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."

Comments

Pirates

[sopssa]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

Re:Pirates

[nhytefall]

It does make one wonder who is the true enemy... content pirates (those who take content for free), or those groups attempting to stop them and produce said content.

As Pogo said,

We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Re:Pirates

[introspekt.i]

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

On the contrary, I think delaying the release for the next Ryan Reynods + Sandra Bullock movie is good for everybody.

Re:Pirates

[buswolley]

Ya know.. I don't want any more goods and services. I have enough, thank you.

Re:Pirates

[click2005]

I think its more a case of 'we want you to copy things but only if we can control it so we can force you pay us every time you open a media file'

Re:Pirates

[jedidiah]

I am already willing to wait for these "blockbusters" to hit the $5 movie bin.

I really couldn't give 2 hoots if it is on PPV a few weeks earlier.

Although I do object to not being able to record the cable I paid for in all of it's HD gory.

Re:Pirates

[gedrin]

Thought experiment:

World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

Choose the world where X is greater.

For the pirated content consumer, the obvious ideal is a world where the number of pirates and producers are both maximized. For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized, and pirates exist only to make producers greatful for paying customers and provide incentive toward price moderation. Obviously, both these ideas are presented independent of any moral position or obligations.

Re:Pirates

[ByOhTek]

you are assuming the media companies are trying to stop the pirates.

The pirates, are a straw man for the media consortium to be able to give the users less (i.e. less work on the media companies part), while still ensuring payment of the same price.

I see both as the enemy - the pirates for giving the media companies this tool, the only tool in their belt, as well as being so inundated with a sense of entitlement that they can't consider doing without... And the media companies for just being greedy bastards.

Re:Pirates

[Narpak]

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.

I reckon that it is rather pointless to imagine that such a policy will affect people's ability to download/watch pirated content. If people want to watch a movie/series for free then there is very little stopping them as it is. At least if something like this offer existed those that wouldn't mind paying would be able to do so.

Re:Pirates

[Unequivocal]

Well said. Mod up. This isn't about piracy, this is about controlling what we can do with the content, so they can charge us at every transaction point. Put it on an ipod? $.50, transfer to a new computer, $5, stream this to your kitchen, $1.25.

Re:Pirates

[Penguinisto]

Although I do object to not being able to record the cable I paid for in all of it's HD gory.

Tell me about it - my missus is a horror flick fan too. (sorry, I had to :) )

Question, though - can one simply pipe it to a vidcap card when recording and call it good? The cards probably cost a bit, but they appear to be capable enough...

Re:Pirates

[poetmatt]

this has nothing to do with anything, really. what is your point?
"Piracy" (and the gross misnomer of the term) exists because the companies seek to restrict any and all control of their products to allow them to be established into new markets. Piracy and content are phrases made to dilute the argument and attempt to put it on a physical level.

How many attempts to legally offer solutions to what the MPAA/RIAA have refused haven't been sued out of existence or taken control of and made useless? I can't point to a single one that is still around like that.

The short answer is, everyone can make "content", and so everyone is a "content producer", thus there is no reason the MPAA is an exclusive "content producer" anymore than I am myself.

Re:Pirates

[hoggoth]

Choice three: No corporate content producers, music art and drama are produced by everyone "in the small". No blockbusters. Everyone enjoys gathering around telling stories, playing music, singing. Particularly creative people make videos, movies, write plays, books, lyrics. Shakespeare wasn't signed by a label.

The way "content" is owned controlled and restricted now most people only "consume" entertainment. In my grandparent's time everyone produced entertainment. Sure, it wasn't as polished or grand as the professionally produced entertainment we are fed today. But is passive consumption of entertainment really that entertaining compared to interacting?

Re:Pirates

[TheRaven64]

These extremes are misleading. Piracy exists because the content producers and consumers do not agree on acceptable terms for the content. At one extreme, you have content producers wanting to be paid every time anyone watches their film. At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all. Some of these consumers are not able to pay anything, so they can be discounted from the discussion: No matter how you set the price or what conditions you impose, they will not pay. Some consumers are willing to pay, but not pay as much as the producers want. Some are willing to pay, but the format that they want (e.g. DRM-free downloads) is not available, or the available formats are not available in their area (e.g. TV shows that air in the US but are not legally available outside the USA for several months).

If you want to reduce piracy then these three groups can all be targeted: make your product cheaper, more convenient, and more available. The studios, in making this request, are trying to make their product less convenient and less available. Maybe they are also planning on making it cheaper, but there's no reason to expect that. I am still amazed at the business model of companies that have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.

Re:Pirates

[PitaBred]

Your experiment includes the implicit assumption that the only way for the content producers to get paid is via selling copies of the media (which has no marginal cost to reproduce). Being as that isn't the case (movie theaters, product tie-ins, fan access to stars and writers and so on, etc), your thought experiment really isn't a valid representation of the realities, and isn't useful. "Pirated" content cannot be counted as a lost sale, because people who download media illegally do not magically have the money to purchase them legitimately, or even the desire to do so if the illegal option were removed.

Re:Pirates

[geckipede]

I think you'll find that it's content distributors that the pirates want to see gone. A world without content producers would be a world without any humans left. People carry on having creative urges and doing something about it whether or not there's money involved.

The only place where amount of content produced would be genuinely affected by a complete shutdown of payment for media is film and television.

Re:Pirates

[BESTouff]

Sorry, I completely agree with their method.

Moreover, I'm enjoining the process: I'm arguing that if I could directly have access to the MPAA's bank accounts, I could consume more of their goods legally, for their own benefit of course.

Re:Pirates

[Mark_in_Brazil]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

This reminds me of the insurance companies. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if a Federal speed limit of 55 miles per hour were established. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if seatbelt laws were passed. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if strict "drunk" driving laws were passed. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if car manufacturers were required to put three-point seatbelts in cars. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if car manufacturers would make airbags standard equipment.

Anyone want to guess whether the insurance companies made good on their promises?

Re:Pirates

[icannotthinkofaname]

Anyone want to guess whether the insurance companies made good on their promises?

Yeah, I'd like to make a guess.

My guess is that they did make good on their promises and lowered the cost of car insurance premiums. However, their personal profits went up by more than what the cost of the premium decreased by, so you, the driver, still get screwed in the end.

Re:Pirates

[dwiget001]

Yeap and, for that reason, I rarely watch movies, except ones I buy on the cheap (previously viewed at Block Buster mainly), and I haven't had a TV in my house for 10 years now.

I get all the news, entertainment, etc. that I want via the web and by ready fifty plus books a year.

The MPAA, RIAA and cable companies in general, can all pucker up and kiss my ar$e!

Re:Pirates

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It does make one wonder who is the true enemy... content pirates (those who take content for free), or those groups attempting to stop them and produce said content.

Before you could purchase VHS movies, Jack Valenti compared the video tape to Jack the Ripper. I'm not sure why you had any doubt. Most 'protections' are in place for fear of piracy, not due to actual events. Of course, by increasing the value of non-'protected' content....

Re:Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirates exist because they can get the content for free. Even if content producers agreed on reasonable terms, people would still take the content for free. It's not a social statement. That it is a social statement is an argument made to justify the actions taken, not the other way around.

That doesn't mean that content distributors aren't also to blame. If they had their way, your computer wouldn't be computer. It would be a kiosk for vending their goods. In fact, it wouldn't even be that. It would just have a card swipe on the front, and you'd mindlessly swipe your card. Notice I said distributors, since they're really the ones driving this show. The actual producers have little to do with it.

That's also not to say that they charge fairly, or that they distribute in a desirable fashion. That said, they don't really have any motivation to do so.

Re:Pirates

[dgatwood]

For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized, and pirates exist only to make producers greatful for paying customers and provide incentive toward price moderation.

Sort of. MPAA members are like the corporations to whom workers owe their souls from 9 to 5. Pirates are like the unions. They prevent the MPAA from having so much control that they start to abuse consumers.

I'll explain. The MPAA members, like any corporation, have no real incentive to do any more than is necessary for the consumer. Their natural tendency is to charge the highest price they can, offer as little as they can get away with, and maximize profits by forcing people to repeatedly purchase the same content. If they could, they would use an all-rental model as the DIVX debacle demonstrated, and nobody would ever own anything. Consumers rejected that because they had DVDs as an alternative, but there's nothing preventing the industry in all its near-suicidal goodness from moving steadily toward that model.

The existence of pirates makes such goals impossible. Pirates find ways around DRM that limits rentals to being rentals. The analog hole is the last guaranteed trivial way to achieve this, and as such, it is the last resort of those who feel we should be allowed to own content. Similarly, it provides limits on how high the price of media can get because if it gets too expensive, people will just pirate it.

The real problem here is the cost of making movies. We live in an era where the technical costs of making a movie are rapidly dropping, but the cost of hiring big name stars remains insanely high, and a significant number of people think that these big names are important when choosing what movie to watch because they are a sign that the movie has the full support of a major studio and is thus less likely to suck. While there is some truth to this, that means that it is nearly impossible to significantly increase competition due to scarcity of that resource. So no matter how abusive the MPAA member companies become, there's no reason to believe that new competition will come in to fix things---no reason to believe that the free market will correct the gouging. Add to this the nature of the relationships between studios and the movie theaters, and you have a very, very difficult market to enter without tying yourself somehow to one of the major studios (e.g. the Disney/Pixar relationship before Disney bought them).

In the absence of a free market, something has to provide controls over the operation of the monopoly or oligopoly. Piracy provide those controls. In the absence of piracy, it would necessary for the government to provide those controls to protect consumers from the industry, and I'm not convinced that our politicians have the intestinal fortitude to take on the MPAA members and limit them....

Im not saying that piracy is good---it isn't. I'm merely saying I'm certain that a lack of piracy would lead to an industry that is so abusive that it would make the current industry seem like Mother Teresa.

Re:Pirates

[Hurricane78]

Apparently you don't know shit about anything. You use **AA propaganda terms, and prejudices, that it's impossible not to call you a complete troll.

First of all, the MPAA and RIAA are media reproduction and artist extortion industries. They have nothing to do with art at all. They try to get art as cheap as possible, billing the artist for for the right of being billed, etc. And then, because art is not a product, never was, never can be, and never will be, but a service, they put it on media, which is a product. And re-sell that to everyone at virtually zero cost.
Then if someone sees no point in paying a 2750% premium for that "service"/"product", in a world where their services are not needed anymore anyway, they try to get the money out anyway, by means of a out-of-court settlement, and/or by asking a 2750% premium times that 2750% premium per object that they have no proof that you "pirated" because 1. pirating is stealing shit on the high seas, and murdering, and because 2. making a copy is not stealing and does not hurt anybody. But hey, one can always buy some judges, like proven to have happened in the Pirate Bay spectrial.
Of course not everybody can be extorted that way. So they create their own p2p servers and trackers, just to sue everybody that downloaded from them (despite it being perfectly legal, to download from an owner that is openly offering them and sending the packets to them [no, you don't pull ip packets! they give them to you!])

And even that is not enough. Because hey, why pay once, when you can ask money for every time someone views it. And of course once for every person watching it at that moment. And the full price, even if you watch it partially. Hell, why don't you just pay, and we kick you in the balls? And we forget about all that art or artists. Because it really has nothing at all to do with this whole thing.

What you actually do with file sharing instead of buying shit, is you boost real (small) labels and real artists, and kill off the plastic fanstastic manufactured product shit of the big companies. Ask any small music label, film studio etc. Their sales went way up since they began marketing trough p2p.
We see a diversion of art. With things like this: http://thru-you.com/ and other great art.

But you would not even look into it. Like a well trained monkey, just blocking off every thought about it. Because you exactly know, that that would shatter your whole twisted view. But you like to stay in that world, even though you know it's all fake. Because that's better than facing reality and losing all self-respect so you would have to hate yourself.

So in a way, your laughter is the same kind of delusional laughter of self-blinding, that you see evil maniacs do in movies,when they use their "unstoppable" superweapon. Just before being killed by something tiny that could only get trough because of your extreme ignorance and false confidence.

Re:Pirates

[TikiTDO]

While I am very much for people generating their own content, there is certainly room in the market for large corporate producers as well. If the world depended on individual entities to make everything, we'd be lucky to have anything more than crude hammers and drafty shacks to live in.

You asked if passive consumption of entertainment is really any good; I would venture to say that is serves some purposes. Everyone needs an escape, the human mind simply cannot deal with everything that happens in the world. This content merely provides a simple and safe avenue to reach that. Other people might work out, drink, smoke, go clubbing, waste time on the internets, or what have you.

The main issue we face today is not who produces the content, but how it is owned and handled. Right now, the only way to get something is to pay a pre-defined price for it. This has been a workable system before, since most products required you to pay a static cost for material, large scale manufacturing, delivery, sales, the wages to support all this, as well as a more fluid cost criteria for profits and R&D. With much of the content we want getting digitized, though, there are less and less static costs associated with the process. A system where the majority of the revenue goes to recoup R&D cost, and then moving to nearly pure profit, is a system that can truly support the idea of patronage.

In fact, patronage, or paying what you believe the content is worth to encourage the creation of new content, has been around for a very long time. I believe the idea needs to be updated for modern usage, for instance, by making it really simple to donate, by suggesting pre-set donations, and by adding incentives or benefits for those that do donate, while not penalizing those that do not, but that's getting into details. The fact is, you can have both corporate and individual content generators, because they would target different markets.

A common argument is that patronage would not stop piracy, but I prefer to instead see it as *nothing* will stop piracy. As long as you are selling a product that people will actually, physically have, it will be pirated, end of story. Also, when you try keeping the products out of consumers hands, or otherwise close it down, many people will simply not buy your product because it will quickly grow stale and boring. So, why fight piracy then? Instead, your business model needs to be updated to account for it, and take advantage of the human mindset behind it.

Further, a lot of pirates are actually pretty reasonable people. They will download the game, song, or movie, and if they really like it, they will buy it. The issue then becomes a matter of price. If I get a game that provided me with $30 worth of entertainment, I would be happy to pay $30 for it, but I simply will not pay $60. Some may say that I should not have downloaded the game if I was not prepared to pay for it, but that is simply not how human nature works. We are creatures of curiocity; we like to try and to explore new things, and we always want the latest and greatest. I would even venture say that trying to change this would stifle innovation, and hurt your long term profits more than anything else. The simple fact that the content is out there means that a lot of people will be interested in it. Telling people they cannot have it is like telling the oceans to part, and let you through: When you can do something like that, you get your own religion.

Re:Pirates

[The Archon V2.0]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

Ain't it great? They're basically saying that if we let them hold our electronics hostage, they'll stop holding their content hostage.

Problem with that (threats aside) is that they can't keep their stuff forever. Eventually they'll release it no matter what - after all, if they stop selling movies, they stop making money.

So shorter release waits? If someone is so desperate to see a movie that they have to see it NOW, then they probably saw it in theaters. People who rent are used to some wait.

So more content will be released? <sarcasm>Oh my goodness, it'll be so nice when we can actually rent Hollywood blockbusters that the MPAA normally plays in theaters and then burns the masters of because they NEVER release it anywhere else.</sarcasm> WHAT more content? Insanely popular movies sometimes come in normal, widescreen, director's cut, complete, ultimate, and home premium variations already. What else could they possibly add? More sequels?

My favorite part of this is the following quote: But the MPAA said Nov. 4 that granting its waiver request would be "an incredibly pro-consumer development." Isn't that just perfect doublethink? "Breaking consumer electronics is an incredibly pro-consumer development." I guess legalizing bank robbery would be an incredibly pro-bank development too.

Besides that, if the (dys)functionality they want is built into electronics, there's nothing requiring them to hold up their end of the bargain. So what's more likely is that we would hamstring our hardware and they'd say "Yeah, thanks for that. So, we'll move up the release date for The Complete Rob Schneider DVD box set by a week in return. Enjoy!"

Re:Pirates

[nabsltd]

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.

Re:Pirates

[ilsaloving]

If all the pirates in the world suddenly vanished, would this change the media's behavour? Not hardly. They'd probably be even more gratuitously greedly because they no longer threatened by people choosing alternatives.

Re:Pirates

[rahvin112]

Don't forget, they want to kill Used Movies sales as well. One purchase, no resale. DRM has always been about killing resale, in games, movies and music the biggest threat the associations see is the resale of used product because they see it as depriving them of a sale. Piracy is a minor issue when compared to resale of used products, but they are beating on the drum of piracy because the politicians are listening and the studio's and producers know they can use it to kill resale.

Re:Pirates

[ClosedEyesSeeing]

I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.

Hrm, looks like you were.

Re:Pirates

[unitron]

Maybe they are also planning on making it cheaper...

And they have personally assured me that they are fully committed to doing exactly that, just as soon as their sideline business in aviation gear for swine begins producing sufficient offsetting revenue.

Re:Pirates

[macraig]

Does it really matter whether it's a legitimized and legalized method of disadvantaging others or not? Isn't that really the only difference between "getting the better end of the deal" and "piracy" or "stealing"?

