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."
Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
The market isn't rejecting the DRM, instead their turning to us geeks and saying "What are you kids making a fuss about?" That's not a good sign for us at all...
This is news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully something good comes out of it, and industry would get its nose rubbed into real life customer experience...
Confused = angry (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the thing we might need to get used to (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be a new business model here (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best part of the story: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the major copyright holders, who just happen to also be better known as the MPAA and RIAA member companies, who don't want to see movies and songs copied. Major actors and singers might go along with their handlers in backing anti-copying campaigns, but if they didn't want to take part in TV, then there'd be hundreds of people glad to take their place.
PSST... the kids appearing on American Idol are not being paid cash for doing so. They're given free accomidations in Hollywood and taken care of nicely while they're with the show, but they're not promised a financially rewarding expirience by the producers. However, people are lining up like crazy to audition for the show because even so-bad-it's-funny suinger William Hung is making money after appearing on the show. The grand prize winner isn't even given a direct cash prize, they're given a recording contract that they're required to agree to as a condition of the contest. It's the people who come in runner-up or even unranked positions who stand to profit more than that...
easily duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
on a side note, wouldn't it always be possible to make nearly loss-less analog copies of digital media and then re-encode them to a digital format of your choice?
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:1, Insightful)
That is the day you will become an adult. It is also the day that children, and those that act like children, despise you. The will despise you while they benefit from your labor. They hate you, but cannot survive without you.
It's a big circle...you're only part way around.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll, but I hope you don't con too many people into giving you karma.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I always had a second copy. The first copy would degrade (it was VHS, so repeated watchings would do that), or get lost, or get jammed in the machine and become worthless. By having a second copy I'm still safe.
So now my 2 year old scratches the disk and it's ruined. Now what? My second copy wasn't part of a piriting scam. It was just backup. Legal, didn't hurt anyone or devalue the property. It was just for me. Now I won't be able to do that. I've lost a perfectly fair right to use something I own in a valid way.
Bricks can be used for evil (many people use them every year to bash someone's skull or break windows) but bricks aren't outlawed. People run over other people in cars PURPOSLY, but cars are still legal.
If you take away everything that can be used illegally, you'll have nothing. You'll be naked and cold. But you could still use your arms to puch someone or strangle someone so...
It's a slippery slope. The above paragraph is hyperboly, but you can't ban something because a few people use it wrong. When 70% of people use it for illegal stuff, then you can talk about banning it. But when 1-5% do (I would bet lower than that in many circumstances) you shouldn't ban it.
PS: Every time something is copied, put a unique identifier into the video that tells what machine duplicated/edited it. That way you can trace the pirated copies to where they came from and shut 'em down. I wouldn't mind that. I keep my rights, and the studio can shut down the pirates.
But as a consumer I would win in that situation so I guess it's not a option, huh.
Only One Way to Prevent this (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your life really incomplete if you don't find out what happened on Enterprise or the Sopranos? TV isn't a given. Its relevance is likely to be transient. Transition it along faster by refusing to watch DRM encumbered broadcasts.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Insightful)
I usually support the software and music industry regarding their copyrights but in this case it doesn't make sense. When I purchase a piece of software I'm bound by a licence agreement, a contract on my use of the software that I paid for. With broadcast TV, you have not agreed nor signed to such a contract, therefor, how can DRM be enforceable?
How do you define a copy of broadcast TV anyway? It's being transmitted from a base station that could reach an infinite number of devices. The issue is really about a consumers ability to TIMESHIFT the video so they can watch it at a later time.
because (Score:3, Insightful)
Because most don't like to be treated like a criminals when they are not? Do you think it'd be OK to ban all CD-RW drives because some people make copies of copyrighted CDs? Don't punish everyone for the sins of a few.
Another thing that pisses people off is when they have buy hardware (i.e. a TV) that is purposely crippled - especially when it's something that used to work on cheaper hardware. Buying such hardware feels like one giant expensive step backward.
Just a few thoughts on why people "make a fuss" about things like this.
Re:stupid . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
What's really scary about DRM ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reluctant to provide their works or refuse to appear? I guess if we're reluctant to purchase / view / support DRM then where does the DRM effort go? Hopefully to the junk heap.
Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a key problem with the whole issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, we all "know" that industry is here to serve us, but we've given them free reign. Industry (particularly the media, and other "celebrity" industries) is under the impression that we should pay what they think. This is because their previous leaders (the ones with intelligence) have brilliantly conditioned us as consumers to believe them!
Your quote says it all to me. For the love of God, Why should any consumer fall for the scam that if copyright is easy to violate, then all those great celebrities will just up and vanish? Brad Pitt is just going to go on strike until we as consumers realize that he deserves our cash for his hard work. Bullshit! If he stops working for us, we stop paying.
