Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

EFF Comments on HDTV Copy Restriction Plans 111

Posted by chrisd from the floating-head-of-seth-david-schoen dept.
Seth Schoen writes: "EFF has been following the work of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (which was featured in a CNet article linked from slashdot on Thursday) since it was founded in November. Co-incidentally, we today released an EFF overview of this work which contains some of our criticism of these efforts to control the ability of future consumer devices to record digital HDTV broadcasts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Comments on HDTV Copy Restriction Plans More

EFF Comments on HDTV Copy Restriction Plans

Comments Filter:

  • Golly! (Score:2, Funny)

    by ShaniaTwain ( 197446 )
    Microsoft will want to hear about this!

    Industry Plans to Restrict Use of HDTV Broadcasts, Harming Innovation

    It funny you know, I think if anything I've been at my least innovative while watching TV. 'course maybe if its High Def...

  • they will never prevent copying (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you can see it on tv you can copy it...simple as that. Someone will always find a way to crack it as long as they use antiquated economic models.

  • Content? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 )
    If they actually had anything on TV worth _watching_, this might make a wee bit more sense.
    I might as well stand by the curb next to my garbage... carrying a shotgun and hollering.

    Who cares - waste your money protecting it if you want. Nobody's gonna steal what's on TV. Most of us like two or three channels which we need the full package cable to get, naturally.

    • Re:Content? (Score:4, Informative)

      by sallen ( 143567 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:52AM (#2860987)
      If they actually had anything on TV worth _watching_, this might make a wee bit more sense. I might as well stand by the curb next to my garbage... carrying a shotgun and hollering.

      Who cares - waste your money protecting it if you want. Nobody's gonna steal what's on TV. Most of us like two or three channels which we need the full package cable to get, naturally.

      I don't disagree with you there, on the content angle. I loved the part in the article that said studios wouldn't broadcast their movies over-the-air unless there was copy protection. That's BS. Most studio's and over-the-air networks are owned by the same corporation. (CBS=Viacom=Paramount FOX=20th/21st Century Fox ABC=Disney) They aren't going to forgo all those ad dollars. I really don't care there as I don't park my butt in front of the TV all that often. But if they insert 'flags' to prevent recording of movies, then they'll do it with any NFL, broadcast, etc. That WOULD make me angry.

      I have a very simple solution. They say they won't broadcast high def movies without copy protection? Fine. Leave me my right to time shift, and I'll leave them their's not to broadcast a movie. (As well as not being able to shut down my TV. You DO know the copy group wants to be able to shut down a TV remotely, don't you? I know they've looked at that option closely.)

  • just great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crayz ( 1056 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:30AM (#2860925) Homepage
    Already it's tough to get people to spend the extra cash on those HDTV sets. Lets throw in some copy protection too, to make HDTV even more unappealing! Then we can all be stuck with NTSC for the rest of our natural lives.
    • I suspect that the content producers are smart enough to either not initially use the copy protection or only use it sparingly until the price of the hardware drops significantly and the installed base of equipment is huge. At that point, they suddenly make nearly everything copy protected and you're screwed.
  • I think there are enough movies, television shows in the world. Shouldn't that mean that the price decreases?

  • For Personal Use Only (Score:5, Informative)

    by stuffman64 ( 208233 ) <stuffman.gmail@com> on Friday January 18, 2002 @04:43AM (#2860963)
    As the article points out, PVR's do not use removable media (hey, now there is a good idea for me to patent... if only I believed in our patent and copyright system and it was how it should be [msnbc.com]). Therefor, it makes it nearly impossible for me to distribute/lend my copy to someone else (network TiVos are something else). This was the video industry's major gripe against VCRs when they were introduced. All though I would be quite enraged if they prevented me from recording broadcasts on a removable digital media, I would be far more enraged if I could not make digital recordings on a PVR.

    Ultimately, IMHO, something like SCMS will be introduced to prevent multiple perfect digital copies originating from one source. However, SCMS was a joke for MiniDisc/DAT-- many units simply ignored the copybits or gave the option to turn them off. If worse came to worse, you can whip up a bit stripper [cornell.edu] and copy until your heart is content. Hopefully, if we end up getting a SCMS-like system on digital broadcasts, it will be taken as seriously as it was on MD/DAT and/or be very simple to beat...

    ...Then, of course, we would violate the DMCA [loc.gov] and go to jail for months before our arraignment [www.ezhe.ru]...
    • The movie industry is making a killing on removeable media, both VCR and DVD. If it wasnt for the movie and record idustry, we would have hdtv recorders, dvd recorders, and mp3 players in our toasters.

      How do you kill the consumer electronic market? Introduct copy protection.
      • If it wasnt for the movie and record idustry, we would have hdtv recorders, dvd recorders, and mp3 players in our toasters.

        But if it wasn't for the movie and record industry you'd have very little to play on them

        That's not to say I'm in favour of skewing the copyright laws even more in favour of those industries, but there needs to be a balance. We need some kind of copyright reform that strengthens the personal use/fair use rights of individuals but allows content producers to protect their revenue. Because I've yet to see a sucessful media producing revenue model that doesn't at some stage rely on copyright protection.

