New Yorkers Get a Taste of Digital Restrictions 269
InfoMinister writes "From SiliconValley.com, another peek into the future of Digital Rights Manglement. A software conflict at the set-top invoked copy restrictions on all unscrambled digital TV programming delivered to Cablevision's 3 million subscribers in metropolitan New York."
It is a bug, but it's also DRM (Score:4, Informative)
(I know, I've been trolled. Don't care. Haven't had coffee yet.)
Re:Still NOT a DRM Issue (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't getting a taste of DRM, its the digital equivalent of your analogue signal being blocked by bad weather or the antenna falling off the roof
Which is a total and utter misunderstanding of what 5C is.
5C most certainly is DRM. It serves no purpose to the consumer except to place artificial restrictions on what, when, and how you can watch shows being broadcast over DTV or digital cable.
Was it human error that caused it to be activated in this circumstance? Sure. But it's still DRM.
Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management (Score:4, Informative)
THAT is one of the best comments on this I've ever seen... You are right. By calling DRM "Digital Rights MANAGEMENT" instead of "Digital Restrictions Mechanisms" we are OURSELVES aiding their marketing!
Wish I had mod points. And I will be using your name for DRM from now on.
Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management (Score:1, Informative)
Anyway, I think I like Digital Restriction Mechanism better.
Re:Recording rights? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually that would probably be incorrect too. There was a case back in the early 80s (I forget the exact cite) involving copy protection to make computer disks unbackupable and contract terms that prohibited making backups or breaking the protection to make backups. The court ruled that copyright law granted the copy owner the right to make backups of what they owned, and that prohibiting backups or making them impossible was illegal (the judge didn't just find the contract terms unenforceable, he found them to violate copyright law). Extending that to other digital media isn't a stretch at all.
Thats about right ! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What should anger people (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong
EULAs can't violate or trump existing law. You have the RIGHT under fair use law to make recordings/backups for personal, non-commercial use, some news purposes, and some other limited purposes. The fact that the broadcast/information is digital has nothing to do with it. The "analog hole" is the fact that a broadcast flag cannot be introduced to an analog signal without great difficulty. In a digital world, a broadcast flag is easy. This is why Jack Valenti and his cronies are trying to close the "analog hole". You have the RIGHT to backup/copy for personal non-commercial use programs that are transmitted into your home. Irrespective of whether the program being transmitted is digital or not. Although not specifically tested, you have the RIGHT to rip a song from a CD you legally purchased, and transfer it to your Rio to play it while you go jogging. You don't have the right to make a collection of mp3s on the Rio, a hard drive, or any other device, and sell that device to someone else. That is not Fair Use.
So the quote:
shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Fair Use rights. It may be true in a technical sense, that due to either intended consequences, or unintended consequences, the digital data in the article was not copyable. But from a Fair Use Rights standing, the form that the data/information exists in is irrelevant. It is the purpose for which it is being copied that controls and dictates whether the copying falls under the protection of Fair Use law. If it does, then no EULA can take away the rights under Fair Use, regardless of how much Jack Valenti,Sony, Microsoft and others would like for this to be changed in their favor.