More on the Effect of Digital TV 355
EyesWideOpen writes "Here is an interesting article at Wired which mentions that existing DVR devices (Tivo, ReplayTV) aren't equipped to handle the digital TV signal that broadcasters are scheduled to start delivering in 2006. Also mentioned is a proposal being considered by the FCC that would allow cable companies to 'turn off' the firewire port, which DVR's will use to connect to digital televisions, so that some broadcasts can't be recorded. The proposal is being considered no doubt in response to fears like that of MPAA head Jack Valenti who has said that without proper security measures, the industry won't allow its movies to be broadcast because they don't want viewers to record 'perfect copies' of movies."
won't allow its movies to be broadcast? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a bluff to get something unreasonable from us. And it certainly isn't how a free market works. If there is a market then people will create for that market. Otherwise we are dealing with an illegal monopoly and it should be broken up.
Dissolve the MPAA it is acting as an illegal trust.
What kind of crack is this??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Folks, you don't HAVE to eat what they're dishing out. Honestly, 525 scan lines and a mono speaker really is enough for me.
"Perfect copies" (Score:3, Insightful)
"They can fight with compelling value--whether it's built in videos, computer games, free tickets, unique passwords to go download bonus tracks, demo tracks and dance mixes...karaoke tracks for each song, alternate vocal takes... Who could, or would, want to spend the time reproducing all that via downloading?"
So I have a perfect copy of a movie... so what. If the DVD contains 30 minutes more footage and/or full length commentary, then there is a reason to go buy it instead of ripping it with a Tivo.
they're full of shite. (Score:2, Insightful)
General Public Response (Score:4, Insightful)
First, is it possible for HBO et al. to broadcast Macrovision copy protection on their signal so that one cannot record such broadcasts? I know TiVo honors copy protection (on video tapes primarily) so I wondered.
My actual question, along a similar avenue, is whether the general public would repond in anger or in apathy to any real implentation of copy protection. Macrovision can be filtered out (but the copy of a VHS tape may not be worth the trouble) and CD copy protection hasn't caught on enough to trip up the masses. But what if copy protection just started appearing without warning, like that HBO scenario?
What is going to happen when the RIAA and the MPAA finally purchase the right representatives and get all of these laws and practices changed in their favor? Will people simply not watch some programs since they can't record them? Will there be an uprising after people are effected by all of this nerdy stuff they read about on the internet for so long? Will people simply go with the flow and accept the reductions in freedoms?
For every form of copy protection I've ever seen (dongled software, MS keys, macrovision, DAT copy bits, exploding paper, etc) there always seems to be a workaround to circumvent the protection and allow the copy... if that becomes impossible (it might at some point, they could get lucky) what will the public at large do?
I have to admit, I would almost (ALMOST) like to see all of these protections get implemented just to see what happens.
Unfortunately, I think the public at large will be angered, and they might even lament their inaction as it was all unfolding (that would be now), but they will feel and be powerless to make any changes. They will still patronize RIAA and MPAA properties and in time people will forget that we used to be able to tape movies to watch later.
Alternate scenarios encouraged...
Ok MPAA.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And gosh darn it, people are making illegal copies of your movies while they're still in the theatre, better quit having movies shown in theatres. Can't risk having anyone steal your precious products.
Oh, btw, you now make NO money, but at least you're secure in the fact that nobody has made a perfect copy of your movie. Must be a great relief huh?
-Restil
Re:What kind of crack is this??? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. If you want to watch a movie with that resolution, fine. But, why should everyone else sacrifice fair-use rights so the signals can be broadcast over public airwaves?
Re:Will TV still exist by 2006? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right now, we can watch as much TV as we want, with little or no restrictions. If the Valenti types can turn it (and the Internet) into the "pay-per-use vending machine" that they want so bad, I wonder if people will watch nearly as much TV as they do now.
I remember once seeing a ST:TNG episode where Data remarked that TV had fallen by the wayside somewhere in the 21st century. Naaah, I thought (and still do), that's never going to happen. But, if watching TV becomes too financially costly, or too restrictive (Mr. Valenti: viewers can and do get insulted), I do expect people to do what's in their best interests. Maybe that will mean that we find other ways to entertain ourselves and watch TV less. I think that would be a Good Thing(tm).
