Anti-Copying TV Technology Creeps Forward 369
An anonymous reader writes: " After CDs, then comes TV? Although the technologies
being spoken about are supposedly to prevent online sharing of television
content as digital network television is born, the extents of the
control being spoken of is alarming. When I purchase my next television recording device, will I be able to chose to record my
favorite show while I am away from home? Will I be able to record one show while watching another? Or will I be at the mercy
of the network ... only allowed to record should they *want* me to record. It could be possible to prevent the recording of first-run
shows, forcing either-or choices (and affecting ratings and advertising rates,) rather than allowing us to watch one, record another."
hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about preventing "piracy", it's about finding a new way to steal a few more dollars from the consumer.
Personally I would have less issue with a pay-per-view approach provided that:
All in all, I don't have an issue with protecting the content from wanton copying and redistribution. I'm rather shocked at the number of people I know who already see first-run theatre movies captured by DV cameras and transcoded to crippled-bitrate MPEG4; I can understand the content provider's concern over the issue as bandwidth increases.
As to the advertising revenue, do these morons really think I buy anything because I saw it on TV? I select purchases based on rational evaluations and independent 'net reviews, not based on some glitzy TV advertising or the biased sound-bite reviews provided by print media or ZDNet and it's affiliates.
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
> 1. Price per 1 hour episode is no more than $1
seems reasonable.
> 2. No commercials, previews, ad-banners, or other such nonsense is included
indeed in pay-per-view the adverts belong on the "preview" (advertising) channel.
> 3. The data stream is 100%. No bullshit blurring, bitrate reduction, or other nonsense like DirectTV uses. If I gotta pay, I want unreduced 1080p (not 1080i), with full 5.1 sound.
couldn't agree more, we shouldn;t have to put up with the crap.
> 4. A guarantee that there will be no dropouts, glitches, etc.
this is completely unreasonable. you couldn't guarantee this sort of thing. problems happen.
however the box could notice that a dropout occured and thus give you access to a re-view for free.
5. I can make a non-duplicatable archive copy using a durable media like DVD.
ahh but this contradicts the price in point 1. either it's gonna be cheap and you have to pay each time to watch it (i mean do youreally need to hoard a lot of stuff you don't need? (like so many people out there!!)) or it's gonna cost more and let you keep a copy.
> 6. No monthly service charges. If you want me to pay per episode, I'll only pay for what I want to watch, not for all the hundreds of hours of useless tripe.
this is entirely dependant on what they provide for the "service charge" no service charge would usually equate to mimimum usage requirement. they can't just let you subscribe and do nothing. it would make them bankrupt.
7. No time slotting. If I subscribe to a series, I expect it to be deposited for viewing or archive on a weekly basis, to be viewed when I have time and the inclination.
This would be nice and hopefully in the future. Though "deposited weelky" certainly sounds like time slotting for me
Carrot007.
But (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:But (Score:2)
That's the FCC's regulation today. Nothing is above subversion.
OK, you *made* me do it (Score:5, Funny)
Dammit, could the entertainment industry be bigger assholes?
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe I'll finally get so pissed off I withdraw from all corporate entertainment consumption.
You read my mind. This actually might be a good thing. I'll be more inclined to get out more. Well, perhaps as far as the local pub anyway
I got me an old top-loading 4 head VCR! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
Sure they can prevent it - all they have to do is stop radiating unencrypted UHF and VHF signals, so old TVs will be come expensive paperweights, unless you buy their decoder set-top-box.
I don't like it, but nobody's forcing them to continue providing advertising-subsidised, free content to the masses, as has been the case for fifty years. "They" control everything we can view and record because "they" are sending it to us in the first place. Don't think it won't happen - how many of you still use analog cellphones?
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
But likely it's due to the last copyprotection that went in this way. Macrovision.
Sure you'll get a signal out of the digital box. Just not a signal that is recordable on a lot of the systems today, because any old device wont work with it, and any new device will honor copy-protection code.
They did get away with it last time, why wouldnt they get away with making everyone buy new stuff again? It's not like it's done over a day, it's done over a device-generation. By the time its implemented all the way and switched on, 80 percent of the available devices will support the new coding, and the rest... well, you had a chance to decide for yourself wether you wanted to get a new TV and video, now you have to if you wish to watch any broadcasts.
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
Try Macrovision. Screws up most VCR's available today. Screws up a lot of old TV's (if you've tried to play commercial videotapes on a new VCR to an old TV you might have noticed the top half of the picture being totally screwed (hint, it's not bad tracking, it's Macrovision screwing your TV)).
You wont 'loose some quality', you wont get a watchable picture.
