big 3 networks have pretty much dropped off my radar map awhile ago. If I lay out a couple grand for HD equipment this will insure I won't watch them.
Assume that the pinheads actually do manage to get the FCC to back their position. Now you have people that have spent a significant amount of money on HDTV viewing equipment and recording equipment, guess what it doesn't work. Youv'e spent thousands of dollars on video equipment and it don't work. How are you going to react to the people whose content it doesn't work with ?
So these people are fighting for the right to drive consumers away from their product. The funny thing is it seems the Content industry execs are laboring under the misconception that they are important and control the marketplace, when it is the opposite that is true. Greed makes people predictable and redundant.
Control
It's what we want, and it's what they want. (They being the entertainment industry, the media, whatever you want to call 'em)
However...the two parties want different types of control.
They want a return to before the 60's. When they had sole reign over what you saw, when you saw it, and how you paid for it. Want to watch a TV show? Have to wait until they air it, and watch the commercials they want you to. Movies? Have to pay for each and every viewing. On their schedule.
Lately, the scale has tipped more towards us. We can (sort of) watch what we want, when and how we want to.
A TV show? Sure...tape it, and watch it later. Or next year. But we've only 'paid' for it (by viewing the ads) once, if at all. And they've only goten paid once by the ad agency.
Movies? Get a pirate copy, and watch it over and over. Give it to your friends. Hell...give it to everyone.
They want that control back. They would like us to (again) pay every time we 'enjoy' some of their fine offerings. Pay either directly in money, or by watching ads.
Ultimately, I think they'd like for all the hard copy ability to go away. Pure streaming. Then, they can change things, insert new ads, get us to pay over and over and over again, for the same basic content.
If you watch a rerun on TV 2 years later, of course they don't have the same ads in it. They've gotten their consumers to pay twice for the same content. And they'd like that to continue.
With a VCR, PVR, whatever...a 'rerun' in your home will have the same ads in it as did the original. They've only gotten paid once.
The question is...who gets to decide who the control will reside with? CBS, et al, would obviously like to regain control over what, when, where, and how thay get paid. Currently, the control is (somewhat) in our hands. And getting more so everyday. Lets try to keep it that way.
Remember...we are not the consumers. We are the product. The ad agencies are the consumers.
this Rule would go directly against the home recording act would it not? as well as supreme court presidence.
would congress act to veto this rule or would court action nullify it?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
You know, if you don't like the licence these choose to release the product under, don't use the product.
Last time I checked, life didn't stop because you can't see Star Trek or the WWE.
Now that the FCC is involved I'm convinced HDTV will go the way of DAT.
So your objection isn't to this ruling, but the one you're imagining will come later? As I quoted from the article (which as usual it doesn't look like anyone has bothered to read) this ruling does not apply to cable or satellite television. Broadcasters may want to use it universally, but the ruling they seek would not allow them to do that. You can still record your HDTV so long as you get your TV through cable or satellite. Of course I still think this sucks, as I value the idea that I could use the antenna on my TV to pick up programming, but in practice I'm not going to do that any time soon.
Ok this does assume the FCC has balls but think about it.
The FCC has allready mandated that over the air broadcaster have to give up there alalog broadcasting channels at some point in excahnge they get free new bandwith for there HDTV station.
CBS says they will stop broadcasting in HDTV if people can copy it.
FCC grows a backbone and says thats fine your not allowed to broadcast on your analog stations after point X and if you dont utilize your HDTV station we will take back that allotment as well.
End of story the FCC technicaly has the power to force HDTV with no encryption copy restrictions or anything else on the broadcast industry in this country. IF they get relay pushy they can affect the cable companies as well via signal leakage monitoring that is within there jursisdiction to shut down a cable company and make them spend piles of cash to get there plant up to spec.
Course this could all be a big fantasy on my part google has played nothing into this comment.
No sir I dont like it.
the pateNTdead eycon0meter kode, & the creator's newclear power plan, are freely available, & are representative of tools for the gnu millennium.
after the big flash, ALL of the terror will fade, as ALL the perpetrators of the corepirate nazi life0cide against humankind will be disempowered/dissolved.
get ready to see the light. it's not just for US.
Do you at least get digital versions of the channels you're paying twice for? That is, the channels are available in the standard analog package and then again in the digital package?
Charter doesn't do that... but the downside is, the analog channels (only about 75 for us, btw) are hideously low quality. 'Twould be nice to have them mirrored in the digital channel range. I'd be pissed about double-paying for it though. They ought not require you to have the standard package, all they should have to do is put a filter on the tap to cut them off.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Let CBS stop broadcasting HDTV. If/When HDTV takes off, I'm sure ABC, NBC and FOX will be glad to have all the CBS viewers that wanted to watch CBS.
The FCC needs to stop regulating content, and nosing around in buisness it has has no buisness nosing around in. It's not the FCC job to make sure no one pirates King of Queens. It's not the FCC's job to make sure that CBS makes money.
Not when the FCC Chairman thinks that Tivo is "God's Machine"...
The FCC has a great history of putting the broadcast companies back in their place when they get out of line. They also have a very good history of making the right decisions on this sort of thing. I'd be really amazed if they sat by and took this kind of attitude from CBS, and downright shocked if the ruling mandated any form of protection that allowed the broadcaster to control something like the length of time a show can stay on your PVR.
They could mandate that a form of copy protection be active on a recording type device to prevent second generation copies from being made, but there's no way that they'd permit nonsense like allowing the broadcaster to state "this can only be on the drive for 3 days then it's auto removed".
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yeah, I'd have to pick my jaw up off the floor if the FCC actually rejected this. They've gotten so bad about pandering to the media companies, even Congress has had to slap them down.
And this will kill HDTV. It's having a hard enough time as it is. If you can't record it, to watch shows when you want, it's not worth the money. The media companies want things to go back to the way they were in the 70's, before VCR's, when everybody rushed home to catch the evening news and Hawaii Five-O. Sorry, that square peg ain't going in that round hole.
So they're afraid of piracy? Well, I suppose killing HDTV is one way of shutting off a potential source of it. Bit like burning down the garage to keep somebody from stealing your car.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I haven't seen anything on CBS (or any other broadcast network) over the last twenty years that would be worth recording.
HDTV?? WOW! Garbage at a higher resolution is still GARBAGE.
And now to brighten michael's day - END ALL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES OF NPR!
you forgot that would be a violation of DMCA. go to jail. goodbye. This is getting fscking assinine. Didn't we go through this nonsense with the advent of VHS/BETA? Do you think the advent of that technology really crushed an industry? I think not. I'm just ranting but I'm getting really tired of these blow-hards whining that they need copy-protection. Half the crap that they market is garbage anyway.
