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.
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..
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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 ----
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.
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.
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
...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
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
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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."
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.
Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
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.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.