Of course, this assumes that those who provide content (as if we were mindless zombies who couldn't decide what to eat for dinner if they didn't tell us...oh, never mind), if they are so monumentally stupid as to make TV that restrictive that droves of viewers turned it off. I would rather expect that they are looking for a "pain equilibrium point" where the restrictiveness and costliness boosts their profits to just below most people's breaking point. I sincerely don't believe that they want millions of people screaming "No more!" as that would cut into profits, but I don't for a second believe that there is anything other than that concern. So, expect watching (or recording, etc.) TV to become more painful. The question is, where is your breaking point?
Re:Consumer Benefit (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you OWN a box doesn't mean you are allowed to do what you want with it.
Next thing you know you won't legally be allowed to look under the hood of your automobile. You'll have to take it back to the manufacturer (at a 1000% markup) for simple maintenance or repair.
General purpose computers that you could program, upgrade, tinker with, will be replaced with glorified Xboxes, and PS3's. Sealed boxes, just because you bought it doesn't mean you should be allowed to actually USE/Modify it the way you want. You might interfere with some multinational's business model......
*Sigh*
Jack Valenti = necromancer (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be that Mr. Valenti isn't trying to sabotage the people pirating movies, but instead going after the root cause of the decline of old-fashioned hollywood power: the television itself?
If we come to a day where (due to alleged concerns about piracy) the gullible public will accept that the studios have a legitimate reason NOT to release their films on DVD, then aren't we back in a pre-VCR era where to see a movie in it's full glory you actually have to go to a THEATER? Suddenly re-releases come back as a valid market-milking strategy, theater revenues/values climb and the only way you get to see a film EVER is by paying them the ticket price EVERY TIME YOU WATCH IT?
Granted, it sounds pretty damn stupid to me too, but this is the same industry that thinks they make more money by selling $8 tickets and $6 popcorn, and then can't figure out why people would rather sit at home, eat (nearly) free popcorn and pay a $4 rental fee no matter how many people watch it.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anybody not see this as the MPAA shooting itself in the foot?
These are old-school businesses that live in the monopolistic mindset. They are incapable of making short-term investment for long-term returns. What used to work has been proven and they will hold onto it until you wrestle it from their cold, dead hands.
Take as an example the recording industry which although not identical, is similar. Their strategy has always been to forbid all dissemination of their product through new channels and use the legal system to enforce old ways. But think about it this way: What if 5 years ago a record company had launched a web site that had RealAudio streaming of all your favourite songs? What if you could click on "buy this song" and get an MP3 for $1 with no restrictions whatsoever? And what if they encouraged you to buy all your favourite songs (for $1 each) and burn them to a CD so you didn't need to buy crappy songs you'll never listen to? Everyone would gladly pay $1 for a song they like, the record companies would be transporting their money in dump trucks and someone would now be CEO of Sony. Instead, record sales are slumping because companies think that consumers are the enemy and they answer only to investors. They'll get their wake-up call, a free market makes it inevitable.
If something is broadcast to millions of people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, there is already enough disincentive to tape movies from TV: Commericals, including network logos in the corner; and censorship/editing. When you consider all the extra features they put on DVDs, it just makes more sense to pick up an original feature-rich copy at the store than to deal with and edited and censored for TV mess.
To further my point...I videotaped six of the 8 seasons of Red Dwarf off of PBS. I bought 2 seasons at Suncoast. At this point, I have little reason to buy the official tapes of the seasons I taped myself...moreso since they're commercial-free on PBS. However, if BBC was to come out with DVD sets of those seasons that include all sorts of extra material, I would snap them up in a second!
Of course, if Hollywood is stubborn enough to not broadcast their tripe, you can always get off your ass and volunteer to walk dogs and play with cats [save-animals.com] at your local animal shelter.
geeks afraid of updating? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is not news.
There will be new products that will support digital TV. There will be a new TiVo equivalent device. You will have to buy new hardware.
Geeks don't think twice about buying the latest computing hardware, switching CPU architectures, etc., but god forbid somebody need to update their television from 60 year old technology.
Re:Only in America... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can legally record a show off my cable system onto a recording media of my choice (usually VHS tape) to watch later.
