Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Pushes Once Again To Close the Analog Hole

Posted by kdawson on from the encrypted-pipe-to-your-eardrum dept.

Tyler Too writes "The MPAA is once again trying to badger the FCC into approving Selectable Output Control, which would plug the 'analog hole' during broadcasts of some prerelease HD movies. MPAA bigshots met with seven staffers from the FCC Media Bureau last week, calling the petition a 'pro-consumer' (!) move designed to 'enable movie studios to offer millions of Americans in-home access to high-value, high definition video content.' At least the studios are now acknowledging that SOC would break the functionality of some HDTVs, an admission they were previously unwilling to make: 'What's interesting about the group's latest filing, however, is that it effectively concedes that the output changes it wants could, in fact, hobble some home video systems. "The vast majority of consumers would not have to purchase new devices to receive the new, high-value content contemplated by MPAA's" request, the group assures the FCC.'"

37 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Like any partially treated wart by AnalPerfume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They will always be back.

    1. Re:Like any partially treated wart by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A less-messy solution is to amend the People's Constitution:

      Amendment __ : "Strike the phase 'exclusive Right'. Replace with 'temporary privilege'."

      The law already says "for limited Times" which ostensibly means temporary, but the Supreme Court turned that into toilet paper by upholding serial term extensions in Eldred v. Ashcroft. An amendment to outlaw perpetual copyright on the installment plan would have to explicitly outlaw legislative extensions of the term of a subsisting copyright.

    2. Re:Like any partially treated wart by mmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please do no present your rational and reasonable ideas on copyright. Clearly we have all moved beyond rational thought.

      Think about who lobbies Congress on this issue, mega-Corporations that have everything to lose if they don't have perpetual copyrights. It's easily worth a few million to buy off Congressmen and Senators to guarantee unending copyrights that could generate billions over the years.

      Corporations have taken over America.

    3. Re:Like any partially treated wart by SteveFoerster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regardless of what the auth^H^H^H^Hcorporation who owns the copyright does, allowing copyright for a century is insane. Statistically speaking, that's longer than my school-age children will live. Which part of "temporary" is so confusing?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:Like any partially treated wart by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, what really needs to happen is: A) You have a 5 year period of no formalities, however it is very limited in what you can peruse legal damages for. B) You can register your copyright and get it for 10 years plus less limited legal damages if you sue because now everyone can know that it is under copyright, C) You can renew your copyright for a maximum of 30 years, or until the author's death, whichever comes first.

      b) between years 10-15 (term + 5 year grace period), and author with sufficient interest in maintaining the copyright should have to i) register the copyright, and ii) pay some less than nominal fee. The copyright will continue for an additional 30 years (a total of 40 years).

      This "less than nominal fee" will be the next version of the RIAA/MPAA, here, waive all your rights to it and we will keep renewing your copyright because you can't afford it! Plus 30 years is too long, especially in the age of digital copies, lets see here, 30 years ago was 1979, assuming your hardware still works, most data will need to be painstakingly recovered using hard-to-find/expensive equipment, the data will then need to be read and then most certainly will need to have an emulator written in order to run the programs.

      c) thereafter, the author pays an increasing amount for each additional 30 year period.

      Again, it leads to new forms of the RIAA/MPAA in the future in order to pay for these.

      1. everyone gets a copyright in their works without any formalities.

      This is not necessarily a good thing. This leads to traps where someone might have came up with something, put it on the internet, you never read it but you make something similar and they accuse you of plagiarism.

      2. If it is economically viable after 10 years, they can pay a nominal amount and register it (no more orphan works).

      The same thing will happen, just with a large publisher with a huge sum of cash. The copyright never falls into the public domain, the artists get screwed and orphan works (as in works that are never released but still have copyright on them) still happen.

      3. It will last for most every author's lifetime and then some.

      Again, how is this a benefit? Look at Shakespeare's works, most of them were adapted from works that would still be under copyright if your system had been in place when he was alive. It is a natural part of art to borrow and adapt.

