Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Digital TV Viewers Complain About DRM Restrictions
Riktov writes "The Japan Times reports that that viewers of digital broadcast TV, which started this past April, are complaining to national broadcaster NHK about restrictions on recording. Many of the complaints seem to arise from viewers who are confused as to why they can't copy rather than angry that they can't copy, but in the end all viewers are learning the hard way about content restrictions."
The scary aspect of this story is that the people who are buying the DRM-encumbered TVs don't even seem to understand what they're giving up compared to traditional TV signals. Because, afterall, they CAN record the shows, but just to one copy. It's the second copy that is blocked, and most people don't think of their computer as a video editing device, and as a result they don't even comprehend the need of having anything more than one copy.
The market isn't rejecting the DRM, instead their turning to us geeks and saying "What are you kids making a fuss about?" That's not a good sign for us at all...
People were suprised that they complained? Did anyone expect them not to?
Not confused, bitter that they can't record. They are just too polite to admit it.
Suprnova.org changed their site to japanese on apr 1. Must be because they were expecting japanese visitors.
-Grump
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
NHK is Disrespectful to recorders!
It's not long before some kid from Norway writes another version of DeCSS or DeDRM. All he has to do is move to Japan for a month or two...
:)
Anyone live in Japan and want to host him? Anyone know the guys email address?
I bet the "confusion" is due to famous cultural differences. Where Japanese customer would politely note that "I am confused on how this feature work. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't record the show from tv", US one would spray phone with saliva and salty words, demanding to know "who's that @ssh0le who put this piece of s..t into production"
Hopefully something good comes out of it, and industry would get its nose rubbed into real life customer experience...
Hyperom.com
I guess this begs the question as to why do you need a card to watch TV when the purpose is to not allow duplication?
Sure.. I guess it could have it's positive uses... Like if you ground your kids from the TV, you just take away their access card and they can't sneak in a program or 2 when returning home from school. It could also lock out programs that children cant watch, depending on the V-chip ratings. But this is in Japan, where they don't have the same censorship the US now has. The article really doesn't get into it...
Hmmm.
The US implementation is going to do away with such a cumbersome step. It will simply require a blood sample to identify your DNA to confirm you are an authorized viewer. Of course, it will also have special retina burning devices to ensure that only the authorized individual can view the product. Visual piracy immediately punished. No appeals!
I think right now an easier solution would be to just get a hdtv card in a htpc and use that to record shows.
But Im sure the japanese media conglomerates made sue everyone knew that the broadcast flag was *GOOD* for you!
Perhaps they need to personify the broadcast flag into a cutesy anime character, to allow them to sell it better:P
(emphasis mine)
The duplication controls have been adopted to protect broadcast copyrights, an NHK official said, adding, "Easy violation of copyright would make movie and music copyright holders reluctant to provide their works and prompt actors and singers to refuse to appear on TV."
Really? You mean they're not going to act or sing anymore? How are they going to get paid?
This guy is a total fuddite.
- 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.
Flagness: You can now only watch! You cannot record! Ahahaha.
Jo: We'll see about that, Flagness. That's my recorder, you can't tell me what to do!
Flagness: I own the stream you fool!
Jo: I pay for the stream! Everybody pays for the stream! That stream is as good as ours!
Arfie: Arf!
Jo: You tell 'em, Arfie! We're not taking it anymore!
Flagness: I cannot be toooooooooooooooold!
Jo: Wanna beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet?!
*Shink*
Tune in next week to see who dies!
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
The article didn't say that people were returning the tv's... too bad. People can complain all they want but they are still buying. Those of us who know better and aren't buying are either too few to matter or will end up HAVING to buy when analog tv goes away. Its just a matter of time for us in America...
Harsh, overbearing DRM RIGHT NOW, before consumers forget 'how things were'.
People like Apple slipping in the unreasonableness slowly so you gradually ajust to it (compare the 'no DRM at all, don't buy it and let the market kill it' position pre-iTunes to the current 'reasonable DRM is ok, it's not their fault' now*) are FAR more dangerous that the flat footed attempts of the WMA crowd.
The more violently the content producers introduce this stuff the better the chance of the populace waking up for the tenth of a second required to scare the media companies really badly and getting rid of DRM for at least a good long while more.
So this kind of thing is a good thing, not a bad thing. In the long run it'll mean less arbitrary restrictions and presumption of guilt for everyone.
*This is not a flame, this is the truth. I can't think of one slashdot post pre-iTunes (that was modded up anyway) that said that DRM would suffer anything but a crippling death because people would refuse to buy restricted products, then they would HAVE to come back with unencumbered goods. Now we see people falling over themselves to offer a misguided company congratulations because they fuck you over SLIGHTLY LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Wonderful.
