Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Digital TV Viewers Complain About DRM Restrictions

Posted by michael on from the wake-up-and-smell-the-tea dept.

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."

98 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by davez0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      we don't have any explaining to do. we've got TV modding to do! enter a new mod-chip industry. i'm thinking you stick a little doo-dad in between the signal decoder and the output to the screen.

      if i'm thinkin' it, then chances are there's an enterprising korean kid somewhere who can actually do it with little more than some chop sticks and a little chicken wire.

    2. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can start with me. What exactly are they giving up by only being able to copy once? Seriously how many times do you want to copy the same program from tv ? You didn't create the content, you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Gherald · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but remember the DirectTV lawsuits? I'm thinking some similar DMCA charges could be brought against anyone trying to use a mod-chip or "little doo-dad" to remove broadcast flags.

      --
      The unofficial /. digest
    4. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Generally speaking, I don't record much TV (haven't been watching much of it lately). Sometimes I do find that my wife will record a show and ocasionally a friend will ask if we recorded it if they missed it. Now under the current broadcast flag scheme, would a friend be able to watch a recorded copy of a show if we give them a copy? In this case, it's not that I would be distributing anything that they couldn't have already gotten themselves if they had remembered to record the show or been home to watch it. So helping someone who forgot to set there device to record is unable to watch the show then?

    5. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Joe Self-Righteous who feels that he can make a copy of anything...
      Because, as we can all see, the corporations that mass produce the works of Britney Spears and the like are barely managing to stay alive due to the piracy that is going on.

      Nice troll, but I hope you don't con too many people into giving you karma.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let me ask you this. I am allowed to "tape" a show to DVD so I can watch it later, right? Of course. So I record a Spongebob marathon so my hypothetical 2 year old can watch it any time. I used to tape cartoons to watch later when nothing was on, it was legal.

      But I always had a second copy. The first copy would degrade (it was VHS, so repeated watchings would do that), or get lost, or get jammed in the machine and become worthless. By having a second copy I'm still safe.

      So now my 2 year old scratches the disk and it's ruined. Now what? My second copy wasn't part of a piriting scam. It was just backup. Legal, didn't hurt anyone or devalue the property. It was just for me. Now I won't be able to do that. I've lost a perfectly fair right to use something I own in a valid way.

      Bricks can be used for evil (many people use them every year to bash someone's skull or break windows) but bricks aren't outlawed. People run over other people in cars PURPOSLY, but cars are still legal.

      If you take away everything that can be used illegally, you'll have nothing. You'll be naked and cold. But you could still use your arms to puch someone or strangle someone so...

      It's a slippery slope. The above paragraph is hyperboly, but you can't ban something because a few people use it wrong. When 70% of people use it for illegal stuff, then you can talk about banning it. But when 1-5% do (I would bet lower than that in many circumstances) you shouldn't ban it.

      PS: Every time something is copied, put a unique identifier into the video that tells what machine duplicated/edited it. That way you can trace the pirated copies to where they came from and shut 'em down. I wouldn't mind that. I keep my rights, and the studio can shut down the pirates.

      But as a consumer I would win in that situation so I guess it's not a option, huh.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    7. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by EulerX07 · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the umpteenth time, it is NOT thef, it's copyright infringement. There is a difference, one that is often totally ignored by people claiming the moral high ground.

    8. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by The+Vulture · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To me, the problem isn't only with one copy, but as the article states, "Because programs that have been copied once cannot be duplicated or edited digitally, editing the programs via a personal computer has become impossible."

      This poses a bit of a problem for me. At the moment, I have made it my goal to record all six seasons of CHiPs (yes, I have a thing for cheesy police shows), and put them on DVDs for my personal viewing pleasure (as it is highly unlikely to come out on DVD). Part of that involves removing the commercials from the recorded episodes.

      Using MythTV with a PVR-250, I can do that (the resulting stream is just MPEG-2, I can edit it in any MPEG-2 editor), and then throw it into a DVD authoring program, add a menu and maybe some special effects, and there I go. I can't do that with this new setup.

      Plus, what's up with having to insert a card into your TV? Why the heck should I have to identify myself to a TV? (The article doesn't say what the identification is used for.)

      -- Joe

    9. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Doppler00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TV signals being broadcast are in public air space, unencrypted, and you don't have to pay a fee to watch them. Why should DRM apply to them?