And not only that, we should be telling him how much he's worth! We should be making the prices! The cost of a movie should be decreasing, not increasing!
But we consumers don't see it like that anymore. We see the world thru those damn glasses they give out with Spy Kids 3D, and believe that if Brad stops working, we will be the ones lesser off for it.
The media's argument is far more effective than it should be. Consumers should realize the bullshit, and yet we cannot. We believe the media projections of the end of TV as we know it, in the same way that we have been trained to.
I'm not sure I see an end to this issue. Consumers will have to wake up to the whole system before noticing even the smallest of transgressions... and right now, we've been run so ragged that we can do nothing but absorb our daily hit of Friends re-runs.
- DaftShadow
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
OR, you could examine the law that is making it illegal, and wonder if maybe it's time to change the law, since it doesn't seem to be in concert with "the will of the people" anymore...
When a large section of the population does something that's against the law, the solution is not to ban it, it's to update/change/revoke the law to more match the current climate.
But hey, banning something worked so well for marijuana, it will probably work just as well here, right?
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
Very simply:
1) Terminate analog broadcasting;
2) Apply DRM signal (broadcast flag) to programming;
3) Handle thousands of customer complaints;
3) Profit??? Who knows?
Of course, all those early adopters who rushed out and spent multi k-bucks for non-DRM'd HDTVs are going to be MIGHTILY pissed
Peace,
ninewands
speaking of which... (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read (example [wikipedia.org]), it's supposed to be within two and half years.
Of course, when the mandate was issued it probably seemed like a feasible idea to those without foresight. But now try getting re-elected when everybody (including the poor) is required to shell out over $1000 as well as dump every single existing analog set in the country just to maintain a previously available service. The waste management costs alone should keep this from ever occurring so suddenly.
This is what was so genius about the introduction of color TV - it worked on top of the then existing B&W signal.
Also consider that TV is a large source of entertainment for the public. Now, what happens when the government suddenly removes it?
Last I heard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another failure (Score:2, Insightful)
This technology, like Macrovision (that's not technically digital, but it fits), DVD's CSS, Adobe PDF, Zip File Passwords, iTunes, SDMI, Microsoft Reader, DirecTV, those silly self-destructing DVDs, faulty CD Toc's, autorun-based protection, SecuRom, Game Consoles, LaserLok, and any other number of protection technologies, it will be defeated, broken, or bypassed).
Hundreds of man-hours, hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing, and the only real protection still lying around is simple cryptography (and only when the keys aren't given to users at all, instead of this "hide it in the box, but don't tell anyone" crap).
The only real reason to be concerned is the "stifiling innovation" issue. What devices, technologies, or uses will I lose because of this? To some extent, it benefits open-source, as open-source software can address markets made smaller by the fact that the only way to use the services the way you want is to break the law.
However, how many cool gizmos, gadgets, and whatnots haven't been made, thanks to the DMCA etc.?
Just a little something to think about.
Re:Last I heard... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) If i can see/hear it i can copy it
2) In my own home, the devices i own do what i say and i can mess with them all i want and the worst thing you can do is tell me my warrenty is void.
Re:stupid . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Here in the UK, Sky+ is the closest thing to this thats available. Timeshifting, and series recording make TV a pleasure, if the bandwidth is available, why shouldn't I be given this opportunity?
I could quite happily remove the TV from my home and never again watch an over the air broadcast.
I will not rent, nor pay per view, but I want to watch the popular shows when I want. I can either watch as broadcast, and sit through adverts, or I can record it and watch later and fast forward through adverts, or I can download the shows I have paid for and watch whenever I like without being interupted by adverts.
I pay NTL for my subscription fees, who in turn pay Sky broadcasting to air Enterprise - I still prefer to download and watch this show.
Whichever way I go about watching my favorites shows, I ALWAYS pay twice, whether that is TV Subscription + Adverts, or TV Subscription + Broadband amount. Why not give the publishers a larger piece of the pie?
The Bittorrent protocol allows downloads on a one to one basis, where I am only assisting download of the file I am getting at that point, my entire library is not on public view.
The RIAA MPAA and other organisations around the world need to wake up and smell the coffee - they can make more money from me giving me the data I want.
If people don't subscribe to the various shows, they get cancelled, those that are watched remain. By purchasing the media direct from the publisher, I get a 45minute show WITHOUT adverts - those are added to pay for the tv companies bonuses and payrises.
Easy solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man in the middle attack. Once only for computers
It's worse than that. (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't just congratulations. You're absolutely right. The consumers are being conditioned to what is planned for them. When enterprising souls do what it takes to reasonably use their PURCHASED music (I never saw a EULA that wouldn't look better up a CEO's ass.) on something other than an iPod or iTunes we get "But you're screwing the only reasonable DRM. They'll have to come out with something even worse if you don't quit." Oh and burning a CD just so I can rip it again is a PITA and just stupid.
