HBO/Cinemax Cut Off Recording of On-Demand Programs

Control Group writes "Arstechnica has an article up explaining that HBO and Cinemax are poised to prevent recording of on-demand programming, even via analog outputs, on 'compliant digital recording devices' (specifically, digital recorders meeting the Content Generation Management System for Analog, or CGMS-A, specification). HBO claims that since you can get the programming on demand, you don't need to time shift, so don't need to make even one personal copy. And, since the FCC has so far decided not to regulate subscription video-on-demand (SVOD), this is legal: while normal, linear cable comes with the right to time-shift, SVOD does not. Of course, there's nothing preventing a sufficiently determined person from using a non-CGMS-A-compliant device, so odds seem good that this will only inconvenience otherwise-legitimate customers."

Comments

What's the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there's nothing preventing a sufficiently determined person from using a non-CGMS-A-compliant device

So what's the issue here?

HBO just like everyone else

[sneakers563]

That's too bad. The programming HBO puts out is of such high quality it would've been nice to think that their attitude towards their audience was similarly above the others in the industry. Apparently not.

Re:HBO just like everyone else

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

That's too bad. The programming HBO puts out is of such high quality it would've been nice to think that their attitude towards their audience was similarly above the others in the industry. Apparently not.

Emphasis added
I think you misunderstand your role in the food chain.
You are not audience, nor consumer, nor customer. You are product.
The consumer is the corporation that buys advertising. The vendor is the television network (HBO in this case) and the thing that the vendor is selling to the customer is advertisement views.
Personally, I don't think there's anything morally right or wrong about this arrangement, as long as everyone understands the terms of the deal. Where I think it turns deceptive is when the product gets named things like "consumer" or "audience." At least when you're called a "viewer" there's ambiguity about your role (are you viewing the program or the ads? I don't know how you think of your role, but I can tell you how the networks describe you to their customers, viewer.)

Oh, and just to anticipate the obvious reply:
But it's (Cable/DBS/Pay-Per-View/VOD) programming, it's not advertiser-supported!
Bunk. Are there commercials before or after the show? Is there product-placement within the show? Are there tie-in promotions between the show and products, either in the show's own ads or in the products' ads?
Did you really think that your couple of dollars is enough that they'd produce a show just for your benefit?

Re:HBO just like everyone else

[Ondo]

It's HBO, it really isn't advertiser-supported.

Bunk. Are there commercials before or after the show?

Only for other HBO shows. They don't sell ads.

Is there product-placement within the show? Are there tie-in promotions between the show and products, either in the show's own ads or in the products' ads?

I'd be surprised if there was, but I don't watch enough HBO to be sure.

Re:HBO just like everyone else

[Siniset]

I was going to waste a mod point, but then i thought i'd respond personally. I think you are totally correct with most television stations, except for HBO and the like. In this case, you really are the consumer, or partially the consumer.

I think you have brought up a good point, that with the current state of advertising invading all forms of entertainment, that we can no longer see ourselves as the only consumer in the equation, or that that is our only role in this economic transaction.

Re:HBO just like everyone else

[macdaddy357]

Vote with your wallet. If they want to use DRM crap, teach them a lesson by buying movies elsewhere. My attitude is simple: treat me as a valued customer, or I'm on down the road to patronize your competition.

Re:HBO just like everyone else

[wonderwidget]

Umm...no there are no commercials at all on HBO and Cinemax...except those for upcoming features.

Or ...

[zangdesign]

you could just drop the service, ya know. If enough people did it, they might change their minds.

Nothing speaks louder to a corporation than the sucking sound of revenues being lost.

Re:Or ...

[Anonymous Coward]

To get the package that comes with HBO and all the other big networks on digital cable around here, it ends up costing about $110/mo.

There is NOTHING on cable worth paying almost $1,400 per year for.

I disconnectd my cable a year ago and will never go back.

I don't have HBO/Cinemax

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care!

Seriously, if these people want to do it, I guess I'll never get HBO. If I'm going to pay for a signal, I better damn well be able to do what I want with it!

Re:I don't have HBO/Cinemax

[MindStalker]

This isn't for recording broadcast, this is on-demand, meaning they stream the movie to you in real-time. Its basically like your TV is a thin client for a giant TiVo at the cable company. The problem with this is they offer a limited set of movies (basically whatever has been shown on any HBO channel in the last month or so). But of course HBO stops showing this movie its gone. This is done on a subscription model X dollars a month. There is talk of an almost unlimited library available at x dollars a showing, but that is a ways away as there are storage capacity, and the problems of licensing that many movies.