I can take this media (tape) to my neighbor's house and watch it there with him.
I can leave the tape with him for his kids to watch, without me there.
I can watch this tape more than once.
I can put this tape on my shelf, and watch it again 5 years later.
I can fast-forward through parts that don't interest me.
Now, would you like to discuss how many of these legal activities Jack Valenti wants you to be allowed to do? (Let me give you a hint... rhymes with 'Nero' the wacko Roman Emperor who fiddled while his empire's capital city burned...)
This is not about putting in protections for creators. This is about putting in control measures to decrease consumer rights and increase profits, for the simple reason that they think they can get away with it.
Re:Have you seen the quality of Digital TV ?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tivos and RePlays and all other PVRs handle "digital" signals just fine, as long as there's a device in-line converting to analog. It's important to distinguish the type of signal, however: I have "digital" cable, and you're absolutely right: the cable co takes the extra bandwidth, uses it for more channels, then compresses the hell out of the 480i signal you get, reducing the quality greatly.
But you're wrong about OTA "digital", in the form of high-def: at least in the San Francisco Bay Area, the compression's at a minimum, and both 720p and 1080i look beautiful. Any artifacting you're seeing is likely due to the line doubler either in your set or decoder, or both. Live OTA HDTV does occasionally show compression artifacts, typically with fast pans and zooms. That's more an effect of the equipment in use and the manner of use rather than the level of compression in use.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, I see you're falling into the thinking of "Big Hollywood == producers, ordinary folk == consumers." Because don't think for a minute that your garage band, self-published novel, or digital art gallery will get the same copy prevention technology as the MPAA and RIAA use. For no other reason than if anyone could mark content as "protected", then it wouldn't solve any sort of "piracy" problem. So what you're supporting is in essence a select group that can use technology as a "producer", while denying the technology to the mere mortals. Ok, gotcha.
The fact of the matter is that there is a subtle difference between ensuring the right of someone to attempt to make a profit, vs. ensuring the right of someone to demand a profit. What the MPAA/RIAA are asking for is the keys to future technological development, so that they can dictate what new technology comes about, and when. It's not anyone's concern but their own that they have developed and clung to a business model that makes the assumption that they are the only ones who can produce and distribute "content" on a global basis. Times change, technology changes. Plenty of formerly profitable businesses are on the scrap heap of history because they could not or would not adjust to a changing technological landscape. Yet you seem to think that the Congress has the right, nay, the duty to grant the MPAA/RIAA a special exception to this, and to prop up their profit models in the face of a changing landscape. Curious.
In a free-market economy, services pop up to fill a vaccuum. Big Hollywood has shown no inclination to fill the consumer's desire for digital media, so quasi-legal/quasi-moral industries have sprung up to fill the hole. Even now, Big Hollywood's attempts to fill the market are only halfhearted. They offer a small selection of music online, in restrictive formats, at fairly high prices, and wonder why people don't flock to them compared to the free filesharing services that popped up while they were ignoring the internet. Sorry guys, your loss. Do some market research, find out what people want, and give it to them. I daresay that if Big Hollywood offered their back catalogs in an open format at reasonable prices, a majority of people would go for that, if for no other reason than the quality control vs. P2P services. But no, they'd rather run to Congress and have MP3s, CD Burners, and firewire ports made criminal, rather than competing in the marketplace.
Congress' role is to protect the rights of the people, not Jack Valenti's paycheck. By bending to Hollywood's whims, Congress is most likely delaying or eliminating a marketplace where artists can sell directly to their fans without the expense of a middleman like the *AA, and where new and different musical artists and genres can gain exposure over webcasting stations that are not beholden to Clear Channel's top-10 directives. By granting control of digital technology to a group that fought the VCR all the way to the Supreme Court is shortsighted at best, illegal and immoral at worst.
So the issue is not one of protecting the rights of artists - that can be accomplished within the framework of current copyright law. The issue is that Congress should not prop up the profits and business model of any industry, simply due to its influence and campaign contributions.
As an aside, I'm also going to take from your post that you oppose the rights of people to have access to VCRs, audio tapes, Xerox machines, or pens, since they can all be used for, and have been used for, "stealing" from "creators."
Re:Downside (Score:2, Insightful)