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
Macrovision works by mangling the signal in such a way that it shouldn't confuse a TV, but will confuse a VCR. It's perfectly possibly to either unmangle the signal or to modify a VCR to handle the manged version.
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
FCC has mandated digital tv by 2006 (Score:4, Informative)
The only way that they can prevent copying is if they were to replace every TV in the world with TVs that can decode an encrypted signal *after* it enters the TV.
The Federal Communications Commission (US analog to Canada's CRTC) has mandated that TV stations go digital by January 1, 2006 [fcc.gov], when the FCC will terminate television stations' analog spectrum licenses.
Updated!
Re:FCC has mandated digital tv by 2006 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
Actually the decryption would have to be on the component which does the displaying. Just about possible with an LCD, but not really practical with a CRT. Even then you are faced with the problem of making a display device which will only work with a human eye...
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2, Insightful)
<irony>I do have lapses tho, which usually result in Slashdot posts such as this one. ;-)</irony>
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:2)
Same here. I canceled it in November in preparation of a move. I've moved, and I really don't want it back. OK, I'd like a few channels like CNN, TV Land, Sci-Fi, TechTV, etc., but the rest could disappear for all I care. Actually, I stay informed on current events via the Net and radio, so I really don't need TV news. If I really wanted that, I could catch a stream of BBC World. Much better than CNN and not even on American cable anyway. I still watch DVDs when my girlfriend comes over, but at least there I choose the stuff I want to see. I'm not really sure that I'm ever going back to cable. Maybe I will, but I don't miss it too much.
Perhaps I'm a tiny minority, but the programmers had better be a little concerned about people like me because I used to watch TV, and now I really don't, and if I notice others getting frustrated with copy controls, I'll suggest they curtail their viewing as well. There are alternatives to television, now more so than ever, and making it harder for people to watch what they want is only going to drive them toward these other activities.
The hassle factor (Score:2)
I don't think you are alone.
Re:OK, you *made* me do it (Score:3, Interesting)
--jeff
Because as we all know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheesh. The VCR was the best thing that ever happened to Hollywood. Recording and sharing _increases_ interest in the entertainment industry's products. Why can't they see that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Because as we all know ... (Score:2)
Re:Because as we all know ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where would Windows be today if tens of thousands of future MSCE's hadn't pirated the crap out of Windows 3.1 and MS Office? At least PART of Microsoft's success is due to the rampant piracy - especially with MS Office, where WordPerfect employed goofy copy protection, Microsoft did not, and people flocked AWAY from WordPerfect. When people went from home-hobbyist to legit, they bought licenses.
Where would Adobe be today without the rampant piracy of Photoshop by tens of thousands of graphic art students (don't tell me this is not happening).
They'd be the publisher of software that is so hard to use, an artist's costs are DOUBLED *JUST* to begin learning about how to use Photoshop. Photoshop has a HUGE learning-curve to do anything but the most basic operations. Their marketshare would be comparatively microscopic. But since people have pirated it, they can mess around with it, learn it, evaluate it's worth (find out that, hey, $600 really IS justified for this gem!).
And it's been said MANY times, (it's like a broken record - no pun intended) that music sales have INCREASED due to Napster - because Napster tended to act as a free-promotion mechanism, and people may have kept a lot of MP3's they never intended to buy, but they also purchased a lot more CDs that they wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to.
In a society of law and order, we can bitch and moan all we want about whether or not these companies have a RIGHT to protect their own IP in the face of provisions like Fair Use. That's all academic. But it's certainly not in most company's best interests to do so. It's so blatantly obvious - and yet time and again, we see companies who are competing, don't often CARE if their software is pirated. It's a convenient way to gain marketshare - it's dumping, without actually dumping.
But as soon as they achieve any kind of dominance (read: monopoly power!!!) they clamp down the screws. I think this is what bothers everyone deep down in the bottom of their hearts - people know right from wrong, they sense it, and it's easy to justify "stealing" IP from a monopolist who's abusing their position. The monopolists want their cake, and they want to eat it too, and us consumers along with it.
If they weren't monopolies, I would join the "libertarian" crowd and say: hey, just let the free-market punish these assholes for their crappy business practices.
But that would be the same as saying - gee, I hate the way my electric company raises my rates and I still get outages. Fuck it all, I'm going to move to another state.
Re:Because as we all know ... correction (Score:4, Insightful)
WordPerfect started losing market share when some suit-encumbered moron decided to restrict tech support to registered users (this was really the key point, not WPCorp's slowness in adapting to Windows). Previously, totally free toll-free tech support was available to ALL WordPerfect users, including for pirated copies, as WPCorp recognised that the best way to lock in a customer base is to get them using your product in the first place. And it worked -- people pirated one version, but bought the next (well, I bought 16 "nexts" and counting). That deliberate winking at borroware, along with near-total printer support, made WP the market leader.