      I usually support the software and music industry regarding their copyrights but in this case it doesn't make sense. When I purchase a piece of software I'm bound by a licence agreement, a contract on my use of the software that I paid for. With broadcast TV, you have not agreed nor signed to such a contract, therefor, how can DRM be enforceable?

      How do you define a copy of broadcast TV anyway? It's being transmitted from a base station that could reach an infinite number of devices. The issue is really about a consumers ability to TIMESHIFT the video so they can watch it at a later time.

    10. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For an individual, stripping out broadcast flags to make recordings you are legally allowed to make is not a crime.

      Publishing the tools to do so may be under DMCA, though.

      IT's not really like DirecTV... descrambling encrypted signals without permission falls into a different category than simply bypassing a trivial recording blocker... if you are descrambling DTV, you had no rights to view the material in the first place.

    11. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      For an individual, stripping out broadcast flags to make recordings you are legally allowed to make is not a crime.

      DMCA TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1202. (b)(1)

      And that's ignoring any issues with modifying the TV receiver itself and that you managed to avoid any circumvention issues.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    12. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by JofCoRe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When 70% of people use it for illegal stuff, then you can talk about banning it.

      OR, you could examine the law that is making it illegal, and wonder if maybe it's time to change the law, since it doesn't seem to be in concert with "the will of the people" anymore...

      When a large section of the population does something that's against the law, the solution is not to ban it, it's to update/change/revoke the law to more match the current climate.

      But hey, banning something worked so well for marijuana, it will probably work just as well here, right? :)

      --

      Place sig here.
    13. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What exactly are they giving up by only being able to copy once?

      The ability to make a backup copy, maybe? The ability to edit it. The ability to run it through some filters. The ability to re-encode it to another format. The ability to send it to my other Tivo, maybe? They don't keep track of how many copies you currently have, they can only keep track of how many generations of copies it can go through. I could be doing everything perfectly legally, by deleting old copies, but this DRM would stop my perfectly legal activities.

      You didn't create the content, you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?

      Just because they own it, what right does it give them to dictate exactly how I'm allowed to watch it? If I want to remove every violent scene from a movie, why shouldn't I be able to do so? If I want to edit out the intro and the credits, why shouldn't I be allowed?

      I can't believe there are people like you that actually think companies should be able to literally micromanage our lives.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by The+Vulture · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is not "fair use". While I share your grief that some classic older shows stand little chance of getting on DVD (Get Smart series, anyone?) Time shifting on a VCR is not the same as archiving entire seasons of television programs though many people see no problem with it.

      To me, it's timeshifting. It comes on at 4AM (CHiPs does come on at strange hours on TBS here, sometimes I get the Emergency Broadcast Test in the middle of the episode), so I'm going to have to record it anyway (I have to work during the day, I can't stay up until 6AM to watch TV). The only difference is that I'm not deleting the file after I have watched it - much like I might do with a real videotape.

      Would it be any different if I just left the unmodified episodes on the PVR hard drive, as if it were a VHS tape (with commercials still there), and skip the commercials every time (FF/REW)? Or is the editing/archiving the episodes to TV that makes this non-legal?

      As for the TV card... If it comes to the point where I have to insert a card into the TV (currently, with analog cable, I don't have to do this), or my existing recording equipment is disabled, I just might have to give up TV for good. Currently, it plays a very small role in my life, I'd rather fire up an editor and write some software, with the exception of the few shows I record.

      The media needs to learn that not everybody wants things pushed into their brain - a lot of people want choice, and they want to exercise those choices.

      -- Joe

    15. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Time shifting on a VCR is not the same as archiving entire seasons of television programs

      No, that is factually incorrect. It is in-fact the same thing. You are simply time-shifting the TV-shows so you can watch them over and over again.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As scary sounding as the DMCA may be, copyright law is worse. Look at the penalties listed at the beginning of a movie in the FBI warning. Yet people copy movies all the time knowing there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting caught unless they're doing it on a large scale. It will be the same for DRM mod chips. A few guys will get busted selling them, but many people will use them undetected. This will be just like every other pointless and unsuccessful copyright scheme, easily defeated, inconveniencing legitimate customers, and having no effect on real piracy.

    17. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is not "fair use".

      LOL. Of course it is. I don't even know where to begin arguing it because I can't imagine what makes you think it isn't fair use.