Copyright Lessons

[Krieger]

When are they going to learn? A truly dedicated person can always make a copy of it.

I agree that VOD does make a compelling case for not needing to time shift. Unless you consider that many people time-shift and then watch things again and again if they like them. Typically VOD services have movies or shows available for a proscribed period of time and then remove them, thus making them no longer available. If, once a program was added to a VOD lineup, it never left they would have an ultimately compelling case. If I could *always* access a movie or show as long as I was subscribed to VOD, I would have no need to time-shift.

Having had both a DVR and VOD, I find convienance in both. They're both great tools. But DVRs are nice that if you really want to you can archive a show, broadcast, or movie and watch it again later.

I think they miss the point that people are willing to pay for something if it is useful, aka VOD over having to tape and timeshift. But people are not willing to be held hostage for these things, we don't want to pay the exorbitant rates of PPV movies. Witness that you can have Netflix for $20 a month, VOD for cable + Premium channel costs.

Most people only have so much money to spend. And it gets spent on those items that are price appropriately. I am still astounded that DVDs seem to be reasonably priced, especially when compared to CDs. A movie that took $100 million to produce for $19.99 or a CD that couldn't have cost more then $500,000 to produce (if you don't count artist salaries, etc... since you know... they're actually supposed to get royalties from CDs.

Re:Copyright Lessons

[orangesquid]

If I am able to do the following:
1: Tape a program and watch it later
2: Watch it multiple times with no additional charge
3: Pull out and process frames and streams to use
4: View program at any time
5: Compare two parts of the same program to see how they differ, by viewing them side-by-side
6: Compare parts of different programs in the same manner

Then I might consider that the change is OK. But, I want my simultaneously-aired programs, re-runs, screen captures, late-night viewing, and side-by-side comparison... and, in some professions (yes, I know this deviates from the consumer world, which is the focus here), these types of tasks are a necessity.

Re:Copyright Lessons

[Unordained]

2: Watch it multiple times with no additional charge

I think that's the part they're really worried about. You're already (so I hear, haven't seen the legal documentation) expected to only watch a show once if you time-, media-, or location-shift it. However, I do remember reading the ruling about having the right to do the above (shift) and I didn't see any mention of "unless it's provided to you conveniently enough that this doesn't matter" anywhere in the text. Besides, there are other reasons for allowing us to record any media we come across, concerning fair use -- we all have the right to make archival copies of everything, because nothing requires the content producers or distributors to do so; and once it's published, it's destined to go into the public domain eventually -- by archiving, we're protecting our side of the deal (they get exclusive control for N years, we get the content free after that period.)

There are plenty of other fair-use cases, but the content industries are (somewhat understandably) trying to make us forget about them. Then again, it's been argued that if they were to get exactly what they wanted, they'd suddenly find that they couldn't make derivative works of anything (consider how often derivative works have been made from classic stories, particularly by Disney) -- when they run out of original material, they'll be at the mercy of creators and copyright holders forever. Then they'll want public domain again.

Re:Copyright Lessons

[Alsee]

I agree that VOD does make a compelling case for not needing to time shift.

You have it all backwards. No one need make ANY case for time sjifting, much less a "compelling" one. Time shifting falls within fair use. It is not an infringment of copyright. Therefore no one has any right to do squat when you proceed to make that copy regardless of their wishes.

This whole issue is over dumb-ass CGMS-A compliant devices that deactivate their own recording capability. You simply need to aviod CGMS-A compliant devices, or plug in a second recorder, and tape it all you like.

-

Re:Copyright Lessons

[Krieger]

I don't disagree with you. Fair use, which is a judicially granted right not a legislatively granted one, allows time shifting. I'm all for it. Unfortunately other laws and unelected commisions are able to pass bureaucratic restrictions on things relating to copyright that are bypassing fair use. Specifically everyone's favorite the DMCA, Broadcast flag, etc.

We should be more worried about fighting those and ensuring that they are repealed, removed, etc, or have very healthy and clearly defined fair use provisions carved out of them by the judiciary.

I was speaking in the currently uncontested legal space. Technically if the FCC implements a regulation that requires the CGMS-A be implemented, then it is technically illegal to sell those to the consumer so that they can implement their fair use. Because of that VOD becomes more compelling. VOD should allow what many of the other posters have specified as what they're looking for. To view the shows that run/ran at the same time, view as often as they want, etc.

