Japanese Digital TV Viewers Complain About DRM Restrictions 371
Riktov writes "The Japan Times reports that that viewers of digital broadcast TV, which started this past April, are complaining to national broadcaster NHK about restrictions on recording. Many of the complaints seem to arise from viewers who are confused as to why they can't copy rather than angry that they can't copy, but in the end all viewers are learning the hard way about content restrictions."
Confused? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Coincidently (Score:3, Informative)
stupid . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Right now, you can download damn near dvd (read tivo compressed with xvid) quality rips of virtually every tv show off the internet - and usually very quickly (assuming you have broadband and that you are trying to get something that was aired in the last month). These rips have no commericals and look even better than what I get through the cable tv.
I really can't see why people would want to actually sit in front of a TV and suffer through 20 minutes of commericals, especially given the fact that you can watch it when you want and not have to worry about setting the damn vcr or any of these bullshit copy restrictions.
another incorrect use of "content" (Score:2, Informative)
It is not possible to copywrite content. Once I've uttered that green frogs exist in the world, you're free to go about repeating that. I can't stop you.
What you mean is, restriction on the bits that encode a particular presentation. Those are indeed copyrighted. The content, if any, is however free.
The FCC is required (Score:4, Informative)
Then why can't we just, like, launch a lawsuit demanding the FCC is bound by their own rules to prohibhit "DRM" from being broadcast on public airwaves?
Also, that said, we have really got to come up with a way to get the public to realize that "digital rights management" means that CORPORATIONS get to digitally manage YOUR rights.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forward to FCC and Sony (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like the electronics industry will give it a shot [eetimes.com] and start a lobby [alliancefo...ogress.org]. After some further reading it looks like they are not going all out against the flag [alliancefo...ogress.org] though. Sad...
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1202. (b)(1) [cornell.edu]
And that's ignoring any issues with modifying the TV receiver itself and that you managed to avoid any circumvention issues.
-
Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
LOL. Of course it is. I don't even know where to begin arguing it because I can't imagine what makes you think it isn't fair use.
Most people make that sort of error based on a backwards reading of section 107 [cornell.edu], thinking that is is an exhaustive list granting fair use. In fact it is not an exhaustive list - it merely lists six examples of fair use and lists four examples of factors to include in determining fair use. Nor does it grant fair use. In fact all it does is recognize existing fair use rights (as stated in the congressional record when it was passed) and state that fair use is never copyright infringment. Fair use is not granted by copyright law, fair use sweeps away copyright law.
But even that doesn't make sense because you clearly know that shifting is fair use. Under that sort of backwards reading of 107 even time-shifting would not be fair use. So I don't know what makes you think it somehow becomes infringment to edit out the commercials or to keep a private collection.
-
Wait a minute (Score:2, Informative)
Ok, if it's a digital signal, and you edit out the commercials and distribute it on the web, my argument falls apart. But the more people I can share my copy with or make a copy for, then the more people will see their ads.
Heck, NASCAR owners charge advertisers based on how often their car is shown on TV during a race. They actually have people sit around and watch a race and calculate how many minutes and seconds a particular car is displayed. Then they charge the sponsors/advertisers more money (or less?) based on how much air-time their "commercials" get (or so I am told by a Nascar Geek-cannot confirm or deny).
How about this-(completely off the cuff, no thought put into this except for the 10 seconds it takes me to write it so be gentle with me...) What if there was a way to inform the content providers how many times their commercials had been watched? And then set up a payment system so that the show producers were paid a "royalty" by the product advertiser for everytime that their product commercial was viewed? Feasible? Maybe. Desirable? Probably not.
Anyway, there's my 2 cents (adjust for inflation as appropriate).
Re:Explaining This... (Score:2, Informative)
No. Unless the WB is on some C-Band setup that I'm unaware of, I can not see Smallville here whether I use Dish Network, DirecTV, the local cable company, or broadcast TV. Short of flying to the nearest city it is broadcast in, I have no way to see the show, regardless of the amount of money I'm willing to pay.
this really is the big problem with the whole piracy discussion in my mind, people who believe there is some inate human right to have access to this content because it is music or because it is movie all lumped under the phrase "because it is art".