      Most people make that sort of error based on a backwards reading of section 107, thinking that is is an exhaustive list granting fair use. In fact it is not an exhaustive list - it merely lists six examples of fair use and lists four examples of factors to include in determining fair use. Nor does it grant fair use. In fact all it does is recognize existing fair use rights (as stated in the congressional record when it was passed) and state that fair use is never copyright infringment. Fair use is not granted by copyright law, fair use sweeps away copyright law.

      But even that doesn't make sense because you clearly know that shifting is fair use. Under that sort of backwards reading of 107 even time-shifting would not be fair use. So I don't know what makes you think it somehow becomes infringment to edit out the commercials or to keep a private collection.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Twenty bucks says that you were born before 1980.

      I hate to get drawn into a conversation like this, esp. with an AC, but with the rise of the Internet, non-corporeal goods (mp3s, e-texts, etc.) no longer have any monetary value. You might argue that companies like Apple *are* selling music online, but you have to understand that, since they have no resale value (they can't be resold), they have no intrinsic value in the first place. It's not that people are being suckered into buying something that's really free; it's more like consumers are convincing themselves that the mp3's they're purchasing have a dollar value attached to them. Even perishable goods that might not last for longer than an hour (say, ice cream on a hot day) still have a resale value, if you sell them at the right time. Even this is not possible for non-corporeal goods - no refunds, no exchanges.

      Getting back to DRM restrictions on TV: satellite companies are broadcasting signals over the face of the entire earth. There's no way I can block out these signals; if I go outside, whoops, they're slamming into me. If these signals are being broadcast into my house anyway, without my permission, then why shouldn't I exploit them? "You can't," you say, "because they don't belong to you!" Well, the air I'm breathing doesn't belong to me either, but it's being shunted into my house without my permission either. Next thing you know, there'll be a new utility on the block: SaskAir (I'm from Saskatchewan).

      And to slam home the point: I actually don't pay for either cable or satellite, because PeasantVision (TM) beams three channels into my house for absolutely nothing. Theoretically, there are restrictions on what I can and cannot do with these channels, but in practise I could have three VCRs recording all three stations 24x7. "But Digital TV has higher resolution!" you might say. "It's paid for by advertising, too!" These are good points, and I'll give you a cookie for them, but truly, what's the difference between watching Law and Order for free (a la rabbit ears), or Law and Order in Digitallifantastic Vision?

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    19. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The comment is right.

      I guess there are those who feel that Joe Content-Creator has the right to dictate to others how others watch, view, listen, and use the work that was created.

      I'm sorry, but neither Copyright Law nor common sense supports this radical viewpoint. Last I heard, Copyright allows for broad control over reproduction and distribution of a work, but (1) that control is NOT absolute, and (2) no one needs a "license to view" lawfully obtained copies.

      There is much precedent and law here in the States (like the Sony Betamax case) that says I have the right to make limited copies for my own personal use. "Fair Use" does not mean "limited to one copy", or "limited to copies only under the terms dictated by the content owner". IANAL and I'm not sure what the legal situation in Japan, though.

      Second, there seems to be this view where "you're not allowed to use the content unless someone grants a license". Copyright says nothing about "use licenses"-- its a myth that started with the software Industry and onerous EULAs. And only in software is there any precedent (Zeindeberg (sp) vs. Pro-CD) that validates "licensing".

      I don't need a license to:

      - Listen to a song off the radio.
      - Watch a show broadcasted off of public airwaves.
      - Listen to a CD I legally obtained.
      - Watch a DVD that I legally obtained.
      - Read a book that I legally obtained.
      - Use something I learned from a textbook to a real-life problem.

      Content creators like to think: "Either you take it with all of our restrictions, or you don't listen/view/use". But that's bogus because I don't need the content creator's permission to use what I legally obtained. I don't need some "sacred or holy right" to use the stuff I legally bought-- the content owners should instead be wondering to themselves why they have some "sacred or holy right to control something that they sold or broadcasted to me over the public airwaves."

    20. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Interesting
      • I usually support the software and music industry regarding their copyrights but in this case it doesn't make sense. When I purchase a piece of software I'm bound by a licence agreement, a contract on my use of the software that I paid for. With broadcast TV, you have not agreed nor signed to such a contract, therefor, how can DRM be enforceable?
      In general (in the US at least) I agree with you. However in this case they may have signed a contract. Every household is supposed to pay for a license for NHK (I believe that's the correct one) in Japan. If you get cable, you're supposed to have paid that license. It's LAW. So it very well might be that the license limits what you can do with NHK (and perhaps others, although that's probably getting iffy) broadcasts.