The BBC produces something like 10 digital TV channels, and a couple of dozen radio stations. Not bad for 140 per year.
But media are not an indispensable narcotic. The way these organisations are carrying on, people will tire of them and get totally turned off as regards their products.
Not to mention what John Halderman pointed out the other week, namely that copy protection and all that stuff is by definition doomed to fail as in the BMG case.
Go ahead and stop broadcasting HDTV. It won't stop us from taking away your NTSC spectrum on schedule. Not that it will hurt you much, anyway: by your demographic, all of your viewers will be dead then.
Let CBS stop broadcasting HDTV. If/When HDTV takes off, I'm sure ABC, NBC and FOX will be glad to have all the CBS viewers that wanted to watch CBS.
CBS has been the best about broadcasting HDTV, so this is a serious threat. Whether it will work or not is another issue.
BTW, I noticed FOX was in your list of those that would pick up the slack. FAT CHANCE. FOX is the only one that still doesn't broadcast ANYTHING in HD! Fer chrissakes even the WB broadcasts some things in HD! The best FOX has done is fake HD, i.e. slightly better quality than regular analog, stretched to widescreen. It blows.
I've wondered... When storage capacity increases enough, someone could build a device to record the entire spectrum. A wide band antenna and amplifier feeding an A/D converter sampling at a few billion samples per second. You would play it back by stuffing the data through a D/A converter and rebroadcasting EVERYTHING. You could pull all TV, radio, CB, etc... channels out of the recording with the respective devices. You can't use a broadcast flag or any other technology to stop this. We just need storage of a few GB per second (100 second drives are now available). You could also write software to decode any signal you want - your software decoder need not pay attention to a broadcast flag or any other copy protection.
When considered from the perspective of my TV viewing habits, this whole HDTV + copy protection gets to be rather funny.
I stopped watching most over the air broadcasts early in 2003. The shows have become less than mediocre, and I have lost my patience with the overabundance of unentertaining commercials (even if they were entertaining, the frequency with which the interrupt the primary mood and flow of the main show render them extremely annoying very quickly, usually after the first showing).
With the increasing frequency of the few good shows now being released on DVD, I can watch them at my leisure completely uninterrupted and at excellent quality. This further reduces my desire to watch even those shows over broadcast TV.
Even though I make a good living, I am quite miserly with my money. I have to spend time considering whether watching TV is worth even the few hundred dollars needed to buy a new analogue TV when my existing one dies. Spending thousands of dollars on an HDTV set is laughable. Nothing on TV or DVD is good enough to justify spending anywhere near that much on a mere viewing station (which is all a TV set really is).
This is where the media broadcasters become hilarious from my perspective. They want me to spend thousands of dollars on a viewing station that makes me endure the worst parts of broadcast TV (annoying commercials), won't let me store and watch the broadcasts at my leisure, and won't let me edit out the commercials (which is what I do with my VCR via the pause button on those occasions I actually watch and record broadcast TV).
So HDTV essentially boils down to being nothing more than an extraordinarily expensive DVD player minus all the benefits a DVD player provides, and minus most of the benefits that we currently have with analogue TV broadcasts (with transmission clarity being the only remaining benefit if you're willing to endure a high degree of even clearer crap).
Pardon me if I don't rush out to buy this garbage, and instead scratch my head wondering why anyone would want to buy into this. I already have better things to do with my time, so TV broadcasters have to provide an extreme incentive to pull me to the TV. Instead, they seem to be doing everything in their power to drive me away; so I shrug and do things other than watch TV.
This in turn saves me money on products I don't buy due to advertising exposure, even on those rare occasions where the advertising makes me aware of something that I would actually want.
The only downside is that legislation protecting these nearly worthless digital broadcasts would also adversely restrict the usefulness of other digital products that I would want.
Who gives a crap? Oh, that's right, the 10 people with HDTV sets. What a shame, they won't be able to watch The King of Queens in HDTV. Watch as those 10 HDTV owners switch to the remaining HDTV programming.
Nice troll. There have been far more than 10 HDTV sets sold. Millions have been sold.
As for CBS, they currently have the best record of broadcasting HD programming. In addition to their original shows in HD (uhhh, forget KofQ, how about a little show called CSI? and CSI:Miami?), they also do college football and NFL in HD.
1) Don't worry about it. It's not likely to happe. Many posters seem to have this opinion, and I tend to agree with them.
/dev/dtv0. You can just write them to a file. MPlayer will play the stream. The 'broadcast flag' must be acknowleged by your player/recorder to prevent recording. I just don't see the MPLayer folks taking the time to implement it. And, if they do, use /* */ to fix the problem.
2) Go get yourself a PCHDTV card now. (Linux users only.) It puts the raw Transport Stream packets into
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Action Center has a very easy to use form for sending a letter to the appropriate folks.
Please take a minute to fill out the form and submit. If you're a member, you need only enter your e-mail address, another great reason to join the EFF.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ha. Like anybody watches CBS anyway. I can't rememberthe last time I saw the local CBS station anyway, oh wait, Big Brother. The original Big Brother in 2000. Not only does CBS SUCK, but their local station in the Rio Grande Valley (Brownsville, South Padre Island, McAllen) Texas has washed out colors, and the evening news has the worst reporters. My school made a big deal about the visiting once and the reporter they sent was a complete bitch. I will stick to ABC NBC and maybe FOX even though it is pretty much bullshit television all day with Paradise Hotel and Joe Millionaire. Who the fuck cares about that bullshit. Who the fuck cares about my rant. Me.
This is just as stupid as the DOJ tracking down and prosecuting people for COPYRIGHT infringment! (Which is a civil, not criminal matter.)
What reason does the FCC have to enforce people's copyrights? (And trample the public's free use rights in the process?!!) The FCC's mandate is to regulate the means of communication, not the content.
[*]If you recogocnize the provenance of that quote, you can point out a huge hole in my argument.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That said, if we can't record any of it, then I wont pay for it, nor will I watch it. I have a Tivo and I expect to upgrade it to the HDTV capable one in the future when it comes out. As it is, I can only watch HDTV shows when I have the time available, which isn't often, but if I had a Tivo for this, i'd watch it a whole lot more.
The people behind this have an easy choice to make. Copy protect televison so no one watches, or make it freely available for everyone like it is now.
Who runs the spectrum in the US? It's the FCC. They should drive that point home to CBS by pulling it's licence if they don't comply with mandatory HTDV broadcasting.
