MPAA Wants To Prevent Recording Movies On DVRs

I_am_Rambi writes "At the request of theatrical film makers, the Federal Communications Commission on Friday quietly launched a proceeding on whether to let video program distributors remotely block consumers from recording recently released movies on their DVRs. The technology that does this is called Selectable Output Control (SOC), but the FCC restricts its use. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) wants a waiver on that restriction in the case of high-definition movies broadcast prior to their release as DVDs." The FCC is soliciting comments until June 25th.

Comments

Good luck with that

[dreamchaser]

If I can watch it, I can record it. There will always be a way to do so. They can try to use the laws and technology to stop me, but they will lose in the end.

Re:Good luck with that

[giorgist]

They simply want enough people not being able to record. Probably wont work in the long run. A whole generation has grown up with 160GB ipods

(well, not grown up but they have them now)
G

Re:Good luck with that

[dreamchaser]

They simply want enough people not being able to record.

Yes, and they also want to make people into criminals for exercising Fair Use rights so they can continue to reap huge margins on plastic discs.

Re:Good luck with that

[Naughty Bob]

They simply want enough people not being able to record. Probably wont work in the long run. It's an interesting strategy, stop people recording shit by forcing the poor blighters to download it all months in advance... Genius.

Re:Good luck with that

[aurispector]

Funny, isn't it? If you like it you'll buy it - that's what I do. If I can't watch it, I won't know that I like it.

Re:Good luck with that

[Opportunist]

Given the quality of recently released movies, I'd say that's part of the strategy...

Re:Good luck with that

[Naughty Bob]

Exactly, I spend more on music now than I ever have done, precisely because of the vastly increased exposure to it bittorrent has enabled. I used to wish the entertainment industry would wake up to this reality.

Now I realise that that, from now on in, it can only impede my access to artists, and their access to my cash.

Re:Good luck with that

[jamesh]

Same deal with copy protection on games. Only the people who buy the product legally have to suffer with it (was it Red Alert 2 that came with copy protection that just didn't work on a significant number of CD drives?). The only people they'll really piss off are their customers.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant!
On my cable DVR system, some Movies already do not have a record option available so obviously If I can watch it I may not be able to record it !

Frankly the DVR Firmware is in Control and can be placed in control at the option of the cable provider , it can do anything they want !
Already mine can limit the time you can keep a recording , or limt the number of times it's played and prevents you from
zipping fast foreword past Commercials this is already being done on my Cable TV DVR system

Re:Good luck with that

[dreamchaser]

The you're doing it wrong. There is *always* going to be a way to record anything you watch. I didn't say you could use your cable company's crippled DVR system to do so. You just have the wrong tools.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

DVR programming is not Fixed
  The cable DVR box can and is remotely programmable by the cable /satellite TV providers and can be updated at any time to arbitrarily enforce their business model/ rules
FCC rules or not!
A cable DVR is a huge powerful embedded systems computer and is fully under their Control Not yours
If some executive get a bug up his butt the cable TV. satellite people can already do with their DVR whatever they want , ad as a subscriber you must submit to that .

Re:Good luck with that

[msormune]

And if you were to be stripped of all electronic equipment before seing the movie, how would you be able to record it?

Re:Good luck with that

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Frankly the DVR Firmware is in Control and can be placed in control at the option of the cable provider , it can do anything they want ! . . . so does this "Provider" also pick out which programs you watch? Sounds like great service to me! No more arguing with my girlfriend over what to watch; our "Provider" knows what is best for us . . .

. . . um, does your "Provider" address you as "Thrall", and does He seem to have a gambling problem with "Quatloos"? . . . I have a sneaky suspicion . . .

Re:Good luck with that

[k33l0r]

Same deal with copy protection on games. Only the people who buy the product legally have to suffer with it [...] The only people they'll really piss off are their customers.

Hear, hear. Copy protection is the reason why I can't play The Battle for Middle-Earth II on my Vista pc, the damn game can't see the legitimate CD through the WinXP compatibility mode.

Has copy protection stopped pirate games? No.
Has DRM stopped downloading? No.
Such measures just punish the folks who actually pay for their content...

Re:Good luck with that

[Xanius]

That's simple, don't use their cable box. A TV tuner with the capability of pulling HD channels costs less in most cases and with it you are in control of the software running it.
Which is exactly what dreamchaser was talking about, that and you could always just put a video camera on a tripod infront of your TV.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod parent +1 GetOffMyLawn

Re:Good luck with that

[Dan541]

Now I realise that that, from now on in, it can only impede my access to artists, and their access to my cash. I gave up trying to do the right thing long ago.
I learned that the studios are only interested in playing underhanded so Im not giving them the money to file lawsuits.

http://thepiratebay.org/

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how many people spend less, because they don't have to, now. I'll be honest, I don't spend more now than I did before I downloaded music. I already have it, why would I get it again?

Re:Good luck with that

[dreamchaser]

What part of I didn't say you could do it with THEIR equipment don't you get? I didn't say EVERYONE would be able to record whatever they see, but any well motivated geek not above making a home brew solution can get around any copy/record protection eventually.

I also didn't say it would be cost effective or that it wouldn't be time consuming. I just said that where there is a will there is a way.

I'm not the naive one here.

Re:Good luck with that

[ruin20]

I still have my VCR... as far as I know it works seamlessly recording what's coming out of the cable box.

Re:Good luck with that

[digitig]

I spend more, but most of what I spend is at gigs and festivals, and is mainly on obscure and often unsigned artists, and I usually put the cash directly in the artists hand. I don't have any illegal downloads but there are other ways to cut out the big companies.

Re:Good luck with that

[pwizard2]

Copy protection is the reason why I can't play The Battle for Middle-Earth II on my Vista pc,

Have you tried gamecopyworld.com? They have fixed no-cd-check exes and other patches for problems like that.

Re:Good luck with that

[inode_buddha]

As another alternative but in the same spirit -- Most of my music and movies are on 12-inch LP records or tapes. Thousands of them.It used to be that having a cassette Walkman was a status symbol. Nowdays they have iPods. Then they came out with CD's which totally blew out the market. Suddenly, I had to buy everything all over again. When Napster came out I went nuts on cable broadband. And I still have most of it. I refuse to pay for the same song or movie twice over, but I'll gladly pay for it in the original form. If they shove it down my cable that I'm paying for then I will damn well record whatever I want on my side of the box. You can do a lot with hi-impedance buffer amps. Disclaimer: 40-something slashdotter. And the LP and tape deck sit in a closet.

Re:Good luck with that

[Mex]

For real. Why am I still paying 20 bucks for a recording of the 1960's? (Beatles, Hendrix, etc)...

Re:Good luck with that

[h4rm0ny]

I'm the only person I know of my age group or younger (excluding pre-teen children) who doesn't download pirated music or movies. Leastways of anyone I know well enough to say, which is a lot of people. I think all of them download in preference to buying. At least I'm not aware of any of them going on to buy the film / album after having downloaded it - why bother? I think I'm regarded as slightly quaint in refusing to download.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well your a idiot for paying for it then.

They might pay attention if people stopped buying the products.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

For every person who spends more now, I'd bet there's a dozen like me who refuse to purchase a single song that isn't direct from a musician BECAUSE of the RIAA tactics. And I've never knowingly downloaded a song illegally. I would guess those who did would have similar feelings.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently, I tried to download the free demo for GRID, since I've been hankering for a good racing game with great online racing support. Imagine my surprise when the Securom in a free demo denied me the ability to run the game after I had it downloaded and installed. Let me reiterate that, in case you didn't get it: a free downloadable demo has copyright protection that keeps it from running on my computer. It barfed on some piece of software I was running before it was installed. Don't know what, don't care what. I couldn't find a way to get it to start, no matter what I tried, so I gave up and uninstalled it. I will not be buying the full game if the demo shows copyright protection so strict that I simply can't run the game on my system simply because I run software the publisher hasn't approved.

These days, it's not just copy protection on discs that's bad... you can be told you can't run a demo for running software on your OWN COMPUTER that a publisher doesn't approve of. They've sent me a very clear message: "We can tell you what software you're allowed to run on the computer you own."

We (as in all gamers that have spent money with the games industry for years) need to send a clear message back: "No, you can't."

Don't give money to companies that lock you up with copy protection schemes, even if they don't hurt you personally. Somewhere else, a legit customer is getting screwed out of their money by that system. Don't encourage that. Don't give companies engaged in such practices your money.

Re:Good luck with that

[vuffi_raa]

Same deal with copy protection on games. Only the people who buy the product legally have to suffer with it same goes with SPORE when it comes out- I was ready to buy it until I found out it requires a call home every 10 days or it craps out- honestly I don't want that in a game- it means I can't install it on one of my offline machines- so I will wait for a crack or just not play it- otherwise they woulda had my $

Re:Good luck with that

[mgblst]

Has copy protection stopped pirate games? No.
Has DRM stopped downloading? No.

Has the Police Force stopped murder? No.
Had the Fire Department stopped fires? No.

Clearly we should get rid of both of there serives, they are just a waste of taxes for all of us, since they are not 100% effective. Lets get rid of doctors, hospitals and medical reasearch, since they haven't cured death and it is unlikely they ever will. Brillant!

Re:Good luck with that

[sm62704]

Yes, and they also want to make people into criminals for exercising Fair Use rights

And a pony.

Re:Good luck with that

[Pecisk]

Such measures just punish the folks who actually pay for their content...

But it gives fuzzy warm feeling inside for company board, lawyers and shareholders. It is all about "feelin good".

DRM and copy protection has never have been backed up with real, hard numbers. And they never will be. Because it's not reason of their existence.

Re:Good luck with that

[k33l0r]

Has the Police Force stopped murder? No. Had the Fire Department stopped fires? No. Do the police have a role beyond harrassing innocents? Yes.
Does the fire department do more good than evil? Yes.

Re:Good luck with that

[hlavac]

Just wait until they push a law to force mandatory eye implants for everyone with DRM that blind you when you watch a HD movie outside their cinema! Just allow for a few more years of increasing desperation...

Re:Good luck with that

[u-235-sentinel]

Hear, hear. Copy protection is the reason why I can't play The Battle for Middle-Earth II on my Vista pc, the damn game can't see the legitimate CD through the WinXP compatibility mode.

Even my kids have noticed their games run better under Ubuntu Linux with WINE. Several have asked why games run better than under Windows. My younger son (10 yrs old) had the answer.

He said "Windows just sucks".

Ahh Wisdom from the mouth of babes ;-)

Re:Good luck with that

[cjb110]

did you get a fix for this?

cause i've got the same damn problem, and I can't get around it:(

Re:Good luck with that

[k33l0r]

I'm afraid not, though I'm still trying to beat something out of EA (literally, I've got one of their support staff tied-up in my basement).

