pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now

corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."

Comments

Uh Oh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the feds find out I own this card and ripped the tag off my mattress I'll be off to the big house.

Re:Uh Oh ...

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious

Why?

[boohiss]

Could someone explain what the broadcast flag is, and why it's going to be illegal to ignore it?

Re:Why?

[LighthouseJ]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091723/

Re:Why?

[CountBrass]

In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

This card ignores that flag...

(As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts. Of course, if it does, the appropriate measure is to go to court and challenge it.

Re:Why?

[WoodstockJeff]

Didn't you get the memo? It's ALL Bush's fault! Even the fact that the leaves fell off the trees suddenly last month is due to Bush ignoring Kyoto!

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

I've pointed out time after time that Democrats are just as bad if not worse... DMCA was signed by Clinton, after all.

Grrr... that argument is really old. The Democrats differ from the Republicans on any number of issues -- education, foreign policy, preemptive war, abortion rights, prayer in schools, civil rights, tax policy, health care, social security reform, etc etc etc. I'm really tired of hearing about how evil both parties are when it's clear that there are major policy differences between the two parties for anybody that bothers to look past the propaganda of Ralph Nader.

That said the DCMA was written by lobbyists and passed through a lazy Congress that (by and large) didn't even bother to read the bill. I'm sure banning third-party garage-door openers and generic ink cartridges wasn't what anybody (even the Republicans) had in mind. Two other issues that will doubtless be brought up can similarly be explained -- the CDA was one of those "Look -- I'm protecting the children! Re-elect me!" issues that had a lot of public support and the Patriot Act was rammed through a stunned Congress after 9/11. Should the Democrats have had the balls to vote against it? Yes. Are they the same as Republicans? No.

To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties. I suspect that most Republicans would agree with me.

Re:Why?

[hendridm]

From the article: "A digital TV broadcast can be easily grabbed and saved to disk as a perfect copy of the original, which alarms the studios that produce the shows."

Yum, can I record a butchered version of Top Gun laden with commercials and blank out curse words? At least it will be in perfect quality so I can feel the full effect of how Dawn takes grease out of my way.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the fact that the leaves fell off the trees suddenly last month is due to Bush ignoring Kyoto!

Really? I thought he started to use breader reactors for white house x-mas lights and just dumped the waste in the swamp, and that's why the leaves fell off and formed that walking thing that wonders around.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Broadcast flag does not prevent copying. TiVo, VHS, even (God forbid) Windows Media will be happy to record, copy, and whatever your content. The only catch is that it can't be "indiscriminately redistributed." Most Broadcast Flag compliant stuff just ties content to an account or through "proximity" to a local network. If people would quit over-reacting (I know, I know, this is Slashdot), everything would be much better.

Re:Why?

[gcaseye6677]

This is how any free movies will be shown, in order to give the consumer more incentive to subscribe to a premium channel or to order the movie through pay per view. It's all about squeezing the maximum amount of money out of people willing to pay for movies. That being said, this plan won't be very successful if movies don't get better. People probably won't be willing to pay for most of the crap out there once its shown in the theater and everyone realizes it sucks.

Re:Why?

[michaelkpate]

The Democrats have the best legislator on the issue, Rick Boucher. But they also have the worst, Howard Berman. There are good Republicans like Lamar Smith and bad ones like Orrin Hatch. Neither party has a stellar record on the issue.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts

Sony v. Universal, more commonly known as the Betamax decision. The key points of the Betamax decision are:

1. [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
2. [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
3. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
4. [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use

The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.

Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

You want a written Constitution?

Here, take ours. We don't seem to be using it anymore.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

Yes, there is difference between the two parties. That does not make either one of them right, nor does it make either one of them less evil.

The Republican party consistantly panders to far-right Theocratic causes and attempts to ram the tenents of a particular religion down everyone's throat in violation of the First Amendment. They also consistantly support legislation which erodes the protections granted under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments. The only part of the Constitution which the Republicans consistantly defend is the Second Amendment.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, typically attacks an entirely different set of freedoms. In particular, they consistantly give their support to legislation which erodes the protections of the Second amendment.