Beep beep.
Comes with the culture. Japanese hardly get angry - being confused is already quite a strong word in their culture. In addition, the article does not mention confusion, but rather the customers being upset and complaining. Sorry, if the slashdot blurb makes such a big point of this confusion vs anger thing, I had to set this straight, before the readers get confused themselves.
is that fact that the consumer holds no rights over anything anymore. we have the right to buy the product and that's pretty much it. when you buy a new car, there is a black box in it that records what you do and it's built into the cars computer systems and cannot be removed. to remove it not only voids your warranty, it renders the car useless. cd's and dvd's are being made only to play on industry approved machines. thanks to backwards lawmaking...industry tells the consumer what to do with their product much in the same way a home-owners association can tell you what you can and cannot do with your home. the only way to fix it is to remove the whole of congress with new elected officials and that's not likely to happen. so i reckon that we should get used to it.
Is it 5:30 yet?
http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html
"Where is the NHK TV camera? Hello, Tokyo!"
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
The "Sony Betamax" Supreme Court decision that allowed the VCR to come into existance really may come up for a challenge when Hollywood tries to push a system like this stateside.
See, the Betamax ruling gave us the right to time-shift programming that comes down from TV stations, but that time-shifting implies that we're not going to keep our copies forever. It's impossible to keep an analog VCR tape forever because it will age and degrade over time, and analog copies are always lossy as well. However, a digital copy that you can recopy to avoid media-aging issues can in fact be kept forever.
There's no such thing at this moment as a law that enumerates all of our "fair use" rights when it comes to media that we have legally obtained. "Fair use" is just the result of things that Hollywood wishes we couldn't do but they can't take us to court over them because they're not (yet) against the law.
Right now, there's really nothing at all that prevents American broadcasters for using encryption on their HDTV broadcasts, and leaving only a low-quality MPEG stream available for those who don't want to play along with their scheme. Some stations in Utah are in the process of proving that with the current cable-over-DTV scheme, where they use their DTV channel to relay only an SD copy of their analog content, and then instead of ever going HD they use the remaining bandwidth to relay pay-to-watch cable channels.
You would think that the money grubbing companies would have found a new business model. Allow people to "buy" copies from recorded DRM material. Now by allowing "buying", the companies would have to do something smarter than just turn off DRM since once a non-DRM copy got out, well the cat's out of the bag. So maybe an unique user id code is embedded so a copy that is illegally distributed can be traced back to the source. Of course, I sure someone could come up with a way circumvent that as well. The bottom line being that if there was a way to provide legitimate copies to people for a reasonable price, people would pay (look at iTunes). Want to get additional revenue, then charge a buck more to allow people to get copies sans commericials/ads.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I should have watched the beginning of the episode. I would have recorded it, but ...
A couple months ago, I came across a program with very little documentation that was a distributed key cracker/finder for some sort of DTV encryption key. It was being publicized by an anime group- with encrypted DTV, the fansub groups can't get high quality 'raw' versions to subtitle and re-encode.
If anyone has details or can find it, please reply...
Please help metamoderate.
I wonder if it will lead to declining sales of digital tv's in Japan. If I had any vested interest in hd or digital tv here in the US, I would be paying close attention to this. Good thing I don't, sounds like it's going to be a mess.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I hope this gets the electronics manufactures to lobby the FCC to lighten up - it will affect their bottom line if people do not want to upgrade their TVs and VCRs/DVRs because of consumer unfriendly restrictions.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Then the argument comes in as to who actually 'owns' the copy. Would it work just like the movie industry does for say DVD? Granted, most shows are already being ported to DVD, but what about those that aren't? Would there be another policy in effect for this or having to build a contract around DRM content?
Hmmm.
More and more people will now just download what they want to watch / edit / et al - this will push more and more people underground. The RIAA hasn't had much success with stopping such a thing, (ooh, 500 people served every month?) so I wonder how much success the networks etc will have with it.
Right now, you can download damn near dvd (read tivo compressed with xvid) quality rips of virtually every tv show off the internet - and usually very quickly (assuming you have broadband and that you are trying to get something that was aired in the last month). These rips have no commericals and look even better than what I get through the cable tv.
I really can't see why people would want to actually sit in front of a TV and suffer through 20 minutes of commericals, especially given the fact that you can watch it when you want and not have to worry about setting the damn vcr or any of these bullshit copy restrictions.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
It is not possible to copywrite content. Once I've uttered that green frogs exist in the world, you're free to go about repeating that. I can't stop you.