> Millions have been sold.
Millions of HD tuners have not been sold. Nobody is watching HDTV, they are watching SD DVDs on overpriced sets.
I believe the licence is for equipment 'capable of receiving' the TV signal. I doubt very much that a detuned TV would prevent prosecution - but suspect they wouldn't (as your conversation shows).
That should be interesting. We never watch TV transmissions from the networks anymore except for Jeopardy! and emergency notices (weather, school closings). My kids' Thomas the Tank Engine tapes are more entertaining than 99% of the guff sent out over the airwaves and cable. I suspect we're far from alone. I'll be waiting to see the share figures for the following month or two.
Mama mia! That's a hefty injection of legitmate traffic for P2P networks!
Nice to see auntie beeb giving back to the PD!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Don't allow them to implement something like that and create another RIAA. The technology is there. If networks threaten not to use it then let them. Those who still broadcast with the superior picture will get the business resulting from it but don't give in.
They are the public's airwaves. I don't see any right of theirs to use it as tool of surveillence against the consumer. Do we allow independant corporations to put up cameras on public stop lights to monitor our comings and goings and whatever products we may happen to be using? Are they allowed to access our private information that the gov. has on us or are they allowed to enter our private homes? They have rights to broadcast and that is it.
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
I say let CBS withhold HDTV. This is going to hurt me? I am reminded of the infamous:
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is that you're going to watch the spots," said Jamie Kellner, the CEO of Turner Broadcasting System, in an interview with CableWorld magazine this past spring.
Sorry, but I cannot see how this is going to be possible without such easy circumvention that it becomes a waste. They sell converter boxes under a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" today. When the flag is agreed upon, unlike software it is going to be there and everyone will know it and someone from Po-dunk will sell a bypass.
Another fine example of executives who have so little understanding of technology they are dangerous, costly, and ineffective.
The irony being that while they actually deleted a great deal of their original output - Nigel Kneale's 'The Road' - various other shows etc, without making copies. Maybe this is a way to save space - they share the programs, delete them from their own tapes and when they want to broadcast them, just dl them from Kazaa :)
You're right of course. Nothing on TV is truly free. Some (probably most) is paid for by advertisers - who, of course, get the money to pay for their ads from consumers. Some is paid for by government funding, and/or public and private contributions, such as Public Broadcasting System programming in the US and BBC programming in the UK. Some is paid for by a combination of all of the above funding sources.
But, the point is it has been paid for. The person who receives the programming from broadcast sources (i.e., not subscript sources) does get the programming for free, unless you want to nit-pick over the few cents of electricity used, or the depreciation of the purchase price of the television. Making additional copies available in digital format has virtually no incremental cost, except for the cost of bandwidth and or media for distribution. Presumably the advertisers would pay whatever they felt appropriate for reaching the audiance they think they are reaching to achieve whatever target return on investment they think they will get from advertising.
The dirty little secret of television producers is that nobody really knows how many people actually watch the ads to start with. They sell the ads based on how many people are expected to watch their programs. Unlike web ads, there is no click through count on television ads.
Besides, it is the consumers who pay for all television programming regardless of their appearant funding sources. Everyone who goes out and buys a Toyota Camry has done their part to pay for the next episode of Futurama, whether they watch the program or not.
What is most interesting is the programming in the United States that is "sponsored" by companies that do not sell products directly to consumers, or at least not under the brand names they advertise during those programs. I'm thinking specifically of news/political analysis programs such as "Meet the Press" or "This Week". These programs are typically sponsored by Archer Danials Midland (ADM), Monsanto and similar companies. These companies have obvious policical agendas, and I know this may seem suprising, but there is amazingly little coverage of certain policical controversies on these shows, despite their obvious relevance as political topics of the day, such as genetically modified crops. Go figure.
If this has been posted 100 times, then I apologize. But the EFF has a form where you can voice your protest against this flag.
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
No need to encode the times into 3 bits, there is a lot more information available at video bandwidths. No longer are we sending tiny streams of data from big old dinosaur iron to terminals. Just encode either an absolute or relative date.
That said, having a field which tells PVRs how long it can keep the copy would also affect advertising rates. If a show can only be viewed once at broadcast time, and never seen again by the general public, it will have a smaller advertising base. When the broadcasters allow a show to be viewed unlimited numbers of times, then the advertisers will pay more, especially now that the commercials are embedded in the shows.
So the length of time citizens can time shift their shows will directly affect advertising revenues. Which is why this kind of proposal was killed a few years ago by a greedy broadcast lobby, even though the advertising lobby wanted it.
I think this law will go the way of zone encoding on DVDs, easily bypassed by anyone who cares, and eventually abandoned by the broadcast industry because they can charge more by turning the bit off.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Something new to hack!
The REAL entertainment is not in watching the TV but hacking the TV..
Just because they are anal about it...
Consumers will find a way to get what they want. Right now, consumers want to experience entertainment on their own time, on their own terms.
Quoth the article: "But the entertainment industry does not want digitally enhanced "high-value" entertainment sent free over the air to be easily copied and distributed on the Internet. "
Why does the ??AA see such a stark difference between two free modes of distribution? Control. Note that this does not line up with consumer preference.
"Now the [FCC] agency is addressing how programming can be protected so that it cannot be easily copied and sent around the Internet, undermining the lucrative aftermarket for videos and television syndication."
I'd be interested in knowing what Fox would tell me my eyeballs are worth for one episode of "24". Is it $1.00? Less? If Fox and made it easy for me to watch that episode on my time, within a week or two of original airing via DVD or download without commercials I'd pay the dollar for the privilege. Over the course of the last month, my wife and I watched the first two seasons of "24" on DVD (via Blockbuster) and paid $48 for the privilege - $1.00 per episode. I don't think that I'm going to watch season 3 "live" on the air -- but I'd probably pay $4.00 to watch the first four episodes sometime next month.
But... Fox won't make this available for another ten months, at least. I don't want to wait that long. So I'll use TiVo and get (almost) the same result (but for loss of quality) with no additional revenue to Fox. And this ignores, of course, the other half-dozen quality shows on broadcast TV that will NEVER be offered on DVD, or online.
Microsoft, at least, has it right in their slogan, "Where do you want to go today?" The ??AA, in effect, is saying "Here's what you're going to consume today." Consumers have choices now, and we're sick of it. When the ??AA wake up and start providing consumers what they really want, we'll be happier, and they'll profit as well.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Why can't we just record the raw waves from the antenna and "play" them to decoding equipment? The decoder won't know the difference, and in analog form the "evil bit" means nothing. This is some pretty bad security here.
