Slashdot Mirror


Windows Media Center Restricts Cable TV

PrescriptionWarning writes "With the latest Media Center Edition update from Microsoft, I and many others are finding that content available on television is now completely unwatchable from Media Center. The message states: 'Restricted Content: Restrictions set by the broadcaster and/or originator of the content prohibit playback of the program on this computer.' A simple search on the subject reveals that HBO programming and, in my case, Braveheart on AMC are among the many selections now restricted for playback or recording by Windows Media Center Edition. What's next, restricting every piece of programming on television?"

79 of 448 comments (clear)

  1. Try myself by TheSciBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this only apply to Media Center? Maybe I'm wierd, but this actually makes me more interested in buying a cable-digital card for my computer and running MythTV or something. :)

    --
    Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
    1. Re:Try myself by TheSciBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was unclear in my post. What I was asking was if the problem is unique to just Media Center? If this is some kind of industry standard blocking ability, then it should be present in more systems, no?

      Also, whatever the reason for the block, what I meant about the other part was that I've been looking into buying a digital decoder for cable for my computer (quite expensive today, terrestrial decoders are half the price, I guess the card reader is a part of the problem). And that I found it strange that reports of this kind of problem just makes me more interested in trying for some reason.

      --
      Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
    2. Re:Try myself by paganizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am not 100% certain, but I think the problem is directly related to the DRM subsystem that is installed with Windows Media player 11.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    3. Re:Try myself by cloudkiller · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm running a Win XP PC at home with a hauppage PVR150 in it but instead of running the windows crap for watching TV, I just use gbpvr and I have not had a problem with DRM yet.

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this sig]
    4. Re:Try myself by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is due to Windows Media Center being about the only PVR software to obey CGMS-A signals, which come through your cable box via the analog S-Video output.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGMS-A

      Best ways I've found to avoid these problems:
      1) Turn OFF Windows Update, and/or use a disk imaging system to make sure you can roll back any unwelcome changes like this;
      2) Use different software for recording cable content (MediaPortal, or the scheduling app that comes with most tuner cards, etc.)
      3) Don't pay for HBO; get those shows through alternative providers that have higher-quality, DRM-free, digital copies

    5. Re:Try myself by DJCacophony · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been looking into buying a digital decoder for cable for my computer

      Where have you been for the past year? You can't buy a digital cable decoder for your computer. They are only being sold to OEMs that provide "certified" computers to make sure that nobody can hack up the hardware. Even if you did manage to get your hands on one, it wouldn't work on your PC, only a certified one.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    6. Re:Try myself by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not quite true. You can easily buy tuners for unencrypted digital cable.

      But that's for channels that wouldn't have been affected by this change anyway. A CableCARD-capable tuner (which can tune encrypted channels) is a whole different story. As you have said, you can't buy those except with a CableLabs-certified PC.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:Try myself by TheSciBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think maybe we're looking at different definitions of cable. Cable in Sweden means, among other things, ComHem, for which there is a couple of digital decoders available. One called FloppyDTV which is internal (PCI-card) and one called FireDTV which is a firewire external box. Only the latter works with encrypted sources, for some reason, and I believe that currently these cards/boxes only support Windows MCE, though the company that makes them (Digital-Everywhere) says that they are willing to share knowledge with any developer that wishes to produce drivers for GNU/Linux.

      I don't know, but I'm assuming you're in the states, which may be the reason why you don't know about these boxes, the maker is an Austrian company. Maybe they're not available in the US, I don't know, or, as I said first in my post, we're talking about different things.

      As far as I know there are three kinds of digital TV, DV-T for terrestrial, DV-S for sattelite and DV-C for cable. The boxes/cards above are both DV-C (available in DV-T).

      --
      Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
    8. Re:Try myself by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. It is working as intended. Not a problem.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:Try myself by tuxic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      DVB-T, DVB-C and DVB-S, yes. Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial, Cable, Satellite.

      The DVB-C (Cable) will probably (it's preferred to be certified) work with ComHem, but no channels are unencrypted. I raised an eyebrow when I noticed that they have unencrypted digital cable content in the US - very interesting. You can only hope the digital cable companies in Sweden some day in the future offers that as well, but according to comments I have read on other news sites on the web, it seems that ComHem at least, wants to charge a distribution fee even for free channels, because there is a cost involved in the distribution itself, according to them. Well for me it tells me that they don't have enough paying digital customers to cover costs for those who aren't interested in trying out digital cable until you can get some free content to start out with.

      But still, ComHem aren't taking digital cable seriously anyway, as they are always squeezing out propaganda about their wonderful analog cable they are proud to distribute in Sweden while at the same time pushing tv channels to exist in both analog and digital worlds. Terrestrial airings are soon to a complete end, there are only about 5 more months left. Satellite distribution is nothing but digital here now, so it's up to the few analog cable companies on the market to decide when our TV future will start getting exciting. I know Tele2Vision (former KabelVision) does digital now, after reading an article about issues with the customers not getting a digital set-top box on time to watch tv.

      It's a big subject and preferrably brought up in its own forum. Actually I haven't found any forum online for digital tv that is worthwhile, so I might go and start one myself.

      --
      "People are stupid. Persons are smart" -- Agent K, MiB.
    10. Re:Try myself by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I saw no references to piracy in the orginal post. Not that I have problem with that option. But there is always netflix or some other form of rental. For instance I have see every episode of showtimes Bullshit and I shit canned my showtime subscription years ago.

      The reason it's good to rent than buy these type of productions is you get to see the show, while the spawn of evil, mpaa, doesn't get one god damn red cent of my money.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    11. Re:Try myself by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      am not 100% certain, but I think the problem is directly related to the DRM subsystem that is installed with Windows Media player 11.


      Well, you might be 100% certain, but you happen to be wrong. WMP11 has nothing to do with this issue.

      The Content blockage is NOT specifically by design and happens more often than not because of bad signals from some cable companies marking content as locked, especially via composite output via their digital cable boxes (strangely, especially companies like Charter that use a BSD based OS on their boxes).

      If you have an internal or external USB tuner or CableCard and don't have an external cable box, you shouldn't see this issue.

      I love how one user has a problem, does a few searches and then writes an article about it without any real knowledge of the problem.

      To my understanding the content block flag is only supposed to be used on VOD or special events to prevent recording of the event, not to prevent watching it.

      If people look back, there were similar issues with Windows Media Center 2005 that MS finally had to address to fix the bad signaling from Cable companies. Once again it appears Cable companies are still messing up the signal and everyone is out to torch MS. Which is very ironic as Vista is the only OS with native CableCard support, but then again, these issues don't affect CableCard.