      So in Japan at least, such a contract may exist. If it doesn't, I'm sure the NHK license will be modified to make it so shortly.

    21. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of the reason that Japanese viewers feel this way is probably because of the NHK man. Let me explain the NHK man comes whacking on your door in Japan and demands money from you because they "know" that you are watching NHK. Japanese law says this is legal and everyone should pay for these public broadcasts. It makes the whole experience no less annoying. It goes something like this, while sitting in the house eating Ramen on a Sunday,

      (Knock, Knock, Knock) Sumimasen
      (Silence we try to pretend we're not home, we know the NHK man's knock)
      (Knock, Knock, Knock, a little louder) Sumimasen, NHK desu kedo (Excuse me this is the NHK man, unspoken I know your in there!!)
      (Silence)
      (Bang, Bang, Bang) ....You get the idea. This goes on until you are annoyed enough to answer the door.

      I tell the NHK man I don't watch their shows....

      The man tells me not to lie he knows I do and please pay up as the law requires....

      So anyway if I am paying/being taxed for their stupid shows why shouldn't I be able to make more than one copy for personal use?? If not give me back my NHK money.

    22. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by dissy · · Score: 2

      Seriously how many times do you want to copy the same program from tv ? You didn't create the content, you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?

      What right do I have to it?
      Who else can I trust to ensure I have a copy of the show once the copyright expires?
      That is after all why you are getting a copyright on it in the first place, so that the public domain can have it for anything/everything after the term expires.

      How many works have been lost so far that are rightfully the property of the public domain due to the authors illegal use of copyright without paying for that right like they agreed to?
      DRM only aids with that illigit use of copyright by authors.

    23. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As scary sounding as the DMCA may be, copyright law is worse. Look at the penalties listed at the beginning of a movie in the FBI warning. Yet people copy movies all the time knowing there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting caught unless they're doing it on a large scale. It will be the same for DRM mod chips. A few guys will get busted selling them, but many people will use them undetected. This will be just like every other pointless and unsuccessful copyright scheme, easily defeated, inconveniencing legitimate customers, and having no effect on real piracy.

      Yeach right...

      Tell that to the over 14,000 lawsuits filed (over 24,000 people sued) by DirecTV for just buying smartcard readers on a small scale.

      Anyone who buys one of these "DRM modchips" even if only for legal purposes in a traceable manner is either naive or a fool.

    24. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by slumos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Seriously how many times do you want to copy the same program from TV?

      Does it prevent you from recording the "same" program twice? I doubt it, but trivially if somebody wants to timeshift a show they might very well like to timeshift a rerun a year later.

      As for copying a copy, I do that all the time. I like to (try to) cook at home, and I use cooking shows to teach me how (I know). Anyway, watching a show and taking notes or something is just stupid, but I can't save all the shows I want on my ReplayTV, so I offload them onto my PC and stream them back to the ReplayTV using the formerly-OSS DVArchive.

      This is actually a move operation, but there is nothing to enforce that. The problem for me, and the problem with DRM schemes in general, is that the designers aren't going to bother to think about my case, just like they won't bother to think of a lot of things that other people do. We'll just be screwed. In fact, it's not really that much of a stretch to say that they want to screw us more than they want to screw pirates. They don't want us to timeshift. They want us to sit in demographically neat little zombie packages and shut up. They have a great disincentive to make recording convenient.

      Incidentally, (1) You don't "pay for TV" by watching commercials, you pay with everything you buy that is advertised, (2) If they take away my rights to watch my way, I just won't watch. It's not like TV is that good anymore.

    25. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... if you are descrambling DTV, you had no rights to view the material in the first place.

      Please, don't , stop it already. If you trespass my property with your RF "pollution", I have a perfectly natural right to do as I please with it. The law not withstanding. What's on my property is mine, unless I sign an agreement stating otherwise. But I won't re-transmit.

      --
      What?
    26. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?"

      Pray tell, why do you think there is a divine right to copyright protection?

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    27. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>Copyright is censorship.

      Chocolate cake is rape.

      Oh, wait...that doesn't make sense either.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    28. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright is censorship.

      Care to elaborate?

    29. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      The way Section 107 is written, I do not understand it either.

      What it says is:

      the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [examples] is not an infringement of copyright.