What you mean is, restriction on the bits that encode a particular presentation. Those are indeed copyrighted. The content, if any, is however free.
And actors and singers have appeared on analog TV sets since the early 1950's for what reason? We'll see if the Japanese public stops buying TVs now, since we're all supposed to vote with our dollars and not legislate that we keep our fair use rights, like how the MPAA and RIAA have been paying to legislate our fair use rights away.
I couldn't pay for it if I tried! I love the show, so you're saying I shouldn't download it? I should just forget the show even existed? Not my fault people edited out the commercials.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
There aren't too many other devices that it would be possible to limit the copying. What if it cost almost nothing to make a car, but the car companies decided they didn't want you to do that. The car companies decided they want to own the rights to all of the cars in the world. What would happen then? If something is easily reproduced, why does it then immediately need to have someone restricting it? Companies that stay in business keeping their monopoly on competing technologies is excatly what the governments are supposed to protect against. Well, that and stuff like invaders from other lands (which they fail horribly).
on a side note, wouldn't it always be possible to make nearly loss-less analog copies of digital media and then re-encode them to a digital format of your choice?
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
semen would be another good choice...
The FCC is required to serve the public interest, right?
Then why can't we just, like, launch a lawsuit demanding the FCC is bound by their own rules to prohibhit "DRM" from being broadcast on public airwaves?
Also, that said, we have really got to come up with a way to get the public to realize that "digital rights management" means that CORPORATIONS get to digitally manage YOUR rights.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Don't buy the TV's, don't watch the shows.
Is your life really incomplete if you don't find out what happened on Enterprise or the Sopranos? TV isn't a given. Its relevance is likely to be transient. Transition it along faster by refusing to watch DRM encumbered broadcasts.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Yes, it an Anon Hero post, like mine, but it's right on the money. This is the kind of common occurrence which these systems will prevent which is going to drive people nuts. My brother will call me and say, "Hey, didja get a chance to record that one-time-only-program XYZ that was on last night, I forgot?" And I'll say, "No problem, I'll make you a copy."
Interfering with distribution to millions of strangers over the Internet? Shouldn't be permissible, but maybe tolerable.
But interfering with distribution to a close relative? Economic suicide.
Powell will take one look at this and see that his actual *customers*, the media companies, are happy.
If you want Powell's attention you'll have to somehow convince him that DRM restrictions are somehow allowing people to look at nipples.
I'm particularly confused and particularly angry. Though not particularly Japanese.
It is well past time for the content "manufacturers" to start realizing that, and find other ways to make money.
I personally don't understand why so many people 'make a fuss' about DRM, when the companies are adding it in to protect their property that is being pirated!
Because most don't like to be treated like a criminals when they are not? Do you think it'd be OK to ban all CD-RW drives because some people make copies of copyrighted CDs? Don't punish everyone for the sins of a few.
Another thing that pisses people off is when they have buy hardware (i.e. a TV) that is purposely crippled - especially when it's something that used to work on cheaper hardware. Buying such hardware feels like one giant expensive step backward.
Just a few thoughts on why people "make a fuss" about things like this.
The duplication controls have been adopted to protect broadcast copyrights, an NHK official said, adding, "Easy violation of copyright would make movie and music copyright holders reluctant to provide their works and prompt actors and singers to refuse to appear on TV."
Reluctant to provide their works or refuse to appear? I guess if we're reluctant to purchase / view / support DRM then where does the DRM effort go? Hopefully to the junk heap.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
...to make a Japanese go into such blind rage as to say the equivalent of "who's that @ssh0le who put this piece of s..t into production". Or maybe I don't want to know.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
too... many... letters and acronyms! (head explodes)
"Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause of the leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P."
It isn't the fact that corporations want to see a profit from their products that bothers me. Corporations are around to make money. That is what they are around to do. Producing music, television, movies, etc is just a byproduct. Don't kid yourselves. What bothers me is that are now starting to have expectations about how much they should be making (and that their profits should be constantly increasing) and have started to view all of their customers as criminals. As mentioned, advertisements are a crucial part of any "free" media. Internet and television are prime examples but the advertisers don't seem to know the bounds. Commercials have been taking more and more air time. Pop-ups were just the beginning and I have now seen some websites with an add directly on top of the page that prevents me from reading it. Because of the views and actions of these corporations and the inability for them to cooperate with a changing marketplace they will ensure their doom. Unfortunately most people don't notice the heavy hand that has come down on them, and when they do they are confused. Most people (outside /.) don't understand the implications of DRM or why they are coming about.
Regardless of any DRM imposed the determined (some are righteous, some are criminals) will find a way around these.
If only the errors could be seen, but greed can effect sight in many ways.
