Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
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?
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.
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.