Ultimately I think that content industries are getting their panties in a bunch over something that they could logically bypass. By having content un-restricted (no CSS, Broadcast flag, copy-protected CDs) the content tends to get passed around. Most people when they can afford it, will go purchase originals for value added content, simple things like: cd covers, the pretty images burned on the top of most CDs these days, DVD extra discs, commentary tracks, official extras, etc. Hell unrestricted content has potential to generate more revenue due to its ability to be passed around and make unknown items ragingly popular or at least cultly. The Grateful Dead, and early Metallica were helped by allowing bootlegs (Grateful Dead more the Metallica). Nothing excites others so much as the unknown band that someone has just let them hear on their iPod or CD player.

Yet fundamentally content producers are worried that if they allow un-restricted content that people will just copy it and never pay for it. I don't see that as the case. CDs are better qualtiy then MP3s, real DVDs are better then taped or DVR'd or downloaded tv shows and movies. The key is to have them at the right price point. DVDs seem to be. I would prefer if they dropped the CSS so I don't have to deal with issues if the DVDs get scratched, but at $5-20 they usually cost... it's not too bad. However CDs are pretty over-priced. God tapes of CDs are often cheaper (or at least used to be) even though technically it's more expensive to make a tape then a CD. CDs probably shouldn't be over $10. Hell I tend to buy significantly more CDs when I see them "on sale" at Best Buy for $10-11 then when they're at their "normal" price of $15-18.

When will they understand....

What's the point?

[Gothic_Walrus]

If someone really wants to get the material for free, it's still not that hard to do.

This won't stop people from borrowing DVDs from friends and burning copies. Copy protection can be foiled.

This won't stop you from using a TV tuner card, VCR, or TiVo to record the new episodes - or any repeats - on their first runs.

Hell, if you've got Bittorrent, you could download the entire runs of "The Sopranos," "Sex and the City," "Six Feet Under," and any other HBO show that tickles your fancy in a few days or weeks.

This blocks one way to pirate, yes. It won't do much in the scheme of things, though.

Re:What's the point?

[tepples]

This won't stop you from using a TV tuner card, VCR, or TiVo to record the new episodes - or any repeats - on their first runs.

Yes it will. Any VCR sold in the United States less than 6 years ago is required by law to respect Macrovision brand fair use denial methods. TiVo brand DVRs also respect Macrovision brand fair use denial methods.

Define on demand.

[JVert]

Is the regarding PPV shows? I'm not aware of any HBO or showtime "on demand" unless they are the ones who acutally run the PPV services?

Re:Define on demand.

[maxume]

Some cable operators are offering literal 'on demand' programming, where you pay the monthly fee, and then you can select a movie, show, etc to watch using the remote for your digital cable box. It is way beyond ppv. The ones that I have seen allow something like three shows to be selected, pause, fast forward, rewind. Pretty slick. The video quality isn't everything it could be though. BUD 4 eva.

I just cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a subscriber to HBO for more than 10 years and to HBO on-demand since it became available a year or two ago. I've also been a long-term Showtime subscriber. They have gotten plenty of cash from me and I've gotten plenty of value from their _original_ shows and sports.

I use mythtv to record both HBO and HBO on-demand content. I've never shared a show with anybody.

I just cancelled HBO and HBO on-demand and sent feedback to HBO and my local cable company to let them know why.

HBO can do whatever they like to try to enforce their copyrights. They have the right to do whatever is legal to try to control their shows after they leave the set-top box. They have the right to piss off their good customers to try to prevent people from amassing archives of HBO content. They will certainly get more dictatorial over time as the digital transition happens and it certainly won't stop people from amassing collections of HBO content in either analog or digital format. History has shown this over and over.

Copy protection is a waste of everybody's time because only one person has to crack it out of thousands of people who may try. And inevitably they _do_ crack it. In this case they don't even need to crack it because there is legal pre-CGMS-A equipment readily available and this isn't going to change for a decade or more at which point nobody will care about analog and digital protections will likely also be fully compromised. So the only thing HBO is doing is annoying their technologically unsophisticated and decidedly unappreciated customers.

I want no part of it. HBO isn't that valuable that I would fund this kind of behavior. Sure it might be legal but that doesn't make it right.

Re:I just cancelled

[Craig Maloney]

I don't have HBO (or cable for that matter) but I'd like to thank you for taking a stand against them for this kind of idiotic behavior.

Re:I just cancelled

[MrPeach]

In this case they don't even need to crack it because there is legal pre-CGMS-A equipment readily available

Unfortunately they will be using Macrovision on the composite outputs, so your point isn't quite accurate.

And there are damn few component recorders available.

(I just implemented CGMS/A on a not to be named hardware platform, so I have some personal knowledge in this field) :)

Re:I just cancelled

[MrPeach]

Lame replying to my own message, but I thought I'd share another tidbit.