Both parties also routinely ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments and assume powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

Chosing between the Democrats and the Republicans is chosing which part of the Constitution you want to gut.

Re:Why?

[nsayer]

Not quite. You are allowed to record a show with the broadcast flag turned on. However, any device after the tuner must support either transporting or recording the digital stream in a secure (encrypted) way so that you, the owner of the equipment, cannot get to see the raw digital bits (because you are presumed to be naughty and would put them up on Kaaza). You can record the bits, but the recorded has to keep them encrypted and must have serial copy management. If any device in the chain does not support the HDMI-CP stuff, then the signal has to be either blocked, or downconverted to 480i.

There was once somewhere an FCC FAQ about the broadcast flag. It specifically says that, yes, you can have a TiVo, so long as it denies you high-quality digital access to unencrypted bits.

It's still a raw deal. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it really is.

Re:Why?

[recharged95]

"Legal for Now"

I love this. I just watched Pixar's The Incredibles (i.e. the superheroes were forced by lawyers & government). Everything has a legal spin to it nowadays. Makes the current administration's so called "tort reform" so yesterday. As one corporate lawyer told me when I asked him who would win my specific Chap 11 case against an old company, he said,

"Lawyers always win".

The urban legend called the culture wars is over (a stalemate), welcome to the psychological wars fellas.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

Sure, there will be some minor differences

I didn't know preemptive war, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, education and a woman's right to choose were "minor issues". Silly me basing my vote on these minor issues when there are clearly more important things to worry about.

This ensures that they will vote alike on all issues that are important to lobbyists (ie. DMCA).

The difference being that Kerry said he would examine the DMCA and see if it needed to be changed. Write that off to campaign rhetoric if you will -- it's more then Dubya was willing to do.

Re:Why?

[mark-t]

Something I'm not seeing here is what is to stop _software_ (which does the recording, if the HDTV hardware is part of PC card), from ignoring this flag?

We all remember what happened with DeCSS, after all...

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.

Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.

Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.

Re:Why?

[Jardine]

no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

Apparently they can.

Re:Why?

[rpdillon]

Your ideas are good, if a bit malformed.

Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

People are not entitled to fair use - you are correct. However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law. In other words, a specific provision under which the resitrction does not apply. If you were looking for something that is "merely" a defense, you should look at patent law's "prior art" or something more along those lines. But "fair use" and "prior art" are different in their natures.

Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

You bring up one very good point thought that I rarely see here: even though its entirely LEGAL for you to make copies as a paying user of [digital cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, whatever], there is no law saying that the broadcasters cannot make it difficult or [relatively] impossible for you to do so. I think this is a legal loophole for providers that needs to be closed to protect consumer's rights. (As you pointed out, fair use is not a right, but I think it should be.) As it stands now, we are in a situation where we are legally allowed to copy something, but the providers are also legally allowed to take every measure to stop us from doing so, including outlawing devices that would permit such an action. Circumvention of those restriction on the device would then fall under a legal exclusion, but you have to ask yourself at some point if we're being honest with ourselves...you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision. This is a sort of legislative dishonestly - you're saying one thing while allowing something completely different to actually occur. We need to decide what we really want and then put laws into place that [protect/prohibit] those actions.

If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge "schooling" people in copyright law, its true purpose, and how it needs to be revamped when new technologies emerge. We're approaching that time, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like the outcome.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

I disagree. From the opinion:

Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.

In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting.

(emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.

This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.

However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.

Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.

Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.

As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.

In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.

Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.

Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.

If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge

Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.

Re:Why?

[gcaseye6677]

The movie's PRODUCER, the one who dictates how it will be shown, has plenty of incentive to drive people to premium channels. They will certainly make more money this way. The pay per view model is considered ideal for them, but that will only work for better movies. You might pay $6 to buy "Night at the Roxbury" from the WalMart DVD Bin of Shame, but you won't pay $3.95 a couple of times to watch it on pay per view, even though you might do this for a better quality movie. Basic consumer psychology.

Re:Why?