      If something is fair use then it's not infringment. Fair use completely sweeps aside all of copyright law.

      Of course that leaves the question of what is fair use? Well the rest of 107 is merely four examples of "factors to be considered" in determining fair use. Determining fair use is done by the courts. The courts shall weigh at a minimum those four factors, but they can weigh any other factors they like. To put it bluntly, fair use includes anything the courts decide it includes.

      A fundamental aspect is that 107 is irrelevant. Fair use never appeared in copyright law before 1976, yet fair use existed before that. 107 could be striken from law and there would be no change. The congressional record says that 107 was merely written to acknowledge existing rights, that it was not intended to enlarge/diminish/alter fair use in any way at all.

      Much of fair use was mapped out by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. For example it is almost impossible to effectively review or criticize a book or movie or political speach without copying portions of it into the review/criticism. The literal text of copyright law says that such copying is infringment. That means copyright law could unconstitutionally prohibit other people's 1st amendment protected right to make their own original reviews/criticism speech.

      So prior to passing 107, copyright law was technically unconstitutional. Ordinarily the courts simply strike down any unconstitutional law as null and void. The courts wanted to aviod such a sweeping and disruptive result, so instead they bent over backwards to assume that copyright law implicitly never attempted to apply in the first place. They assumes that copyright law implicitly flees when faced with fair use.

      There is no simple way to define fair use, and the Supreme Court has specificly said that it is impossible to give a full listing of fair use - that someone could show up tomorrow with a never before dreamt of use, and that only the courts can ultimately decide if it is fair use.

      Probably one of the most enlightning aspects is that initially all use is fair use and that all such works lie in the public domain. The constitution give congress the power - if they chose to do so - to take a limited bundle of rights from the public for a limited time and give them to the copyright holder. Congress my only do so for the public benefit. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that the purpose of copyright *MUST* ultimately be for the benefit of the public, rejecting copyright holder benefit as a purpose of copyright law. The public willingly turns over this limited bundle of rights to copyright holders because the public expects to benefit from doing so. It gives creators an incentive to create for the public and an incentive to distribute thier works to the public. When copyright expires the work falls back into the public domain, where it was before copyright temporarily lifted it out of the public domain. Copyright law was created to encourage the flow of more works into the public domain, that is why it is constitutionally required to expire.

      To put it simply, copyright holders were given a limited bundle of rights, an exclusive monopoly to commercially exploit a work. Anything not included in that bundle is fair use. For example making a backups and recording with a VCR do not infringe their limited monopoly to commercialize that work. Such uses were never a part of the bundle granted to copyright holders in the first place. They were never given any rights to relating to personal use. Once you have received a copy, private use is fair use. Whatever you do with it in your home is not part of the copyright grant.

      Taping TV shows for personal use, building a collection, editing them, none of that infringes their lim

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    30. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      When's the last time you sat through a credit scroll and made a special note of who the Assisstant to the gaffer was? Never. If you want that info, that's what IMDB.com and other lookups are for.

      The only endcredits I bother to wait through are at the end of Jackie Chan movies (because the outtakes are funnier than the actual movie :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    31. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except we live in a society where we recognize things like copyright, and distribution rights.

      If we are saying "The law not withstanding" then anything else is moot.. we do not live in an anarchy, we live in a society of laws.

    32. Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... by joeljkp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the 747 flying over your house is yours too, eh?

      The Emancipation Oak under which Lincoln signed the Proclamation is in some guy's front yard... it's not his property to chop down at will.

      Some things are protected; there are limits to personal property freedoms.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  2. Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not confused, bitter that they can't record. They are just too polite to admit it.

    1. Re:Confused? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. Maybe Riktov has missed some of the finer points of Japanese culture. The article itself doesn't even suggest that "most" customers are confused, ...drawn a flood of complaints from TV users... ...more than 15,000 inquiries and complaints...

      The only references to confusion/lack of understanding are "Customers often ask me about 'duplication control' but I have difficulty in helping them understand it," said store manager Yuki Kanno. and "But the duplication control is difficult for elderly people to understand," a sales clerk said. - both from the industry side of the argument. Customers are pissed, and they aren't accepting the explanations given to them by sales people. Maybe that's because it was a bad idea?

