Something to note is that most states have laws prohibiting the sale of descramblers, but do not regulate whether or not they can be used.
The way these statutes have generally been circumvented is that people selling descramblers generally will only do so in other states and not their own.
So, it seems like someone got caught selling a descrambler. I haven't seen any proof of a cable company successfully prosecuting an ordinary end user. If you've got proof of that, please bring it on! I want to see it.
You see, "stealing cable," as the cable companies don't want you to know, means climbing their pole, entering their lock box, opening the neighborhood green base, and turning on your signal. Descramblers themselves are not illegal, as the 1934 Communications Act states that any citizen has the right to receive any broadcast signal. (The 1994 Communications Act modifies this to exclude the 800 MHz range to make analong cellular phone eavesdropping a punishable offense.) So long as you have not trespassed on the cable company's property, there is nothing illegal about "stealing cable."
So, if you own your modem and you modify its software to be uncapped, can they really go after you for "unauthorized access to a computer system" and that sort of crime? Obviously, they can ban you from their network, which is exactly what AT&T Broadband does (and makes me think twice about uncapping or modifying the cap limit), but can they seriously bring charges against you?
How might this be different than obtaining a signal via a decoder? After all, they're supplying the signal already.
I realize that 4:1 versus 12:1 isn't the issue, although that, coupled with VBR for AC3, makes DTS win out considerably fast for quality.
The way AC3's codec works, the center channel has priority over all other channels, followed by the left & right. If you add a subwoofer, your surrounds suffer greatly.
DTS' codec gives equal imporance to all channels, which is why it sounds better.
Second, we're discussing purely audio-based solutions right now. I understand that DTS-encoded media takes up considerably more space than AC3, but on a CD of music, and especially a DVD, I'm not worried about how much space I've got.
SmartCode Pro - Dolby Digital will make WAV-padded AC3 on a Mac, but you have to use Pro Tools to do it. It's really stupid and the program is difficult to use.
What I do is run Soft Encode 5.1 Dolby Digital from Sonic Foundry under Virtual PC 5.0.4 (Win 98 SE) and make discs that way.
But, I stopped bothering, I must admit, because many AC3 decoders don't understand the format. Instead, I create WAV-padded DTS files using SurCode DTS from Minnetonka. They work everytime!
I've done a considerable amount of testing 5.1 formats on CD-R and DVD-R (and variations). Yes, AC3 can be WAV-padded to look like a PCM audio file and subsequently put onto a red book CD-DA disc, but I've found that most older AC3 decoders don't understand the reverse bit-order format.
On the flip side, WAV-padded DTS does work on all DTS decoders, as it was included in the format from the beginning.
Additionally, DTS is a better format because it is fixed-rate 4:1 compression, as opposed to AC3's variable 12:1.
TV commercials exist because we didn't used to pay for TV. Obviously, there needed to be a method of making TV broadcasting pay for itself, so the broadcasters sold commercial time, first in the form of obvious sponsorship (i.e. "This fine program was brought to you by Laramie Cigarettes!"), and most recently in 15-60 second spots.
And, let's not forget that a majority of the cable networks don't even have real programming at night anymore, just paid programming (also known as infomercials).
In the 80's, cable TV came about and many people started paying $40/mo or more for TV AND they still had to watch ads. And in many areas, mine for sure, aerial antennas are useless.
Perhaps the $40/mo (or more) we pay the cable companies should have eliminated the ads altogether?
My favorite author, Daniel Keys Moran deals with the idea of a 10-hour day in his book "The Long Run", a book about a Player (hacker) who is pursued by the Unification (world government) in 2069.
I don't like cities. In fact, I hate the hustle and bustle of San Francsico, but 4 times already I have gone out of my way to see a digital screening at the AMC 1000 on Van Ness.
After seeing a private digital screening of Episode I at Skywalker Ranch's Stag Theatre, I was sufficiently impressed enough to go to the City to see Pixar's "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters, Inc." twice each.