        • Re:For Personal Use Only (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Shillo ( 64681 )
          > Because I've yet to see a sucessful media producing revenue model that doesn't at some stage rely on copyright protection.

          Remember that 'less protection' is not the same as 'no protection'.

          Also, the media companies are protected, period. They can't choose not to rely on the protection, since they have to compete for the investors with the overprotected monopolists.

          --
          • I don't understand your response. What do you mean by 'the media companies are protected, period'? Are you referring to their legal rights as copyrights holders? That protection is only effective if it is enforceable and I believe that it is less and less enforceable in the digital age. So clearly do the media companies themselves since they are trying to create their own protections with initiatives such as this.

            And frankly, whilst I don't welcome them at all, I can understand why they do it.
            • I'm just stating the current situation. Under the current laws, the media companies are protected.

              A media company that bases its business model on ignoring the power that's given to it will have a Problem. Unless, of course, the copyrights become trully unenforcable. :)

              --
              • I'm amazed you think that the current laws on their own give these companies some kind of 'power'. They don't they give them rights.

                I'll repeat these laws only provide protection if they can be enforced and I think we are in a position where they will be unenforceable soon if they aren't already.
        • But if it wasn't for the movie and record industry you'd have very little to play on them
          Okay, let's change the original quote slightly:
          If it wasnt for the policies of the current movie and record idustry, we would have hdtv recorders, dvd recorders, and mp3 players in our toasters.
          Meaning that if the movie industry didn't exist, another one would grow up to replace it. The BBC would still be producing TV series and documentaries, the smaller production companies would still be making movies, and some of them would grow to fill the shoes that MGM, Paramount, Disney etc. fill now. Okay, they'd probably all get greedy and lobby for DMCA as well, but that's beside the point. The point is, that the policies that the big players have introduced are wrong. Maybe there'd be less mega-budget trashy action movies, but do I care?

          • Re:For Personal Use Only (Score:5, Insightful)

            by RatFink100 ( 189508 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @07:52AM (#2861410)
            Meaning that if the movie industry didn't exist, another one would grow up to replace it.

            I agree - I'm just not sure whether it would be as large - which is why I wrote 'very little to play' rather than 'nothing'.

            I keep coming back to the question of how would people wanting to make movies, music etc make money. People always phrase this in terms of the big corporations - and I understand why, they are the ones pushing for these changes, they are the ones with power, they are the ones responsible for most of the content out there. But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of? So my view is that the small guys will be as vulnerable, or more so, to loss of revenue due to unauthorised copying of their work.

            The other mistake, in my view, that people make is that they seem to treat the argument as if the current situation is static. The studios want to introduce a change that will reduce our rights - that much is true. But they do not acknowledge that the amount of unauthorised copying is increasing, or that this represents a real problem for the content producers. What the industry is trying to do is stem a tide, reverse a trend - it's not just about greed and getting more and more from the consumer, it's also about making sure their market doesn't diminish to a fraction of its current size. I see it as an unwelcome - but predictable and even understandable response.

            Of course many people say that there's no point trying to restrict copying at all, that it flies in the face of the technology and that that particular genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. They argue that content producers should acknowledge this and simply find a revenue model that doesn't rely on copyright. Well the only one I can think of is the live concert/theatrical showing model - which would mean very significantly reduced revenues and possibly no official content at all. I can easily forsee a future where you can make a little money showing a movie in theatres but never bother producing a DVD because there's too small a market for it.

            Which pretty much brings us back to our point of agreement (though you may not agree with my logic of getting there) - which is that if effective copyright protection doesn't exist then there movie and music industries will exist but be much more modest than there are now. You're not bothered by this because you say you wouldn't miss 'mega-budget trashy action movies'. Well you may not miss 'Armageddon' or 'Lord of the Rings' but frankly I would. They may or may not be great Art but they are entertaining.

            Personally I see this as a great dilemma/turning point for digital media in our age. I'd like to hope that there is someone out there clever enough to be able to come up with a way to make money without attacking personal freedoms - but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about it.

            • But do we really believe that the small independent producers have some secret to making money that the Big Bad Studios haven't thought of?

              Not under the current system, because the big content providers have successfully saturated the market with flashy, big-budget films while at the same time conditioning people to think movie budget = movie quality. As a result, smaller films don't have a chance: less press, less distribution, no exposure at the growing number of N-plex super cinemas which show the latest Jerry Bruckheimer spectacle on four screens.

              (not a USA-sucks rant...) One of the nice things about living in Canada is that the government here provides some support ($$ and legislation) for our home-grown movie industry. Without this support, a lot of enjoyable and intelligent, but smaller-scale, films would never see the light of day. Examples: "Ginger Snaps" [imdb.com], or "Last Night" [imdb.com].

              I'd say that off-hand, the main advantage that smaller producers, of films, music, or any other media, have is the goodwill of their customers! I'm far more likely to buy an Ani DiFranco [righteousbabe.com] album ("Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes neccessary, is never as good as the real thing") after listening to her music from Napst^H^H^H Morpheus, than run out to buy a copy-disabled CD by some major-label artist ("unauthorized duplication, authorized duplication and Fair Use are prohibited, and as technically impossible as we can manage")...
              • I agree that budget does not determine quality. However as a movie fan I don't ever want to get to the position where it's impossible to make big budget movies.