VOD (on Comcast at least, and for now) is not encrypted, so if you have the equipment and a clue, you can pull the sream and do whatever you want with it, including transcoding and writing to DVD in HD. You just use your cable box to select and run the program you want recorded, find the chanel/PID, restart and record away. Screw those copy protection touting twits!

If you don't want to pay for VOD, you can watch what your neighbors are watching (and pausing, and rewinding). XD

Re:I just cancelled

[Trolling4Dollars]

If "they" can look at our CRTs remotely, then "we" have an even better chance of snagging video from our CRT based TVs just as easily.

or...

We can just reverse engineer an LCD display and tap the digital signal that is UNENCODED to save it to a file which can be converted to whatever format we want.

or...

There are these old things called camcorders. If we're desperate enough to have a copy, there is always the analog hole that they can't close; camcorder in front of TV.

There are tons of ways around this crap and people will always find a way. The genie is out of the bottle. They will never be able to close it for good unless they REALLY piss off their customers.

Not that I endorse piracy. Far from it. I fully support the idea of copyright holders (ie. the artist, not the distributor) getting paid for their work. I don't support kidd13z trading "zero day mov13z" on P2P. If you want to see a movie, pay for it. But you should still have the right to an archival copy. Oh jeezus... what's going to happen when we find a way to rip out the memory of a movie or performance from our brains. Are the RIAA and MPAA going to develop neural copy protection??? ;P

Re:I just cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun with Vladinator (Diaries)
By rusty
Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:09:14 AM EST

Well, I tried. I really, really tried. I was always good to Vlad. I listened to his ideas. I did an interview for his website. I enabled accounts for his friends that seemed to have been disabled for no good reason. I thought we had an understanding.

And this is what I get. Oh well.

* * * *

I know how you feel
by jelerial on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:26:41 AM EST

It's hard when someone someone who you trusted and thought was a 'friend' turns around and slanders you. Vlad is certainly an interesting character. This is not the first time he's done something similar, and I doubt it will be the last. It just shows you, that when you try and be nice to someone, they are most likely to turn around and expect to be above any rule you ask them to follow. I guess it pays to be mean...

* * * *

Blah
by rusty on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 12:51:15 AM EST

Anyway, I wouldn't be too hard on Vladinator. He's been on the receiving end of a modstorm for the past few days, and from what I've heard, he isn't the most rational in times like that.

And y'know what I've been doing the last few days? Keeping out the (persistent) nut who's been attacking him. I'm standing there barring the way, and he stabs me in the back.

Despite all this rhetoric, I deeply don't care about the actual ratings. They'll never do anything to me anyway. But it's the principle of the thing. I'm disappointed in him. Despite all the crap that gets talked about Vlad, I always thought he was an OK guy. I guess I was wrong, and they were right.

* * * *

been there (in fact, there now!)
by bobsquatch on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 03:49:54 AM EST

If you look a few days back, you'll find that Vlad did the same thing to me. He was under the mistaken impression that I had some "secular humanist agenda" for voting down his Catholicism (1 of 30) story -- and (horror of horrors!) for pointing out that it sucked.

So, the boy took a couple of hours and individually modded my 60ish most recent comments to 1. Remember, this is after he accused me of having some sort of speech-squelching agenda.

That's the reason why I now browse "Ignore Ratings, Oldest First, Don't Rate." Modbombing like this means two things: 1. ratings are too important (important enough to be worth attacking), and 2. ratings are unreliable (in that they can be attacked). Thus, best to just read everything and try to skim stuff that looks like crap.

Trusteduserland, I hardly knew ye... [shrug]

OOOOH, Hey! I just noticed... he's done it again! For no apparent reason! The boy has too much time on his hands.

* * * *

It's all your fault rusty
by Verminator on Wed Nov 14th, 2001 at 05:08:22 AM EST

Obviously something is wrong with Scoop and it won't allow Vladinator to rate a comment anything other than 1. Fix it.

* * * *

Oh, okay then

[Lord Bitman]

Are they legally required to continue providing any on-demand programming they ever release, forever, even after my subscription ends, since I may have "time shifted" some video otherwise? I mean hey, if I get a free unlimited library of movies, even one that I can only watch each item once from, I'm fine with that. That's exactly what they're saying they'll do, right?

Good

[sydbarrett74]

I think 'OnDemand' is a huge rip-off anyway. Nothing to see here..move on.

Blanket license economy

[Media Girl]

I think you've touched on what the megacorps don't get: their whole marketing/sales paradigm is rapidly becoming outmoded.