Re:Good luck with that

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

I will often see a movie in the theater, if I liked the movie of course, after watching a downloaded cam version. I watch the cam to get the plot and then I go to the theater for the 'experience'. Where I live, after all, the matinee prices are only about 5.75 a ticket after sales tax. Even the evening price is only 6.75 for a regular adult ticket. I just sneak in my own food and drinks ^_^

Re:Good luck with that

[Doggabone]

I also spend more money overall. And now, not only has my exposure to artists broadened, but more and more artists are self-publishing and to my good fortune my tastes are eclectic. I haven't bought an artist that the RIAA (or an equivalent) has heard of in years. I buy from the artist's website, or their live shows, or festivals. I'm so much happier with my collection now.

One of the reasons I'm spending more is because I get a lot more for my dollar - self-run artists tend to charge a good chunk less than the major labels, and I'm more likely to buy three $10.00 download collections than one $20.00 CD. It's viable for an artist if they get the word out, because as independents their costs are lower, and so they still pocket more than if they sold through a major label's production line. I burn copies or collections for my friends, and if they like the songs they come to the shows, or buy the downloads and future releases too.

Re:Good luck with that

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

My 10 year old VCR has given up the ghost now unfortunately. I guess time-shifting about 6 hours of TV per week will do that though. I guess I'll finally break down and build that MythTV box that I've been procrastinating about for a couple years.

Re:Good luck with that

[smellsofbikes]

See, there's a problem lurking here: people are heterogeneous. Older people -- by which I mean those that have jobs and careers -- tend to listen and buy albums across a broad genre. Younger people tend to want to all listen to the same song, RIGHT NOW, and are no longer interested in it two months later. The latter group are what drive pop superstars and record companies to make millions, and are also the least likely to have either the money to buy everything they want, or the willingness to buy something that they know, on some level, they're going to be tired of in six weeks.
So the question becomes: which demographic does the recording industry want to piss off more? Alas for us listen-and-purchase types, I think we represent a much lower profit margin than the kiddies who all want the latest top-10 songs each week.

I can see it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Great Firewall of America. Has a nice ring to it.

If you can watch it on a computer

[Froeschle]

then you can record it. Software such as Mythtv makes it possible, until of course the TV cards somehow become so functionally disabled that they refuse to work with Linux. oh wait..

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Lumpy]

the recording cards work great. Cable TV simply encrypts everything so your recording card will not work. In fact they do that now. locally here all you can get is the 3 locals unencrypted.

Honestly the FCC needs to get some balls and FORCE cable companies to have all the channels available UNENCRYPTED. but it will never happen.

Digital TV is a step backwards. Quality sucks because they compress it hard. plus they remove your ability to record it or use anything advanced to watch it. you have to use that piece of crap cable box of theirs.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[irtza]

but encryption is also how they keep people from getting channels they aren't paying for. I have no problem with them encrypting the channels. What would be better is if they had a standard algorithm for encryption, so it can be implemented by third parties. That way they can provide you with the key after you pay for it. Still a fair deal since you can then implement your own software. They assure that casual piracy is eliminated and thus protect their basic interests. Unless you want to eliminate the cable system as it exists now, a means to protect premium and pay-per-view channels must be in place. I honestly think, the high revenues for the movie industry are necessary to continue the production of truly spectacular movies. I know many here disagree, but I assure you that without potential for enormous profits, only an eccentric billionaire would fund the tens of millions used to make some of the great movies (yes I know there are great movies made for a lot less, but come-on - there is an appeal to movies like star wars and die hard). I think its the abuse of the copyright term that is the main problem. The last extension to copyright was almost as good as making copyright indefinite and is an insult to the required time limit clause on copyrights.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that the whole point of cable card reading tv tuner cards for pcs? maybe you're just not getting the right HD tv tuner.. there are tons of tuners that take set top box cards and let you record etc channels you've paid for without giving you the rest for free.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[canuck57]

Digital TV is a step backwards. Quality sucks because they compress it hard. plus they remove your ability to record it or use anything advanced to watch it. you have to use that piece of crap cable box of theirs.

It is also why today I still don't have digital TV. I have the old style analog. In fact, the only reason I have cable TV is for the internet. They have sent me tons of offers, but I do not intend to change. Even to the point when analog is dead, I figure Internet TV will bloom and I can skip digital TV all together.... or in a least for cable.

I might retire sometime in the next few years to my country home, if I do, I need satellite Internet more than TV. My favorite show is on the Internet, I can watch it when I want. TV as we know it is legacy. But I agree with you, Digital TV is a giant step backwards.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[apoc.famine]

I'm not sure how much longer this will last anyway. Not too hard to imagine the cable companies going to an all-on-demand, micro-pay-per-view system.

Why bother broadcasting when you can charge someone if they decide that they don't like your show, and want to change to another channel? You need to get that "lost" advertising back somehow. And in this scenario, you simply pay a bit more for the archive of older shows, so if you miss an episode you can still see it.

Why pay MORE for a DVR? We archive all shows! Pay for only what you *want* to see, not all the rest! Tired of being told what to watch, when? Get 100 sitcoms, 10 sporting events, and 20 movies a month for only $100! On-demand, whenever you want to watch them!

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[teebob21]

Fortuantely for the parent, there is no -1, Wrong moderation option.

The cable companies do not encrypt the digital stream unless the channel is on a pay tier, or the content provider mandates it. My employer had been carrying ESPN HD, Discovery HD, History HD, and a few other national channels in the clear for almost a year. Contract renegotiations have come up, and those channels now must be encrypted for us to retain the rights to carry them. As a result, the cable co looks like the bad guy when we must tell our subs that they now must lease a converter box or CableCard to decrypt the channels we previously could send in the clear.

In regards to being forced into using the company's cable box, the FCC has mandated this to be illegal. Simply go down to your local electronics store and pickup a CableCard enabled converter...which according to the FCC, should be available nationwide. Oh wait...no manufacturer has started making them in the last 3 years. Go FCC! There's always TiVo, I suppose...

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Lumpy]

Funny they dont encrypt the analog channels and those dont cause problems. there is ZERO reason for them to encrypt all the QAM channels. if I pay for "extended basic" I should get all the channels I am supposed to in digital QAM so my tv can tune them in.

the real reason is different. Being a cable insider I know the real reason. it's to FORCE you to have a cable box. the cable TV company DESPERATELY wants to force you to have that box. Because then most of their employees can be laid off as they can connect live TV to every home and then control the boxes.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

no there aren't... wtf are you smoking?

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Mattsson]

It wouldn't be an issue if people had the character to actually not get subscriptions on encrypted channels.
Most of the stuff they broadcast is crap anyway, and they won't let you buy only the one or two good channels, you have to buy a whole bunch of other crap too...

It ain't worth what they ask for it, especially when they cripple it, so don't buy it.
If no one paid for the crap, they'd have to become customer-friendly in order to stay in business.

But, as I said, the problem is that way too many people actually think the crap is worth paying for, so the broadcasters get rich even without my money...

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[jedidiah]

> The cable companies do not encrypt the digital stream unless the channel is on a pay tier, or the content provider mandates it.

This is utter hogwash. Just lurk in any media server discussion group and you will quickly see people with firsthand experience otherwise.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[jpallas]

In regards to being forced into using the company's cable box, the FCC has mandated this to be illegal. Simply go down to your local electronics store and pickup a CableCard enabled converter...which according to the FCC, should be available nationwide. Oh wait...no manufacturer has started making them in the last 3 years. Go FCC! There's always TiVo, I suppose...

But there's a good reason the TV manufacturers stopped (not never started) making sets with CableCard. By all accounts, CableCard was a disaster for the consumer: compatibility was poor and the subscriber was left high and dry while the TV manufacturer and the cable company pointed fingers at each other. Oh, it didn't help that the cable companies all required a service technician visit to install the damned card!

Couple that with the inability to access all that free on-demand content the cable companies have been pushing, and you can see why demand for CableCard sets went straight through the floor.

Will Tru2way (OCAP rebranded) work any better? We'll see.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. wrong? The ONLY channels that are on digital that are not encrypted are the Locals around here. Sci-FI, USA, CNBC, etcc are ALL ENCRYPTED. some areas have not caught up with others but in most major markets MOST CHANNELS ARE ENCRYPTED.

Lumpy is dead on correct. it seems that you are the one that is wrong.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Akaihiryuu]

It was due to this crap that I had my cable TV shut off in 1998, and I have not gotten it again since. "Nothing on TV worth watching anymore" notwithstanding, the only way I would consider it again is if I could watch everything through a MythTV box, without using a separate cable box. That won't happen, but the way I see it, I'm not missing anything anyway.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Atario]

Cable TV simply encrypts everything so your recording card will not work.

If you can watch it, you can record it. At some point, something has to decrypt it so your TV can show it. And that's where you can record it.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[OwnedByTwoCats]

There is a standard for encrypting digital cable. It's called "cable card".

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[dmsuperman]

I don't know any of the specifics, but I would figure that with those digital -> analog converters that they're selling for the 2009 switch would easily allow you to hook your digital box/cable up to your analog tuner card and have an unencrypted source of TV.

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Sloppy]

isn't that the whole point of cable card reading tv tuner cards for pcs?

That was the point, but it was subverted. Cablecard sounds like a good idea at first, but it has a fatal flaw: cablecard "certification." This locks the user into using proprietary, and necessarily crippled, products. The reason MythTV doesn't have a cablecard driver, for example, is not incompetence.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Sloppy]

A "standard" is not a standard, if there are limitations as to who is allowed to interoperate with it.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

Well, the cable companies still have to provide analog signals for OTA stations over their cable lines, at least for the basic channels, until 2012. Only the OTA stations themselves are being forced to switch to digital only in February 2009.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[yuna49]

I've wondered about this myself. As a FiOS subscriber, our analog channels are being replaced with QAM channels, so Verizon is distributing the mandated digital-to-analog converters. It's just a guess, but I'd be surprised if these boxes tuned anything other than the mandatory local broadcast stations. Cable operators are required to provide the "must-carry" local broadcast stations; they aren't required to provide ESPN. If you want ESPN, you'll probably have to rent a set-top box or use a TiVO with a cable card.

Re:If you can watch it on a computer

[HTH NE1]

There's always TiVo, I suppose... Actually, the TiVo Series3 solved my digital cable woes. Ever since Time Warner Cable installed "mystro" software on their cable boxes, they've been unusable by my analog-recording TiVos as they would fail to change channels properly or crash if said channel changes were done on-time rather than one minute early or late.