                I like lots of different kinds of movies you see - including the Big Dumb Spectacular movie. I also like the Big Intelligent Spectacular - but they are harder to find :)

                I agree that goodwill goes a long way but ultimately people go with their wallets a lot more than they tend to say they do. I'm sure we are both fine upstanding citizens you and I - but although people may say that they go out and buy the stuff they download but I believe that most people actually don't that much of the time.

                The big problem is that it has become socially acceptable in many circles to expect to obtain and keep unauthorized copies. Combine that with the relative ease (and getting easier) of obtaining the copies and it's hard for anyone big or small to make money from selling copies.

                Please remember I'm not advocating all the nasty, broken, heavy-handed methods used to prevent any copying. I want to keep my fair use rights thanks very much. But equally I see problems with the laisez-faire approach. I see it as a big dilemma and I don't know the answer.
              • For most years, yes, Hollywood has more big flashy productions than you could shake a stick at. However, because of the various strikes, or threats of strikes this year saw a historic level of indie film purchasing by the major distributors. So, froma standpoint of content, 2002 will be the year of the small production. I expect 2003 to go back to "normal".
            • Of course many people say that there's no point trying to restrict copying at all, that it flies in the face of the technology and that that particular genie is out of the bottle and won't go back. They argue that content producers should acknowledge this and simply find a revenue model that doesn't rely on copyright. Well the only one I can think of is the live concert/theatrical showing model - which would mean very significantly reduced revenues

              This is not necessarily a bad thing. These people have been making money hand over fist for years and years. Do our top-name "entertainers" deserve these millions upon millions of dollars? Who do they think they are anyway, sports stars?

              More to the point, do we need to impose draconian anti-copying fair-use-destroying laws that inhibit our ability to use available technology, just so these fat cats of the entertainment industry can continue to rake in the bucks? What makes them more deserving of all this moola than, say, ambulance drivers? Teachers? Firefighters? Are they so important to society?

              and possibly no official content at all.

              They would have their first-sale profit, and revenue from live/theatrical performances. They can and should also go after large-scale piracy operations, as they do under current laws (pre-DMCA). That ought to be enough. If they can't make as much money, that's too damn bad.

              • These people have been making money hand over fist for years and years. Do our top-name "entertainers" deserve these millions upon millions of dollars? Who do they think they are anyway, sports stars?

                No I'm not sure they do. However that wasn't my point. I'm not arguing in support for huge salaries for big name stars. I'm arguing that if copyright is unenforceable - it's hard to make money whoever you are.

                And that doesn't mean I support what the big studios do either - especially when they want to take my fair use rights away - but all I'm saying is I can see why they are doing it and we need some understanding of that on the other side of the argument. I'm not claiming to know the answer - but there needs to be some kind of copyright reform that address all sides of this issue.

                More to the point, do we need to impose draconian anti-copying fair-use-destroying laws that inhibit our ability to use available technology, just so these fat cats of the entertainment industry can continue to rake in the bucks?

                Of course we don't want that. But do we want to make it very difficult for books, movies and music to get made at all?

                • But do we want to make it very difficult for books, movies and music to get made at all?

                  Those who are driven to create will do so, whether or not there is monetary gain to be had. Art is not defined as a business.

            • I agree, a balance needs to be found. What I don't like is that entertainment industry is not merely trying to prevent the widespread unauthorized distribution of it's product. They are also trying to create controls that go beyond what is necessary to achieve protection. (Some of these controls are only necessary to make possible new "business models"). Macrovision and region encoded are some examples, and the sorts of things mentioned in the CNet article go beyond that.

              I do believe the industry should be allowed to protect their product from being too easily digitally copied. Yes, this might even mean such horrible things as preventing distribution of "DeCSS" (in an easy to use form). But in exchange for having the force of the law behind their protection measures, they should not be allowed to role in "extra" features in the protection. So, in other words they shouldn't prevent analogue copies from being made. They shouldn't tell me I can only view something once. The issue of digital copies for back-ups or taking to a friends house is a little touchier, but I believe some reasonable compromises can be made here. Sure, some of their business ideas may not work with the above limitations, but tough. It is reasonable for the industry to want to profit from their work. It is not reasonable that we make every idea for extracting profit that they have possible.
              • They are also trying to create controls that go beyond what is necessary to achieve protection.

                Here's the thing. I'm actually starting to believe that things have gotten to the point, or very close to it, where the only way you can acheive meaningful protection against massive unauthorised copying is the kind of draconian measures that as a consumer I can't stomach. I hope it's not that bad - or if it is that the answer is out there in some kind of clever new revenue model and/or copyright reform - but personally I don't know what it is.

                What worries me is that very few people seem to think it's even an issue.