The people who have attained positions of dominance over others would like to preserve that dominance. Short of hiring mercenaries, which was the Old School method, suckering the rest of us into agreeing to - and politicians to codify - laws that benefit them is their means to that end. Many laws are specifically intended to further entrench the minority that is already dominant, not serve the Greater Good or We The People.

Re:Pirates

[mcmonkey]

Thought experiment:
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
Choose the world where X is greater.

The problem with your experiment is the party you leave out: the content distributors.

Remember, when you're dealing with MPAA, RIAA, Sony, even Disney these days, you are not dealing with content producers. You are dealing with distributors.

These companies are not interested in ensuring the future production of creative works. They certainly do not care about the quality of the works produced. They only care about distribution, and specifically about reducing your options to get content.

The MPAA does not want a world where more movies are produced. They want a world where you can only get movies from the MPAA and its members.

Re:Pirates

[commodore64_love]

Goose-stepping Basterds (or whatever it's called) was a piece of trash. It got good reviews from critics and audience members, but I thought it sucked.

- If I had bought the DVD I would have wasted 20 bucks.

- Since I can't afford to waste money, I decided to try before I buy. I downloaded it. If it had been good (like Star Trek) then I would have bought it, but since I thought it was junk, I did not buy.

- 20 dollars saved.

   

Re:Pirates

[gedrin]

Hmm. It seems the actual goal is to deliver rewards directly to the creators of the content, thus encouraging more content to be produced. The challenge is how to do that in the existing framework. I don't believe the traditional model is useful anymore.

Direct distribution models seem more productive, but marketting will always be an issue. No matter what you're producing you'll still need a share of awareness in order to steer people to your distribution portal. Of course, even if these could be resolved well, it doesn't do anything for those who simply don't wish to pay for content.

I'm not sure what the ideal profit model is to allow content creators to flourish in an age of digital media. Trust people to pay what it's worth seems like a naïve solution. This seems to be the largest practical issue.

Re:Pirates

[iamacat]

Nope, there is a huge difference from insurance companies. As a result of more sober, seatbelt wearing drivers going at 70mph on 55mph highway instead of at 100mph on 80mph highway (let's be realistic here), you are less likely to die or get crippled even if you pay as much as ever for insurance.

On the other hand, if MPAA gets it's way, you are out two grand for a new TV AND you will not be able to archive content which you think is culturally important and share it with your children.

Re:Pirates

[erroneus]

I appreciate the conservative view point you are trying to put across, but there is one human factor that conservatives frequently fail to recognize. That factor is greed. Greed leads those in control of whatever product or factor of production to abuse the public at every opportunity. Prices are never low because of the goodness of anyone's hearts. They are low when they are required to be by law, when there is sufficient free, fair and unrestricted competition and when other forces, such as "pirates" make alternatives available for free.

Like it or not, copyright infringers are not the enemy of the public but are indeed the enemy of the content publishers. Content publishers seek to control and limit content at every opportunity and copyright infringers seek to free content at every opportunity. In a world without copyright infringers, we would be extremely limited and unhappy people. If content publishers had their way, they would overcharge for everything and no content would ever be portable between forms of media.

We, the public, benefit from the copyright infringers either directly or indirectly. Their existence serves to balance out or prevent the abuse we would all suffer at the hands of greedy content publishers.

Re:Pirates

[iamacat]

Current movie marketing excludes most of the market and most notably adults who actually have the money to pay for all the movies they want. There are multiple reasons why anyone with children will seldom go to movie theater. Even if you find a G rated movie that everyone wants to see and is willing to sit through quietly, you will be out $50 for 2 adult tickets, 2 child tickets and everyone who must have popcorn and coke. This will never be competitive with other sources of entertainment that one can get for $50. These leaves teenagers and college students who have neither money nor fully developed ethics to avoid Pirate Bay or sitting in the theater for the whole day after buying one ticket.

On the other hand, DVDs, iTunes rentals and On-Demand movies are only released half a year later, when there are no billboards, magazine reviews or any other buzz about the title. How can anyone expect to sell a product without advertisement?

Where MPAA goes wrong is in assuming that their product is essential and some special law changes or 2 grand for new TVs in the house would be considered so that they agree to sell their stuff. But movies are not something like health insurance where we can negotiate terms like banning exclusion of pre-existing conditions in exchange for requiring everyone financially capable to buy a policy. If they don't want to market and sell their stuff under existing terms and on the equipment that most potential customers have, there are thousands of other products and services crying for our attention. Skip 4 theater movies and book a weekend getaway on Travelocity - sounds good to me.

Even they were that important, they should expect a legal requirement in exchange for a legal waiver. Like mandating that any title showing in theaters is simultaneously available on any local on-demand service for a set maximum price.

Re:Pirates

[plague3106]

Its more like "do what we demand, or things will stay the same." I don't think anyone is suffering that they can't buy a DVD today instead of next month.

Re:Pirates

[Knara]

Until groups of people start concentrating resources and working on projects together, enlisting people to do marketing for their content so they have time to continue making new creative works, people to manage money gathered from patrons, etc.

And we end up right where we are, again. There's a reason we're at where we are now, because artists always want to do bigger and better, and no one is good at every aspect of funding, producing, and distributing creative works.

Your idea shows you both don't know how we've gotten to the current state of entertainment business, and don't know how the current state even really works.

Re:Pirates

[evilWurst]

I'd like to add that patronage not only has a long history, but that it's also still being practiced right now, in nearly every community: every high school and college band is being paid for by some combination of the community, the students, and the students' parents.

I bring it up because it shows that we're already comfortable with the basics, and because I don't think purely anonymous internet patronage would work well enough on its own. But community patronage for rehearsal space and local performances, combined with internet patronage? That just might work. The college students in particular are already plenty talented and capable of playing gigs for cash, and internet donations, however sporadic and unreliable, might be just enough to bump a hobby-that-sometimes-breaks-even up to the level of an actual stable career for a LOT more musicians than are currently able to make a living from it.

For the music-loving public, compare the current model (most musicians 'starving', and a few make mega and get rich) to one where we have a LOT more musicians making music and getting merely 'normal' pay from it. The latter model works out better for both the public and the musicians - the public gets more and cheaper music, and the musicians get to pursue their calling full time.

Could this concept be pushed into other media? Certainly, though perhaps not as quickly as music could be right away. Theatre, movies, and even software could benefit from the hybrid model. Software's already touching on it with open source projects being sponsored by companies (they get the use of the software for themselves, and then a bunch of prestige for releasing it). TV shows once followed this model, too, Back In The Day.

Re:Pirates

[AnotherUsername]

Yeap and, for that reason, I rarely watch movies, except ones I buy on the cheap (previously viewed at Block Buster mainly), and I haven't had a TV in my house for 10 years now.

I get all the news, entertainment, etc. that I want via the web and by ready fifty plus books a year.

The MPAA, RIAA and cable companies in general, can all pucker up and kiss my ar$e!

Do you know this guy, by any chance?

Re:Pirates

[plague3106]

Choice three: No corporate content producers, music art and drama are produced by everyone "in the small". No blockbusters. Everyone enjoys gathering around telling stories, playing music, singing.

Gah.. I've seen small time acts. They suck. No thanks.

Particularly creative people make videos, movies, write plays, books, lyrics. Shakespeare wasn't signed by a label.

He also had the only copy of his script, and a troop of actors to perform it. Oh... and a script and some costumes are a bit easier to execute than multimillion dollar movies with excellent special effects.

The way "content" is owned controlled and restricted now most people only "consume" entertainment. In my grandparent's time everyone produced entertainment. Sure, it wasn't as polished or grand as the professionally produced entertainment we are fed today. But is passive consumption of entertainment really that entertaining compared to interacting?

Given that many people CHOOSE to engage in this passive entertainment, yes. I've already worked all day, sometimes its just just to be able to sit back and enjoy without any effort. Sometimes I want something more interactive, where a video game comes in. Of course, if I were making the game I'd already know the ending, which kinda ruins it for me.

Re:Pirates

[dwiget001]

Hmm, nope, don't know him.

but, looks like we have a very similar view of all things related to TV. :)

Re:Pirates

[greenbird]

World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

World without ridiculously overbearing Imaginary Property laws who's sole purpose is to support obsolete business models based on outdated technology and restrict amazing new business models using modern technology gives you access to X*1000 life enriching pieces of content.

Fixed that for you. You seem to have missed an option there.

Re:Pirates

[Red.Baron.sc]

have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.

They do own the content and so they do get to set the terms for its use. It they want you to only use/listen to it while on your head, they can put that in the license agreement. If you buy/accept that license, don't complain. It still does not justify pirating their content. You do not have an inherent right to their art. Either don't buy it or accept the terms, (or try to negotiate with them, haha right). You will not die if you do not have the greatest and latest media.

The worst nightmare for these people would be if no one bought their stuff and no one stole it - eg if no one cared what they did.

If you are unhappy with license agreements you can always make your own

Re:Pirates

[Count Fenring]

Shakespeare wasn't signed by a label.

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.

Re:Pirates

[WCguru42]

"Pirated" content cannot be counted as a lost sale, because people who download media illegally do not magically have the money to purchase them legitimately, or even the desire to do so if the illegal option were removed.

I can all but guarantee you that there are plenty of people who pirate media that do have the money to purchase it. It's simply that they refuse to pay (maybe because they feel the prices are too high, maybe because of some rationalized justification, who knows).

Re:Pirates

[kheldan]

I feel that they're making a general assumption: that if they make it essentially impossible to pirate content, that the would-be pirates are all going to pay for the content. I for one disagree with that; there are many things that if I can't get them for free, I'll just do without them and move on to something else. Example: I'll wait an extra season for something to come on television and watch it for free rather than pay for it, especially if it's something I only care enough about to see once. Content I actually care about enough to want to see it multiple times, I'll pay for a physical copy of. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way about it either. The MPAA/RIAA/Networks/etc all need to understand this: making it more difficult to obtain their programming isn't going to increase their sales, it's just going to piss more people off!

Re:Pirates

[Darinbob]

"All right, you asked for it. Prepare for the ultimate in MPAA punishment! No movie for you! For three additional months anyway! Hah, who's laughing now? Where are you going to get your content... Wait, stop that. What are you doing? A book?? Seriously? That's so lame. No explosions, special effects, or director commentary. Stop reading and look at me when I'm fulminating at you! OK, I'll be back tomorrow to deliver my ultimatum again after you've grown bored with last millenium's technology. Prepare to be cowed!"

Re:Pirates

[lgw]

With the exception of 3-point seatbelts, none of those other initiatives has made driving any safer. Posted speed limits have almost no effect on speeds driven (but do generate more insurance company revenue if more tickets are written). Airbags made cars more dangerous for some time, until the whole "children forbidden to ride in front" thing became the norm. Anti-lock brakes were a wash. Stricter "drunk" driving laws when the limit was already too low don't help. It's all feel-good politics and gamesmanship, nothing to do with actual safety, but it significantly increases the price of a car.

Re:Pirates

[u-235-sentinel]

Pirates exist because they can get the content for free. Even if content producers agreed on reasonable terms, people would still take the content for free. It's not a social statement. That it is a social statement is an argument made to justify the actions taken, not the other way around.

That doesn't mean that content distributors aren't also to blame. If they had their way, your computer wouldn't be computer. It would be a kiosk for vending their goods. In fact, it wouldn't even be that. It would just have a card swipe on the front, and you'd mindlessly swipe your card. Notice I said distributors, since they're really the ones driving this show. The actual producers have little to do with it.

That's also not to say that they charge fairly, or that they distribute in a desirable fashion. That said, they don't really have any motivation to do so.

Wait until they get this. Their next move is a finance charge for NOT swiping your card :/

Re:Pirates

[PitaBred]

You really think that the person working at McDonald's with 500 movies on their hard drive has a spare $10,000 to purchase all of those movies on DVD, let alone high-def versions? How about the person with 10,000 songs? That's the same price if you get them "legitimately" though the iTunes store.

You are an absolute moron if you think that. It's not justification, it's simple fact. The thing is, all $20000 of that is counted in piracy "losses" according to the industry, and that money simply does not exist, and never will. There aren't "plenty" of people with the money to purchase those things at the rate that the industry claims it is losing money to piracy. Grow a clue.

Re:Pirates

[GaratNW]

Then in the interest of balance:

At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all, and resenting every time someone tries to profit from the blood, sweat and tears of their labor, and expecting the corporate content producers to somehow feed their families and pay their bills through the fairy dust gratitude of the appreciative masses.

Because, don't think for a second that corporate content producers are the same thing as the RIAA and MPAA. They may represent some, but most of us making content are people who go to work, pay our bills, create the content the public consumes voraciously, and just want to get paid for the work we do.

Quite simply, anyone who pirates has ZERO respect for the people who actually make that content. You can justify it all you want, as screwing the RIAA or Microsoft, or Sony, or whoever. But really? You're screwing me and other people who make the stuff you watch and play.

Re:Pirates

[TikiTDO]

Very good points, you completely correct. I can't wait until someday there's actual variety in mainstream music, instead of the weird mesh we have now. The real challenge, though, is getting the message out there. Anyone with any sort of say in these matters is so far removed from places where ideas originate. These people of power are also older, thus less likely to look toward newer media for creativity. Perhaps there is sense in getting ideas like this into traditional newspapers?

On a different note, software is where I think this has the most potential (I'm a software engineer though, so the bias is obvious). League of Legends is actually doing it in a really clever way. You get the full game for free, and can work your way up to all the optional characters you can buy, or you can get the full package for the cost of a traditional game, and if that's too much, you can just buy a few individual characters for a fraction of the price. The model is ingenious; it encourages you to donate, but does not give paid members any insurmountable advantages. I'm sure trying to sell it to a corporate board would be a nightmare though.

Re:Pirates

[gwdoiron]

I believe that a major mistake that a lot of people (including some people here on slashdot) make is assuming that these organizations (RIAA, MPAA) produce ANY content. (OK, OK, we all know they produce these "piracy impact statistics" which are attempted measurements of things which cannot be measured, but I was referring to the actual product they distribute.) As far as I'm aware, they only distribute what OTHERS have produced. These companies are protecting their DISTRIBUTION rights, when all is said and done. The internet allows anyone to distribute anything, and you don't need expensive CD mastering machines, plastic injection molding machines, printing presses and dozens of staff to do it - this makes their business model obsolete, and they are trying to keep the old way of business propped up. We've seen it many times before (see: player piano, tape recorder, vcr), and they (eventually) adapt, even though they are crying "Fire!" the entire time. Copyright infringement has always been there. It is a lot like prohibition: some sort of moral behavior is legislated, and enough people don't agree that there are entire underground networks dedicated to serving that prohibited behavior. It's a lost cause, but that fact hasn't yet sunk in at those companies.

Re:Pirates

[fremean]

Less content, more freedom...

I'd rather have the freedom to watch a movie or show (when I actually find one worth watching) on my old CRT TV (which isn't yet due for replacement through failure) than be forced to upgrade my TV just so some fat cat can get fatter.

Incidentally - isn't most piracy digital, not analog? sure people still record stuff on their VHS recorders and maybe share it with friends and family, but that can't be as bad as someone stripping the DRM from a stream and putting it on a torrent for the whole world to grab.

If I were MPAA I'd be encouraging analog users as the lesser of two evils.

Re:Pirates

[Tycho]

Resistance if futile, you will be monetized.

Re:Pirates

[aaandre]

I am still amazed at the business model of companies that have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.

And, at that, a product that costs nothing to duplicate for you to consume. It's not like they have to spend extra money in order to give you the product. No, all they have to do in order to make more money, is to make the product cheaper and more available.

I sense deep insecurity in the value of their own product. Hence the fear & distrust.

Re:Pirates

[TheRaven64]

First of all, you are completely ignoring the fact that copyright is a state-enforced monopoly that solely exists to encourage artists to publish. It is not some kind of natural right, it is something that we (society) agree to enforce in exchange for certain privileges, such as access to the art on a limited basis for a fixed term (in theory) and then unlimited access to it in perpetuity. I say this as a writer who makes a living from the existence of copyright; it is not carte blanche to exercise unlimited control over your work, it is a privilege to encourage you to produce it.

To the rest of your rambling: Here is a concrete example; The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'd quite like to watch it, but the DVDs won't be available to rent until next week in the UK, over a year after it first broadcast. I've added it to my rental queue, so I actually will rent it, but there are lots of other shows that, by the time they even appear on pre-order I've completely forgotten that I was interested in. I am here, willing and able to pay for these shows. If they made them available for DRM-free download at a reasonable price then I would pay in advance for an entire season - for some shows even before they've made it. Instead, they eventually deign to let me watch it a year after it first aired (often two years after they've made it) and get a small cut of the money I pay monthly for a rental subscription. They could be saving the DVD production costs and getting the money up-front, rather than having to borrow money to produce it and pay interest on it until it's sold enough to make their money back. Instead, they complain that piracy is killing their business.

