Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports
suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."
One begins with F and the other with O
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Why do they care about the analog hole still?
Because of all those TV Shows that end up on torrent sites the day they are being aired.
Ironically, there is only one product I know of that can even record content that comes out of the component output, and that's the Hauppauge HD-PVR. It's not like people all over the place are using the component video outputs to steal content (and those who do could probably just as easily hack around HDCP).
If they want to force people to get rid of old TVs, they won't succeed. Because instead of spending the $1k or more on a new TV, they'll probably buy stuff like an HD-Fury2 so they can continue using their older HDTV set.
The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs. Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.
So what, exactly, does this do again?
Most of those copies are not received through any analog holes. They are pure digital copies ripped from hacked, or in some markets even unhacked, dvr boxes. There is no need to do analog recordings to get a subpar digital copy to distribute all over the internet when its much quicker, easier, and higher quality to just take the original bistream. That is why this whole analog hole argument is BS, no real pirated copies are done by recording an analog output, its always a pure digital rip, of course just talking about things that are out on discs or broadcast, not theater copies of course.
Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you". They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality. They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff. They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content. FTFA:
"That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide."
Now, why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
It's only a cartel when it doesn't involve American corporations.
Standard Oil and AT&T breakups involved corporations headquartered in the United States.
But seriously: Nine companies (Sony, Time Warner, News, GE, Disney, National Amusements, WMG, Vivendi, and EMI) are thought to make up the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA). It appears some people believe the collective actions of the MAFIAA members rise to the level of "restraint of trade or commerce", and the United States should prosecute them for Sherman Act violation. I'd like to see some collected evidence of Sherman Act violations by these companies so that one of us can submit a detailed crime tip to the FBI.
At one extreme, you have content producers wanting to be paid every time anyone watches their film.
At one extreme, you have content producers wanting to be paid every time anyone watches any part of, uses screenshots from, discusses or otherwise references in any format their film.
Fixed that for you.
Note that I didn't mention that they want facial recognition hardware and software installed in displays so that they can charge per person, instead of just per showing.
You said you own a Blu-ray player and the HDMI TV to work with it? Congratulations, you own at least two kill-switched devices. Look up HDCP revocation lists some time if you want blood to shoot from your eyes.
I understand HDCP disables output sometimes, however, it's not doing it remotely. I think the real concern is that the movie studios want the ability to do this during their over the air, cable, or satellite transmissions.
However, I empathize with people like commodore64 who only have analog screens and simply require those outputs to remain unlocked to receive any sort of basic functionality. FYI, anyone using a laptop with HDCP/HDMI with a Blu-Ray player I have some tips on how to possibly avoid having to use anti-HDCP software like Anydvd-HD. Requires no 3rd party apps, no hacks, very simple but effective.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
F'reals?
Shakespeare is perhaps the worst possible historical example, here. There's a reason his acting company was called The King's Men - it's because he had a royal patent from King James. I could go further, but honestly, don't take my word - look it up.
Even ignoring that Shakespeare was a big-deal playwright, "signed" by the King himself, it's still a bad analogy. Plays in Elizabethan and Jacobean England were nothing remotely like the oral-tradition utopia you're painting here, or stories told by someone's grandpa, or fireside singalongs. Theater was "consumed" in all the senses that you use here; it was covered by copyright, it was performed for monetary consideration, and it actually served much the same purposes as movies and other media do today. Hell, while it did tend to be rowdier than modern theater, it was still primarily a passive entertainment.
Heck, "piracy" in the modern sense was actually a big deal - most London printings would be followed shortly after by a pirate edition from Ireland or Scotland.
I'll give two examples from the history of the United States: General George Washington == lawbreaker. Underground Railroad during slavery era == lawbreakers.