            • There's a lot to answer here. First, one of the big reasons Hollywood needs so much money is because nobody knows how to make movies. If you need proof, look at the number of sequels out there -- it's called branding anywhere else, the McDonaldization of entertainment. That'll be a Die Hard 15 to go, and could I get fries with that? Well, of course. So this is why movie production is heading to Canada: the idiot directors and producers who haven't got a clue about how to make movies can make their expensive mistakes for less in the Great White North (eh?).

              You're exactly right when you say that the business of making and selling movies isn't static. That's the wonderful thing about it. And that's exactly why these kinds of evil copyright changes have to be resisted. Do you remember Sony v. Universal [virtualrecordings.com] ? This was the case that was supposed to destroy Hollywood -- and yet they somehow got all the richer for it. The big beef they had was that home taping off the air was depriving them of revenue -- damn it, there's a revenue stream 'supposedta come off every viewing, don't these idiot Japanese and consumers know that?

              Riiiight.

              The Supreme Court mercifully kicked Universal City Studios and their evil kin out the Fair Use door, and they somehow -- somehow! -- found a way to make money anyway. I somehow think they can find a way to make money if they have to live with fair use. Besides, it's not as if they haven't been screwing people out of their just rewards for ages, now is it?

          • I thought I'd address this separately.

            The BBC is making more and more content for its commercially funded digital channels. My belief is that in the future the government will use this as a rationale to finally do away with the license fee.
        • "if it wasn't for the movie and record industry you'd have very little to play on them"

          Perhaps you have noticed that movies make $millions in profits at the box office, and musicians make $millions from live performances. Home recordings *stimulate demand* for these high-margin performances. They cause no pain to the industry.
  • The entertainment and broadcast industries can, as far as I am concerned, put any copy protection they like on what they produce. If I don't like it, I don't have to watch or buy.

    What I object to is the idea of the law being used to control the machines we might design and build, by making some non-approved designs illegal. There need to be controls on machines with military applications (like jet fighters) or which can only be used for criminal applications (like lockpicks). But the idea that a general purpose recording machine should be illegal to build because it might break copy protection laws is oppressive.

    It's like banning ovens because they might be used to bake hash cakes.

    • Re:The law should not control machine design (Score:4, Insightful)

      by someone247356 ( 255644 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @08:18AM (#2861485)
      Actually lockpicks are legal.

      It's how you use them that makes them illegal. In fact I can buy a tool that allows me to open most car locks at the local dollar store. If they are in your possession when you are caught committing a crime you're in trouble, and if the cops suspect that you are committing a crime (or about to) and you have them on you might have a bit more explaining to do, but just having them isn't illegal.

      I think that's the main problem with the DMCA. It makes just having or talking about things illegal. The reason given is that they MIGHT be used to infringe on copyright. If that were the case then why don't we make steak knives, or hammers, or baseball bats illegal? I mean forget about copyright violations, there is documented evidence that people are MURDERED with these things. Sounds kind of ridiculous now doesn't it.

      Using any tool to commit a crime is illegal. Murder is murder whether you shoot someone, beat them to death with a baseball bat, or strangle them with dental floss (Oops, perhaps I shouldn't have said that, they might decide to strictly regulate the manufacture and distribution of dental floss) You prosecute the person who committed the crime. You don't make possessing material objects illegal.

      Perhaps the problem is that corporations and the congressmen that back them have their priorities all messed up. Murder, starvation, rape, assault that's ok. Just don't do anything that MIGHT effect their profit margin.

      Heaven no. Not that.

      Uggggg.....
    • With Gene-splicing, maybe we'll eventually see...
      the Blackmarket Brain-and-Eyeball Organic VCR!

      You would just sit one of THESE down in front of your screen (or Screens),
      where it would Watch-and-Remember!

      To watch an Organic Recording, you'd just link up this with your Bio-Plug (See movie: "eXistenZ") and have it play-back direct to the optic processing section of your brain!

      WHAT is DISPLAYED can be ARCHIVED in some form or other!

      ... Girlfriend says, "Gee, what cute little BrainEyes you have sitting in front of your VideoWall!"

      ...
  • This is all such crap. First of all broadcasters under legal statute cannot prevent people from recording broadcasts for personal use. They also under FCC rules can't obfuscate their content. They can however legally add flags to digital streams saying "this is copyrighted material". MP3s have a little known copyright bit but people don't bother to pay any attention to it. The C|Net aricle is flawed to say that broadcasters can somehow alter their content as to be unwatchable by certain people. The FCC would have a broadcaster's ass if they sent out an encoded signal.

    As for file trading, the argument is sort of ridiculous. It goes something like "the latest ER is available on [sharing service] therefore EVERYONE MUST HAVE A COPY OF IT OH FUCK". The reality of it is too few people have both the ability and motivation to find and download every episode of some TV show. I think the fears of this are temporally misplaced by about ten years. Maybe in 2012 when 70% of households have 10+mbps connections to the UltraNet there would actually be a measurable drop in broadcast programming viewers. By this time however broadcast video would be a twilight technology since most of your content would be on demand anyways. The percentage of people who hop online to grab the latest episode of some show compared to the percentage of people who just turn their TV to that fucking station is is pretty steep.