      4. It puts works that an author no longer considers valuable into the public domain in relatively short order.

      Which in general it won't. While the every day chatter of the internet would go into the public domain, if an artist doesn't think something is worthwhile they won't publish it. If it isn't published it isn't copyrighted, even after their deaths if someone takes it and publishes it they still have the copyright from when they publish it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Like any partially treated wart by reebmmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not necessarily a good thing. This leads to traps where someone might have came up with something, put it on the internet, you never read it but you make something similar and they accuse you of plagiarism.

      So what? There is no legal liability attached to plagiarism; copyright infringement is the only legal issue. Plagiarism is merely a moral, ethical issue that share elements of copyright infringement. And to your example, copyright infringement has a defense of independent creation. Among other things, the author would have to show access to the "infringed" work.

      The same thing will happen, just with a large publisher with a huge sum of cash. The copyright never falls into the public domain, the artists get screwed and orphan works (as in works that are never released but still have copyright on them) still happen.

      Of all the works in the world, works owned by a "large publisher with a huge sum of cash" is likely the minority of all copyrights.

      Besides, the point of the above plan is not to deprive people of their copyrights. It's a plan to balance to trade-offs: continued protection for those that see a continued economic value and release to the public so that others can exploit them.

      Again, how is this a benefit? Look at Shakespeare's works, most of them were adapted from works that would still be under copyright if your system had been in place when he was alive. It is a natural part of art to borrow and adapt.

      Copyrights don't protect the ideas of stories. They protect the actual physical work themselves. Ultimately, this comes back around to conflating plagiarism with copyright infringement.

      Nevertheless, I'm not about to argue the merits of applying modern copyright law to a different era.

      if an artist doesn't think something is worthwhile they won't publish it.

      You don't know many artists, do you?

      Also, there is a great deal of copyrighted work that gets published once and is essentially abandoned. Look at the software companies whose assets essentially go abandoned, or whose products and solutions have no current use because of hardware and platform changes.

      If it isn't published it isn't copyrighted, even after their deaths if someone takes it and publishes it they still have the copyright from when they publish it.

      So? I fail to see your point. If it isn't published no one gets the benefit of it anyway and if it is ultimately published then the same rules would apply, no harm no foul. The only questions might be over ownership of the copyright.

  2. Do they mean.. by Pouic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...human ears?

  3. Oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "High-value content ?!"

    MPAA, listen closely: when it comes to TV, there is no such thing.

    1. Re:Oxymoron by oracle_of_power · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "High-value content ?!"

      MPAA, listen closely: when it comes to TV, there is no such thing.

      I think you have made the mistake of assuming that they "listen".

      --
      Arctic Turtle
    2. Re:Oxymoron by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you equal "cost" or "price" to "value", then yes.

      In the view of the MPAA, "high-value" probably means "content that will generate lots of money". Not anything related to artistic merit.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Oxymoron by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was worth watching I would have watched in the the Cinema .....since it is on TV it is either old hat, or is about to go straight to DVD ... neither is High Value ...

      I live in the UK so if this ever comes here they will discover that besides a flat fee TV licence, most people do not pay for TV at all ....and it is generally good quality

      There is very little "high value" content that people can be bothered to pay for ... except for live broadcasts ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    4. Re:Oxymoron by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "High-value content ?!"

      MPAA, listen closely: when it comes to TV, there is no such thing.

      I think you have made the mistake of assuming that they "listen".

      And they make the mistake of thinking that we must watch.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  4. More heavy-handed every day by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just once I would like to know what it was like to have a government that represented me, and told the MPAA/RIAA to shut *its* hole. Unfortunately, with the Democrats beholden to Hollywood, and the Republicans beholden to big business, it's likely that the MPAA/RIAA will get whatever they ask for in the end.

    If their DRM only effected pirates, it would be one thing. But at this point, the DRM is becoming so oppressive that it's having a negative effect on those of us who *try* to be honest. When I have to crack my player just to be able to skip 10 minutes of mandatory commercials at the beginning of a DVD/blu-ray, that's a sad day. I have already refused to pay for any more movie tickets because of this--I'll be damned if I'm paying $10 to sit through a bunch of TV commercials at the beginning of a movie (anyone remember when the beginning of a movie had a cartoon and a couple of trailers, and *NO* soda or car commercials?). Now the DMCA has turned me into a criminal just because I insist on controlling the $20 disc I legitimately *bought*.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:More heavy-handed every day by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just to add to your point, FYI, according the MPAA you haven't bought anything.