      However there is a growing following that believes a few Cable providers are doing this on purpose to get extra $$ from users and force them to rent a DVR from the company.

      My theater has two tuners, runs Vista Media Center and AMC and HBO are neither restricted for viewing or recording, however the protection bit is set on a few of the HBO shows that prevents me from dropping the recording into Movie Maker. (And there is a hack to bypass that even.) Also prior to Vista, you couldn't edit any recorded MS-PVR content with Movie Maker, and now you can easily.

      Bottom line is these people are having signalling issues, generating the blockage. And NO this has nothing to do with WMP11 DRM or Vista DRM as the myth would like to believe. Do yourself a favor go look up the problem and you will see that Windows Media Center 2005 had similar issues, and it did not have WMP11, nor the isolated process protection like Vista does.

    12. Re:Try myself by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pick any two: Enjoy mainstream movies, obey the law, deprive the MPAA of funds.

      About the best compromise is to dilute your contribution to the bad guys' revenue streams: only buy movies used when purchasing, and whenever possible, check them out from your local library or borrow from friends instead. Those you do own, loan liberally among friends.

      Admonish your peer group not to buy you new DVDs or CDs as gifts. Tell them you are happy to receive used ones though.

      Bring up silly questions like "why do 10 of us have to own this same DVD? Do you think more than one of our group has ever watched it on the same night?"

      You could also brutally murder anyone who disagrees, but IANAL so I can't speak to the legality of that.

  2. It's not the content that's being restricted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's the user.

    Why invite Microsoft into your living room when you can set up MythTV? DRM opponents have been telling you all for how long... and you people still buy Microsoft products and then complain when they behave as expected?

    Pfft!

    1. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by laejoh · · Score: 5, Funny

      and you people still buy Microsoft products and then complain when they behave as expected?

      That's the thing, exactly! Who'd think things coming from Microsoft would behave as expected!

    2. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by jeroen94704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the longest time, I absolutely refused to install Windows MCE on my media PC for exactly that reason. However, after finally giving it a test-drive (just to confirm my prejudice, you know), the surprising conclusion was obvious: I've tried pretty much all mediacenter packages out there, and NONE (even the commercial alternatives) are even within shouting distance of MCE when it comes to ease of installation, stability and user friendliness. I can get a clean machine up and running in an hour with MCE. Compare that to the RedHat MythTV Howto, which takes many hours for even a basic install. And after that, it's a pain to get everything set up and working as it should. All that is a steep price for avoiding DRM that (in my experience) never gets in the way. Of course, all this changes when suddenly a bunch of content becomes impossible to record, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there (or when it gets here, across the big pond).

      --
      He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
    3. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What? How in the hell have you had it crash? It has been in (almost total) constant use for me for three solid years and has never been the result of a crash once. This is in Windows XP *and* Ubuntu (SageTV and MythTV, respectively).

      Either your particular card is somehow faulty, or you're trying to run it on a blender. There's no reason for it to crash even once. My old roommate had one as well and he never had a crash that I noticed, ever (his was the one hooked up to the primary TV in the apartment, so I would have noticed it).

    4. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why invite Microsoft into your living room when you can set up MythTV?

      Please tell me where I can buy cablecard ready tuner cards for MythTV. Comcast here has new boxes that DELETE the firewire port, it's not even an option. Therefore recording is limited to Standard Def only.

      Until someone hacks and then cracks cablecard, or get's off their butts and get s the hdmi or dvi capture cards working MythTV is not an option for recording CableTV HDTV.

      if you want to record from Cable and get any of the channels to record that are not encrypted, you have to have microsoft.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by jimstapleton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember, it's digital content enablement.

      Don't you feel enabled?

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    6. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      I could be wrong but having that firewire port available may be an FCC requirement - if they aren't living up to it you may be able to force them to provide this functionality. Hopefully others who know the rules on this can better speak to this.

      As for CableCard - good luck. This little device was supposed to help us to get away from STBs. Unfortunatly you cannot just buy one and plug it in. Oh no, it must be plugged in and "activated" by the head end using a crypto handshake after the installer ensures that the box it's plugged into is "certified". So first you must figure out how to get your paws on one and then you must figure out a way to activate it. This isn't so unlike the old cards for activating SAT service I'd imagine except that it's possible these guys have learned from that experience - they appear to be using a 2-way handshake at the very least. Done right you might never see a working hacked cablecard under Myth. Nice huh?

      Personally I see two HUGE problems with MythTV. The biggest is of course cablecard, eventually STBs will go away and we'll be left with these or some other nasty competitor (supposedly one exists, I've heard little about it however). You can bet that no one will ever "bless" Myth working with cablecard unless maybe they provide a closed source binary blob driver that no one finds pallatable and violates who knows what licenses. The second issue I see with Myth is the PITA factor. Myth tries to support so many damned pieces of weirdo' hardware that it's a hassle to setup and strango' things just happen. There have been some "standard" platform suggestions made in the past for Myth but no one seems to really follow them and support remains splintered. It would be nice if someone could take a page out of the TIVO, Apple, and XBMC playbook and choose a seriously solid set of hardware and then refine the hell out of the support. The aTV box could be such a thing maybe although 720P max rez would turn people off and everyone seems to be working on making the Apple software better - the platform is cheap at least. If this were to happen you'd end up with something that "just works" like XBMC only far more powerful - more like TIVO. Good luck with that, even Knoppmyth is a hassle but it was the closest thing to an Easy button I've tried for Myth yet. LinuxMCE sounds like a good idea but it's early yet and again not built for a standard platform.

      I still use a hacked DTIVO despite it's not being HD and XBMC on an old XBOX because nothing I've tried has been so good I had to have it - including MCE. Too bad the S3 TIVO cannot do extraction or I'd have one and bite the bullet on cablecard. The 360 is going to be getting the ability to record and playback IPTV streams it looks like, when that happens I'm sure it will be DRM hell but maybe it will "just work". MythTV sure didn't seem to :-(

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    7. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by samkass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comcast here has new boxes that DELETE the firewire port, it's not even an option.

      FCC mandate Title 47, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 76, Subpart K requires that all cable operators that have not received an explicit exemption from the FCC offer any customer who requests it a high-definition cable box with an operational firewire port.

      It's actually the law that there has to be an HD box option that includes Firewire.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    8. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Firewire ports *are* a requirement.... But displaying encrypted video out them isn't. If you get a box with a Firewire port, you're probably only going to get OTA content out of it.

    9. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by crazyjimmy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So...to put it another way

      MythTV is better cause it'll only punch you once in the gut, right at the very beginning, as opposed to WMC which will punch you in the gut at a later date.