[Fnkmaster]

Intelligent, well-educated, decent people can't be atheists? Wow, I'll have to tell the several Nobel prize winners I've met who were avowed atheists that they must be assholes, because some guy on Slashdot said these virtues are incompatible.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Actually, yes -- I was just thinking the other day that it should be a requirement in order to receive the protections of copyright that the creator provide the Library of Congress one complete, fully-reproducable source copy, preferably in a digital format. In addition to facilitating the situation you described, this has another even more important advantage:

Have you ever heard of "abandonware"? It's a computer program that is no longer available in any form from it's publisher, who may even no longer exist. Moreover, any copies that you can find are in compiled form. Why is this a problem? Because in 100 years or so when the copyright finally expires, you'll have a program written for a CPU architecture/OS/framework/whatever that's been so long forgotten that in order to use the program you'll have to figure out what it does from the opcodes up.

The reason I said "source copy" is that once the code is public domain it should be reproducable and modifiable (check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part). A binary, for all practical purposes, isn't modifiable. Also, I'm not just talking about software. I mean TeX, PostScript, SVG (not Illustrator format, since it's proprietary and undocumented), etc. too.

Now, I don't propose that the Library of Congress give out the source code of a closed-source program, but they ought to at least have it, to save it for the future.

Anecdote: There's an old game I really like called Tyrian. When it came out, 486s were cutting-edge and DOS was the norm for games. Now, I have a Mac, and there is no possible way for me to play the game -- if I had the source, I would port it myself, but I can't even ask for the source, because AFAIK there's no one left to ask. I could run it emulated (except that I can't because my Mac is too slow -- it's an iBook), but why should I? The people who made it obviously don't care about it anymore, so what's the harm in giving away the source? They could do that and keep copyright on the artwork, like iD did with Doom.

Re:Why?

[DarkSarin]

Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.

I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.

Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.

BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.

*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.

US Laws

[Clappingman]

Perhaps a publicly available hardware hack would be the answer to such legislation? I mean deCSS worked well for everyone, no?

Re:US Laws

[TheRaven64]

A better analogy than DeCSS is the copyright flag on CDDA. This flag is set when a copy is made of a copyright track, and compliant copiers are not allowed to duplicate the copy of the copy. I don't think I've seen a compliant copier for quite a while...

Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

"It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005

But don't forget, despite the zillion of harmless, mundane things the government won't allow you to do, America is still the Land Of The Free (tm).

Those who have their doubts, please report to school for your free re-education. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to the flag on the way past. But try not to smoke any dope, or attempt to gamble on a sporting event.

Thank you.

Message ends.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

Being free doesn't guarantee you the right to steal from others.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[gowen]

Taping things off the TV to watch at a later date constitutes theft now? On what planet do you live?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house.

Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Waffle Iron]

If the producer of that TV show decides that they only want to allow it to be watched when they want it to (which would be the case if they flagged that bit) then I you have a choice to follow their rules or just don't watch their show -- you don't have a right to watch their show.

Wrong. That's not what the law says. Even under this dubious broadcast flag regulation, you are allowed to save and view copies of TV shows, regardless of the producers' wishes.

Why do you think you have a *right* over other people's property?

You seem to be confused about just what is "property" under copyright law. If I have a legally obtained copy (including copies made under fair use), that's my property, and I can use it as I see fit. The copyright holder has no rights over my property.

What the copyright holder owns is a limited right to prevent me from making *further copies* of any copies I have.

Have the older card, works great

[YetAnotherName]

I've got the older pcHDTV card for Linux, the so-called model 2000, and it works great. With a RAID array and three quarters of a terabyte of storage, I've been legally time-shifting broadcast HDTV. (You've got to see the cute freckles on Jennifer Garner on Alias!)

I will go ahead and buy one of the new ones, too; it would be nice to do dual-stream recording.

And Linux only. Does it get any better than that?

Re:Have the older card, works great

[Pipermalibu]

Yes it can get better than that. Many, many areas of the country do not broadcast HDTV, and even then...who the hell wants to watch network TV? I want to see my Six Feet Under or Movies or Discovery in HDTV. So when someone finally gets the idea of controlling a sat or cable box AND records HDTV AND ignores the broadcast flag....THEN they will have a TOTAL winner. No matter what OS they support!

