Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Licenses Analog Anti-rip Technology

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the sharing-is-for-communists dept.

photojournaliste writes "CD copy-protection specialist Macrovision is to work with Microsoft to ensure their respective DRM and anti-rip technologies are interoperable, the two companies said this week. Sounds straightforward enough, but the deal runs deeper. Microsoft agreed to license a number of Macrovision's patents, in particular those relating to analogue copy protection technology and more recent extensions to that system that cover video-on-demand, pay-per-view content and support for the US 'broadcast flag', which determines whether consumers will be able to record digital TV broadcasts."

77 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. How long before ... by TheLogster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People hack their Tivo's to go "Broadcast flag - very nice - I'll ignore that and record it anyway"..

    Same for Myth TV etc

    TheLogster

    1. Re:How long before ... by jxyama · · Score: 4, Insightful
      >People hack their Tivo's to go "Broadcast flag - very nice - I'll ignore that and record it anyway"..

      i think the key is, it's not all (or even most), but only some would hack.

    2. Re:How long before ... by sxpert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yet, some are way too many already. as only one is required for something to show up on the P2P networks...
      as usual, this is just another way by the tech industry to steal money from the idiots in the content industry that are way too stupid to understand that they really are dinosaurs on the brink of extinction, and that using 30 seconds commercials to finance dubious tv shows is about to be as obsolete as dodos

    3. Re:How long before ... by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem with the broadcast flag is that it will be illegal to sell hardware which does not honor the broadcast flag, so (in theory) any hdtv card you buy after this summer won't be able to be used in a mythTV box.

      Of course, any programmer knows that if you can write the decoded video stream to the screen device, you can write it to a disk device just as easily. However, you can pretty well count on the fact that the law (DCMA and others) will be used to criminilize any software which can be used to work around the broadcast flag.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:How long before ... by rokzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the other reply talks about only 1 hack needed for p2p so I won't repeat that (oops)

      I don't agree that only some would hack. sure not all, but the concept of getting rid of DVD zones is very well established in the general (DVD-using) public's mind. I expect this to be similar - people will almost expect broadcast flag hacks as standard.

    5. Re:How long before ... by Dayflowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, its not like that's really a problem. You can easily just publish the software online and claim to be from outside the US. US users will download and use it.

      The fact that it'd be illegal to use the software would not bother anyone...

      --
      I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
    6. Re:How long before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf

      A Microsoft Research document that explains why it does matter even if only a few people can hack it.

    7. Re:How long before ... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, any programmer knows that if you can write the decoded video stream to the screen device, you can write it to a disk device just as easily. However, you can pretty well count on the fact that the law (DCMA and others) will be used to criminilize any software which can be used to work around the broadcast flag.

      If you add TCPA to the mix then it seems like the media companies are trying to either seriously cripple, or get rid of, the PC platform as we know it.

      As everyone knows while non-DRM media formats exist you only need to break the encryption or protection once and then the cat is out of the bag. It seems like the media companies goal is to not allow content to be accessed or decoded on any device that is aslo capable of decoding, or encoding, non-DRM formats.

    8. Re:How long before ... by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The fact that it'd be illegal to use the software would not bother anyone...
      You must not have been paying attention. It'll bother a lot of people; generally the same kind of people who're bothered by "crimes" like visiting a prostitute or smoking a doobie.

      Marijuana possession is illegal in most of the US. While the law is widely ignored, there are still people who are serving time in PMITA prison for violating it. How'd you like to be Tyrone's bitch for 3-5 years because you got busted for "posession of software with intent to distribute"?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    9. Re:How long before ... by diogenes57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are they really idiots? How else do you propose for them to finace their dubious content? If it is worth downloading for so many people it is obviously worth something. If they are dinosaurs, who will replace them and how?

    10. Re:How long before ... by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dodos weren't obsolete. They survived everything except hungry Europeans who didn't give a damn about species preservation. It's hard to evolve a defense against hundreds of godwillsit types with guns in a few years.

    11. Re:How long before ... by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Are they really idiots? How else do you propose for them to finace their dubious content? If it is worth downloading for so many people it is obviously worth something. If they are dinosaurs, who will replace them and how?"

      Let's go all Young Republican: Who cares if they can't survive? They can get new jobs if they aren't lazy. Who said we owed them an industry? We haven't signed any contracts stating we must watch their commericals. If the Free Market says that we don't have to pay for the content, then they will go out of business. Sometimes a market really can be free. It's not the government's job to force people to watch TV commercials.

      Content will either dry up, or it won't. If it does, the market will have instructed people that downloading stuff for free destroys the golden goose, and they will self-correct. If it doesn't dry up, and the content creators thrive (which seems to be the case so far, manipulated RIAA figures to the contrary), then the dubious content providers were wrong and the downloaders are right: downloads don't hurt the business model.

      Either way, let them eat cake.

    12. Re:How long before ... by dar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've never seen this MythTV before. I don't think it exists.

      --
      My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
    13. Re:How long before ... by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You have signed a sort of contract."

      No, I haven't; and there is no such thing as a "sort of contract" :)

      "More, you've accepted a license."

      No, I didn't. I didn't sign anything.

      "If they have it so in the license that you agree to by watching their content that you mustn't do the things Tivo does with that content, then you've agreed not to. "Shrink-wrap" licenses are still licenses."