According to the rules the broadcasters claim to follow, their is such a right. But they change their arguements on a daily basis to suit their pocketbooks, not for intellectual consistency. A copyright is release to the public domain for all (with a limited time monopoly on most types of reproduction). That is, according to the people that make the TV shows, they do not "own" them any more than you or I. If you don't like it, argue with them. They are the ones releasing it to the public domain.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Informative)
As scary sounding as the DMCA may be, copyright law is worse. Look at the penalties listed at the beginning of a movie in the FBI warning. Yet people copy movies all the time knowing there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting caught unless they're doing it on a large scale. It will be the same for DRM mod chips. A few guys will get busted selling them, but many people will use them undetected. This will be just like every other pointless and unsuccessful copyright scheme, easily defeated, inconveniencing legitimate customers, and having no effect on real piracy.
Yeach right...
Tell that to the over 14,000 lawsuits filed [overhauser.com] (over 24,000 people sued [hackhu.com]) by DirecTV for just buying smartcard readers on a small scale [slashdot.org].
Anyone who buys one of these "DRM modchips" even if only for legal purposes in a traceable manner is either naive or a fool.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
What it says is:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [examples] is not an infringement of copyright.
If something is fair use then it's not infringment. Fair use completely sweeps aside all of copyright law.
Of course that leaves the question of what is fair use? Well the rest of 107 is merely four examples of "factors to be considered" in determining fair use. Determining fair use is done by the courts. The courts shall weigh at a minimum those four factors, but they can weigh any other factors they like. To put it bluntly, fair use includes anything the courts decide it includes.
A fundamental aspect is that 107 is irrelevant. Fair use never appeared in copyright law before 1976, yet fair use existed before that. 107 could be striken from law and there would be no change. The congressional record says that 107 was merely written to acknowledge existing rights, that it was not intended to enlarge/diminish/alter fair use in any way at all.
Much of fair use was mapped out by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. For example it is almost impossible to effectively review or criticize a book or movie or political speach without copying portions of it into the review/criticism. The literal text of copyright law says that such copying is infringment. That means copyright law could unconstitutionally prohibit other people's 1st amendment protected right to make their own original reviews/criticism speech.
So prior to passing 107, copyright law was technically unconstitutional. Ordinarily the courts simply strike down any unconstitutional law as null and void. The courts wanted to aviod such a sweeping and disruptive result, so instead they bent over backwards to assume that copyright law implicitly never attempted to apply in the first place. They assumes that copyright law implicitly flees when faced with fair use.
There is no simple way to define fair use, and the Supreme Court has specificly said that it is impossible to give a full listing of fair use - that someone could show up tomorrow with a never before dreamt of use, and that only the courts can ultimately decide if it is fair use.
Probably one of the most enlightning aspects is that initially all use is fair use and that all such works lie in the public domain. The constitution give congress the power - if they chose to do so - to take a limited bundle of rights from the public for a limited time and give them to the copyright holder. Congress my only do so for the public benefit. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that the purpose of copyright *MUST* ultimately be for the benefit of the public, rejecting copyright holder benefit as a purpose of copyright law. The public willingly turns over this limited bundle of rights to copyright holders because the public expects to benefit from doing so. It gives creators an incentive to create for the public and an incentive to distribute thier works to the public. When copyright expires the work falls back into the public domain, where it was before copyright temporarily lifted it out of the public domain. Copyright law was created to encourage the flow of more works into the public domain, that is why it is constitutionally required to expire.
To put it simply, copyright holders were given a limited bundle of rights, an exclusive monopoly to commercially exploit a work. Anything not included in that bundle is fair use. For example making a backups and recording with a VCR do not infringe their limited monopoly to commercialize that work. Such uses were never a part of the bundle granted to copyright holders in the first place. They were never given any rights to relating to personal use. Once you have received a copy, private use is fair use. Whatever you do with it in your home is not part of the copyright grant.
Taping TV shows for personal use, building a collection, editing them, none of that infringes their lim
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Informative)
If we are saying "The law not withstanding" then anything else is moot.. we do not live in an anarchy, we live in a society of laws.