Slashdot Mirror
Who Controls Your Television?
Nurgled writes "The EFF, reportedly the only consumer rights organization to be granted membership of the Digital Video Broadcasting consortium, reports that TV and movie industry representatives have been pushing for DRM in the DVB technologies. This in itself is not entirely unexpected, but these talks have been going on in closed meetings. The EFF itself has been blocked from reporting on this until now as a condition of being allowed to attend. The proposed technologies allow rights-holders and broadcasters to severely hamper your ability to make use of broadcast television content, including the ability to retroactively blacklist any devices that consumers may already own that act in ways undesirable to the rights-holder or broadcaster. The EFF concludes that public interest and consumer rights advocates must fight back."
I control the "OFF" switch. TV is less and less important to me with each passing day.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Hoard recievers and other hardware built before 2003 NOW. Hoard hardware built buy manufacturers outside of this DVB consortium. Then boycott the CONTENT of companies that use the broadcast flag.
The one good thing about capitalism is that companies that try to grab more rights for themselves than for their customers go out of business and get replaced with companies that don't. There will be pirate stations that will broadcast analog still, and there will be pirate content creators who create digital content without the broadcast flag, or better yet with all the bits turned on.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The taxpayers will own your TV set in 2009 if you are still watching OTA Broadcast.
Yay for the continued fleecing of Americans over this shift all of which benefits the coffers of the government when they resell the spectrum for billions.
artisan chapbook makers, live children puppet-shows, and, of course, Linux.
Seriously, if this crap goes down, I'm going back to reading Victorian novels -- and maybe watching the occasional episode of Entourage at a friends' house.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Is it me, or is "retroactively blacklist" the most unpleasant piece of this? So if I am a good-user who does nothing untoward, I would risk having my TV no longer speak to my DVR because a nephew came over and had had his X-box-cum-torrent-seed plugged in? Yuck.
I prefer technology which makes it easier to do what one wants to do, rather than harder.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Well, some mysterious guy keeps telling me that he controls both the horizontal and the vertical.
Idiots. The more they push people away with their DRM bullshit, the more people are going to pirate shit off the internet. I can absolutely guarantee the MOMENT any of this is implemented, I will not be watching any of the TV shows that use it. I will simply download ALL my TV shows (instead of just some of them) and the TV people can kiss my ass. :)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Reminds me of an old Max Headroom episode
Why not let the market take care of it? If these overly restrictive DRM terms turn off enough people then the market itself will force these companies to open up their systems more. Why is this something we need to fight? If these DRM terms do NOT lead to lower sales then it reflects the people don't really care about their media being free in the first place.
Is this a case of "fair use" activists trying to genuinely protect our rights or perhaps thinking they speak for everyone when they really don't?
Which is it?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Janie Crane: "Edison... an off switch!"
Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!"
- from Max Headroom, Episode 1.6, Blanks
Every year, another episode of Max Headroom comes true.
1.1: Blipverts - now we have ads designed to look OK at both regular speed, and at DVR-fast-forward "2 seconds" speeds.
1.2: Rakers - what's the difference between Raking and other "extreme sports" or "Wildest Police Videos"?
1.3: Body Banks - we now purchase organs harvested from Chinese prisoners
1.4: Security Systems - live, real-time monitoring of citizens, walled communities, etc.
1.5: War - both the Yugoslavian unpleasantness and Gulf War II appear to have been engineered for purposes of getting good ratings
1.6: Blanks - anyone without papers is "blank", and subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, and disappearance.
Anyone want to take on the last 6-7 episodes?
Given that governments routinely roll over to this group (and groups like it), you can't fault them for trying for the whole enchilada. Why wouldn't they, when they've yet to be smacked down over all their requests, and as corporations, they have incredible patience to keep pushing the same requests over and over again.
... but I'm guessing it's pretty accurate.
... if I was the majors, I'd fear the next generation who doesn't care one whit about "their" content.
If I wasn't sadly jaded, I'd have put the article down to outrageous hyperbole
However, I think they are missing the big point. YouTube is successful not because it has clips and full shows of copyrighted material, but because it's chock full of stuff - amateur and professionally done - that's free.
I've watched how my kids use it (9 & 12, and the next big consumer generation) and they watch stuff that people posted that they'd done themselves.
TV is becoming less relevant to us old folks, who grew up on it
Kids aren't "into" shows as they have been in the past, and will skip or watch an episode of something they see in passing on TV on a whim - when they bother to have it on at all.