Burn Bright or Fade Away
Those of us who know better and aren't buying are either too few to matter or will end up HAVING to buy when analog tv goes away.
I can live without TV. If the local cable monopoly doesn't want me as a customer anymore, I'll switch to fscking DSL.
People stop watching.
:P
Then someone will come up with advertising in the movies and have that pay for the movie. Then movies will become plots around Coke-Cola promoting unknown musical talent or something like that.
Hi.
:(
I purchased Panasonic DMRE85HEBS (me things they got the 2nd and 3rd letter in wrong order!)
product
They did not mention in any technical description that it had CPRM (DRM for hard discs and DVD-RAM). Bad customer support or what? I've not be encombered so far.
CPRM the register article
Here is some info from the manual.
From the Glossary
CPRM technology is used to protect broardcasts that are allowed to be
recorded only once. Such broadcasts can be recorded only with CPRM
compatible recorders and discs.
From the information on use of the player
* You can record broadcasts that allow "One time only recording". You
can transfer (dub) a recorded title to a CPRM compatible DVD-RAM,
however the title is erased from the HDD.
The future is bleak - the future is CPRM and other DRM
Cheers, now3d
Your post brings to mind a major perspective issue that has been shoved down the throats of consumers for a while: That we are here to serve industry.
Of course, we all "know" that industry is here to serve us, but we've given them free reign. Industry (particularly the media, and other "celebrity" industries) is under the impression that we should pay what they think. This is because their previous leaders (the ones with intelligence) have brilliantly conditioned us as consumers to believe them!
Your quote says it all to me. For the love of God, Why should any consumer fall for the scam that if copyright is easy to violate, then all those great celebrities will just up and vanish? Brad Pitt is just going to go on strike until we as consumers realize that he deserves our cash for his hard work. Bullshit! If he stops working for us, we stop paying.
And not only that, we should be telling him how much he's worth! We should be making the prices! The cost of a movie should be decreasing, not increasing!
But we consumers don't see it like that anymore. We see the world thru those damn glasses they give out with Spy Kids 3D, and believe that if Brad stops working, we will be the ones lesser off for it.
The media's argument is far more effective than it should be. Consumers should realize the bullshit, and yet we cannot. We believe the media projections of the end of TV as we know it, in the same way that we have been trained to.
I'm not sure I see an end to this issue. Consumers will have to wake up to the whole system before noticing even the smallest of transgressions... and right now, we've been run so ragged that we can do nothing but absorb our daily hit of Friends re-runs.
- DaftShadow
or will end up HAVING to buy when analog tv goes away. Its just a matter of time for us in America...
From what I've read (example), it's supposed to be within two and half years.
Of course, when the mandate was issued it probably seemed like a feasible idea to those without foresight. But now try getting re-elected when everybody (including the poor) is required to shell out over $1000 as well as dump every single existing analog set in the country just to maintain a previously available service. The waste management costs alone should keep this from ever occurring so suddenly.
This is what was so genius about the introduction of color TV - it worked on top of the then existing B&W signal.
Also consider that TV is a large source of entertainment for the public. Now, what happens when the government suddenly removes it?
This is not my sig.
publish the mod ANONYMOUSLY
Retards.
(AD 2004)
Viewer: "Main screen turn on"
Screen: "All Your Bits Are Belong to Us!"
"You have no chance to record, make
your time!"
Viewer: "What you say?"
[Insert pithy quote here]
Soon all your content... Um... Are not belong to us(?)
the airwaves are *public*. If you want to send something out on your 50-kilowatt xmtr, fine. But don't expect to control what happens to your signal when my antenna picks it up. And if you don't like that, and want to lock everything down, then *don't fsckin broadcast it*.
C|N>K
Please refrain from using the internet for more than ninety(90) minutes in a ten(10) day period. This will also last for sixteen(16) months.
At the end of the probationary period, you will be required to write a five(5) paragraph essay on why you had to leave the Slashdot community, and submit it as an article.
Timesprout, it's time to go.
...then I guess I will just stop watching TV and download what I want to watch off the internet.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
The broadcasters don't like PVR's that allow you to skip commercials because they want you to watch the commercials. In fact, NOT watching the commercials is "theft" of the show (previous slashdot article mentioned this quote from an industry exec-sorry can't find the article), then why limit how many times someone can copy it? Aren't they limiting the number of people who might see the commercials?
Ok, if it's a digital signal, and you edit out the commercials and distribute it on the web, my argument falls apart. But the more people I can share my copy with or make a copy for, then the more people will see their ads.