They like to claim that piracy is akin to stealing. It's not a great analogy, but here's one that goes with it. They are like store keepers who only open from 2am to 6am, strip-search potential customers, get late deliveries and are often out of stock of things the people who do manage to get inside want to buy - and then they complain that shoplifting is hurting their profits.

Re:Pirates

[buswolley]

I liked the funny moderation better. :)

Re:Pirates

[khellendros1984]

When I do it, it's usually either because I can't find anywhere that sells it any more, because it's not available on Hulu any more, or because I can't be bothered to get my ass out to a store, and downloading is the quickest way to get what I want. I watch about 10 shows every week, for instance. If I were charged $1 per episode, I'd gladly pay it, as long as I got to keep a copy of the file. I mostly just want a library of things around so I can go back to recap from past episodes in a series, etc

Re:Pirates

[The Archon V2.0]

Even they were that important, they should expect a legal requirement in exchange for a legal waiver. Like mandating that any title showing in theaters is simultaneously available on any local on-demand service for a set maximum price.

"Set maximum price" in their minds being a sly look followed by "how much you got"?

Re:Pirates

[jd89]

exactly. but i live in aus. so we have to wait a few years and then possibly get the shows in dvd. i like my HD shows. but again. non-DRM; becaues whats the point of having it if i can only have it in 720/1080p? want to watch it on a phone/pmp. nope, can't do that. want to use linux? nope. mac? nope. xbmc? nope.

Re:Pirates

[jd89]

must.. mod.. up..

Re:Pirates

[davester666]

But you forget how this process works. This isn't a yes/no question put to the FCC (or whomever) once by the MPAA, and all the public has to do is rise up against it, and the issue goes away. The issue just gets tabled for six months or a year, and then brought up again, with slightly tweaked arguments to reduce opposition to the proposal. And they just keep on with the pressure. And eventually, the pressure they put on the issue eventually overcomes the opposition.

It's like a gear with a mechanical catch. The MPAA is trying to turn it one way, and the public is trying to turn it the other way. Of course, the mechanical catch is there to prevent the public from actually rotating it backwards (as in, it is pretty much unheard of to increase the public's copyright freedoms), so the best they can do is hold it from turning forward. And if they ease up for even a moment, the MPAA turns the wheel forward another notch or two.

Re:Pirates

[mattack2]

"Piracy" (and the gross misnomer of the term) exists because the companies seek to restrict any and all control of their products to allow them to be established into new markets. Piracy and content are phrases made to dilute the argument and attempt to put it on a physical level.

How many attempts to legally offer solutions to what the MPAA/RIAA have refused haven't been sued out of existence or taken control of and made useless? I can't point to a single one that is still around like that.

Umm, no, it exists because people refuse to pay for the content they are legally required to to use.

If you're referring to copyright infringement, that's not legal (in countries that have signed onto the Berne convention, and presumably some others too).. So I'm not sure what you mean by "legally offer[ing] solutions". The various music filesharing sites were clearly violating copyrights, and thus were sued.

(BTW, I make absolutely no claims to never having done any of this... it was way back in the BBS days... but most of us grow up and realize you should pay for the content you use, or not use it if you disagree with the terms... not just copy it anyway.)

Re:Pirates

[mattsday]

None of those things are really that bad though - having the option and market regulation to provide basic safety features in a very dangerous environment (i.e. car) is a GOOD THING.

I don't care who pressured the industry, but except for the 55mph thing, I think seat belts, DUI laws and airbags should be law and everyone should have the responsibility/choice to use them. The motor industry isn't famous for putting safty first!

Now this MPAA thing just sucks. I use the analog output from my box to feed to the kitchen for when I'm cooking. No way would I want them to suddenly stop allowing me to watch stuff in another room just on a whim. But that's got nothing to do with my car having safty features!

Re:Pirates

[icannotthinkofaname]

the biggest threat the associations see is the resale of used product because they see it as depriving them of a sale.

Until it's explained to me how the used media market is different from me lending or giving my friend my physical copy of a game that I previously owned (other than the money changing hands between gamers and GameStop), I won't hear a word of it.

If they really want to apply the idea that they're getting at, they will have to convince me that it's wrong for me to let my friend play my copy of a game. This will be difficult because I was always taught from an early age that sharing with others was something that good people do, not evil thieves, and I really believe it.

Re:Pirates

[MacWiz]

If they want to make me stop renting DVDs completely, they're on the right track.

Re:Pirates

[Thinboy00]

How many attempts to legally offer solutions to what the MPAA/RIAA have refused haven't been sued out of existence or taken control of and made useless? I can't point to a single one that is still around like that.

TPB was sued, but not yet sued out of existence...

Re:Pirates

[Criton]

What the MAFFIA is doing is not stopping piracy but attempting to take away fair use rights we had to fight for back in the 80s. They are not trying to make new goods and instead are trying the fleece consumers in new ways. This is pretty much an attempt to turn the play button into the pay button. BTW only a fucking retard or someone in a tea bagging session with the MPAA would ever side with the MPAA.

Re:Pirates

[Criton]

The true enemy is the MPAA and RIAA they have turned US copyright laws into a joke by extending them over and over. I would consider it a great day if they went bankrupt. BTW I hope Sonny Bono is burning in hell for his copyright extension act.

Re:Pirates

[Criton]

I completely agree if I'm treated well by a company and they offer a fair price I do not feel compelled to steal from them. But if they treat me like a criminal or like an idiot they don't get my money.

Re:Pirates

[vegiVamp]

I like how you specify "life enriching".

Re:Pirates

[nabsltd]

Quite simply, anyone who pirates has ZERO respect for the people who actually make that content. You can justify it all you want, as screwing the RIAA or Microsoft, or Sony, or whoever. But really? You're screwing me and other people who make the stuff you watch and play.

Yes, I know that when I record unencrypted broadcast television on my computer and watch it later, I'm taking food out of the mouths of hardworking actors, writers, and electricians. Or, when I use the cable-company DVR to record a "premium" channel and then watch later on my TV that's connected via analog component video connections. Or, when I buy a song online and listen to it on both my computer and my portable MP3 player.

Wait, let me try that again:

<sarcasm>Yes, I know that when I record unencrypted broadcast television on my computer and watch it later, I'm taking food out of the mouths of hardworking actors, writers, and electricians. Or, when I use the cable-company DVR to record a "premium" channel and then watch later on my TV that's connected via analog component video connections. Or, when I buy a song online and listen to it on both my computer and my portable MP3 player.</sarcasm>

The point being, of course, that mostly what the **AA is doing in their quest to stop "pirates" is trampling on fair use rights in an attempt to construct a "pay per use per device per person" business model.

Re:Pirates

[poetmatt]

I guess I need to give you cites of companies that got fucked for having legal content.

Let's begin:

Pandora
Napster
Netflix
Imeem
Youtube
Hulu

Notice a trend here? All of these sites have some form of situation where everything they were doing is and was completely legal, but they got fucked by the RIAA/MPAA.

Hulu: cannot have more than 5 episodes of a series, quality is limited, they are forced to go against boxee constantly.

Youtube: videos can be automatically removed via false DMCA claims or copyright claims that don't even legally make sense (such as a gaming exploit for CODMW2 that activision is claiming copyright of the vide).

Imeem: the list of music is horrifically short and they're forced to allow music spambots

Netflix: 1 month delay, forced use of silverlight, maximum quality lowered if using silverlight or any online form versus receiving the discs.

I can keep going if you want. Don't be blaming the people who are supposedly doing illegal activities when they don't have a viable alternative.

It's like giving someone a box, and saying they must stay inside it without any kind of positive alternative. Are you really going to blame them for breaking/getting out of the box?

Re:Pirates

[gedrin]

My intention is to note that not all content is of the same quality and quality can be impacted by the environment of creation. However, we all know that opinions about what makes for quality content vary widely.

Re:Pirates

[mpe]

Piracy exists because the content producers and consumers do not agree on acceptable terms for the content. At one extreme, you have content producers wanting to be paid every time anyone watches their film. At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all. Some of these consumers are not able to pay anything, so they can be discounted from the discussion: No matter how you set the price or what conditions you impose, they will not pay.

You also have people who regardless of if they (on paper) could pay will either pirate or do without. These people can also be discounted...

Re:Pirates

[poetmatt]

says who that they aren't paid from piracy?

more business = more copyright infringement? How is that a loss? So you have 50 more people who have spread the word about your product to another 50 times (squared) allowing 50^2 possibilities of making extra sales?

Two words

[Karem Lore]

One begins with F and the other with O

Re:Two words

[db32]

Why would you say "Fantastic Offer?" I think it is a pretty shitty offer.

Re:Two words

[bluesatin]

How exactly would Fibre Optics help in this situation?

Re:Two words

[introspekt.i]

Yeah, but why would Fleemus O'Flannigan care about any of this?

Re:Two words

[Pulse_Instance]

Because if you're doing that then there is no reason to be using the TV which solves the problem about having to care about this.

Re:Two words

[JCSoRocks]

Who cares!? It's the First of May!

Re:Two words

[jollyreaper]

One begins with F and the other with O

Felch Orangutans? Outre and offensive. I like it.

Re:Two words

[Big Hairy Ian]

One begins with F and the other with O

How the F did this get +3 informative??

Re:Two words

[nkh]

Fresh Oranges are full of vitamin C, but I don't think it would help in this situation.

Re:Two words

[aliquis]

Because if you're doing that then there is no reason to be using the TV which solves the problem about having to care about this.

But still, what's up with the MPAA disabling usage of the analog port!?!

Especially in a situation with twin vixens and all :/

This news worries me!

Re:Two words

[growse]

Now is the month of May-ing, and merry lads are playing?
Fa la la la la la la, Fa la la la la la la?

?

Re:Two words

[Captain Splendid]

Because he has Flatulent Otters?

Re:Two words

[nmg196]

I don't see how frightened ostridges will help on this occasion?

Re:Two words

[mrdogi]

Or, in an Austrian accent, F and U.

Re:Two words

[JWSmythe]

    If more people were fucking outside, there would be less demand for watching PPV porn. Just wander around until you see some hot chick, sit back, and relax. ;)

    Ahhhh.. FO porn. Is there anything better? Like, would you be inside watching reruns of Doogie Howser, or watching the hot chick next door gettin' some lesbian action on in the front yard.

    Well, we do have the Internet, and Rule 34. And just in case, Rule 35. :)

Re:Two words

[BESTouff]

"Fire Obama" because he obviously didn't put the content moguls into submission ?

Re:Two words

[Mister Whirly]

You forgot to also blame Microsoft for this this somehow.

Re:Two words

[iknowcss]

In after every slashdot nerd and his dog creatively misinterprets the parent

Re:Two words

[the_one(2)]

Strangle them?

Really?

[moogied]

Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not, then we get normal release times.

Re:Really?

[flonker]

The problem with that is, *all* sets will be of that type, or people who buy new devices would complain that their device is supposed to be new, yet they're still locked out of whatever. A few years later, they won't release any content without the anti-analog flag. At which point old TV sets won't work, (again,) and grandma won't have access to important information about hurricanes and stuff.

If the anti-analog flag is there, many people will want to use it on everything because they won't consider the negative effects. It's just human nature.

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

This seems like another non-issue. I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this. Is there something to this issue that I'm missing?
Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?

Re:Really?

[nametaken]

I say we just let them suffer until they HAVE to bring new products and services, and they still don't get to muck with my Tv hardware.

Re:Really?

[TheCarp]

Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.

So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.

I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.

-Steve

Re:Really?

[Thansal]

Until they ONLY make releases for those types of sets.
</paranoia>

Re:Really?

[davek]

Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not, then we get normal release times.

What a perfectly reasonable solution! However, you're falsely assuming that the MPAA or the FCC have any care whatsoever about the consumer. Its never been about the consumer, its about controlling and maintaining the status quo and the lifestyles of Hollywood royalty.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that is, *all* sets will be of that type, or people who buy new devices would complain that their device is supposed to be new, yet they're still locked out of whatever. A few years later, they won't release any content without the anti-analog flag. At which point old TV sets won't work, (again,) and grandma won't have access to important information about hurricanes and stuff.

Can we just disown Grandma and leave her to fend for herself already? She's holding back technological progress!

Re:Really?

[jank1887]

yes, that is the concern. The prime issue would be with broadcasters, who by using the public airwaves are required to provide a certain type of service. If they send with an analog no-copy flag, they could be argued to be degrading the content, which they're not supposed to do.

Re:Really?

[Narpak]

And those bent on ripping and sharing it online will find workarounds anyway; thus only limiting the possibilities of people already obeying the law.

Re:Really?

[causality]

What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.

You want less BS like this, expand that "small percentage". Bite the bullet and decide that maybe doing some legwork and investigating the truth of a claim before accepting it at face value is how human beings should be. Consider that doing otherwise is a defective practice as evidenced by the deception it leaves one open to. Accept that illiteracy or pure inexcusable laziness would be the only reasons for failure to do so, ever since the advent of Google.

Then imagine what would happen if everyone came to accept these few simple things. Most or all of the control exerted over us by various political and corporate entities comes from their power to deceive, misrepresent, and outright bullshit. That's why the MPAA doesn't say "we want dictatorial control over hardware we don't own" and instead says "this will help us deliver more content." Of course the MPAA is the least of what this mechanism has brought us. I'd like to see what would happen to governments if the general population learned to have high-quality bullshit detectors. Right now, the majority who can't (or won't) handle basic research and argumentation are accepting faulty policies, endorsing flawed ideas, and generally creating a terribly gloomy and cynical world for the minority who can.

Re:Really?

[jggimi]

...reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work.

Excellent point. Remember when lower quality VHS beat out higher quality Beta? Did consumers care? No. They went with what was either convenient or available.

Sony's inability to see the impact market forces on their closed architecture, notwithstanding, of course.

Re:Really?

[NotBornYesterday]

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?

Re:Really?

[mabhatter654]

except you missed the part where the broadcast flag was going to make it through the FCC so to speed it along MPAA companies directly licensed TV makers to include the flag with proper functions Stations have nothing to do with it and you can't undo what's already inside your TV.

Hence, if the content provider (networks) include the flag in a broadcast or digital file, the TV station can't remove it (what you call degrading the signal).

Re:Really?

[s73v3r]

The FCC appears to care about the consumer a bit, as they are the ones that have recently refused to allow use of the broadcast flag and analog disabling flag.

Re:Really?

[broken_chaos]

I'm pretty certain most pirated content (yarr!) doesn't even use analog copying. Most of them just break the DRM somehow, since DRM can never be perfect... This is just another method of control and forced upgrades for the average consumer, many of whom couldn't afford it. When their income goes down again, they'll say "Look, the pirates did it again! We need more laws!".

Re:Really?

[hairyfeet]

Exactly! I don't even even know the number of games I have had to crack, not because I'm some pirate, but because while the game works fine in X64 their &^%$&^%$ DRM doesn't. Not to mention having nearly a Tb of HDD space and being expected to build a mound of discs to feed the damned PC like it was a PS2.

But this guy (warning language NSFW) sums up my feelings on the anti-piracy bullshit better than I ever could, and is a good example of the kind of crap we'll all be dealing with if this crap is allowed to pass. Watch and see first hand how the consumer (notice the fricking huge library of games the guy has behind him) gets screwed by the DRM.

Re:Really?

[jonaskoelker]

Then imagine what would happen if everyone came to accept these few simple things.

Boy, that sounds great.

Now, do you have any good suggestions for solving the problems of the world we actually live in? Change human nature, perhaps? ;)

Sorry to be snide. Your world does sound great, but I think you'll have to fight an uphill battle if you fight against peoples' desire to be lazy.

Re:Really?

[causality]

Then imagine what would happen if everyone came to accept these few simple things.

Boy, that sounds great.

Now, do you have any good suggestions for solving the problems of the world we actually live in? Change human nature, perhaps? ;)

Sorry to be snide. Your world does sound great, but I think you'll have to fight an uphill battle if you fight against peoples' desire to be lazy.

There is precedent for what you call my world. The USA was not unlike this shortly after it was founded. While the book itself is about public education and how we obtained the system we know today, the best reference for this known to me is John Taylor Gatto's book which can be read online in its entirety for free.

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

Hmm. So, I'll still be able to watch the broadcast, but I'll loose the ability to do processing through the analog port. I might wish to use that functionality for derivitive works, or to work with my old VCR. I agree, if I had any interst in doing such things, it would be unfortunate to loose that ablity.
What are the legitimate uses of the analog port for those who use modern digital means of editing footage and recording for their own use?

Re:Really?

[russotto]

The FCC appears to care about the consumer a bit, as they are the ones that have recently refused to allow use of the broadcast flag and analog disabling flag.