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
Complaints about this kind of stuff are ridiculous. It's like the complaints about Walmart. Sure, people complain before it comes to down, but then they shop there anyway. You know, if no one shops there, they will not be there for very long. Same thing with content. If the terms of use are so bad, then do not use it. If enough people do not use it, then the content will either go away (generally not a bad thing considering that almost all of it sucks anyway), or the terms of use will become more favourable. The "problem" is that most people do not have the willpower or self control to just turn it off. They can't get by without their 24, Alias, Friends, or whatever other trash they are addicted to. JUST TURN IT OFF!!! The terms of use problem will then go away, one way or another.
My wife. Duh.
My wife, of course..
Because I don't have a TV, and I haven't had one for years.
Sure, I've got a DLP projector. And I do have an Avermedia A180 ATSC tuner for my Vista Media Center machine.. but that is mostly a "oh.. i guess ATSC kind of works" thing. My wife will watch 1-3 shows per week recorded over ATSC. If it stops working, it stops working.
Recently, I involved myself in a conversation about IPTV, how long it was taking to roll out, problems with it, and so on.
Sorry - I've been enjoying IPTV for a while now. I've got an HTPC, and I've got bittorrent. All the TV i care about comes in over IP packet.
The internet truly routes around defective nodes, irrespective of the reason for the defect. When they're political or social, the internet works just as well.
Sometimes the ATSC signal is weak enough (poor antenna placement, but fixing it is low-priority) that the recording is unwatchable. my wife will let me know and then i'll go find the torrent (usually within 12 hours of the show airing) and we'll have it in another 2 hours. That is IP TV and that is available today.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Markets only work when there are choices and there's no collusion between those you can choose between. The consortium reported on here is all about colluding to avoid market forces.
I think it's possible that new content providers and models will provide competition, and there's all kinds of completely different media now capturing attention share that television used to command, and so I suspect that if net neutrality isn't destroyed that there will be enough alternatives to keep markets working, if slowly while the dinosaurs struggle to change. But it's not going to be a sure thing, certainly nothing to get complacent about.
Tweet, tweet.
short example: the hr20 dvr from direct-tv records (when its not crashing..) HD content from satellite.
I had problems with mine and wanted to cancel. I called their CSR and asked to disconnect my service since I was sending this POS back.
now, I had the unit for a few days and there were some unwatched shows on its drive. shows I had planned to see before returning the unit.
you can guess what happened. as soon as they sent the 'disconnect' signal, AND while my unit was plugged in (key thing) - it proceeded to LOCK UP my saved shows and not let me watch them!
un freaking believable. and the CSR rep acted like it was a surprise to him. when all along, they knew they were gonna lock up your data if your bill goes unpaid (shows you DID pay for and have a right to still see!). or, if your dish goes down you may ALSO be unable to watch saved shows.
we are already 'here'. and it sucks.
and that was one reason why I cancelled. I now have my own HDTV tuner (hdhomerun from silicondust.com) and while I get no premium (hbo, etc) content, I do at least have control over the PURE MPEG shows that I save, with zero drm. in fact, I watch more PBS (in high def) now than I ever watched PBS before. in a way, this whole DRM stuff is probably HELPING free and open networks like PBS get more viewership!
just remember this issue about direct-tv and probably dish (and cable, too). if your receiver says 'no' then all saved shows are ALSO a 'no'. just know that going into it - if you decide to go in, at all.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If you sell someone a product, you don't get to follow them home and monitor their use of it. If they reverse engineer it, good for them. If they reproduce it, good for them. If they distribute or sell their reproductions, sue them. You can't prevent all your customers from using what they bought just to make sure none of them misuse it.
It's like selling a sandwich and requiring the buyer to agree not to open it to see what it's made of, and then following them home to make sure they don't open it because you're afraid they might learn how to make it themselves and post the recipe online along with *GASP* a picture of the sandwich! It doesn't matter that they told everyone that you made the sandwich, not them. It doesn't matter that this free publicity drew hundreds of new customers to your little sandwich shop. No, you're a paranoid control freak who thinks his sandwich sales will drop because people can get the recipe online, even though there's no evidence supporting this. In fact, you're considering selling the sandwich in locked lucite boxes that only expose the sandwich one bite at a time, and while you're at it, why don't you collect information on sandwich usage, kitchen appliances, travel habits, and social security numbers? All this security is costing so much, the sandwiches that should cost about $2.25 now cost about $19.95.
And now you're wondering why you're being outsold by those unprotected sandwich shops charging $2.25.
http://toykeeper.net/media/Max_Headroom/1 583
http://video.aol.com/video-category/max-headroom/
Until a couple of weeks ago, I was an honest downloader. By that I mean I applied the shareware ideals to the content I downloaded via torrents. What do I mean by this?