Photoshop does not cost $600 (Score:2)
Where would Adobe be today without the rampant piracy of Photoshop by tens of thousands of graphic art students (don't tell me this is not happening).
Probably selling a lot of copies of Photoshop Elements [adobe.com] (that is, Photoshop minus the prepress engine) at $100 a piece (not $600) and making a wad of dough [verylowsodium.com].
Photoshop has a HUGE learning-curve to do anything but the most basic operations.
How does it compare to GIMP's? Is GIMP 1.2 easier or harder than Photoshop Elements?
Re:Photoshop does not cost $600 (Score:2)
I once went out with a girl who was taking a Photoshop class. I sat down and taught her more in one hour than she learned in her class. Why?
Because I had it at home and she didn't. She got 30 mins to use it at the most. I could play all night. She couldn't afford it, so she actually paid more over time to learn it than I did.
Since then though, I've gone to the Gimp. It's easier.
3 ways Napster helped users discover new music (Score:2)
Napster was a search engine though; how did people become exposed to music they wouldn't otherwise have been if they didn't know to search for it.
Three ways:Pirate == free trial (Score:2)
they exaggerate the extent to which it hurts them but IT STILL DEPRIVES THEM OF PROFITS
In some cases, piracy can potentially increase profits by increasing the size of the market for the legitimate software. Piracy on the part of poor individuals doesn't cost any profits because poor individuals aren't able to pay $600 for Photoshop anyway, and it increases the mindshare of a product. Mindshare translates to market share, especially when businesses site-license software. This is part of how Photoshop, Flash, 3DS Max, and Windows became so popular: by granting implicit licenses to individual pirates, the publishers made their programs more popular among those who would want to join companies that would legitimately license expensive software. It's the same reason companies give out "free trial" copies of software, except that the missing feature in this case is the ability to use the software in a commercial setting.
Re:Because as we all know ... (Score:5, Interesting)
READ IT FOR YOURSELF. [slashdot.org]
Make sure you note the massive amounts of -1 moderations, all done simultaneously, obviously by an editor.
Stand up. Make your voice heard. Tell the slashdot staff you will not tolerate editor moderation on large scales, such as this!
Re:Because as we all know ... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a clear case of editors abusing their power. Someone archive this, since we know it isn't going into the
Re:Because as we all know ... (Score:2)
Bah, I didn't need that 49 karma anyway...
I'll second that (Score:4, Insightful)
A side note to anyone at Andover.net/OSDN/VA who happens to read this. Remind yourself that when Slashdot became corporate, the userbase became your customers, and indirectly your source of revenue through advertising. Piss us off too much, and watch your revenue stream trickle off...
Excellent (Score:2, Flamebait)
If it were up to me, I'd delete your account, the troll accounts you created and all of your posts. What reason is there to waste space archiving all that bullshit? You have wasted a great deal of time, contributed nothing, and prevented others from having an intelligent conversation. Go away.
I'll sacrifice my karma to second this post! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know whether this suppression of ideas is political, financial, or otherwise or whether it is carried out by the editors of Slashdot at the behest of advertisers or simply by holier-than-thou moderators who are 14 years old and have points to burn.
The point is that now, to get at the cream of the crop, I often have to read at -1 and suffer through the "real" trolls as well, while only the non-controversial posts seem to stay visible to to 0+ readers.
This post will no-doubt be moderated to -1, offtopic within five or six minutes, but I notice that there is no acceptable meta-forum anywhere at Slashdot for discussing the mechanisms of Slashdot itself. That such a forum does not exist in spite of the "free" ongoing ad dollars it would no doubt generate seems to indicate that at least some of this suppression is indeed carried out by the editorial staff or by corporate.
It's nice to see this issue get some attention.
By all means, please read the thread discussed in the parent comment to this one, it's really quite enlightening.
Re:I'll sacrifice my karma to second this post! (Score:2)
(don't look at me, I have no time, money or hosting space for such a crusade. I'm being that annoying guy that says, "you do it, I'll use it." Indulge me.)
The disgruntled people need to pick a date for a transition and stick to it. If there is nothing to transition to, we can all read more books with the extra free time.
I hereby nominate Wednesday, May 1 2002 as "Bailing Day." It sounds simplistic, but if a chunk of people take hold of the idea... it could be interesting.
05/01/02: Bailing Day
Karma to burn -- bring the noise!
Maybe it's not so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, I guess the next step would be to copy protect books. Maybe they'll burst into flames if they detect a sufficiently bright light, such as used in copy machines.