The FCC approved the broadcast flag. It was defeated in court as beyond the FCCs authority. The tuner cards I use are perfectly happy to "respect" the broadcast flag. They pass it in the MPEG stream, to MythTV... which then faithfully records it. Bad MythTV, bad :-)

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

Certainly they should not be able to do this without permission (contract) with the customer. That much seems clear. I'm just not clear on why it's currently illegal for them to create such a contract.

Re:Really?

[TheCarp]

o/~ Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace o/~

Seriously though, any plan that starts with "Step 1: Change human nature" is doomed to failure from the start. People are not ultimately rational creatures. We may try, some of us may do it much of the time. However, it can easily be shown that people tend to use "shortcuts" in thinking to make decisions.

Salesmen, con-artists, politicians, and other assorted nasties creatures, often tune their strategies to take advantage of this fact. This is why you will seldom see anything sell for $200 when it can sell for $199.95 (yes, I know this has some history in counting back change and making it harder for cashiers to skim off the top also, but most places that care have other ways to deal with that now)

This is why you hear about "900 deaths related to texting while driving" yet no attempt whatsoever to put that into perspective (like the 40,000 alcohol and driving related deaths... or that you are several times more likely to die walking home drunk than driving home drunk)

It is also why you see little children in commercials that talk about tires and breaks. Its why the guy on the commercial for the stupid collectible gold coin with a few dollars worth of gold in it keeps talking about the price of the gold.... as if there is any chance it will ever go up enough o factor into the value of the coin.

I a ALL FOR helping people be more rational, ALL FOR helping people make good decisions. You know what I ADORE. The fact that grocery stores here (other places?) have to put the price per unit on every item. Items on the shelves can be downright decietful in the way they mix up sizes and quantities of things to make it hard to do a direct comparison for price without a calculator (and yes, I know there is one on my cell phone).

While that does mean taking some crutches away, I don't think it means immediate removal of ALL of regulations that attempt to prevent harmful and gratuitous practices.

Re:Really?

[NotBornYesterday]

IANAL, but theoretically speaking I don't see why they would be prevented from making such a deal directly with consumers. Practically speaking however, I don't think such a move would work well or suit their purposes.

Problem: They claim they want to eliminate piracy. If they have to ask people for permission to do this, obviously anyone who actually uses these analog ports for piracy will simply decline the contract, or find some other hole to exploit. In reality, it's close to a non-issue, since the bulk of piracy doesn't appear to come via the analog ports the MPAA is looking to control.

Problem: In the US there are over 100 million households, most of which have at least 1 television, many of which have more. In your model, the MPAA would have to get that contract with everyone. Time consuming. Expensive. Complicated. Going to the FCC is one-stop shopping, and grants precedent for whatever intrusive favor they want to ask next.

Alternate approach: They could negotiate their deals with cable and satellite TV companies, and have the cable and satellite companies simply include it in their boilerplate customer agreements. Problems:
1) Not all TV providers will necessarily be on-board with this. Will there be new hardware required, e.g., a new generation of set-top boxes?
2) Cable and satellite are ultra-competitive right now, and providers may try to avoid alienating customers that might object to this. I don't think enough people would care to make this an issue, but the potential for negative PR is there.
3) New customers may have no choice but accept the new cable/satellite contract, but existing customers might (I am guessing) have a legal leg to stand on. Even though these contracts typically allow the provider to update and change the agreement, I doubt that gives the provider the right to do anything they want, like grant themselves and their MPAA partners control of your TV without your explicit, informed, before-the-fact consent. I would expect a lawsuit and bad PR would follow, plus a courtroom loss for the industry if they were crass enough to fight rather than quietly withdraw.

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

I'm not recomending a particular model, I'm just tyint to discover the core issue. The idea that they can manipulat your hardware without your consent is offensive to me. The FCC giving someone else the ability to manipulate my property without my consent doesn't make it any better.
I wouldn't have a problem with a EULA for a TV show, but awareness and consent are issues in that regard. It's they're stuff. If they want to make it too anoying to use it's their right. Not to mention, how exactly do I get a viewer to click "accept" on a typical TV.

While I don't have any problem with a provider contracting, even via EULA, for this ability. It seems very wrong that they could recieve the authrority to control my property without my consent. Am I correct that the only reason this is an issue is because the FCC is contemplating granting them special dispensation to alter my television without my aproval, and they would not be able to do so, legally, otherwise?

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

Wow...spelling and gramar fail on my part there.

Re:Really?

[Bat Country]

Reinforcement for that - the Sony Playstation 3 enables HDCP whenever it is outputting to an HDMI connection, whether you're playing "protected content" or not. Even though the act of playing a video game should not be content-locked, if you start up anything in HD on the PS3, it runs copy protected.

Why did they do that? Pick one of three reasons:

1. It's just plain easier to make the HDCP module always on.
2. It makes it less likely that somebody will find a backdoor way of disabling the HDCP module when playing protected content.
3. They can sell special PS3s to media outlets for inflated prices so they know who is making videos of their content and get extra cash to boot.

Maybe "4. All of the Above."

The downside to this is that it creates an artificial cost-of-entry barrier for independent video game media. It increases the cost of ownership - people with older HDTVs which do not support HDCP cannot play their PS3 in any of the digital HD modes, so it necessitates the purchase of more expensive hardware. What's the actual benefit for Sony? The HDCP was still bypassed by simply copying from the BD-ROM when running the official Linux installation for the PS3. As the parent said, it's a completely uninformed decision caused by simply not considering the negative effects.

Re:Really?

[NotBornYesterday]

Not to mention, how exactly do I get a viewer to click "accept" on a typical TV.

I would imagine a solution something similar to the way people order pay-per-view. You flip to a channel for a movie, and could be presented with a screen that says that the content you want to view requires analog-out restrictions, do you accept, y/n? If you don't agree, you don't get access. If you agree, the set-top box tickles the "analog-out-off" switch for your TV, and the box streams the show to you.

Of course, this all depends on the hardware that supports the desired functionality. Do modern TVs support this? I have no idea. What about TVs from 5 or 10 years ago? What about the set-top boxes from cable & satellite providers?

Re:Really?

[NotBornYesterday]

My daughter went to see Taylor Swift perform in New York this year on the Today show. Lacking a spiffy new DVR, I dragged out our old VCR, cabled it up, and managed to catch the performance. She and her friend were on TV twice, briefly, and in one shot they were posing/taking pictures with TS. Being able to capture that was priceless to us.

I'll grant you this was a fringe example, but it falls squarely within the Fair Use doctrine, and illustrates the fact that the legitimate uses of analog out ports are likely as diverse as the people using them.

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

PPV style would be fine with me. If the hardware doesn't support it, I guess they don't get the content early. Nothing new, or wrong, about needing to upgrade hardware to access new content.

Re:Really?

[gedrin]

It's beginning to seem that there's really no reason for this sort of control to be available without the consent of the owner of a TV. Legitimate use arguments, while interesting curiosities, miss the point. It doesn't surprise me that MPAA wants this sort of control. All sorts of businesses and orginizations want to force all manner of ideas onto others. Seems obvious to me that, regardless of what people may be using their TV's for, a content provider shouldn't be able to disable parts of a person's propery without their consent.

Re:Really?

[petermgreen]

It increases the cost of ownership - people with older HDTVs which do not support HDCP cannot play their PS3 in any of the digital HD modes, so it necessitates the purchase of more expensive hardware. What's the actual benefit for Sony? ....it's a completely uninformed decision caused by simply not considering the negative effects.
What makes you think this is a downside for sony?

What is going to happen when someone discovers they can't digitally connect thier PS3 to thier old HDTV*? Either they are going to get a new HDTV, they are going to buy a component cable or they are going to live with composite.

If they buy a new TV or a component cable (you can use a standard HDMI cable with a PS3 but you need a special cable for component) then there is a reasonable chance that sony just made another sale.

*how many HDTVs are there that support DVI/HDMI but not HDCP anyway?

I wonder...

[clang_jangle]

Wonder how well that would work for people using a computer with a TV tuner for watching?

Re:I wonder...

[net28573]

Im wondering about this as well. My computer has a dual digital and analog receiver installed on my pc. You would think that because digital is so much easier to tinker with that it would be easier to modify and work around these limitations. Maybe it is easier. either way im sick of this crap they call high quality. I would go for analog static over the choppy weak signals of digital tv any old day of the week.

Re:I wonder...

[Culture20]

Guess what else they want control over.

Re:I wonder...

[jiriw]

For that, they invented TPM, HDMI and various other consumer experience impeding technologies.
If you can demand the whole chain is signed -bios, operating system, drivers and display hardware (via HDMI)- you can make 'sure' (unless an exploring and fearless hacker shows otherwise - risking a criminal offense per DCMA) the movie is only played when you want to. And I think the MPAA won't allow TV tuner hardware to decode this 'premium' content before they 'cum in their mandatory TPM wet dream'.

Re:I wonder...

[jank1887]

they can never block the final analog hole. well, until they replace our eyes with digital sensors at birth. a camcorder pointed at the screen will always be enough for some people.

Re:I wonder...

[PitaBred]

You filthy pirate. The only reason to watch TV on a computer is to rip off the media industry. Why don't you just pay lots of money to the cable/satellite company for their shitty DVR like everyone else?

Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[sohmc]

It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels. It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.

Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!

You just can't make this stuff up.

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[oldhack]

Seriously. FCC has no business deciding TV feature set. But FCC really should mandate all TVs sold to lawyers have circular screens with rabbit antenna.

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[elrous0]

No kidding. No need to turn off any ports. Hollywood can deter me from pirating a movie simply by the words "A Michael Bay Film" to the opening of any movie.

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[Foobar of Borg]

Media Wars, Chapter IV: A New Hope (with Napster)
Media Wars, Chapter V: The Media Empire Strikes Back
Media Wars, Chapter VI: The Media Empire Strikes Back Again
Media Wars, Chapter VII: The Search For More Money
Media Wars, Chapter VIII: Fuck It! Let's Just Drop Ewoks on Them!
[...time passes...]
Media Wars, Chapter I: The Phantom Lawsuit
Media Wars, Chapter II: The Clone Lawsuits
Media Wars, Chapter III: Revenge of the Glickman
Gigli 2: Just Because We Hate You

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[nEoN nOoDlE]

The pirates have stolen all the good ideas. That's why Hollywood keeps going after them.

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas

[MrNemesis]

Seems clear to me - Hollywood has been successfully infiltrated by the Slashdot Illuminati. For years they've been conditioning the technocrats into accepting continual recycling of the same information, the powerful few who once could have stood against them, with an endless series of dupes. Disguising this ruse as mere incompetence and laziness, they've now bribed, blackmailed and assassinated their way up into the highest echelons of the media industry so they can try and assert their control over the proles as well.

Think that the coming of talentless no-hopers like $any_fucking_pop_artist appearing all over the top of the charts is a coincidence? Think again. 1997, slashdot opens. 1997, Britney is given her first record contract... paid for by a bank account traceable back to the now defunct (and suspiciously absent from any business records - just try looking for them on google, they're not there) MaldaBates Holdings registered in the Cayman Islands... who were also the 51% stakeholders in Jive Records. Coincidence?

Mark my words, behind the friendly green glow of slashdot lies a shadowy consortium of power brokers, vulture capitalists, politicians, marketing consultants and soda manufacturers. They're out for control, and they're winning.

Posting anonymously in case CowboyNeal is watching.

OK if...

[jquest]

I'd be OK with something like this IF the MPAA was required to always offer the movies for rental at or below the lowest price from ANY country that the movie is offered in. Then something like this might be ok...

Cartel

[Anonymous Coward]

When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel? They all price match each other, control pricing, and even sue as a group.

It's a perfect cartel. I wonder if they like OPEC? Probably.

Re:Cartel

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a cartel when it doesn't involve American corporations.

Re:Cartel

[anglico]

I wonder if they like OPEC?

My guess is one modeled themselves after the other, but that is just my guess.

Re:Cartel

[Znork]

They all price match each other

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, when you have monopolistic pricing you set prices for revenue maximization as a function of consumer disposable income. As it's not a competitive function they'll likely end up with roughly the same pricing with or without collusion.

Re:Cartel

[rahvin112]

It won't happen because Congress passed legislation 30 years ago protecting these organizations from Anti-Trust actions. Until that protection is revoked the behavior will continue.

Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want those products...

keep em...

Re:Easy solution

[digitig]

This is the MPAA. You'll want what you're told to want.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

So, they're just like Apple?

Re:Easy solution

[Mister Whirly]

Jesus, could you imagine if the MPAA/RIAA had rabid fanboys like Apple? Scary.

They've totally lost the plot

[Rogerborg]

It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy. Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.

I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy. They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.

Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Tihstae]

Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.

Ding ding ding. We have a winna!

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[jedidiah]

If it is broadcast over the airwaves then there is no way they can stop it from being copied.

This can only ever be relevant for "cable only" TV content.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[jellomizer]

Even if all the digital data is encrypted. The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information. A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies. Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Kozz]

It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies...

If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know. Even if it means the commercials are embedded, I've got no problem with that. The ability to download a show NOW to watch LATER (say, someplace where I don't have 'net access) would be awesome.

For the record, I've done my share of Googling and trying different capture apps that haven't worked as advertised. Maybe you know something I don't (I'm hoping).

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Ozlanthos]

Actually I think it is more a precedent setting move than anything. Just like Roe V Wade is more about setting precedent for how much control the fed or state has over what you do to your body than abortion (keeps the fed from sticking RFiDs in everyone at birth). This would potentially set a precedent for allowing manufacturers to control all output points on devices they produce (including the big one in the front you spend 3 to 6 hours a day staring at) for the life of the product,

-Oz

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[techoi]

In Soviet Russia, analog hole watches you!

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[sentientbeing]

VGA capture http://www.vgacapture.com/

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[ezelkow1]

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.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[nine-times]

Of course, that assumes that the purpose here is to stop piracy. The MPAA gains another thing from all their various kinds of DRM: it means that consumers are often forced to re-buy the same content over and over for various devices and uses. You know, like you buy the Bluray and... what? You want to play the movie on your iPod? Buy the special iPod version. Oh, you want to be able to play it on your netbook? You have to buy a separate version for that.

And then they complain that consumers aren't buying enough movies. It must be because of piracy, and certainly not because we're selling a crippled and confusing product. Therefore, the government has to find additional ways to bail them out.

It's not a crazy plan if it works.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[blincoln]

If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.

I don't know of a way to do it via software, but in an absolute worst-case scenario, someone could just wire up a capture device to the output of the chip in an LCD display that drives the individual pixels (as Jellomizer hinted at above). Treat that output like you'd treat the raw output of the CCD/CMOS sensor in a digital camcorder, IE dump it into a RAM buffer as an uncompressed bitmap and then re-encode it using your favourite method. You'd lose some quality that way, but I don't believe it would be any more than with an analogue copy. If someone with a degree in CS and/or math wanted to be very fancy, maybe they could write an algorithm that would make a best guess about the original compressed encoding based on the raw bitmap. That is, try to figure out things like "oh, there are sixteen pixels of the same colour arranged in a perfect square, here's how that would have been encoded in an MPEG4 stream" or whatever. That way even the re-encoding losses would be minimized.
It would take a lot of work to build the hardware and raw capture device, but (again, as has been mentioned previously) only one person in the world needs to do it and then as soon as they've got the un-DRM'd digital copy anyone who's interested can have it too.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[localman57]

Roe V Wade

Thanks! It's been cold in my office all day. A nice flame war should make it nice and toasty.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[sricetx]

If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know.

I would think that the Hauppauge.com HD PVR http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html would do the trick, as long as you have a video card that supports component output.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Blue Stone]

They have no choice but to continue fighting. Their entire existence is based on monopolistic control over the copying and distribution of their content. They can no more willingly accept the internet or personal copying than Turkeys can accept Christmas.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[MobyDisk]

I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more,

Because they can make it prohibitively difficult to make digital copies, but analog copies are always within the reach of the average person. Those "click-and-leech digital copies" may have come from the analog hole. So they are trying to stop things at the source.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[0xdeadbeef]

It is a moral panic, very much like the church with sex, or the government with drugs. They actually believe, or want others to believe, that if casual copying were possible, everyone would stop buying media altogether and participate in a never ending orgy of copyright infringement. The prohibition is in place to protect you from yourselves. These controls are chastity belts for you and your devices.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[Rich0]

You could probably get something "good enough" by projecting the show on a nice big TV and pointing a video camera at it, and then capturing the audio direct from the stereo (of if you must, from the wires in the speakers). Until TV is piped directly into your visual cortex, there will ALWAYS be an analog hole. Are they going to start watermarking every broadcast and require the recording of ID to buy a DVD or a cable box?

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[himself]

Commie Russkie Goatsee?

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[XnavxeMiyyep]

There's an application for Mac OS X called Snapz Pro X that will record whatever is on your screen. You can choose a subsection of the screen if you like. It will also record the audio.

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[dweller_below]

Your perspective is too short term. If some office of the government is attempting to control the limits of action of the MPAA, the MPAA's next step is to achieve control of that office. It's called Bureaucratic Capture ( http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1998-March/040535.html ) and it's the best possible outcome from the point of view of the MPAA.