Heck, NASCAR owners charge advertisers based on how often their car is shown on TV during a race. They actually have people sit around and watch a race and calculate how many minutes and seconds a particular car is displayed. Then they charge the sponsors/advertisers more money (or less?) based on how much air-time their "commercials" get (or so I am told by a Nascar Geek-cannot confirm or deny).
How about this-(completely off the cuff, no thought put into this except for the 10 seconds it takes me to write it so be gentle with me...) What if there was a way to inform the content providers how many times their commercials had been watched? And then set up a payment system so that the show producers were paid a "royalty" by the product advertiser for everytime that their product commercial was viewed? Feasible? Maybe. Desirable? Probably not.
Anyway, there's my 2 cents (adjust for inflation as appropriate).
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
So, after reading every single post under this blurb, I have summarized two things. 1. We will find a way to circumvent this. 2. The mass market will, hopefully, ultimately, reject this. Blatant optimism if you ask me. That post about phazeing out analog in 2006 is a prime example. YOu have to renember that the people working against -us- the consumers are very smart men. They are like us, only on the other side of the fence, the greedy, monopolistic 'Adult' side. The force caught inbetween our intellectual struggle is the average consumer. Whoever influences this force the most wins the struggle. Now, in one corner, you have the multimedia giants..armed with billions of dollars, political ties, control over the media (and news broadcasts) and ultimately what is seen onones TV, heard over the radio, ect. In the other corner you have the geeks, the thinkers, the dreamers, the underpayed IT guy, the over-educated college Grad. Our weapons: Fanatasicism, limited resources (webpages on internet), more fanatascism..and a touch of technical knowhow. To relate this to another topic, Think of Corporate America like the american army in Iraq. BIG GUNS, BIG BOMBS, Lots of Money, lots of high priced technology. Us? we're the Iraqis, we've got fanatiscism, we've got 'technical knowhow' (duct-tapeing gernade launchers to AK-47's, roadside bombs) and we've got 'limited resources' (Internet, dated russian equipment). Unfortunately, the seething masses are always more willing to listen to the home team then the visitors. TO the average indoctrinated, TV-bred american, the Corporate America is the home team, and we're the 'visitors'. Thats the main diference, a important advantage the terrorists in Iraq have and one we -don't even have-. Is a rocky, craggy, uphill battle for the technicaly, socialy, politically educated but under-powered..and we have a larger number of uneducated, uncaring americans baring our way then ever before.
I GOT IT! It says "You Fucker"! I am awesome.
So, after reading every single post under this blurb, I have summarized two things.
1. We will find a way to circumvent this.
2. The mass market will, hopefully, ultimately, reject this.
Blatant optimism if you ask me. That post about phazeing out analog in 2006 is a prime example. YOu have to renember that the people working against -us- the consumers are very smart men. They are like us, only on the other side of the fence, the greedy, monopolistic 'Adult' side. The force caught inbetween our intellectual struggle is the average consumer. Whoever influences this force the most wins the struggle.
Now, in one corner, you have the multimedia giants..armed with billions of dollars, political ties, control over the media (and news broadcasts) and ultimately what is seen onones TV, heard over the radio, ect. In the other corner you have the geeks, the thinkers, the dreamers, the underpayed IT guy, the over-educated college Grad. Our weapons: Fanatasicism, limited resources (webpages on internet), more fanatascism..and a touch of technical knowhow.
To relate this to another topic, Think of Corporate America like the american army in Iraq. BIG GUNS, BIG BOMBS, Lots of Money, lots of high priced technology. Us? we're the Iraqis, we've got fanatiscism, we've got 'technical knowhow' (duct-tapeing gernade launchers to AK-47's, roadside bombs) and we've got 'limited resources' (Internet, dated russian equipment). Unfortunately, the seething masses are always more willing to listen to the home team then the visitors. TO the average indoctrinated, TV-bred american, the Corporate America is the home team, and we're the 'visitors'.
Thats the main diference, a important advantage the terrorists in Iraq have and one we -don't even have-. Is a rocky, craggy, uphill battle for the technicaly, socialy, politically educated but under-powered..and we have a larger number of uneducated, uncaring americans baring our way then ever before.
I've made this comment before, but it seems relevant. This will be just another failed attempt to excercise control over digital services. It's to be expected - they are convinced it will make them more money in the end, and as such they feel compelled to stop it.
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
Just a little something to think about.
What I'd really like to see is some evidence that piracy, by individuals at home sharing music or whatever, is reducing that innovation. And if there is a loss of innovation, we have to decide, as a society, whether or not it is enough to justify some of the draconian measures media companies are being allowed to take.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"Yes, it an Anon Hero post, like mine, but it's right on the money."
Karma Bonus time I guess... Ditto.
