FCC Allows Blocking of Set-Top Box Outputs

bth writes with this excerpt of an AP story as carried by Yahoo: "Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies. ... In its decision Friday, the agency stressed that its waiver includes several important conditions, including limits on how long studios can use the blocking technology. The FCC said the technology cannot be used on a particular movie once it is out on DVD or Blu-ray, or after 90 days from the time it is first used on that movie, whichever comes first."

Comments

PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[deathcow]

1) pirates unaffected
2) legit consumers annoyed and prevented from seeing their movie

Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

1) pirates unaffected

Its better than that. Pirates should be celebrating.
What this means is that the MAFIAA thinks they can do day & date releases on Pay-Per-View and in the theaters.

However, there will always be at least a handful of people with the means to capture such PPV transmissions and distribute copies on the net. So it means no more need for crappy camcorders in the theaters and the consequent risk of the recently legislated crazy-ass sentences for getting caught doing so. Now, the pirates can comfortably record new theatrical releases in the safety of their own homes and their hundreds of millions of friends on the net can all download new theatrical releases in HD-quality long before the movies are released on bluray.

Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

(really, you could flatten this loop anywhere, but the only realistic place to break out of it is at step 4)

The problem is that the only one of those things most execs give a flying damn about addressing is (1). If along with their new DRM they added amazing new capabilities--say creating a mobile device with apps and sleek form factor that plays your protected content anywhere, to address (2), or giving an online store to easily purchase content to fix (3)--then that wouldn't be half bad. Unless of course Apple does that, in which case fuck all.

But seriously. I have an iTouch with some limited content on it, and will be upgrading to its bigger cousin when I have the money to spare. It does kind of bother me that I can't take my iTunes-bought video and put it on various devices--along with other objections--but the iPhone OS model, which is culminated in the iPad, is really an object lesson for people who think that suing is the only way to stop piracy.

Yes, iPhones get hacked, and yes, they only operate with iTunes, and yes, apps and music are still stolen a lot in spite of their efforts. However, the biggest advantage they have over the *AAs is that they give you compelling reason to use their products. And hey guess what! The consumers love them for it.

And no Apple bashing, please. This isn't comparing Apple to Linux, Microsoft, or Google. It's comparing them to RIAA/MPAA. I think we can all agree they're better than THEM.

Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[Peach Rings]

Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?

Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I know this has been pointed out before, and I am myself tired of repeating this, but it's necessary:

1) It doesn't matter what encryption they use, the decryption key is on the device, so we'll get it eventally
2) The signal travels a long way. They can encrypt as many miles as they want, and they can encrypt the last mile, but the last 3 meters (the 3 meters from your TV to your eyes) can't be encrypted. So, eventually, the signal will need to be decrypted and there, it is vulnerable.
3) If they resort to putting mandatory DRM on your brain, and send the signal encrypted till it reaches your eyes, refer to 1) (the decryption key will be on your brain and we can get it).

What baffles me is why we are still trying to find technical workarounds to a commercial issue. People want to produce content. People want to watch content. Companies want to make money by being the middle man. This middle man has done nothing but move group 1 further and further apart from group 2. But regardless of how much they try, they won't prevent people from producing content, and won't prevent people from wanting to watch that content. We will eventually realize the artificial limitation here, remove the middle man, and find a way to pay the producers and get our content without *AAs.

To quote Megadeth: If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, But it better work this time.

So, while all of you keep fighting each other over this moot point, I will go over to megavideo to watch Flash Forward S01E19.

Re:PREDICTIONS ARE IN

[ktappe]

Why is it any more OK for Apple to lock down a handheld media device than it is for the MPAA to lock down your set-top-box?

1) You do not have to buy an Apple; you can get other smartphones. But much of America has no choice but to get TV from their cable company. I cannot get FiOS where I live (been on waiting list for 4 years) and trees prevent me from having satellite. So I'm stuck with that set top box. You know, the box I shouldn't even have to have if Comcast were to use a STANDARD to encode their digital so that my Media Center could work without an IR blaster? That box right there.

2) Apple is a vendor. Comcast is a vendor. The MPAA is not a vendor. You cannot choose to or not to purchase from them. They insidiously work behind the scenes on crap like this, whereas you know up front when buying an Apple that it's locked down. It's a minor but notable distinction from the point above.

Best DRM

[TheMeuge]

Federal regulators are endorsing Hollywood's efforts to let cable and satellite TV companies turn off output connections on the back of set-top boxes to prevent illegal copying of movies

Good. Turning off ALL the outputs will certainly prevent those movies from being copied. I've always thought that such an approach will be the ultimately successful DRM the companies are looking for.

Looks rather weak to me logically

[Captain Spam]

The FCC said the technology cannot be used on a particular movie once it is out on DVD or Blu-Ray, or after 90 days from the time it is first used on that movie, whichever comes first.

Wait, wait. What?

So let me get this straight... once the movie is released on DVD or Blu-Ray, the technology is not allowed to be used on it? As in, this only (theoretically) affects... what, just the movies that hit PPV a week or so before they hit DVD/Blu-Ray? That's it?

I mean, that's weak not just from a technological standpoint. That's weak the whole way around. Do people actually pirate movies off of PPV to any extent to make this even worthwhile? Do people actually USE PPV that much? I thought it was all DVD/Blu-Ray copies or leaked theatre reels or whatnot.

Wow. That just seems... sad.

Re:Bad sign

[KahabutDieDrake]

I'm not sure why you think the FCC is there to protect consumers. It's not. It exists to look out for business investments. The FCC in my lifetime has consistently sided with "big business" over private interests. This isn't exactly odd however. The FDA is similar in it's function, if not it's charter.