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.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
How's that copy protection working for ya?
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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.
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.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
Unfortunately under this kind of economic regime, 'consumer' means less 'one who eats' and much more 'one who must be force-fed'.
. . . um, does your "Provider" address you as "Thrall", and does He seem to have a gambling problem with "Quatloos"? . . . I have a sneaky suspicion . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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!
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.
When all else fails, try.
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?
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?
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
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.
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.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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...
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.