Once I had the CableCard-enabled TiVo (and signal problems were resolved with an unbalanced splitter), I've been happily recording all my digital (non-OnDemand) channels. Granted, the TiVo generally won't let me transfer any shows on an encrypted channel to my computer unless I scheduled it as a Manual Recording(*), but it does a good enough job down-converting to anamorphic video on the analog outputs for DVD burning. I just need something that will also capture the fiber audio.

(*) This has only happened the one time, recording for two hours starting 2 hours into a 4-hour timeslot, with one minute of padding at each end. It was the second half of the new The Andromeda Strain miniseries in HD.

draconian bulloni!

[FudRucker]

Thanks to the MPAA & RIAA I no longer spend any money on music or movies. I use an AM/FM radio for music and if I watch a movie it is something old on basic cable. You will never see me with music CDs or movies on DVD at the checkout line at the store, if i ever buy anything like that it will have to be at some yard sale or pawn shop for pennies on the dollar...

Vote with your wallet!

Re:draconian bulloni!

[retech]

In '97 a friend of mine was offered a recording contract by Sony. It was a 1000+ page tome. He read it over for 3 months and told them to piss off. After Sony was said and done with them they'd have gotten about 1.3 cents a song per album sale. Unless the artist(s) directly produce it themselves I have not purchased an album since that point in time. I never will again either.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[Sleepy]

>Thanks to the MPAA & RIAA I no longer spend any money on music or movies. I use an AM/FM radio for music and if I watch a movie it is something old on basic cable. You will never see me with music CDs or movies on DVD at the checkout line at the store, if i ever buy anything like that it will have to be at some yard sale or pawn shop for pennies on the dollar...

The MPAA dosn't have a column in their spreadsheet for people like you.

They just put you in the "stopped buying due to piracy" column, to show losses to the lawmakers.

That's the same column they use for people who buy less 'content' because their paycheck shrank.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[ruin20]

Courtney Love gives a much more accurate account for how the racket works. All these "BIG" record deals aren't that "BIG" at all because typically the advance given the band is not just payment to the members, but also supposed to cover production expenses. In other words record company gives you 1.3 million and you go to the recording studio, art studio, and post possessing guys and give 1 million back to the record studio and you're left with 300,000 with which you pay the manager and the artist, making it a 5 or 6 way split. That's 50 grand a piece. And then you never see a penny from your album because that 1.3 million was an advance. Thats why going gold, silver and platinum are such big deals, because they're when the artist starts actually seeing 1.3 cents per song.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory better article by a better musician:
The Problem With Music

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[digitig]

It depends on the bands outlook. I once heard Pete "Memory" Banks of 80s band After The Fire comment that they had a great time on expenses that were "reclaimable but not recoverable" (if I've got the term right) by the company. That means that the record company gets all profits from album sales until those expenses are paid off, but they can't go after the band for the money. So the band didn't come out of the deal with an income stream, but they came out with memories of good times on expenses. Sure, the labels are wise to that, but cents per song isn't the only way to work out the accounts.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the radio? You poor, poor soul. I'm about in the same position as you with my personal boycott on the RIAA and (to a lesser extent if just because even before this I only watched new movies at a rate of 1 per 3 years) MPAA.

These days, while it's still possible to do so, I run around the internet looking for indy artists and artists otherwise willing to share a few of their tracks for free. You get a heck of a lot more variety than the radio, I can assure you.

Since my boycott went up for the RIAA in 2005, I've bought exactly 1 CD from them. (I had to get Disturbed. :P)

Since the boycott the RIAA has lost about 12 desired CD purchases. I have not downloaded those on the net either. I'm past caring about "the poor artists signed to the RIAA labels". They've had enough time to learn what the RIAA is about. Just listening to my older CDs that are by RIAA labels now leave a bitter taste in my mouth. :P

Since the boycott and my resulting search for indy music, I've begun buying direct from artists whenever I can with my limited means. This summer alone I have plans of buying at least 10 CDs from artists I would never have found if not for my internet treking.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[theJML]

Voting with your wallet doesn't seem to send the right message across. We all vote "Screw you *AA! I'm not giving you any of my money" and they just take it as "all of our customers are just downloading everything illegally now." . . . I agree with capitalism, but by not buying it you could either mean "I hate the *AA", or "This music sucks" or "I'm just gonna download it illegally" or "I'll by it used" or...

The *AA is just going to pick the reason as they see fit. And so far they only think that illegal downloads is the cause of their lack of revenue. Which brings up the point that CD sales actually increased, and continue to do so... they just don't do it by the percentage that they thought they should have.

I'd have no problems buying CD's/DVD's if I knew that the money would go toward the artists and not the *AA's agenda. So I sit here not buying them, choosing both "I hate the *AA" AND "this music/movie sucks" and they automatically lump me in the "illegal downloads" category. Because from their POV, EVERYONE AUTOMATICALLY buys CD's/DVD's. So if you don't buy it, you're obviously getting it somewhere else.

Re:draconian bulloni!

[sornord]

I recall a CNN segment a few years back where Big Head Todd and the Monsters said that now that they're doing their own production and distribution they're selling fewer CDs than they did under their record contract but they're making more money.

Yeah... right

[retech]

How's that copy protection working for ya?

Re:Yeah... right

[xaxa]

How's that copy protection working for ya? Remember those it will work for: the less technically literate. Don't forget that most people wouldn't be able to get round the proposed block.

Re:Yeah... right

[Opportunist]

You mean there is anyone who can't push the "copy now" button on a given program? Does it need localization or something?

Re:Yeah... right

[retech]

I do pity those people. Sneaker net still works for them from what I'm told.

Re:Yeah... right

[Mick Ohrberg]

You mean there is anyone who can't push the "copy now" button on a given program?
Absolutely. Remember, a lot of people struggle with pushing the "Retrieve emails" button, and some can't even differentiate between the "Reply" and "Reply to all" buttons.

Re:Yeah... right

[foniksonik]

The less technically literate are typical very good at social networking... they have to be, it's their only option, so... they just ask their technically literate friends to copy it for them.

Surprisingly however, those whom you think are not technically literate are very likely to know how to do this type of thing. Movies, Music, Entertainment in general is *their thing*... so they actually take the time to learn how to get at it. They just aren't interested in *how it works*, as long as it works.

Pointless?

[hcdejong]

Over here, movies are never shown on TV before their DVD release date. Is this different in the US?

Re:Pointless?

[zippthorne]

Not that I'm aware of.

But remember, "Slippery slope" isn't just a logical fallacy, it's also instructions for a viable method of accomplishing unpopular legislation.

Re:Pointless?

[jamesh]

Not sure where you are, but in Australia the pay tv channels advertise movies "that you won't see on DVD this year". For free-to-air stations it's the same as where you are though.

Re:Pointless?

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes. In the US, movies are usually shown in theaters, then released on DVD, then after a few months shown on TV. No particular reason is given for this, but presumably someone at the MPAA thought that it would allow them to milk the most money from the movie.

Re:Pointless?

[Lumpy]

Yes.

it's called Pay-per-view. and they will air a movie right after a theater release so you can watch it on your home cable TV or sattelite service. the MPAA wants to enable the nasties in the HDMI spec so that they can make it impossible to record it.

Re:Pointless?

[Opportunist]

My guess is that they're trying to do just that now: To release movies to pay-per-view HD before bringing them into the rental stores. Ya know, those clerks there don't get a lot, but a penny earned more is a penny earned more. People will probably pay to watch a fairly recent movie at home for 5 bucks rather than paying 10 bucks (plus again about as much for junk food) in a cinema.

Huh? The movie industry raping its own distribution partners, movies and rentals? Duh, thought they'd only do it with their customers?

Re:Pointless?

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, very few movies I know of here in the USA are available on pay-per-view before it's available on DVD or Blu-ray disc, mostly because the movie studios make way more profit on video software sales per disc than from a pay-per-view sale.

Re:Pointless?

[mrslacker]

My guess is that they're trying to do just that now: To release movies to pay-per-view HD before bringing them into the rental stores. Could be. TimeWarnerCable claim to have movies as soon as the DVD is released.

Ya know, those clerks there don't get a lot, but a penny earned more is a penny earned more. People will probably pay to watch a fairly recent movie at home for 5 bucks rather than paying 10 bucks (plus again about as much for junk food) in a cinema. Well, indeed. Personally, I'll stick to my $10/month Netflix, and wait a few days if I really want the latest release (which I probably don't)

Re:Pointless?

[scaryjohn]

Over here, movies are never shown on TV before their DVD release date. Is this different in the US?

Actually, yeah. A few highly successful movies are released on a pay-per-view or video-on-demand basis through cable and satellite systems a couple weeks before being released on DVD. Conceivably, if these movies were released in high definition video-on-demand and the end user were to record it with a high definition DVR/PVR/TiVo, they could rip the data off the DVR and kick it to the net weeks before the bluray discs were on store shelves.

Not that I've ever had a cable company-provided DVR, but I figured they'd already be configured to block all recording from video-on-demand feeds.

There was a similar situation right before DVD's became mainstream here. The movie studios still had illegal price controls on the newest VHS releases and that made it 25% - 50% cheaper to order a movie on pay-per-view and tape it, than buy it on VHS at the store. $10 for pay-per-view, plus the cost of a blank tape, versus $20 for a new VHS release.

Re:Pointless?

[Free the Cowards]

Your list is in order of decreasing price and decreasing quality. This is not a coincidence.

It's all about market segmentation. When selling a product, it's always desirable to get the customers who are willing to pay more to actually pay more money. This is hard, though, because you generally advertise the same price to everyone. So companies come up with various tactics to avoid this, such as multiple editions of a product with different prices, or charging a premium early and then lowering the price later on.

With movies, people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to see that movie will see it in the theater, where they're forking over $10 for the ticket and probably a bunch of money for food. Then the next tier down is people who are only moderately willing to pay money, they'll pay the $5 to rent the DVD some months later. And lastly you have people who don't care very much, and they'll watch it on the TV for free with advertisements.

Note that I'm not saying that any of the above is evil. Quite the opposite, it's simply good business sense. Most businesses, from hotels to airlines to even the individual movie theaters themselves (think matinee pricing) do this kind of thing. The trouble, of course, is that in an age where digital media can be copied effortlessly, market segmentation based around restricting who gets to see some bits no longer works very well.

Re:Pointless?

[socsoc]

I agree... recent Comcast promotions of their video on-demand make claims about watching it the same day it comes out on DVD.

Re:Pointless?

[yuna49]

Not at the moment, but TFA indicates that the movie studios are considering some type of high-definition pay-per-view service in advance of DVD release. It's this hypothetical window that they're trying to protect here.