      No, they are not. I always, as a precaution, chant "No, I do not accept your terms" as I open any package with some sort of sticker on it. It's not my fault they provide no means of communications with them on this matter :) The EULA is still not legally tested, and even if a pro-business Supreme Court eventually does uphold it, I will not abide by shrink wrap licenses. If I buy an object, I own it, by common law and hundreds of years of precedent. I'll do what I like with it.

      "It's their content and by watching their content, accepting their content, you must agree to a licence which they distribute it under for you. Enforcing those licences would be something that the government does."

      It's not "their" content. They own the physical media on which they store their masters. They don't own the "content". They possess copy rights, not property rights, on the content. However, I have fair use rights over the content, because I have such under law, and because the media is my property, if property rights are to enter such a discussion. I do not accept any licenses as to how I use a machine I purchase, and the government be damned if they are paid to violate my rights by breaking down my door to stop me using my own property.

      "Opposing libertarianism against this problem of your's doesn't work...because, sometimes, companies can get so rich they can begin to own the rulebook of the market itself, so to speak."

      You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to criticize you, by the way, merely the idea of these new "rights" these rich people have recently purchased. If the U.S. manages to inflict this new idea of property on the world, its all over for freedom as we know it. Copyright and licenses and property rights will be used, ARE being used, to silence dissent in the U.S. and abroad. Petty dictators are a horror, but they eventually die and become dust. This new regime is corporate, immortal, and unkillable.

    14. Re:How long before ... by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Almost no one really cares about getting caught illegally downloadin' music/movies/tv shows/etc from the web either.
      Almost no one really cares about getting busted for smoking dope, either, because so many people (Estimated 20% of the adult population) do it at least occasionally. However, that dosn't change the fact that you can get your ass thrown in jail for doing it. Just because enforcement of a law is sporadic and arbitrary doesn't mean that it's toothless or that you're not running a risk (however small) by breaking it.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    15. Re:How long before ... by morleron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think that it's about time for Americans to start practicing a little civil disobedience and start using software that subverts the attempts by the government and corporations to limit the information we have access to or the ways in which we can use it. Maybe the slogan for the next revolution should be "The B-Tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the Bytes of Evil Corporations and patriots." In that vein I urge everybody to buy HDTV that don't recognize the "broadcast flag" before it becomes illegal to do so.

      Just my $.02,
      Ron

      --
      Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
    16. Re:How long before ... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem with the broadcast flag is that it will be illegal to sell hardware which does not honor the broadcast flag, so (in theory) any hdtv card you buy after this summer won't be able to be used in a mythTV box.

      Of course, any programmer knows that if you can write the decoded video stream to the screen device, you can write it to a disk device just as easily.

      A lot of people are buying the new HDTV decoder cards right now because they don't honor the Broadcast Flag, and they want to use them in their MythTV boxes.

      Maybe I'm missing something, but, after selling this hardware becomes illegal, how exactly will these decoder cards prevent you from saving a video stream to disk if the flag is set? My impression is that this is not merely a legal threat; the hardware itself will physically prevent this action. But how? If you can grab the data and write it to the video buffer, how would it keep you from writing it to disk, assuming your operating system has no such limitation? Or is this just a threat with nothing behind it?

    17. Re:How long before ... by morleron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said. A large part of the problem that we're discussing here is what comes after use limiting technologies are given the force of law. Not enough people understand that the drive for DRM will result, if not opposed vigourously by eveyone who cares about freedom, in a society in which access to information can be absolutely limited. DRM, as envisioned by MS, members of the government such as Orrin Hatch, and media organizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA, will make it impossible for "unauthorised persons" to have access to information. The decisions as to who will be authorised and who is not will be made arbitrarily. And it's not just "entertainment" that will be so protected. Government and industry secrets, or just regular documents, will also be protected via DRM mechanisms.

      Once DRM schemes are fully in place no unauthorised person will be able to so much as see certain documents, let alone surrepititiously print them and smuggle them out of a government or industry office. Merely attempting to access such documents may be made a crime and will certainly be tracked in order to identify individuals who might be a "threat" (for some value of threat). The joining of technological means of limiting access to information and the wishes of the powerful to maintain their positions will result in a world in which the vast majority of people will have no clue about what's really happening. How many people would know about the Abu Graib events if the powers that be had the ability to utterly refuse access to anything incriminating simply by locking it up behind a wall of DRM permissions? A well-managed DRM scheme devoted to keeping things secret could well lead to a situation in which there is literally no clue available that something may be rotten in Denmark.

      The future of political and civil rights depends on our ability to resist the drive by the rich and powerful to implement DRM technology and the laws which will make it illegal to attempt to circumvent same. No matter how attractive the "content" that is protected by DRM, in any guise, is the fact of the matter is that it's not worth it. Anyone who buys a copy-protected game, movie, music CD, DVD, etc. is only putting money in the pockets of those who would, in the end, like to see the vast majority of people reduced to "consumer units" with no political or civil rights worth talking about.

      Just my $.02,
      Ron

      --
      Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
    18. Re:How long before ... by crazdgamer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Content will either dry up, or it won't. If it does, the market will have instructed people that downloading stuff for free destroys the golden goose, and they will self-correct. If it doesn't dry up, and the content creators thrive (which seems to be the case so far, manipulated RIAA figures to the contrary), then the dubious content providers were wrong and the downloaders are right: downloads don't hurt the business model.

      Something that you're overlooking is that those in power will want to maintain the status quo.