      Maybe I don't want to be punched in the gut.

      --Jimmy

    10. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by jeffeb3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      For a minute, I thought you were talking about BeyondTV/BeyondTV link...
      "- Do you have a Web interface for your schedule, program listings, videos, ecc..?" yes.
      "- Does it cut commercials?" yes
      "- Can it rip DVDs?" yes, but it costs extra, I just use nero
      "- Can it rip music CD?" hmmm no, but I only have the TV extension, not the full fledged media player.
      "- Can it play DivX?" yep and encode it too.
      "- Can it play HD Quicktime trailers?" yep.
      "- Can it use DVB-T, DVB-S, analog and cable at the same time?" dunno, prolly not, but I only have use for cable right now.
      "- Can you attach another frontend to it (one for your living room and one for your bed room)?" BeyondTV link is $30 per license.
      "- Can you transcode your recordings from MPEG2 to something else?" yes, quite effectively.
      "- Can you grab channel listings using xmltv?" not sure which interface it uses to get them, but it doesn't matter so long as they are there.
      "- Can you edit the videos using your remote?" no.
      "How much did you pay for it?" I got it free with a firefly remote, but the package normally costs less than $100.

      " /me am happy to spend some more hours to set it up, but then have an open, extensible, hackable, complete product, and not a crippled software."
      I find a nice medium in the pay for something, get everything category. I used MCE for a year or so, got frustrated with something, and tried MythTV on several computers, but I could never get everything to work correctly, or even enough to get video on screen. I bought a firefly remote that came with BeyondTV and I am amazed. It takes me just as long to install XP/BeyondTV as it does MCE, and there is a lot more functionality, and it played the videos I already had recorded from MCE. My GF loves it too, like a lot.

      Whatever you're using, if it doesn't have commercial skip, get something else. it's my favorite feature of beyondTV.

    11. Re:It's not the content that's being restricted by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MCE can do all that right out of the box. You can also link your XBox 360 for an additional front-end. Short on features it is not. Install the klite codec pack and play anything you like.

      I don't think many people realize just how well done it was this time around. MCE sucked when it first came out, but the Vista iterations are outstanding until now of course. The DRM blocking channels is ridiculous and will kill a product which would otherwise be great. Of course, this is why choice is a good thing. It's not like you have to scrap all your hardware to go for a MythTV box after the fact. Won't cost a dime, just a weekend project for those that really wish to record HBO. More and more people will move off as additional content is blocked but make no mistake, the solution is not as elegant as the old way so it will take a lot of blocked content to create a tidal wave that will have any impact on product use of MCE.

      I think Microsoft lost an opportunity here, content companies are forcing them to support this type of DRM, they should have done something to add value to the product before adding something which clearly reduces the value of it. It would be like car manufacturers removing the radio from all new models because they are a distraction to the driver. If they don't add something else to make up for the lack of radio then no one will buy the vehicle.

  3. Evil bit! by DrDribble · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, now I get it - that's where the Evil bit went! They can pry my MythTV boxes from my dead, cold fingers. Dr

    --
    A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
  4. It's almost as if... by Perseid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they WANT us to download things off of P2P.

    1. Re:It's almost as if... by nikostheater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it stupid for a company to sell MCE and then to resctrict what a person can and cannot watch? What's the point to bother marketing such a product? And then they wonder why customers hate DRM and their stupid "IP rights"..

      --
      Bill Gates said:"I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine" My favorite number is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74
    2. Re:It's almost as if... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it's almost like they don't want us to watch it.

      Fine with me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:It's almost as if... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the article about renaming DRM, I asked the question of what the HBO guy thought user could do with DRM'd content that they couldn't do with the same content if it were not DRM'd. Now I know the answer; they can go outside and get some fresh air without the TV. Obviously, HBO are just thinking of everyone's health this summer.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:It's almost as if... by knewter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They determined that one for me quite a bit ago. I subscribe to two music services (Napster and Yahoo), with their MILLIONS OF SONGS!! Anyway, if I want any acoustic content I have to bolt to Soulseek. If I want any live content, can't get it there. If I want to listen to a song by Denison Witmer, why, it's purchase only. He's not a well-known artist. There's no way he's selling a lot of those tracks.

      They've driven me from my fortress of legalitude back into P2P because they won't give me what they have that would make them better than P2P - exclusive live tracks (for a brief period I would have it better than P2Pers in one respect), or at least approaching 60% of the stuff I search for? Because ALL of the P2P apps give me whatever I search for, immediately. I know the RIAA can do better, but they don't understand why it would become infuriating to depend on them to deliver the content I want.

      I will download music. I stopped and tried to go the legal route, and as far as I can tell they want to siphon off every dollar I have that way. This is no different. The faulty business models must be crushed - do your part. Download stuff.

      --
      -knewter
    5. Re:It's almost as if... by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. The problem IS Microsoft. The reason is the same as usual.. lock in. The goal is to be the only practical choice for anybody wanting a media PC. Nothing to do with any fear of the RIAA/MPAA suing them, but everything to do with market domination.

      Media center PCs are just another segment of the market that they can try to control. If the market for these becomes profitable over the next few years, then Microsoft can offer a more awkward to hack and constantly updating system to the content providers. On condition that they sign an exclusive deal. In return, perhaps a nice little feature that refuses to allow a DVD to be played if ripping software is detected, and constantly updating DRM features that break last month's illegal content hacks.

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  5. Old news???? by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 4, Informative

    First google link: Published Monday, October 31, 2005 6:41 PM by astebner

    Second google link: Posted February 14th, 2006

    Third google link: Last Review : August 17, 2006

    Fourth google link: Friday, January 28, 2005 1:00 AM PST

    Fifth google link: June 2nd, 2006

    You get the idea....

    --
    wot no sig
  6. TV? by FredDC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TV is an outdated concept... I hardly watch any television anymore myself, why would I want to watch something on a specified date and time? I'll watch it whenever I feel like it!

    Record it from TV? Oh yea, I'm gonna wait until some station decides to air it and then record it with advertising...

    There is nothing which interests me on television anyway which I can't find somewhere else. And the rest? Game shows, reality shows, ... I couldn't care less about them!

    With these kind of restrictions it seems like television stations are going the **AA way... Desperately trying to hold on to an outdated concept, which has made them alot of money in the past. Too blind and stuck in their old patterns to find new ways of making money...

    --
    09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
    1. Re:TV? by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TV is an outdated concept Well, it maybe for you but for many others it's not. What is an increasingly outdated concept is the delivery method. Various timeshifting methods - I personally use Sky+ - allow the consumer to watch in their own schedule and to edit out the ads where appropriate.