My other car is first.
Shoot those dipsticks really have flaked up HDTV...
So the studios and broadcasters want to protect content against copyright infringers and this works against the 'fair-use' and 'time-shifting' rules that allow for personal recording of content. Sounds oddly familiar.
While the studios and broadcasters have rights to protect their content, these rights should not be allowed to override the rights of consumers to 'time-shift' content. As someone who records anything to be watched (on a vcr no less - tivos are still too expensive), this threat of rule change is disturbing. On one hand I can see the point of protecting content from unauthorized distribution, and protecting exclusive content, on the other hand the rule would affect the consumer by forcing the consumer to be subservient to the scheduling whims of programming directors.
I would like to see a compromise put forward. To protect exclusive content (like a sporting event) the broadcast flag would include a 'day' or 'hour' count. A recording device could record the content provided, but only play after the number of days (defined as 24 hours in the rule) or hours expired. A limit of 3 days and/or 72 hours would be enforced. As for protecting content - well we know that can't happen yet, but the studio execs are hardheaded PHBs without a clue. Throw them a bone and include a device/registration code into the file on the device and several (invisible) watermarks while content is played back. Chances are the code won't survive being converted to mpg-4/divx, but at least it was an attempt.
"I'd love to be able to go FOX and buy the episode of the Futurama I missed the other night for a reasonable - considering it was free on the air price."
There's two factors motivating currect cable and TV channels from selling their content to the consumer for "cheap".... First of all, it wasn't free on the air, because they spend 7 minutes or so throwing commercials at you. Secondly, because of that, tapes or DVDs of these shows have to be priced well away from a reasonable price range, they figure, becuase they need advertisers to feel comfortable that the vast majority of people who watch will go straight to the channel hosting the show instead of buying commercial-free versions.
I can't even remember the last time I watched any of the regular networks. My tv is always tuned to the History Channel, Discovery, TLC, etc.
:rolleyes:
So I don't give a crap if CBS stops broadcasting. Oh no, I might miss Survivor.
CBS was issued the spectrum under the agreement that they would use it to broadcast HDTV. If they try to hold the US hostage by suspending HDTV broadcasts, the solution is simple.
Revoke their license and sell the spectrum to somebody else.
While I agree with the submitter's sentiment, referring to copying "rights" is just silly. We're not talking about freedom of religion here, folks. Perhaps the phrase "copying abilities" would be more reasonable?
is mandatory.
Dear CBS
As you are aware, we "loaned" additional spectrum to your affiliates to aid in their transition from analog to HDTV. You may be unaware that the spectrum that you have been given has appreciated significantly since that time.
Since you have no intention of broadcasting HDTV signals, please inform your affiliates that we require the return of the HDTV spectrum.
Financially we are currently facing difficult times. The funds raised by the this spectrum to those who will put it to use will be of significant help.
Thank your for help in finding additional revenue sources in these difficult times.
An american taxpayer.
Broadcast flags don't mean jack. Anything that can be recorded and/or played with technology can be hacked with technology. Those flags that people set on internet media don't work. You can capture a live stream and process any flags in or out of it you want at a later time.
So far the comments I've read are missing the point to this whole change in the regulations...
"The MPAA agrees that the system only begins to attack the piracy problem. Making analog copies is another huge problem that the industry wants to prevent through legislation or regulation."
What's going to happen is they are going to make it impossible for you to use any device to record the shows you are missing because it's inconvenient to be home to watch them. I'm surprised the cable industry is taking this so well because that means their "new" in house recorders they are pushing won't work either... We had this argument years ago with the use of VCR's and the MPAA let it go because the movies weren't of the same quality. Now with HDTV we're going to lose the right to copy anything for later viewing.
An October 8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Fine.
If the FCC/Government had a backbone (it doesn't) and wasn't in bed with the cartels (it is), CBS could be required to give back the billions of dollars of public airwaves it was granted virtually free of charge in order to convert to HDTV. Forthwith.
Oops, you've changed your mind and have decided to broadcast HDTV anyway? Wonderful. You can buy back the public airwaves you've foreited in your attempt to flout the law at market value. Thank you for playing.
Oh, you don't want to? Fine. We can see how long you last in the business when all of your competitors are broadcasting in 1920x1080 resolution and you're still stuck in interlaced, 640x480. Particularly after all of the consumer equipment in the future is shipping without support for the archaic format.
Of course, this would all require good governnance, something we are unlikely to see in this ever more rightist, ever more corporate country in our generation.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
This kind of exists- there is hardware/software for the PC that lets you record HDTV channels; copy bit and all. With the actual waves recorded, you then use homebrewed software to decode the signal (ignoring the copy bit).
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
The RIAA is doing whatever it could to kill it's market.
'"Quality content" is low on the agenda list. But for the few "artists"
that have enough vision and desire to jump the hurdles of the media
oligarchies, the commerce model that the media companies are working
towards is to produce-nothing- and have their profit automatically guaranteed
though taxes. Why should TV be any different?
I've been trying to jump on the HD bandwagon, purchasing the required
equipment experience this promised glorious new content. So far, it's
promise had come nowhere near reality. It's all just a way to extract
money from us "consumers", while providing as little as possible in return.
American business as usual. And when the model fails, they turn to the
government to mandate guaranteed profit either by contributing to the
campaign of our supposed representatives, or now, by threatening to
take their ball and go home.
How much money is enough?
What to people have to put up with today to watch HDTV?
- The equipment is expensive and consumes a lot of power (HDTV boxes
suck the watts, they almost all run hot). When it breaks, even more will
be spent on repair and replacement. Although a few sets have a built-in
tuner, most require an additional set-top-box, plus a reasonably decent
old-school antenna on the roof to receive HD. For consumers, its messy
with lots of wires and it takes a remote with 50 buttons to allow you to
switch inputs. Try explaining that to grandma when all she wants to do
is watch some TV --- "push the input 1 button and then use -this- remote
to change channels, don't use that other remote because that will change
channels on the TV, not the set-top-box". And on the subject of remotes,
why isn't all of that standardized? Looking up a remote code for a specific
model in a book and programming a remote is stupid. Programmable
"learning" remotes are even worse. Although it allows some flexibility,
these days, sitting for an hour pressing obscure button sequences to
get everything to work together, even from different vendors, is absurd.
It should all be easy plug and play, flexible, standardized yet modular.