No one would benefit more from a trend to home theaters than the studios. Selling their product directly to viewers squeezes out the networks and other program distributors on the one hand, and the theater owners on the other. The studios hate having to sell their product through distributors, so direct-to-home delivery is a dream come true. (At one time some studios owned their own theaters, but they were forced to divest them on antitrust grounds by the Supreme Court in 1948.)

I'd still pay to see Indiana Jones and its ilk on a lovely wide screen as we did just recently, but there are lots of films that don't require the big-screen treatment. I doubt we'll lose theaters entirely as they provide a social function as well as a method of distributing programming. I doubt we'll see television networks disappear any time soon either. But the allure of direct-to-home programming will continue to attract the studios' attention in the years to come.

This will never work.

[crhylove]

The sooner they realize that and give up, the better off they are going to be. Further, how many people are going to buy a DVR (Digital Video RECORDER) that doesn't actually RECORD? Isn't that like, I don't know, THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT?!?!? I build my own DVRs anyway, and I certainly would never build that feature in.

Re:This will never work.

[Opportunist]

Well, you can still record. You can still record all those movies sent without the "no recording" flag, like all those old movies that have been rerun a billion times already. Like ... well, not all old movies, because Disney will certainly disallow it. And probably not the old war movies either, they go pretty well on DVD so far. Probably also not Star Wars or Star Trek, since there'll soon be another "superspecialawesome collectors box".

But you may record those ads. Well, for now.

Re:This will never work.

[Lumpy]

Actually you do build that feature in unless you are building your own capture cards.

your HDMI capture card, the only way I know of to capture an encrypted HD signal from the cable or sattelite box, has thise "feature" for you.

I cant find any component capture cards that exist that will capture HD resolutions so you are stuck with hdmi/dvi.

BTW: notice how nobody has made a linux driver for those cards? only OSX and Windows... because the driver has the "screw the user" code in it.

Re:This will never work.

[Buster Charlie]

Serious Question. Would this be a way to bypass the HDMI copy protection?

Obviously the HDMI signal is controlled from the cable to the video processor, but after that it's displayed on the LCD screen or whatever. Obviously they can't stop you from cam ripping your own LCD TV but the quality would be rather poor.

So is there a way to remove the LCD panel from a cheap HDTV and directly wire the LCD input cables to a black box that would recognize the raw video feed intended for the LCD, and either save it to hard disk for later recompression or recompress it on the fly?

I know it would not be as convenient as a direct rip and you would loose some quality but I doubt you'd loose anything noticeable. If you can view it, you can copy it, just wait till we all have to get DRM optical implants that blind us when looking at unauthorized movies.

Re:This will never work.

[mrslacker]

It's called a Firewire card as I mentioned elsewhere:

http://mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/Recording_Digital_Cable#Option_2:_FireWire_via_Set_Top_Box

Of course, depending upon your STB and Provider, YMMV.

Re:This will never work.

[Kjella]

I thought you could get HDMI capture cards, but not HDMI/HDCP capture cards. That was the source of some Blu-Ray reencodes before BD+ was broken:

1. Remove AACS (including flag for HDCP)
2. Play Blu-Ray out over HDMI (using closed source BD+ decoding player)
3. Capture raw HDMI
4. Reencode

If you have a HDMI/HDCP capture card, wouldn't that kinda ruin the point of HDCP in the first place?

Re:This will never work.

[Anonymous Coward]

So your firewire card magically connects to cable boxes and sattelite recievers that DO NOT HAVE firewire?

also they magically decrypt the signal? because every Cable box that had a working firewire out, when you tuned to a "protected" channel it went scrambled. I could watch it on HDMI/DVI but NOT firewire.

Re:This will never work.

[mrslacker]

-1 Shouting fool

> So your firewire card magically connects to cable boxes and satellite receivers that DO NOT HAVE firewire?

Nope, just ones which do. i.e, what FCC have mandated since 2004. If you have an older STB, then get it replaced.

> also they magically decrypt the signal?

No, it comes out unencrypted here. As I said, YMMV.

> because every Cable box that had a working firewire out

You mean every one _you've_ tried (and you don't say how many, or which ones). Clearly this is working for many people if you'd bothered to read the link. I don't pretend this is a silver bullet, or that TWC won't change the rules any time they please, _but_ it does work for now, and for me and answered the question about how to record HD under Linux. Quit your crying.

Re:This will never work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the Hauppauge HD-PVR a try. It already works in SageTV and BeyondTV is working of support right now. It uses component hookups to record HD through the analog hole (which the media companies hate so much.) I'm still waiting for mine to be shipped, because they are having a hard time keeping up with demand.

Re:This will never work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you just use an HDMI repeater to strip the encryption?

Simpler, easier way

[backbyter]

Don't release the film to broadcast before you release it to disc.

How about not broadcasting it?

[mangu]

There used to be a certain schedule for films. First they were shown at theaters. Then, a few months after, they were released in VHS. Broadcasting started only a year or so after theater release.

It seems that the MPAA is trying to maximize their profit, at the expense of the public in general. We are stuck with technical hassle just because the MPAA wants to use government regulation instead of logical market forces to prevent unauthorized copying.

Re:How about not broadcasting it?

[Bieeanda]

Precisely. They want their cake, and to eat it too. Unfortunately, they couldn't stop if they even wanted to: they're legally obligated to try to maximize profits. If they stopped, shrugged and said 'DVR wins', their member companies' shareholders would be filing lawsuits in an instant.

Unfortunately under this kind of economic regime, 'consumer' means less 'one who eats' and much more 'one who must be force-fed'.

Re:How about not broadcasting it?

[AusIV]

Unfortunately, they couldn't stop if they even wanted to: they're legally obligated to try to maximize profits. If they stopped, shrugged and said 'DVR wins', their member companies' shareholders would be filing lawsuits in an instant.

Shareholders can change the board of directors in the event that the board is not maximizing profits, but they cannot sue for compensation.

Even if this were true, the company's obligation to maximize profits would be within the realm of the law. There's no way there's a law on the books that requires corporations to get laws changed to maximize their profits. They might lose their seat on the board for not lobbying congress, but it's not because they've broken any laws.

Lastly, I'm sure one could generate a study to indicate that putting fewer restrictions on their media would be a good public relations move, and would maximize profits in the long run. I don't know if that's necessarily the truth, but it could certainly be argued that it's a profit maximizing strategy.

Re:How about not broadcasting it?

[Free the Cowards]

Things like reputation and customer goodwill have value too, to the extent that the accountants will put numbers on them. Nothing in the "maximize profits" requirement says that you have to shit all over your customers for short-term gain. Contrary to what many people here think, the courts and the market are capable of understanding long-term strategies at the expense of quarterly profits. The law does not require them to act like assholes. They're acting like assholes simply because they are assholes, not because there's some legal requirement for it. It's obvious to you and me that this move is detrimental to their long-term profits, and if they believed the same and could back it up with facts then they would win any minority shareholder suit brought against them.

comment system not working @ FCC

[SethJohnson]

Using the link in the post, the FCC website tells me "CSR-7947-Z" isn't open for comments. DOes anyone know how to submit comments successfully on this proceeding?

Seth

Re:comment system not working @ FCC

[joe 155]

why seth, that's easy. All you need to do is give millions dollars to the president and his party, as well as a little to those in congress, then tell them that your continuing support is conditional upon them stopping this at all costs. Really, how's democracy ever going to work if people don't understand such basic elements of the democratic process!

Re:comment system not working @ FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

the proceeding is "08-82" wasn't easy to find.

Re:comment system not working @ FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Same problem here - that was pretty lame to post this without the proper proceeding number for people to use to comment.

Re:comment system not working @ FCC

[forrie]

The correct code to use for comments is: 08-82

Please, when posting something like this, it would be helpful to have all the correct information in the summary to begin with (thanks).

Re:comment system not working @ FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

File under the other number, 08-82; that worked for me.

Ooh, even more pointlessness

[ricebowl]

"At the request of theatrical film makers, the Federal Communications Commission on Friday quietly launched a proceeding on whether to let video program distributors remotely block consumers from recording recently released movies on their DVRs.

Why? Why would they even bother? The very people this is going to piss off is the legitimate customers, the people downloading (AKA 'Pirates') are going to get around this in about twenty minutes. And even then, they'll get around it by getting the movie at more or less the release date to the cinemas (I can't imagine a pirate waiting til it's released to TV).

What

[Sabz5150]

You mean the Mapaa wants to take away the recordification button from my Dishdivver?! I'll go to war for this!

Of course the cable companies will love this!

[Dr. Spork]

I think this will happen: For one thing, this will only work with expensive set-top DVR boxes provided by the cable company - they will be the only things able to decode the DRM. This means that aftermarket DVRs will be second-class citizens, consolidating the control of the cable companies.

I'm not sure how relasing movies in HD before the DVD release will benefit the movie houses though. You know that there will be HD-rips from day one on the internet, and once they circulate, who'll want to rent the comparatively ugly DVD... weeks later, and for money? Do they really have so much faith in their DRM? I don't!

Re:Of course the cable companies will love this!

[steeviant]

"I think this will happen: For one thing, this will only work with expensive set-top DVR boxes provided by the cable company - they will be the only things able to decode the DRM. This means that aftermarket DVRs will be second-class citizens, consolidating the control of the cable companies."

I don't see that happening, my aftermarket DVR is a PC. It may be a second-class citizen when it comes to pay TV, but I don't see the pay TV companies offering a box with Bittorrent and DivX capability. The reality is that as they amp up restrictions on purpose built DVRs more people are going to abandon broadcast signals and go to the internet to get an unrestricted version of what they want to record.

Enough already....

[blankoboy]

I have had absolutely enough of all the rantings by the RIAA, MPAA, etc and DR-freaking-M. Hollywood can take their media and shove it up their collective @rse. Is there anything sooo special coming out of Hollywood that makes me want to lose my daily freedoms? Simply no. I don't need anything that they are pumping out and neither do you. Stop buying their sh*t and let them die a long painful death. I will not shed a tear.

Re:Enough already....

[Earered]

Is there anything sooo special coming out of Hollywood that makes me want to lose my daily freedoms? Iron Man? The Avengers in 2011?

Re:Enough already....

[grumling]

HEAR HEAR!

Let's do something else!
Let's do something else!
Let's do something else!
Let's do something else!
Let's do something else!

Who's with me? (crowd roars)

Right after I watch BSG...

Re:Enough already....

[neomunk]

Really now, are the movie versions THAT MUCH BETTER than the comic books? Of course not, the only reason you want to see those movies is the comic book version. Don't be so quick to thank someone for butchering a classic story just because they spend enough on it to make it look really pretty.

Re:Enough already....

