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.'"

25 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 commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Funny

      How do you deal with that problem?

      Cut off the head.

      (aims sniper rifle)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. 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.

    3. Re:Like any partially treated wart by reebmmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what does temporary mean, "forever less a day?" The constitution already provides for a "limited" time, and the forever less a day is effectively the argument that has won to date.

      Really the best strategy regarding copyright duration is something like this:
      a) an author receives an initial copyright for a period of 10 years. No formalities required.
      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).
      c) thereafter, the author pays an increasing amount for each additional 30 year period.
      d) the copyright automatically expires on the 100th year.

      This has lots of benefits: 1. everyone gets a copyright in their works without any formalities. 2. If it is economically viable after 10 years, they can pay a nominal amount and register it (no more orphan works). 3. It will last for most every author's lifetime and then some. 4. It puts works that an author no longer considers valuable into the public domain in relatively short order.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  2. 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 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
  3. I still have my Super VHS camcorder by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No it isn't "HD" but it does provide a nice clear DVD quality image (640x480) which is good enough for most people. Heck even blurry 320x240 ipod downloads are good enough, since most of what Hollywood makes is crap anyway. It might as well look as bad as it plays.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Future Post by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Subject: New Setup

    posted by eldavojohn (898314) * on 2060.09.04 9:05

    So, being an old man, I thought I would go legit and get all of my path transmitters MPAA approved. I already had the Z-Ray player that has a 128 core processor to handle all the Z Discs and decrypt the DRM but I spent the extra $50 on the MPAA approved cord from that to my MPAA approved TV (which already has a 256 core processor to hand the encryption). Once all that was in place, I made the big purchase. It was only $100 to have an MPAA approved zoning specialist come in and stake off and area of my living approved by the MPAA for me and my family to view their copyrighted material in. Once that was complete, I got triplicate signoff on a form that allowed me to pay $500 to install two units on either side of the room that emit some sort of crazy field so that the photons leaving my MPAA TV unit can be seen normally within the MPAA designated zone in my living room. It's really neat to stand outside it and see static and then step inside and see it perfectly. You also have to put on headphones (only one set) to hear the sound because they haven't found a similar technology for it yet. Whatever it is that those things generate sure is strong. If the dog gets too close to one of them, it shits itself and walks in circles for about an hour. Also, you can't have metal things on you otherwise they heat up and burn you.

    But a couple thousand later and I can finally sit back and not worry about being prosecuted. You guys are all chumps for not enjoying this sort of MPAA certified technology!

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. 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 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!

    2. Re:More heavy-handed every day by mttlg · · Score: 5, Informative

      >If their DRM only effected pirates,

      DRM has nothing to do with pirates. The goal of DRM is to give the content providers full control of the distribution system, right up until the point where the light hits your eyeballs (and I doubt they'll stop once they get that far). Ideally, they would want every viewer to pay every time their content is heard or viewed, but for now they'll settle for ensuring that every view is through an approved path that they have been directly compensated for. This ensures that people aren't using content in any non-approved manner, regardless of whether such non-approved use is legal. The pirates may be inconvenienced, but they will continue to operate. The real payoff is in convincing the public that following the **AA's mandates is perfectly acceptable, thus allowing them to do as they please with home entertainment, without regard for individual rights.

      This is a dangerous path to go down, but we're already a fair way along and there seems to be no way back. HDMI and Firewire are already locked down, so it's not surprising that they want to turn off component. Regardless of their "pre-DVD release" example cited in the article, it is clear that if this is allowed, it would be applied to all HD content across the board by default, except where otherwise required by law (e.g., DTCP). From there, it's only a small step to disabling SD video altogether (after all, everyone has an approved HD viewing device now, right?).

      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.

  6. Close the digital hole first. by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Funny

    That sounds like too much effort. They should just close the digital hole first. Encrypt the content using a 8192bit key and then throw it away. It fixes all the piracy issues. It would be decades before any pirate could recover the key, and since no player could play it, there would be no way for the pirates to steal the analog signal. It kills 2 birds with 1 stone. If the MPAA wants to buy the patent from me, that'll be $1M please.

  7. 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.
  8. 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?

  9. Re:Do they mean.. by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hollywood already started encrypting the story lines of movies. I watched Quantum of Solace, and the story made no sense, it was completely scrambled. I'm waiting for the brain-implant chip that will unscramble the story.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  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
  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. Re:Do they mean.. by omnichad · · Score: 4, Funny

    .noitpyrcne LTR dellac s'ti - thgiarts stcaf ruoy teG

  15. 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.

  16. Re:Do they mean.. by squidfood · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I've got some output for them from my analog hole if they want it.