Continually asking for the same thing is one of the first steps. Eventually the MPAA will get everything they want and much more. The process is slow, but almost inevitable.

Many groups fault civil libertarians for being unflexible. But, in these conflicts and on long timescales, you have to be unflexible on defense and relentless on offense. It's like fighting with a one-way ratchet. Once you go on defense, you always lose ground. You have to refuse to yeild until you can get back on offense.

Miles

Re:They've totally lost the plot

[nateb]

within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it

24 hours? I want it now!!

Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Gizzmonic]

Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release? I didn't think so.

Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy. I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole." You're only going to hurt Mom & Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector. Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[WinterSolstice]

Actually, not everyone. I tried using HDMI for everything and discovered that I was getting lots of audio dropouts. So I ended up switched back to the lovely component video which works just fine, TYVM.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

"Would any sane person consent to..."

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies? Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices? These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Gizzmonic]

Really? I've had that problem with Firewire but never with HDMI. Anyway, if the audio was the problem, why not just use the optical digital out for audio and still use HDMI for video?

I was using component exclusively on my HDTV until I got a newer receiver that could handle HDMI switching-I didn't expect much of a picture upgrade on my 36-inch TV, but the HDMI does look appreciably better, especially on the PS3. The cable box doesn't look different at all.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[F.Ultra]

HDMI is not encrypted to protect the content, it's there so that Intel can charge license fees of display manufacturerers.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[PitaBred]

I've found that my set actually gets a better picture via HDMI. I just dump the sound out on a different output. Never even tried to do sound + video on HDMI.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[alexo]

HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...

HDCP broken on a consumer level?
Please do tell.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Comboman]

The cable box doesn't look different at all.

Most digital cable channels (other than HD channels) are sent at 480i, so you wont see much difference from analog.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[SydShamino]

We were early HDTV adopters. Our perfectly-good six-year-old plasma TV has DVI and component only, no HDMI. I use component from our cable box since it has only component and HDMI.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[WinterSolstice]

My understanding is that it has a lot to do with bandwidth for audio and such. I can't do what the grand-parent poster suggests (only the parent post) because I don't have a standalone sound system. My Sony Bravia disables audio inputs if there is any audio coming across the HDMI channel (even if it's bogus audio).

So component it is :)

Point being - even people who *have* HDMI aren't strictly using it.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[WinterSolstice]

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I don't have a standalone audio system, and my TV disables the other inputs if the HDMI is carrying any form of audio signal. Fun fun fun.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[TheDarkMaster]

Maybe the CPU from your TV is not powerfull enought to process the DRM and in the intervals do the video and audio decoding work

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[countertrolling]

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?

Every time they buy such a device.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Gizzmonic]

DVI and HDMI are the same signal-if you get a DVI-to-HDMI cable you will be able to use the DVI port on your TV. However, sometimes cable boxes think that such cables are non-compliant with HDCP and will intentionally degrade your signal. My brother in law has AT&T Uverse and their STB does not like his plasma TV, even though it has an actual HDMI port. I told him to just use component, it's not worth the effort to mess around with the stuff sometimes.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Tycho]

The thing is though, HDMI and DVI are nearly exactly the same as VGA, the individual color channels and IIRC the sync pulses are sent over their own signal pairs, there are four in total, DVI and HDMI just encode the signal in digital. Even worse, the TMDS signaling used in HDMI and DVI has more issues with signal quality and more dropouts than VGA. On top of that, VGA has more bandwidth than a single link DVI or HDMI port. Give me DisplayPort, Firewire, or VGA with a decent DAC and a decent ADC over HDMI any day.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[Foobar of Borg]

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies?

Every time they buy such a device

When there is no alternative, can there really be consent?

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[countertrolling]

There is always an alternative. We are dealing with the subject of entertainment. A little perspective is due.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[WinterSolstice]

Firewire would be an awesome way to cable systems, IMO.

Component does just fine, however - it's not like HDTV is really all that much data.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

There is no legal alternative for DVD players, and there will not be for several more years. The CSS algorithm is patented, and the MPAA holds the patent and licenses it under very restrictive terms. The only thing approaching an alternative is to watch a small minority of movies that are released with CSS restriction, without region encoding, and that is an extremely limited option. Illegal DVD players, such as free/libre software DVD players, are only an option for those consumers who are willing to break the law, or worse, those who are not even aware that it is illegal in the USA.

Not that patents even matter much; the DMCA ensures that we will never actually have any legal choice.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so.

[betterunixthanunix]

I would agree if there was any indication that the restriction technologies were in place in any advertisement or specification for the device. Guess what? I have never, in my entire life, walked into an electronics store and seen any indication that any device has any copy restriction technologies embedded -- even devices that I personally know could not be legally produced without such technologies.

Even if you accept the idea that consumers are voting "with their dollars," they are not being told what they are getting. When a consumer buys a DVD player, they are not consenting to the restriction technology, because they are not ever made aware that the technology is there. It is not a question of poor education, it is a question of incomplete specifications, or if you are a pessimist, false advertising.

Every time...

[sootman]

... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?

Re:Every time...

[broggyr]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could charge for more goods to consumers."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Every time...

[TechForensics]

... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?

Of course not. I know you're being ironic, but it should be pointed out *they have no one but consumers* to consume their "goods" at all. They still have to rent or sell their product to consumers even if consumers can stream or rip to heart's content. They will accept less revenue rather than forgo revenue completely. Certainly expect them to fight for as much revenue as they can as long as possible, but this argument about restricting the consumer's "enabling" them to provide more product is a canard, and in fact economically impossible for them.

Re:Every time...

[Noughmad]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could charge for more goods to consumers."

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could charge more for goods to consumers."

Mistaking "could" and "would"

[Attila Dimedici]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[Culture20]

as they tighten their control over the products they sell

They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[surmak]

What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home." after it was translated by a PR flack.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[Demonantis]

I agree, but they aren't really like the record industry where they are struggling to use an outdated business model using outdated methods of shipping that are no longer needed. They see it as a monopoly situation so demand for their product is rather inflexible. By controlling the release of their product they can tier the charging and make more money as people become more willing to buy in. Movies aren't really inflexible though. I don't really need movies so I will just spend my money on something else until the price comes into my price range, like $2 at the rental store. I don't really see where their argument is going. They aren't really selling more product they are just trying to add another pricing tier to capture more profit when it won't.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[nine-times]

Yeah, that quote about "they could offer more goods to consumers" is insane. First of all, they can offer those goods to consumers. This change wouldn't create the possibility of offering those products; it only increases the control of what consumers do after buying those products.

Second, even if it did allow them to offer more goods, why the hell is that the FCC's business? Since when is it the FCC's job to create business opportunities for the MPAA? I was under the impression that the FCC was supposed to be regulating the broadcasters and protecting the citizens, and not the other way around.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[Fallen Kell]

Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.

Nail + Head

They still live under the delusion of entitlement to money for their product (i.e. if I put a product on the market, it will always sell). I don't understand how that is so when they themselves have seen gigantic movie flops, like "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", "Cutthroat Island" (put Carolco out of business... note that this was the same studio/production company that made "Terminator 2"), or "Town and Country", and still think that if they make it people will buy it. Also just because the box office numbers were good does not mean the sales will also be good (there are plenty of movies that you really only need to see once, especially now that we are in sequel and re-hash world, simply re-doing past movies and updating the special effects...).

Then to top the above, they keep trying to see us less and less, at higher cost. I can honestly say I have almost completely stopped purchasing CD's (I only buy a few select ones, all of which are private indy labels unaffiliated with the MPAA), and I have also been buying less DVD/BluRay (from a person who has 1000+, I think I have purchased 2 movies this entire year, with only 2 more that I expect to buy for the rest of the year as well, both of which come out next two weeks). The more that they have been doing things like force me to watch previews by locking out the system from accepting commands, the less I have been buying. Maybe one day they will look at themselves and legitimately ask the question, why did they lose out on making sales to someone like me.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would"

[Big Boss]

The more that they have been doing things like force me to watch previews by locking out the system from accepting commands, the less I have been buying. Maybe one day they will look at themselves and legitimately ask the question, why did they lose out on making sales to someone like me.

That's the biggest reason I rip and/or transcode movies to my file server. I don't want the stupid ads, previews, menus and other assorted bullshit. I want to press play and watch the damn movie. Particularly for kids movies, my kid doesn't want to watch your stupid ads, they want to watch the movie I *PAID FOR*. The "pirated" version is MORE useful and costs LESS. Note that I still buy movies and music I like, but I still put them on my server. I hate dealing with ads and menus, I just want the damn movie. And if they make it difficult to do that, I know where to get versions that someone else has already removed all the protections on. So I can download that and just leave my purchases on the shelf. I have BluRays, but I've watched the download instead because of irritating DRM BS. If the producers would offer me the same type of file for purchase directly, I would happily pay them and download direct. But instead I'm forced into playing these stupid games. Idiots. I'd probably own much more of their stuff as impulse buys if they did this. But since I have to go to the store or wait for the mail, I don't buy some things and instead I rent or netflix them.

MPAA control

[prakslash]

Slashdot story in 2012: MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Re:MPAA control

[svtdragon]

Slashdot story in 2072: MPAA asks again for control of neural inputs

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' neural input pathways, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Where's the +1 Prescient mod when you need it?

Re:MPAA control

[Ender_Stonebender]

Slashdot story in 2152: MPAA asks again for control of brain-implanted memory remapping devices

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumer's neural recall pathways, the could make more money by reselling you movies you've already seen.

Where's the +2 Both Prescient and Scary mod when you need it?

Re:MPAA control

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2014 they'll be asking Congress to close the "cash hole"

Re:MPAA control

[Noughmad]

Slashdot story in 2187: Humanity asks again for control of robotic MPAA overlords.

Re:MPAA control

[TheDarkMaster]

Shhhhhhh!!! Do not give then ideas!

Re:MPAA control

[cpghost]

In 2014 they'll be asking Congress to close the "cash hole"

All it takes to close the "cash hole" is 1.) Congress declaring war on tax evaders, and 2.) a little help from mass media i.e. stirring up a little terrorism, child pr0n or whatever hysteria. Eventually, anonymous money (cash) as we know it will disappear in a post-ACTA world.

Unbelievable!

[jtownatpunk.net]

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

Fuck you, you fucking fucks!

Re:Unbelievable!

[broggyr]

"...or as almost every word in a sentence: 'Fuck the fucking fuckers'"

Re:Unbelievable!

[flyneye]

The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?"

Re:Unbelievable!

[Jaysyn]

Fuck you, you fucking fucks!

Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!

Re:Unbelievable!

[Stanislav_J]

Fuck you, you fucking fucks!

Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word!

Much better is the real-life example once related in an article I read. A machine in a factory had broken down, and when this guy asked the repairman what was wrong with it, he just sighed, "Fuckin' fucker's fucked."

Re:Unbelievable!

[cffrost]

See: Bads

The work around is almost perfect.

[iCantSpell]

Sense a great deal of modern television sets are practicly embeded computers, this move will hopefully be the push to launch homebrew TV bios.

I would love to flash a HTC to enable cool video overlays or to allow simultaneous stream dumping.

Re:The work around is almost perfect.

[Rockoon]

I know mine is. Hell, I am 100% certain that it has an AC'97 audio chip and i've never opened it or otherwise checked out the technical specs of the device. Yes, the feature set (effects) of AC'97's is *that obvious* when you hear it.

It also takes more than a few seconds to "boot up"

Story recap video, overview from PK

[drDugan]

@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT_SV8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w
and an issue section with several articles, http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc

Recording component output

[Puzzleer]

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).

Re:Recording component output

[PitaBred]

Hack? Hell, just buy a little box: http://www.cdrlabs.com/forums/strip-out-hdcp-with-gameswitch-ps3-s201-t23414.html

The old fashioned way

[Wardish]

If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them. If the market wants them then tally-ho.

Re:The old fashioned way

[akpoff]

They tried something similar with Divx and found their customer base wasn't there. So having tried innovation and market appeal they fall back to their normal business model -- legislation.

Re:The old fashioned way

[mikep554]

But competing is HARD.

Getting legislation passed that legally mandates everyone do as you wish is EASY. And probably entails less cost and risk.

Re:The old fashioned way

[IgePanda]

If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them. If the market wants them then tally-ho.

I don't know who was responsible for DIVX (DIgital Video eXpress) as sold by Circuit City, but it falls into this category. Some say this standard went the way of the 8-track, but I say that's pretty insulting to 8-tracks.

Perhaps such a system would actually sell if they could sell the players for less than your average Blu-ray unit. But I'm finding it doubtful.

What WOULD be a good bet for the MPAA would be digital content delivery, a service that could be integrated into newer sets and don't bother producing box players. No worry about closing the analog hole if it's a set specific feature.

What's the point?

[tlhIngan]

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?

Re:What's the point?

[MickyTheIdiot]

It screws over people with less tech knowledge than you.

Re:What's the point?

[odourpreventer]

> So what, exactly, does this do again?

My guess: Nothing on its own, but it's a tiny piece of legislation to add to other tiny pieces, and slowly the mole-hill becomes a mountain.

Re:What's the point?

[alexo]

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.

The HDFury2 can have its HDCP key revoked. What then?

Great how am I...

[Zarf_is_with_you]

Great how am I going to make my Boot Leg Beta Max tapes and sell them at the local Flea Market?

PA-HA-lease!

It seems to me these people are living a house made of Glass from a old industry that made them lots of money, I think if they keep throwing these stones at everyone something is going to get broken.

The amount of resources that they throw at projects like this, would be better put to selling the content in more inventive ways useful ways.

Give the Consumer what they want at a reasonable price

Yet another case

[jd2112]

...Of the Media companies trying to SOC it to everyone. They are probably pushing it by saying it will help the economy since everyone will have to buy new TVs and DVRs!

What's next?

[evil_aar0n]

Let's say the FCC rolls over and says, "Sure! Plug all the holes you want!" and the SOC becomes reality. Then what? Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing? Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?

Re:What's next?

[mkettler]

Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen. This protects the MPAA from you possibly describing, or heaven forbid, pantomiming their protected content to another person who has not yet paid for it. It further protects them from you replaying the previously viewed material to yourself in your mind, which would be an unpaid reproduction...

Re:What's next?

[LordKronos]

Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen.

There are some that would argue this isn't such a bad idea.

Re:What's next?

[tepples]

Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing?

The studios have a workaround for that: make video games instead of movies, as seen in Enter the Matrix and Path of Neo. Watching a cam of a video game is nowhere near playing it yourself.

Re:What's next?

[JasterBobaMereel]

...It won't even stop you copying the original content ... the analog hole as the last way of copying is a myth

You can currently copy via the analog hole - but most people do not bother there are easier ways and there always will be?

The problem is like all Copy protection they give you a locked box and the key and then try and stop you using the key except when they wan to... it *cannot* work

The only thing that has had any effect on copy protection is their lawsuits and these have not discouraged most people only made them a laughing stock ....everything else has only hindered the casual non-technical copier, everyone else uses easily downloaded, frequently updated tools that bypass the copy protection ....

Selective Control

[flyneye]

I would like selective control over the coherent intellegence knob at the MafiAA. Someone needs to spray a little cleaner in there so it can be unstuck and turned up to an acceptable level. Also the mute button should be engaged so my tax paid courts quit wasting time on another dying industry. Just let it die.

XKCD said it best.

[supersloshy]

I think this pretty much sums up our future if this is allowed to happen: http://xkcd.com/129/

Scary thought...

Offering more goods

[Lemming Mark]

I think the offering more goods line is mostly a load of bunk. But lets assume it's true. Do we want more overpriced goods that are fundamentally lower quality because we can't use them in the way we choose within our own homes having paid for them? Or are we happy with fewer goods which actually allow our property to function properly?

We should be able to have a full range of content without reducing the value of other, physical goods that we own. But if we can't have that, I'd personally rather stick with current content offerings and have appliances I buy continue to work for me.

Apply the same logic to auto repair industry!

[plasmacutter]

Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.

"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

fixed the typo

[Xenious]

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods^H^H^H^H^H screw more consumers."

Why?

[QuietLagoon]

Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier? Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.

"would want to", not "could"

[jbarr]

The article states...

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

It should be... "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they would want to offer more goods to consumers." ...because it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of offering more goods--it's all about the industry's desire to control what the consumer can do with what the consumer pays for.

It's an impasse that will likely only be resolved by legislation. Of course, because everything is now relative, THAT doesn't matter as it'll change a couple years later anyway.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA

[LandDolphin]

My understanding is that the outrage isn't about the movie, but the MPAA wanting control over your TV.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA

[oh-dark-thirty]

Me and my lady do make our own movies...oh, wait, maybe that's not what you meant... I buy very little 'content', since most of it isn't worth the bits it's made from. I don't even pirate, so I have effectively done what you suggest. Joe the Plumber doesn't have a clue about all this digitial rights management hoopla, he just wants his TV to turn on and display stuff, and maybe DVR a little on the side. This is why the *AA's of the world have been getting more or less what they want; an uneducated public is their best friend.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. It's NOT their movies they want to control, it's MY TV. If it was just their movie, fine, put a label on it. I don't have to buy it. What they are trying to do is force ALL TV manufacturers to give THEM control over what can be recorded and how. That is not the same thing as just not buying their movies.