Re:Have the older card, works great

[iceborer]

You've got to see the cute freckles on Jennifer Garner on Alias!

Those aren't freckles, those are her tits you insensitive clod!

Re:Have the older card, works great

[geoffspear]

who the hell wants to watch network TV?

According to a quick google search, about 61 million Americans, last Wednesday during prime time.

But I'm sure the 10 people watching the Discovery channel during the same time period all feel vastly superior.

pcHDTV

[Silwenae]

This is good to see, they've been out of stock, what, going on two months now? I've been (im)patiently awaiting buying one of these to build my Myth box.

The card itself won't be illegal as the headline implies, but it will be illegal to import any card or component that ignores the Broadcast flag. Any cards or tuners built and installed prior to July 1st, 2005 will be grandfathered in and should work just fine.

This is one of they key reasons to support the EFF - visit their HDTV Action Center and and learn more about the Broadcast Flag. The second link about the Broadcast Flag has some great information and links to building a HTPC for multiple OS's and exactly what the federal government is trying to do.

I've very disappointed by the FCC's decision - it shouldn't be up to Hollywood to decide what TV I can and can't record and when I want to watch it. This battle has been fought (and won!) before, and here is the government messing with it again.

Support the EFF and make your voice heard!

Re:pcHDTV

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Who signed the DMCA again? Oh yes, it was William Jefferson Clinton. Who signed the No Electronic Theft Act? Same guy! The Sonny Bono (may the brimstone sear his skin forever) Copyright Term Extension Act? Yep, Clinton again!

I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.

Re:pcHDTV

[Enry]

Lessee...

Reduced the size of government? Check
Balanced the budget? Check
Sent the military all over the place? Check
Made Americans feel good about themselves? Check
Reduced unemployment? Check
Got people off welfare? Check

Yup. He's a Republican all right. The best one in at least 50 years. The current crop are Republicans in name only. They're certainly not conservative, unless you count that whole 'moral values' thing.

I'm more interested in a video card

[EmagGeek]

... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

I haven't seen any thus far... has anyone else?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[!the!bad!fish!]

Have you considered a PC to HDTV converter?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Leibherk]

using this
it is possible to convert from the VGA out to HDTV.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[JDevers]

You haven't looked very hard, have you? The last two generations of ATi cards all support a DVI to component adapter that ATI sells on their website for $15-$20(I THINK that the all in Wonder brands come with them, but I could be wrong) and of course, if you have DVI input, you could use that...or any other DVI-enabled card. I think the last few of NVidia's do too, but I haven't kept up with them (since it isn't what I have...).

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[cruelworld]

Is that DVI-D (i.e. digital) or analog DVI?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[PhoenxHwk]

There are three types of DVI. DVI-D is digital (the standard for digital input to an HDTV ... same thing as HDMI). DVI-A is analog, which should be easily convertable to component. DVI video cards output DVI-I, which carries both analog and digital. You can tell if you have analog support by looking at the keying on the connector (the big bar-shaped pin). If the keying pin is surrounded by 4 pins, you have analog.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Jason Hood]

I have one, it doesnt work as advertised. Only a few resolutions work and they chop off the edges. Its a piece of crap...

--Just an FYI ;)

Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as bad as showing in court without wearing any pants.

Not a big deal

[geighaus]

I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force. It's not like we live in pre-Internet days after all..

Besides, look at DVD players. There are plenty of players on the market, which ignore regional settings despite DMCA and other bullshit regulations.

Re:Not a big deal

[Zorilla]

This brings up a question. Is the broadcast flag enforced in hardware or software? If it's the latter, this should prove easy to bypass if the capture is done on a computer.

Re:Not a big deal

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

Well, here in Europe we use PAL instead of NTSC, so a European card wont do the job. Dont know about Asia though

Re:Not a big deal

[Zorilla]

Most TV tuners are multiformat. My BT878 can do NTSC, PAL, SECAM, you name it. This is probably also true for HD, as nothing needs to change in the DSP to adapt to a different format.

Re:Not a big deal

[Jucius Maximus]

Bow to your Canadian overlords and get one from North of the border when you come for cheap medicine, flu shots, abortions, cuban cigars and maple syrup! Bwahaha, eh!