    The problem with broadcasters is they have been lying with statistics for so long they don't know what reality is anymore. They have convinced themselves that they can use Neilson boxes to guage the number of people with reasonable tolerances who watched some show and thus its commercials. I'm not allowed to handle a remote anymore because as soon as a show gets boring or FTB (fades to black) I flip to cartoons. I don't know anybody who doesn't wander the dial during commercial breaks. Thinking that in the short term their billion dollar industry is going to be threatened by people trading digital broadcasts being pirated is jackassery. Then again, this is slashdot. Most of the TV and movie piracy in the world is conducted by its readers. Go ahead and pirate away dipshits. It'll just mean you need to decrypt HDTV signals with your fucking DNA in five years.
  • DVD encryption was broken incredibly fast. So will this.
  • These people are never going to win. Why? Because of the 30 - 70 year old at home mothers and grandmothers who video tape the soaps. When they can't watch their favorite shows on their schedule, then they will complain. The hardware industry will discover that there is a viable market there and release a VTR. When they get sued for copyright abuse, they can simply just get Ma and granny to testify on how they use their products (which of course would be in pure legal sense). Then dare the industry to get provide evidence that their recorder was used for piracy.

    Of course, if they don't let me record my favorite TV shows, I won't have time to watch them (or their sponsors). And the industry will loose (a little) money. Don't they see? This will ONLY HURT THEM!

    Ok I am off my tangent.

    Summers

    My NoC can beat up your NoC

  • TV is just a FAD..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SomeoneGotMyNick ( 200685 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @08:48AM (#2861606) Journal
    I remember an early season ST:TNG episode where Data mentioned "Television was a fad that didn't last much into the 21st century". It seems to me if all this copy protection is put in place, that might just become a reality. I'm certainly going to change my entertainment lifestyle if all of this takes place. At least I have a choice, and a right (for now) to time shift a television show with no additional obligation than having to buy a VCR.

    ------------

    • I've been coming to the same conclusion myself. If I were a lobbyist for the book or sporting goods industries, I would be enthusiastically supporting strong TV copy protection legislation.

  • Copy protection vs. deployment restriction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by heroine ( 1220 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @08:49AM (#2861615) Homepage
    As far as I know no-one watches TV on anything that they have the ability or the desire to hack themselves. Watching TV on a PC used to allow people to copy it but no-one watches TV on a PC anymore. Even though copying DVD's was possible on PC's, it was already too inconvenient to play them on PC's let alone copy them on PC's.

    That leaves hackers of X Boxes and set top boxes as the only meaningful grounds for copy protection. Unless kids start soldering PCI traces in their X Boxes or put up with an enourmous amount of inconvenience before getting the footage to even play, copy protection for appliances is going to be redundant.
    • As far as I know no-one watches TV on anything that they have the ability or the desire to hack themselves.

      Hmmm, how about TiVo, Replay TV, Ultimate TV, etc.? I have both the ability and desire to hack my TiVo, so I did. I can also play something on my PC and have it appear on my televison. Just because the media is stored on the PC does not mean it must be displayed on the PC. Before TiVo, I did all my television archiving on my computer. The only thing for which I still use my VCR is switching between coax and composite signals.

  • HDTV is being shoved down our throats, and now they want to disallow us to record shows for later viewing?

    http://www.readingeagle.com/krt/entertainment/hd tv /html/2c.htm

    Q: Is my conventional TV going to turn into a pumpkin in 2007?

    A: Even if you're not interested in digital programming, conventional TV sets will continue to work for many more years. For broadcast signals, they will work until at least 2006 and then low-cost HDTV sets will be available.

  • ...They're usually cut up to shreds taking out half of the good bits (Cursing, nudity, violence)and another half of the plot. Why are the studios so afraid of everyone copying TV signals? We've been doing that for years. There are two reasons to have a VCR:

    First to watch VHS tapes

    Second to record video signals from the TV


    What else would you use the thing for? Door stop when it's broken status stumps the repair guys at the video store? Nifty deconstruction project? It seems everyone has been jumping on this 'Copy-Protection' bandwagon. Every other day or so on Slashdot there's some story about how this industry or that industry is trying to stop their customers from making copies. It can be anything from Software, to Movies, to Music, to now...TV!


    IMHO all these industries would be better off setting up a watchdog program to see what people most copy or download etc. If something is so sought after that thousands of people are going hoponline and spend hours downloading it (and/or the copy-protection cracking devices and software needed to watch it), then they should take note that that's one of the things people want. Obviously the consumers are scrambling to get the thing, so they must want more of it. It's not like companies aren't already watching your every move online to determine what you want so they can offer to sell it to you. Why not just look at our habits at the source. If you copy protect a TV show and people chose to watch another rival show on the same time, and then hop online to download the show they missed maybe the broadcasters would get the idea that yes one show beat out another, but people still want to watch both. It seems to me it'd be more profitable to offer these digital broadcasts to the consumers to download just after the show airs.


    If you give people what they want they will love you for it. Or haven't you noticed how /.ers have all run in droves to buy Philips products and support the one company out their that seems to be against the copy-protected CDs. Why the companies making MP3 players don't realize that the RIAA is trying to put them out of business and aren't screaming their heads off I don't know. I know I would. Oh wait I already am.