      Next they will try to figure out a system where you pay more if more than one person is in the room viewing the disk.

    2. Re:More heavy-handed every day by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If their DRM only effected pirates...

      Ah, but their onerous DRM does effect piracy: It creates new pirates where there weren't any previously!

    3. Re:More heavy-handed every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      An apropos grammar error! It should be "if their DRM *affected* pirates". But, strangely, effecting pirates is also right, since their DRM does cause piracy.

  5. I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This will 'enable movie studios to offer millions of Americans in-home access to high-value, high definition video content.' So what's preventing them from doing that now?

    I'd like to leave my car parked with the doors open to make it easier for me to put the shopping in when I get back to the car park. There's nothing stopping me but I don't because I don't want it stolen. If they think someone will "steal" the content then just don't offer it. If they want people to see it then offer it.

  6. Who is the customer? by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies who lose sight of who the real customer is often die - a slow, lingering demise, but terminal nonetheless.

    Methinks the great failing of Vista (and M$'s overall strategy flaw) was that M$ decided the customer is Dell (and other huge-volume buyers), IT departments, and DRM-lusting IP/content owners - forgetting that the real customer is each user clicking their way around the screen. Result: some 50% of Apple users are new to the product line, happy to put up with Jobs as a benevolent dictator who cares about their experience, happy to escape being treated as a mere marketing resource of eyeballs and wallets.

    So long as we still have some technological liberties, someone will realize who the customer really is, serve them, and be rewarded - and drive **AA & government control out.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Who is the customer? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the problems are twofold, on one hand you have things being simpler, that is to use a computer almost anyone with a few hours to kill can pick up a keyboard and mouse and at least sorta figure it out. 30 years ago though, you needed to attend a class or read a book to figure out how to use a computer. On the other hand you have tech support being nationally done with large retailers (such as Geek Squad in Best Buy) this leads to the people who people "trust" giving them answers that please them and their company's bottom line. For example ask them why you can't do something with DRM and they would say it simply isn't possible, however, they might be willing to sell you some "authorized" equipment to do the job. So when the only information they are seeing is the "its not possible" from "tech support" and the "its not possible" when they ignore them and try to do it themselves with little knowledge, they assume that its just a feature not added in rather than a feature intentionally removed and that the system is truly defective by design.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. What about this one? by iCantSpell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why I have absolutely no problem with downloading anything and everything I want.

    They claim their losing money because I download content for free... Something interesting here.

    1. I wasn't going to buy the movie anyway.
    2. You can't lose money you didn't have.
    3. The movie sucked anyway.
    4. It's not my fault you think $50 million dollar special effects makes a good movie.
    5. You want me to pay you to tell me how to use my property?
    6. You didn't know as long as I can see it I can copy it?

  8. increased value? really? by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    your television was not designed to offer you value. your television is an illuminated advertising engine designed to make sure you continue to perpetuate the myth that consumerism is a healthy and natural part of your life.

    the MPAA wants the analog hole closed because its business model of closed services mandates it.

    the MPAA will get what it wants not because of democrats or republicans, but because the MPAA is a very powerful lobbying force in american and international politics capable of influencing most governments at a rather fundamental level. "art" or "artists" have nothing to do with anything the MPAA stand for.

    so how do you defeat it? most americans cant. by opting into the present model of television and entertainment a collective "boiled frog" response has been given. by ignoring fundamental principles of television broadcast and accepting as a norm things like inline advertisement and product placement most americans are inclined to believe this system of MPAA enforced content is acceptable. the news segments on most television channels, once designed to fulfill a federal content requirement to give back to communities, have all but dissolved into reactionary sensationalized content mills designed to keep you reacting and hooked long enough to sell you more things you likely never needed.