      Hollywood, TV shows owners, etc. will want to ensure that the current format of 20 minutes of programming and 10 minutes of commercials is maintained, since it's easier to stick with what works than it would to deviate from it.

      I am convinced that the market will only "self correct" when producing a TV show becomes a sure-fire way of losing money. Only when ALL the shows begin to lose money will things change. Otherwise, you'd better hope the commercials are as entertaining as the show's they're interrupting.

    19. Re:How long before ... by Barkpingu · · Score: 2, Informative

      that are some interesting thoughts, I would like to add mine. I'm non-US, and I think the development you mentioned isn't limited to US only and the revolution (or at least the 'little revolution') would be a global one. I live in germany, and in germany noone ever has been sued (Disclaimer: I don't know everything, and maybe I fail to express me properly in english) due to a law similar to the DMCA (that's afaik the law in the US that is about that subject). If you do filesharing (of musik/video files and in germany) for a commercial reason, the law states somewhat clearly that you get yourself imprisoned (or a tough finanzial punishment). If you do filesharing for private reasons (which is f.e. if you 'only' have a few hundred mp3s) the law is quite unclear - to my knowledge noone has ever been sued, but they had to pay to avoid a accusation. Maybe that's intended by the Industry since the anti-pirate-ads (in germany) are pretty much FUD. They are somehow quite effizient, since there is hardly anyone who knows what real-life punishment they REALLY have to expect (since the industry is spreading their fear-uncertainity-doubt-punishment 'theory'). That's a try to compare the US with the rest of the world. I hope I didn't fail totally. greetings Barkpingu

    20. Re:How long before ... by karnal · · Score: 2, Funny

      your house gets raided for that math lab

      Quick! Erase that white board!!!!

      --
      Karnal
  2. New Name by R0UTE · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope Microsoft take over Macrovision, then we can have Microsoft and Macrosoft. Microsoft can deal with insecure software and Macrosoft can deal with securing copyrights, what a world it will be then!

  3. Broadcast Flag by gowen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like the broadcast flag. If we couldn't record stuff off the television, perhaps the nation would find better things to do with their time that watching endless television programs. Like extra exercise, or socialising. We'd all be a whole lot better for it...

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Broadcast Flag by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, we could sit down and watch whatever's on, but that (by definition) is less appealing than our favourite shows.

      Actually that's a good point. The broadcast flag could farther limit casual TV watching. You see an add for new program that looks interesting, but you're not sure if it's worth watching. Maybe it'll be your new favorite show, maybe you'll never want to see it again. So record it and watch it later right? Well if they now MAKE you sit and watch this new show which MIGHT be okay, then many people will probably just not watch it at all. Too bad for them I guess. Maybe people will just have to pick up hobbies other than watching TV.

    2. Re:Broadcast Flag by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Funny

      Japan doesn't have a problem with obesity

      That's because Japanese food tastes like rubber. I'm here. I'm eating it. I'm crying. I saw a cooking show where kids put CORN into a chocolate cake. My TV still hasn't recovered from the foot I put into it for showing me THAT travesty.

    3. Re:Broadcast Flag by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually that's a good point. The broadcast flag could farther limit casual TV watching
      What you're advocating is social manipulation of a society using the legal process.

      What part of Stalinist Russia do you want to live in?
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  4. Interoperable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when was interoperability a goal for access protection systems? Surely they mean inoperable!

  5. song in your head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sorry but that song you can't get out of your head is in violation of copyright laws. We are going to install a little chip now to ensure we are compensated.

    1. Re:song in your head by klang · · Score: 5, Funny

      ..can't that little chip just turn off the damn song?

      Now THAT is a service I would pay for!

  6. LOL!!! They will price themselves out of the marke by DenDave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine Provider A sells music and other media content without restrictive technology. Provider B has strong restrictions. Artists who publish with B will not benefit from "bootleg cassettes" to gain popularity (think of Metallica...)... Artists who publish with A become popular, Provider A ends up selling the most popular artists....who makes the money?

    --
    -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
  7. What is this television thing by exnuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    What is this television thing anyway? Does it involve moving away from my computer?

    1. Re:What is this television thing by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny
      What is this television thing anyway? Does it involve moving away from my computer?


      It's just like your MPEG porn only there's multiple streams all available from a single input source.

      There's not much selection though. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. Protecting Analog? by malcomvetter · · Score: 5, Interesting


    from TFA:
    "An Internet-delivered movie, downloaded to a PC, can now be protected on analog video playback out of a PC"

    They're actually concerned with someone outputting a digital format (MPG, DIVX, WMV, etc.) to an Analog source like a VCR? C'mon ... who does that?

    I thought the purpose of ripping the media was to have a perfect (or near perfect) digital copy ...

    1. Re:Protecting Analog? by BorgDrone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess this is about legal video-download services with all kinds of nasty DRM stuff. They're trying to close the 'analog loophole'.

      Which, offcourse it bullsh*t, there have been 'video signal enhancers' for ages that filter the macrovision protection out of the signal.

  9. great wedding by imr · · Score: 5, Funny

    The master of the eye-killer blinking videotapes gets in bed with my unfair lady of blue screens of death.
    If there have any offsprings, shoot'em.