  • Once again, big business tries to subvert copyright to enforce their control over consumers. There is absolutely no benefit to the consumers in anything they are proposing. It is all just restrictive overhead they would require of the equipment that would do nothing but limit the capabilities, and add cost/complexity to the production.

    With the republican administration, sponsored by corporate America, we can't expect the government to control any of this.

    Once again, the EFF is our only hope. Open those check books wide.
    • With the republican administration, sponsored by corporate America, we can't expect the government to control any of this.


      Yeah, because the Democrats were very respectful of ordinary citizens' rights. Who was it that signed the DMCA again? Which party gets the vast majority of Hollywood's contributions? Democrats long ago gave up their claim to be defenders of civil liberties.


      Once again, the EFF is our only hope. Open those check books wide.


      That we can agree on. It's probably about time for my annual donation.

  • It will fail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brian Kendig ( 1959 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @09:23AM (#2861765)
    Television copying restriction will fail, for one very good reason: advertising.

    How much television do you watch live any more? Don't most people record many of their favorite programs for later viewing? Count out the people who can't afford a VCR; they're not going to be buying much of what's advertised anyway.

    Now, what happens when a television studio tells their biggest sponsors that they've come up with a way to prevent people from recording shows to watch later? Suddenly the target audience drops by half, and advertisers will refuse to pay nearly as much to buy ad time.

    People today lead busy lives. Stop allowing them to record programs, and they're generally not going to shift their schedule around to watch 'em live.

  • HDTV *Will* Fail If It Can't Be Taped (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @09:50AM (#2861958) Homepage
    Consumers will not stand for it. HDTV gear is largely going begging because people won't stand for the inability to tape their favorite shows.

    And when push comes to shove, the guys in DC listen to the guys with beer cans in their hands and cave in when the deadline nears.
  • Maybe after the Enron scandal people will realize that corporations have too much control of government and will start demanding restrictions on corporate political donations.

    Probably not, but I can dream.

  • I don't see why a secure digital VCR is that hard. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @11:08AM (#2862527) Homepage
    1. If the HDTV signal is unencrypted, flagged or not, creating a workaround, or a non-compliant device would be trivial. Since the copyprotection is a one-time thing (that is, once it's out, it's out), it won't work. (Yes this means they'll have to break all current systems, or upgrade them).

    2. So let's assume we have an encrypted HDTV signal, which TVs can somehow decrypt, most likely with a CSS-style encryption, I'd guess 128/256 bit this time around.

    3. We must assume that the signal being transmitted is in a format that makes it impossible to record directly, either by a varying session key (negiotiated through public-private cryptography) or artifically inflated size. If not we could just hook up any genenric device in the middle and replay the same signal.

    4. Due to 3., the video will need to be able to decrypt the signal, it can't just store the encrypted signal and play it back as needed.

    5. It's unreasonable to assume that the recording media, harddisk or DVD+RW, can be kept kept secure (they've dumped the contents of the Xbox already). So, we need a cryptographically strong encrypted file format.

    6. Since we from 5. don't trust the disk, we can not uniquely identify it. To ensure that this is a recording we should play, we need an authentication system.

    7. Presumably the best option would be to have a system like pgp, where there's a symmetric key, and public keys to find the symmetric key. Naturally the recorder would encrypt it using its own public key. This is basicly overkill until we introdouce the next point.

    8. Limited sharing. In addition to adding its own key, the player could also add a limited noumber of other keys. These public keys you could get in any format you'd want that the player would understand (delivering your recorder with a stack of cards to give to your friends, an electronic version, whatever, this is public). However, since we can't trust the disk (add max noumber of friends, copy back the one without friends, add new and so on) we need either to include these keys only at recording, or keep a track of how many keys we've added pr. recording in a secure flash RAM or similar. The last is clearly preferable, and as we have a built-in encryption we might as well keep the data there encrypted too. Naturally, only the original recorder would add keys, any other would simply only play it.

    9. Now I feel we have a reasonble digital VCR. It'll let you give your movies to some friends (I haven't specified a noumber, that's a matter of opinion), but you can't put it up on the Internet for all to leech. You can use standard media (harddisks, writeable DVDs, writable cds. You can backup the media, and they will still work. This was for your basic Reciever -> VCR -> TV setup. However, there is still some way to go.

    10. VCR to VCR hookup. As it's all digital there's no quality loss, obviously it's a potential leak. Basicly we need a flag to tell if this should be recordable and how we should pass it on, only now that it's encrypted it's working. It would be a standard SCMS-system (No copy, copy once, free copying) The problem is that this will probably be abused by the media companies to sell you content (uhh sorry, licence you the right to see content) that you can't record. The solution would be to require by law that all broadcasts should be set to at least copy once, I don't see any possibility of technically identifying the source.

    10. HD-DVD -> VCR -> TV. High Definition DVDs present a problem. Surely we'd like to be able to make a backup of a HD-DVD, and to keep one on the harddisk instead of putting in the disc every time. However unlike broadcasts a DVD can be played over and over again, and we wouldn't want an unlimited supply of copies, nor do we want an unlimited noumber of people able to make a copy, so the encoding in 10. would have to be set to no copying.