    the saddest part of these "news" programs is that most do more to divide us as a people and a nation than they do to "give back" in any form, crafted to entertain and hold the interests of a select group by hard left or hard right opinions and stories.

    its all a bit off-topic, i know, but for any of us to wring our hands, shake our heads, and wonder what ever will be done to stop this evil empire while we all shuffle off to the theaters for the next installment of Transformers is paradoxic. We have all done so much to make sure this "interest group" continues to dominate.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. Oh noez! by AtomicDevice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My mythtv box will no longer be able to play ripped dvd's to my massive 40" gateway destination CRT (that's right, I've got one). Err. wait, this digital cable mumbo jumbo is a total racket anyways. The more the make it an expensive pain in the ass to watch tv, the more people will just watch stuff on hulu (with fraps running in the background). And besides, even in you need to be the biggest super nerd with expensive equipment to crack their ridiculous encryption, if one person in the whole world can do it, they'll put it on the internet, and we'll all have it for free on our own time the way we want it. Perhaps the should consider a convenient, inexpensive, and value-additive method of selling me their content.

    --
    Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
  10. Millions of SDTVs still in use by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:

    "The side effect," warns the consumer group Public Knowledge in an educational video it has put out on this question, "is that SOC would break all eleven million HDTVs in the US that don't have digital input.

    Not only that, but blocking all analog outputs would break 80 million standard-definition televisions. True, SDTV is the past and HDTV is the future, but the present has always been a mix of the past and the future. So I don't see how "The vast majority of consumers would not have to purchase new devices to receive the new, high-value content" when it isn't yet true that "[t]he vast majority of consumers" already own an HDTV.

  11. More DRM... by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the *AA really believe that they are losing money to pirates, millions of dollars per pirated movie. They don't realize that they are losing money to the lack of actually good content being put out. What ever happened to the day when you would go to the theater and have to choose which movie to go to because many of them looked like they would be good to watch? They also seem to have forgotten the rights of "consumers" to consume their content any way they please. I would like to be able to copy movies to my laptop hard drive, or the SSD I have stuck in the ExpressCard slot so that I can watch them on flights, or let the kids watch them on car rides, but that option was taken away long ago to protect their rights to not have people see the movies for the crap they are before deciding whether to buy the movie, or pay to watch it in the theater. I have been recently heartened by some things I have seen recently with movies; you can now buy movies with the rights to download them to your computer. Unfortunately, even this is encumbered by massive DRM. I am not allowed to move the movies between computers in my home, I am not allowed to back up the movie in any way, and when I rebuild my computer, the movie is gone. I guess when they claim you are renting the movie when you pay 20$, they really mean it. What ever happened to the cheap movies and music we were told would come about when we moved off of magnetic media (cassette and VHS)?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. To protect pre-release HD movies ? by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Those are the same people that promised that the DVD region coding and CSS system was only to protect new films from being watched in countries where they hadn't been released yet.

    Where in reality, even 50 year old B/W cowboy films are region coded and copy protected when they are re-released on DVD.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:To protect pre-release HD movies ? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those are the same people that promised that the DVD region coding and CSS system was only to protect new films from being watched in countries where they hadn't been released yet.

      Where in reality, even 50 year old B/W cowboy films are region coded and copy protected when they are re-released on DVD.

      You did trust them, didnÂt you. I didnt believe their bull**** from day zero. I would have been positively surprised though if they hadnÂt been lying. The media industry is like that give them a knife and they will stab you if they see they can get money out of you. Ah and yes before that they will buy a law which makes backstabbing in certain cases legal.