  10. It's coming. by DoubleDangerClub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Instead of the XBox and a PC in a home, I think they're on the way to the XBoxPC. It would make sense. The XBox plays games at a great speed with great graphics, so what's to stop MS from making their operating system run out of the XBox ONLY? They could drop licenses with other companies and force everyone to beg and pay more if they want a non-XBox version of Windows. Scary thought, but I think they might be taking a hint from apple and I think they're going to try this "digital lifestyle" thing with making proprietary hardware for Windows. Time to move to Linux I guess. *shrug*

    --
    Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
    Try Ubuntu FREE! --
  11. Re:LOL!!! They will price themselves out of the ma by teksno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lars after he sues everyone else.

  12. Buy now, only legal until July 1 by gatzke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HDTV equipment manufactured or bought before July 1 without respect for the broadcast flag will be grandfathered in.

    If you ever thought you wanted a hdtv pvr, buy a card now or you will not be legal.

    http://www.pchdtv.com/

    I just got mine, and I am working through the mythtv setup...

    I assume they have to allow for future tivo / pvrs for HDTV that will respect the broadcast flag. But what kind of respect does that entail? Some programs cannot be time-shifted at all? I really dont' know what is to come.

    1. Re:Buy now, only legal until July 1 by gatzke · · Score: 5, Informative
      From http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/


      The Broadcast Flag:

      The essence of the FCC's rule is in 47 CFR 73.9002(b) and the following sections: "No party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements and Demodulator Robustness Requirements."

      The Demodulator Compliance Requirements insist that all HDTV demodulators must listen for the flag (or assume it to be present in all signals). Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability. Flagged content may be recorded only by "Authorized" methods, which may include tethering of recordings to a single device.

      The Demodulator Robustness Requirements are particularly troubling for open-source developers. In order to prevent users from gaining access to the full digital signal, the FCC ties the hands of even sophisticated users and developers. Devices must be "robust" against user access or modifications that permit access to the full digital stream. Since open-source drivers are by design user-modifiable, a PC tuner card with open-source drivers would not be "robust." It's not even clear that binary-only drivers would qualify.

      Together, these rules mean that future PVR developers will have to get permission from the FCC and/or Hollywood before building high-definition versions of the TiVo. The products that they do build will be epoxied against user experimentation and future improvement. The rules mean that open-source developers and hobbyists will be shut out of the HDTV loop altogether.
    2. Re:Buy now, only legal until July 1 by bdcrazy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anybody else read that a couple times and read it as Riscombabulator Remodulator Requirements?

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    3. Re:Buy now, only legal until July 1 by sadler121 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it be really that hard to reverse engineer an HDTV tuner, possibly enough to be able to flash the card with custom software that ignores the flag? I don't think so, and I would love to have an opportunity to attempt it, just for the mere educational value of doing so...

      Of course doing that would be illegal in the US, so would have to be done subvertly inside the US, or outside the US (no purpose to do it outside the US ;-))

      *sigh* guess I need to makes plans to immigrate back to the land of my fore fathers IE Europe (though this was affirmed when the American majority showed how stupid they are by electing Bush for a second term, I dunno if I could stand being around the likes of idiots such as that...)

    4. Re:Buy now, only legal until July 1 by TheRealSync · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The rules mean that open-source developers and hobbyists will be shut out of the HDTV loop altogether.
      That is, the developers in the US will be shut out. There are no laws permitting developers everywhere else developing the appropriate drivers, and making them available online.
      It would probably be illegal for US citizens to download such drivers, so I guess they won't... :-)
      --
      -- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
    5. Re:Buy now, only legal until July 1 by generalleoff · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm going to do it just becose I want to. I refuse to let somone tell me what I can and cant do with my own equipment even if theres a chance of landing me in prison. I dont like that fair use of my system is impared by the logic that just ebcose I can do it must mean I will do it. If I hook my xbox or PS2 to my capture card the macrovision of those devices will kick in imparing my rightfull use of there DVD playback features and thats just total bullshit and I wont stand for it.

      Some people in this subject are talking about how the cirrent distribution methods are quickly becoming obsolite. I say they have been obsolite for a good 10 years now. I myself have not owned a TV set sence sometime around 1988 or 1999 prefering to just use a PC with a capture card becose of the freedom it provided me.

      I much prefer to watch TV on my time rather then there time and I think just about everyone but the media industry feels this way. The idea of a 500 channel universe is totaly obsolite and a single channel universe with on demand content (for a fair monthly fee of course) is the way things want to go. But again the media industry is afraid of chaing. therew afraid of loosing there power over us so they refuse to allow it to happen.

      Why is the RIAA so pissed about P2P networks and cd recording technology? It's not becose there loosing money to piracy of there current artists but rather cuz they see the threat it has on them gaining future artists. Today any gaurage band can have a CD totaly bypasing the large record lables that would just fuck them in the ass on a reguler basis.

      Here are 2 good examples of the binifits of watching TV on ones own pace rather then a set schedual. Fox had 2 shows (Family Guy and Futurama) and these shows did extreamly poor on there network run. Mostly becose of missmanagemt and other typical TV poltics. Now these shows get released in whole on DVD for a fair price and all of a sudden 2 bombs become 2 of the best selling DVDs ever. One would expect fox and the rest of the industry to notice this fact but they dont. They continue with there old ways of fucking people in the ass. Fox could totaly release straight to DVD seasions of futurama (12 episodes ever 8 months or so) and people would eat it up. I know I would. But ofcourse they dont...