Just to ask . . .

[mmell]

Given that Blu-Ray/DVD/MP4 streams can all be ripped digitally without resorting to analog (with all the quality degradation that brings) - and given that somebody with sufficient skill and equipment to use the analog hole probably also has the skills and equipment to rip digital video without resorting to analog techniques - who cares?

Besides, if Hollyweird's streamed content breaks my TV, I'll just (A) Sue, (B) Vote with my wallet, and (C) Sue. Even if (A) and (C) are eliminated from the list, I'm pretty sure a lot of the cash-spending public will employ option (B).

Which reminds me - do they really have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it? I'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown, but not that often IMHO; and even then I think I'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless, faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics.

Re:Just to ask . . .

[plasmacutter]

The problem with "vote with your wallet" is that it results in people who want greater flexibility going un-served because they simply don't show up on balance sheets.

Think economic "tyranny of the majority".

Granted this would NOT happen if copyright didn't get in the way of people serving those niche segments, but it does.

Re:Just to ask . . .

[Jason Levine]

And when you don't buy what they are offering they'll run to their government lackeys crying "Our sales are dropping! It must be those awful Internet Pirates! Please pass this new law which will give us massively increased powers of control over regular users' lives or we might just stop producing such fine works as Pointless Sequel 7 or Brainless Action Movie 12.

imagination land

[amoeba1911]

It takes a whole lot of disillusioned out of touch dinosaurs to come up with a system where removing a functionality would make it so " they could offer more goods to consumers."

Are they so deeply entrenched in their own lies and have completely lost touch with common sense that they actually believe what they are saying? It's either that, or they're knowingly trying to screw everyone (again).

The idiots in RIAA,MPAA (or whatever bullshit organization centered around imaginary property) should have NO say in non-imaginary property.

Sorry

[jDeepbeep]

Unless you created the hardware, firmware, or software, I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased.

Re:Sorry

[clone53421]

Even if you created the hardware, firmware, or software, I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased.

FTFY.

I would be all for this

[Drummergeek0]

If the ports are only disabled when displaying said content. If the premium content is on demand and optional, while standard broadcast/cable channels operate the way they already do, I don't care. I already use HDMI on my cable box, and most consumers with any form of HD do as well. Component still holds on in some areas, but the worst that will happen with them is they wont get the new content, but still get what they always have until they upgrade. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Here is an Idea

[Icegryphon]

Why not have a law that bans all record buttons since we are at it?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

MPAA proving Einstein right even now.

Idea

[fatalwall]

This might be stupid but why doesnt the MPAA just have a special device created for viewing ealry released content. Like a tv with a built in computer that would connect securely across the internet to a streaming source.

This way they get around the fcc and they can fallow the iphone as being an expensive device that they user paid for but doesnt "own"

Re:Idea

[mister_playboy]

Because buying legislation is cheaper than building your own hardware.

It's kind of funny

[imakemusic]

my answer to this is the same as their proposition:

Put a soc in it!

The MPAA Stimulus Package

[A_Mythago]

Actually, this is a great idea! By giving the ability to close the analog hole they can drive an increase of the purchase of HDMI capable televisions in this country and improve retail sales throughout the country. This will help save and/or create jobs at high paying employers such as Walmart, getting more money flowing to the entertainment industry.

Sure it might affect your grandparents or people too poor to afford a new TV but then again they would not be buying these premium services anyway. Just a 1 percent jobs increase would give us 14,000 jobs at Walmart alone making it well worth the minor inconveniencing of a few people.

It is our patriotic duty to contact the FCC and support SOC. Forget the rhetoric about corporate profits and control and think of the little people.

Stimulate the economy by stimulating the MPAA...everyone wins!

Re:The MPAA Stimulus Package

[jDeepbeep]

Stimulate the economy by stimulating the MPAA...everyone wins!

I don't know whether to grin or cry. :S

Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[tepples]

For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized

However, the way to maximize producers isn't necessarily a broader scope of copyright. Without a meaningful right and ability to make fair use and other unregulated uses of a copyrighted work, a lot of producers can't produce due to copyright restrictions on derivative works.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized

However, the way to maximize producers isn't necessarily a broader scope of copyright. Without a meaningful right and ability to make fair use and other unregulated uses of a copyrighted work, a lot of producers can't produce due to copyright restrictions on derivative works.

At the point when "content providers" (I really fucking hate political incorrectness...) reach into my home, and disable features on a device which I own; I feel compelled to wish someone would kill them until they are dead.

Really, the FCC has no business interfering with my usage of my communications technology until that usage interferes with some medium they regulate.

Universal Studios, Sony Pictures, etc, can kiss my fucking ass if they ever get the power to do this, I will stop buying DVD/Blu-Ray releases, cancel my subscription to DirectTV and Comcast, smash my HDTV on the doorstep of the local BestBuy and take a shit on it. I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.

Some causes require martyrdom to see the goals come to fruition.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Runaway1956]

Without the theatrics, I'm way ahead of you. I haven't been in a theatre in ages, and I don't buy the crap that Hollywood produces. I've voluntarily watched 3 movies in about 18 months. (as opposed to listening to the crud the wife rents, and blares out of the living room) I grabbed all three movies from the internet. Support the "celebrities"? Support RIAA, MPAA, or any of the other mafiaa? Me? No way in hell.

I'm not the martyr type, really. If I felt that strongly, I'd take other routes - which we won't discuss while I'm logged in and traceable LOL

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Chaos Incarnate]

Really, the FCC has no business interfering with my usage of my communications technology until that usage interferes with some medium they regulate.

Without the FCC's interference, "content providers" would already be able to use the communications technology that you willfully purchased that supports their disabling the analog out on your devices at the providers' whim.

It's the FCC saving you from the providers. You already surrendered to them.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[commodore64_love]

>>>reach into my home and disable features on a device which I own; I feel compelled to wish someone would kill them until they are dead.

Ditto.

Every TV in my house is analog with either composite or s-video connections. How the hell am I supposed to watch my Bluray movies if the "content providers" turn-off all the analog video outputs? Stupid fuckers.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[gavron]

Ground Zero. You said it. If I had mod points you'd be a 5.

E

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

Really, the FCC has no business interfering with my usage of my communications technology until that usage interferes with some medium they regulate.

Without the FCC's interference, "content providers" would already be able to use the communications technology that you willfully purchased that supports their disabling the analog out on your devices at the providers' whim.

It's the FCC saving you from the providers. You already surrendered to them.

Really? I would have to investigate further, my HDTV is a Sony Bravia XBR6. There is nothing on the box or the in-box literature denoting "Now including built-in kill-switch from Universal Studios/Sony Pictures/Fox." I do not believe I willfully purchased any kill-switch enabled device in my entire lifetime, as I am adamantly opposed to such things.

Also, I am fairly certain it runs on Linux. Perhaps someone can tell me a) if my XBR6 *does* have this kill-switch, and b) if it really is running linux, can I modify the source, recompile, and kill the kill-switch?

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Majik Sheff]

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.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

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.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mi]

reach into my home, and disable features on a device which I own

They would only do this, if you allow them. If you wish to watch a movie, that they produced, they get to set the rules. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the relationship is voluntary: "By pressing 'Continue' you allow us to disable the analog outputs of your electronics for the duration of the feature presentation. Press 'Cancel' to return to the menu."

I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.

And that really will be, where you'll belong, because while refusing a deal you don't like is perfectly just, piracy really is illegal and ought to remain so. You feel so strongly about content-makers messing up with your equipment (even if with your own permission), but don't mind robbing them of their profits (against their will)...

Some causes require martyrdom to see the goals come to fruition.

I can think of some better causes for martyrdom, than entertainment...

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[countertrolling]

The freedoms we enjoy today came from lawbreakers, and lots of 'em, not martyrs.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

You know, I'm not even going to waste my time with a rebuttal because I despise your post style. I will, however, applaud your mastery of the perception of the obvious.

Good day sir!

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

The freedoms we enjoy today came from lawbreakers, and lots of 'em, not martyrs.

I can think of a long list of martyrs, I can't even think of a single lawbreaker... Ok, Rosa Parks, but seriously though...

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mi]

I'm not even going to waste my time with a rebuttal because I despise your post style.

It is called inline replying — and used to be the only "approved" style online (unlike, say, the top-posting).

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Vovk]

It's more about censorship than entertainment really...

It's also about businesses who make money by selling products and people getting to use products that they paid for (as opposed to businesses leasing "rights to use" and then charging over and over again whenever there's a change of medium)

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[tepples]

I'll give two examples from the history of the United States: General George Washington == lawbreaker. Underground Railroad during slavery era == lawbreakers.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[sjames]

Not to mention without a way for consumers to make copies, the producers will all tend towards the Disney vault model where they produce less new content and continue to squeeze unending profit from the old stuff.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Hashi Lebwohl]

"I'm not the martyr type, really. If I felt that strongly, I'd take other routes - which we won't discuss while I'm logged in and traceable LOL"

The first rule of fight club is.....

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mattack2]

Are there movies *only* on Bluray (and not regular DVD) that you want to watch? Does Bluray provide a better picture on regular TVs? Those are honest questions.

(I am using two HD-capable Tivos connected to an old analog 27" TV.. One has cablecards, so I am receiving some digital content. The other is currently only analog - bought during the period where lifetime subscriptions weren't generally available.. So I admittedly am not using them to their fullest capabilities, but I got them to somewhat 'future proof' myself, and I definitely will get a HDTV eventually.)

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mattack2]

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was complaining about.. I thought maybe it was the use of bold in the reply.

top-posting is evil, as you seem to agree with.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.

Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Piracy damages your demand. If you have no demand, then you're doing no significant damage. Stick with the previous steps, and you'll do just as much hurt to those producers.

"content providers" (I really fucking hate political incorrectness...)

Out of curiosity, if "content providers" is politically correct, then what would you call them? I say "content providers" because saying "movie studios, movie makers, recording labels, recording artists, authors, book publishers, visual artists, etc" is far too long-winded, and leaves out so many categories.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Thinboy00]

Why should I, the consumer, have to agree to a fscking EULA every time I want to watch a stupid movie?

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[tagno25]

Are there movies *only* on Bluray (and not regular DVD) that you want to watch?

Not that I know of, yet.

Does Bluray provide a better picture on regular TVs? Those are honest questions.

Yes, if you are using component output. You can watch 1080p videos on component w/o HDCP.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Criton]

I haven't been to a movie theater in ages if they put this shit in new tvs I'll just buy Chinese knock offs that fuck them of their IP and never buy a thing from them again.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[VShael]

I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.

The way things are going, you'll get less jail time if you just shoot some of them dead.

Not that I'm advocating piracy or murder... I'm just saying, if you're going to go to jail anyway, you might as well do us all a favour.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ndixon]

So let me see if I understand this: if someone, somewhere manages to compromise a particular model of HDTV, and that model's KSV is added to a revocation list used by broadcasters and stored on future HD media, anyone else innocently owning the same model TV would be affected?

So successfully compromising an HDCP device would be a very costly DOS attack?

I mean, what if some high-profile manufacturer's products (like Sony) were compromised in this way?
Does that mean the owners of an entire class of Sony products would find their devices unable to display certain content until they could apply some firmware update or buy a new device?

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Migraineman]

Unfortunately, an individual's actions are in the noise. In order to be effective, you need what's called a "force multiplier." Your individual actions need to carry the weight of 1000 or more.

Simply cancelling your cable hookup or abstaining from going to the theater doesn't cause a significant impact on the bottom line. However, smashing your TV on the steps of Best Buy in great theatrical fashion will get you noticed (and probably arrested.) If you're lucky, the talking heads will mention you on the evening news, getting your message out to many people (ironically, using the medium you're fighting.)

Folks running the torrents and trackers are the **AA's primary enemy because each individual enables thousands to bypass the media cartels' forced-payment schemes.

The RIAA's lawsuits against college students and grandmas use the same intent. They don't give a crap about the individual. They're looking at the force multiplier where they intimidate thousands with a single out-of-court settlement.

So cancel and abstain all you like. Your actions won't amount to squat until you either engage in theatrics or run for office.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[bsdaemonaut]

I'm not sure how they would do it honestly, I don't think the hardware support is there. HDCP is only supposed to effect digital mediums like HDMI or DVI. So unless the cable/satellite companies themselves update their hardware to support this ability it doesn't seem like it exists. Judging from the crap hardware I'm given, these companies aren't all that update friendly. I also don't see that happening because the cable companies, or at least the cable companies around here, seem to push component video over HDMI cables -- at least those are the cables they have been willing to give me for free, and being a cheap son of a b*tch they are of course the ones I will use. So hurrah for incompetence in this case I suppose :P.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[commodore64_love]

>>>Does Bluray provide a better picture on regular TVs? Those are honest questions.

Yes it does

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[commodore64_love]

You don't even need component video. Even with composite or s-video you can see that Bluray provides a better picture.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mi]

Why should I, the consumer, have to agree to a fscking EULA every time I want to watch a stupid movie?

Because such is the condition, on which the movie's owner chooses to make his property available to you. Both of you are voluntarily entering into an agreement. Since we are talking about freaking entertainment, there is not even the usual (if still flawed) argument on how important a part of life this is — unlike, say, food, employment, or (dare I bring it up?) healthcare...

If you hate even being asked about the EULA — stick to books. If enough people do this, *AA will change their practices. If not, then this is not a big deal.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

I'll give two examples from the history of the United States: General George Washington == lawbreaker. Underground Railroad during slavery era == lawbreakers.

Which US Law did George Washington break? Also, while the underground railroad freed a few slaves, I'm fairly certain Martin Luther King Jr.'s death did a lot more.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

I will then use multiple computers/servers spread around the globe to pirate every fucking thing I can get my grubby ex-consumer neo-pirate hands on, even if it means going to jail.

Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Piracy damages your demand. If you have no demand, then you're doing no significant damage. Stick with the previous steps, and you'll do just as much hurt to those producers.

"content providers" (I really fucking hate political incorrectness...)

Out of curiosity, if "content providers" is politically correct, then what would you call them? I say "content providers" because saying "movie studios, movie makers, recording labels, recording artists, authors, book publishers, visual artists, etc" is far too long-winded, and leaves out so many categories.

Show me the content and I'll reverse my position on usage of that term.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[dcollins117]

Whose bright idea was it to allow the capability of reprogramming hardware with what is supposed to be content? I'd be interested in what else is possible. Can you reprogram channels? Disable mute? Disable the power switch?

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[tepples]

Which US Law did George Washington break?

George Washington broke British law by rebelling against Great Britain, the sovereign state with an internationally recognized claim to the land.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

Which US Law did George Washington break?

George Washington broke British law by rebelling against Great Britain, the sovereign state with an internationally recognized claim to the land.

As I'm sure you are aware, their claim was invalid, and through several wars our own sovereignty was proven.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mattack2]

Cool, then the deal to get both Up & Monsters Inc on Bluray very inexpensively (that I read about from http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=437001, but apparently has been on lots of 'deals' web sites) is more tempting. I don't have a bluray player yet, but intend to get one eventually.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[tepples]

[Washington broke no law because] through several wars our own sovereignty was proven.

British sovereignty wasn't fully repealed until October 19, 1781. Likewise, if I violate a paracopyright or extended copyright today, it's still illegal even if the Congress repeals the Bono Act and DMCA tomorrow.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mpe]

Whose bright idea was it to allow the capability of reprogramming hardware with what is supposed to be content?

In other contexts this would be considered either a bug or malware.

'd be interested in what else is possible. Can you reprogram channels? Disable mute? Disable the power switch?

Don't give them ideas, no doubt they'd want to disable mute and channel switching for unskipable parts of DVDs and commercial breaks given half a chance...

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[mpe]

Not to mention without a way for consumers to make copies, the producers will all tend towards the Disney vault model where they produce less new content and continue to squeeze unending profit from the old stuff.

Which is rather the opposite of what they are claiming as the reason they need this. Thing is that this kind of thing is rather more plausible than the idea that they are sitting on lots of content they just can't release without more DRM being available.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[Thinboy00]

If you hate even being asked about the EULA — stick to books. If enough people do this, *AA will change their practices.

No, they'll just blame the losses on piracy and demand more money from the courts.

If not, then this is not a big deal.

I don't see/hear about Asians^H^H [insert politically correct term here] protesting the human rights situation in China, is that also not a big deal?

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Okaay. How about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U40xBSz6Dc

Is that "content" enough for you? Would you prefer the term "entertainment", or "art"?

Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who insists that we can't "provide" or "produce" anything intangible, because the so-called distinction is so artificial and transient that "a line in the sand" barely suffices.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

Okaay. How about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U40xBSz6Dc

Is that "content" enough for you? Would you prefer the term "entertainment", or "art"?

Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who insists that we can't "provide" or "produce" anything intangible, because the so-called distinction is so artificial and transient that "a line in the sand" barely suffices.

Content implies the medium contains something, like information (eg, to examine the contents of a box, the box must contain something to be examined). The fucking garbage that spews out of these studios en masse can hardly be considered substantive.

There is still such a thing as art and entertainment. Yes, it's nice when people communicating with each other choose meaningful words. "Content providers" provide nothing but commercialization and indoctrination into the world of force fed capitalism, which IMHO lacks "substance."

Perhaps it's time to get back to the basics of running a business: when your model fails to meet public acceptance AND projected revenue, CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL! The whole concept of controlling the consumer is fundamentally flawed, especially when you start talking about taking over control of privately owned devices, not leased and licensed devices...

Imagine a world in which people stop buying food in the typical way (at the local Big Brand Name grocery store). How logical is it for Big Brand Name grocers to devise a method of spoiling your food remotely as a way to increase their revenue, rather than changing their business model to cater to the consumers new needs? It would be absurd, and that's exactly what the Movie/Television/Recording studios are. Absurd.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

This is why lawyers, and subsequently our modern laws, are so fucked up.

It would be nice if history hadn't let these fork-tongued devils re-write our laws in such a way as to be incomprehensible to the average person.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Content implies the medium contains something, like information (eg, to examine the contents of a box, the box must contain something to be examined). The fucking garbage that spews out of these studios en masse can hardly be considered substantive.

There is still such a thing as art and entertainment. Yes, it's nice when people communicating with each other choose meaningful words. "Content providers" provide nothing but commercialization and indoctrination into the world of force fed capitalism, which IMHO lacks "substance."

That's quite a generalisation there. It's not even a generalisation based on truth. It's a generalisation based on advertising (i.e. lies ;). Unfortunately, I can't really provide a specific example without knowing what you're tastes are, but what I do know is that there is a lot being produced, with a lot of variety, and the pop/blockbuster stuff that's advertised the most by no means makes up even a majority of what's produced.

And that's only the big content providers. They don't have to be signed, or even commercial (although, it's generally accepted that it refers to commercial artists, unless specified otherwise).

Oh, and there's no such thing as force-fed capitalism. If you don't like it, turn the TV or radio off. If you happen to be in one of those public places where it's blasted obnoxiously loudly, then find somewhere quieter.

Perhaps it's time to get back to the basics of running a business: when your model fails to meet public acceptance AND projected revenue, CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL!

I'm sure they'd love to. Nobody likes to use a business model with that amount of maintenance. The problem is, though, that nobody has actually thought of a business model that works better than the current one. There have been some short-lived proof-of-concept trials, but nothing that actually allows new artists to break into, and stay in, the field.

Perhaps it's time to get back to the basics of running a business: when your model fails to meet public acceptance AND projected revenue, CHANGE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL!

Well, if their "customers" were stealing from them, and there was a way to selectively spoil food, it would serve as a neat deterrent. Especially if traditional enforcement wasn't working so well.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

So in summary, you're a totalitarian. In the US we frown upon people dictating to us, in case you hadn't heard.

What I call Movie/Film studios, you wrongly call "content providers." Your lengthy post did nothing to refute my claims that when you lack content, you can't provide anything.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Pardon me, I mistook you for someone who can maintain an intelligent discussion. Apparently, if someone opposes your view, you resort to calling them names, so allow me engage you at your level:

"No, you are!"

and if you think of a snappy retort, try this:

"'No, you are!' times infinity!"

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[ground.zero.612]

Pardon me, I mistook you for someone who can maintain an intelligent discussion. Apparently, if someone opposes your view, you resort to calling them names, so allow me engage you at your level:

"No, you are!"

and if you think of a snappy retort, try this:

"'No, you are!' times infinity!"

It's ok, it's even ok that you act like a child because you are wrong :) We've been known to fight wars over people telling us what to do. Just sayin'.

Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Perhaps you could start by letting me know what I'm telling people to do. Wars have been started over miscommunications by dumbfucks. Just sayin'.

Oh, and, "'No you are a child' times infinity billion plus one".

Offer?

[Archangel Michael]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

Actually, you're wrong Mr MPAA. You can make any offer you currently have in mind, you're just afraid of losing your profits.

Quit focusing on the pirates, because they aren't going to buy your crap anyways. Focus on the people who will pay money for your drivel, because those people are typically either too stupid or too lazy to pirate. There is plenty of people out there willing to fill your coffers should you offer something of value.

Now, go away and leave our TVs alone! They aren't your TVs, they are OURS!!!

The ridiculous MPAA knows no bounds

[Assmasher]

The sheer arrogance of thinking they could even remotely deserve the legislated ability to affect my personal electronic device so that they can offer me more 'goods' and 'services'? This kind of arrogance makes me want to pirate movies just to hurt the MPAA in some fashion. Don't like that I can watch your movies on an analog device? Then don't put your movies into a medium that supports analog devices. You can't change the playground because you'd like to play there ONLY if they removed something you didn't like. What a bunch of utter pricks.

Oh, I make software so I'd like the federal government to legislate and enforce requirements on computer manufacturers to allow my software to be able to disable your HDD, USB/Firewire/SD slots, and any memory that I find suspicious so that I can offer users more 'goods' and 'services' - because I obviously couldn't do so otherwise...

Bastards... Complete and utter bastards...

What's next?

[divisionbyzero]

Censoring spoilers? Allowing them to disable our ability to speak about a movie via some sort of implant? Chargin us every time we mention a movie? Ridiculous. I wish they would just shut up and produce content.

Re:What exactly are they asking for??

[fatalwall]

or if with time warner.. the ports are just not supported with the current software installed so they are always disabled

I want DRM!

[janimal]

I, for one, welcome such an advancement. (Yea, I'm trolling with the subject, but I do want to make a point)

I have a satellite decoder/PVR on my TV that lets me record HD movies (true, I can't get them off the box), and lets me rent movies for 24 hour periods (VOD). I do not pirate, as I'm happy to pay for my content. But, guess what, I haven't rented a VOD movie yet. Why? Because the deal sucks. I'm sure the idiots who invented it will figure out what's wrong sooner or later (price).

I say: Let the MPAA have their DRM and let's see how much more they sell. If they get the kind of control they want, then we'll have the freedom not to buy their produce. I'll be more than happy to stop paying if they give me a worse product.

It's not like i need to see 2012 on my TV before it comes out on BD; hell, I don't have to go see it on my TV at all (I already paid to see it at the theatre).

Why give these idiots arguments to sponsor projects, like "pirate taxes"? I'd much rather have DRM in my TV and PVR than have to pay a pirate tax or some other stupid blanket scheme.

Re:I want DRM!

[kimvette]

Why not pay for a pirate tax and then use that as a defense when they sue you for downloading and sharing content you are not the copyright holder of?

"Yes, your honor, I would like to make a statement. I did download movies from P2P networks. You see, 12% of my income goes to the new mandatory pirate taxes, therefore all of the content I have downloaded has been compensated for. You don't think I'm going to pay that tax and receive nothing in exchange for it, do you, your honor?"

Restraint of trade

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

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.

They could offer more good to me...

[rickb928]

... if they had electronic access to my bank accounts AND credit accounts. ... if they had the keys to my house. ... if they had the keys to my car. ... if they had direct access to my computers.

or, ... if they had more interesting and desirable content to offer me. ... if they charged a somewhat more reasonable price for their current content. ... if they made it easier for me to get what I was interested in. ... if they focused on value and quality. ... if they opened distribution to more providers. ... if they focused less on prosecuting innocent people, and more on their business.

Sheesh. Epic Fail To Get It. Are we gonna have to write to the FCC and remind them how stupid this is?

It is about cable, PPV to be specific

[tepples]

This can only ever be relevant for "cable only" TV content.

It's about pay-per-view. Lately, the pay-per-view window has been moved up to match the DVD release date to compete with Netflix, Redbox, and Blockbuster, and the studios in MPAA want stronger guarantees about analog outputs so that it can move the PPV window even earlier to overlap theatrical release.

Re:It is about cable, PPV to be specific

[schon]

It's about pay-per-view.

Yeah, that's what they said about the Broadcast Flag. Most people didn't believe them then, and rightfully so.

Re:It is about cable, PPV to be specific

[jedidiah]

HBO already has HDCP(?) flags that will interfere with multi-room viewing on a Tivo.

So the idea that this will be merely restricted to Pay-Per-View is already bogus.

Spoiled little children

[nsayer]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

In other words, if they don't get their way, they're going to take their ball and go home. Wah.

CSS logos

[tepples]

Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices?

Nowadays, DVD-Video discs with CSS distributed by the major studios have "copy protected" and "region coding" logos on the back of the keep case. Ostensibly, the buyer consented when he handed the disc with such logos to the cashier.

Ok, give me a list

[SnarfQuest]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Ok, I want a list of goods that it is impossible for you to offer now, but would be possible by turning off the analog ports.

Re:Ok, give me a list

[FirstTimeCaller]

Oh man! You wouldn't believe the absolutely amazing incredible movies they have waiting for distribution... once, of course, they can ensure that they won't be pirated. Because once you see the fantastic shit they got waiting for us, you're going to want a copy. Hell, everyone is going to want a copy -- it's that good! But of course, we first have to make sure that everyone who worked on the projects (from the actors to the janitors) get properly compensated. It will all be worth it! Honest! Trust them.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Normally I would agree with you but...

You give one very power group of asshats a ridiculous amount of power over your stuff then it's only a matter of time before they use that power to squash any competition.

Bear with me on this logic. If the MPAA gets another inch of digital control over our stuff, it will be only a matter of time before they take mile (give a cm, take a km for my non-US friends).

The paranoid side of me sees a not too distant future where in order to play any media using a "new and improved" media player will require an encryption key that tells the player that it's safe to play. Afterwards, independent studios will need to license the right to distribute media to these players (ie. join the MPAA) in order to exist.

The MPAA already is gaining uncomfortable control in the player/recorder market. Case in point - MythTV can't record premium channels. It's already bad enough that I can not use a third-party DVR to record my premium channels from my cable box using the firewire connection. Ironically that firewire connection was mandated by the FCC to ensure that I wouldn't be forced to use the cable company's DVR. What is the point if the FCC doesn't force the connection to be usable?

In the end, the piracy complaints from the MPAA will turn out to be an elaborate ruse to protect their media cartel.

My point being that we are not fighting to make piracy easier, we are fighting for the right to lawfully use the equipment we now own. Piracy is a separate issue altogether.

The FCC should do its job and insure that all media broadcasts (open air and cable) can be viewed and recorded with the equipment that are currently available using the industry standard plugs (analog and digital). Leave the piracy fight to the FBI, FTC, and the civil courts where it belongs.

SDTVs still exist

[tepples]

Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.

Other than revoking the HDCP keys used by HDFury2.

More importantly, what's the best way to turn HDMI into composite video or S-Video for a standard-definition television? As far as I can tell, it involves an HDFury2 ($200) and a VGA-to-TV scan converter (another $50). Until HDTVs start showing up in thrift stores, there will be people who replace a broken SDTV with a used SDTV.

Re:SDTVs still exist

[IgePanda]

Until HDTVs start showing up in thrift stores, there will be people who replace a broken SDTV with a used SDTV.

HDTVs are starting to show up in thrift stores, though the current selection is pretty limited to 720p DLPs, and from time to time 1080i crts or crt projection. I paid like $150ish for my Toshiba 46HM95.

Problem is, the thriftstore scene for these bad boys are not big screens, and often don't have DTV tuners, and usually are limited to DVI, maybe with HDCP if you're lucky.

Precedent

[armchairyoda]

They're trying to set a precedent for future legal use with current and emerging tech. Give 'em an inch now and I bet they'll try for a mile sooner than later.

No Digital Inputs Available

[Prototerm]

Hollywood lives in a fantasy world where everyone buys the latest and greatest equipment as soon as it comes on the market. The reality is that there are a lot of people who do not have digital HDMI equipment, don't need it, and don't want it. And don't kid yourselves that this new restriction will be limited to those new movies. The moment Cable companies have the ability to turn off your analog outputs, there will be whole cable networks that will switch them off 24/7 (with the option to have them switched back on for $15 a month). Starting, of course, with the new Comcast/NBC cable networks.

Here's a message for the FCC: Please nip this in the bud now.

Why stop there

[Pengel the squib]

Why don't we just give them direct access to our bank accounts and keys to the front door. Maybe they would be happy if they could just erase every movie from your mind after viewing then charge you extra if you want to remember it. Of course, with many movies this would be a benefit, perhaps they will charge extra fees to remove those.

Re:Why stop there

[kimvette]

Why stop there? Many people don't trust banks and keep their money in mattresses. Why not withhold as much from paychecks as FICA withholds?

TV owns the MPAA's crap

[pak9rabid]

Thanks to the high production quality and much more in-dept story of shows like Lost, Heroes, Dexter, etc, I've found myself watching more TV shows and far less movies. So to the MPAA, I say keep your shitty movies, I won't miss them...

Re:Much Ado About MPAA

[jamstar7]

It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.

It's my tv. I bought it, I paid for it. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it, including throwing it out the window if that pleases me. I didn't lease it, I didn't take it home with a 'license' to use it in narrowly defined ways, I bought it. I own it. And now they want to take functionality away from it so it won't do what I bought it to do?

How to insert SOC flag to block Fox News and SHN?

[aspelling]

How to insert this SOC flag to block out Fox News and Shop-at-Home?

On the other note - why do you guys obsessed about MPAA trying to prevent somebody to copy THEIR content without getting paid?
If you don't want to pay - don't watch. I haven't watched a movie on TV for a while just because there is almost nothing to watch except Bruno.

Huh?

[mmell]

Are you saying that economic pressure is ineffective? Or that there is no such thing as economic pressure? Or is it simply that you don't believe in capitalism?

Wow - all those millions of consumers who've been misled all these years . . . thinking they could vote with their wallets.

Re:Huh?

[plasmacutter]

Are you saying that economic pressure is ineffective? Or that there is no such thing as economic pressure? Or is it simply that you don't believe in capitalism?

Wow - all those millions of consumers who've been misled all these years . . . thinking they could vote with their wallets.

The market for copyrighted goods is not a "free market", it's not capitalism, its a monopoly centrally controlled by the studios and publishing houses which originated the work.

This means that anyone who seeks features in that product which are not "one size fits all", such as the basic right to view it on at platform other than an HDMI tv, is shit out of luck, because the central source for this content will tell any niche firms to get bent.

Digital TV

[nurb432]

Now you see what the push was all about to move towards all digital tv .. gotta upgrade and get all these great DRM features in the hardware.

"Goods" being the key word here.

[arthurh3535]

Limited, DRM enabled goods that they can then charge the end user double for.

This isn't actually better for the consumer, guys.

TV "Hood" Analog Hole

[Danathar]

I kid you not, if they turn off analog component video I GAURANTEE you that somebody will engineer something that fits over the front of 1080p display and acurately captures every last bit. You may not be able to buy it for your home, but stuff will continue to get onto the internet.

Re:TV "Hood" Analog Hole

[Danathar]

Oh I don't doubt that people will camcorder it, but given an analog restriction I'd still bet that somebody would go for the pixel perfect copy from the screen.

Re:TV "Hood" Analog Hole

[cpghost]

No need to wait until the screen produces light, and camcord that. You can get a much better result electrically: every LCD-based display has some chip that drives the individual pixels. That chip's output is by design a high quality unencrypted electrical signal... that can be easily captured by another chip. It can be even easier than that: on some sets, at least two ICs are being used: one to decrypt the DRMed signal, and another IC to drive the pixels. Both ICs communicate over a bus, and their messages must be unencrypted. That too can be easily sniffed off the bus.

Could and would

[spamking]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Could and would are two completely separate ideas . . .

They make. They sell. We buy (or not).

[mmell]

Sounds like capitalism to me.

Now, if they were manufacturing and selling, say, electricity, or potable water, or natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel . . . then I might be inclined to agree with your statements. Even the telephone has moved from the "nice to have" list onto the "need to have" list.

I don't think anybody needs "Glitter". Even "(substitute favorite recent movie name here)" is on my nice-to-have list, not my need-to-have list. They make. They sell. I buy (or not). Economic pressure. Capitalism.

I don't shop at Wal-Mart for example, even when they manage to have what I want at the best price. I disapprove strongly of their business practices and I vote with my wallet. I know that I haven't hurt Wal-Mart, but I also know I'm not alone. Collectively we haven't hurt Wal-Mart, but we have made them aware of us. They sell. I buy (or not). Economic pressure. Capitalism.

Re:Not true!