Ever bring a copy of a tv show to a friends house ? Ever want a copy of a program to bring to your summer home ?
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
Okay, so we can't copy the unencrypted video. Why don't we record the encrypted video and run it through the decoder whenever we want an unencrypted copy?
:)
Man in the middle attack. Once only for computers
My other car is first.
I also think that this is just the next step towards the end game of an 'on demand' world. Anybody remember that commercial where a guy goes to a hotel in the middle of nowhere and the clerk informs him that they have every show ever made available on tv? I have comcast 'digital' cable and there is at least 40 shows on in demand. I can watch the current Sopranos episodes any time I want for Free!! (of course cable and HBO cost $50/month) eventually they could have every show.(maybe say 25 cents for old tv shows) Hey now once thats available why would the consumer even need the one copy? See the MPAA will solve all our problems! What if I don't want cable or sat you say, its not hollywoods fault you see, since almost everyone has cable/sat well you're just weird if you don't subscribe (probably a terroist too)
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
*This is not a flame, this is the truth. I can't think of one slashdot post pre-iTunes (that was modded up anyway) that said that DRM would suffer anything but a crippling death because people would refuse to buy restricted products, then they would HAVE to come back with unencumbered goods. Now we see people falling over themselves to offer a misguided company congratulations because they fuck you over SLIGHTLY LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Wonderful.
It isn't just congratulations. You're absolutely right. The consumers are being conditioned to what is planned for them. When enterprising souls do what it takes to reasonably use their PURCHASED music (I never saw a EULA that wouldn't look better up a CEO's ass.) on something other than an iPod or iTunes we get "But you're screwing the only reasonable DRM. They'll have to come out with something even worse if you don't quit." Oh and burning a CD just so I can rip it again is a PITA and just stupid.
If I bought (Apple uses the terminology themselves.) the music why is there is a list of crap a mile long what I can and can't do with it? Here's a hint. Nothing has been bought; it's deceptive marketing. You have extended rental on a license. And it's a license to an inferior product. It's lossily encoded, costs about as much as a CD and is less versitile. If you take the "ethical" route and make a CD out of it so you can I don't know...use it as digital data the lossage gets worse.
I've got some news for those people, you've been thrown a bone. Well maybe thrown isn't the right word. It's a bone alright and it's been lubed. Once that lube has well distributed in the intended orifice, you'll be ready for an even bigger bone. That one won't be lubed.
Now I suppose I'll get moderated down for a comment that would have been perfectly reasonable here before Apple made DRM cool. I'm afraid to wonder what else Apple can make "cool". I guess those people who were talking about a Reality Distortion Field weren't bullshitting us.
People who argue that corporations have certain "rights," just don't understand how the world works. You have consumers, who are trying to get as much content as possible for as little money, and you have media conglomerates, who are trying to give away as little content as possible for as much money as they can get. From this built-in confrontation we've created a social contract in the form of laws to settle disputes and smooth the way for transactions which makes most people happy.
Problems arise, however, when one side gets too much power. And that's exactly what's happening in the content distribution business. If the law doesn't suit the needs of media outlets, they can change it. If the economic playing field isn't in their favor, they will work to tilt it. In short, media giants are abandoning the symbiotic social contract they once had with consumers. They are basically saying "fuck you" to consumers. "We have the power to have absolute control over our content so we will," they say in so many words. Of course, consumers also pretty much said "fuck you" to the media corporations when they started downloading, copying, and distributing content when the power to do so became available. But my goal here is not to try to point blame.
My real point is that the media companies have much more power than consumers to change laws in this age of technological disruptions. Consumers are just too divided and powerless to compete in the political world where all these decisions are made and will come out holding a very short end of the stick. This isn't good for me and it isn't good for you, unless you are Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner.
So now that you know how it all works, go out and organize and "Fight the Power" and always remember which side you are on.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I think this is great. The more people hate TV the less they want to watch it, resulting in natural thought and imagination!
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Just because they own it, what right does it give them to dictate exactly how I'm allowed to watch it?
I know I'm just gilding the lily here, but if you're really opposed to the expansion of copyright law you should avoid using the language that publishers use to misinterpret past copyright law. They don't own their content, they own the particular copies of that content that exist on physical materials they own. For other copies, the authors merely possess an exclusive copyright for a limited time. Yes, that time has been effectively unlimited ever since Eldred v. Ashcroft, but if we ever want to see that change we should use language that reminds use that there should still be limits.
Mac/iTMS people defend apple because they have no life except for their Apple. Their "appleness" sets them apart and makes them special.
