pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now 421
corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."
Uh Oh ... (Score:5, Funny)
Time to Fight Back! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uh Oh ... (Score:5, Funny)
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Yum, can I record a butchered version of Top Gun laden with commercials and blank out curse words? At least it will be in perfect quality so I can feel the full effect of how Dawn takes grease out of my way.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.
This card ignores that flag...
(As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts. Of course, if it does, the appropriate measure is to go to court and challenge it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
- [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
- [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
- The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
- [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use
The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.
Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.
People are not entitled to fair use - you are correct. However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law. In other words, a specific provision under which the resitrction does not apply. If you were looking for something that is "merely" a defense, you should look at patent law's "prior art" or something more along those lines. But "fair use" and "prior art" are different in their natures.
Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.
You bring up one very good point thought that I rarely see here: even though its entirely LEGAL for you to make copies as a paying user of [digital cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, whatever], there is no law saying that the broadcasters cannot make it difficult or [relatively] impossible for you to do so. I think this is a legal loophole for providers that needs to be closed to protect consumer's rights. (As you pointed out, fair use is not a right, but I think it should be.) As it stands now, we are in a situation where we are legally allowed to copy something, but the providers are also legally allowed to take every measure to stop us from doing so, including outlawing devices that would permit such an action. Circumvention of those restriction on the device would then fall under a legal exclusion, but you have to ask yourself at some point if we're being honest with ourselves...you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision. This is a sort of legislative dishonestly - you're saying one thing while allowing something completely different to actually occur. We need to decide what we really want and then put laws into place that [protect/prohibit] those actions.
If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge "schooling" people in copyright law, its true purpose, and how it needs to be revamped when new technologies emerge. We're approaching that time, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like the outcome.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree. From the opinion:
(emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.
This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.
However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.
Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.
Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.
As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.
In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.
Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.
The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.
Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.
If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge
Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.
DMCA already does this (Score:4, Informative)
This is precisely what the DMCA already does. It forbids the "trafficking" (for want of a better word) in devices (programs or physical objects) that circumvent copy protection schemes. If a copy protection scheme does not permit fair use, it is not illegal to reclaim those fair use rights by disabling the scheme. It is, however, illegal to tell anyone else how you did it. That potentially leaves only the technical elite to be able to legally use the media in a fair manner. This effect is, of course, exactly as intended by the law.
As you stated, making things difficult is entirely permitted by copyright law. Where the DMCA is legally objectionable is that it creates ban is on the communication of an idea (ie: free speech), and I hope a case which can address gets successfully heard at the Supreme Court soon!
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever heard of "abandonware"? It's a computer program that is no longer available in any form from it's publisher, who may even no longer exist. Moreover, any copies that you can find are in compiled form. Why is this a problem? Because in 100 years or so when the copyright finally expires, you'll have a program written for a CPU architecture/OS/framework/whatever that's been so long forgotten that in order to use the program you'll have to figure out what it does from the opcodes up.
The reason I said "source copy" is that once the code is public domain it should be reproducable and modifiable (check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part). A binary, for all practical purposes, isn't modifiable. Also, I'm not just talking about software. I mean TeX, PostScript, SVG (not Illustrator format, since it's proprietary and undocumented), etc. too.
Now, I don't propose that the Library of Congress give out the source code of a closed-source program, but they ought to at least have it, to save it for the future.
Anecdote: There's an old game I really like called Tyrian. When it came out, 486s were cutting-edge and DOS was the norm for games. Now, I have a Mac, and there is no possible way for me to play the game -- if I had the source, I would port it myself, but I can't even ask for the source, because AFAIK there's no one left to ask. I could run it emulated (except that I can't because my Mac is too slow -- it's an iBook), but why should I? The people who made it obviously don't care about it anymore, so what's the harm in giving away the source? They could do that and keep copyright on the artwork, like iD did with Doom.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently they can.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Here, take ours. We don't seem to be using it anymore.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
There was once somewhere an FCC FAQ about the broadcast flag. It specifically says that, yes, you can have a TiVo, so long as it denies you high-quality digital access to unencrypted bits.
It's still a raw deal. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it really is.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
We all remember what happened with DeCSS, after all...
Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)
Really? I thought he started to use breader reactors for white house x-mas lights and just dumped the waste in the swamp, and that's why the leaves fell off and formed that walking thing that wonders around.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I've pointed out time after time that Democrats are just as bad if not worse... DMCA was signed by Clinton, after all.