      As for there being nothing on worth watching - Yesterday I watched 'To have and have not', got up to date with Heroes, watched Saturday's Dr Who, and finished off with a fascinating documentary about Jimi Hendrix. Ok, none of it was earth shattering but hardly nothing to watch. And yes, I could have downloaded all of these but I saved myself a lot of time and effort by not downloading.
      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    2. Re:TV? by grimJester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is nothing which interests me on television anyway which I can't find somewhere else. And the rest? Game shows, reality shows, ... I couldn't care less about them!

      Almost by definition, peer-to-peer networks contain what the users want. Shows no-one is interested in are left out.

      Incidentally, watching anything I want whenever I want is exactly the service I'd be willing to pay for. Go figure.

    3. Re:TV? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TV is an outdated concept... I hardly watch any television anymore myself, why would I want to watch something on a specified date and time? I'll watch it whenever I feel like it!
      It's funny that you say that TV is an outdated concept.

      I recall reading an article which discussed how people are moving away from movies and towards TV, because TV shows come in smaller chunks with more plot and character development.

      There is nothing which interests me on television anyway which I can't find somewhere else. And the rest? Game shows, reality shows, ... I couldn't care less about them!
      Your interests are just that. Yours.
      Millions of people are watching these shows and those eyeballs draw billions in advertising revenue.

      Desperately trying to hold on to an outdated concept, which has made them alot of money in the past. Too blind and stuck in their old patterns to find new ways of making money...
      Blind and stuck in their old patterns...
      TV shows on DVD, they're doing that.
      TV on the internet? They're doing that.

      It's easy to criticize what you perceive as the status quo, so tell us:
      What's your alternative.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:TV? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's exactly the concept the content industry fails to grasp. People are indeed very willing to pay for content and avoid the hassle of searching through .torrents, downloading, waiting, waiting more, waiting even more, and finally hoping they get what they downloaded and not some gay porn movie (unless they tried to download a gay porn... you get the idea), then downloading some codec because that movie had to be packed with some esotheric encoding mechanism, then hoping it's really a good copy of the movie and not some cell-cam version with popcorn rustling in the background... Not to mention the legal matters.

      What keeps people from going the legal way is the terms of service. First of all, the hassle is not less, it's more. Incompatible DRM with this or that player, installing licenses, and finally hoping that what they got can actually be watched, if not, more try and error with DRM... And of course the fear that, as soon as their computer dies, all the content is digital junk because DRM thinks you're a different person.

      I know that a lot of people, if not the overwhelming majority, is very willing to pay for content that simply works, hassle-free and without problems and tinkering. But currently, with DRM in place, it's anything but that. More often than not, you buy something only to find out that it would have been less hassle to simply search for a .torrent, download it, wait for a while...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:TV? by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Almost by definition, peer-to-peer networks contain what the users want. Shows no-one is interested in are left out.

      Never heard of the Long Tail, I guess. Hint: it's the reason why companies like Amazon and Netflix are successful. Another hint: it's not because they only carry the top 5% of products that 80% of the world is interested in. It's because they carry the other 95%.

      The fact that I can't get those shows "no-one is interested in" on p2p is precisely why it is not very useful to me, or a lot of other people. Because, see, while you can have an individual show that's liked by 50% of people, you can also guarantee that there are 20 other shows liked collectively by 100% of people... even though individually they may not reach over 5% each. It's those 20 smaller shows that make any content delivery system useful, not the one show that's popular. You can get that one popular show anywhere; it's the place you can get those 20 smaller shows that's special. (And that includes regular old cable TV, which is hardly "irrelevant" as some here have suggested. p2p can never be as relevant as cable, because of the long tail.)

      You would think people here would be celebrating the long tail - which is all about choice, after all - rather than promoting only those things that the mainstream is interested in.

    6. Re:TV? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I believe the grandparent was talking about TV-the-delivery-system, rather than TV-the-content. I don't watch TV-the-delivery-system anymore, but most of what I rent on DVDs is TV-the-content. I value my time, and don't want to waste 25% of my entertainment time watching adverts, so I simply don't watch TV. I want to watch things when I have time, not when the broadcaster decides it's the optimal time to show it. I want to be able to take the show with me, and watch it while travelling on my laptop.

      I would love to be able to buy TV show on a per-season basis, with no DRM and the ability to re-download (I don't want to bother having to archive them myself), or for less if I don't have the re-download ability (for stuff I'm likely to only want to watch once).

      TV viewership is dropping as it has to compete with more convenient forms of entertainment. Expect the status quo to change when enough people have broadband that the studios can sell more by selling to the viewers than to the distributors.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:TV? by duguk · · Score: 2, Funny

      downloaded and not some gay porn movie (unless they tried to download a gay porn... you get the idea)


      Your downloads sounds interesting and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    8. Re:TV? by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're British, aren't you?

      Here's the thing: The Brits actually have good TV, because it's publically funded. It used to mean that the BBC produced series that were cheap - look at the production values of a classic Dr. Who episode compared to a classic Star Trek episode of the same time frame, but as the private networks in the U.S. have found that they can make more money by producing nothing but super-cheap TV shows and cancelling anything that doesn't get a hell of an audience immediately, now it is the British, who care about providing good value for the tax revenue rather than stuffing pockets, that produces superior television shows.

      I mean, I saw the BBC Casanova miniseries, and can you imagine an American show going that far, production wise, for a three-episode mini series?

      Additionally, all the good news channels - CBC, BBC, CNN International - aren't available in America on any of the different ways to get television here. HDNet has Dan Rather, but I don't have an HDTV and even if I did I don't have a local provider for it either.

      So when you hear people complain about there being nothing good on TV which to record - yeah, I can see that. I don't know when I last turned on the television here but I don't think it even has the rabbit ears hooked up!

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    9. Re:TV? by FST777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is exactly my fear when the TV stops being profitable: that it disapears and be replaced by internet-TV (like Joost). Then there is no point anymore in socialising in front of the TV, watching shows with your children, talking with your colleagues about that great show that was on yesterday...

      If I throw out the TV, I miss my primary source of news: it's more convenient than looking up the news online. I also miss some of the fun programs that I watch now which I never would bother to download. There would be less incentive to watch something which happens to be on air with my wife. I wouldn't partake in the benefit shows which are on air when a disaster happened and the people are asked to donate money (those are highly succesfull means fo charity here). All that is lost.

