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

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: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?

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: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: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?

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: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: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...