Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Build Your Own TV Without Broadcast Flags

Posted by Zonk on from the conscientious-objector dept.

doom writes "An account of an event sponsored by the EFF, a "roll your own television" build-in. The San Francisco Bay Guardian has coverage in an article entitled Build Your TV!". From the article: "According to the FCC, the flag is going to ease the nation's transition from today's analog televisions to tomorrow's high-definition televisions. What exactly does it mean for a government agency to "ease" the transition from one kind of TV signal to another? In this case, it seems to mean making the entertainment industry feel very warm and fuzzy inside." The EFF's efforts against the flag have been covered before on Slashdot.

17 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. surely this is unnecessary? by dhbiker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought that judges told the broadcast regulator that the flag was unlawful? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4290315.stm

    Hence rolling your own tv would be entirely redundant?

    1. Re:surely this is unnecessary? by kinema · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The way I understand it is that the broadcast flag isn't illegal but the way it came to be mandated. The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require it's implementation. This doesn't mean that Congress can't pass a bill making it law. Disclaimer: IANAL

    2. Re:surely this is unnecessary? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They didn't say that. Slashdot managed to misreport what happened several times.

      What happened was that the lawyer challenging the FCC went before the panel of judges, and they asked questions attacking his position. Then his time was up, and the FCC lawyer went before the panel, and the judges askwed questions attacking the FCC's position.

      Judges do this all the time. It forces the lawyer in front of them to respond to questions he wishes no one was asking. If he has a good argument, he can provide good answers to the hard questions. It's just a technique to elicit information. It doesn't indicate anything about the judge's actual position.

      Plus the court won't issue their ruling on the matter for several months still.

      So the big hubbub was over nothing.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  2. Kit TVs by necrodeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems to me that this could be the begining of a Kit TV era. Kits that would include a broadcast flag 'chip' that could be mistakenly left out by the user. At least that would be one way to skirt the system - albiet legal ramifications would likely exist with this model - I'm sure others will be fourthcomming.

    1. Re:Kit TVs by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The trick with Kit TV is that none of the single parts itself are able to receive HDTV, thus none of them falls under the provision. It's the sum of all parts that makes the receiver, and this one is never been "distributed", just the parts of it.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  3. Courts by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If things keep going the way they did on that last court opinion, we may not have to deal with this sillyness.

    Seriously though, I predict broadcastless recievers will become as common as regionless DVD players, and that it'd be another enormous flop.

  4. Any Canadians know... by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... if we can buy non-BF ready TVs in .ca after they become illegal in the US? It's ~10% the size of the US market but it'd be nice to have HTDV for watching DVDs etc.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Any Canadians know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not likely. Modchipped consoles are illegal to import from Canada and I don't know of anyone who has had a problem doing so through UPS/Fedex or even the Post Office. It appears that customs doesn't care about modchips or tuners that don't comply with the broadcast flag, only things like drugs and nukes.

  5. Mod Chips by mkraft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So when do we start seeing mod chips for TVs?

  6. Grape-juice bricks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I applaud this as a demonstration and hope it will have some effect in educating the public, the mere fact that hobbyists can evade a technical protection measure is not, in itself, of much social importance.

    During Prohibition, Californian vineyards openly marketed bricks of compressed, dried Zinfandel grapes, together with a strongly worded warning to the consumer explaining that they should not any circumstances mix the grapes to five gallons of water, five pounds of sugar, and yeast.

    If the **AA's can create a climate of fear and create the impression that legitimate fair use is illegal, they win--even if devices that circumvent the broadcast flag become as available as marijuana.

  7. Maybe it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One of the examples given is about having a copy of a TV show to watch on a trip overseas. Given the size of the screen you're probably using, you won't be able to tell the difference between a high quality hdtv recording and a lower quality (like the current analog) one.

    The last time I checked, the cable operators weren't excited about the greater quality of hdtv, they were excited about the ability of a digital signal to squeeze more channels onto the co-ax. The quality would still be poor.

    Anyway, there are few movies where I find the inconvenience of going to a theater worthwhile. (The theater gives me much better quality than my 22" tv of course.) Based on that, I don't care if I can only record analog quality signals. They're 'good enough'.

    With hdtv, I and many others would be over-served consumers. As long as we can record low quality, we don't care.

    1. Re:Maybe it doesn't matter by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given the size of the screen you're probably using, you won't be able to tell the difference between a high quality hdtv recording and a lower quality (like the current analog) one.

      Sure you will. Even most portables have a much greater resolution than a standard TV.

  8. I wonder by rbanffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long before the broadcast flag is used to avoid recording news? This government seems more than a little bit inclined to consider images of, say, Guantanamo bay or prisioner torture sensitive information...

    I only hope this idea doesn't catch.

    --
    http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  9. Mass system integration on chip by awfar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To be economical, HDTVs must shoot for massive integration on chip. Digital TV means exactly that.

    Unless you have access to xray machine, the ability to open a chip and identify and inspect traces, and just generally reverse engineer the chipset, and then reprogram it, it is a sealed component and will be very difficult to circumvent.

    Not saying it couldn't be done, but a frontal assault would be extremely difficult, so as always, a backdoor located would be the approach.
    But they know that.

  10. Re:Tuner, not the TV- Broadcast flag misunderstood by crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm hurt here. I use MythTV to record HDTV, much like you use your HDTiVo. However, because MythTV is open source, it is impossible to have it encrypt the outgoing signal using HDCP, even if I'm using a DVI connection to my HDTV.

    Further, I have a CRT-based HDTV, and when using the DVI input, it has far too much overscan. If I use component output, then I can adjust the overscan, but I can't with DVI, so going digital isn't the best option.

    And even further, my TV has only one DVI input, so if I have multiple HD sources, then I have to recable my TV to change sources (like, say, a HDTiVo, satellite receiver, and broadcast ATSC tuner).

  11. Re:We've seen this before... by davidstrauss · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Technically, copying music from a CD without maintaining this flag is in violation of the DMCA...

    I'm not so sure about that. It's not like you have to decrypt something. All you have to do is write a disk copier that either ignores both bits or duplicates both bits. The DMCA doesn't force you to write software that affirms copy-protection technology, just software that doesn't go out of its way to circumvent copy-protection technology. (IANAL)

  12. Re:I hope that's all it means by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thats how i *started* on my "evil pirate ripping" ways...

    Put DVD in computer to watch it. "You cant play this on a device with a TV out" (or it just dosent work) Hmmm Im not even allowed to *watch* the DVD i own...

    Google is my friend, lets see what it has to say... Dvd-decryptor will help... hmmm yup. I can now watch DVD with just a 500kb file. Google also helped me find Div-x at the same time... so i dont have to go though that crap every time. So i am forced to (easily) break the law just to do some perfectly lawful activity.

    How much respect for the media companies do you think i have now...

    At least in australia i havnt seen these lockin DVD's. i get annoyed when i have to watch a minute of intro just to get to a menu.