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

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

-

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.

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.

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?

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.)

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?