Let me just say this: WOW!
Having only seen one live action film in digital, I can only say that DLP is exceedingly good at reproducing a film and capturing the look and feel of actual film.
And, when it comes to the purely digital domain, it is even better. Pixar's films couldn't have looked better. Keep in mind that all prints go through extensive color timing to make sure the proper balance is achieved. With DLP, we are seeing (assuming calibration is performed properly) exactly what the original designers, animators, art directors, texturers, shaders, and renderers saw and intended when they first created the work.
It is so nice to be able to see a film weeks after release and not be distracted by a marred print that has been playing 5 times a day for however many weeks. Even better still, there aren't any jumps from places where the celluloid broke and had to be spliced back together!
Of course, there is a downside to this technology, too.
Remember when some politically-correct advocate groups complained about a scene in Disney's "Aladdin"? Disney couldn't do anything about it while it was still in the theatre because prints are extremely expensive, but with DLP, playback can be from WVHS tapes, satellite (via WVHS or other downloaded formats), or directly from a hard disk. So, the cost to redistribute an editted, censored version of a film is negligible in comparison.
Do I think they'll use it that way? Undoubtedly.
Is the format going to replace film? Absolutely. It looks amazing! It really IS more like film than film! I really just wish more films were being made available in the format. After "Monsters, Inc." closed in the digital screening, the AMC 1000 was not showing another film in DLP. How disappointing!
Slashdot Mirror
Nevermind on the source. I got it.
I guess the amusing part is that descramblers in my area are moot anyhow, as AT&T inserts a filter to prevent the signal's transmission.
Oh well. I don't watch TV anyway.
That is a very interesting document. What is the source?
Something to note is that most states have laws prohibiting the sale of descramblers, but do not regulate whether or not they can be used.
The way these statutes have generally been circumvented is that people selling descramblers generally will only do so in other states and not their own.
So, it seems like someone got caught selling a descrambler. I haven't seen any proof of a cable company successfully prosecuting an ordinary end user. If you've got proof of that, please bring it on! I want to see it.
Yes, the MAC address is a fingerprint. That's why I propose hacking the ISP's config server and uncapping everyone!
FREE-FOR-ALL! WOOHOO!!
I was noticing that! It's the yellow rubber ducky that can be used for a login identity on Mac OS X! This can't be for real, can it?
That brings up an interesting parallel.
You see, "stealing cable," as the cable companies don't want you to know, means climbing their pole, entering their lock box, opening the neighborhood green base, and turning on your signal. Descramblers themselves are not illegal, as the 1934 Communications Act states that any citizen has the right to receive any broadcast signal. (The 1994 Communications Act modifies this to exclude the 800 MHz range to make analong cellular phone eavesdropping a punishable offense.) So long as you have not trespassed on the cable company's property, there is nothing illegal about "stealing cable."
So, if you own your modem and you modify its software to be uncapped, can they really go after you for "unauthorized access to a computer system" and that sort of crime? Obviously, they can ban you from their network, which is exactly what AT&T Broadband does (and makes me think twice about uncapping or modifying the cap limit), but can they seriously bring charges against you?
How might this be different than obtaining a signal via a decoder? After all, they're supplying the signal already.
Again, we're not talking about movies right now, we're talking about music. And in music, all channels are equally important.
I realize that 4:1 versus 12:1 isn't the issue, although that, coupled with VBR for AC3, makes DTS win out considerably fast for quality.
The way AC3's codec works, the center channel has priority over all other channels, followed by the left & right. If you add a subwoofer, your surrounds suffer greatly.
DTS' codec gives equal imporance to all channels, which is why it sounds better.
Second, we're discussing purely audio-based solutions right now. I understand that DTS-encoded media takes up considerably more space than AC3, but on a CD of music, and especially a DVD, I'm not worried about how much space I've got.