- The over-the-air HD stations here (Indianapolis) have implemented the
infrastructure, yet don't use more than 10% of it's potential. Most stations
can't even send the correct time of day that's embedded in the signal.
Few, if any, send the program meta-data for the channel guide display.
This totally screws the potential to schedule accurate recording.
Even though digital lets then transmit additional channels, it's wasted
on things like weather radar or low resolution news loops. There's still
problems with encoding that cause the audio to lag the video in some
cases. Our local CBS affiliate has something wrong with it's encoding
that causes many set-top-boxes to crash. Once a month or so, they
set something wrong and there's no audio at all on the digital prime-
time feed. Our NBC affiliate, or the NBC feed itself, has this odd chroma
problem during prime time where there's a small hue shift that cycles
at about 4Hz. They also run this huge station ID overlay in the upper
left, at full brightness, sometimes for a minute or more, yet because
it's in the full upper left corner, it's clipped in the overscan part of the
image. Don't these engineers ever -watch- what they are broadcasting?
- True HD content is hard to find. The only truly awesome HD content
here is the PBS HD loop and even then, it's only about 1.5 hours of
total content. There's occasional PBS shows that truly look as good
as the loop, but it's rare. The network hdtv shows in prime time never
are stunning, merely adequate in image quality. The only consistent
HD show that looks like HD should, is Leno. Unfortunate that the show
(for me) is so awful, I can't watch it for more than a few minutes.
CBS promised Letterman in HD for a year, yet who knows when they'll
I don't have a video DVD player but even so I've stopped watching most commercial TV because the signal-to-noise ratio is so laughably bad. These idiots don't seem to realise that if they keep raising the advertising load they will have a consumer revolt on their hands e.g. from :
Audience Share is Decreasing: Television's network prime time audience has decreased dramatically, from 90 percent in 1980 (ABC, CBS, NBC) to just 43.3 percent (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) in July 1999. The last increase -- just one ratings point, and for only one year -- occurred in the 1993-94 season and was the only positive blip in a twenty-year downward spiral.
--
Open source works because of simple statistics. There are 6,300,000,000 people in the world. It is a statistical certainty that a small fraction of that population will have both the means and motivation to create free software. And once it's been created it can be copied millions of times.
Does that mean that they're going to give all those frequencies that they got (for free!) back to the government? I didn't think so.
Microsoft's well-tested recipe.
I was saying this back in my OS/2 days. But in those days, I felt Microsoft was leading people down a path, easy step by easy step, while those people didn't know where the path led. Now I think I see that the path never really led anywhere, other than away from alternatives. Microsoft wasn't after a destination, they were after mileage. Kind of like an unscrupulous taxi driver.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Mel Karmazin has an amazing track record. Even his critics have to agree (begrudgingly) that he usually delivers on what he sets his sights on.
And that is what worries me.
With FCC Chairman Michael Powell (son of Secy. of St. Colin Powell) doing his best to drive the FCC into Orwellian territory, the last thing the American people need is another father-son leadership challenged puppet show.
To date 'we the people' have been extraordinarily lucky, given that many of Mr. Powell's attempts to deliver our constitutionally protected fair rights priveleges, have been rebuffed by our elected representatives. It seems fairly clear though, that the arrogance of executives like Karmazin is not likely to change anytime soon. Especially if 'we the people' continue to sit on our duffs and merely observe the proceedings.
WHAT TO DO? Hell, who really knows? Certainly not I. But I'd like to think that it never hurts to write to your congressional representative whenever necessary. Perhaps more effective is a sustained and highly publicized boycott of everything the offending corporations have to offer a consumer:
- don't purchase a new HDTV
- don't watch any of their TV broadcasts
- in particular, don't watch the NFL
- don't listen to their radio broadcasts
- write to them and let them know what you are doing and why
- write to your congressional representatives
- talk to others and explain briefly why all of this is important
This is our country. Fair usage rights are constitutionally protected (whatever that means today). Let's take back what has been stolen, and not continue to subsidize big business's continued campaign to steal whatever is left.
David & Goliath? You bet.
The opportunity to produce skid marks in boardrooms across this great nation? PRICELESS
My thoughts exactly. A quick check at TitanTV show that I would miss out on Young and the Restless, Joan of Arcadia, JAG, and The Handler today. Shucks.
As one of the 10 HDTV viewers, gimme my Monday Night Football, ESPNHD, and INHD, and I'll be just fine thanks.
In time all analog data will be banned, even radio and books.
This will open up the DMCA to apply to ALL content.. and give the goverment total control of all information..
ANd us little people will only be told what they want us to know.. or read.. or watch...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If a broadcaster uses the public airwaves, they MAY NOT encrypt. It's the law. ABCCBSNBCNPR get free use of the airwaves in return for no encryption.
Remember, the alphabet networks have never paid a penny for the use of public property. And your misconception goes to the heart of the law.
Assuming, of course, you're not a lawyer spreading disinformation.
You may think standing up on this issue is a good idea, it isn't.
Frankly, each day kids leave Viacom's "MTV Empire" for reality, and you're not getting them back. Each day your management team makes the wrong choices to try to get them back, when what you probably should have done is just do the right thing in the first place.
CBS may have CSI, as my current example of 'quality' tv programming but let me put it this way, NBC lost me when they decided to modify the programming timing to try and get people to go NBC only either the TIVOs or their eyeballs, and I decided I wasn't falling for it. I no longer watch any NBC programming if I can help it, and my wife feels the same way.
NBC wasn't immune, and other than CSI, CBS isn't either. I will stop watching CBS if that's what it takes. Back off on your stance on HTDV copy protection or I simply won't watch. And don't even begin to think I won't remember this 5 years from now. I have a long memory. I'll make sure others remember it too. If I have to, I will lead a campaign against CBS and make sure nobody watches them, just as I have begun to ensure nobody watches NBC on Thursday nights.
I've been pretty successful in my grass roots campaign so far, don't even think I won't be even better at it by the time HDTV becomes a necessity.
To everyone else within earshot, boycott CBS if you have to, say enough is enough. I have a right to watch my programming any time I want, what I want, when I want, and my TIVO is my best friend at the moment as far as that's concerned. So be nice to my TIVO and don't even CONSIDER copy-protecting your programming via an HDTV flag.
If you get a high end cable package ($65/mo for me) with a couple of dozen or more commercial-free digital movie channels, a Tivo and a DVD-R like the Panasonic E80, you can pretty quickly build a high-quality movie library, both in terms of picture quality and in terms of critical quality.
It's not as good as a DVD if you're a PQ freak or an "extras" freak, but it's fine if you care about just watching the movie.