Re:Not a big deal

[smurf1974]

Digital content is not broadcast using ATSC in europe. We use the DVB standard.

They are both supersets of MPEG-2 but service information is encoded in a different way, and the tuner hardware is also different. And then there is the whole PAL/NTSC issue, but I'm not sure it applies to HDTV and almost all tv's nowdays can display both NTSC and PAL anyway.

Re:Not a big deal

[Sheetrock]

Probably hardware, possibly software. Looking over GNU Radio (which exists to do signal interpretation in software) I suspect someone could work their own decoder out of that with enough money, time and knowledge -- probably all out of proportion to what one of these pcHDTV cards costs.

I don't think it stops with the broadcast flag, though; once proprietary encryption gets into the mix, there's not going to be a gray area like this with hardware you pick up in the store. Why can't I get a decoder card that works with my digital cable service?

People who enjoy recording TV will have to stoop to the levels of satellite pirates tomorrow to enjoy the same level of use of their service they've got now. With probably the same legal/social connotations, as broadcasters are no doubt seeking to carve new revenue streams out of DRM TV (i.e. "Record to DVD now for only $2.50!").

Re:Not a big deal

[DaHat]

You are making the mistake to believe that foreign hardware will work just as well as it would here.

With broadcasts, the US uses NTSC which is being replaced by ATSC which is carried on an 8VSB modulated signal. Only 2 places in the world currently use ATSC over 8VSB, the US and South Korea.

I have seen a few interesting SK products though, one that runs about 300, is an external tuner using USB 2.0, looks great... now I just need to convince my boss to let me have it (someone here while on business in SK found one and fell in love with it).

The European standard is COFDM for modulation and is radically different enough where it is extremely unlikely that you will find a demodulator capable of handling both, and even if there was such a part, the likelihood of it being used is low, after all, why adapt a multi national standard when you are only looking to target a single region?

Re:Not a big deal

[theancient2]

If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.

There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest.

Here are a few interesting parts:

[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy. ...

Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.

While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.

Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.

In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.

The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email or by regular mail.

Re:Not a big deal

[kentborg]

> almost all tv's nowdays can display both
> NTSC and PAL anyway.

Oh, so wrong. In Europe (a place aware of the rest of the world) this may be so. But in the US (an ignorant, parochial, and isolationalist place that unfortunately still insists on throwing its international weight around) multi-standard TV sets mostly don't exist.

Don't underestimate how backward this Red State-laden country is.

-kb, the Kent who is proud to live in a Blue State.

Broadcase Flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this an OTA HD tuner card? Will the broadcast flag even be used for this type of signal? I though it was reserved for Cable/Satellite and over the air signals were in the clear?

Misquote

[dorward]

Shouldn't that be "last, best, hope"?

HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Famatra]

According to the EFF's, article here, on how to build a PVR, there are no cards to get High Definition Cable or Satellite. Time is running out to get these features into a card before next summer ;).

Anyone know if they've made a card for HDTV cable or satellite?

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[swv3752]

The HD3000 does support HD cable but only unencrypted channels.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never ever see an HDTV card that works directly from a cable or satellite feed. Just like there are no cards which work directly with nonHDTV encrypted content. That won't ever happen so put that out of your mind.

What you can do and is feed from you Sat box's Svideo out to your PVR card which is what most people have to do. Then you have to use an IR blaster so your Tuner gets set to the right channel to record.

Personally IMHO unless you just get broadcast basic which is unencrypted just get a Tivo from your Sat company. Otherwise the whole tie up the TV because you have to tune to the same channel your recording thing blows.

Oh that or download everyhting from alt.binaries.multimedia which lets you A) not have to worry about buying any hardware B) most TV shows have the commercials editted out. I honestly don't even use my PVR anymore since I can download anything I need.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[dirty]

The HD3000 *will* supoort HD cable. Support is supposed to come in the next month or two.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[amorsen]

Just like there are no cards which work directly with nonHDTV encrypted content. That won't ever happen so put that out of your mind.

Over here in old Europe we have plenty of cards which take a digital cable, satellite, or terrestrial feed and hand the decrypted (but not decoded) media stream to the computer.