  13. Don't worry... they cannot stop "us" now by CodePwned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You cannot control the flow of information. Corney sounding I know... but it's true. People will always find a way to view things the way they want. Eventually the law catches up with that. You hear the people preaching that "It's futile what the RIAA/MPAA is doing... blah blah" or "Their business model is outdated..." and frankly i get tired of hearing the same of drivel repeated by people who don't truly understand business or accept that most people don't WANT to "hack" their stuff. They just want it to work. They have a death grip on things. With Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks at an all time profit high their business is nowhere close to being destroyed. People want to be entertained and they will buy what entertains them. Most people don't give a rats ass about region coding, encryption etc... they just know it works. However... lately... to my bewildered amusement people are becoming more intelligent about these issues. Politicians and those usually uncaring are suddenly forced to recognize the problems as they are starting to affect them. The biggest being the completely unnecessary transition to Digital TV. It affects their pocket books. People start to realize just how strong of a grapple hold the industry has and have start to voice their concerns. Politicians have begun to realize they can gain support from their constituents by championing against the RIAA and MPAA. What was once a huge profit source for BOTH republicans and democrats has now become the target of ire from their customer base... AND those they supposedly protect (the artists). The genius of it all is that normal everyday people... are starting to think again. They aren't fanning over Paris "no brain" Hilton. Watch the news... it's slowly (painfully) changing from covering Britney Spears latest escapades... to now covering useful news like the economy, our lives, jobs, family etc. We are being encouraged on every front to promote Transparency. That movement... makes what the RIAA and MPAA do seem wrong to the normal joe and right now... Normal Joe is afraid of losing his job... angry at the decisions made by the previous administration... and looking for a source of anger. People touching his money... really piss him off. Enjoy these thoughts.

  14. No, OPEN some holes... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... on the MPAA executive board. And bonus points to headshots!

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  15. to turn off the analog hole by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you have to get rid of that pesky thing called THE HUMAN EAR

    otherwise, if people are still listening WITH THEIR FUCKING EARS, the signal has to go analog at some point, and there you can intercept a signal

    fucking morons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  16. Re:I still have my Super VHS camcorder by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, those are only for un-encrypted content.

  17. The final straw by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they do anything that stops me using my mythbox to record tv I will totally cancel cable.
    I'm too busy and my time is too valuable to me to only watch live broadcast at their start times, mostly because of all the commercial breaks, but also usually I'm just too busy to be around a a set time.
    A normal 90 minute movie on cable takes like 3 hours even though they have cut the movie down 'for content' which is a PC way of saying 'removed good content to make more space for advertising breaks'.
    Cable is already too expensive and has so terrible programming quality that I need mythbox to filter out all the commercials and shitty shows so I get anything worth watching at all. If they break my ability to use mythbox I'm seriously gone from TV. Netflix, Hulu etc here I come.
    Good job there MPAA on killing the cash cow.

  18. When will we reach the pain threshhold? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any legitimate claims they have about preventing piracy is pretty much becoming meaningless.

    When will we reach the point where the rights of the consumer, out weighs the rights of the manufacture to treat all their customers like criminals?

    MPIAA/RIAA is pretty much digging their own grave. Any chance copyright holders have in preserving their rights to market their work without fear of poaching, is quickly diminishing through draconian measures the MPIAA and RIAA are taking.

    Once you lose the will of the general populace to protect your interests, you pretty much lost the battle...

    I'm all for enforcing the current laws by going after blatant copyright violators who sell pirated CDs or DVDs on the streets. I'm even for them going after the people who distribute copyrighted material through p2p networks without the consent of the copyright holder. However when they start making it difficult for you to actually use what you paid for, then we have no choice but to seek out the street vendor or the p2p network. I'm not buying more equipment just so they can impose more restrictions on me.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  19. You can't close the analog hole, stupid **AA by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's like trying to tell the stars in the universe to e ligmitht in the form of encrypted ones and zeroes instead of photons - it just isn't fucking happening because the majority of the universe, physics and all, works on analog, not digital.

    If I can see this content, I can record it, period. There's not one fucking thing you can do to stop it.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  20. It's actually pretty obvious by cnvandev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at the name, they called it exactly what it was. Digital Rights Management: a system by which the rights of a user to in any way use a digital signal are managed. Whether that signal's passing from DVD player to screen, torrent file to hard drive, .avi on a CD to your college roommate, or NAS in the basement to the laptop propped up on your knees in bed; the RIAA has made it very clear that they want to (and, to a degree, have been able to) control the way the set of bits representing a work of art, that they feel they own, is used. DRM has never been about stopping pirates because that would be too limiting of a concept. Why put all this effort into stopping pirates when they can stop other small nuisances that *IAAs have probably never quite liked - things like lending DVDs to neighbours,

    The biggest threat to this industry isn't the pirates, it's a population that believes that how they view content should be up to them and not dictated by a higher power. This is the mentality that allows people to justify turning to piracy when the legal route is too difficult. Rather than making the legal route easier (as the music industry seems to have figured out in only a decade or so), the MPAA is committed to creating a world where they are an altruistic god showering the people with "high-value content," asking only for our money and obedience in return. The scariest part is the thought that some of the people in control might actually believe that what they are doing is for the public good.