Pretty bad eh?
Sets one set of kids on another then profits on both sides of the divisions it creates. Then brand these kids anti-democratic anti-capitalism and anti-american when they've tried every spin on the same story.
Still have the weather channel and the business channel. The most useful and accurate information television has to offer.
TNN or Spike tv seems to be held by the same "mother" corporation.
One simple fact that the broadcasters are missing is that if they take away my ability to timeshift, I will be much less likely to watch programs! We own multiple ReplayTV boxes, and we timeshift just about everything--"live" TV is a rarity. Admittedly, we do blow through most commercials, but even if we had no way of skipping through them, we would still timeshift. Why? Because if I am tied to the network's schedule, then I am less likely to watch programs. If the programs are available on my schedule, then I am much more likely to watch them.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Actually, it is, in large enough quantities, which aren't that large. A thousand bucks of retail-value infringement in a six-month period, and you're up shit creek.
Careful, or you too might go from 'gullible loser' to 'elitist idiot'.
(Is downloading legally 'reproduction'? Or is uploading the only way for it to count as a crime?)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
COPYRIGHT infringment! (Which is a civil, not criminal matter.)
How come I'm the only one who gets picked on for this shit?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
So in summary, you're not against this because it doesn't affect you right now?
Don't you see this as a textbook slippery slope? Once this flag is in place, it only takes an FCC procedural change to stop taping of any material.
The mechanism to prevent taping will already be in place. Its a sure bet it will be used when you least want it.
So this is a fairly substantial threat to fair use. On the other hand, I can't wait for this to take effect, because I'm convinced most people think only "evil hackers" try to copy stuff. They never consider themselves "evil hackers" when they Tivo stuff and cut commercials, but its essentially the same thing.
Once Joe Six-Pack can't record stuff, the real backlash will begin.
Or maybe not. Hell... Cell Phone Service universally sucks, and people line up to buy it.
What's on that's good? Every series I'm watching at the moment (I watch 'em all at once, without the commercials) has ended by this point: X-Files, Babylon 5, The Outer Limits (the original 1959-or-so one)... is there anything really decent on now that Firefly's been cancelled?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Unless she has those cans and ass on display, she's just one of a million other pieces of ass.
If an actress won't get naked, no use watching her.
Oh wait, I'll bet you think she's "really smart. No really..."
This is part of a series of legal positioning that the broadcast/content industry is pushing. The end goal is to control content from the airwaves to the receiver to display.
While there are currently analog loopholes, the content industry is pushing to close them. While it is true that there are ways to technically get around these content control measures, they may not be legal. What good does it do if you can record in HDTV but all the manufacturers of HDTVs or decoders force down resolution for all analog outputs if the content contains a broadcast flag.
Take a look into the past. The first DVD players were able to get around regional coding. It didn't take long before all new DVD players implemented the regional restrictions. Try buying a player in the US that can circumvent regional coding from any major retailer. They simply don't exist.
Handing the keys over to the content industry or broadcasters is a bad idea. It may be a minor inconvenience right now, but a step along the way for total control.
If they had their way, the VCR would never exist as we know it. It would be a device that totally limits what the user can do, just like DVD players are now. Want to play a DVD legally purchased from Asia or the UK? Too bad. Want to fast forward past the commercials on the DVD you purchased? Too bad. Want to try and bypass any of these "features"? Go to jail.
10--13 minutes per hour?!
Having ad-stripped versions of certain series, I can make an observation.
The Outer Limits (early sixties). Fifty-three to fifty-five minute runtime. 5--7 minutes of ads per hour.
X-Files (or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or any new Trek series, etc.) Forty-two to forty-four minutes. 16--18 minutes of ads per hour.
Plus, look at the season lengths. First season of The Outer Limits had 32 eps. 32*54 = 1728 mins/season. Average season of X-Files or Buffy has around 22 episodes. 22*43 = 946 mins/season.
Ergo, a season of television consisted of nearly twice as much (eighty-three percent more) back in the day, than it does now. I can't believe they still have filler episodes in the shortened seasons. Bleah.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What exactly do you mean by record once? Sounds like a dumb question, but since the program is only broadcast once (for purposes of argument), shouldn't the options only be 'don't record', 'record at shitty quality' and 'record freely'? Do you mean having playback limited?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The news article is a layman's summary that doesn't tell the whole story. This ruling applies to broadcast TV, and to those same channels when they are passed through on cable or satellite. The data stream contains the flag. Cable and satellite are working to set up their own copy restrictions; since their signals are encrypted, they can set any conditions they want on a manufacturer who wants a license to build a set-top box to decrypt the signal. The whole point of CBS/Viacom getting into a snit was that if broadcast were to be the only one without copy protection, the copyright holders would supposedly boycott them and stay on cable/satellite. The digital world opens up the door for detailed control over when and how the video is viewed, control not necessarily in the hands of the guy holding the remote. Like the DVD players that won't let you fast forward past the FBI warning (or in Disney's case, the commercials).
How can it be twenty-two minutes? Must be for things like sports, which (at least it seems) are interrupted more frequently. Prime-time hour-long dramas (don't know about reality shows, news, anything else) seem to have stabilized at around forty-two to forty-four minutes long with the commercials removed. Maybe early-morning infomercials are being counted.
Still, having an actual study would be better than pulling out my own back-of-the-envelope figures. Do you remember the name of the textbook from that class.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Technically, what you have in your sig is the weak anthropic principle, 'things work because if they didn't we wouldn't be here'. The strong anthropic principle states, 'things work so that we can be here'.
So CBS is bluffing.
An Error has occured, Please Contact ECFS Help at ecfshelp@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0193. Or Click Here to send another comment
Error Type: Session Terminated
I was trying to submit the following comment on Digital Television copyright protection Docket - 02-230
Please re-read my comments. If you think I'm not against this then you didn't read closely enough.
Ah, now that is +5 Informative material! The article does make it look as though they've specifically excluded cable and satellite. If that is not the case, then I'm equally against this <grin>, but more pissed off since it would affect my PVR habits. Oh well, I'll probably just stop watching anything I can't time shift. I watch too much TV anyway.
The broadcast industry is in a transition right now to digital TV. That transition is supposed to take place by 2006/2007. At that point, stations are supposed to stop broadcasting legacy analog. In other words, your TV will no longer pick up any TV stations over the air.
Most HDTVs do not have a tuner built in. They also will not be able to pick up any signals.