How much does it cost?

[AtariAmarok]

Dang article is slashdotted. How much does this card cost?

Re:How much does it cost?

[jaxdahl]

It costs $189.89, but I think there are discount codes floating around that can get you $10 off .. anyone know of them? EFF-SPECIAL seems to have expired.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Zorilla]

Possibly a joke, but I'm guessing the law doesn't have any post facto clauses. Just the same as how cars before manufactured before 1967 don't need seatbelts.

Last chance- my ass!

[quarrel]

Yeah 'cause there is no way that we won't see hacked firmware released for TV capture cards like we do for dvds.

I'm sure we also won't see someone using a felt tipped marker thanks to the wonderful people protecting the world with great laws like this..

Of course all the people using such things will be terrorists, so I guess that's ok. I hear there are other bits of Cuba to fill anyway.

Re:Last chance- my ass!

[Anita Coney]

There will always be opportunities to break the law. If a mere law could actually stop crime, we'd be crime free. In case you haven't noticed, we're not.

But whether you'll be able to break the law is not the point. The point is that it shouldn't be against the law in the first place.

Typo in the article

[raxxerax]

From TFA:

The reason for the ruling [requiring the broadcast flag]: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.

Won't that happen anyway?

Probably.

The last line should read "Definitely."

Re:I dunno ....

[Cloud 9]

Every local television syndicate has to broadcast OTA in the USA.

last, best chance?

[syrinje]

Presumptious that is! Next month may a better card be released. Bringing better technology every day is. But article does some wisdom contain - error it is till last minute to wait !!

No Windows support!

[RealProgrammer]

Requirements

• IntelR PentiumR 1200Mhz or higher
• Linux Red Hat Linux 9.0 Fedora core 1 and 2
• Sound card.
• 256 MB RAM or higher
• CD ROM Drive
• One available PCI slot
• Currently the HD-3000 is NOT supported in Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows XP however Windows drivers are include for those wishing to experiment with the card in Microsoft Windows.

That last line is a remarkable reversal from the usual state of affairs. Normally announcements don't mention Linux compatibility (but it's available at your own risk if you snag some source from their web site).

That alone makes me want one.

Drivers are a bit rocky

[wowbagger]

The drivers are a bit rocky - unfortunately they are not in the mainline kernel, and if you are running a newer kernel getting the patches to apply is a bit tricky.

Also, the version of xine they have modified to support tuning and selecting the video streams on a multi-stream HD transmission is OLD - 0.7. Again, they have not moved the support into the main line Xine.

Alsa (sic), under 2.6.x and ALSA sound you cannot get audio for normal TV as the modified video driver claims the resources the ALSA sound driver needs. Yes, the primary focus of the card is HDTV not NTSC, but still, IMHO they should fix that.

Lastly, you had DAMN WELL have a meaty machine if you plan on watching 1080i streams - my Athlon-xp 3000 with an ATI 7500 AIW, with everything tweaked in as much as I can, needs about 120% CPU to watch a 1080I stream. IF you have an nVidia card, IF you have the modified version of Xine with XvMC support THEN you can lower the bar a bit, but otherwise, no.

I'd like to see them make the effort to get all the software into the main line codebases - I believe the hold-up is the issue of possibly supporting the Linux DVB API rather than bodging the ATSC support into V4L2.

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[brandon]

I run 3 pcHDTV cards on a amd 2600 (333fsb) and an nvidia 5200. Things work fine, but without the fx5200 that supports XvMC there's no chance of running 1080i and de-interlacing it in realtime on anything sub 2.8Ghz P4 with HT. All AMD's run slower, be it their slower FPU (by about 30%) or their lower speed BUS. I personally max out the BUS on my motherboard whenever I try to watch a show and record more than 2 at once. I'm not going to start another CPU war, but the facts are that Intels do run much more smoothly (video and all) than AMD's do, even 64 bit AMD's. If you do have problems on a 3k AMD, get an NVidia card that supports all XvMC optimization and you'll be happy.

--Brandon

OT: Political Rant

[phurley]

To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties.

