Digital TV Foreshadows Erosion of Net Rights

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Tom Yager offers insight on how digital TV is rapidly heading toward the kind of lockdown that entertainment and broadcast lobbies desire for the Internet. Standards such as HDMI and HDCP are acting in concert to strip your equipment of its functionality, displaying 'incompatibility' messages when plugged into older HDMI-enabled devices, shutting down analog outputs when active, and requiring balky handshake credentials that force many consumers to reboot their TVs to recover permission to watch them. Even broadcast flagging, which has been overturned by the Court of Appeals, is still on the de-facto table, as the entertainment lobby retains the power to bully technology companies into baking broadcast flagging into their wares. Sure, digital TV has far fewer points of origin than the Internet and is therefore easier to control, but, as Yager writes, 'Internet rights restrictions come through your telecommunications equipment' — and it is likely through that equipment that the entertainment and broadcast lobbies will chip away at your rights on the Web."

Comments

eliminating Fair Use is an erosion of rights

[schwaang]

You never had those "rights". Old technology just did not prevent you from recording/copying shows, music etc. That did not mean that you were allowed to do it, but many turned a blind eye to infringements.

The US Supreme Court disagreed with you when it decided in the Betamax ruling that

the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.

Re:I wonder.

[rts008]

Tor is your friend
It may be our only option-onion routers to do what we want.

Re:Television not behaving?

[BobNET]

I, personally, would rather spend my time doing something useful than watch television. I don't even own one.

I'm not an elitist, it's just that I'd much rather sculpt or write in my journal or read Proust than sit there passively staring at some phosphorescent screen. If I need a fix of passive audio-visual stimulation, I'll go to catch a Bergman or Truffaut film down at the university. I certainly wouldn't waste my time watching the so-called Learning Channel or, God forbid, any of the mind sewage the major networks pump out.

People don't realize just how much time their TV-watching habit -- or, shall I say, addiction -- eats up. Four hours of television a day, over the course of a month, adds up to 120 hours. That's five entire days! Why not spend that time living your own life, instead of watching fictional people live theirs? I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to own a television.

Re:Television not behaving?

[jeiler]

I can only imagine that it has gotten worse. Anyone have some numbers? IIRC, a 30-minute broadcast typically contains 22 minutes of programming, 6 minutes of national advertising, and 2 minutes of local ads.

Re:Internet TV

[paroneayea]

Unfortunately, Apple TV is still DRM-laden, and if the internet was to go the direction that Apple TV is, it's going to become a pretty awful place to be IMO.

Fortunately there's a project that looks like it's going to become the Firefox of internet tv... and it's called Miro. It's based on simple, common and open standards... RSS, bittorrent, and just plain old DRM-free codecs. It's not pretending to be something magical, and indeed, it shouldn't.

It's already pretty enjoyable to use, but I've been doing some volunteering on the project. Trust me, the next iteration is going to be really slick.

Re:Time shifting

[timmarhy]

you fail.

" and I am just now downloading the torrent" right there, it isn't your recording it's someone elses. they are distributing it and THAT is infringment.

Re:I wonder.

[rts008]

You could be entirely right, but the public will try to get what they want. They (the public) will find or develop protocols that will enable them to do what they feel is their due.(right or wrong according to current copyright laws)

The average 'consumer' just want their 'media' to work in the fashion they are used to(and want). Expect a lot of resistance for anything else.

I used to work as tech support for creative labs.
Most of my questions I had to deal with from callers were:
!: why can I NOT record my DVD's to my device. Why is it illegal?
2 why does "plays for sure" limit what I can do with my purchased item?
3. How do I make a folder in WinXP?? And Where the FSCK is my music?
4. Why does 'Napster' and any other subscription service become 'unavailable after a Windows Update?'or if I get a new laptop?
5. Why does the 'extended' warranty help besides the availability of the knowledge base, and eight minute call ceiling?

Re:I wonder.

[falconwolf]

I do not have a problem with bandwidth caps as long as
a) I can buy more bandwith or buy an unlimited plan

Cable is sold as unlimited. The only problem is that the providers oversold, once people started taking advantage of what they were sold the companies started complaining people used what they were sold.

As for Verizon it seems they are the only ones getting with the program. With their FiOS they are offering up to 50mbps downloads and 20mbps uploads. Right now it's only in a few cities but they hope to expand it to 50 in the next couple of years. The fastest service cost $140 with slower plans also available.

Falcon

bandwidth vs. throughput

[xalorous]

Stop confusing bandwidth with throughput.

Your connection is sold to you with a "bandwidth". Say an cable connection with 6 Mbps speed. That is a cap. And not even guaranteed. With US providers you'll probably get somewhere between 4.5 and 5.5 Mbps, depending how many others are on the wire with you and how many and how clean the connections between you and the ISP.

Your connection may or may not have a throughput limit. Unlimited throughput means the number of bytes you can download is not limited. In some places, there are limitations. Typically the ISP's that limit throughput also offer the possiblilty to purchase more.