F-bacher
Re:Maybe it's not so bad (Score:2)
To be honest, I didn't know when it was shown... ever. I couldn't even fathom a guess at the day or time that it was regularly broadcast. All I know was that it was sitting there on my TiVo waiting for me to watch it when I wanted.
-S
TV show trading (Score:4, Informative)
Re:TV show trading (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the networks would not be getting any advertising money anyway even if the commercials were copied with the shows.
There is just no way a network could call up Budweiser or Toyota and say "we have just played your ad in 120,000 more times than expected due to pirate recordings, so you owe us $50,000 more."
Re:TV show trading (Score:2)
Already a Done Deal (Score:2, Informative)
I know there are signal boosters/correctors that can overcome this...the question is, why should normal, law abiding citizens have to resort to this?
This will help me write more software! (Score:2, Insightful)
Think of all of the social benefits that would come if people just stopped watching TV!
How, without encryption... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How, without encryption... (Score:2)
Looks like you've answered your own question there. In the past, the entertainment industry has been able to get the force of law on its side at will...
I'm so fucking sick of this. To echo other sentiments in this thread, I say screw them all. I can be perfectly happy listing to indie music and renting indie movies. Any major studio films I see in the theater anyway, since they're playing on 5 fucking screens at each of the multiplexes. And who needs TV? Precious few shows are anything but mindless pap; the ones that aren't I'll miss, but not that much...
Police officers are exempt from 17 USC 1201 (Score:2)
Look, if a law that restrictive was ever passed, Police officers would be breaking it.
According to page 5 of this PDF from the Library of Congress [loc.gov], law enforcement officers acting in official duty are exempt from the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Remember Prohibition?
The current crop of Republicrat legislators don't seem to; otherwise, they would have repealed the anti-recreational-drug laws a long time ago.
Any politician who would vote for such a thing better hope the donation from the media companies can buy him a ticket to Rio and keep him fed for the rest of his life
Find how much your politician got from Di$ney at Open Secrets [opensecrets.org].
because his public "service" career would end at the next election
Not with our ovine [dictionary.com] electorate.
Re:How, without encryption... (Score:2)
Since the signal is (or would be) digital, all you'd have to do is capture it, run it through a program which strips the flags and watch the output. New flags come out? No problem. Just upgrade your program.
It's the wave of the future (Score:2)
GOD HELP US ALL!!!
:)
Big Network Wet Dream (Score:2)
manage to make their signals such that they can only be viewed by using a special reciever/DVR device. If you wanted to watch TV, you would HAVE
to buy one of these, in addition to a TV.
It might take the networks to buy some laws
to get this done, but it could happen.
This DVR will allow you to time shift, but will not allow you to fast forward through commercials. The networks could also have a pay-per-view scheme so that it charges you whenever you view anything, no matter how much you've already seen it. Or perhaps ever minute you're watching something, you are being charged some amount.
I'm sure somebody over there has thought of this
sort of device.
The real Digital Divide (Score:3, Interesting)
I see this as the real "Digital Divide," a recurring pattern using this new medium as a force to separate and distinguish the two classes, but in a new configuration. In the past, the producers were the paeons and the consumers were the elite.
This development shows how this is reversing: the producers are the elite who have licenses to clone costless data and the consumers are the powerless drones who pay their wages and freedoms away per every view.
Same class model we've had for centuries, and the digital realm is nothing new.
Just opening the door for independents... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible with today's consumer technology for people to make movies and broadcast them on the internet. Video cameras are cheap, people are willing to act (although there's need for improvement heh), and TV quality visual effects are within the reach of people with a modest income.
Until the day Hollywood consistantly creates stories that are worth paying for, they can't make these kinds of demands. Take a look at Final Fantasy. The people who are fans of that series are mostly interested in the story. They have their Playstation 2's, they have the $50 to buy the game, and they have the 40 hours to beat it. There isn't a TV show out there that can make that many people reschedule their lives around when the show is aired. Even though a show is half an hour to an hour long, nearly all of them aren't worth making sure you are home for that time.
So go ahead Hollywood, spend your energy trying to protect your 'precious content', you're not going to squeeze more money out of people.
Everyone will have more time for Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I stopped going to theater coz I'm pissed by MPAA. And I stopped renting movies for the same reason. Then I stop buying music CDs coz I'm pissed by RIAA. And I refuse to buy DVD player because of this stupid zoning scheme and DMCA.
And now TV. Well, not that I watch any TV at all, as I don't even have cable. But still.
Great, everyone just spends more quality time on Slashdot, then. Let it be the geek's new year's resolution.
I will hack me a way. (Score:2)
//rant
The day the police raid my door to stop me from breaking copy protection in my own home, is the day I become a freedom fighter, and start the war of revolution. Many people are starting to think the same way, when will people say NO, and take up arms against a corporate controlled police force.