[Earered]

Sorry, I like pretty things

(plus comics and movies are different medium, so I tend to judge them differently, not on them being true to the comics (though I didn't like the adaptation made to spiderman, those made the character shallow IMHO)).

Hey MPAA, walk down the street ...

[TallMatthew]

... and go knock on the RIAA's door. Ask them how well sidling up to governmental agencies, instituting kludgey DRM and restricting access to paying customers works in stifling the spread of product via the Internet. Will these idiots ever learn?

I predict Oren Hatch will be coming out soon with a statement denouncing movie downloaders as Marxist pedophiles who finance terrorism and support marriage for transexuals.

Re:Hey MPAA, walk down the street ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict Oren Hatch will be coming out soon with a statement denouncing movie downloaders as Marxist pedophiles who finance terrorism and support marriage for transexuals.

Hey! Some of us on this board are Marxist pedophile transsexual terrorists, you insensitive clod!

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it

[Holammer]

Remember late 70's and early 80's when all those faceless corporations went to court because Sony produced a VCR capable of recording content. Funny how things change eh, now they go back to back with their former enemies trying to restrict our right to record content.

That's fine with me

[Rik Sweeney]

But the networks have to agree not to intentionally clash shows just to have a ratings war.

(So basically it's not going to happen)

*aa wants to prevent content consumption

[nurb432]

What they all want is a way to prevent possession of any content, and you have to lease it from them per use for the rest of your life..

Comcast already does this...

[Holistic Missile]

In the Chicago area, Comcast blocks some content from recording. Many of the on-demand movies and some of the premium channel programming cannot be recorded by a standard DVR. This is on digital cable in standard definition, using an off-the-shelf Philips DVR (not Comcast's).

My DVR will buffer these programs, allowing rewind, pause, etc. If I try to record it to the hard drive it refuses to, giving a message of 'protected'. I'm not sure exactly how they do it - I always thought they may be broadcasting Macrovision codes with the signal.

I suppose it could be hacked by a hardware hack like removing the hard drive and collecting the movie from the buffer, but nothing that is being broadcast is worth the effort! It's bad enough that I waste time sitting in front of the tube viewing this 'high value content'. I'm sure as hell not wasting more time trying to copy it. It is nearly summer here - there are much better things to do most days.

Re:Comcast already does this...

[the_B0fh]

That "buffer" is also on the hard drive... Now you understand why they don't want you to be able to access the hard drive yourself.

Re:Comcast already does this...

[Holistic Missile]

Yes, the buffer is on the hard drive. It is a circular file that overwrites itself when it reaches 6 hours of content. It is erased at power-down or startup (not sure which) also. That was the basis of the hardware hack idea I tossed out there. Like I said, I wouldn't waste the time to disassemble the unit and hook the hard drive up to a computer, just to find out that the buffer is cleared on power-down, or that the buffer is some unusable, proprietary data stream, maybe even encrypted.

I guess I should have been more clear in my post - by 'save to the hard drive' I meant copy the movie from the buffer to the library area of the drive as a selectable title (which could subsequently be burned to a DVD).

I actually chose the Philips because the hard drive can be replaced, although you won't find it in the owner's manual! I was thinking about extending the DVR's life beyond a drive failure, though, not hacking copy protection.

Re:Comcast already does this...

[TomRK1089]

That's true in the Rhode Island and Southern Mass area too. Though, really, the only show I actually watch on the telly now is Lost, and they've not protected that one yet. For everything else, the public library is your best friend.

Re:Comcast already does this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nearly summer here - there are much better things to do most days.

Not to be in your business, but try calling the cable co to reduce or eliminate your cable subscription. Give them your "summer" story or crap about the DVR not working. If nothing else, you'll lower your bill.

Re:Comcast already does this...

[mgblst]

Ha, the RIAA/MPAA dual pronged attack on copyright violators.

1) Make it harder to to copy their material.
2) Decrease the quality of the material, so you don't try too hard.

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[nurb432]

Except things are different now, as 'content control' wasn't doable back then.

In the digital it is technically possible, and once all old machines are phased out it will be practicable too. Will that be tomorrow or even next year? No, but eventually it will happen for most people. If you doubt me, how many people do you know that still have turntables or 8-tracks at this point?

Reading the Article ftw

[sweede]

If anyone had actually read the article, you'll find out that currently Movies are NOT released to TV (pay per view or other) before they're released to DVD. the MPAA wants to change that so that they are shown on TV (PPV or other) AS or BEFORE the DVD release. But before it changes that time schedule, it wants to know if the FCC will create a ruling that would prevent DVR to able to record the movie BEFORE its released to DVD.

So in other words

Theater -> DVD -> TV , won't have the non-record flag set
Theater -> TV -> DVD WILL have the non-record flag set until AFTER it's released on DVD.

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[the_B0fh]

And you think it's only going to be limited in this case, right? Just like all those anti-terrorism laws will only be strictly restricted to fighting terrorists. Really, you can trust us, we are the government.

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good, until they decide to charge more tot eh cablecos after the DVD is released if the non-record flag set, and other companies start doing the same thing with thier programs. Once the technology is there, it will be used.

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[monxrtr]

it wants to know if the FCC will create a ruling that would prevent DVR to able to record the movie BEFORE its released to DVD Is the FCC a higher court than the Supreme Court? Maybe the FCC can also overrule the Supreme Court Beta Max case which ruled consumers have a right to record and time shift content with their VCRs.

This is a fishing expedition for retroactive immunity from the massive civil liability damages the cable companies will be accumulating, if not disabling sold DVRECORDERS isn't considered criminal fraud. If it does end up being considered criminal fraud, remember to confiscate the personal assets of the executive management under Sarbanes-Oxley.

What's next? Comcast can eliminate all competition in the television hardware market by changing the digital signal so that all content is scrambled unless you purchase a proprietary Comcast digital television with built in DRM chips?

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems reasonable ... until you realize that you've missed something you considered interesting enough to record and watch later because the program was "protected", and then you wonder why you're paying for that "premium" content if you can't watch it.

The only way this would actually be fair is if the companies selling these services CLEARLY mark the "non-recordable" programs long before they are actually shown (e.g., in guides and such - "This will be a non-recordable program"). Otherwise it borders on false advertising because people expect to be able to record and watch the stuff at their leisure, but they (surprise) won't be able to do so. If you do shift work or are regularly away from home when programs of interest are on then you won't be getting much of a deal, especially if it is consistently the "high value" stuff that is non-recordable.

You don't know what you are actually buying if they can abitrarily and without notification block your regular service.

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words

Theater -> DVD -> TV , won't have the non-record flag set
Theater -> TV -> DVD WILL have the non-record flag set until AFTER it's released on DVD.</quote>

No it will be :
Theater -> screener on p2p -> TV -> HQ movie on p2p -> DVD

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[SparkleMotion88]

Except this is the exact opposite. There already is a law that restricts the freedom of the cable companies to deal with their customers. The MPAA is trying to get the law relaxed so that cable companies can provide this service on their terms. You might not like what the MPAA is trying to do, but this is certainly not a case where someone is pushing for *more* power in the hands of the government.

Re:Reading the Article ftw

[yuna49]

Is the FCC a higher court than the Supreme Court? Maybe the FCC can also overrule the Supreme Court Beta Max case which ruled consumers have a right to record and time shift content with their VCRs.

The decision in Sony v. Universal (the "Betamax" case) is very narrowly drawn. In footnote 2, Justice Stevens writes "This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes." As far as I know, there are no cases concerning the applicability of this decision to cable or pay services.

I believe the argument that swayed the Court concerned advertising revenues. If VCRs made it possible to watch programs at times other than when they were broadcast, the size of the program's audience would grow. With a larger audience come higher advertising revenues, enabling program producers to demand more from the broadcasters for the rights to show their products.

Stevens, for the majority, writes:

[Time-shifting] enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason, even the two respondents in this case, who do assert objections to time-shifting in this litigation, were unable to prove that the practice has impaired the commercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm.

As far as I know, the applicability of Sony v. Universal to cable and pay services has never been resolved. So I'd argue the applicability of this decision to a digital, high-definition, pay-per-view service is, at best, equally unresolved. If you read the article, you'll see the studios are putting a lot of emphasis on potential harm to the rights holders, because that plays an important role in copyright litigation. The studios had a hard time showing harm in the case of time-shifting advertiser-supported broadcast television programs. They may not have as difficult a time showing harm in this case.

Finally, the narrowness of the Betamax decision leaves open the question of whether of not it's legitimate to enforce a no-recording switch on certain types of programming distributed in certain ways for certain periods of time. I don't think it's unreasonable for the FCC to begin a rule-making proceeding in this area, nor do I think the Commission is somehow claiming it has more authority in this instance than the Supreme Court. The Commissioners are quite aware what the limitations to their authority are. But by opening a rule-making proceeding the Commission has enabled there to be a debate over the applicability of the Betamax decision to this particular proposal by the studios. You might prefer that the debate not take place at all, or you might think that the studios hold all the cards. I'm not so convinced as the average Slashdotter that every case like this one will be resolved in favor of the moneyed interests. Nor do I think that we're necessarily headed down some proverbial "slippery slope" were we to allow studios to enforce their rights in this particular narrow instance.

I'm sure that were the FCC to adopt this change in its rules, the decision would be immediately appealed by public-interest organizations and forced into Federal court. We'd then see how the system applies the Betamax decision, and decisions since then like Grokster, to this particular rule. At some point it could reach the Supreme Court again, but not for at least three years, probably more. It's also possible some lower Federal court will enjoin the FCC from carrying out the rule change, leaving us with the status quo until a final determination is made.

Cable Companies

[the eric conspiracy]

I would think the cable companies would fight this since it decreases the value of having a DVR.

Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

First they sell you the cinema tickets, then they air it on "special cable stations", then they sell you the DVD premium price, then medium price and then lowest price, THEN they sell you a downloadable clip (in 2020 or something...), then in 2078, when the movie should be public domain, they extend the copyright laws a hundred more years..

Seems MPAA wants their cake and eat it too, except you get tummy ache from too much cake!

A changing selection of films

[tepples]

so does this "Provider" also pick out which programs you watch? Yes. At least one provider of movies makes about a dozen programs available at any one time, and all programs have the record button disabled.

Wait, wait, I've heard this strategy before...

[Kjella]

...is this the "We will prevent piracy by making our product even more crippled for our legitimate customers, though the online pirates will be remain unaffected" strategy? Don't forget that recording and timeshifting is what most people consider fair, not as piracy. "Oh hello uncle Jim, wasn't expecting you. I was just watching a movie, let me just put it on record." or "Oh, you can't tonight? What about tomorrow night? Ok cool, I'll put it on record and we can watch it together tomorrow". I guess TPB must love these laws: "Yeah well, I had to download it from TPB because my stupid DVR wouldn't let me record it".

In every other kind of industry, I associate "pirates" either with counterfeits or cheap look-a-likes that are vastly inferior to the real product, the kind that street salesmen will sell tourists at a few bucks a piece. Since a digital copy is a perfect copy, I guess digital piracy will be equal. But when pirated goods start looking better and better, so you pay for the privilidge of using and inferior product and the feelgood of being legal, then there's something very, very wrong.

DMCA

[tepples]

So is there a way to remove the LCD panel from a cheap HDTV and directly wire the LCD input cables to a black box that would recognize the raw video feed intended for the LCD Good luck manufacturing and selling LCD panel conversion kits without getting a big fat lawsuit under the DMCA or foreign counterparts from all six of the major U.S. motion picture distributors.

Re:DMCA

[Gnavpot]

Good luck manufacturing and selling LCD panel conversion kits without getting a big fat lawsuit under the DMCA

As in all other cases where copy protection of movies or music fails, only one person in the world needs to own the equipment or software necessary for circumventing the copy protection. He can then release it to the public in an unprotected format.

Re:DMCA

[hummassa]

You do know that only a few countries have DMCA-style idiotic legislation, don't you?

Re:DMCA

[tepples]

You do know that only a few countries have DMCA-style idiotic legislation, don't you? So how are you going to move your customers and their families out of those few countries? Besides, Slashdot is located in one of them.

Re:DMCA

[icegreentea]

You don't need to move families. You just need some guys in those country to rip and then post as torrent. It's like how DVDrips work now. Some dude in China gets their hands on a copy from a factory run long before release date. You don't need to move everyone to China to listen, you just need the guy in China to post on the Pirate Bay or something.

Which affordable capture card?

[tepples]

I don't see that happening, my aftermarket DVR is a PC. How well can your PC record HDMI signals with HDCP? In fact, which affordable capture cards can capture anything above composite video or S-video?

Re:Which affordable capture card?

[steeviant]

"How well can your PC record HDMI signals with HDCP? In fact, which affordable capture cards can capture anything above composite video or S-video?"

My machine captures HD signals through a digital tuner so I have no idea what an HDMI capture card costs, but it only takes one person with such a setup to make the recording available on Pirate Bay - hence the reason I was speculating that increased restrictions on recording are more likely to send people clamoring for bittorrent for their fix of pre-recorded HD content than paying indefinitely for a box that you can never own, never transfer recordings from, and that will sometimes fail to record when you want it most.

Re:Which affordable capture card?

[tepples]

My machine captures HD signals through a digital tuner So do the machines of other people who have posted comments to this article, but they complain that only a few stations come in on that, such as the locals (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, PBS), home shopping, and public access (e.g. C-SPAN). Everything else is encrypted, and only the subscriber's set-top box has the key to transcrypt it to HDCP.

but it only takes one person with such a setup to make the recording available on Pirate Bay Downloads from The Pirate Bay are subject to the throttling policies of residential Internet service providers, and they're even less legal for the general public than time-shifting.

One person...

[hummassa]

is enough people.

Re:One person...

[giorgist]

Not really. If they can get 100 million people buying DVDs on principal then they have a nest egg. The copiers will just copy and collect for it's own sake.

Muzak

[tepples]

I have had absolutely enough of all the rantings by the RIAA, MPAA, etc and DR-freaking-M. Hollywood can take their media and shove it up their collective @rse. [...] Stop buying their sh*t All supermarkets in my area lease proprietary music to play on the PA system whenever they aren't advertising a special or calling a CSM to produce or something. The money for this comes out of sales. So how do I stop buying proprietary music without stopping buying food?

I don't NEED to record

[mangu]

They simply want enough people not being able to record

But, of course, "enough people" in this case means *one* person. The others can copy the recording.

If anyone tried to strip me of anything...

[hummassa]

... in a movie theatre, it would be the last time I would watch anything there. I don't abide even to the "do not bring your own popcorn" rules. If I want to enter the theatre with my Happy Meal inside my backpack, nobody can take a peek at it without a search warrant. Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that.

Re:If anyone tried to strip me of anything...

[oldspewey]

I don't abide even to the "do not bring your own popcorn" rules. Why stop at popcorn? I bring my own Hibachi grill, a bag of charcoal, and a couple of nice racks baby back ribs. By the time the trailers are over, the ribs are nicely done and I can enjoy my meal with a few frosty beers while I watch the feature.

Re:If anyone tried to strip me of anything...

[Dog-Cow]

Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that. I'd love to see you try that. Unless you live in a Communist country, the movie theatre is privately owned. They can kick you out for any reason, with the exception of blatant discrimination.

Do you also ignore the "No shirt (, no shoes), no service!" signs?

Re:If anyone tried to strip me of anything...

[Krater76]

... in a movie theatre, it would be the last time I would watch anything there. I don't abide even to the "do not bring your own popcorn" rules. If I want to enter the theatre with my Happy Meal inside my backpack, nobody can take a peek at it without a search warrant. Oh, they can give me my money back and impede my entering the premises, but they will lose their pants in court if they try that. The problem is that when you don't buy popcorn at a movie theater you aren't screwing over the MPAA you are screwing over the theater owners, who are most likely a corporation but sometimes just a mom and pop theater.

Having worked in a movie theater over a decade ago I got to see the low-margins that the theaters run on. Almost all the ticket money goes to the movie - that's why popcorn has to be so expensive, to offset the cost. Not that it's a hard job but the employees get minimum wage and the managers scrape by. If you want to screw the MPAA over while helping keep the theater running, buy popcorn and then use an old ticket stub to get into the movie you want to see.

On that note, I will say it was by far the best high school job ever. Free movies, easy work even on crazy summertime opening nights, and you even get some respect for the job you have from your friends.

Consumer Freedom Marching On.

[sybert]

"The MPAA wants a waiver on that restriction in the case of high-definition movies broadcast prior to their release as DVDs."

Currently, no movies are released on HDTV before DVD (except for some indies on HDNET). So consumers will lose nothing and gain restricted access to movies that they had no access to previously.

Strangely, I have seen no complaints anywhere about the lack of consumer access to movies on HDTV before their DVD release. But propose restrictions on content as an incentive to create content that currently does not exist and suddenly slashdot is outraged!

Re:Consumer Freedom Marching On.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe that the only purpose of this is to prevent recording of *movies* ?

Now just go to eztv or any other TV torrent site, and watch the number of downloads for HD episodes of Lost, Prison Break or any other popular show.

Do you think the studios didn't notice ?

Re:Consumer Freedom Marching On.

[mdmkolbe]

This is an attempt to force DRM down the public's throat.

They are trying to employ incrementalism. Today it's HD movies prior to DVD release. Then they expand the definition of "movie" until it includes everything. Then they never make a DVD release. Then they win.

Not so simple

[mrslacker]

Well, I do agree, but it's not always easy. I just upgraded to Digital Cable (getoffmylawn) mainly to save money, but chose not to get their DVR - mainly because I already had my MythTV box, which is likely a whole lot more flexible.

The main problem is that I spent two days pissing about trying to get it all to work (does now, more or less), including $30 on firewire parts, with stuff that'd frustrate anyone but the typical slashdotter.

But yes, Firewire is the best way at the moment to get HD out of a cable box. IIRC there's some federal requirement (until they change it) that such functionality exists. Alas, the GeForce4 in the machine is not really up to it (so another $30 to replace the motherboard with faster graphics).

Re:Not so simple

[cayenne8]

"Alas, the GeForce4 in the machine is not really up to it (so another $30 to replace the motherboard with faster graphics)."

Why not just invest in a nice upgrade of a video card for your Myth box? It is much easier than ripping out a motherboard, disconnecting/reconnecting everything....and running risks that something or chipset somewhere else on the mb might be incompatible with Myth.

Re:Not so simple

[mrslacker]

That's a fair question. The board I bought on ebay for $30 is actually a board + processor + fan + shipping, with an nforce chipset. It's well supported in Linux (my desktop has something very similar). Yes, of course there's always that risk with Linux, but I've dealt with so much hardware under Linux, that I'm not real concerned.

The other part of the question is cooling - the Aria case my mythtv box is in doesn't have the best circulation, and it allows me to remove a discrete PCI card (ironically the firewire is taking its place, but that's much smaller).

Yes, there are lots of other things I could do (itx, different case, etc, etc) but I felt that this was the best compromise given my budget. The final part of the equation is that I'll very soon need to replace the 80GB IDE (too small for HD really) with a much larger SATA (current board is 2002 and has no onboard SATA) drive - but that's next month.

As a final note of interest, I'll add that I've retained my PVR-150 in the system using a $1.99 cable splitter, which lets me record in parallel the existing analog feed (i.e, exactly what I had before I got digital service)

Re:Not so simple

[dreamchaser]

I applaud your frugality. Not monetary frugality (I am NOT calling you 'cheap', but your design frugality. Too many people seem to forget that ever additional piece of hardware comes with a cost. That cost might be heat, noise, money, power, size/space, or a combination of those factors, but there is always a cost.

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[ThatGuyJon]

To be honest, I'm not sure I know anyone who DOESN'T have a turntable, if not in their living room then in their attic. LPs are still being made and sold, and in fact are enjoying a resurgence.
Believe it or not, not everyone abandons superior technology because "it's old".
I most definitely doubt you.

Re:Good luck with that - the foot in the door

[dstates]

This is a strategy to eliminate DVR recording as fair use. First they get the right to block the recording of recently released HD movies, then they blur the definition of HD, and pretty soon they are claiming that they should be able to block pretty much any DVR recording...

Just say no. Personal use is fair use.

Lotta "if's"

[Stanislav_J]

IF this technology is used to restrict recording for a LIMITED period of time, until the initial theatrical release has run its course and they have milked the initial profits off the DVD release, THEN I would not have a serious problem with it. After all, unless you are one of those folks that MUST see a new movie as soon as it comes out, you can wait a little while. And even with the restriction, you could still WATCH the flick and even pause/rewind/etc. the thing -- you just wouldn't be able to dump it to a permanent source (disk, hard drive) right away. And hell, most movies will show up on non-PPV TV eventually anyway. By restricting the recording disability to the initial "surge" of the movie's release, the "can't wait" crowd are going to rush to the theater or buy the DVD the first day it's on sale and send the cartel its dough anyway, and the rest of us can just wait until it trickles down to a non-premium source from which we can record and save it if we want.

That's all very speculative, though. Knowing the methods of the MPAA as we do, it's more likely that this is just a way to get a foot in the door to eventually restrict or prevent ALL recording of its releases. That's an old tactic -- you know you can't get EVERYTHING you want right now, so you ask for just a limited option that most people would agree on, then slowly expand the parameters over time. Like the ban on "partial birth abortion." Or just like all the Bush era "anti-terrorist" legislation -- most people accepted it as necessary within the limited scope of "fighting terrorism," but we have already seen these laws starting to be used for things that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism. (Unless you then expand the definition of "terrorism," which is also happening.) The MPAA probably is playing the same game. (As we have often seen, the worlds of business and government are pretty much interchangeable in their more underhanded tactics...)

This is proof that the MPAA hates me...

[ComputerGeek01]

This is great so there is now yet ANOTHER obstacle that we have to show each individual member of our family how to over come, and not just one time either but EVERY TIME IT COMES UP FOR THE NEXT YEAR! That's what they are planning people, to use our family's against us! This is sabotage on the mental level! We will all end up in a hospital curled up in a ball rocking back and forth due to of the endless calls from Aunt and Uncle Somebody because your little cousin fifty times removed wants to record the new Pokemon movie! And my family wonders why I drink only when they're around...

Region coding

[tepples]

As in all other cases where copy protection of movies or music fails, only one person in the world needs to own the equipment or software necessary for circumventing the copy protection. He can then release it to the public in an unprotected format. And if this one person happens to live in a territory other than the territory where cable TV providers are transmitting the work, then tough s#!t, right? And how can such reconversion apply to interactive works?

Re:Region coding

[Gnavpot]

And if this one person happens to live in a territory other than the territory where cable TV providers are transmitting the work, then tough s#!t, right? And how can such reconversion apply to interactive works?

1. You apparently didn't get the point that such a modified doesn't need to be sold to the public. If you had gotten that point, you would have known that splitting hairs over cable TV territories does not change it.

2. My statement was specifically limited to movies and music. Those are usually non-interactive. And if they are interactive, it does not make any difference if converted TV panels are available/legal or not. So mentioning interactive content has no relevance.

Re:Region coding

[tepples]

You apparently didn't get the point that such a modified doesn't need to be sold to the public. If you had gotten that point, you would have known that splitting hairs over cable TV territories does not change it. On second thought, I guess such a device could be produced in low quantities and sold only to trusted confederates in a warez release group.

My statement was specifically limited to movies and music. Those are usually non-interactive. So what happens when the video game industry becomes as big as the movie industry? It's already bigger than U.S. theatrical exhibition, and Nintendo (NTDOY, market cap 7.5e10 USD) is bigger than all of Sony put together (SNE, market cap 4.9e10 USD). How long will interactive media's immunity to analog reconversion remain irrelevant?

Re:Region coding

[Gnavpot]

How long will interactive media's immunity to analog reconversion remain irrelevant?

It will remain irrelevant to my original response in this thread for ever.

It will probably be relevant in other discussions.

No it isn't

[hummassa]

Except things are different now, as 'content control' wasn't doable back then.

In the digital it is technically possible, and once all old machines are phased out it will be practicable too. In the digital is is exactly techinically impossible, and completely impracticable forever. Even if each bit went down the wires accompanied by a "digital affidavit of ownership and viewing rights", those would be counterfait in no time.

Do you know someplaces have 15-years old computers still running? Do you know people program FPGAs and DSPs today that can take the bits on the bus of a computer and record them without much effort? As I was telling in other post, in the worst scenario, you take a LCD TV, some CCRs, and some calibrating software and you have a digital, 100% faithful to the original bits, copy of some video. ADRM (attempted digital restrictions management) is a joke and a hoax. If one people spends the US$ 10,000 to make the described setup, it can distribute so many copies that the investment will be down to essentially nothing. Some of the "camera" copies of movies I have had the opportunity to see were filmed in an empty theatre and with the camera in a tripod in the center of the movie, with 6 channels of audio. What will they do? Stop paying minimum wage to all theatres' projectionists/security guards? I don't think so.

ADRM is a nuisance to the paying customer, and thats all it is and all it will ever be. The danger of ADRM is that the *AA make DMCA-style legislation a global thing and turn every state of the world in a 1984-style police state. Because if you can't distribute all information freely, that's what you have: a police state. And I speak for experience that it's not a pretty thing to have.

Re:No it isn't

[nurb432]

When i talk about it being possible and practical i'm taking about the 'average joe consumer', not the technically advanced person.

90% ( or more ) of the world are these 'average joe's', and they will be out of luck.

To me, if 90% of the war has been won, we have lost. And yes, i do see a police state eventually forming as this branches out to 'knowledge' not just 'entertainment media'

Re:No it isn't

[ScrewMaster]

I think the GP's point is that DRM only has to fail once for a given release, and it's failed permanently and globally. That's the reason that MPAA has been targeting torrent indexers lately ... they know very well that DRM cannot hold back the tide on its own. They still seem to think they can limit unauthorized distribution of cracked copies, though. Probably a futile effort, but we'll see.

Worse for them, as the Napster/MP3 debacle demonstrated very clearly, the vast majority of consumers aren't interested in "digitally perfect copies" of music or movies at all. Certainly not so much that it influences their purchasing decisions. They're interested in merely adequate copies, and are especially interested if said copies are free.

Ultimately, this is going to prove an expensive waste of time for the media outfits. Any victory they gain will likely be strictly Pyrrhic. Put it this way: they may very well succeed in reestablishing some approximation of the iron-fisted control of distribution that they once enjoyed. However, given the caliber of people running these corporations, and the attitude they exhibit towards their herd^h^h^h^hcustomer base, odds are they'll lose a big chunk of their market share. People have had a taste of what it's like to have control of their media, and I think the studios are going to have to acknowledge that at some point.

Re:No it isn't

[nurb432]

You have more faith in your fellow man then i.

Go 100% analog

[frdmfghtr]

Kinda makes you want to stock up on analog equipment like VCRS and videotape, doesn't it?

Make the viewer your enemy...good idea...

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[nurb432]

Most everyone i know has abandoned vinyl for their shiny CD's and itunes.

Same goes for video tape, most of the people i know have had theirs wear out the last decade and that this point it wasn't replaced since they have their DVR's.

For the record, I do happen to agree analog was/is better, but i don't see much of it out here.

Verizon logic: Block the TV channel

[Anonymous Coward]

All broadcast TV channels which sometimes show movies should be blocked. Isn't that the same logic which Verizon is using to block alt.*?

Re:Good luck with that - the foot in the door

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just thinking how the term 'recent' probably allows them to abuse any rules/laws made. If copyright being 100+ years is ok then recent can probably mean upto 20 years or more.

Long ago I gave up

[Anonymous Coward]

Long ago I gave up on 'entertainent' - the MPAA/RIAA and stopped consuming their products.

I do not watch their movies, listen to their songs, unless its on a radio. I don't pay for their products or download 'em. (And these days, I DL podcasts and fill the time TV/Radio used to take)

So my letter expressing concern is pointless. I opted to walk away, now these kinds of rules no longer effect me.

The only way to "win" the content protection game is don't play. Walk away.

My Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

My Solution is to just remove movies and music from my life. It isn't for everyone, but honestly, nickel and dime people ticks me off.
If I find something of interest now.. it's 5$ or you can keep it.

And you know something - the last 'GREAT Movie' that my wife loved, I bought for her for Xmas for 14$ one year after it was released and BAM - it's still not opened. The psychology of NEW is the buy and I'm not buying anymore.

Likewise not and not

[mkcmkc]

Exactly, I spend more on music now than I ever have done, precisely because of the vastly increased exposure to it bittorrent has enabled. Although I abhor the RIAA's tactics, I decided several years ago that I could not put myself at risk from extortion at their hand, so I stopped Napstering altogether. Not surprisingly, my CD purchases have simultaneously dropped from hundreds per year to one or two.

Ironically, in the RIAA's analysis of the situation, I must almost certainly be accounted as someone who's stopped buying CD's because of illegal downloading, when in fact it is directly due to the actions of the recording industry itself.

Re:Likewise not and not

[quaero_notitia]

I only buy very few individual songs that I really want from an online service. Most of the songs on a release (CD) are crap and I don't waste my money on an entire CD for one or two songs. Second hand purchases of albums, cassettes, and CD's yield the rest of my collection. I then rip the songs that I want from that purchased media and either resell or donate. I ripped my albums and cassettes year's ago.

I Wonder...

[rlauzon]

I wonder how much money I could make building MythTV systems for people after they implement this....

Re:I Wonder...

[kwark]

Nothing, the real money is with VDR.

direct links for easy submittal

[v1]

Read the actual proposal here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1081A1.txt

Go here to file your comment:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=08-82

Be sure to fill in all the fields marked "(required)" and set your submission as a "comment".

For maximum compatibility and greater chance of serious review, use the "send brief comment" box at the bottom instead of uploading a lengthy DOC file. Keep in mind that they don't care what so much what you personally don't like. Make your comment clear and concise about how this action violates your rights or attempts to defeat the protections the FCC is supposed to defend.

Be sure to click Finish Transaction after submitting.

Re:direct links for easy submittal

[BlueStrat]

My submitted (brief form) comment is below. If the comment reflects your feelings and it would make it more convenient for you, please feel free to copy/paste.

----

I oppose this proposed rule as I believe that it violates my fair-use
rights, and is an end-run around the protections the FCC is obligated
by law to protect. This proposal is not an effective tool to prevent
unauthorized recordings as those will be available via the internet.

This is simply an attempt to remove fair-use rights from consumers in
an attempt to maximize profits at the expense of the publics' rights.

----

Cheers!

Strat

Re:direct links for easy submittal

[The Cisco Kid]

... use the "send brief comment" box at the bottom instead of uploading a lengthy DOC file. ... How about 'never upload a DOC file' ever, regardless of the context?

(Assuming "DOC" is referring to a proprietary Microsoft word processor file)

(And with the possible exception of, you are co-writing some sort of document with others, and you have all agreed in advance to use [a specific version of] a Microsoft word processor to exchanging the work-in-progress)

Word processor files are NEVER appropriate for final output or publishing of anything, nor for transmitting information to other entities with which you dont have a specific prior arrangement to exchange files in that format. Plain text, or (if you simply MUST control the fonts and margins) PDF

Re:direct links for easy submittal

[freedom_india]

You are naive if you think FCC will:
1. read your comments.
2. Refuse anything to MPAA.
Listen carefully, this FCC is already "bought for", and is staying bought.
Nothing you fools write to FCC will bring about any action against any MPAA/RIAA members.
In fact it will twisted by FCC to support MPAA and i can see the FCC commissioner saying the outpouring of support for MPAA via their website is what forced FCC to allow MPAA to remotely block DVR from recording anything.
If you bought a DVR; good luck using it, and am sorry to see you are throwing your money away.

back to basics

[markhahn]

the whole IP thing needs to get back to basics: my recording of a movie does not, by itself, hurt the creator of it. if I go and sell the copy, sure. but the argument that my recording deprives the creator of potential revenue is absurd. me being cheap also deprives them of revenue, or my taste in movies.

copyrights are not about maximizing the media companies' revenue - just about preventing _commercial_ rip-offs.

Informative???

[hawk]

No, he's not informative. He's just plain wrong.

A theater is not a government, the search warrant nonsense is just that, nonsense.

He wouldn't have a leg to stand on in a court challenge, either.

In fact, if there were a clearly posted "no outside food or beverages" sign along with another about "backpacks subject to search," he would have no entitlement to a refund when he refused to comply with the terms.

If he were to take this to court, he would either be representing himself or using a lawyer so incompetent that imminent disbarment would be a serious concern. If it actually came in front of a judge, he would likely be sanctioned for the frivolity of his claims--judges aren't appreciative over their time being taken over nut-job cases over $10 . . .

But what do I know; I'm just a lawyer.

hawk, not giving legal advice, just commenting upon the ignorance being spewed as authoritative

Re:Informative???

[Free the Cowards]

Technically he's not wrong about the warrant. They can't force him to let them look inside. However what they can do is tell him that he either lets them look or he leaves.

The only thing a private property owner can force you to do is leave. However because of that, they can put almost any condition they like on your continued presence. The only exceptions are for things like racial discrimination.

If a store or other place of business wants to inspect all of your bags before they let you in, that is entirely within their rights. Note that if they want to inspect everything before you leave then they have essentially no way to enforce this, since you're leaving anyway. But if the movie theater says that as a condition of entering their business and seeing their movie, you will submit all bags to a search, you will wear a large floppy purple hat, and you will dance about singing Amazing Grace, then your choice is to do this or leave.

Re:Informative???

[Maxo-Texas]

Technically you are correct.

However if he is a member of a minority group, he could probably succeed in some cases.

Re:Informative???

[hawk]

>Technically he's not wrong about the warrant.

Sure, in the same sense that "technically" he's not required to let their space aliens eat him--as a private entity, the theater generally cannot obtain a warrant. (I wouldn't include the "generally," but it's conceivable that there are a couple of jurisdictions that issue such things. Nevada allows the appointment of a private "excelsior" for execution of judgment, the University of Chicago actually has its own police force rather than security, and so forth).

hawk, esq.

Re:Informative???

[Anonymous Coward]

>Technically he's not wrong about the warrant.

Sure, in the same sense that "technically" he's not required to let their space aliens eat him--as a private entity, the theater generally cannot obtain a warrant. (I wouldn't include the "generally," but it's conceivable that there are a couple of jurisdictions that issue such things. Nevada allows the appointment of a private "excelsior" for execution of judgment, the University of Chicago actually has its own police force rather than security, and so forth).

hawk, esq. I'm not sure about that Nevada thing, as nothing comes up with a Google search, but Police for college security is not terribly rare. For example, all Universities in the state of Indiana are entitled to their own police force. This police force has all the rights and responsibilities of any other, with jurisdiction over the University campus. (I don't believe they have exclusive jurisdiction, but the city Police force is often busy enough not to really want to interfere.) Universities located sufficiently close together can share the police force. In addition to regular police responsibilities, the forces are responsible for general campus security. One unusual thin about Campus Police is the fact that the department often has non-sworn security officers in addition to police officers In the case of state schools in many states, the Police department is just one of the departments of the State Police.

What's all the fuss

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not like how the movie makers control their content then don't watch. If you really want their attention throw out your TV.

A slick salesperson got to some movie exec.

[Maxo-Texas]

Because this is impossible to prevent.

Again with the HDMI/HDCP

[SanityInAnarchy]

HDMI is an interface. It's basically DVI plus sound.

HDCP is a copy protection system. It works over HDMI or DVI.

I love HDMI -- if only because it's easier to plugin, fewer screws, etc. I hate HDCP -- seriously, does any potential pirate have access to the kind of technology that would be required to capture a DVI signal?

By the way:

Obviously they can't stop you from cam ripping your own LCD TV but the quality would be rather poor. Probably, but not necessarily. Some of the more professional pirates will take a high-end video camera, point it at a projection screen, sync the framerate, and grab the audio straight from the sound system. Sync it all up, and it could be as good as or better than a DVD rip.

No, the way around HDCP is to completely ignore it -- it was always a pointless waste of money anyway. Instead, crack the protection surrounding the disc itself -- don't open up a cheap HDTV, open up a cheap Blu-Ray player. Then you can re-encode at your leasure.

I will never own a DVR

[SilverBlade2k]

I will never own a DVR for this exact reason. Hollywood is basically making DVR's useless with their fucking DRM and broadcast flags. And if I was on a service, I'd cancel it and state my reasons "Why spend the money for the privilege to record when I can't? good bye"

MPAA Fails Marketing 101

[PPH]

The market for movies can be divided into two groups:

1. Those who will buy/download unauthorized content.
   
2. Those who will not.
   

Each of these groups can be divided into two subgroups:

1. Those who insist upon Hi-def content
   
2. Those who do not
   

It is my impression that most of the market for the unauthorized content is satisfied by low def product. Very low def, judging by the camcorder shots of movie screens or analog copies of TV broadcasts made today. Sure, they'll take a clean, hi-def copy if available. But the market segment that will be excluded by preventing unauthorized hi-def copies (1.1) is vanishingly small.

After all of the effort to block DVR recording, the MPAA and its minions have forgotten about another subgroup. That is: Those who are not distibuting copyrighted content, who like to view material in hi-def formats (2.1) and will be extremely pissed when their DVR refuses to record material for their later viewing, causing them to miss it. I Think this group is far larger than group 1.1.

Re:MPAA Fails Marketing 101

[linzeal]

You forgot one. I rent DVDs and copy them HiDef for my own use. Half the time I don't even watch the original. I have over 4 TB of music and video about half is ripped from my own DVDs and Blu-Ray.

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[moortak]

I am in a record store right nowand sitting next to a turntable. Most people I know own one.

Provider One

[camperdave]

Well, apart from the Provider actually being the one that is sending the programs to you in the first place (thus dictating what choices are available to you), I'm sure they could send a signal that instructs their box to only receive one channel.

More evidence that FCC is clueless.

[Jane Q. Public]

The confirmation number for my commment started with "2008615", which is today's date but without a leading zero on the month. This makes it ambiguous. There is no way to tell whether "2008124" is January 24 or December 4. That's just plain stupid. Why tack on a date-based number at all, if that number is not unique?

three letters

[genican1]

VCR

I hope they get this passed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes hackers will find a way to record it but who cares. If they can make it so most normal DVR users can't record it then they will relese new HD movies this way instead of having to waste gas and time going to rent it or buy it.

It's the broadcast flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Phillips DVR is programmed to recognize the broadcast flag. You'll need to get a DVR that ignores it.

Use FireWire

[Anonymous Coward]

your HDMI capture card, the only way I know of to capture an encrypted HD signal from the cable or sattelite box, has thise "feature" for you. You can encode from FireWire. FireWire offers an unencrypted digital signal, and the FCC mandates that cable companies provide customers with FireWire boxes upon request.

Can you say...

[Huwawa]

MythTV? Freevo? Even Elgato and SageTV probably won't be made to comply with this for a while...

I think...

[Drive42]

The rate at which new formats are pushed are due to two forces: money, and money.

Media based corporations make money reselling older titles in new formats, and every introduction allows those same corporations to introduce new controls on how, why, what, and where one consumes this content.

I understand the advantages of one format over another, but I don't know if research into new formats would necessarily be as well funded if there wasn't something more to be gained than solely a different experience for the user.

why deal with the complications.

[tatermonkey]

Simple solution. copy the DVD and be done with it.

MPAA is doing a good job

[kellyb9]

The MPAA is doing a pretty good job of stopping people from recording onto DVR's. Although, I'm sure once the problem is eradicated they can start putting out good movies again.

Fair Use?

[sorcerykid]

Is there a prevailing case law that has yet demonstrated that recording of digital television broadcasts even constitutes "fair use?"

Afaik, the Betamax case specifically pertained to analog videocassette recorders and analog television broadcasts. And that is hardly relevant to high-definition digital television and digital video recorders.

--Randall

Re:Fair Use?

[norminator]

Why should there be a difference? Analog Betamax was top of the line technology back then (better quality than VHS), and being able to record television was a revolutionary step in the TV experience.

Now that our televisions and our cable/satellite service and our movie rentals have all evolved to high-definition, you say that we're expected to move backwards and accept the hands of the media companies to control what we can timeshift and when?

There's nothing revolutionary about HD-PVRs. It's just a basic step up from non-HD PVRs from the customer's point of view. Getting the new flavor of something we've always had. I understand that it messes up the companies strategies of getting customers to pay for VOD, buying DVD/Blu-Ray movies, etc., but I think it's their ethical responsibility to find new revenue streams that don't hurt paying customers, rather than create/buy legislation that imposes artificial restrictions against rights customers have always enjoyed.

Re:Fair Use?

[sorcerykid]

I agree that the MPAA and RIAA should not be able to dicate consumers' personal home-recording habits.

But from what I understand, case law has very strict limitations -- it cannot be reinterpreted merely to suit dramatic changes in technology, for example. That would make such judicial precedents purely whimsical and one could arbitrarily suit them to virtually any situation or scenario. As of yet, the fair use argument for "time-shifting" has yet to actually be codified into federal law.

I cannot remember the exact language of the Betamax decision up through the Supreme Court, but I'm quite confident that it refered specifically to video tape recorders (VTRs) and videotaping of television broadcasts by consumers.

--Randall

Re:Fair Use?

[slashdotwannabe]

You must be new here (to America I mean).

After all, you seem to have this expectation that the average corporation can even pronounce "ethical responsibility", much less have any of it around the place.

Where do you get off suggesting that consumers have any sort of rights? That they are anything more than worker-sheep, there for the sole purpose of making the rich richer? The nerve of some people.

</sarcasm>

DVDR machines already block recording of movies

[scharkalvin]

Most DVR's already won't allow you to record certain material. I found my Toshiba DVR would NOT record movies from Showtime or HBO (using DVDR or DVDRW disks) but would record material from most other sources. It WILL record ANYTHING on to DVD-RAM disks. I'm not sure what the logic is to allow the use of DVD-RAM disks, other than these disks generally won't interchange with NON DVDR machines.

Down here, movie theatres are owned...

[hummassa]

by corporations that each have 100s of them. I somehow doubt they are scraping for pennies as you stated.