      That might well be a threat to socialisation. Not because it disapears, but because it is replaced by a less social medium: the internet. Sure, you can socialise more while watching TV via the internet (channel based chats, program based discussions) but that is not the same as laughing about a show with the wife and / or friends, collectively as a nation worry about something that needs to be done (and doing so because of that) or discussing a controversial documentary with your colleagues.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    10. Re:TV? by Targon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that viewership is dropping as much as the idiotic method of tracking how many people are watching just doesn't work anymore. If someone records a show because they can't be home, that in no way means that people don't end up watching. There seems to be progress in getting away from the current system, but who knows if it will ever happen.

      A big problem I see with the different distribution methods out there is how to fund the production of the good shows. Honestly, if the TV distribution method is going to change, and advertisements change as well, a better way for these shows to generate money will be needed, and the possibilities are scary. Will we have running advertisements along the bottom and/or top of the screen as we watch? Will the users be required to pay to view the content without advertisements? If we are given a choice(pay and get no advertisements, or get it for free with advertisements), the peer to peer downloads will hurt the chances for good shows to be renewed.

      Remember, money is the reason we get ANYTHING on TV in the first place. If the production studios don't make money on the development of the shows/movies, they will NOT continue to make the shows we care about. So, how do we make sure that the good shows continue while the crap is dropped?

  7. Microsoft once again demonstrates... by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft once again demonstrates who its customers are. It isn't the people who buy their products, but big busines. Hence the heavy-DRM tie-ins they've developed for Vista among other products in the past (such as Windows Media Player)

    1. Re:Microsoft once again demonstrates... by FridayBob · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, no! You've got it all wrong!

      DRM is your friend! If Microsoft didn't include it in Windows, the big media corporations would quickly sue the pants off of them, making it impossible to sell Windows. Why, that would be a disaster for the consumer! This way, we can at least still enjoy some forms of copyrighted content.


      ;-)

  8. Heading in the right direction by nmoog · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's a good start by Microsoft. But I found that you can implement a more efficient DRM system by snapping off the rabbit-ear antennae on top of your TV. I did it eight months ago and I found that when I go to bed now my brain doesn't feel like it's been mushed to pulp by ads and boring drivel. Good luck you noble DRM!

  9. What's next... by Bowdie · · Score: 4, Funny

    >What's next, restricting every piece of programming on television?

    Yes. Didn't you get the memo?

    --
    yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
    1. Re:What's next... by MECC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >What's next, restricting every piece of programming on television?

      Yes. Didn't you get the memo?

      Did anyone seriously think for a even a moment that a media package for watching cable TV from microsoft wouldn't try to control everything?

      --
      "We are all geniuses when we dream"
      - E.M. Cioran
  10. This is what DRM *is*... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and what DRM is for.

    Its sole purpose is to keep you from using the media you would otherwise have rightful access to in any way other than what the copyright holder explicitly wants.

    In short, its sole purpose is, ultimately, to make you pay every time you make use of the media, and to control the flow of information.

    DRM is how the media megacorporations intend to rein in the internet. For instance, you can't prove that the media broadcast a story when the story can't be recorded.

    DRM is how the big corporations intend to remove your right to read.

    This is just the first shot across the bow. It's going to get worse. A lot worse. Read all you can about "trusted computing" to see where this is going. All they have to do is to remove your ability to boot an unsigned bootloader, and the game is over (with you as the loser).

    If you think this is paranoid ranting, well, so did people who thought habeus corpus would never be removed. That doesn't make what I say right, but since the same people are ultimately involved, you shouldn't dismiss the above as paranoid ranting on the basis of incredulity alone.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by Urkki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and what DRM is for.

      Its sole purpose is to keep you from using the media you would otherwise have rightful access to in any way other than what the copyright holder explicitly wants.

      In short, its sole purpose is, ultimately, to make you pay every time you make use of the media, and to control the flow of information. I personally look forward to the day, when I can get *any* movie or TV series episode for one-time (or one-day or whatever) viewing for a few euros, legally. I'm also looking forward for the day when I can get *any* piece of music playing once for a few cents, preferably with heuristic music selection service ("people who liked the songs you listen also liked these songs, add to your playlist?").

      I don't need to *own* that music, or those TV shows, or those movies. I just want to have access to them, any time I want. And I don't mind paying more for items I want to hear/watch often. Actually, now that I think about it, quite the opposite: I'm more than happy to pay little for one viewing/listening, and more for those I like enough to listen/view many times.

      If only somebody at entertainment industry had the vision *and* the power to make that happen, offer that feature integrated into a set-top box type device, he'd make trillions. DRM is not really an issue, ease of use is the issue. Of course that might be the beginning of the end for regular TV and radio programming, so there are powerful players who'll oppose this at all costs.

      And I don't see the problem of information control. Quite the opposite, if you have the freedom to view any news broadcast from all over the world with a click (well, that's reality even now, I think), there's no control. If people want information, they'll get it easily (well, at least here in the free world). If they don't want it, no DRM is going to make them want it.
    2. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And you think that -- just because you're paying for the content -- they won't attempt to get more revenue by including advertising?

      Of course, once it's all DRM-protected, you won't be able to get rid of the advertisements.

    3. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I personally look forward to the day, when I can get *any* movie or TV series episode for one-time (or one-day or whatever) viewing for a few euros, legally. I'm also looking forward for the day when I can get *any* piece of music playing once for a few cents, preferably with heuristic music selection service ("people who liked the songs you listen also liked these songs, add to your playlist?").
      You want to pay for you music every time you listen to it? Why don't you just get a service like Rhapsody where you pay a monthly fee to have access to all their songs? As for TV shows, I don't know how it is in Europe, but in America, you can buy most TV shows for a couple dollars, if that. DVD sets cost between $30 and $45 for 13 to 25 episodes, iTunes sells episodes for $2, and most TV channels even stream their episodes from their website for free (though ad-supported). If you really hate owning things, you can delete it from iTunes after watching it or give the DVD set to a library. I don't think it would be a plus to have it delete itself automatically, but still charge the same price, and I can't believe it's that much more expensive to get TV shows in Europe so that would seem like a deal there.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    4. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I don't see the problem of information control. Quite the opposite, if you have the freedom to view any news broadcast from all over the world with a click (well, that's reality even now, I think), there's no control. If people want information, they'll get it easily (well, at least here in the free world). If they don't want it, no DRM is going to make them want it.

      Do you really think it would be hard to block your access to foreign news broadcasts via DRM?

      The mere existence of this broadcast flag threatens your ability to record the present and document the past. It drives a nail through some of the more basic requirements for a democracy, which is the right and need to be and stay well informed.

