FCC Considers Mandating HDTV Copy Protection 421
HeavenlyWhistler writes "The Washington Post reports
that the FCC will make a ruling this month on whether or not to mandate
that all HDTV receivers implement copy protection when a 'broadcast flag'
is detected in the received television signal. Movie and TV studios
are pushing for this in an attempt to limit consumers' home-recording rights.
An October
8 article states that CBS, under orders from Viacom CEO Mel Karmazin,
has threatened to stop all HDTV broadcasts unless the broadcast flag is
approved. While the comment period on the proposal (Docket 02-230) is over, the FCC web site will still let you submit
comments.
The EFF also discusses this issue."
These people really don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally, there would be substantially less file swapping going on of TV shows if the networks made them available on DVD or electronically. I'd love to be able to go FOX and buy the episode of the Futurama I missed the other night for a reasonable - considering it was free on the air price.
I hope congress and the FCC see Viacom's threat to halt HDTV broadcast for what it is: an attempt to ursurp the governement's power. In fact, I hope we all wise up to the increasing granularity of intellectual property and reverse that trend. At the end of the day, the people will wise up to it and the people absolutely will limit intellectual property rights.
Waste of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
And give up all that money from spectrum allocation and sales?
Sorry, can't stop laughing. Um no.
--Dan
Re:These people really don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
The government's power comes from the people (at least in theory), and cannot be usurped. If the people decide that copy-protected HDTV isn't acceptable, even a crooked regulatory agency can't make them purchase the receivers in question.
As always, voting with our wallets is our last (and in this case, maybe only) resort.
Re:So...wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The industry doesn't see how stupid this is. Many shows get popular _because_ people tape them and trade tapes. Many other shows are on in terrible time slots, but thanks to VCRs, they get viewers.
I would guess that half of daytime TV viewers watch it by taping it and watching later.
Re:These people really don't get it. (Score:1, Insightful)
It wasn't free. It's just that it wasn't you who paid for it.
Re:Wont change a thing (Score:3, Insightful)
These days lots of people download cracks to games they legally own just to get around the hassle of digging out the CD every time they play it.
No matter what happens, somebody will always be able to pirate the data stream, and only one person has to leak it for it to get spread all over the Internet. The TV broadcasters make their money when a show is first aired, and they make it with the convience factor. The VCR didn't kill TV, and the DVD+/-R(W)(AM) won't kill HDTV either. However, making all your early adopters toss their hardware just might.
Re:These people really don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Americans are the most clue-resistant people on the face of the Earth. They can be relied on to do whatever is most convenient/profitable/etc at any given moment in time, without regard to future consequences. All one needs to do to enslave Americans is to do it in small steps, making sure that each step is the easiest thing for the victim to do at that time.
Stupid On So Many Levels (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:These people really don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But it wasn't free. You may not have paid for that particular episode, but it was definitely paid for by someone. By the advertisers, mostly.
Possibly the channel was also a basic subscription cable package (Sky One, Fox's sister channel which shows Futurama first in the UK, is available only as part of a basic subscription; I guess that Fox is much the same in the US).
Would you be happy if the DVD/MPG/AVI they sold you for a "reasonable" price was crippled with some crummy tech that made it difficult to block/ffwd through the ads or which required you to insert your set-top-box smartcard every time you wanted to view it? Even if you could put up with that, do you really think that your average Slashdotter wouldn't be screaming blue murder at yet another closed file format?
Get this clear: just because you are enjoying something for no additional cost, that does not mean that it doesn't require any funding whatsoever.
I want my TIVO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I'd have to pick my jaw up off the floor if the FCC actually rejected this. They've gotten so bad about pandering to the media companies, even Congress has had to slap them down.
And this will kill HDTV. It's having a hard enough time as it is. If you can't record it, to watch shows when you want, it's not worth the money. The media companies want things to go back to the way they were in the 70's, before VCR's, when everybody rushed home to catch the evening news and Hawaii Five-O. Sorry, that square peg ain't going in that round hole.
So they're afraid of piracy? Well, I suppose killing HDTV is one way of shutting off a potential source of it. Bit like burning down the garage to keep somebody from stealing your car.
Very humorous (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped watching most over the air broadcasts early in 2003. The shows have become less than mediocre, and I have lost my patience with the overabundance of unentertaining commercials (even if they were entertaining, the frequency with which the interrupt the primary mood and flow of the main show render them extremely annoying very quickly, usually after the first showing).
With the increasing frequency of the few good shows now being released on DVD, I can watch them at my leisure completely uninterrupted and at excellent quality. This further reduces my desire to watch even those shows over broadcast TV.
Even though I make a good living, I am quite miserly with my money. I have to spend time considering whether watching TV is worth even the few hundred dollars needed to buy a new analogue TV when my existing one dies. Spending thousands of dollars on an HDTV set is laughable. Nothing on TV or DVD is good enough to justify spending anywhere near that much on a mere viewing station (which is all a TV set really is).
