Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports
suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."
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."
One begins with F and the other with O
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
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.
We don't live in Shouldland.
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.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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).
Guess what else they want control over.
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.
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
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.
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?
The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?"
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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.
And those bent on ripping and sharing it online will find workarounds anyway; thus only limiting the possibilities of people already obeying the law.
The Long Now Foundation
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.
Because content providers aren't asking consumers "please do this, because if you do, we will do something nice for you". They are bypassing the consumer and are asking the government to give them lawful access to privately owned consumer electronics in order to disable perfectly legal functionality. They want to exercise these powers without any indication that the functionality in question is being abused.
They are doing this despite the fact that their "studies" are flawed, and are essentially a mix of guesswork and made-up stuff. They are doing this despite the evidence that suggests that "analog-hole" piracy is a minuscule source of pirated content. FTFA:
"That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide."
Now, why would content providers go to the government repeatedly for powers that they know will not advance the cause of fighting piracy?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.