    Once again I see using the recoders public key as useful, this time when buying the DVD. When buying you should get the DVD, and also the encryption key to the DVD encrypted with the recorder's public key. Once at home the recorder can take the encrypted data (I assume here the VCR has a built-in DVD player, if not, a way to request the encrypted data from the external player, which should be possible as they're harmless without a key) and create a backup that can not be played on other players.

    However, you can now make as many backups you want of the file on your harddisk. So you have a disc which will play on all players, but can't be recorded, and as many backups as you want, however all backups will only play on your recorder. Naturally, this does not work with second-hand sale but it's unfortunately impossible to make neither the player nor the disc aware of this and allow a new owner to make backups.

    11. When going to the store as described in 10., it's vital that the key is the recorder's, and not a public/private pair that is known. So, the key must be signed by the VCR producer. Also, all stores would have to have an (on-demand) electronic connection to a server which will give out the keys. So if the phone lines are out, no keys. The DVD will still work as a DVD, but you'd have to come back later to get key for your VCR.

    12. Lost/stolen. All depends on the encryption keys, doesn't it. So, we'd want a backup of the private key to exist, however we wouldn't want someone to actually *have* the private key, nor do we want the Big Brother register of keys. Solution: Smart card or similar with the private key, encrypted with the manufacturer's key. This should be consider a valuable right up there with your silverware. With it you should be able to get a new one just like you would if it was permanently broken or you wanted to upgrade it, see below.

    13. Upgrade/broken. Fundamentally, we could replace it with an exact copy, provided we had the private key. However, it would be much more convienient if we could take a different player and make it play the old disks. And we can. Once again we'll need the connection to the manufacturer, who'll return the private key of the old player, encryped with the public key of the new player.

    14. For 12. there'll probably be some fundamental abuse checks. If the player is lost/stolen, a copy of the police report or similar. The upgrade feature should transparently upgrade all disks made using the old system (decrypt key with old, encrypt with new) to make it more difficult for people to use both the new and the "lost" player. The old player should be blacklisted in the server in 10., to note if someone is still buying DVDs to backup them on a "lost" or stolen player.

    The automatic upgrade also saves some complexity as it won't have to deal with upgrades of upgrades of upgrades, only one generation.

    15. Unsolved problems - limitations. The biggest one is the problem of what happens if one machine is replaced by several. Several old machines being upgraded to one new is no problem, but what if the family buys another machine for their son/daughter, or who gets the recorder in a divorce? Naturally, they could (and would) be designated as one of those that can play the recordings, but that doesn't give them the recorder's ability to add others that can watch them, nor can they move the DVD backups.

    Potentially one could create a profile system, where each profile could get upgraded individually, however it's unlikely that people would bother using it, as there's no point until the day the problem arises. Maybe if it could be tied in with some value-adding components, like a personal TV guide with your channels, your "tell-me-when-this-is-on"-list, "record-this-for-me"-list etc., maybe some fundamental access control (pin code for those porn flicks you didn't want anyone else to see) and so on.

    Another limitation is that of fair use. This grants backups (compared to none of todays DVDs, short of using DeCSS or similar), it grants lossless but limited sharing of broadcasts (compared to lossy but "unlimited" today, but I wouldn't want the 30th generation video tape, I'd say it's fair enough). However, it doesn't allow you to use that clip in any other way. The fundamental problem is that there is an unlimited noumber of copies, all exactly alike. One of the key conditions for fair use is that it usually involves a small part But those unlimited noubmer of small parts can easily be put together to an unencrypted whole, so I don't see a way to reasonably implement fair use digitally, without at the same time opening up Pandora's Box. First generation analog, at some reasonable quality will have to do, there's a balance to be kept here. As you'd have to have set-top boxes for current analog standards, I guess NTSC/PAL would be it.

    16. Bottom line. The bottom line is, I haven't seen them trying very hard to come up with a technical, instead of legal, way of doing things. It's possible, it can be made fairly reasonable (except for all those that have bought a system that can't handle an encrypted HDTV), but I admit, I prefer my normal DVDs (after DeCSS) and DivXs as much as the next guy. But I see how they skew things too much to the side of the consumer, and I don't blame MPAA for trying to prevent free copying. There's a balance here between what's fair for the industry and what's fair for the consumer, but like most other things in the digital world it's very fast either 0 or 1 - rarely a good balance.

    Kjella
    • But, that's the whole point.... Building a digital VCR is NOT hard. We have the technology to do it. The problem is when groups create artificial limitations that stop us from using the technology.

      If the big business sponsored copy control legislation gets passed, they will have a legal means for stopping the production of any devices that incorporate the technologies you describe. So, they intimidate, scare, and bully the companies into not producing digital VCR's, so that there is not chance of us watching that TV show when they don't want us to, or fast forwarding through that commercial, or -heaven forbid- copying that baseball game for my neighbor when he's out of town.
    • I, very much, respect your article and time thinking these 'rulesets', but you forgot a few major points.

      We've grown up dealing with NTSC and the static/low res of this format. However, some Pirates enter theaters with video cameras and copy very low res (even compaired to NTSC) and horrendous voice quality. These people are the ones you cannot stop.