Let's look at two TV shows I enjoy very much, 'Lost' and 'Heroes'. For the past couple of years I would watch a TV program on my TiVo and then download the episode via torrent for reference if needed further on in the season. If I enjoyed the show "that" much, once the DVD set would come out, I would purchase said DVD set and delete the downloaded files. This was until a couple of weeks ago when my ISP informed me that an agent of NBC Universal was whining that I was downloading/sharing a torrent of an episode of Heroes. You bet I posted this anonymously. Those bastards are relentless in their pursuit of my misery.
Based on a lot of searching online, it appears the broadcast networks have stepped up their assault on people downloading broadcast TV episodes. So, this begs the following question: How would the broadcasters feel if the torrent creators left the commercials in the broadcast? Would they shut up and go away? My feeling is no. They want to ensure 100% that we are forced to watch the commercials. Of course we all know it would be very easy to just take them out of the file once we had them or move that slider forward 3-5 minutes.
I know advertising is main money driver of Television, but these media industries need to realize that society is changing their business model for them and all they are doing is resisting and creating terrible quality online content riddled with DRM which makes their TV episodes completely unwatchable in full screen resolutions.
I am so sick and tired of all this broadcast flag and control bullshit. All of the media industries have continued to piss me off at various times between 1999 and now. I don't see this stopping anytime soon either.
Those of us that are downloading TV to keep mid/long term are fans and the companies are doing nothing but ruining the fan experience.
'Give us what we want, or we'll go away'
'...and the geeks shall inherit the earth.'
It was this guy.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I found this out when I got a TiVo Series 3. I noticed that every show I recorded, including ones that were deemed copyright cleared (eg: cable in the classroom) were marked as "Copy Restricted" on my TiVo. This means that the show cannot be saved or copied off the Tivo.
I found out this was because my cable company was setting the CCI flag to 0x2 for all channels in my cable system with the exception of local broadcast stations. This means my local cable company was overriding the wishes of the content provider (in this case Cable in the Classroom) and copy protecting the content.
Other people have been restricted from even recording a channel to TiVo because the CCI flag was set to 0x3.
When I complained to my cable provider, Comcast, about them blanketly applying the CCI flag of 0x2 to everything they basically told me to shut up and take it.
I assume this is about putting back in the broadcast flag, right?
After all the equipment that has been sold without the broadcast flag, I assume they can't start encrypting broadcast signals, right?
This is just their attempt to have all hardware/software respect the broadcast flag.
I bought a HDTV compatible PC card (http://www.pchdtv.com/) years ago when the broadcast flag was supposed to hit. It got repealed and my wife yelled at me. Now, maybe I should get a spare?
What do we do? Write our congressman?
Is MCDonalds made a TurdBurger and nobody bought it, they'd soon cut it from the menu.
Oh, come on, man, the Arch Deluxe wasn't that bad.
You know, there are many folks out there (myself included) who, for example, don't need to "see every blade of grass and every drop of sweat" (as the ESPN-HD promo goes) -- I just need to follow the ball and see the damn score. Good old analog TV is good enough for me, and even a 2nd or 3rd generation VHS dub of a program I very much want to see is fine with me.
So, for those who don't need digital quality, and just want to watch the damn show, there is a simple way to make a copy for future viewing that circumvents any "flags" anyone puts on the shit [sarcasm ON](read carefully -- it's quite technical)[sarcasm OFF]:
Get a good quality flat-screen monitor -- place decent-quality camcorder (even an old Hi-8 unit will do well) on tripod -- center screen image in viewfinder -- place microphone in front of speaker -- hit "record." Of course, you'll want to experiment with the best settings of contrast, ambient lighting, etc., but you can do that on some worthless piece of video (like, say, a Bush news conference).
Will it be perfect or even great quality? Nope -- but it will be watchable. I know, cos I've already experimented with this for future reference. I wouldn't recommend this for, say, an opera broadcast, but for the vast majority of televised pap, it will do just fine. Think of it as a "21st century kinescope."
And the best thing is -- there's not a damn thing the guvmint, the broadcasters, or the equipment manufacturers can do to thwart it.
Who needs HD anyway? Most TV programming doesn't benefit -- making the picture sharper doesn't improve the plotlines or the acting. And I don't need to see every pore on Bill O'Reilley's face to hate his pretentious guts just the same.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
YOUR TELEVISION CONTROLS YOU!
-insert a witty something-