It might be a un-popular view to believe in personal freedoms. But where are the people standing up for my rights? Do I need to protect them with a gun? Voting doesn't work when the majority is brainwashed with political correctness and sound bites.
rant//
"Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes." - Robert Francis Kennedy
Re:I will hack me a way. (Score:2)
No, he's willing to shoot somebody over his rights under The Constitution. There were a lot more like him at the end of the 18th Century.
"The day the police raid my door..."
It's not that he's going to take up arms over TV, it that he's going to take up arms over the corporatization of law enforcement. And he's right to do so...
Time to start dumping TV's in Boston Harbor.
-Z
Re:I will hack me a way. (Score:2)
Re:I will hack me a way. (Score:2)
That would be breaking the law if I posted it. (-;
Re:I will hack me a way. (Score:2)
He *is* talking about physical enslavement.
HAH! (Score:4, Funny)
I suppose they just succeded in making me buy a new monitor (...must...learn...not...to...read...online...sto
For the last fucking time (Score:2)
Therefore, it's a luxury. A luxury you pay for. A luxury you *don't have to pay for*. If you don't like the restraints this particular facet of the entertainment industry wishes to put on you *DON'T BUY A FUCKING TV*.
These arguments get me *so* pissed off. People are dying in other parts of the world because they can't get enough rice, and *we're* worried about a luxury we somehow view as an inalienable right.
Re:For the last fucking time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For the last fucking time (Score:2)
The people who complain about this stuff don't recognize that the whole idea of technology is a luxury in a majority of cases.
Re:For the last fucking time (Score:2)
What is done with that grant of OUR bandwidth, granted by OUR good grace through our representatives, is OUR business.
These businesses are dictating terms to the people of the United States. This should not be. They have been made wealthy through our largess, and they therefore have the responsibility to us owners to provide content as we bloody see fit.
They do not own the airwaves. We do. The market is not free in this situation. The almost religious movement to dereg the market has led us to this -- they are locking up our TV's.
Enough of this.
Re:For the last fucking time (Score:2)
Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahhhh goats! (Score:4, Informative)
The problem lies in the fact that they make money from the potential eyes of viewers. Ratings allow broadcasters to charge more money for the time they sell to advertisers. They make their money in this fashion. However if they are broadcasting digital information rather than analog exact digital copies would be made. Big deal you say but it IS a big deal. It requires a bit of effort to filter commercials out of analog signals on a VCR (they look for a fade to black and stop recording until the video fades back in). The percentage of VCRs and people who take the time to do this is small so broadcasters don't bitch much about it. With a digital signal it is fairly trivial to scan a datastream for a pattern or flag denoting the transition to a commercial and since this is trivial a PVR or equivilent can easily nix the commercial from the recorded video. Since the only difference between a PVR and digital signal decoder is a storage device to record the video stream this had broadcasters a bit worried. If a majority of people with digital receivers can both time shift and remove commercials from video feeds the broadcasters can't make didly squat. Their traditional metrics become useless and advertisers can't be assured their advertisements will even be seen.
Broadcasters don't care about the small fraction of people who would go to all the trouble to trade copies of video over the internet. Most people won't bother even if they have the bandwidth. It's scores easier to flip on your TV at a certain time of tell a PVR or VCR to record something than it is to first find it and then second download it to your computer. Broadcasters will however be taken to court if they break compliance with statutes saying people have the right to record video for personal use. To keep from getting legally fucked in the ass this way you're going to see non-linear break commercials. Characters will drink a Pepsi and wear Reeboks and chase a bad guy through the Gap end will hang out at a Starbucks. Advertising will be like it was depicted in The Truman show where they broadcast constantly. Everyday items would be product placement and actors would be spokespeople during the shows they performed on. The crap acting you see in commercials now is going to take place inside your favourite drama or sci-fi adventure. Also expect more of those fucking tickers at the bottom, top, and sides of your screen.
It's been said before... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to bitch,
bitch [senate.gov] productively! [house.gov]
If you put the same effort you do here, into legit politics (wow. now *THATS* an oxymoron), the least that's going to happen is you're voice will be heard. The most? The sky's the limit.
Just do yourself a favor. When writing your congressperson or representative:
1) Don't troll
2) Don't flame
3) Don't mention your
4) Don't start with "I didn't vote..", or, especially, "I didn't vote for you, but..."
5) Above all, write intelligently. [amazon.com]
P.S. Inconspicuously hinting that your wealthy father could make a sizable donation to the rep's campaign wouldn't hurt.
Wont happen in 100 years.... (Score:2)
I thought the FCC didnt allow ENCRYPTED TV signals ? Now I didnt think this held true for cable but....