      They suggest it's due to popular TV dramas being copied and mass marketed around Asia. Imagine that - broadcasting media and then people having it for free! I'm not saying selling the copies is right, but if the media companies aren't competitive in that market, they should be addresing that rather than screwing their bread and butter customers. I wonder which particlar media companies are behind this? The article seemed to leave this snippet of information out...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  3. Coincidently by ForestGrump · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Coincidently by Kenja · · Score: 2, Informative

      Suprnova.org has a round robin DNS setup. So depending on when you connect you get a diferent server. Some are in other countries and are setup in a diferent language. Not 100% sure thats what you saw, but thats how its setup.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. Mr Sparkle Says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    NHK is Disrespectful to recorders!

  5. it's not long.... by Tree131 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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? :)

    1. Re:it's not long.... by Bi()hazard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This will probably get modded up funny, but the kids with minimal resources will likely be the first ones to break these schemes.

      Consider one group that's going to have problems with this setup-the anime community. Check the links Taco put on the front page and you'll see it's a well organized international community of thousands of hardcore enthusiasts. Some of them put a lot of effort into getting high quality copies of Japanese TV shows. As soon as these DRM schemes start getting in the way of fansubbing Naruto within 24 hours of its Japanese airing, you're going to see a lot of smart, technical people with too much free time dedicated to breaking the restrictions.

      I predict that people like the anime fansubbers can make a laughingstock of the DRM in a matter of days. So imagine what professional pirates will do. Even without beowulf clusters. There's groups making millions off the bootleg videos that have become ubiquitous in Asia. They have professional-quality printing equipment and the ability to make packaging the average consumer can't tell apart from the real thing. The perception that DRM prevents copying will just make it easier to convince people that bootlegs are real, and it won't slow down the pirates at all.

      So whether you're getting your Japanese TV shows from groups that encourage buying DVD's and respect foreign licenses or greedy pirates flooding the retail market with bootlegs and providing the argument in favor of these systems, the DRM won't be much of a problem.

      It's only going to screw you over if you're an elderly Japanese couple that wants to watch your TV the same way you could with your fancy VCR (that still blinks 12:00).

    2. Re:it's not long.... by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 3, Funny
      Anyone know the guys email address? :)

      I think it's DVD.Jon@guantanamo.cu, but he's awfully slow to reply :)

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  6. Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one by saikou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      @ssh0le

      How do you pronounce that? Atsshzerole?

    2. Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one by linzeal · · Score: 3, Funny
      So what you are suggesting is consumer exchange programs where we send vitriolic USians for polite Japanese ones? This way Japanese companies will cave in out of fear, and American companies will relent because of how nicely they stated their disagreements?

      It might be crazy enough to work. Sign me up, I'm a purebred American asshole.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    3. Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one by craw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Baka! Baka mitai! Baka kuso atama! Chikushuo!

    4. Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one by evilviper · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you see, replacing real words with numbers and other keyboards symbols is simply a text-based clue that you need to pronounce it while imitating the voice of a 13 year-old...

      That's not the only way to abbreviate it either. Sometimes it's just shortened to "a/s/l", except the latter almost always refers to one's self.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. B-CAS card? by Mz6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "In addition, the broadcasters' move has made it necessary for viewers to insert a special user identification card, known as a B-CAS card, into their digital TV sets to watch programs."

    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.
    1. Re:B-CAS card? by MenTaLguY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone think this card sounds too much like the start of a something like the "Listener's License" in Tales from the Afternow?

      (especially if combined with measures like those I consider here...)

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
  8. ..a special user identification card.. by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    In addition, the broadcasters' move has made it necessary for viewers to insert a special user identification card, known as a B-CAS card, into their digital TV sets to watch programs.

    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!

    1. Re:..a special user identification card.. by AnonymousNoMore · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's a DNA sample they want, I'll offer up something other than blood.

  9. Leading the way by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And thus Japan leads the way in consumer electronics. It is difficult though, as I'm looking for a HDTV. It's hard enough trying to figure out what's better, DLP/LCD/CRT RPTV. Then I want DVI, but not Drm enabled dvi. But if I do that, will they end up down sampling my picture? arg, leaning towards DLP though...

    I think right now an easier solution would be to just get a hdtv card in a htpc and use that to record shows.

  10. Best part of the story: by Otto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (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.
    1. Re:Best part of the story: by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actors and singers actually love for their work to appear on TV and for it to be as much in the open as possible. Afterall, only the most elite actors and singers (who are so rich most of them don't care how much money they get... their biggest problems in life are not money-based) are paid based on the gross of the movie, or ever get positive royaties from the record companies.