I agree both parties would consider themselves different. And to some extent I would agree. I believe that what most people who state that the parties are too similar are concentrating on different issues. In particular both parties are beholden to the rich and powerful. People in office (generally) have one primary goal -- getting re-elected. With that as your primary motivation you are going to behave in a certain manner -- play the game, increase your influence, gather large benefactors, etc. It is these primary activities that both parties share.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Baal Sebub]

I'm guessing the law doesn't have any post facto clauses.

Correct. Follow the last link:
Q: Can I use these cards after July 1st 2005? A: Yes you can use them, they are "grandfathered" into the new regulations. It will always be completely legal to use them. The card ignores the copy right bit and if a show has this bit enabled, the card doesn't care and will save the stream in full quality anyway.

Not illegal to own

[Pedrito]

Just to clear this up a bit, because the article is misleading and I didn't see any posts clarifying this. It will not be illegal to own or possess these cards (HDTV receivers that ignore the broadcast flag). It will simply be illegal to sell them in the U.S.

I suggest people stock up on them. I don't even have an HDTV at this point, but I'm going to grab a card just so I'm covered...

Re:Veto would have been overriden

[Anonymous Coward]

And rather than take a principled stand and let the veto be overridden, he went ahead and signed it, indicating his assent. He made no effort to stop the law from passing: he didn't use the power of his party, he didn't speak to Congress, he didn't even take the trouble to make a symbolic gesture of opposition using the veto. Why? Because he, like the great majority you cite, sold us down the river willingly.

Citing a huge majority that could override a veto and trying to imply that Clinton didn't want those laws is the sort of revisionist history that would make even Orwell blush.

Re:I dunno ....

[Roofus]

TV stations in the US are broadcasting their ditigal signal using 8VSB modulation in a 6MHz channel. That equates to a 19.39 Mb/s bitrate.

The stations have the option of how many programs they wish to broadcast within this space. They may show 4 standard definition digital channels at 4Mb/s each during the day, and at night switch to a High Def stream at 14Mb/s and an SD at 4Mb/s.

Stations could also have non-traditional channels (channels that most of the major networks have never owned), such as weather information, since they often use static images that don't take up much bandwidth.

Will NOT be "illegal" to own July 1, 2005

[daveschroeder]

ALL equipment sold before this date in the US that does not respect the Broadcast Flag will be grandfathered in. From http://eff.org/broadcastflag/:

The good news is this mandate doesn't take effect for another year. We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." [PDF] Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

But why?

[jandersen]

I mean why would anyone want to own a HDTV not to mention an card to stick into a PC? TV is bad enough at the current low resolution, I certainly don't want to make it worse by seeing it any clearlier.

Seriously, though - I feel I have seen far more than enough crappy TV in my life. Sometimes I watch the news - BBC - and sometimes, say once a month, there is a program that is actually worth your time, that gives you factual information without a load of stupid fade in/out, 'cool' soundtrack and other rubbish. The rest of the time it's quizzes, 'reality' tv, sport and worst of all: garden programs, house makeovers and celebrity chefs, none of whom have anything in the direction of taste or even common sense.

When (if) the day comes when you have to have digital and HDTV, I'll simply go without. And perhaps go to the cinema once every other year, when a film is released that is worth my time.

other cards available too

[jmb295]

There are two other cars that are available with stable windows drivers: MyHD & Fusion. MyHD does all of the processing in hardware, and can output component video/vga/or dvi directly to the tv without help from a video card. The Fusion card does the processing in software and uses the video card to output to the tv.

Freedom Overkill

[Doc Ruby]

What happens when the broadcasters change the data format they broadcast, to get everyone to upgrade ($) and to shake these legacy freedom devices? This thing needs open, pluggable firmware.

Where are the plans to this video card?

[El Camino SS]

"The tighter you squeeze, the more video signals will slip through your fingers."
"Where are these cards manufactured?"
"Somewhere in Europe, maybe in Algeria, someplace like that."
"See, I told you they could be reasonable."
"Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"No. You cannot! They are peaceful, they have no malice.. they only want to record television to see it later! You cannot disrupt their..."
"We are onto their little KaZaA games."
"You cannot!"
"Then tell me another target, a military target!"
"Sealand. They make the cards on, Sealand."
"Thank you. Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"I just, wait!"
"Sealand is too sparsely populated to manufacture cards of that sophistication.You may target when ready."
"Nooooooo!" /I felt a disturbance as though a million cable subscribers cried out in agony, and then suddenly, snow.