If I bought (Apple uses the terminology themselves.) the music why is there is a list of crap a mile long what I can and can't do with it? Here's a hint. Nothing has been bought; it's deceptive marketing. You have extended rental on a license. And it's a license to an inferior product. It's lossily encoded, costs about as much as a CD and is less versitile. If you take the "ethical" route and make a CD out of it so you can I don't know...use it as digital data the lossage gets worse.
I've got some news for those people, you've been thrown a bone. Well maybe thrown isn't the right word. It's a bone alright and it's been lubed. Once that lube has well distributed in the intended orifice, you'll be ready for an even bigger bone. That one won't be lubed.
Now I suppose I'll get moderated down for a comment that would have been perfectly reasonable here before Apple made DRM cool. I'm afraid to wonder what else Apple can make "cool". I guess those people who were talking about a Reality Distortion Field weren't bullshitting us.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it prevent you from recording the "same" program twice? I doubt it, but trivially if somebody wants to timeshift a show they might very well like to timeshift a rerun a year later.
As for copying a copy, I do that all the time. I like to (try to) cook at home, and I use cooking shows to teach me how (I know). Anyway, watching a show and taking notes or something is just stupid, but I can't save all the shows I want on my ReplayTV, so I offload them onto my PC and stream them back to the ReplayTV using the formerly-OSS DVArchive.
This is actually a move operation, but there is nothing to enforce that. The problem for me, and the problem with DRM schemes in general, is that the designers aren't going to bother to think about my case, just like they won't bother to think of a lot of things that other people do. We'll just be screwed. In fact, it's not really that much of a stretch to say that they want to screw us more than they want to screw pirates. They don't want us to timeshift. They want us to sit in demographically neat little zombie packages and shut up. They have a great disincentive to make recording convenient.
Incidentally, (1) You don't "pay for TV" by watching commercials, you pay with everything you buy that is advertised, (2) If they take away my rights to watch my way, I just won't watch. It's not like TV is that good anymore.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, don't , stop it already. If you trespass my property with your RF "pollution", I have a perfectly natural right to do as I please with it. The law not withstanding. What's on my property is mine, unless I sign an agreement stating otherwise. But I won't re-transmit.
It's not about rights, it's about power (Score:3, Insightful)
People who argue that corporations have certain "rights," just don't understand how the world works. You have consumers, who are trying to get as much content as possible for as little money, and you have media conglomerates, who are trying to give away as little content as possible for as much money as they can get. From this built-in confrontation we've created a social contract in the form of laws to settle disputes and smooth the way for transactions which makes most people happy.
Problems arise, however, when one side gets too much power. And that's exactly what's happening in the content distribution business. If the law doesn't suit the needs of media outlets, they can change it. If the economic playing field isn't in their favor, they will work to tilt it. In short, media giants are abandoning the symbiotic social contract they once had with consumers. They are basically saying "fuck you" to consumers. "We have the power to have absolute control over our content so we will," they say in so many words. Of course, consumers also pretty much said "fuck you" to the media corporations when they started downloading, copying, and distributing content when the power to do so became available. But my goal here is not to try to point blame.
My real point is that the media companies have much more power than consumers to change laws in this age of technological disruptions. Consumers are just too divided and powerless to compete in the political world where all these decisions are made and will come out holding a very short end of the stick. This isn't good for me and it isn't good for you, unless you are Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner.
So now that you know how it all works, go out and organize and "Fight the Power" and always remember which side you are on.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pray tell, why do you think there is a divine right to copyright protection?
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to elaborate?
Why buy it when there is nothing on anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have since stopped paying for cable TV, and I live too far away to get over the air reception, so I just don't watch TV.
You know what? I just don't see the point. Until there are High Definition DVD's, I'm not buying any new TV technology. Period. I can wait. Plus, I spend more time with friends. I have had time to invite my neighbor over for dinner. I take my dog to the park. I talk to people more. And, I get more sleep. (Except tonight, cause I had too much coffee . .
Go outside, and play!
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only endcredits I bother to wait through are at the end of Jackie Chan movies (because the outtakes are funnier than the actual movie :)
--
Public domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is supposed to benefit sosciety because the copyrighted material shall fall into the public domain after a limited copyright period. Thus increasing the cultural base that society may use freely. Since all ideas are inspired by others, this is how it is supposed to benefit society and promote arts and science.
How come people allways forget this last bit when making discussions regarding copyright?
And to anyone trying to restrict the way I can use legally purchased items: Screw goat! Literally. Because what you're into has nothing to do with respecting copyright law. It has with giving corporations power to dictate my behaviour.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Emancipation Oak under which Lincoln signed the Proclamation is in some guy's front yard... it's not his property to chop down at will.
Some things are protected; there are limits to personal property freedoms.
If you don't like what's being sold... (Score:1, Insightful)