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."
So...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Same old Shit (Score:5, Interesting)
There are, and always will be, tangiable benefits to being able to buy a copy, assuming they price them reasonably. If people are willing to have crappy, off-the-air (even digital) copies, with no bonus footage that comes with DVD's, then that says something about the price of DVD's, doesn't it?
And anyway, how long does it take for movies to get to broadcast anyway? 2 Years? Who waits that long?
This guy is as paranoid as those freaks who have bomb shelters and 2 years of rations in their basements.
Simple Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Imperfect copies? Just how imperfect?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, "fullscreen" movies on most cable outlets have a significant part of the original widescreen image lopped off. Isn't that imperfect enough for Jack Valenti? How about if he takes the sound down to simple mono and superimposes a silhouette of himself at the bottom of the screen, delivering meant-to-be-funny lines about the movie MST3K-style? Is that bad enough? Or does he need the cable company to agree on subpar cabling, too, so I get some ghosting?
So I buy a TiVO because I really, really don't want to miss your programming but you scheduled "Cheers III: the redemption of Cliff" at 1 AM while I'm at work. You, in response to this infamous behavior on my part, hack my machine so I can't see it? Way to twist your head up your *ssh*le. What industry thinks that way?
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Alright, so you're saying that if you don't deny digital recording of digital television, you won't sell your product to TV broadcasters. So you're getting less money from fewer sales to broadcasters and you're also getting less money from people who might have bought a real copy if they were exposed to your movie via TV. All in all the consumer gets to keep more of their spending cash, or at least buy other things while MPAA sales dwindle.
Does anybody not see this as the MPAA shooting itself in the foot? Broadcasters only buy movies to fill up time slots they don't bother to try to fill with their own programming and only tend to buy movies (instead of airing more reruns) so they can compete with all the other broadcasters showing movies. Yank the movies out of the equation, you have a poorer MPAA while the broadcasters just fill the time slots with more reruns. Wah.
Of course, the MPAA doesn't give a rat's ass about customers, they (like all other corporations, by definition) care only about the investors. If they weren't so damned worried about appearing profitable to Wall Street, they'd be all for letting customers make their own perfect digital copies.
Re:Will TV still exist by 2006? (Score:1, Interesting)
Broadcast TV will definitely NOT be mainstream in 30 years time. We will be watching high definition DVDs, (yes, DVD, I think that a new format will be "shoe-horned" on to the old media), without copy-protection, but which are so cheap that it's not worth copying them anyway, (I.E. a pre-recorded disc is 125% of the cost of a blank, so there is no market for illegal copies). Region coding will be phased out, but since no two countries will have agreed on a HDTV standard, it won't matter.
Broadcast television will become what radio is now - popular, but not what you sit down to every night.
Blockbuster? (Score:3, Interesting)
If a movie is good, it's cheaper to buy a dvd than to pay for Pay Per View. At least you can watch it whenever you please and you can pause it to go to the loo.
The only time I watch movies on cable is when I have nothing better to do. I have yet to purchase one on Pay Per View but I will rent a DVD that I've seen before if the movie was good, even if it's free on TV, at least nothing is cut out and it has no poor editing such as changing words to meet the TV audience.
I have moderator points and I'm not using them go figure.
Isn't bad enough, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:curious... (Score:1, Interesting)
FURTHERMORE, if some enterprising person were to make a DVI to component (red/green/blue analog used currently for HDTV/progressive video sources), they would get smacked down with the DMCA so hard and fast their head would likely fly clean off.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
It so happens that my hearing is not as perfect as it once was, and as such I cant really stand to pay to watch most content that I cant rewind a bit to catch what I missed. often having to turn on the ClosedCaptioning for a bit. (O/T but be really nice if tivo auto turend on CC like my DVD player, when I hit skip back 30 seconds.)
Can we use the american Disabiltys act, to force them to let people like me replay what we cant hear the first time?