In walks the digital (HDTV) decoder/receiver box. The content industry wants control of this box. They are trying to force manufacturers to lock the user out of any control of the signal, including any recording. They are pusing to force the manufacturers of decoder boxes to force down the resolution of any analog non content control outputs.
Now why would they do this? They claim it is so that people will not have "perfect" copies of their content like movies, TV shows, etc. They claim this is necessary due to the ability to copy and distribute content so readily.
The real reason is if they control the entire distribution system, they can control prices. They can sell you the same content over and over, just like they sold you the same tapes you bought on CD and soon SACD/DVDA, just like they sold you the same content you own on video on DVD and soon to be the HD-DVD.
Additionally, they don't want you to be able to record any programs to watch at your leisure, fast forward through, or skip commercials on (unless of course they control that feature and charge a usage fee).
This is a big deal. The content industry if unchecked, will make legacy HDTVs not function properly (low rez).
Okay, so you have a HDTV satellite receiver? Think you're immune? Think again. Who is really in control? You don't have control of your receiver. Only under the graces of the broadcaster does your equipment function. Just like cable, they can force an upgrade at any time which will render your equipment useless, or will charge additional fees for functionality.
The end goal of the content industry is total control of all content, where end users only license material and do not own anything. The industry would love to engage in discriminatory pricing, price fixing, artificial scarcity, etc.
And this would be one step in that direction. All they would need is some quirky US law that makes it illegal to bypass their control...
end of transmission.
1984's the name of the book.
And somebody with mod point boost the parent up - the most terrifying, insightful post I've seen yet! History modification at the press of a button. Yipe!
CBS threatens to stop all HDTV broadcasts if they don't get their way?
Sheesh, LET THEM! When they find themselves losing viewers maybe they'll reconsider their idiotic decision.
The FCC needs to stop pandering to whiny media companies and start listening to viewers.
There seems to be something absurd about wanting to block copying of broadcasted material (from m-w.com):
Copying broadcast materials only allows wider distribution. But, I guess CBS wants the right to make us pay attention to commercials.
Sleep is for the Weak
The link to submit comments didn't work for me, so I emailed ecfshelp2@fcc.gov, and got this link, where I just submitted my comment: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
The problem is that it wasn't implemented very well. When you activate the normalization (called AI sound on the menu), BG music gets loud enough to drown out dialogue. It's worthless. We just hit the mute button when commercials come on.
Maybe we should forget TV entirely. Turn the spectrum over to something more worthwhile (1). Maybe non-line-of-sight wireless broadband(2)? Usually TV has all the good sites for putting an antenna. The antennas also have the height. Convert all those "former" TV stations into ISPs.
(1) You think CBS is squealing now? Just wait till their entire investment is threatened.
(2) Yes, Virginia, there's such a thing. Google for it.
I DID NOT read any form letters or "canned" arguments first. Duplicate copies of the same comment are always ignored.
I stated my position at the top of the form, then provided justification for my position, then restated the position as a conclusion at the bottom.
I kept the tone calm and as brief as possible. Rants, manifestos, and essays are always ignored.
Unfortunately, I did send it electronically, and late. So, it will probably be ignored.
I oppose broadcasters request that the FCC provide legal means to remove the fair use rights of the public.
I understand that broadcasters wish to prevent me the ability to use recording equipment on certain of their broadcasts. I understand that broadcasters have asked the FCC to use regulatory means to restrict my rights in favor of their rights.
At a minimum, such restriction subjects my legally protected rights to the whims of the broadcaster.
The broadcasters are askeing a Federal Agency to deny the rights of all of The People in order to prevent a potential violation of the rights of a few of The People.
I have committed no violation, but the broadcasters have asked you to remove my rights because I might commit a violation of their rights. This taking of my rights without due process is offensive to me, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
This preferential treatment of a small group at the expense of the general public is unconscienable, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fourteenth amenement to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
Therefore I oppose the proposition that the FCC grant authority to broadcasters to regulate the fair use of the public.
Thank you for your time and attention in reading this comment. I trust that the FCC will decide fairly and comply with the applicable law in this matter.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
To whom it may concern:
Please do not mandate copy protection in the next generation of television signals. The move by the media industry to get this implemented is an overly restrictive ploy to limit the fair use rights of consumers in the home environment. Just as individuals today are free to record a television program for private home use, HDTV should not take away this freedom. Any detrimental or harmful activity (piracy, etc.) from having this right is greatly eclipsed by the beneficial, fair, and perfectly legitimate activities of millions of consumers. I urge you not to give in to the demands of the media industry, whose opinions are already grossly overvalued in today's marketplace.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
This rule, if passed, would be the end of DIY time-shifting at home. I wonder how ATI and other TV-Tuner manufacturers are weighing in on this ruling. Already, the home-theater-PC (HTPC) is facing a major stumbling block with he lack of legal digital cable tuners for the PC (although, illegal ones are out there, but one must order from Australia or Germany). I'm personally a little fed up with the FCC pandering to the entertainment industry. The consumer is ALREADY subsidizing the HDTV rollout, since we are the ones required to purchase the new TV sets and tuners in order to take advantage of this new technology which will be required to view any broadcasts on any station within 5 years. Furthermore, the networks are already subsidized through exclusive use of the public's airwaves which they lease. I fail to see their argument that this is necessary in order to protect HDTV when the analog VCR has been around since the late '70's and the last time I checked, the networks were rolling in money. If the VCR didn't destroy analog broadcast television, then TV Tuner-Cards that operate without flags will not destroy HDTV. This ruling would leave no room for a DIY HTPC that does any timeshifting. Forcing people to buy a Tivo and pay a monthly fee for a service they could do themselves with a computer, HD, and DTV tuner card is bullshit. The computer HD is to Digital Broadcast what the VCR was to Analog. The Supreme Court already ruled on the legitimacy of the VCR. So when you hear the argument that they're trying to guard against piracy by eliminating the ability to record broadcast television, you are really hearing them argue against the Supreme Court's decision in the 1980s. They know that there is no legal basis for "outlawing" any recording device once it exists, so they are trying to prevent them from existing in the first place through the use of 'back-channel' avenues like the FCC rather than going straight to congress. It is actually stunning that with all the anti-consumer provisions of the DMCA that the entertainment industry still needs MORE protection. This is perfect evidence that there will be no end to what they want or think they need until all of your money is in their golf bag. They should already be happy as hyenas that they got the American Consumer to pay for their HDTV rollout... just remember "EVERYTIME you hear the words, 'trying to protect' , you are about to lose more money or more rights"
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
There is only one problem with forcing a conversion of the broadcast band to digital: by doing so you are eradicating the intent and spirit behind broadcast television. By sending signals, you are deriving folks of programming that they were receiving just fine with the older analog mode who do not wish to upgrade. In effect, you are creating a group of second-class citizens that are being denied access to the commons. It would be like cordoning off the Mall in Washington DC and saying only people who are wearing certain clothing will be free to use it and cross it. It is all fine and well as long as everyone agrees to the rules but causes serious problems when a tourist shows up in unapproved clothing and wants to enjoy the Mall. Can you imagine the firestorm that would ensue? Same thing here.