If you own a mall and play music from the speakers in the mall, you have to pay ASCAP and/or BMI blanket fees to cover royalties for the publishers and artists. It's not a ton of money -- not so much that management is tempted to cheat. It's just not worth the hassle. The same kind of thing is going to have to happen in this digital age, or the whole media economy is going to choke on encrusted '60s-era business mindset placque in the revenue arteries.

Ultimately, if the price is right, people will pay for premium access to premium programming. And if reruns are affordable enough to access, then nobody will bother trying to copy things onto local media.

Alas, it will take a maverick success from the margins, some original thinking by the old white men in the board rooms, or a trainwreck before these monkeys will let go of the cookies in the jar.

Nobody got rich by disempowering the customer ... or not as rich as they might have. The customer is always right, even if wrong.

(As for what this means for the news, well, that's another story. Jon Stewart said it best last Friday.)

That's it....no more Colgate.

[Sean Johnson]

I am going to boycott Colgate until they pull thier heads outta thier arses and realize people want to copy tubes of toothpaste for moroe than one use. This brushing on demand one-use policy is rediculous. I am switching to baking soda until they realize they can't do this. C'mon slashdotters, ARE YA WITH ME? Together we can take down the virtual monopoly Colgate has on the personal hygiene market.
You are either with me or against me. If you harbor Colgate in your homes, you are as guilty as Colgate themselves. .....Wait....I think my rant was supposed to be against HBO for this week. oh well...Colgate still sucks!

Not too concerned personally

[dnight]

I dropped all my movie channels, get the movies sooner through Netflix and wait a year for the HBO specific shows I like to watch to come out on DVD.

The fact it reduces their profits is just a side benefit. ;)

Re:Not too concerned personally

[scorp1us]

Usually you want to support those who make content that you enjoy, not make it harder for them to make it.

You have a very confused relationship with HBO, you seem to hate them but want their content. If everyone hates them too much then they don't make the content and then you miss out.

However, it is your right tovote with your money.. If VOD is not valuable enough to you then waiting and getting it through Netflix (who recently lowered their price to 17.99 for 3) then VOD will have to adjust its price to the point that you want to use it.

The fact that you are focused on rudiing their profits, rather than value for you is the non-sensical part.

Band of brothers == Lucky Strike

[SmallFurryCreature]

Then again that cigaret was an icon of WW2. Might as well claim that the whole show is an ad for Jeeps.

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[tepples]

by archiving, we're protecting our side of the deal (they get exclusive control for N years, we get the content free after that period.)

This relationship blows up when N is made a function of the current year.

it's been argued that if [Hollywood studios] were to get exactly what they wanted, they'd suddenly find that they couldn't make derivative works of anything (consider how often derivative works have been made from classic stories, particularly by Disney) -- when they run out of original material, they'll be at the mercy of creators and copyright holders forever

No, they'll just put up copyright pools (analogous to the patent pools in the automotive and electronics industry), start cross-licensing stuff, and increasing the wholesale price of DVDs to match. Peter Pan was licensed; so were Tarzan and The Lord of the Rings. So are a lot of book->film ports. And then we're back to the Stationers' Guild.

Re:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[Unordained]

Agreed. Copyright extensions should never have been allowed (obvious to most of the crowd here) -- it's a form of copyright violation, effectively asserting a copyright when you have no right to (pretty much on the same scale as me going around deciding to be given copyright over random works in the public domain, or under someone else's control) -- they were only given the copyright in the first place because, as part of the deal, it ended. That's a contract we shouldn't have revised in their favor, it steals from us all.

Seems like with the cross-licensing, there's a chance prices would skyrocket after a few iterations. But then, I don't remember my history well enough to know the consequences of that system ... anyone care to elaborate?

Re:Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

[tepples]

Seems like with the cross-licensing, there's a chance prices would skyrocket after a few iterations.

As the number of owners of pieces of copyright in a given work increases, the royalty each owner gets might decrease, so the wholesale price of copies of copyrighted works from incumbent publishers might not skyrocket. However, the barrier to entry of becoming a publisher might skyrocket. Some claim that it already has, as it's impossible for a songwriter to be sure that he didn't copy that melody.

Live PPV boxing

[tepples]

True about pay-per-view and video-on-demand movies, but some PPV sporting events are broadcast live. Shouldn't citizens be permitted to time-shift live programming?

Re:Live PPV boxing

[MindStalker]

Yes, but this restriction is only for video-on-demand not for PPV, apparently PPV like sporting events and such have a broadcast flag, which means that tivo just can't allow you to copy it to another device. I've heard something about TiVo automatically deleting these things after 2 weeks or something, and I think thats fair.