New Yorkers Get a Taste of Digital Restrictions

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."

translation:

[phantast]

We at Cablevision like to shit all over our customers, and then call it an "accident."

I would imagine they will keep trying these sorts of things until people get used to it and stop complaining... like paying for access to newspaper web sites.

Cablevision

[The Magic Yak]

Cablevision has raised rates everytime I look at the bill. Don't get me wrong, Optimum Online is very fast and nice and few problems occur. But lately, between Cable and the Modem and an $80+ cable bill every month, I'm getting very close to switching back to basic broadcast television. With such poor broadband subscriber sales, the last thing this company should do is restrict more consumers. I'm assuming money is somehow behind this. Anyway, I'm going to write an "upset subscriber" letter and I encourage anyone else affected by this to do the same. If this extends to all recordings on PVRs (I'm assuming only digital right now) then rest assured, I don't need the bandwidth and they will lose me as a customer.

that's my two cents.

MY Rights

[kenp2002]

I don't konw about you "outsiders" but I remember in the Constitution they were concerned with MY rights. Where did this Digital Rights nonsense come from? You would figure after 9-11 people in congress would get their priorities straighten out. Oh well just one more reason to pay close attention on who is running for senate and house.

Re:Not DRM... its a bug..

[rmadmin]

I think the point they were getting at was: "Now they have a taste of what it will be like when DRM bugs"

Re:Testing 1,2,3

[N3WBI3]

I highly doubt that, I work in Cable software development and I can tell you that you *NEVER* test on a production system, especially in a market as large as NY..

Equal access rights

[Bozovision]

Perhaps the time has come for some sort of legal recognition of common access rights for some technologies...

- You don't have a conversation quota that you can't exceed.
- You aren't blocked from using the roads - there is open access to everyone.

That's because these are commons.

Perhaps, at some penetration point, there needs to be recognition that a technology forms a cultural commons and should be open to all without barriers.

In the same way that monopolies are regulated as a special case, perhaps it would be sensible to have a body of law governing the use of commons.
I would think it would need to:
- Guarantee access
- Prevent enclosure
- Promote innovation
- Provide for the designation of new commons

Lawrence Lessig are you reading this?

(Bozo's big thought for the day. Now back to work...)

Few Worries

[meis31337]

First off, I think this is some frightening stuff here. The article quotes something along the lines of saying that this doesn't impede the home user, it is too prevent high-quality pirating of these works. This is ludicrous. What gives anyone the right to limit the quality at which I record stuff?? Why wouldn't I want to use Firewire if it brought me the best quality?? It is limiting and against my rights as a subscriber and consumer.

Secondly... I can't believe these things are in place already. I don't have Cablevision, I get ATT Digital Cable... but my service sucks. I don't even have digital capabilities coming out of the cable box. I have a crazy sound/video system, but I am stuck with composite video and stereo audio coming from an rca connection.... I get screwed like this and they have all this copyprotection up and running already? This is a damned injustice.

Re:Not DRM... its a bug..

[JWW]

I thought that was the interesting part.

The most discriminating customers, who had spent the most money on their home entertainment equipment were the only ones affected.

This is where this is going to be a big problem. How the hell are they going to convince anyone to buy "the new digital" stuff when people see stories like this and start hearing anecdotal evidence from people that this did affect.

The abuse of the consumer is reaching unhearlded heights in this country, I think in this battle the consumer will speak with a closed pocketbook.

Just this week my cable company called to try to get me to switch to digital cable, the upside was a few more channels, the downside $30 more a month! I'm sorry but I want more value for my dollar than that. The same goes for digital TV's, sure they're cool, but not $2000 cool. That's where the industry is going wrong. We're not buying enough of this new stuff, so they will be trying to mandate. That is where the true battle will be.

Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management

[Fly]

I think DRRM, or Digital Rights Restrictions Management, is a more appropriate term. It addresses the fact that it involves the users' (which most people are rather than creators) rights, but only as a method of restricting them.

Re:It is a bug, but it's also DRM

[Zathrus]

I would assume this can also include other forms of digital recording

Depends.

As with any other restrictions technology, it's up to all parties involved to participate. If you have a digital VCR that doesn't grok 5C (such as the original D-VHS decks from Panasonic (I think)) then it will happily record any digital broadcast regardless of the flags on the broadcast saying not to, or to only record in reduced resolution.

The same goes for computer based recording with a HDTV card - the only ones that will pay attention to the digital no-record bits are the ones that implement the restrictions in hardware. Put them in firmware or software and they'll get disabled -- just like you can disable region locking on most DVDs or the no-copy bit on DAT decks.

Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management

[Citizen of Earth]

Can we cut the crap here and start calling them Digital Restriction Mechanisms or something.

But if they called it that, then Joe Consumer might think that it's a bad thing. Kind of like Copy "Protection". You want to know that the system you are buying is Protected, don't you? If it was "Prevented", you might not be quite as willing to buy it.

Re:DRM =! Digital Rights Management

[spitzak]

Digital Restrictions Management is actaully a lot more accurate than what they say, and is also more accurate than most of the very negative things coming up here (digital rights restricion or management is wrong, as it is not restricting rights, just the ability to use your rights on the devices. Also it may be restricting a few things that you don't have rights to do).

I also think "Copy Prevention" or "Copy Prevented" is pretty good too. Very accurate and same acronym as the RIAA is using.

In both cases there is a reasonable chance that our wording will catch on, if everybody uses it consistently in all documentation, including ones in support of DRM or DRM schemes.

Been there, done that

[tweakt]

For now, the glitch prevents viewers from digitally taping any cable show using a next-generation digital videotape recorder called DVHS, the HDTV Insider newsletter reported. These devices recognize the programming as copy-blocked -- and turn off.

Black market mod chips and/or reprogrammed ROMS will be available shortly.

You can piss off a whole lot of people, but you can never stop everyone. And it only takes one.

Re:What should anger people

[vsavatar]

Yes, and what's more is that the FCC is mandating that all TVs made by 2006 be digital. I wonder if this move was made for the advancement or technology, or for the advancement of the media moguls' agendas. Gee, that shouldn't be a tough one to figure out. I don't record much off of TV anymore. The only thing I recorded this year was the Stanley Cup Finals (GO WINGS!), but I think people should be allowed to tape their favorite TV shows (even if they are soap operas ::shudder::), and watch them at a later time. We pay enough for premium channels that we should be able to record movies off of HBO and watch them a couple times even though it's a good bet I'll buy the DVD by the end of the year. Forcing digital technology on people by 2006 will only serve to restrict the public's fair-use protections, and does nothing to further the advancement of technology. Let's face it. The MPAA and other media companies have bought most of the government already. They've bought the FCC, they've bought Congress, they've bought the court system. The only person they haven't bought is the President, but since he's Republican (and a rich one at that) they don't have to. He'll do whatever the corporations say anyways.

Re:Stallman doesn't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Want another relevant link on "books" and higher education? Try this interesting tidbit [nyfairuse.org]