Hell, AS IVE SAID BEFORE AND BEFORE, If it comes froma source to the TV you can trap it.....
TV's are stupid, and will be for a long time. There is NO Fu**ing way the Entertainment people are going to get 5 BILLION TV's replaced as a requirment to watch.
This is stupid stuff dreamed up by some bozo at disney trying to brown nose and he think hes got the holy grail for the entertainment industry,
This is NO different than what happened 100 years ago with the phonograph, edisons patents, and thse that found way around, there were bootlegs 100 years ago and there will be 100 years from now....
Fair USE rights WILL prevail, if they dont the solution is simple, a revolution, throw those in power out and start again.
From time to time the tree of freedom must be renewd with the blood of patriots
or something like that, from thomas jefferson....
Buy-Back Amnesty Program (Score:4, Funny)
To get guns off the streets, some police departments hold an annual(?) amnesty day on which you can bring your gun (or "someone else's") to a designated place and they will buy it from you.
I'd like to see ABC, CBS and NBC bidding for my VCR. They probably wouldn't offer cash for the VCRs, though. They would each have their own version of TiVo that tracks your viewing habits, and they would invite you to trade in your clunky old box for a shiny new Big Brothe-- I mean, Personal Video Recorder. NBC would of course offer a discount on the MS HomeStation (since NBC and MS are so close) and a free Passport account.
Of course, I'll always have my computer's video card hooked up to the cable box...
Simple solution (Score:2)
Reality Check (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's Captain Obvious with Clues for the Clueful!
You're ALREADY at the mercy of the network. Who cares about what you can record? You only *watch*, in the first place, the programs they *want* you to watch. (insert Twilight Zone theme here). You seem to be operating under the misconception that TV viewers were ever offered any choice of any variety, which they were not. So please, lose the outraged squawking, it's just plain silly. Either watch TV and accept the crud they shovel at you, or DON'T WATCH TV. This is known, among adults, as a Decision.
End clue session, exit's to your left...
-Kasreyn
Re:Reality Check (Score:2)
TV is full of choices. I have zillions of channels on my satellite dish. I can choose from bad sitcoms, bad cop shows, bad history programming, bad animals shows and bad sporting events, to name a few. So while the choices TV gives you aren't usually that great, they still are choices for any reasonable definition of the word.
If the choices we make for TV viewing are so meaningless, why is ABC crapping themselves about their recent ratings drop? I think our TV choices actually have an impact on what we get to view after all.
Re:Reality Check (Score:2, Funny)
You only *watch*, in the first place, the programs they *want* you to watch. (insert Twilight Zone theme here).
They can want you to watch, but you won't watch unless you want to watch. But if what you want to watch isn't what they want you to watch, then you can't watch. So maybe you give up wanting to watch what you want, and decide to want what they want, so that they get what they want.
But why do you want what you want? Is what you want what they want you to want? Or does it go the other way, where you don't want what they want and so they stop wanting what they want and instead want what you want so that what you want is what they give?
Who wants? And who's is the first want? One want to rule them all? Did any of you really want that film? Or is it all because the author wanted what you didn't know you wanted and when he gave it you all said, "this I want!!"
The power is shared. The wants are co-created between all the parties involved. Give me just enough of what I want and I'll be satisfied.
Important issues to realize. (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, almost anything worth watching can be obtained in an illegal way. I can download any popular TV show off the internet from SOMEWHERE, although these methods most certainly violate copyright. And while quite a few people partcipate in these activities, the greater majority doesn't and won't because its more trouble than its worth.
However, if people are suddenly unable to do what they've been used to doing for many many years, then some of these other methods might start appealing to them. TV shows will still get copied, just as DVD's are converted to DivX's. The underground scene will not be affected by this, at leat not in the long run. But the average consumer will find it annoying, and they will be driven to seek out other ways to obtain their media content.
And when they download an episode of "Friends" off the internet, they realize that they can watch it whenever they want. Not only that, but there are no commercials. And they can obtain ANY episode of "Friends" from the first season on, and all they have to do is be patient. If they're going to go to the trouble to do this once, they might realize its not that much trouble after all and might use this method to obtain other TV shows.
And eventually, they might start realizing they simply don't NEED their cable/satellite/whatever anymore because its become less convienent than obtaining it from the internet, not to mention there's no additional cost as long as they already have broadband.
Except for the few that still only recieve the broadcast stations, people pay money monthly to watch their programs. They do actually expect something in return, and one of those things is the ability to do so as they wish. In the blind rage of the media corporations to prevent the evil "pirates" from stealing their precious programming and distributing it for free to the less than 1% of the audience who bothers to make use of it, they will alienate the remaining 99%.