Grrr... that argument is really old. The Democrats differ from the Republicans on any number of issues -- education, foreign policy, preemptive war, abortion rights, prayer in schools, civil rights, tax policy, health care, social security reform, etc etc etc. I'm really tired of hearing about how evil both parties are when it's clear that there are major policy differences between the two parties for anybody that bothers to look past the propaganda of Ralph Nader.
That said the DCMA was written by lobbyists and passed through a lazy Congress that (by and large) didn't even bother to read the bill. I'm sure banning third-party garage-door openers [wired.com] and generic ink cartridges [slashdot.org] wasn't what anybody (even the Republicans) had in mind. Two other issues that will doubtless be brought up can similarly be explained -- the CDA [epic.org] was one of those "Look -- I'm protecting the children! Re-elect me!" issues that had a lot of public support and the Patriot Act was rammed through a stunned Congress after 9/11. Should the Democrats have had the balls to vote against it? Yes. Are they the same as Republicans? No.
To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties. I suspect that most Republicans would agree with me.
OT: Political Rant (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree both parties would consider themselves different. And to some extent I would agree. I believe that what most people who state that the parties are too similar are concentrating on different issues. In particular both parties are beholden to the rich and powerful. People in office (generally) have one primary goal -- getting re-elected. With that as your primary motivation you are going
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.
Explain to me why ath
Re:Why? (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republican party consistantly panders to far-right Theocratic causes and attempts to ram the tenents of a particular religion down everyone's throat in violation of the First Amendment. They also consistantly support legislation which erodes the protections granted under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments. The only part of the Constitution which the Repub
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, there will be some minor differences
I didn't know preemptive war, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, education and a woman's right to choose were "minor issues". Silly me basing my vote on these minor issues when there are clearly more important things to worry about.
This ensures that they will vote alike on all issues that are important to lobbyists (ie. DMCA).
The difference being that Kerry said he would examine the DMCA [slashdot.org] and see if it needed to be changed. Write that off to c
US Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:5, Funny)
Those who have their doubts, please report to school for your free re-education. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to the flag on the way past. But try not to smoke any dope, or attempt to gamble on a sporting event.
Thank you.
Message ends.
Re:Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Cognitive Dissonance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
And as far as I can tell, it will only become illegal to sell (or, possibly, manufacture, even for your own use) these cards next year; they won't suddenly become illegal to possess on July 1.
Distributing copyrighted content, online or otherwise, whether you're ingoring a broadcast flag or there was no flag in the first place, will remain just as legal o
Have the older card, works great (Score:5, Interesting)
I will go ahead and buy one of the new ones, too; it would be nice to do dual-stream recording.
And Linux only. Does it get any better than that?
Re:Have the older card, works great (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Have the older card, works great (Score:5, Funny)
According to a quick google search, about 61 million Americans, last Wednesday during prime time.
But I'm sure the 10 people watching the Discovery channel during the same time period all feel vastly superior.
pcHDTV (Score:5, Interesting)
The card itself won't be illegal as the headline implies, but it will be illegal to import any card or component that ignores the Broadcast flag. Any cards or tuners built and installed prior to July 1st, 2005 will be grandfathered in and should work just fine.
This is one of they key reasons to support the EFF - visit their HDTV Action Center [eff.org] and and learn more about the Broadcast Flag [eff.org]. The second link about the Broadcast Flag has some great information and links to building a HTPC for multiple OS's and exactly what the federal government is trying to do.
I've very disappointed by the FCC's decision - it shouldn't be up to Hollywood to decide what TV I can and can't record and when I want to watch it. This battle has been fought (and won!) before, and here is the government messing with it again.
Support the EFF and make your voice heard [eff.org]!
Re:pcHDTV (Score:5, Insightful)
I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.
Re:pcHDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
Reduced the size of government? Check
Balanced the budget? Check
Sent the military all over the place? Check
Made Americans feel good about themselves? Check
Reduced unemployment? Check
Got people off welfare? Check
Yup. He's a Republican all right. The best one in at least 50 years. The current crop are Republicans in name only. They're certainly not conservative, unless you count that whole 'moral values' thing.
Re:Veto would have been overriden (Score:4, Insightful)
Citing a huge majority that could override a veto and trying to imply that Clinton didn't want those laws is the sort of revisionist history that would make even Orwell blush.
This card is the answer to my prayers (Score:2)
I'm more interested in a video card (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't seen any thus far... has anyone else?
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:4, Informative)
Spelling! (Score:2)
Oh a telling sign, I bet your wrote convertor! Or was it a typo?