[jedidiah]

...sounds like the perfect excuse to defect to DirecTV.

DirecTV probably has more HD channels too...

you missed something really, REALLY important

[Anonymous Coward]

At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all. Some of these consumers are not able to pay anything, so they can be discounted from the discussion: No matter how you set the price or what conditions you impose, they will not pay.

There is no such group (outside of religous sects like the Amish). The folks you're thinking of would accurately be labeled as "consumers who are not able to pay any direct cost." They will pay an indirect cost such as being the target of an advertisement (think: Reeses ad embedded in E.T.). If those folks are unable to view films which do not have wrapper ads or embedded ads they will consume shows which *do* have wrapper or embedded advertising. Unlike viewing by pirates a content producer can charge advertisers for delivering their message to those consumers when they consume such shows. So content producers really do lose money when consumers who are unwilling to pay direct fees go ahead and steal it.

Microslaw satire from 2002

[Paul Fernhout]

The last time they tried this in 2002, I sent this satire to the Senate Judiciary via their request for comments:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"""
This was originally posted to Slashdot on May 25 2002:
        http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33107&cid=3582999
It was in relation to an article: "MPAA to Senate: Plug the Analog Hole!"
about the MPAA wanting copyright protection built into all computer hardware. I sent a copy to Richard Stallman back then and he said it made him laugh. :-) My comments to the Department of Justice request for comments were in the form of this satire:
    Transcript of April 1, 2016 MicroSlaw Presidential Speech (Before final editing prior to release under standard U.S. Government for-fee licensing under 2011 Fee Requirements Law)
    My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law.
    There are many reasons for the value of proprietary law. You all know them since you have been taught them in school since kindergarten as part of your standardized education. They are reflected in our most fundamental beliefs, such as sharing denies the delight of payment and cookies can only be brought into the classroom if you bring enough to sell to everyone. But you are always free to eat them all yourself of course! [audience chuckles knowingly]. But I think it important to repeat such fundamental truths now as they form the core of all we hold dear in this great land.
    First off, we all know our current set of laws requires a micropayment each time a U.S. law is discussed, referenced, or applied by any person anywhere in the world. This financial incentive has produced a large amount of new law over the last decade. This body of law is all based on a core legal code owned by that fine example of American corporate capitalism at its best, the MicroSlaw Corporation. ...
"""

And it goes on from there...

I sent it to Richard Stallman too, and he said it made him laugh. :-)

MPAA to consumers

[LuxMaker]

I'm in your analog hole offering more goods and services.

Re:They make. They sell. We buy (or not).

[plasmacutter]

What "economic pressure"?

If there is no competitor "economic pressure" does not exist.

to buy or to not have at all is a false choice. You certainly would not be espousing this opinion if it was your home and not your entertainment being served in this way.

Imagine the choice of being homeless or purchasing a home from the sole distributor of homes, which insists you submit to cameras in every room, with extra cameras in your daughters room and your bathrooms, showers, and toilets.

I don't want their goods

[roc97007]

I don't want their goods, especially under those conditions. When you have a product that's getting progressively more mediocre, you're not in the position to make demands.

the MPAA can just keep their goods

[Dan667]

I have not watched a hollywood movie in quite a while and don't miss them for this exact reason.

Good luck with that

[PPH]

Considering that one of the biggest 'analog holes' is the screen and someone with a camcorder, I don't think the pirates will care.The MPAA had a report on one of the local news shows about how pirates were sneaking camcorders into move theaters. In spite of the crappy resolution, people's heads in the bottom of the shot and theater noise in the audio, this stuff still sells. I'd venture a guess that a home TV and a camcorder on a tripod will produce far superior content.

Now, consider an unencrypted digital stream from the cable box to the TV set. Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time, date and cable subscriber recording that stream. I'd venture a guess that most pirates aren't smart enough to find and filter such a label. Even with an analog output, quite a bit of data can be hidden in the video stream. Piracy problem solved. Unless the MPAA is run by a bunch of morons.

Re:Good luck with that

[Dunbal]

Its trivial for the cable company to inert a watermark identifying the time, date and cable subscriber recording that stream.

      You're forgetting about the global nature of the internet. A chain is only as strong as it's WEAKEST link, the saying goes.

      This stream was recorded in the boondocks somewhere in Nigeria. Come and get me...

Antique HDTVs?

[IgePanda]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers

In other words, the MPAA wants to assure that early adopters of HDTV, who only have analog inputs, are required to shell out at least a grand to replace their antique highdef set even though they are perfectly happy with the component cable box combo.

Just enable Macrovision on the analog outs.

[gmarsh]

Nobody would be able to record anything off the analog outputs with this incredible, high-tech, unbreakable copy-protection technology... wouldn't they?

The Market

[rearden]

Funny how the MPAA and others want the government out of their business and insist on letting "market forces" decide what is going to be served by the MPAA members. However when they want other companies to do things they want a government mandate!

If the MPAA thinks this is really a valuable proposition, then let them recruit consumer electronics manfs and marked the equipment as able to get "special early release movies". If users like this they will purchase the equipment and it will become a defacto standard.

I say we use their arguments against government regulations against them, just quote them.

-JLKirk

Re:Movie industry opportunities with this technolo

[argent]

I say this after recently hearing an outspoken business man up here in Canada say that he'd be willing to pay big to see a movie the day it was released if he could see it in his own home.

The studios don't need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies directly to TV. Any more than they need to disable "the analog hole" to release movies in all zones simultaneously. They stage their releases NOT because they're afraid of "piracy"... in fact staged releases *increase* "piracy", but because they make more money that way. If they get the ability to disable the analog hole they will continue to stage their releases, and the cable company will start using it to extort more money from MY pocket after they make "analog support" an extra cost option, even for things like Mythbusters.

And, man, I can't believe you're trying to make me feel sorry for a "poor businessman" who's making more money than I'll ever make if he's willing to pay $100 just to watch a frigging movie a few months earlier. I'm certainly not willing to accept that I should be willing to have my own property crippled because of it. If he's willing to buy everyone in the US a new TV for the sake of avoiding the kid with the running nose, THEN he can come back with an offer and I'll consider it.

Digital to Analog converter

[jweller13]

I don't know if it is possible from a technical standpoint, but if so, I think there would be a market for Digital to Analog converters.

There's a fundamental error in our approach.

[aaandre]

This is getting ridiculous. The MPAA is waging a war on the People.

The fundamental error in our (the People's) approach to the situation, is that we are on the offense. We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another. This is a very weak strategy.

The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional. Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms. It is the Hydra with a thousand heads, ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.

Yes, artists should have representation. There is space for a (non-profit) organization representing artists' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances. MPAA, a cancerous, mutated, evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.

I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $10-$100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster. It is something that should not exist,l and we know it. Still, we focus on its deeds and not its existence. Let's step up our efficiency and go for the kill. Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.

And, if it takes some civil disobedience, if it takes (loudly!) never buying anything from represented artists, so be it. It is as important to give artists alternatives.

I've been wondering for a while, is there a way to donate to the artists directly? If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists, how do I do it? Not interested in giving $10 to suits in order to give $1 or $4 (itunes) to the artists. I want my $10 to go to them. How do I do it?

Maybe we can start with that.

Is it even possible to copy/playback form analog?

[amigabill]

During an earlier iteration of this kind of discussion, I had been pondering how to get my Laserdisc copies of the "true" Star Wars triogy (without all that messed up Special Edition crap) onto DVD. I found a Laserdisc player with Component outputs, but that might have even only been for the DVD half of a combo DVD/Laserdisc player. But I was not able to find a component "tuner" input card to capture onto. At least not anything that a mortal like me can afford. So, without being a millionaire, without engineering and building my own copying machine, and without giving an all-out howto, is there a cost-effective way for any of us, or our grandparents, to copy and play back stuff from these analog component outputs? I hesitate to ask for links to purchase the equipment, I'm mostly curious if the MPAA's claimed fears are realistic or even possible at all. If people here know it's not possible, why aren't we lobbying that fact to the congresscritters that need to know?

As for the big moneymaking pirates in Hong Kong, if they can afford to have a special analog copying machine engineered and made for their own use, they can surely also afford to have an HDMI+HDCP copying machine made up too. No law here will be able to stop the likes of them. But I really don't believe that being able to turn off HDTVs made before HDMI or HDCP and preventing legitimate customers from seeing anything is worth-while side-effect of this phantom people copying everything at home "problem".

Idiotic argument.

[ZarathustraDK]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

If I install a zipper in my asshole, that does NOT make me capable of shitting more!

You cannot stop piracy completely

[KiwiCanuck]

no matter what you do. The best way to limit piracy is to make original content cheap enough that piracy is not worth it. Make DVD's $2-3, and blu-ray disc $9-10. A blank DVD cost ~$0.50. A blank Blu-ray $7.50 (newegg). Avatar apparently costs $300 million. So if every person in the US paid $1, the movie would break even. Obviously not everyone in the US will buy every movie, but the rest of the world should be able to fill in the gaps.

Just another reason to disconnect

[Roogna]

Recently we disconnected our cable (Well, satellite but same diff). We simply realized that no one in the house was watching it, oh we turned it on in the background all the time. But there was a grand total of 3 shows we actually -watched-, and those we were dvr'ing and watching at different times, so we realized we could just grab them on hulu if we really even cared.

I do have a Mac Mini plugged into our tv with Plex installed. Which has actually led to us finding some very cool things that we'd never see on regular TV anyway, so no loss to any but the MPAA really. We've stopped going to theaters for movies because the theaters these days just suck, even if you could find a movie that -was- good. The viewing entertainment experience the MPAA tries to push would pretty much make you think they just don't want customers at all anymore.

Stupid Statement

[fishthegeek]

Offer more content? Does anyone seriously believe that they're sitting on a blockbuster script with amazing actors signed up for it but they're not going to release it because .032% of the viewing population MIGHT stream it over an analog pipe? If piracy were truly blocking content from distribution then I'd love to see the evidence.

Please show me the 2006 big budget spectacular that was not shown to audiences. Okay, if you can't do that then please show me the "sure fire formula hit movie" script that is being shunned because of the analog hole.

Okay, if you can't do that then please tell me about the wonderful idea that everyone agrees will make millions but will never be created because someone somewhere might have analog streaming capability.

you all missed the point

[Karnje]

Wow I really can believe I didn't find any comments as to the real reason whey they want to do this. Has anyone ever considered what would happen if this were passed? First and foremost it would make the physical RCA component jack completely obsolete. There would be no reason to have the physical port there if no media supported it. This would push device manufacturers to remove it from all new devices. Now you may think oh well its like 2 cents added to the cost of the device, but look at it from the perspective the total number of these produced in a year for all the different devices out there. Some company is going to lose a significant portion of their profits(you have to figure that the R&D of this component was paid for years ago so by now whoever is producing them is make big profits) and many companies are going to save a significant portion on costs. As far as I am concerned the MPAA doesn't even factor into this equation. This is a cost driven ploy on the part of different corporations an investors they are just using the MPAA as their muscle. Case in point I know that X company produces this composite jack. I know that the FCC may regulate this. I buy long short(really cheap) in that company and wait for the media. I guess the point I am really trying to make is that even though the consumer and the MPAA appear to be the major players here, I just don't see the economics adding up to that.

Arguing just to hear yourself type?

[mmell]

First off, they're competing against themselves. All I have to do is not rush out and buy the PPV event on cable, waiting instead for the Blu-Ray release. If I'm really interested in being cheap, I'll wait for it to be broadcast on one of the premium channels like Home Porn Office or Skinemax. It isn't like I have to have this - it's not like a home (nice terrible analogy there, by the way).

Second off, they're only selling entertainment. They're in direct competition with casinos, libraries, public parks, concerts...

Finally, They're competing against each other. If Fox (for example) imposes this requirement on all PPV releases but Warner Brothers doesn't...ah, but you see where I'm going, yes?

Relax, tvarisch - the free market is far more powerful than you seem to think.

Re:Arguing just to hear yourself type?

[plasmacutter]

Finally, They're competing against each other. If Fox (for example) imposes this requirement on all PPV releases but Warner Brothers doesn't...ah, but you see where I'm going, yes?

no, i don't, unless warner brothers produces the exact same house episodes fox does.

First off, they're competing against themselves.

you mean like the way the wall street financial giants regulated themselves?

Broken economics

[nokiator]

Another MPAA attempt to resuscitate a dying business model through prohibitive legislation. The fundamental source of the piracy problem is economical. Technology has greatly reduced the cost of creation and distribution of content (not including the pay for stars/directors/studio execs), but content owners still want to impose archaic pricing policies on content which clearly is not worth it for many people.

I stopped buying DVDs since renting them (mail or online) through Netflix is much more economical and convenient. I pay my $16.99 monthly content "tax" to Netflix, and I am all set. This is the new model for content use. The solution is to extend the fee based online access to cover all available content. If I can watch any movie I want any time I want for a $20/month subscription fee, why would I bother pirating DVDs?

Trying to fight economics through legislation has never worked, and never will.

Dear MPAA,

[moxley]

Dear MPAA,

Fuck Off. (Seriously).

Warmly,

Everyone

Re:Is it even possible to copy/playback form analo

[amigabill]

I've since learned about the Hauppauge HD-PVR. So I guess it is possible now. I couldn't find such a thing a while ago, and since Lucas release "proper" DVDs finally, I stopped caring and never came across this thing.

No. Actually...

[mmell]

They just ask for a few billion dollars in TARP money.

CRT TVs too.

[antdude]

Some of us, like me, still use older TVs like CRTs. I still use my 20" size from 1996! I know a lot of people do. I will replace it when it starting showing problems. :)

Sure, looks real good.

[tengeta]

Sounds more like a "You need the new high tech HDMI interface to watch this!" or "No Blu-Ray, no view today".

It's probably not a conspiracy...

[alexhmit01]

It's probably the fact that the people who decide what to do with the government, and the people who research piracy and its effects on markets, don't really talk to each other, or even like each other for that matter. Some 25 drone in marketing is compiling the stats in spreadsheets that nobody looks at. By the time it moves up the line, the story seen at the C-level isn't "most piracy occurs pre-release," the story is "we need to work on pre-release security, but only the FCC can plug the analog hole."

The people talking to people in Washington are hired guns, and the person doing the hiring couldn't be further in the organization than the drone crunching the numbers.

Another Nail

[fast turtle]

in the coffin of my Television watching, which I pretty much gave up 4 years ago when it turned out that the same damn show was on half the cable channels I was getting. "I'm Sorry Dave. But I can't do that". Well you happen to be my equipment and you will do exactly what I say, even if it means accepting 5KT of TNT and attempting to reach extra-solar velocities.

Failed Logic

[Samah]

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Excuse me? I fail to see the logic in that statement.

Wow

[Phopojijo]

Wow... depending on how you look at it... The MPAA is claiming they're doing it not to be powerhungry people who hate their customers... they're powerhungry people who hate their customers who are also being anticompetitive... Wow... my mind is officially blown. Their justification is MORE illegal than the real reason.

Oh hell no

[Criton]

To the MPAA on wanting to control my ports. FUCK YOU! I mean seriously fuck you with an Ares rocket as that should be big enough for your filthy hole. This is a lets gather up the torches and pitch forks and storm their castles kinda thing.

No mistaking between "could" and "would"

[buntsai]

The The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

I agree with you that the "could" is not being used by mistake. "Would" (conditional tense) implies intent, a promise that they are going to offer more goods, if the ability to turn plugs on and off were provided first.

The use of "could" means that the MPAA are going to be in a position to offer more goods to consumers. If they decide not to offer more goods after all, should they gain the ability to turn plugs on and off, they would not have reneged on any implicit commitments.

In English, the MPAA phrasing also implies that one ("more goods to consumers") follows so naturally and logically from the premise ("give me the power to turn plugs on and off") that no explicit additional promise needs to be made. These sneaky subtleties are what make English fun and infuriating in equal measure.

Say what, now?

[fudgefactor7]

How is their argument even valid? You reduce the native functionality of an item or service and thereby claim to have enhanced the featureset? WTF?

The only conclusion is that the studios own you.

[mmell]

If you feel that you don't have a choice but to purchase whatever they produce for your consumption, I suppose you could go get a big "PWNED" tattooed on your forehead. Must suck, working for the major Hollywood studios but getting neither fame nor money.

Me, I'll give 'em my money when I want, to get what I want the way I want it - or I'll spend my hard-earned somewhere else. Frankly, I'm partial to scotch.

okay

[vuffi_raa]

so my choice is to say screw the legal route dump my provider and be able to use my consoles and pc on my tv and pirate what I want to watch or give up my consoles and pc on my tv in favor of an expensive switch box and new cables/converters so that I can pay for content, I wonder what my decision would be?
Sorry MPAA but I am trying to be legal you are just making it really difficult to do so.

Anti-Net neutrality in another form

[Randym]

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

s/MPAA/corporate content industry/
s/plugs/packet priority levels/
s/more goods/faster content delivery/