Way to go guys!
Way to go.
-Restil
Re:Important issues to realize. (Score:2)
Why?
Simple.
In Germany, I get only the dubbed version on TV which sucks big time. The voices are terrible, the jokes aren't funny anymore, it's not a sitcom, it's sit-torture.
The same goes for Futurama, only that the translations of the dialogues are the worst thing I ever witnessed on TV. And so the list goes on to cover a few shows I really like. And yet, I still buy the Simpsons DVDs, pre-order Futurama DVDs, etc. But those take years to release.
The bottom line: A lot of people pirate what they cannot obtain in another way. I know there is a percentage who will always pirate, because it's free - But face it: They WILL indeed ALWAYS pirate, no matter how difficult the companies make it for them. This is not a valid reason to piss the rest of us off. More to the point: I would NOT be a fan of Futurama or Friends had I not foudn the original, downloaded versions on the 'Net.
What do they make more money on - When I watch the show on TV (including cable fees and money from ads) or when I buy the DVDs?
Foot + Gun = Industry. (Score:2)
A broadcast TV service that doesn't let me time-shift is of no use to me.
If I can't whack something on a tape and watch it later then I'm going to go somewhere else for my entertainment. My schedule runs around my schedule, not around TV.
Anyway, I have a nice big expensive analogue TV and an expensive analogue VCR and a large collection of video games stuff that all outputs analogue video signals and a subscription to a cable service that isn't anymore interested in upgrading to digital than I am. Analogue free-to-air could disappear this very moment and I probably wouldn't notice for a month, and I'd never care enough to do anything about it. Heck, Foxtel's gotten so crappy lately that I could probably cope if it went away too.
Analog signal capture. (Score:2)
So when you get down to it, once again, this is not about copyright, this is about controlling consumers / reducing privacy to make more money.
When an advanced civilization... (Score:3, Funny)
What We Can Do About It (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice number 1 will defiantly be preferable as it will get more public attention, however, choice number 2 is something we as geeks can defiantly do.
I can. (Score:3, Funny)
If I can hear it, I can record it.
Copy protection dosen't work.
Re:I can. (Score:2)
January 17, 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
Just a little food for thought.
Deliberate (Score:3, Informative)
Same guys that brough you CSS... (Score:2)
Still that was serious enough for the developer to be persued [bbc.co.uk] through his home country's courts.
Timeshifting is now a part of everyday life. Slowly, it is no longer an elite group that can set the timer on a vcr (devices like TiVo, help a lot) and a lot of people time-shift.
It doesn't matter wherether it is a broadcast premiere of a movie or a sports event, both may be time-shifted, and quite legally too! This is going to upset a lot more people than the CSS business and will not do anything for industry credibility or compliance.
Copy protection will never work (Score:3, Informative)
When it comes to capturing TV for example, if you get a TV card, the process of viewing and the process of capturing (it seems to me) are identical no matter what you do. Even if the software that comes with the tv card won't let you record, something will. Even if you have to read from the frame buffer of your video card to get the picture and plug your sound card into itself to get the sound, both of these are still options.
Since I live in a dorm room, my only TV is in fact my computer, and I've been recording shows into divx'd avi's for quite a while now, and I can't complain about the quality at all.
So basically even though it may be more inconvenient to record some signals, it will always be possible, so I don't think there's a reason to make a big fuss about it...
Re:Current law...details (Score:3, Informative)
The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that consumers could "time shift" TV programs on VCRs to view later.
Making cassette tapes or copies of CDs for personal use has been affirmed by court rulings, while a 1992 law allowed consumers to make limited digital copies of music, with royalties to be included in the price of blank tapes and discs.
In 1999, a court ruled that portable digital music players could be sold and gave owners the right to move their music from PCs to the devices.
The precedences are astounding, so what (other than money) are the "big boys" going to do to overturn these rulings?
Re:Current law...details (Score:2)
Re:Current law...details (Score:2)
Re:Bah.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch what you say. There's plenty of episodes of Junkyard Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer on television. These are my favorite two shows and also the only shows that watch. (actually, I'm being serious)
Re:Mute button.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That will be it. (Score:5, Insightful)
What would one read in a newspaper today, yesterday's news? Opinions of illiterate or unqualified journalists? Ads? Same happened with radio; rare a song now is played from start to end because radio people just love to mix and match the bait^Wsong with ads and useless chat that is not even worth the battery to tune to. TV is not far behind; ads drip from every little pause in content, and the content itself is of very low value, targeting lowest common denominator in the society.