      Anyway lets get back to being more on topic. PVR flags and analog protections. My current HTPC setup is only analog as I havent yet seen the need to upgrade it to HDTV but yes I have macrovision disabled on all analog inputs and outputs (though I havent used the TV_Out in a long time). My DVD drive is RPC and region free as well with a firmware hack and I use AnyDVD to remove CSS protection just becose I want to even tohugh I dont acctualy bother to rip my DVDs. I just feel it shoudlent be there in the first place.

      I bet there loosing far more money to develope futile protection schemes then they are to the acctual piracy itself. The quest to stop piracy is just a waste of time and money and in the long run i think the general public will wise up to what there doing and just stop buying DVD and music and do something other then watch TV. The media industry would rather shoot themsewlves in the foot then change with the rest of the world and give the public what they ask for.

  13. Broadcast flag outside US by Pofy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, how will this work outside US? Or will they just assume the laws are the same in every country? And if it only applies to US, how do one determine properly if the computer in question IS in the US? I guess they simply implement it for everyone and won't care about laws in different countries.

    1. Re:Broadcast flag outside US by OmniVector · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that really is a damn good question, but unfortunately i think i know the answer. if other countries refuse to product the HDTV shows from the US, they just won't agree to liscense them until said country has laws protecting their content. in essence they will bully the other countries into adopting similarly fucked up laws.

      --
      - tristan
  14. There is always a way... by pdaoust007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it amusing to see these companies invest millions in technology and licensing to fight a battle they know they are not going to be able to win.

    All it takes is one person to circumvent the protection (we all know how good macrovision has been in the past...) or to have access to source material to distribute it to millions using P2P.

    They need to change their business model, give us what we want (DRM free mp3 or similar) for a reasonable price or eventually suffer the inevitable... (which could be a good thing too, the music industry reborn)

  15. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regular users don't really contribute that much to piracy. Lets ignore the people downloading things for a moment and concentrate on the uploaders (the real problem). The people distributing most of the content are "hard core" pirates. They are the one's who will be paying lots of money for ways to get around copyprotection (or manually doing it themselves). I should imagine that as soon as a method of getting around the broadcast flag is published every single one of the main rippers nd distributers will be using it widely and carrying like they are right now. Sure, home users wont be able to record off of the TV/Radio until startups start offering the hacks for a small fee, which wouldn't take too long.

    "DRM never has been about absolute control. It has, from its inception, been about making piracy enough of an inconvenience that regular user don't bother to do it."
    And they usually don't. They just get the material they want off of somebody else who does bother.
    DRM schemes ONLY stop regular users (and even then, only until someone writes up an easy to use program/utility that the public can use) while they are a mild inconvenience to the professionals.
    It only takes one unscrupulous person to make one DRM-less copy of something (be it actual material or a box that ignores DRM) and distribute it and then everybody can have a copy.

    I'm tired of the industry trying to use technology to solve a social problem.

    --
    Silly rabbit
  16. Same old story by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're focusing on how to prevent consumers from accessing material when they should be focusing on making it easier for consumers to pay for material. In the days of Napster's popularity, if the record companies decided to integrate a payment subscription system with high-speed downloading servers, then they wouldn't have to worry about piracy. People would pay to be able to download MP3s with no proper tags and no errors at the maximum speed their connections could handle rather than unreliable and unstable P2P sources. They could have worked on producing software for ISPs to use for automating the billing process. They could have bought into Napster during it's popularity and turned it into a subscription service, and even if other P2P applications were around, Napster had brand-name recognition that people would go for. But instead on focusing on how to use the technology's potential, they sent in the lawyers to block it. Brand name has more pull for consumers than cost-effectiveness. Just look at sneakers- people don't try to buy the cheapest ones around but go with expensive brand names instead.

  17. Best Move Ever! by Luscious868 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This would be the best move ever ... for open source that is. The minute my friends can no longer rip their CD's to mp3's, they'll ditch Windows and move on to something else. I'm serious. None of my friends are techies. They use their systems to browse the web, write email and the occasional word processing document and to manage their music and photo collections. If Microsoft ever were to cripple their OS in such a manner, they'd jump ship in a heartbeat. Especially if the alternative OS and supporting software is free and can be installed on their current systems.

    1. Re:Best Move Ever! by sadler121 · · Score: 2

      Until Microsoft lobbies the US government to make Linux illegal because it circumvents Copy protection methods...

      I agree though, what they are proposing only, of course, affects the Operating System with a 99% home user share. Other small, but alternative OS's well obviously be able to circumvent this technology, that is until more people start using them. This is just what happened with Napster, Kaaza, eDonkey, and bit torrent.

      Of course what would really help Linux is if the EU, China and other countries outside the US start vigorously using Linux. So even if Linux is illegal in the US, it is still available outside the US for download inside the US (just make sure to use a proxy server outside the US to get it and use strong encryption back to your home computer in the US or you'll get thrown in a Federal "pound you in the ass" penitentiary.

      Of course if they neo conservatives, radical Christian bigots have there way, the US will have there own "Great Firewall of China" set up, that will filter out "harmful" sites (such as Porn and illegal OS's like Linux) and when that happens, I'll I have to say is fuck the US, I am going to move else where, somewhere where the government is not for the corporations and by the corporations, but for actual people...

  18. Sigh... by huge+colin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's perceivable, it's copyable. They never seem to learn.

  19. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you miss the point as well.

    The point of the broadcast flag is that the user says, "Hey I'll record the Pay per view X on the DVR so I can watch it later or so I can watch it with my wife" The DRM prevents him from doing this.

    He instead just goes out and rents the DVD.