This is where the media broadcasters become hilarious from my perspective. They want me to spend thousands of dollars on a viewing station that makes me endure the worst parts of broadcast TV (annoying commercials), won't let me store and watch the broadcasts at my leisure, and won't let me edit out the commercials (which is what I do with my VCR via the pause button on those occasions I actually watch and record broadcast TV).
So HDTV essentially boils down to being nothing more than an extraordinarily expensive DVD player minus all the benefits a DVD player provides, and minus most of the benefits that we currently have with analogue TV broadcasts (with transmission clarity being the only remaining benefit if you're willing to endure a high degree of even clearer crap).
Pardon me if I don't rush out to buy this garbage, and instead scratch my head wondering why anyone would want to buy into this. I already have better things to do with my time, so TV broadcasters have to provide an extreme incentive to pull me to the TV. Instead, they seem to be doing everything in their power to drive me away; so I shrug and do things other than watch TV.
This in turn saves me money on products I don't buy due to advertising exposure, even on those rare occasions where the advertising makes me aware of something that I would actually want.
The only downside is that legislation protecting these nearly worthless digital broadcasts would also adversely restrict the usefulness of other digital products that I would want.
What people don't seem to understand (Score:2, Insightful)
Most HDTVs do not have a tuner built in. They also will not be able to pick up any signals.
In walks the digital (HDTV) decoder/receiver box. The content industry wants control of this box. They are trying to force manufacturers to lock the user out of any control of the signal, including any recording. They are pusing to force the manufacturers of decoder boxes to force down the resolution of any analog non content control outputs.
Now why would they do this? They claim it is so that people will not have "perfect" copies of their content like movies, TV shows, etc. They claim this is necessary due to the ability to copy and distribute content so readily.
The real reason is if they control the entire distribution system, they can control prices. They can sell you the same content over and over, just like they sold you the same tapes you bought on CD and soon SACD/DVDA, just like they sold you the same content you own on video on DVD and soon to be the HD-DVD.
Additionally, they don't want you to be able to record any programs to watch at your leisure, fast forward through, or skip commercials on (unless of course they control that feature and charge a usage fee).
This is a big deal. The content industry if unchecked, will make legacy HDTVs not function properly (low rez).
Okay, so you have a HDTV satellite receiver? Think you're immune? Think again. Who is really in control? You don't have control of your receiver. Only under the graces of the broadcaster does your equipment function. Just like cable, they can force an upgrade at any time which will render your equipment useless, or will charge additional fees for functionality.
The end goal of the content industry is total control of all content, where end users only license material and do not own anything. The industry would love to engage in discriminatory pricing, price fixing, artificial scarcity, etc.
And this would be one step in that direction. All they would need is some quirky US law that makes it illegal to bypass their control...
end of transmission.
Re:These people really don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, the government cannot force consumers to but crippled productes. But the government CAN prohibit the public from buying anything other then crippled products. The end result is just as bad. When the government tries to impose a specific anti-consumer technology and fails the result is that the product and the good technology is exterminated.
This exact situation happened with the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) passed in 1992. This law mandated that all digial audio recording devices MUST contain a DRM system known as SCMS - Serial Copy Management System.
What was the result of this law? It exterminated a host of new technologies and products. Case in point: Digital Audio Tape. DAT was a perfectly good technology. It had all of the digital benefits of CD, but it used standard audio cassettes. Think back to 1992, if you could have gotten "CD quality" from normal audio cassttes, don't you think it would have sold like hot-cakes?
What happened? Early adopters jumped on it, but suddenly you had a few thousand people screaming bloody murder when bands recorded THEMSELVES and the DRM system blocked them from making copies. They were the copyright holder, yet the copy control system denied them their legitimate right to make copies.
DAT is a ten year old perfectly good technology. I defy anyone to walk into a mall and find a DAT device, a Digitam Minidisc, or a host of others. People simply won't buy a crippled product, therefor an entire decade of technologies were exterminated. This is what happens when the law attempts to impose DRM.
The first new successful digital recording technology since 1992 has been the IPOD MP3 player. And the only reason MP3 players are legal is because of a LOOPHOLE in the Audio Home Recording Act. That law does not apply to computers. If you look at MP3 player advertizements you will see that they add in small print touting semi-silly features like datebook software. By being "computers" with software for other uses they aren't strictly a "recording device".
The idiots in the RIAA shot themselves in the foot. One of the reasons CD sales are down is that people are no longer buying music they already own on cassette. Every time there is a new format they got to make massive "re-sales". Records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD's. In order to prevent "digital piracy" they exterminated DAT, Minidisc, and all new digital media. They lost the chance to make "re-sales" in all of those formats. And the irony is that they blame the drop in sales on "piracy".
-