      It's the major copyright holders, who just happen to also be better known as the MPAA and RIAA member companies, who don't want to see movies and songs copied. Major actors and singers might go along with their handlers in backing anti-copying campaigns, but if they didn't want to take part in TV, then there'd be hundreds of people glad to take their place.

      PSST... the kids appearing on American Idol are not being paid cash for doing so. They're given free accomidations in Hollywood and taken care of nicely while they're with the show, but they're not promised a financially rewarding expirience by the producers. However, people are lining up like crazy to audition for the show because even so-bad-it's-funny suinger William Hung is making money after appearing on the show. The grand prize winner isn't even given a direct cash prize, they're given a recording contract that they're required to agree to as a condition of the contest. It's the people who come in runner-up or even unranked positions who stand to profit more than that...

    2. Re:Best part of the story: by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the most insightful comment I've seen. This is all about disintermediation, it is not about whether or not actors, singers, writers, or whatever will be paid.

      If we want people to make stuff, we're going to have to figure out a way to pay them. All this DRM garbage is about making sure the way we pay them still has money going through the same hands it always did.

      Personally, I'd rather a completely collapsed content industry than this dangerous, freedom-sucking garbage. The content industry would rebuild itself around a model that actually worked for everybody instead of a model that largely padded the pockets and insured the profits of the current set of middlemen.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  11. Tech Flag Ultra Prime: Battle! by illuminata · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.
  12. By the time they know it, its already too late by DrewBeavis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  13. What do we want? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  14. Confused = angry by 12ahead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. I think the thing we might need to get used to by m2bord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  16. We'll have the same problem with HDCP flag in HDTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.macfergus.com/niels/dmca/cia.html

  17. Who Knows Where This Is From? by nate+nice · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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 ..."
  18. This could come here, nothing stops it. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. There has to be a new business model here by FerretFrottage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."
  20. I'm confused by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Funny
    Why is Jo offering Flagness a beet? Is that a Japanese thing?

    I should have watched the beginning of the episode. I would have recorded it, but ...

  21. key cracking effort by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:key cracking effort by Ethan+Butterfield · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That was the C2BF Project, which finished up in March of this year. Apparently while the entirety of the 56-bit keyspace was checked, the proper key was not found and the project was closed as a failure.

  22. Interesting by cshark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  23. Forward to FCC and Sony by cft_128 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This article needs to be forwarded to Michael Powell at the FCC. See what a pain in the ass this creates for the consumers that you are supposed to protect?

    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

    1. Re:Forward to FCC and Sony by cft_128 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Mike Powell? Please. Unless you're a lobbying group who can line his pockets so well that he has trouble walking, you're not affecting anything. Consumer opinion has no bearing; the FCC is operating strictly on a highest-bidder policy at the moment, and the MPAA has him in pocket to the tune of millions. Think you can beat that? Go ahead.

      It looks like the electronics industry will give it a shot and start a lobby. After some further reading it looks like they are not going all out against the flag though. Sad...

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  24. stupid . . . by loraksus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    1. Re:stupid . . . by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would GLADLY pay any media corporation my entire TV channel subscription money every month if I was allowed legal access to these streams.

      Here in the UK, Sky+ is the closest thing to this thats available. Timeshifting, and series recording make TV a pleasure, if the bandwidth is available, why shouldn't I be given this opportunity?

      I could quite happily remove the TV from my home and never again watch an over the air broadcast.

      I will not rent, nor pay per view, but I want to watch the popular shows when I want. I can either watch as broadcast, and sit through adverts, or I can record it and watch later and fast forward through adverts, or I can download the shows I have paid for and watch whenever I like without being interupted by adverts.

      I pay NTL for my subscription fees, who in turn pay Sky broadcasting to air Enterprise - I still prefer to download and watch this show.

      Whichever way I go about watching my favorites shows, I ALWAYS pay twice, whether that is TV Subscription + Adverts, or TV Subscription + Broadband amount. Why not give the publishers a larger piece of the pie?

      The Bittorrent protocol allows downloads on a one to one basis, where I am only assisting download of the file I am getting at that point, my entire library is not on public view.

      The RIAA MPAA and other organisations around the world need to wake up and smell the coffee - they can make more money from me giving me the data I want.