      1: Please explain how your system will prevent copying through an analog medium (in relation of having a video recorder set up aimed at "The Unit")?

      2: Assuming that your system may bring the ire of EET's (electrical engineers with basis in tech) which can determine usual structures in digital displays, please tell how you would stop from an EET from taking over the main controllers of the tube/screen and saving those in a like-raw avi file format on a computer.

      3: Would this data saved on media be playable on the computer (and not those made specifically for this purpose? If so, how would you prevent software dissassembly? (read note 1)

      (note 1) Be aware that the first digital DVD recorder that allowed DVD=>AVI was not DeCSS, but was XING Mpeg player. It routed the video API to a compressor, then the hard disk. Quite rudimentary, but it did work.

      4: As a last question, what happens when said show goes public domain? Eventually these shows do, but this cryptographic lock keeps us legitamately out.

      Thank you for your time. I'm not trying to flame, because I actually like this idea to a certain extent. If somebody can come up with something fair, I'd use it. The only last prerequisite is that I'd accept NO zoning. However, I get a feeling if they do like your system, zoning's in :-(

      Josh Crawley
  • From the EFF article:
    The movie studios argue that these restrictions are necessary because digital television prevents an unprecedented threat of unauthorized copying -- first, because it is of exceptionally high quality, and second, because it's much easier to make copies of digital media (like CDs) than of analog media (like VHS tapes).

    So if this is the true argument, the EFF or some large consumer org should propose that analog RCA outputs be left in these new devices. All of our VCRs and PVRs would still work, satisfying those who would like to keep archives of Ace and Gary's Ambiguously Gay Duo for personal use. :-) At the same time, copying is still 1X and analog so the MPAA's argument is mooted.

    As for quality, if VCRs and PVRs eventually migrated to SVideo and eventually component outputs, quality will still be lower than the original digital stream but better than what we have today.

    Overall, it's a good compromise for both consumers and movie studios. As long as they're being up front with their concerns, that is. This sounds like a good thing to send to our Senators and Reps as its a middle ground solution.

  • The worst part about this is that all of the HD compatible televisions peoople bought, the ones that had stickers on them claiming they were HDTV ready, will be obsolete.

    They all have component inputs and the new systems will make sure that all connections are DVI( I think that is the acronim ). So people will have a TV cabable of displaying a 1080I RGB signal but all of the decoder boxes will only be allowed to have this DVI connector.
  • Instead of trying to prevent their shows from being distributed, why not release their own digital versions with ads?

    dbc

  • The good, the bad and the Valenti (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Friday January 18, 2002 @05:12PM (#2864965)
    (Quoted from the EFF Overview article) If new digital VCRs... never became available, some entertainment industry lawyers would lose little sleep. After all, they fought the introduction of the original analog VCR when it was first introduced; Motion Picture Association of America president Jack Valenti insisted the technology would be the death of the movie industry.

    [Soundtrack: documentary music. Off voice recites:] Note that the movie industry now heavily relies on revenue from home video sales and rentals, which is often higher than box-office revenue. Which proves that MPAA is clueless and not even able to understand the benefits of analog recording technology. This alone should definitely disqualify anything than Valenti ever says.

    [Soundtrack: grinding cogs.] Wait, Valenti is still president of the MPAA. In spite of having fought against a technology that generated tens of billions of dollars of profits for the very movie producers he is supposed to represent. So Hollywood actually supports Valenti.

    But then it means that... Ohmygod... [SFX: blinding flash] Oh no! It can only mean that HOLLYWOOD IS CLUELESS! AAARGH! How can that be? [Fade to black, soundtrack plays Wagner's Götterdämmerung finale, the part where the world comes to an end.]

    But seriously...

    Seriously, Hollywood's worst nightmare seems to be that every home has its own high-speed Internet connection and will copy the latest movies off the equivalent of Napster. That's why they oppose the growth of broadband.

    Hollywood should realize that grown-ups with even just a bit of disposable income do not have either the time or inclination to boot their PC, fire up a search engine and slurp a huge file through a hypothetical broadband connection. Even at broadband speed, an IP connection cannot deliver the same "bandwidth" as a trip to the local video rental store, which is a full 2-hour movie (6 Gig on a DVD) in 15 minutes. Or 20 if they pick beer on the way home.

    Adult with disposable income see their relaxation time as a precious commodity. If they can get a movie on DVD for $3, they won't have the patience to download anything even if it's free. The only potential users of movie download sites are students with ample bandwidth, no money and plenty of available time. They aren't a potential customer anyway (no money) and they accept to watch a movie on a PC screen, which most consumers sternly refuse to do. Marketing 101 teaches that you shouldn't harass regular, paying customers to attempt to deter a minority of shoplifters. Valenti slept through that class, obviously.

    In summary, Hollywood, misled by Valenti et. al., does not have its facts right and is trying to shoot itself in the foot again. The MPAA cries wolf to justify its own existence and reinforces that kneejerk reflex.

    Let's hope the producers will realize it and get out of the MPAA.

    -- SysKoll

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close