Bring up an interesting point about how secret info can be carried across out everyday lives.
Lucky it didn't say anything else!
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:2)
I don't own an HDTV set, so I'm not sure if that would work for 1080i. Hopefully a typical PC video card can do 1920x1080 interlaced
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:2)
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:2, Informative)
it is possible to convert from the VGA out to HDTV.
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm more interested in a video card (Score:5, Informative)
--Just an FYI
Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, look at DVD players. There are plenty of players on the market, which ignore regional settings despite DMCA and other bullshit regulations.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think it stops with the broadcast flag, though; once proprietary encryption gets into the mix, there's not going to be a gray area like this with hardware you pick up in the store. Why can't I get a decoder card t
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
They are both supersets of MPEG-2 but service information is encoded in a different way, and the tuner hardware is also different. And then there is the whole PAL/NTSC issue, but I'm not sure it applies to HDTV and almost all tv's nowdays can display both NTSC and PAL anyway.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)
> NTSC and PAL anyway.
Oh, so wrong. In Europe (a place aware of the rest of the world) this may be so. But in the US (an ignorant, parochial, and isolationalist place that unfortunately still insists on throwing its international weight around) multi-standard TV sets mostly don't exist.
Don't underestimate how backward this Red State-laden country is.
-kb, the Kent who is proud to live in a Blue State.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:2)
> Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force
Agreed... Specifically, I wouldn't be too surprised to see card manufacturers implementing broadcast flag support in USA-only drivers... Drivers will be available to the rest of the world which might just happen to accidentally work in the USA.
c.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
With broadcasts, the US uses NTSC which is being replaced by ATSC which is carried on an 8VSB modulated signal. Only 2 places in the world currently use ATSC over 8VSB, the US and South Korea.
I have seen a few interesting SK products though, one that runs about 300, is an external tuner using USB 2.0, looks great... now I just need to convince my boss to let me have it (someone here while on business in SK found one and fell in love with it).
The European standard is COFDM for modulation and is radically different enough where it is extremely unlikely that you will find a demodulator capable of handling both, and even if there was such a part, the likelihood of it being used is low, after all, why adapt a multi national standard when you are only looking to target a single region?
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Informative)
There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest [thestar.com].
Here are a few interesting parts:
[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy.
Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.
While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.
Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.
In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.
The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email [ic.gc.ca] or by regular mail [parl.gc.ca].
Broadcase Flag? (Score:2, Interesting)
Misquote (Score:5, Funny)
HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the EFF [eff.org]'s, article here [eff.org], on how to build a PVR [wikipedia.org], there are no cards to get High Definition Cable or Satellite. Time is running out to get these features into a card before next summer ;).
Anyone know if they've made a card for HDTV cable or satellite?
Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you can do and is feed from you Sat box's Svideo out to your PVR card which is what most people have to do. Then you have to use an IR blaster so your Tuner gets set to the right channel to record.
Personally IMHO unless you just get broadcast basic which is unencrypted just get a Tivo
Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:3, Informative)
Over here in old Europe we have plenty of cards which take a digital cable, satellite, or terrestrial feed and hand the decrypted (but not decoded) media stream to the computer.
How much does it cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How much does it cost? (Score:2)
I dunno .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I dunno .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno .... (Score:2)
Re:I dunno .... (Score:3, Informative)
The stations have the option of how many programs they wish to broadcast within this space. They may show 4 standard definition digital channels at 4Mb/s each during the day, and at night switch to a High Def stream at 14Mb/s and an SD at 4Mb/s.
Stations could also have non-traditional channels (channels that most of the major networks have never owned), such as weath
Last chance- my ass! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure we also won't see someone using a felt tipped marker [wired.com] thanks to the wonderful people protecting the world with great laws like this..
Of course all the people using such things will be terrorists, so I guess that's ok. I hear there are other bits of Cuba to fill anyway.
Re:Last chance- my ass! (Score:4, Insightful)
But whether you'll be able to break the law is not the point. The point is that it shouldn't be against the law in the first place.
Typo in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typo in the article (Score:2)
Even after the broadcast flag is enforced, I'm sure there will be firmware hacks or whatnot available to ignore the broadcast flag. Really, for almost all DVD-ROM/R/Rw hardware out there, you can just patch the firmware and it's totally RPC1.
Re:Typo in the article (Score:2)
last, best chance? (Score:3, Funny)
No Windows support! (Score:5, Informative)
That last line is a remarkable reversal from the usual state of affairs. Normally announcements don't mention Linux compatibility (but it's available at your own risk if you snag some source from their web site).