      After all, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

    5. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um no. In a free market, the alternatives look better. In a non-free market, the alternatives are outlawed.

      And what makes you think the market in the U.S. is a "free market"?

      The people who are pushing for DRM are precisely the people who have the greatest amount of control over the U.S. government, because they control what gets advertised about the candidates during election time. Frankly, I'm a little surprised DRM hardware of the kind I described hasn't already been mandated, but I suspect that's probably because the people in control know that fascism has to be implemented slowly for it to work. That's the lesson I think they learned from the early to mid 20th century.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    6. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you think this is paranoid ranting, well, so did people who thought habeus corpus would never be removed.

      It hasn't been. The Military Commissions Act specifically and explicitly does not apply to US citizens, and doesn't even apply to the José Padilla example.

      The Military Commissions Act properly handles terrorism against the United States as a military and national security issue, not a domestic civil or criminal matter (to treat it as such is ridiculous). This necessarily means that someone has to make a determination about who is or isn't an enemy combatant. If this means you fantasize about a scenario in which anyone could be declared and enemy combatant, and simply because that person doesn't have immediate recourse on demand through civilian courts it automatically means that habeas corpus has been removed, be my guest. But it is by no means as clear cut as you believe it is. The United States and the entire mechanics of the system supporting MCA, the legislators who crafted it, and everyone else involved has no interest or intent for MCA to apply to US citizens, and the law itself specifically says that.

      Even Human Rights Watch, which is strongly opposed to MCA, still properly concludes that MCA does NOT apply to US citizens, or even legal or permanent resident aliens within the United States. MCA only applies to "aliens with no immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States", period. All arguments that it could "really" still be applied to US citizens, when the law itself was written to prohibit just that, simply because anyone held under MCA provisions does not have immediate recourse in civilian courts (which would turn the very purpose of MCA on its head), removes all of the value of the intent and meaning of language - language carefully chosen in MCA such that it does NOT apply to US citizens or persons within the United States with a valid immigration status.

      I suppose you're also one of the folks who believes the Insurrection Act updates (post-Katrina) are really a secret attempt to make declaring martial law easier, when it's just as easy (or hard) as it's ever been under the 200-year old law.

      The internet (for which we have the military and the military-industrial complex in large part to thank) will not be "reined in". News and media will not be restricted in the ways you imagine. Commercial copyrighted entertainment content will be. (Also, uh, have we forgotten about printed media? Or are you thinking "yeah, but the internet allows people to organize against the government faster, man? Ok, and uh, yeah, that is the exact kind of content that will NEVER be restricted by DRM, right?)

      Of course DRM is about control. It's all about control. But it is, in fact, like it or not, also about protecting commercial content and squeezing as much money out of consumers as possible, protecting every possible moneymaking avenue for such content now and as far into the future as possible. With that I have no dispute. It IS also to extend copyright provisions, and sanctions, into the digital realm, no matter how wrongheaded and ultimately futile attempt it may be.

      Ironically, if you are anti-DRM, you should understand that DRM's Achilles' Heel is that will ALWAYS be able to be defeated, and thus, no one is going to "rein in" anything.

    7. Re:This is what DRM *is*... by rbanffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So yes, I think it would be hard to use DRM to block foreign news any more than they can be blocked without DRM. Feel free to enlighten me on how it could be done, though.

      By mandating that all players sold in your market also obey decency flags that can only be set by the Ministry of Decency should be enough of an example. Adding mandatory self-updates to the equipment would forbid anyone to tamper with such controls. Making it a crime to tamper with them would also not help. IIRC, TiVos can be instructed to erase recordings after a certain amount of time. Truth is DRM by itself does not provide means to do it, but laws can be crafted in such a way as to use DRM as a tool to do it and, since the machines are not really under your control, they can do pretty much anything they want.

      You know, democracy was developed in a time without any audio or video recording equipment... I'd be more concerned with self-disintegrating paper, introduced in the name of recycling, that would disintegrate in 20 years... Once somebody proposes that, then you know you should be scared (and I'm not saying this merely as a joke...).

      Obviously I do know democracy has evolved without audio or video recording, but it also evolved without any technical means for mass surveillance. Such means exist now. Even the best equipped totalitarian state of the first half of the past century could not summon the vast amount of information that is a subpoena away now and, even if they had that data, they would not be able to sort through it. This is very possible now and has been for the last couple decades. Our IRS-equivalent in Brazil is capable of massive data-mining to spot tax-evasion. In São Paulo, cameras can recognize license plates and issue fines accordingly (people are not allowed to drive in certain days of the week at certain times according to the numbers in their license plates). This capabilities hint on what a determined government could do if laws allowed it.

      While it may be impossible to revise the books you have on your shelf, it would be technically trivial to revise e-books in a library or the news published on a web-site. "Your edition of George Owell's 1984 is being updated. Please do not disconnect".

      It is terribly unwise to ignore such possibilities until it is too late. Because, of course, by then, it will be too late.

      And yes, I too would be terribly scared of self-disintegrating paper, but I am already terribly scared of computers I can't control.

  11. Well, Microsoft think it's a bug... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913800

    Cockup rather than conspiracy?

    1. Re:Well, Microsoft think it's a bug... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      You see, the problem here is all Microsoft. After years of naming their patches: "Service Pack", "Critical Update", "Security Update", "Huge Update", "Gigantic Update","Mother-of-All Update", they decided to name this update "Update Rollup". Clearly it confused the consumer with what was consistent naming, and he/she probably didn't download it much less install it. :P

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Wasn't this a driver problem? by Erwos · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wouldn't take the summary at face value for this one - IIRC, there are some driver issues that cause this flag to pop up when it's really not supposed to. More info, including Microsoft's mostly-official response, at:

    http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/thread/176207.asp x

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    1. Re:Wasn't this a driver problem? by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reading that thread, it does not look like driver problems, but broadcasters spuriously adding copy protection flags to their broadcasts.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  13. the tale of two neighbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are those two neighbors, Joe Sixpack and Joe Sixbit. The first buys whatever the ads say and just brought home his new shiny Microsoft Media Center PC, the second enjoys spending some time learning how to build things and just installed Freevo or MythTV on a spare box.
    For a while Joe Sixbit was laughed at by Joe Sixpack because while he was working on his ugly PC, Joe Sixpack's MSMCE-PC was already working and indeed looked more professional.
    Then, after some time, Joe Sixpack started to face some problems: failed updates, unsupported codecs, and every time he had to call a number where someone gave the same not working answers. Joe Sixbit's system, instead, was working better and better: not only it supported every media it was thrown at, but it was also possible upgrading it to new media without waiting for a single software house approval. It could show weather forecasts and web pages, but also it run games, voip phonecalls, videoconferencing and other tasks it wasn't designed to thanks to an active community.