Re:Where are the FreeBSD drivers?

[JustNiz]

>It would be nice if they supported open source.

What do you think Linux is, dork?

Time to Fight Back!

[gcheek]

Is it just me, or is EVERYONE getting so fed up with all the rules and regulations. If we're all fed up why not do something about it.. Look at the 60's everyone would boycot and riot, now I'm not saying we need to go to their extreme but it worked. Maybe we can start a petition and starting emailing the movie houses for EVERYONE's signature. If I can't watch a show when its on.. I'd like to watch it later.. If I can't watch a movie when it's on.. I'd like to watch it later... Now am I so wrong to want to be entertained by what I when I have the time? I'd love to hear others views! To: TV and Government... Don't like what I'm saying? Bring it on... Just post a reply and I'll give you ALL my contact info so you can come knock on my door. That's right I'm fed up.. and am not afraid. I download new movies tv programs you name it! If a movie is worth the $ I go see it if it stinks I don't.. until the movie houses offer me a refund if I'm not happy I'm not going to change. Make good movies and I'll pay to watch! or make bad movies and give me my money back if I'm not happy!

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[untaken_name]

Don't we realize if we were able to get a million man march formed...

If they couldn't do it for civil rights, what makes you think you could for convenience? I mean, sure it would be nice if they gave money back for bad movies....but how would you ensure that only people who truly did not enjoy the movie asked for a refund? I mean, there are so many people out there who would abuse that system that even libertarians like me don't think it's a good idea. Look, life entails risk. I used to work at a movie theater, and we *did* give refunds in certain cases. These were people who asked for one within 10 minutes of the movie starting. The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't paying for receiving enjoyment from a movie. You are paying to sit in the seats provided and listen on the sound system provided and watch on the screen provided. If you stay the whole time, you don't DESERVE a refund.

DMCA already does this

[debest]

you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision

This is precisely what the DMCA already does. It forbids the "trafficking" (for want of a better word) in devices (programs or physical objects) that circumvent copy protection schemes. If a copy protection scheme does not permit fair use, it is not illegal to reclaim those fair use rights by disabling the scheme. It is, however, illegal to tell anyone else how you did it. That potentially leaves only the technical elite to be able to legally use the media in a fair manner. This effect is, of course, exactly as intended by the law.

As you stated, making things difficult is entirely permitted by copyright law. Where the DMCA is legally objectionable is that it creates ban is on the communication of an idea (ie: free speech), and I hope a case which can address gets successfully heard at the Supreme Court soon!

Funny you should mention that!

[SuperKendall]

For what? At least with alcohol, anyone and their mother could produce the stuff.

Funny thing - with computers and digital video cameras and rendering software lots of people can use now, the same is true for TV now!

Look at one of the most popular types of shows around now - reality TV. Just about anyone could slap one of these together on a limited budget and charge for broadcasts over the net.

There are other outlets for video that can have far less in the way of restrictions, and people will use them if TV starts locking down convienience. If people can't record things and share them with friends they are going to get mad, and there are going to be a lot of them.

Last chance for OPEN SOURCE HTDV?

[Kazoo the Clown]

The real reason to buy this may be simply because it's an open-source solution. Virtually any protection mechanisms can only be enforced by inhibiting the users ability to customize the gear as they see fit. Consumers of all electronic gear should patently refuse to buy hardware by companies that withold sufficient specifications in an attempt to thwart a user's ability to repurpose the equipment.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of such customization, and will no doubt be taken in by the marketing engines of companies who sell closed equipment. User cluelessness is thereby costing all of us money and taking away our freedoms. But like the greedy sheep such users are, they will gleefully parade right into the slaughterhouse, chasing after a sparkly trinket and blissfully unaware of the ultimate consequences of their ignorance.

Let us all pause to curse the accuracy of P. T. Barnum's insight.