That alone makes me want one.
Drivers are a bit rocky (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the version of xine they have modified to support tuning and selecting the video streams on a multi-stream HD transmission is OLD - 0.7. Again, they have not moved the support into the main line Xine.
Alsa (sic), under 2.6.x and ALSA sound you cannot get audio for normal TV as the modified video driver claims the resources the ALSA sound driver needs. Yes, the primary focus of the card is HDTV not NTSC, but still, IMHO they should fix that.
Lastly, you had DAMN WELL have a meaty machine if you plan on watching 1080i streams - my Athlon-xp 3000 with an ATI 7500 AIW, with everything tweaked in as much as I can, needs about 120% CPU to watch a 1080I stream. IF you have an nVidia card, IF you have the modified version of Xine with XvMC support THEN you can lower the bar a bit, but otherwise, no.
I'd like to see them make the effort to get all the software into the main line codebases - I believe the hold-up is the issue of possibly supporting the Linux DVB API rather than bodging the ATSC support into V4L2.
Re:Drivers are a bit rocky (Score:4, Informative)
--Brandon
Civil liberties (Score:2)
I don't like the concept of a big government. The concept of stealing HD programming needs to be dealt with another way entirely.
Not illegal to own (Score:5, Insightful)
I suggest people stock up on them. I don't even have an HDTV at this point, but I'm going to grab a card just so I'm covered...
Will NOT be "illegal" to own July 1, 2005 (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is this mandate doesn't take effect for another year. We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." [PDF] Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.
But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though - I feel I have seen far more than enough crappy TV in my life. Sometimes I watch the news - BBC - and sometimes, say once a month, there is a program that is actually worth your time, that gives you factual information without a load of stupid fade in/out, 'cool' soundtrack and other rubbish. The rest of the time it's quizzes, 'reality' tv, sport and worst of all: garden programs, house makeovers and celebrity chefs, none of whom have anything in the direction of taste or even common sense.
When (if) the day comes when you have to have digital and HDTV, I'll simply go without. And perhaps go to the cinema once every other year, when a film is released that is worth my time.
other cards available too (Score:4, Informative)
Freedom Overkill (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are the plans to this video card? (Score:5, Funny)
"The tighter you squeeze, the more video signals will slip through your fingers."
"Where are these cards manufactured?"
"Somewhere in Europe, maybe in Algeria, someplace like that."
"See, I told you they could be reasonable."
"Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"No. You cannot! They are peaceful, they have no malice.. they only want to record television to see it later! You cannot disrupt their..."
"We are onto their little KaZaA games."
"You cannot!"
"Then tell me another target, a military target!"
"Sealand. They make the cards on, Sealand."
"Thank you. Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"I just, wait!"
"Sealand is too sparsely populated to manufacture cards of that sophistication.You may target when ready."
"Nooooooo!"
Last chance for OPEN SOURCE HTDV? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real reason to buy this may be simply because it's an open-source solution. Virtually any protection mechanisms can only be enforced by inhibiting the users ability to customize the gear as they see fit. Consumers of all electronic gear should patently refuse to buy hardware by companies that withold sufficient specifications in an attempt to thwart a user's ability to repurpose the equipment.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of such customization, and will no doubt be taken in by the marketing engines of companies who sell closed equipment. User cluelessness is thereby costing all of us money and taking away our freedoms. But like the greedy sheep such users are, they will gleefully parade right into the slaughterhouse, chasing after a sparkly trinket and blissfully unaware of the ultimate consequences of their ignorance.
Let us all pause to curse the accuracy of P. T. Barnum's insight.
Re:First HD-3000 card buyer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First HD-3000 card buyer! (Score:4, Informative)
Correct. Follow the last link:
Q: Can I use these cards after July 1st 2005? A: Yes you can use them, they are "grandfathered" into the new regulations. It will always be completely legal to use them. The card ignores the copy right bit and if a show has this bit enabled, the card doesn't care and will save the stream in full quality anyway.
Funny you should mention that! (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny thing - with computers and digital video cameras and rendering software lots of people can use now, the same is true for TV now!
Look at one of the most popular types of shows around now - reality TV. Just about anyone could slap one of these together on a limited budget and charge for broadcasts over the net.
There are other outlets for video that can have far less in the way of restrictions, and people will use them if TV starts locking down convienience. If people can't record things and share them with friends they are going to get mad, and there are going to be a lot of them.