    After some months Joe Sixbit still enjoys his self made media center and has learned a lot working on it, which pays he back of the time he spent, while Joe Sixpack only learned he has to reinstall the Windows MCE every now and then to make it work again after a software install screws the system, and still there are tasks he cannot perform and media he cannot play, which pays he back much less for the time and money he spent.

    The moral is.. HECK! you still need a moral to stop using proprietary software after it's so clear how it's screwing you?

  14. old news by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read on like the poster suggested (and obviously the poster himself didn't read the articles) you'd find out that
    1. This is an old problem
    2. This was a driver issue that only affected people who had changed hardware components.

    1. Re:old news by Ingolfke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. Good post. At worst MS can be charged w/ not making their DRM software user friendly enough.

  15. DRM is the way of artificial shortage by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Makes sense, doesn't it? Only if there is a limited supply, something gets some value in our world. Think of precious metals, pieces of art, anything collectible. By itself, not really valuable. Gold is actually quite worthless, from an industrial point of view. Aside of a few applications where its physical and chemical properties (like being almost impossible to corrode and very resistant to acids) come to shine, it's quite useless or easily replaced by other metals. But it's rare. So it's precious. It has been since the dawn of humanity.

    Pieces of art, paintings of old masters, are nice to look at, but by no means necessary for survival. Even more, it's something to look at, not something to consume. You can look at the Mona Lisa, take the experience with you and go on with your life. Still, it's invaluable. It's a one-of-a-kind.

    And let's not even get to Magic the Gathering cards or rare stamps.

    All those things have a high value because they're rare. Not because people need them. They are valuable because people want them and only a selected few can have them. That's what makes their price tag to up.

    Content, now, is by its very definition not scarce. Reproducing content is easy and has been cheap from the beginning of the printing press. With computers and digitalized content, the cost for reproduction has been brought very close to zero. In other words, unrestricted content has no value in our world because it is anything but scarce. Everyone can have it.

    DRM now imposes an artificial shortage onto something that is available in abundance, with the sole goal to make the value (or rather, the price) of information go up. Disney understood this concept from early on, making its movies only available every few years for a short time, so people don't even ponder twice before buying. Either you get it now or you can't get it for a long, long time. So they pay, any price.

    DRM should now make the same possible for every kind of digital content. The content industry dictates when and at what terms you may get it. The goal is, amongst others, that by creating an artificial shortage of a movie, the movie becomes a hot seller again, no matter how old it is. Think of, say, Casablanca. A good movie, but we've all seen it for ... how many times? Provided you're interested in that kinda movie, granted. Now imagine you couldn't see it anymore. For a long, long time. And then, for about 2 months, it is on sale again.

    People would buy more. They would buy it THEN, not put it back 'til they want to see it again, they will buy then because of the fear that you can't get it for a long time anymore afterwards.

    And, of course, you won't be able to watch it forever. You will watch it for as long as the content industry lets you.

    This also creates a nice way of restricting the access to movies that ain't so much in sync with political views anymore. When was the last time you saw Rambo III on a TV network? And how many copies that you can still buy contain the words "This movie is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan" in the closing credits?

    Could you see a few people who'd want this movie to disappear once and for all, as if it never existed? Or at least alter a few things?

    It's not like movie altering isn't done already. But you can easily remove all existing copies of the "original" version with DRM. Movies have a best before date with it. Who could claim that Han shot first anymore without looking stupid to people who ain't old enough to remember?

    Tastes a bit of Orwell, ain't it?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:DRM is the way of artificial shortage by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Han Solo will never shoot first again and the government never went after ET and the kids with shotguns. While at one level, those are just movies and no big deal, it IS a revision of history, especially the latter example. I can easily see how revisionists would love to be able to take an 'incorrect' movie back after the fact if they could.

      At the rate we're going, how long can it be until police departments start really wishing people coundn't watch movies about police corruption or even those silly movies from the '70s where the hero defies authority and causes a zillion police cars to crash? I can see how that could unfold now. A riot breaks out somewhere and in order to "avoid fanning the flames", a few movies become unavailable "for a short time" "for the public safety". Afterwards, most but not all restrictions get relaxed again and history is now revised.

      The fact that most DRM is not retroactive today is no impediment. Retroactive DRM is only a "must have" "security update" away.

  16. Joe Wiseman by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meanwhile, Joel Wiseman bought a Mac MINI and wonders why Sixbit and Sixpack spent all the time and money on systems dedicated to trying to grab content from a stream, when they could spend less of both just buying songs individually on demand.

    He uses the extra time and money saved to read books.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Joe Wiseman by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "He uses the extra time saved to read books he checked out of the library, because he ran out of cash trying to buy all the content he wanted to see off of iTMS."

      There, fixed that for you. You see, the idea is that TV has always been "free" for the viewer, and the intent of these things is to leverage that content to reduce the regular outlay of cash associated with paying for every instance of a recording. If you don't understand that economy (spending time to save money), then you are detached from most of America. Then again, you seem to be a mac fan, so...

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  17. Re:Nothing to see here, please move along. by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    before that last update, I had no problem with MCE, other than the fact that it was MS. Because of this, however, I from here on refuse to use MCE and am using SnapStream until I can find the time to set up MythTV.

  18. MS "Retarded", is here... by NZheretic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Getting down with the VCPs to get the DRM message out ... [With deepest apologies to the Black Eyed Peas for the parody of "Let get Retarded"]

    Vista Retarded is hereSung by the V.C.P.s
    [voiceover] The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history.

    Vista "Retarded", is here...

    And content not playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not
    playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not...

    In this context,Vista disrespects, so when I click to play, the display disconnects.
    We got find methods for us to reconnect to new codecs by the network effect.
    Bout to lose your fair use. Microsoft's institution. Infect your computer with D.R.M. pollution.
    Cause when we click on, the sound is gonna be down. You won't believe how we ow shout out.
    Burn can't cause we locked out, Sample can't cause we locked out, act up from north,west, east south.

    [Chorus:]
    Everybody (ye-a!), everybody (ye-a!), let's get into it (Yea!).
    Get stoopid (click on!).
    Vista retarded (click on!), Vista retarded (click on!), get retarded.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Yeah.

    Lose control, of privacy and goals.
    Won't run too fast cause, bloat makes it slow.
    Won't get away, your locked into it.
    Y'all hear about it, Gutmann'll do it.
    Get Vista, be stoopid.
    Don't worry 'bout it, Ballmer'll walk you though it,
    Step by step, you'll be restricted
    Patch by patch with the new solution.
    Transmit bits, with D.R.M. pollution
    Claim the contents irresistible and that's how they move it.