    This hit the nail right on the head. Users feel they have the right to do what they want with what they consider "their property," whether it's that DVD they shelled out 30 bucks for, or the .avi of a free, independant movie they legally torrented from an animation studio. For some reason, organizations representing the industry (not the artists them selves) feel that in the digital age, our concept of property has to change in order for art to continue to be produced. Any rational person would beg to differ.

    The worst part is that this doesn't even "close the analog hole" in any way. Sure, it stops one portion of it - recording/viewing media through component cable - but that's putting a band-aid on a chest wound. The real analog hole is the fact that, in the end, the screen is being displayed visually - it's just photons. We happen to have a method of captuing photons spread across a period of time, the video camera. Sure, it'll look crappy at first, but people will get better at normalizing the colours or finding different capture methods, and, as has been seen before, users will adapt to the worse quality format because it's the one that's not fleecing them.

    Personally, I'm keeping my older equipment until stores eventually realize that trying to redefine the legel definition of property outisde of the court system turns more customers away than pirates it keeps at bay - which, last time I checked, was virtually nil.

  21. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sigh . . .

    Only on Slashdot does a fucking whiney crybaby like this get modded insightful.

    1. Rent it
    2. Lost sales
    3. I guess you don't pay for meals you don't like either?
    4. You were stupid enough to still want to see the movie knowing it was all special effects and no plot.
    5. It's not your property, since you infringed on the copyright.
    6. That's because you are a cheap son of a bitch.

    P.S. - Checkmate!!

  22. Re:Close the digital hole first. by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, what they want is a form of PK encryption on the devices. Even though there is an analog version of the content, you will be unable to convert this to a form that will play back on anybody's device, even your own, because you don't have the encryption key, only the decryption key. Devices that playback unencrypted content will be illegal because "pirates use them".

    "home movies" may be playable, but only by keeping the recording device connected to the internet. It will negotiate a one-time key with the playback device on the other end.

    Their goal is to make it impossible to create and distribute content without going through them. They will use "piracy" as the excuse to get this.

  23. The Analog Hole Is Uncloseable by amusingmuses · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When will people learn that this is impossible? How is the broadcast going to play if there is no "analog" output? Sure, they can disable the line-out jack or whatever, but given the mere fact that the broadcast is audible we can deduce that:

    1. A transducer is converting electrical energy into acoustic energy (almost certainly by driving a speaker cone)
    2. Said acoustic energy (Sound) is an "analog" phenomenon. The compressions and rarefactions in the air that carry sound are continuous phenomena, there are no jump discontinuities in sound pressure, all sound is analog both in theory, and for all the sounds that we use to communicate or make music etc, in practice.
    3. Thus, said transducer is being fed an analog electrical signal somehow (digital to analog conversion is beyond the scope of a transducer, they expect an analog voltage input, typically provided by a DAC somewhere in the hardware path between the CPU and the speaker)

    4. Therefore, no matter what type of software bullshit protections there are, if I can hear it, I can record it in HIGH FIDELITY by simply ripping my speaker cone off, and connecting the former speaker input +/- to the line-in jack of my laptop or whatever.

    I take for granted that most of you already know how obviously easy it is to obtain a recording in low fidelity: use another transducer, i.e. put a microphone in front of your speaker.

    So what's the deal with the MPAA? The government? And any other group of morons who keep trying to defy physics by making media that can be played multiple times but not recorded? There is no such thing as DRM short of installing chips in everyone's brain.

    --
    This isn't a real signature, I just manually type this at the end of all my posts.