SmartCode Pro - Dolby Digital will make WAV-padded AC3 on a Mac, but you have to use Pro Tools to do it. It's really stupid and the program is difficult to use.
What I do is run Soft Encode 5.1 Dolby Digital from Sonic Foundry under Virtual PC 5.0.4 (Win 98 SE) and make discs that way.
But, I stopped bothering, I must admit, because many AC3 decoders don't understand the format. Instead, I create WAV-padded DTS files using SurCode DTS from Minnetonka. They work everytime!
I've done a considerable amount of testing 5.1 formats on CD-R and DVD-R (and variations). Yes, AC3 can be WAV-padded to look like a PCM audio file and subsequently put onto a red book CD-DA disc, but I've found that most older AC3 decoders don't understand the reverse bit-order format.
On the flip side, WAV-padded DTS does work on all DTS decoders, as it was included in the format from the beginning.
Additionally, DTS is a better format because it is fixed-rate 4:1 compression, as opposed to AC3's variable 12:1.
TV commercials exist because we didn't used to pay for TV. Obviously, there needed to be a method of making TV broadcasting pay for itself, so the broadcasters sold commercial time, first in the form of obvious sponsorship (i.e. "This fine program was brought to you by Laramie Cigarettes!"), and most recently in 15-60 second spots.
And, let's not forget that a majority of the cable networks don't even have real programming at night anymore, just paid programming (also known as infomercials).
In the 80's, cable TV came about and many people started paying $40/mo or more for TV AND they still had to watch ads. And in many areas, mine for sure, aerial antennas are useless.
Perhaps the $40/mo (or more) we pay the cable companies should have eliminated the ads altogether?
My favorite author, Daniel Keys Moran deals with the idea of a 10-hour day in his book "The Long Run", a book about a Player (hacker) who is pursued by the Unification (world government) in 2069.
An excellent read, I must add.
Just to fill in the blanks:
Digital video == 720 x 480
MPEG-2 (DVD) Video:
Stored at 720x480, displayed at:
16x9 == 854x480
4x3 == 640x480
Sounds to me like "Black Hawk Down" is an anamorphic print that was screened without the anamorphic lens.
Someone screwed up.
This is one reason why digital cinema WILL succeed. That problem doesn't exist.
I don't like cities. In fact, I hate the hustle and bustle of San Francsico, but 4 times already I have gone out of my way to see a digital screening at the AMC 1000 on Van Ness.
After seeing a private digital screening of Episode I at Skywalker Ranch's Stag Theatre, I was sufficiently impressed enough to go to the City to see Pixar's "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters, Inc." twice each.
Let me just say this: WOW!
Having only seen one live action film in digital, I can only say that DLP is exceedingly good at reproducing a film and capturing the look and feel of actual film.
And, when it comes to the purely digital domain, it is even better. Pixar's films couldn't have looked better. Keep in mind that all prints go through extensive color timing to make sure the proper balance is achieved. With DLP, we are seeing (assuming calibration is performed properly) exactly what the original designers, animators, art directors, texturers, shaders, and renderers saw and intended when they first created the work.
It is so nice to be able to see a film weeks after release and not be distracted by a marred print that has been playing 5 times a day for however many weeks. Even better still, there aren't any jumps from places where the celluloid broke and had to be spliced back together!
Of course, there is a downside to this technology, too.
Remember when some politically-correct advocate groups complained about a scene in Disney's "Aladdin"? Disney couldn't do anything about it while it was still in the theatre because prints are extremely expensive, but with DLP, playback can be from WVHS tapes, satellite (via WVHS or other downloaded formats), or directly from a hard disk. So, the cost to redistribute an editted, censored version of a film is negligible in comparison.
Do I think they'll use it that way? Undoubtedly.
Is the format going to replace film? Absolutely. It looks amazing! It really IS more like film than film! I really just wish more films were being made available in the format. After "Monsters, Inc." closed in the digital screening, the AMC 1000 was not showing another film in DLP. How disappointing!