You're dead on with your other comments except for one thing...Apple (and its disciples) are pushing this idea that not only is online music doing well, but that Apple's the leader.
And yet. Online distribution and a rounding error at this point.
There's lots of points why the whole iTMS thing is a joke and yet, I'm too tired to type it all in.
NPR just summed it up today when they discussed how online music is fundamentally different than CD's/tapes/records in that the artist has a significantly higher (up to 50%) cut than the old media where it was 3-7%. That only scrapes the surface; go to their web site to hear about it.
If they make DRM *JUST* annoying enough, folks will just say to hell with it, stop buying new toys, and start doing something with their lives again. (or just play more video games)
It's already started, and DRM hasn'r kicked in yet in the US, viewing is way down as a trend for the last several years.
DRM---Brilliant buisiness move, in the suicidal direction.
When I buy music from iTMS, I buy music that has a non-reovkable licence - and that is the key. No external company can stop me from playing my music. Furthermore I was always able to shift to other formats via the allowed burn/rip combo. Lastly at this point I am able to remove the DRM if I like.
You have the situation exactly backwards. The iTunes DRM is there not to condition YOU to accept worse forms of DRM. It is to show the light to greedy music execs that DRM really does not work, but people will buy anyway gicen the right opportunity!
While you spout only rhetoric, I have proof of my conjecture. Firstly, as I said, there was always an explicit out for the DRM - you could always burn a CD.
But much a much stronger proof of this direction is that Apple recently opened up the number of allowed computers to licence from three to five. Now it's more feasable to open up a few other computers not belonging to you, like a friend at work or a roomate. Slowly the circle of sharing is allowed to spread.
Lastly Jobs told execs that DRM would never stop anyone at the start, so he obviously does not really believe in it. With the arrival of PlayFair (forget what the name change is) they can say after some time "See There's an easy way to strip DRM from our songs and people still use iTMS!".
One last reason to use iTMS. As annoying as DRM is, for me I like being able to pay the artist for music and give them public recognition that I enjoy thier work, even if it is a small amount. But a lot of times I only want a few songs, so I use iTMS.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have a projector (Infocus X1) but it does not support HDTV - the only new DVD model on the market to support upsampling to 720p only support HDCP enabled progressive scan out. Oops!
That's the kind of thing that leads you to build a media PC and just send the signal out ove the VGA port.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've stopped watching TV. I own a PVR, and learned from it that the shows I watched, SCIFI, including Farscape, were compelling, but I was wasting tons of time watching it. Then the good shows were getting canceled for stupid reality TV shows.
.)
I have since stopped paying for cable TV, and I live too far away to get over the air reception, so I just don't watch TV.
You know what? I just don't see the point. Until there are High Definition DVD's, I'm not buying any new TV technology. Period. I can wait. Plus, I spend more time with friends. I have had time to invite my neighbor over for dinner. I take my dog to the park. I talk to people more. And, I get more sleep. (Except tonight, cause I had too much coffee . .
Go outside, and play!
do a little dance while at it.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Japanese public and private broadcasters will introduce an IC card for viewing digital programs to prevent shows from being copied illegally or distributed over the Internet. NHK and the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan said Monday they will introduce the common B-CAS Card in April. It will be given to consumers when they buy digital televisions. Viewers will have to insert the card into their TVs to watch or record digital content, while broadcasters will air their shows with a special transmission signal enabling only a single, nonrerecordable copy of the program to be made, the broadcasters said. The method will apply to both existing broadcasting satellite digital programs and terrestrial digital broadcasts, which are set to begin Dec. 1 in some areas of Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. From an article here
A few months ago, I had heard that some groups were working on cracking the scheme using a collaborative method similar to the SETI project. The expectation was that it would be cracked before the official rollout in April. Maybe, it's just me, but it seems like an awful lot of effort to watch low budget Japanese melodramas.
...and I thought piracy would become boring..
But thanks to DRM the international piracy competence will gain more knowledge...
Piracy is competition!
You are not keeping up with the times. The India site was shut down some time back, and new code was added to make it more defensible in court. Now it's being hosted in the US again. Here's a snippet:
The project is renamed Hymn, according to the project maintainer Anand Babu. The software is on two sites being hosted by US hosting companies. Previously the project started at SourceForge.net in the US. After Apple threatened legal action through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act the project was moved to a host in India. The new US based hosts are well aware of the DMCA and the Digital Rights Management (DRM) issues and are prepared to defend the software against Apple.
Along with the Hymm makers, I consider the project to be perfectly legal to use. Note this site is not shut down yet, and has been up for some time.
