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

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.

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

[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: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?

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. ;)