    The DRM and the ways to circumvent it are not convenient enough to get him to commit the act of piracy. (and playing movies from a computer to a TV is not really that common in the mainstream)

    Thus it add a layer of inconvenience to committing the act thus dissuading people from doing it.

    There will always be pirates. That is a given. The inherit law of DRM is that it will be broken, eventually. That is why what I said above is insightful DRM has never been about complete control because even the movie studios know that is impossible. DRM has and will continue to be about making the piracy enough of an inconvenience that the mainstream will not do it.

    As an aside,

    By the way it is the convenience of P2P and bittorrent that bugs them, not the fact they exist. If P2P and BT were tiny do you really think they would be so up in arms. It is the fact that anyone can click next on a windows box to get through a default install and then have access to huge amounts of pirated data.

  20. Microsoft anti-rip technology by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 2, Funny

    It sounds almost as funny as Microsoft security.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  21. Live performance, anyone? by gelfling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of this 'sue them until they bleed, and put a coin slot on the very air they fucking breathe' mentality I think will drive people to more live performances. Now unless the MPAA thinks it can license me my own ears we're probably going to be ok.

  22. Maybe I'm a dim by CaptainZapp · · Score: 3, Funny
    But I'm still unclear about the concept of DRMing analogue signals.

    I mean heck! At one point you have to disseminate an analogue signal to which we are able to listen to.

    Methinks that the only feasible technology is to pour tar into the ears of every citizen on earth.

    And that really seems a bit intrusive.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Maybe I'm a dim by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's probably some kind of watermarking that may be just above or below the audio band or hidden using the spectral masking effect or something. I'm guessing here.

      This is probably why MS is key in this. They effectively own most of the worlds home computers so, as far as most poor souls are concerned, they decide what the computer can and can't do on behalf of Macrovision.

      This is great news for open source though because no one else's software is going to take the slightest bit of notice of any watermarking in the music or video.

    2. Re:Maybe I'm a dim by ajs318 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No ..... the ultimate rights-management solution is PharmaGard (TM). Unlike conventional scrambling and encryption technologies, which work by unscrambling the picture and taking a leap of faith that nothing can intercept it on its way to the screen, with PharmaGard (TM) there is never a recoverable, unencrypted signal: the final decryption takes place in the viewer's brain.

      The secret of PharmaGard (TM) is a special pill, containing a phenylethylamine-type {= ecstasy-like} drug that you have to take before you watch the film. The first few minutes of the film are neurolinguistic programming -- basically, reprogramming your mind so that, under the perception-distorting influence of the drug, it unscrambles the picture -- embedded into an advertisement sequence. There is no possible way for the viewer not to see this sequence if they are going to see the film, so this advertising space would be worth a fortune. As long as the drug's effect lasts, the film appears unscrambled through your altered perception. When it wears off, your eyes go back to normal.

      Anyone can copy a film protected with PharmaGard (TM). But only people who have taken the special drug can watch it. If viewers invite friends to watch with them, their friends will have to take some too. A stash of pills are provided with the movie; if you want to watch it again, you have to buy more of them from your local retailer.

      PharmaGard (TM) also provides built-in age-restriction. The pills for different-certificate movies are formulated slightly differently. The pills provided with an "18" film will contain an additional substance which reacts with Human Growth Hormone at the levels found in under-18-year-olds to induce undesirable side-effects e.g. nausea, breathing difficulty, loss of balance &c. There will be less of this substance in a "15" film pill to account for the fact that a 15-year old's body will contain a higher level of growth hormone; but the "15" pill will not be a powerful enough psychedelic to allow the consumer's brain to unscramble an "18" film.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  23. This could help us. by Darthmalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait until Ms. Soccer Mom finds out that she can't tape American Idol or survivor and Joe Sixpack cant tape the game while he works the late shift.

    We may finally get the public outcry we need to get rid of the broadcast flag and it's ilk.

    1. Re:This could help us. by Recovery1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the time that Soccer Mom and Joe Sixpack find they can't tape their favorite shows (assuming it ever got to that point), it would be too late.

    2. Re:This could help us. by Recovery1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure it can, but once a law has been put into place and the marketplace has been flooded with these copy protected devices, do you think it will be easy to just suddenly go back to the way things were? Big business won't be inclined to let that happen. Lawmakers don't like to repeal old laws because in some ways its like admitting they made a mistake.

      No, it's best to bite this demon before it gets its fangs dug into us.

  24. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by Psion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And why should the consumer not have the ability to record the Pay Per View X on the DVR? It seems the business model of Pay Per View is inherently flawed in that it requires the mandatory adoption of a technology that prevents the consumer from seeking the most convenient use of technology. Since the Betamax decision, consumers have had the legal "right" to record shows for their own enjoyment later. Now, because a business model shows up that depends on the customer not being able to do that, the entertainment industry should have its way and treat all customers as potential criminals?

  25. Macrovision by Matrix2110 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would like to weigh in with a comment on these assholes.

    Macrovision has been touting their "Secure" tech for a number of years.

    It has been broken time and time again.

    I have a hard time believing that Microstupid is dumb enough to buy into this.

    After the early efforts to get a halfway good anti-spyware package together via the buying of Giant. They have to sink down to the low-lifes like Macrovision.

    This is why I keep refusing the DRM "upgrades" to my media player 7.

    Firefox just kicks IE up one side and down the other IMHO.

    Put it this way, in the big trade shows. Macrovision employs a very humble booth.