Is there something better than TV? Sure, and it is already here. One can have his movies on tapes, VCDs, DVDs or just in big .avi files, just click of a mouse to order at online shop (or Usenet). The one-way pipe (from fools on that end to fools on this end) is now being replaced with tons of chat/messaging software, from rocket-scientist's IRC to uncle Joe's Yahoo boards, where people can actually *talk* to each other, instead of being fed with corporate propaganda.
The TV is losing its appeal, especially (for now) among people who know how to get better information from Internet. Joe Sixpack still uses TV; however he does so not because he loves it but because it is there. He loves beer much more, and if he can get his football elsewhere, he will. If he can't tape his play he would be mad, and the TV would be useless to him.
In any case, there is no free market in broadcasting, and as such the monopoly (made out of several sister TV companies) is free to abuse the viewer in any way it wants. The only remedy is to stop using their services. They are not worth much anyway, and if a movie is good you can always buy it, free from ads, squishing, logos and other fluff.
Re:That will be it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Use and the courts? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. Fair use does not guarantee that it should be easy to record a copy for personal use.
However, broadcasting is a pivilege, not a right. Getting an easement on everybody's property for cable is a privilege, not a right. Parking a satellite in a geosynchronous slot is a privilege, not a right.
I think that it's only fair that in return for using their government granted monopolies on these publicly owned channels for their content distribution, broadcasters, satellite and cable companies should not be allowed to thwart reasonable fair use by their customers.
If they don't want to allow fair use, that's fine. They would just have to distribute their content in an entirely private distribution channel, like delivering DVDs via UPS.
With the current corporate-controlled political climate, however, I doubt that my argument will get very far.
Re:Fair Use and the courts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Very well said. And copyright itself is a privelege not a right! The government (ie what should be us in a republic) grants via law a limited time ownership of original works. Its sole purpose in doing this is to foster the sharing of more original works which it is hoped will help the society advance. After this time, everyone in the society is allowed to freely use those ideas. That's what the public domain is.
This has gotten completely out of hand with our current government giving away copyright for periods far longer than they should, mostly to protect the income of large corporations.
check out Limiting Copyright [limitingcopyright.com] for some interesting articles on this.
Mike
Re:We're talking *broadcast* for God's sake! (Score:2, Insightful)
They broadcast ADS because they want to.
If we record the shows, edit the ads, and repost the show - their profit model breaks down - in theory.
It gets worse for TV broadcast of movies and mini-series of course, but there is a pathological fear here when TV broadcasters of series and news worry so much.
Home taping has never been a threat. It wasn't to TV, it wasn't to Hollywood and it never really was to the RIAA either. VCR's always had a fast forward feature and some of them are damned good at filtering out ads. We all have VCR's - we don't systemically use them for this, by and large.
Why? We have better things to do with our time than waste EFFORT on filtering out ads.
Being able to make a perfect digital copy (a non-inferior good) and being able to choose it on demand from a pirated source scares the hell out of these companies.
As well it should at first blush I suppose, but is TV in THAT much of a problem position?
TV has less to fear from this technology than any other media. TV is too easy and too "free" to make ppl go out and chase it down to DL on a concerted basis.
Mp3's are traded for convenience and to avoid paying for them. Movies are traded for convenience and to avoid paying for them.
TV will be traded for convenience - as it is now to a limted degree. But as price is not an issue, the consumer does not perceive a substantial benefit to trade them on a concerted systemic basis.
If the only profit model they are really protecting is the ability to sell as many copies as they can of Season Two of The Sopranos on DVD, these guys need to chill out a little.
Okay - your market to sell Band of Broathers shrank a little. Other than that, so what?
TiVO is worth worrying about, but the net does not really add to the problem of TiVO to any appreciable degree.
The networks would be better off spending less effort on video on demand and more time on customized ad targeting.
We choose the show - our personal tastes determine the type of ads they stream to us. We don't waste the effort to filter them out or avoid them, because we don't mind watching them.
The worst case scenario in all of this is that TV simply has to broadcast ads that people choose to watch.
This happens in Europe and Japan already. The sun still rises and sets.
*slow down and take a breather for a moment will ya guys?
Re:A simple solution (Score:2)
If some marketdroid will decide that he wants "exclusive" over someone else and pays for it there is nothing you will able to do about it.
C'est la vie
Re:Non-compliant recorders (Score:2)
Of course, a few slip through, but that wont really change anything. Oh, and anyone trying to market and sell such a device in the US would get DMCA'd up their ass.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Copyright? Copyright is granted as a means to ensure the maximum availability and production of new material for the common good, by offering a limited exclusive right to copy the material.
Of course, this idea is becoming more and more corrupted, far beyond what is for 'the public good'. IMO, it's time to tear up all copyright (and patent) laws, and start over with the public (rather than the corporate interest) good.