    [Chorus:]
    Everybody (ye-a!), everybody (ye-a!), let's get into it (Yea!).
    Get stoopid (click on!).
    Vista retarded (click on!), Vista retarded (click on!), get retarded.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Yeah.

    Playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin', not...

    C'mon y'all, let's get Do-do! (uh huh)
    Let's get Do-do! (in here) - Right now get Do-do! (uh huh)
    Let's get Do-do! (in here) - Right now get Do-do! (uh huh)
    Let's get Do-do! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
    Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

    Let's get ill, that's the deal
    At the gate, Microsoft restricts your will. (Just)
    Lose your mind this is the time,
    Y'all test this will, Just and download still. (Just)
    Rob the resolution, from your monitor or to your speakers.
    Get pixel-ated and suck.
    Yo' movies past slow-mo' in another head trip.(So)
    Locked in now cannot correct it, so be ig'nant and left apoplectic .

    [Chorus:]
    (yeah)Everybody, (yeah) everybody, (yeah) get locked into it.
    (yeah) Get stupid.
    (click on) Get retarded,(click on) get retarded (yeah), get retarded.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Vista retarded (ha), Vista retarded is here.
    Whoaoa
    Yeah.

    You Cukoo! (A-ha!)
    It's Po-Po! (is here) - Be a Fool! (A-ha!)
    M.S. Tool! (be their) - Like Voodoo! (A-ha!)
    You cukoo! (out here) -Ow, ow!
    Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

    Playin' playin', not playin' playin',not playin' playin',not playin' playin'
    [fade]

  19. Cheaper than cable by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "He uses the extra time saved to read books he checked out of the library, because he ran out of cash trying to buy all the content he wanted to see off of iTMS."

    No, actually he's able to afford the books because he spent less on a Mac MINI plus the purchase of shows he really wanted to watch, rather than an expensive cable subscription.

    ITMS delivers quality equal to most cable feeds, and with no annoying ads or shifts is resolution (for HD feeds) to contend with. I tried recording Heros using OTA HD the other day (I have an OTA HD receiver as well that I can also use as a DVR on my Mac), and lost half a conversation thanks to a weather alert obscuring on screen subtitling. Back to ITMS where it all - Just Works.

    Not to monetion I don't even pay any money until I'm ready to watch something - taking a month off from TV means no expenses.

    OTA is OK for News, and perhaps sports - but really nothing else.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Read your search results by SilverJets · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What is the point of Googling something if you are not even going to read through the search results? The 5th link down,
    Ed Bott's Media Central HBO stops working with Media Center contains an explanation of the problem, the cause and the fix.

  21. some people just don't learn by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some people just don't get it. It's far enough that we let Microsoft so into our lives as they are now, why on earth would I let them have any kind of control over other aspects of my life, e.g. watching tv ? Why would I tolerate a piece of software that, after I pay money for it, makes my life more restricted instead of easing my life ? Am I stupid enough to believe that this way of life is what I've been waiting and working towards during the last decades ? Hell no. Any software and service I pay for I expect to improve the quality of my life on whichever scale and aspect not make it worse. Before some would ask "then why have you payed for it?" I didn't and I won't. And if the answer is that there's nothing to do, this is the only way from now on, then I'd rather stick to the pathetic miserable level I am at now then to willingly contribute into making our lives suck more.
     

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  22. Re:You mean HD channels? by jaysones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FWIW, I can see HBO HD on the firewire port of my Scientific Atlanta 8300 HD in NYC on Time Warner. I know very little about this but I plugged in my Macbook Pro, installed Apple's Firewire SDK and was able to record that content and play it back with no problems.

  23. Re:Works for me... by Erwos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HBO is "copy once". HBO On-Demand is "copy never". So, nominally, you should be able to record your regular HBO shows on your computer, but not burn them to DVD or copy them elsewhere. In other words, your system is working as expected.

    The problem here, from what I understand, is that a few regional US cable operators are improperly passing "copy never" down the line on stuff like A&E, in violation of FCC regulations. Or there's the Canadian case, where there's no rules about that stuff at all, but Media Center honors it anyways - so all the cable and sat operators just flag everything as "copy never", and screw the Canadian users.

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  24. Re:You mean HD channels? by shr3k · · Score: 4, Funny

    FWIW, I can see HBO HD on the firewire port of my Scientific Atlanta 8300 HD in NYC on Time Warner. I know very little about this but I plugged in my Macbook Pro, installed Apple's Firewire SDK and was able to record that content and play it back with no problems. Thanks for reporting. We'll issue a fix for this within a few days.

    Sincerely,
    Time Warner Support
  25. This happened a while ago with satellite TV by kitgerrits · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Macrovision invented a special system with copyright bits and epiry dates.
    http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/13 10234

    They have already been in the news a lot:
    http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/macrovision_tran slation

    --
    "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
  26. "Features" of Windows Media Center... by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 2, Informative

    "With the latest Media Center Edition update from Microsoft, I and many others are finding that content available on television is now completely unwatchable from Media Center. The message states: 'Restricted Content: Restrictions set by the broadcaster and/or originator of the content prohibit playback of the program on this computer.'

    This has been a "feature" of Media Center for quite a long time. Discovered this with programming from the satellite that I pay the bill for every month.

    On the other hand...for those who do not want to go thru the hassles of MythTV & Linux...you can download & use a free replacement for Media Center. The program is called GB-PVR. No issues with the BS restrictions of Media Center & other commercial software...since it is developed outside the US. Will run on Windows 2000+ and have not run into a flagging issue in the two years I have run it. Not only that...you can download & install user supported plugins to do anything Media Center would even think of doing.

    Unlike Media Center...GB-PVR will record in MPEG-2 format & not the proprietary BS that Microsoft uses. This means you don't need a dvr software converter & the files are usable with any software which can read & use the MPEG-2 format.


    NOTE: I am not the programmer of this software & am not paid to advertise it. Just been using it successfully for at least the past 2 years. With this software...you don't need to spend the extra $$$ for commercial & crippled "feature-laiden" PVR software like Media Center.

    --
    Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
  27. No Problem, I'll Just Record Instead With AppleTV by meehawl · · Score: 2, Informative

    sounds like someone needs an Apple TV.

    yes, you're right Apple's TV thingy doesn't put DRM onto shows it records... BECAUSE IT CAN'T RECORD.

    Jeez.

    --

    Da Blog