    I had such high hopes for the Bill Gates security speech.

    Oh, well.

  26. Doesn't really matter if they do. by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More and more people are moving over to HD sets. While some lucky people might live in an area where they can get a half dozen OTA channels, people who get satellite or cable can't use those products.

    Cable companies are already moving to simulcast all analog channels in digital form. At some point to reclaim bandwidth they'll drop all but the 2-13 channels from their analog service anyway, and people will have to use CableCard-compatible sets or digital cable boxes.

    MythTV will never support those, as the likelihood is that there will never be a cablecard adapter for a PC, precisely because its intended to prevent interception of the digital content. Who knows if Tivo will survive long enough to come out with a CableCard unit, and who knows if the broadcast flag won't be implemented in hardware.

  27. Re:LOL!!! They will price themselves out of the ma by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Imagine Provider A sells music and other media content without restrictive technology. Provider B has strong restrictions... who makes the money?

    The provider with a strong backlist and the most wanted artists and titles.

    Provider A is not Pixar or Warner Brothers, which means that it won't be shipping The Incredibles or the next Harry Potter.

  28. What do I say now? by Hobadee · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, normally I would make a comment stating that it's a bad thing to make a deal with the devil, however in this case, we have 2 devils making deals with each other.

    --
    ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
  29. Bob, Alice and Carol by colinleroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looks like they didn't listen well enough to Cary Doctorow explaining them the basics of cryptography. Cryptography is used to protect secrets exchanged by Bob and Alice and protect them from Carol's prying eyes. When the recipient of the message, Bob, is also the pirate, Carol, it means the pirate gets the cypher, the cypher text, and the key. As Doctorow explains, better than me, this simply cannot work, end of story.

    --
    blah
  30. Broadcast Issues by tarsi210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem with the broadcast flag is that no distributor is ever going to err on the side of openness. What modern company would? Look at the EULAs and contracts and so forth that companies pad themselves with in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits and issues with IP and ownership!

    Do you really think that there are going to be lots of broadcasts conducted where the operators go, "Ya know, we probably don't need to prevent someone from recording this. Let it go."

    No, we're screwed. Every program has at least something that the producer or the distributor will consider "theirs" and will therefore decide to limit it. Even something as simple as a logo overlay (a-la SciFi Channel, USA, et al) might be considered a "branding" and therefore something that would prevent redistribution. Probably the ONLY thing that would even come close to being open would be things like the State of the Union broadcast -- but even that would be considered proprietary, because it was a *particular* broadcast by a *particular* station with their *particular* boneheaded reporters struggling to come up with something intelligent to comment about.

    I dunno. I just think the broadcast flag is a false sense of fairness when it'll turn out to be nothing but solid DRM that everyone will get screwed with.

    --
    Blog,Twitter
  31. DRM and Star Trek: TNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, I just realized why, in TNG, they never listened to anything but classical music and never watched anything other than plays.

    Copyrights and analog locks trapped all modern culture in outdated media that ended up being lost to the ages.

    And people say that series lacked foresight.

    All I needed to know about digital rights, I learned from Star Trek.

    1. Re:DRM and Star Trek: TNG by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought it was because the crew and officers of the starships were paid so poorly that they couldn't afford the exhorbitant license fees on modern (post "Steamboat Willy") content, so they just stuck with stuff that was free.

      This also explains why the Federation doesn't seem to have much of a civilian presence, and only Starfleet ships are out running around: everyone is slaving away at mindless jobs planetside to make enough money to pay their license fees.

  32. Boring... by TractorBarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And assuming they somehow manage to come up with a technological miracle and I actually can't rip it (unlikely) I'll re-record it via my amps digital out. Failing that I'll use my DAT machine to do the DA conversion from my amps output and transfer that to my PC.

    Hell... in the very case worst I'll rerecord it using my amps analogue outs. And you bet I'll p2p this stuff out of spite if nothing else.

    SCMS/DRM/Copy protection etc. etc. etc. What a waste of time.

    Still at least I suppose it's keeping some tech people in jobs coming up with this totally unworkable, unnecessary and consumer unfriendly crap.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  33. Microsoft IPTV by Shuasha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole reason they're doing this isn't so Windows can do DRM. Both SBC and Verizon are going ot be using MS software on their set top boxes to deliver IPTV. I guess they need some kind of DRM in the box.
    This is no different from encryption on HDMI signals from the current crop of HDTV boxes. As far as I know, nobody has turned on the encryption, but the option is there.

  34. Re:insightful flamebiat, you pick. by JWW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its not pay per view that I'm worried about. Pay per view is crap, I won't do pay per view. As noted before, you can just rent the DVD and then you don't have to watch the show at "their" time.

    My worry is that eventually the networks will get into the act and throw the copy bit on for a major network show. They'll do this to "defend" their coveted timeslot for one of their best shows. What happens next is that you will have millions of very, very pissed off people who will not be able to record their favorite program later.

    The network will of course say "tough" and demand its viewers on its terms at its time. It is their dream TV back to the, watch it only when its on way from before VCRs. They'll finally be able to kill off recording like they so desperately want to. They will be happier then hell.

    Until....

    What I believe will happen next is that millions of people will put so much pressure on Congress. Yes, I'm serious about this. It will become one of the most important issues in the country. The media will try to poo poo it, but some will cover the controversy and word of mouth will be rampant for this.