Media companies can do whatever they want on the for-pay cable networks. CBS wants to stop HDTV broadcasts over the public airwaves? Fine, go ahead. They will be just hurting themselves in the long run. Someone else will happily fill the HDTV void and attract viewers over. But HDTV should be forced upon the general public just because the media industry wants to do it. Unless, of course, they want to buy everyone who doesn't want to spend the money to upgrade an HD set. Then I don't see an issue with it.
How is HD piracy going to be any different really? I can tape a show on a good videotape, encode it and distribute it over the Internet with sufficient quality to be more than acceptable to the masses at large. Until we live in the age where everyone has a 100Mbps broadband connection, sharing 1000 scanline HDTV over the net, even with the best compression technology on earth, isn't going to be happening the near-term or even 5 years from now. This is a play by the media industry to exert an unprecedented amount of control over how you can exercise your fair use rights and the desire to not be forced to view advertising you don't want to see.
I think if the force the flag and the hardware upgrade, it will be a dismal failure. People may not understand or care how the Web works, how their DVD player works or how to program the VCR, but mess with their ability to use and watch their television and watch out! Cripple TV viewing and the backlash against the media conglomorates will be swift, brutal and violent. Just the way any good revolt should be.
Having to pay a fee every month to the BBC would annoy me even more (much more). As it is, I watch broadcast TV from time to time and if I choose to, leave it off for weeks at a time. At least I don't have to pay for stuff I'm not even watching.
Well they're making money from me by selling low-price home automation devices; I'm not interested in the cameras. I wish they'd quit fooling around with cameras and update their decades-old home automation designs. Some pop-up ads explaining how you can control all your lights with a remote control might finally get home automation into the mainstream, so they could afford to develop non-seedy products.
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Hmm. Wasn't the transition to HDTV federally mandated, including deadlines?
Doesn't this mean that CBS's threat comes down to "If you don't change the rules for me, I'll break the rules?" Doesn't that just open them to penalties from the FCC/Congress? It doesn't strike me as a very effective tactic... like a child's first attempt at blackmail, done in a way that will only get the child in more trouble.
That's interesting, I'm considering mandating that nobody in my house is going to buy HDTV.
I can't help but think the real reason behind this is to keep the ever so valuable time slot. If everybody has a TiVo, then individual time slots no longer have any more value than others. Can't have that, now can we?
"Derp de derp."
This is similar to saying that we cannot intercept satellite transmissions which the satellite tv companies tried to do to prevent copying. Which the FCC said then we could force them to pay us for their radio waves crossing our property.
Either way what's the point of this.. not letting us tape our shows in favor of forcing us to buy the 100 dollar dvd set later on to turn a better profit?
CBS - they're one of those networks that I haven't watched for about, hmmmmm, let's see now... oh I don't know, maybe 15 years - possibly more...
As soon as they started showing "Murder! She Wrote..." and other crap, I took them right out of my list of channels...
NBC went shortly thereafter - I can't really remember the last time I watched NBC - might have been 8 years ago in college when Letterman was something funny...
ABC occasionally gets watched for 10-15 minutes when I'm looking for some news program...
So the "big 3" can do whatever they want... If they want to stamp their feet, cry, yell, and throw a tantrum - let 'em... It's just that many more subscribers that will move on to the channels with some slightly better content over on Sat and Cable...
And who knows - maybe, just maybe, they'll dry up and go away entirely and we can use the spectrum they currently hog for something useful...
Oh the other hand, the broadcast flag is a crock of shit - pirates will simply ignore it with some mod'd equip, and the rest of us will get fucked over... I sent my comment to the FCC - did you?
CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Why don't we, the public, threaten to revoke CBS's broadcasting license if they don't provide what the public wants. After all we, the public, own the airwaves and have the right to demand certain content for the privilege of profiteering (through advertising to a large audience). I am sure others will gladly accept to broadcast in HDTV (or whatever format the public chooses) if CBS doesn't.
"CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved."
Can't the FCC just revoke their license if they do?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
An October 8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin, has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is approved.
Who gives a crap?
Everybody who wanted to use the bandwidth the FCC gave away to CBS affiliates with existing analog TV channels.
If CBS is going to stop using it, the FCC should take that bandwidth back and give it to someone who will.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You can't tell me that no matter what signal which goes into my television, that the video out port on the TV won't still be recordable.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Those genuises at CBS will stop broadcasting HDTV, for which there are few recorders, and stay only broadcasting normal TV signals, for which everyone and their dog has recorderss for in a bid to force legislation away of recording boxes.
"I'm going to drive my gas prices lower in order to stop people from filling up their tanks so much."
Maybe if CBS would think about no longer broadcasting non-HDTV, this would mean something.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Everybody wants to control how their customers can and can not use their products.
The Supreme Court said that timeshifting is legal Fair Use, and that you cannot ban a technology with a legitimate significant use. Now the FCC wants to mandate a copy protection technology that we know will interfere with legal use.
Since when did the FCC's wishes become more important than the rulings of the Supreme Court?
No recording of television programs. Oh dear. That means I would actually have to begin watching the "New Fall Lineup." But first I'd have to get my cable expanded to get some cable channels.
I am not enough of a compulsive nutcase to archive the garbage that is offered on my television. We watch DVD movies here. We listen to radio here. We listen to MP3's here. We read actual books here.
I do not believe not being allowed to archive television shows will have ANY effect on my life.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
DVD players are crippled products. They remove the best feature which VCRs had - the ability to make recordings.
Yet, DVD players sold like hotcakes. People will, and do, buy crippled products. People are a lot dumber than you give them credit for.
He's referring not to DAT but to DCC, which had its own set of issues (cost, inferiority of tape over optical disc media.)
DAT withered for other reasons (cost, the "notch" foolishness, and the simple fact that it's tape.)
Minidisc is doing just fine in Japan and other parts of the world; it's mainly the US that was slow to adopt it. Recent iPods/iRiver type units are even better, though.
There are trivial and inexpensive ways around SCMS.