Granted I came off angry at Apple in the previous post but I don't think Apple has a nefarious conditioning scheme in mind. They need content to sell iPods and their DRM scheme was the least the industry would tolerate. For now. Don't be surprised if the RIAA wants to go back to Apple at some point and alter the deal.
As I have said before I consider this unlikley because of all the online music sources (which everyone knows are the future of music), Apple is making far and away the most money for them. Apple at this point has a lot of leverage and few exects are going to be willing to turn the screw on a functioning money spigot. If other services started earning a lot more money that might change. But that would mean people would embrace the DRM which in the end they never do.
FairPlay is a resonable compromise because for all intents and purposes, it remains invisible. For the only need I have that it bothered my (sharing music at work) I have a viable workaround. So by buying music from iTunes I am saying "if you have unrestricted music I will still buy from you if costs are resonable".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perpetual copyright is not. It was never ment to be. In fact it was ment to be 14 years.
So... Every single original beatles release should be public domain now. Let's take a reality check... Is it? Oh... Copyright was extended retroactively again.
It's that kind of BS that makes me disrepsect copyright law to the extent that I enjoy breaking it.
Unless copyright law is fixed you'll be damned if you see me respect it. Same goes for marihuana-prohibition. Also a law based on complete BS.
Facts and intents have no place in modern law. At least so it seems.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Copyright is supposed to benefit sosciety because the copyrighted material shall fall into the public domain after a limited copyright period. Thus increasing the cultural base that society may use freely. Since all ideas are inspired by others, this is how it is supposed to benefit society and promote arts and science.
How come people allways forget this last bit when making discussions regarding copyright?
And to anyone trying to restrict the way I can use legally purchased items: Screw goat! Literally. Because what you're into has nothing to do with respecting copyright law. It has with giving corporations power to dictate my behaviour.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So when a propaganda-organisation formed single-handedly to promote it's own cause, you swallow everything they say without once applying a minimum of criticism? That seems to be, if not yours, the consensus among some people here.
Anything the RIAA says is just what the RIAA says. It's not law. It doesn't even have to be correct. In fact it can purely be lies.
"The RIAA says" means nothing at all. Not immidiatly anyway.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
3 Interesting is way too low for somthing that hits the nail so squarely on the head.
If I understand this correctly, movie and music copyright holders would lock up their works so no one could copy them? Isn't that tantamount to saying the sky is falling? I mean, why would you produce a movie if you are afraid to let anyone view it? Would we have to tell our children there used to be a thing called TV and movies and music, but people quit making those things because bad people insisted on replaying them?
Open Standards Portal
...vote with your wallet. There's more to life than the utter crap that is beamed down to the boob-tube. Granted there are a few things worth watching from time to time but you still have the 'old' way of watching it and it's paid for already. If adoption for restrictive technologies is slow they might get the message.
Okay, I haven't done a ton of research on this (hard to know what to google for), but while I was upgrading a TiVO's HD the forums I saw said no one had deciphered TiVO's recording scheme/file formats which meant direct file manipulations weren't possible.
Of course too many of those forums have most-recent messages a year or older... But maybe I wasn't hitting the popular sites. Also at least one forum specifically listed that you can't talk about archiving files or you'll be booted, so they must have thought TiVO would get peeved.
And yeah, it's so hard now to believe I've spent X weeks of my life just watching commercials, though I still like seeing some of them now and again (but not every 10 minutes!).
8-PP
... someone will crack it in a short while... the problem is that copyright and royalties remain. Bad morals, someone should be fighting that instead.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
My prediction for the future:
The whole US tastes DRM for the first time in 2006, when all stations are required to broadcast DTV. Soon afterward, a local politician with nothing to lose includes "Free you TV!" in his campaign. He wins handily.
Soon, others notice his success and start compaigning with that in their platform as well. More get elected.
Soon, one will be up for reelection. He won't have done anything to remedy the problem in the face of overwhelming pressure in Congress, so he won't get re-elected, assuming he has a worthy opponent who coopts his platform.
Other reps will take notice of his fall, and realize they need to back up their promises. They'll introduce bills relaxing the restrictions, which the major media outlets will cover overwhelmingly. And we'll be on our way.
That is, of course, if the broadcasters don't take matters into their own hands. Once a critical mass gets DRM'd TVs and get pissed at them, networks will have a competitive edge by not including such restrictions. They'll get more business, and the whole house of cards will begin to fall.
Or, a third possibility:
The companies that will see the brunt of the complaints will be the electronics makers: Sony, Pioneer, Microsoft, etc. They make up a pretty large force, and their pressure alone will help to dismantle such schemes.
Anyway, here's hoping it all works out in the end.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Stick a camcorder in front of the TV and ask everybody to shut up for a while. Problem solved.