    Congress will be forced to do something to restore our fair use rights. I don't see any congressperson who doesn't restore our rights gettting reelected. Screw social security, if I can't record CSI, there will be hell to pay. It sounds silly but its true.

    Its also more serious than that. If they stop the recording of TV, they will be emboldened. We will copmletely lose control of our TVs, our music, and , worst of all our PCs. We will lose control of all our devices, constantly asking (paying for) permission to do what they allow. Its utterly evil. You would think that an industry that turned its worst nightmare into a multi-billion dollar business 20 years ago would realize that they have exactly the same chance today, but they're trying the same thing today they did then. If they suceed this time, they will finally earn their reward they didn't get last time which is the death of their industry.

  35. Dumb... Da Dumb Dumb! by webzombie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok so these things called the PC were created and over time consumers really started to dig the FREE, or mostly FREE things they could do with them...

    Eventually this PC thing found a way to communicate with other PC things and then something wonderful happened... they all got connected and the internet was (re)born...

    Some new things were a little too close to breaking the law but were mostly tolerated because the big players... Microsoft especially were making and continue to make insanely gross amounts of money...

    This internet thing really started to catch on and consumers found LOTS of really cool uses for it. Email, games and sharing. Sharing jokes and greeting cards eventually became photos and music... in the meantime lots of folks realized that they didn't need big guys like Microsoft and they unleashed alternatives and Open Source software was (re)born... its mascot quickly became Linux.

    Back to the big guys... Most big guys missed the many opportunities the internet could offer their business models and instead turned to the "wise" politicians to see if this "sharing" thing could be stopped... The politicians thought long and hard and after a significant amount of cash-for-thought was spread around the DMCA was born.

    Ah the DMCA... pure genius... this gem makes tinkering, copying, sharing and most fair uses illegal... its pretty broad in scope and isn't well defined in intent but the big boys loved it because now they now had the perfect club to start smacking down any innovation that even appears to be threatening their empires.

    Well... all the money in Washington was just a bump in the road for free use, sharing and innovation so now the big boys have decided that everything must be locked down from start to finish... back to Washington for more spreading of the cash-for-thought and voila... the broadcast flag is born!

    This things is even more genius then most of the other road blocks to innovation any of the big boys could have thought of. The flag (required by ALL recording devices) will be controlled by whomever has the rights at the time... movie guys, software guys, distributors... hell even the cable guys can turn off recording access. Of course the cash spreaders assure this is NOT going to be the case but history proves otherwise. The flag will eventually bring us to the era of pay-per-recording at home... now how fuckin' sick is this concept. Oops... hope the charma cops were blinking!

    In the end what the legislators and big boys don't seem to realize is that without free and FAIR use and yes sharing, the internet would not have grow to its ginormous size and influence, without free and FAIR use and sharing the big boys like INTEL, Microsoft, game companies and even the movie boys would not have grow to such seemingly unstoppable empires... so if they take away the free and FAIR use of these technologies consumers will either find or create free and FAIR alterntives despite what laws these robber barons of the 21st century buy from those hopelessly corrupt legislators in Washington.

    There just doesn't seem logical that business is going to continue to grow by locking consumers out their right to fair use and by restricting access.

    In my country, copying and sharing for personal use is very much LEGAL and we still have BILLIONS made from the consumers herds. Yes, unfortunately there is still and large majority of the herd that doesn't realize the feed is free. Oh well... MOO!

  36. A New Hope. by Java+Ape · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read the headline as

    ...ensure their respective DRM and anti-rip technologies are inoperable,. . .

    The day suddenly seemed brighter, and hope arose in my heart. Then I read it again - (*SIGH*).

  37. A decent TBC makes this all immaterial by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Informative
    So, MS is going to license MV stuf to prevent analogue copying, eh? WHO THE FUCK CARES?

    All you need do is buy a cheap Time Base Corrector, and it strips all that crap out.

    So you have your player (to) your TBC (to) your recorder, and YOU'RE DONE.

    Sure - you lose a generation through analogue distortion, but we're talking analogue striaght from the gate here anyway!

    Here's a question, though: does anyone know what HDTV TBC units go for lately? The last time I looked, it was WAY expensive. I can usually find NTSC units of very decent quality (component in and out) for less than $400, crappy units (composite in and out) for around $200 and change.

    What MS and the MPAA and RIAA don't realise is that we professionals in the field- the people who MAKE the crap these weasels sell - Don't Do DRM. WE REQUIRE clean, clear, free signal, unencumbered by mythical notions of Intellectual Property extending beyond point of sale and NOWHERE to be found in a professional studio (except in the narrow case of certain software packages that require dongles and whatnot). And by extension, SO DO THE WEASELS - this whole RIAA/MPAA nonsense is such utter hypocrisy, it's painful to watch. It's like watching a belligerent retard beating up his pets...

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:A decent TBC makes this all immaterial by AGTiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do HD analog signals contain Macrovision? I doubt it, there aren't even any component-input recording devices available on the market, likely due to intense pressure from the media companies.

  38. bullying by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, the bullying may backfire. Like when the UN forced the US to change the laws on steel tariffs. This was basically done by the European Union. Spain may have only one vote to the United States one vote. But Spain backed by the EU has 26 votes. We've also seen the EU do things to Microsoft that no single country could.

    We may see this as other regions with similar socio-economic cultures decide to get together for their common benefit. My near term predictions are a Latin-American Union and an Asia-Pacific Union.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern