Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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!
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
...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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
is enough people.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
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.
Statesman
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!
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
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...)
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
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.
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.
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.
I wonder how much money I could make building MythTV systems for people after they implement this....
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.
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.