      If people don't subscribe to the various shows, they get cancelled, those that are watched remain. By purchasing the media direct from the publisher, I get a 45minute show WITHOUT adverts - those are added to pay for the tv companies bonuses and payrises.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  25. another incorrect use of "content" by brre · · Score: 2, Informative
    There are no content restrictions here. Everyone is perfectly free to take the subject matter or information presented, if any, and publish it elsewhere.

    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.

  26. Explaining This... by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So when a show is broadcast in my area for 5 years, and then gets pulled, but is still in production for a 6th, 7th and soon to be 8th year - How else can I follow it?

    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
    1. Re:Explaining This... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a show was broadcast in your territory and is continuing production but is not continuing to be broadcast in your territory one of two things happened.

      - Nobody bought the broacast rights to the show in your area... meaning that the station/network that used to pay the producers for the right for you to see the show with their ads inserted stopped paying. You should be complaining to either that station to start paying again, or telling another station in your area to pick up the show instead.
      - Somebody has the rights to the show, but are sitting on it... meaning that the station that was airing the show is likely still getting the exclusive rights to the show, but is simply not using them. Yeah, that's a selfish thing to do, but one that stations and networks often do to assure that nobody can run a program that happens to be similar to one they are showing against it. In effect, they're paying the producers to make sure you can't see their show.

      If there is no price on how much it costs to see the show where you are, then that's interpreted as positive infinity... no matter how much money you have, it's not enough. Things without a price tag aren't always free...

    2. Re:Explaining This... by DJTodd242 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Therefore, there's presently no legal way to watch any FNC-made show in Canada.

      As a Canadian, let me say: Thank god for that.

    3. Re:Explaining This... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      What, you feel you have some right to the content? If you need it that badly, get a satellite dish and you'll be able to pay to watch it...

      No. Unless the WB is on some C-Band setup that I'm unaware of, I can not see Smallville here whether I use Dish Network, DirecTV, the local cable company, or broadcast TV. Short of flying to the nearest city it is broadcast in, I have no way to see the show, regardless of the amount of money I'm willing to pay.

      this really is the big problem with the whole piracy discussion in my mind, people who believe there is some inate human right to have access to this content because it is music or because it is movie all lumped under the phrase "because it is art".

      According to the rules the broadcasters claim to follow, their is such a right. But they change their arguements on a daily basis to suit their pocketbooks, not for intellectual consistency. A copyright is release to the public domain for all (with a limited time monopoly on most types of reproduction). That is, according to the people that make the TV shows, they do not "own" them any more than you or I. If you don't like it, argue with them. They are the ones releasing it to the public domain.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  27. easily duplicated by Cheeze · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  28. The FCC is required by mcc · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  29. Only One Way to Prevent this by nightsweat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  30. because by avdp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  31. What's really scary about DRM ... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  32. argh!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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."

  33. Greed by manitoulinnerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  34. Re:Confused vs. angry by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm particularly confused and particularly angry. Though not particularly Japanese.

    However, I think you're turning Japanese, I think you're turning Japanese, I really think so.

    Hey, think The Vapors will sue me for this?

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  35. Miss sold a HDD/DVD recorder with CPRM (DRM!) by now3djp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  36. This is a key problem with the whole issue... by DaftShadow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  37. speaking of which... by Tired_Blood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  38. Meanwhile in a Japanese home ... by rlp · · Score: 5, Funny

    (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]
  39. Last I heard... by inode_buddha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Last I heard... by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      too right! broadcasters/mpaa/riaa etc have to understand 2 fundamental principles of technology and society:

      1) If i can see/hear it i can copy it
      2) In my own home, the devices i own do what i say and i can mess with them all i want and the worst thing you can do is tell me my warrenty is void.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  40. Wait a minute by GeekZilla · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  41. Another failure by karmatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  42. Easy solution. by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  43. Re:copy once by danknight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  44. It's worse than that. by dmaxwell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    *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.

  45. It's not about rights, it's about power by nysus · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Let's not forget the overarching logic (or lack thereof) behind our copyright laws, or any law for that matter. The dirty secret is that they are all completely contrived. There is no property, there is no ownership. We have merely thrust these social contrivances on a universe that is amoral and lawless. The only true law that exists is the law of power, which says that he with all the power can do whatever the fuck he wants.

    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.

  46. Why buy it when there is nothing on anyway? by Mr.FreakyBig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  47. Public domain? by trezor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.