Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Digital TV Still Indecisive 238

Posted by CmdrTaco from the your-tv-is-obsolete dept.
/dev/trash writes "The logjam between Hollywood and Silicon Valley seems to be over. According to this article on cnn.com. It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy"" If it was only that simple- the article makes it sound like there isn't a lot of progress being made.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital TV Still Indecisive More

Digital TV Still Indecisive

Comments Filter:
  • Kraus said it right :

    "The only consensus this group seems to be arriving at is that there is no consensus," Kraus said.

    One thing I dont understand is these groups fanatically oppose any consumer intervention, meaning you and I, though we are ultimately affected by these decisions, have no way of participating. I rate these money mongers at the same level as Mafiosi thugs.

    Also once this bill is passed, we would have no way of sending copyrighted material to our office computers or any other ones.
  • or whether recordable DVDs would have to be encrypted to prevent further duplication

    Since when does encryption prevent duplication? Do these people never learn?

  • Still Can Be Distributed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jwilhelm ( 238084 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:01AM (#3644536) Homepage Journal
    What they don't seem to understand is that as long is it can be viewed it can be copied into a format that can be distributed online. Maybe the copy won't be as clean, but if it can be viewed it can be copied, and if it can be copied, it can be distributed.

  • Any public display, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:03AM (#3644553) Homepage Journal
    recording, rent, sale or rebroadcast of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. . .

    . . .unless all chnages made to the source are submitted back to the authors and the original and modified sources are distributed with any complied binaries.

  • Probably...until the hack the hack comes out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Roached ( 84015 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:04AM (#3644560)
    Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.

    At least until debroadcastcss is developed. Gee, they don't even seem confident that it will work...

    • Actually afaik they've managed to keep the encryption standard for DVB under wraps in Europe - I don't think anyone has broken it yet. Of course, people have reverse-engineered the authentication modules, and the encryption keys are freely available over the net... -s
  • I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.

    Once the broadcasting machine realizes that people don't watch commercials as much as they want to believe they'll likely realize increased exposure to their product would guarantee after broadcast revenues such as DVD and VHS sales, and secondary merchandising opportunities.

    It's just going to take them a while to figure this out. By the time they do everything will be locked up anyway.

    • Re:Where's the Value? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by grungeKid ( 4260 )
      They still broadcast ads before/after/during reruns, and advertisers still pay. Maybe less than what they would pay for appearing next to the initial broadcast of a show, but probably enough to cover the costs and more. Why else would 30+ year old shows still be rerun?

      Ever notice how many ads there are in recorded shows being spread around file sharing networks?
      • Ahh yes, but its a game of diminishing returns. Like I said, one people realize that TV ads are little more effective than web ads then the whole system will need to be reengineered. I believe that the broadcasters will realize that their are more opportunities outside the broadcast for money making. They don't show ads on DVD collections during the shows do they?

        No I don't know how many shared files have commercials. I don't download them.
    • The value is in a few things. But the most obvious (at face) is syndication and reruns. If such "popular" episodes are freely available elsewhere then they stand to lose revenue when they air that old episode of CSI because less people are likely to watch it (as they can get it else where) and advertisers aren't going to pay top dollar for a spot they know few are going to see.
      Effectively this kills the whole method of TV production as it stands now. (Consider how much out there *is* reruns).
      No one wants to (or even can I believe) come out with hit show after hit show, which is what would effectively have to happen for people to keep up with TV.

      Of course, all this is bullshit at the moment. Few have the bandwidth (and far fewer the inclination) to digitize the shows they watch and make them available to the general public. But then, the network execs aren't planning for now, they're planning for days ahead. They see what things like Napster have done to the music industry and don't want it happening to them. (Let's leave out the side comments about how Napster and other programs "help" the music industry.. I don't think anyone has the honest facts on that, and besides this is all about perception.)

      Eventually, if one takes the slippery slope down the road of enlightenment, what we'll all end up with is extremely watered down TV.

    • I don't understand why BigCos don't want broadcast (as opposed to pay TV like HBO) to be shared or spread. The only value for the broadcaster is in the initial broadcast. As the shows are rerun their audience diminishes and the perceived value from the customer drops.

      I agree. The whole idea of over-the-air broadcasts is that anybody with the proper receiver can pick up the signal. So, if we can all receive the programming for free, why can't we make a near-perfect copy of it for our friends?

      The "content owners" say that we don't have the right to re-broadcast, basically because if everybody could re-broadcast then their syndicated shows would be less desirable and they couldn't keep making money selling the same product. Also, we could remove the advertising if we wanted to, or theoretically replace it with our own to subsidize our costs.

      But let's focus on that last part - if we take out the advertising, then the audience that we re-distribute to won't go out and buy a new Jeep after watching our copy of the show. So the companies that advertise through the "content owners" don't get that additional exposure. But guess what? If we don't re-distribute, then our second-generation audience won't see it anyway. They also won't see the program, or the network's watermark in the bottom corner, so they may be less interested in getting the broadcast feed next time it's on. And that means nobody is going to tell them to drink Sprite ("Don't listen to celebrity testimonials, drink Sprite and be like me, the Famous Athlete").

      The "content owners" are confusing "free advertising" with "loss of control" - yes, they aren't the only providers of the Andy Richter show now, but they have a distinct edge over the P2P network - they have the newest episodes, best quality, and are most convenient (most of us don't run the ATI All-in-Wonder out to the TV), and it's the same price to consumers. All that the P2P networks have is time- and space-shifting.

    • This is a good point. In the magazine world, publishers assume a "pass-around" rate: for every copy sold, several people read it. This rate is different for each type of magazine (ie. computer mags have a higher pass-around rate than business mags.)

      The magazines use this number to get higher ad revenue ("well, sure we only sell 100,000 copies, but 500,000 people read it.")

      You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.

      Unless you use those damn Tivos to skip the ads.

  • DAT died... (Score:3, Informative)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:06AM (#3644568)
    ...because it had such a copy prevention flag.

    While you can go to the store and choose between two boxes, one that can record/replay anything and one that can't (and assuming all else being equal) the box with the copy prevention will stay on the shelf.

    You can already see this with DVD players. Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more. Almost all DVD players can either be configured by the supplier or the owner to play any region disk and the makers are unlikely to end this any time soon (nobody wants to end up with warehouses full of DVD players with the wrong region set...)

    • Re:DAT died... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Microlith ( 54737 )
      Apple had a copy prevention flag too.

      Set one bit and supposedly the Apple OS would not copy a file. This was, inevitably, ignored by everything including apple's own software shortly after it was implemented.

      Of course, it wasn't *legally* mandated, but you never know what might happen.
    • I wasn't aware of this. While I did consider hackability when choosing a new player, I was far more interested in a model that could output a good progressive scan image (and play SVCDs) and I was willing to sacrifice region selection for that.
      • I paid a 25% premium on my DVD-ROM to get it RF right out of the box. In fact, living in Europe, I will *not* buy a DVD player that doesn't allow me to switch regions. No way in hell!
    • Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more.

      In the UK I understand this is commonplace, but I don't think that's the case in the USA.

      I seem to remember also that software DVD players were supposed to only allow the region code to be changed five times before locking it down.

      • Nobody need buy a region restricted player any more.

        In the UK I understand this is commonplace, but I don't think that's the case in the USA.

        They're not as easy to find ("region-free" isn't something you'll see on the shelf tag), but you can find DVD players that are either (1) region-free out of the box or (2) can be upgraded by various means to be region-free (some are as simple as burning a CD-R with updated firmware). Your grandma probably won't know where to look for region-free DVD players, but she probably doesn't have non-R1 DVDs anyway. (I don't either, but I reserve the right to get my DVDs wherever I want. Jack Valenti can go fsck himself in the neck, and his minions can do the same.)

    • ..because it had such a copy prevention flag.

      Two points:

      1. DAT isn't dead. It's not being used for consumer audio, but is still somewhat common in pro studios as an interchange format. It's in decline in pro use as other technologies displace it, but five years or so ago all pro audio techs used it and even many amateurs with a few hundred extra $.
      2. It was doomed for mass consumer use anyway. Yes it was vastly better than regular audio cassettes - but it was also much much more expensive (both for the recorder and for the media.) For the last several years, of course, CD-R is the vastly more affordable and usually more convenient consumer equivalent.
      • The professional equipment does not have SCMS. So it is quite possible that copy protection is the explanation for the consumer equipment failure, while the machines that lacked it succeeded.
        • So it is quite possible that copy protection is the explanation for the consumer equipment failure, while the machines that lacked it succeeded.

          That's possible. It's also possible that we'd all be flying around in private helicopters instead of driving cars if only the FAA would open up helo pilot licensing to the public.

          I personally believe that consumer DAT was a flop for the same reason that Elcassetes and quadrophonic vinyl (remember those? all the rave for a couple months each in the 1970's as the "new consumer audio standard") didn't succeed, and that was because none of them offered sufficient perceived value to the average consumer to justify their costs.

    • SCMS is the Serial Copy Management System [mitsuicdrstore.com], which is what put consumers off from buying DAT drives, I agree. It's relevant to any digital audio stream, really, but you hardly ever hear of it any more. The other thing that killed DAT was pressure from the major labels that bumped prices up and restricted drive and media availability at the crucial time.

      Now, of course, you can but SCMS strippers, or build your own [cornell.edu]. The people suggesting this as a serious security mechanism are "asleep at the switch", methinks...

  • doing what was done in article and having a TV card in your computer and capturing the video, as an mpeg, and then putting it on a DVD? Maybe I missed something in the article.

    I like to think of it as a poor man's PVR.
    • Digital TV is an interactive (handshake required) transmission between components. (tuner-monitor/display) A perfect copy of the data stream will be refused by the digital monitor due to the lack of a handshake when the encrypted stream is fed back to a digital display from a non-lisenced playback device. This is not the analog NTSC or SVGA stuff you are used to. Any recorders will be required (by DMCA etc) to take the Copyrighted copy bit and change it to I am a copy bit when recorded. That copy will not be able to be recorded (2nd generation) to a device (DMCA playback hardware) that will handshake with the monitor. Your encrypted (received by e-mail) film will not play from your hard drive. A burner (DMCA hardware) will not burn it on a DVD for playback.
      That's the way they have been trying to set up Serial Content Copy Control specification for digital TV. It's to be encrypted with challenge/response communications all the way to the monitor with protection against making a playable copy of a copy. (protected by the DMCA and prevented by the hardware) It will be the same as the SONY Music Minidisk with it's serial copy protection. It's nice, has nice quality, but limited in usefullness and wide spread adoption. MP3's and WAV's on CDR's open format has vastly overtaken SONY's portable music market.
      Hardware manufactures know the power of the votes of the public dollars and don't want to make hardware that is voted down by the consumers.

  • A perfect digital copy of crappy content... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:09AM (#3644585) Homepage
    ...is still crappy content. When will the networks learn?

  • Now all we need... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NetRanger ( 5584 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:10AM (#3644594) Homepage
    Is a flag for "Don't Allow Broadcast Company to be a Rights-Trampling Monopolist".

    I suspect they aren't going to hold up the rollout to include this one though.
    • When I read your comment, I envisioned a studio executive holding the freshly-completed final copy of, say, the next episode of Alias, and waiting for your demand that you hand it over immediately.

      Before the thing is broadcast, at least, a TV show or album is a thing with a lot of value and you have zero rights to it whatsoever. The guy wants to find some way to sell it to you, to recoup his investment in making the thing. So he's suddenly trampling on your rights by trying to sell it to everybody rather than having you give it away for free, just because you have a way to do the cheap part (duplicating bits)?

      There used to be a good way to do that distrubution: he'd put it on the air, and sell people rights to interrupt it with commercials. Obviously that's a deeply flawed system, but it's one way to do it, and it has the advantage to you that you get to watch it without laying out any cash.

      Technology has exacerbated the flaws in that system to the point where it's totally dysfunctional, and a new technology must created to solve the problems. But the flaws are in the fact that the broadcaster can't control distribution any more, not that you suddenly don't have your "free" content anymore.

      Maybe it is time to end over-the-air broadcasts entirely, since it only works by giving monopolies on a public resource to rich people, who are no longer able to get the value out of it that they need to produce their content. That would make a lot of people unhappy, since they don't get their TV, but we get our airwaves back.

      I just implore you to think twice where rights come from before you call the broadcasters "rights-trampling monopolists". Yes, they are using public resources to enrich their pockets, but they are also creating content and employing a lot of people, from actors to writers, directors, and gaffers. They also profit from the system.

      There is a serious debate here over the best way to control content, and how much copyright affords. But suggesting that all of the power is on your side, and that they owe you this content, is unhelpful and greedy.
      • Sorry. They are rights-trampling monoplists. I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use. They want to remove this right from me. They are willing to flex unreasonable economic and political muscle to do so. Obviously, I'm not OWED content. But they aren't owed my money, either. But they get it - tax subsidies, the right to own my airwaves, control over content that violate all logical reasoning (I'm going to send you a signal, but you can't look at it. If you do, I'll have you thrown in jail), taxes on recording media.... I'd say they certainly owe me SOMETHING.
        • I have a right to freely exchange and manipulate content that I've purchased or otherwise aquired - the infamous fair use.

          Fair use allows you to use it; it does not allow you to "exchange" it.

          But they aren't owed my money, either.

          They have a right to charge for their content, if you wish to watch it. Perhaps using the airwaves to distribute it is a bad idea. It was always kind of dubious as a model, since the "price" of content is exchanged through the weird medium of advertising money. Still, at one point it functioned according to an economic model that suited everybody reasonably well: they broadcast it, you saw it live, and it was over. You didn't get to rebroadcast it or watch it without the commercials.

          Since then, technology has changed that. Maybe they need to stop broadcasting over the air. Certainly there are other people who would like to be using that spectrum. RF is hardly the only area where this occurs; the government sells land rights for mining and agriculture dirt cheap as long as you have enough money. So the technology has changed, and it seems like time to renegotiate the contract, not time to assert rights to a resource that has changed dramatically since the contract was create.

  • Digital TV has copy protection? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, sorry, for a moment there I forgot I was in the UK, where we've had Digital TV on Satalite, Cable and Terrestrial for over three years. What copy protection?

    Next you'll tell me that the US doesn't have a single agreed standard for their mobile telephone networks!
    • don't pick on the technologically bckward Americans. It's just not fair. Did anyone else notice the Winter Olympics fiasco? They had HD in France, Norway, Japan and... ermm... sort of HD in America too. It wasn't even widescreen for fuck's sake! The BBC had to put blue panels down each side of the picture. Oh, the shame of it!

  • My Christmas wish (Score:5, Funny)

    by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag@guymontag. c o m> on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:11AM (#3644605) Homepage Journal
    It looks like they want to just add a flag that says "this is a broadcast, do not allow more than one copy

    Oh please let this be true! Pretty please?

    Everybody keep quiet until these goofballs come up with something totally ineffective. They have not failed us yet!
  • The article is unfortunately skimpy. But it still seems like a flag can be bypassed. My guess is that the real protection would probably come from a combination of DMCA and spy chips in the TVs, recorders and whatnot. I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.
    • I would guess you would not be able to watch TV without having it hooked up the internet reporting all you are doing. Big-brotherish future.

      Until and unless Big Brother Hollywood is going to pay for my internet connection, they'd better not even think about imposing that kind of draconian supervision over my viewing habits. If they should try to do so I will either organize a class action suit against them, or sue them on my own. Whether it is 2 bytes or 2 gigabytes, I'm the one paying for the bandwidth and their use of my resources against my will constitutes tresspess of chattles and arguably theft in precisely the same way junk faxes and SPAM do.

      Now, if Hollywood is going to offer me free 100Mbit bandwidth to the internet, I might briefly consider making a Faustian bargain with them, exchanging my privacy for faster pr0n downloads, but I suspect even then I would consider it only briefly before rejecting it. Some things, like individual privacy and freedom, aren't for sale at any price (at least by me, though it seems the masses of mindless drones that populate our western democracies, indeed perhaps the entire planet, aren't as discriminating as one might wish).

  • Digital TV could bring so many advances to homes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by forged ( 206127 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:19AM (#3644652) Homepage Journal
    To me, Digital TV means so much more than a new class of devices with just more copyrights protection built-in. I don't think that we can escape this entirely, and perhaps there is a compromise in the air. What I am looking for as a consumer, is the following:

    For once, screw NTSC, PAL and SECAM. I still can't figure out why various countries chose to have different broadcast signals in the first place. Hopefully Digital TV will make this a moot point, once we all share the same "format" (and it better be good :)

    Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format [slashdot.org] better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.

    Imagine for a moment what a good-looking picture on your big-screen TV might looks like. A picture with shard details and glorious colors. Not like anything you can get from NTSC equipment, and to a lesser degree on PAL/SECAM too.

    As you can see, I'm really looking forward to Digital TV. I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit. I just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..

    • The main differences between PAL/SECAM and NTSC are due to the country's mains electrical supply frequency. By having a vertical sync that is synchronised with the mains supply reduces EMF induced interference on the display.

      Quite why there's different standards for the same frequency, I don't know (or why there's PAL-I and PAL-II for that matter).
      • Many computer monitors run at horizontal scan rates different from the mains frequency (I'm running 800x600 at 75 Hz right now), so it's NOT really primarily a matter of EMF induced interference. What is really going on is that cheap, poorly-filtered HV and deflection supplies (such as those built into consumer-level TV sets) that are synched to the mains frequency won't show visible effects on-screen from mains-frequency ripple on their DC outputs. (Actually, the artifacts WILL be there, but as they they aren't actually moving, they aren't noticable without a tape measure; they appear as degraded vertical linearity (scan line height). High-quality system such as VGA monitors and HDTV sets generally have better-regulated DC supplies and suppress the ripple better.

        As for the difference between PAL and SECAM, I will cynically suggest that it is due to French orneriness and a nationalistic desire to go their own way. Alas, this attitude is very transnational; as a species, we just cannot seem to agree on ONE standard for anything. (Video coding, modem standards, tone-dialing frequencies, power-line voltage/frequency, power-line freakin' PLUGS, you name it...)
    • I pay much more attention to the vivid, full-color picture outside in my garden than I do to anything on TV.

      In fact, the longer this rights-trampling crap from Hollywood goes on, the more I realize what a waste of time television is, and find that I can get much more rewarding stuff accomplished when it's off.

      I need a more rewarding TV experience like a need a more rewarding hole in my head.
      • And what do you call the flagrant copying and distribution of copyrighted material by internet users? I'd call that "rights-trampling". People have taken fair use and abused it beyond belief and expect numerous industries to just change their business models so people can have copyrighted material for free. Sorry, but illegal business models should be shut down, not dealt with.
      • I pay much more attention to the vivid, full-color picture outside in my garden than I do to anything on TV.

        I wonder if I could convince you to try the same trick with your computer.

        Every time there's a TV-related story on Slashdot, you get people crawling out of the woodwork to post mildly off-topic comments about how they don't watch TV. You know what? Nobody asked you. If you have something to contribute, that's fine. But if all you have to say is, "I only watch Masterpiece Theater and those delightful Taster's Choice commercials with the English chap," then please just move along.

        Sheesh.
    • For once, screw NTSC, PAL and SECAM. I still can't figure out why various countries chose to have different broadcast signals in the first place. Hopefully Digital TV will make this a moot point, once we all share the same "format" (and it better be good :)

      Uh... riiight. Whatever.

      HDTV is a North American only standard. Japan has it's own analog high definition standard. Various countries in Europe have their own standards (e.g. - the UK. Not sure what the status is of other countries at the moment).

      Second, this can also be the occasion for designing a newer DVD format [slashdot.org] better suited than current DVDs for high-res TV.

      There are already ongoing efforts for an HD DVD standard. Blu-ray is one of them. The name of the other (which is a single company, not a consortium) escapes me at the moment. If there's any relation to the HDTV broadcast standards then it'll be more because the hardware is already setup to deal with specific resolutions than for any other reason.

      I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit.

      Some of the issues are not solvable. The 8VSB broadcast standard sucks wind. It doesn't fulfill it's goal properly - multipath transmissions kill it dead, and its current operational range is pathetic. If you live within 25 miles of a HD tower you'll probably get reception. If under 50, you may. If 75, you'll be lucky. Over 75? Forget it, the signal won't be strong enough to get a picture.

      just hope that the same mistakes (the ones we did in the past with analog broadcast) will not be repeated..

      No, they're making all new and improved mistakes. The FCC apparantly got neutered in the past couple decades and they haven't done anything that is in the consumer's interest regarding HD. Removing the "must carry" clause for cable when it comes to HD was the nail in the coffin. At this point they're just throwing dirt on top (no recording standards, no cable box standards, no encryption standards, etc.).

      I love the idea of digital. I've seen HD and it's absolutely stunning. But the rollout has been so mismanaged that I'm increasingly of the opinion that HD is doomed to become the next DAT.
    • IMHO the ONLY reason to have a digital TV is for watching movies, or maybe sports. Who needs a super-duper-ultra-high-resolution-so-you-can-see-t he-pockmarks-on-their-faces television to watch a crappy sitcom??? This, of course, assumes that the movies are actually worth watching. I dunno, maybe now that I'm past 30 I'm officially old, but, all of the movies I like, I've already bought. Anyone who thinks I'd repurchase my entire library for higher resolution needs to buy some perspective. Doesn't Hollywood have a clue? When even AOTC is so crappy that I'd skip seeing it, maybe they need to seriously take a look at the steaming piles of you-know-what they're putting out. Add to that that they actually want to restrict digital TV; they should be bending over and kissing our a$$es to buy their movies. That's how much the quality has suffered.


      The whole issue has started making me wonder what the value in TV is anymore. I once saw a bumper sticker at a local bookstore near me. It said: "Fight prime time. Read a book." I always like to read, and I've started writing again. The behemoth tube that I paid $2300 for and weighs 234 lbs. has been off far more than on since then, and I don't miss it.

      • IMHO the ONLY reason to have a digital TV is for watching movies, or maybe sports.

        :cough:farscape:cough:

        You'd be surprised how much regular old entertainment TV is being mastered in HD these days. Enterprise has been shot and finished in HD since the pilot episode-- although I know that that doesn't make the quality of the writing any better. My point is that there's a lot of fairly low-rent TV out there that's being produced in HD. They're just waiting for the broadcasters to catch up.

        I have been told-- although I can't swear to it-- that Farscape is in production on the 2002-2003 season (season 4, is it?) in HD.

        When we get Buffy in HD, I'm gonna be pretty much set for couchly entertainment.

        Doesn't Hollywood have a clue? When even AOTC is so crappy that I'd skip seeing it, maybe they need to seriously take a look at the steaming piles of you-know-what they're putting out.

        Hollywood didn't have anything to do with AOTC. LucasFilm is completely, 100% independent of the Hollywood studios. Fox distributed it, but that's it.

        And your opinion on AOTC seems to be very much in the minority, friend.
    • Imagine for a moment what a good-looking picture on your big-screen TV might looks like.
      I don't have to imagine, I've seen it, and it's absolutely stunning! I've got a D-ILA projector that can do 1360x768 (which is less than the 1920x1080 or 1280x720 of the HD signal, but it's got some wacky temporal aliasing scheme that does wonders), and on my 120" screen it honestly looks better than my local cinemas. Whenever I demo any HD material for folks that haven't been previously exposed to HD, their response is -- without fail -- "Oh my God".
      I think these will be every happy times in 5-10 years once the technology will have matured a bit.
      These are happy times now if you're willing to do the research and deal with the typical hassles of the early adopter. ABC and CBS are doing most of their primetime lineup in HD, NBC has committed to all their new shows in the fall being in HD (and rumors of 11 total primtime hours), and the WB is even doing 3-4 hours of HD this fall. Add HDNet showing sports and the Olympics, Discovery HD Theater starting up on the 17th of this month, HD-HBO and HD-Showtime...

      If your local affiliates are up to speed (this biggest question mark at the moment, IMO), or you've got Dish or DirecTV, there's quite a bit of astoundingly impressive HD content out there right now, and with HD sets in the sub-$2K range, it's more accessable than most people think.
  • My old analog TV can never make up its mind, but it does have a whole continuum to choose from. At least digital TVs only have to choose from a finite set.

    (please do not mod down if you don't get this joke)
  • Is it really possible to make it so I cannot copy something which is playing on my TV?

    I have a VCR, I have a video capture card, if I take a signal out of my VCR in the living room and plug it into the video capture card in the office, what is to stop me from making a digital copy available online. I may not get the true digital quality but who cares?

    Maybe if the media companies don't want "piracy" of thier media, they should just go out of business and stop worrying about the whole thing. It's not like they're going broke, they still make millions.
  • ....all of the lame attempts at DRM etc. With the continued increase in computing power to the hardware that the consumer can buy, IMHO any "copy protection" or encription scheme the powers that be come up with will be broken within a year of it's introduction. It happened with DSS and Dish Network, it's only a matter of time ( and probably not much time) before it's cracked.

    Also, if they are taking this long to come up with the initial standard, it will take another decade before they would be able to deploy an new standard to replace the one that will be cracked.

  • So, is the flag part of the program bitstream, or just in a header somewhere? If I set my TIVO to skip the first 2 seconds (or 2 milliseconds) of the program intro, and so skip the header, will I have an "unlocked" recording?

    Or how about playing one TIVO to a second TIVO through an XOR filter to turn off the bitstream flag?

    Etc, etc... ad nauseum
  • The UK & Europe already have digital TV. There's no extra restrictions on copying other than the usual encrypted premium channels. It hasn't caused the destruction of the TV networks. Infact it's strengthened them because they now have more channels to play with.

    This is just an obvious ploy by hollywood to control the technology standard settings process. They'll keep doing this one small (reasonable sounding) step at a time, until we're all fucked.
  • Of course, this doesn't fix the Analog hole. which is something that I waiting to see what these people come up to try to 'fix'.

    Remember, no unauthorized happiness children.

  • Most people with a VCR are either too lazy to record a broadcast show, or don't know how to run their VCR. This won't change with digital TV.

    What's worse is, the movie producers know this, because whenever a new VCR or DVD is released for an old show or movie, they saturate the airwaves with the actual show or movie, and thus driving up the sales of an otherwise 'dead' product.

    Most people also don't use Limewire, Gnutella, etc. so to say that sharing shows would drastically reduce sales is pretty much bogus.
    • Most people also don't use Limewire, Gnutella, etc. so to say that sharing shows would drastically reduce sales is pretty much bogus.

      File sharing systems are a red herring. The "content providers" do not care 1 bit if "perfect digital copies" get gnutella'ed. Remember when Jack V. freaked out about VCR's ? It wasn't because he was worried about "pirates"; its because he was worried about losing absolute control over distribution. The same thing applies to the RIIA. If you can't watch something or listen to something without their permission, they will maintain their monopoly forever. And that is what its about.

      -- Rich
  • Let me begin this post with an innocent (well, semi-innocent) jab at the networks:

    Why are you trying to implement such strict copywrite restrictions on the masses when there is so very little worth copying (The Simpsons, History/Discovery/TLC/NGC/MTV are the only exceptions) currently on television?

    Since that wasn't very constructive, I'll move onto something that is.

    When you broadcast something through the air, or even over a cable line, you need to note the word BROAD. It is impossible to figure out (with the exception of those mysterious 'ratings') who is watching what at any time. (This of course doesn't cover people who have sonicblue systems, which may or may not send home data on what one is recording...). Also, as has been proven with every protection scheme since the little switch on the back of floppies, everything can be reverse engineered and subverted. SO it seems to me that the only people who, whether or not this thing goes through, will be harmed are the people who either don't know how to or don't care to record things off of TV.

    I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, because a TV in card is a terrible thing to waste...

    Oh and DivX is to wonderful to ignore ;)

  • Incentive to Copy is the Issue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by salamander49 ( 583585 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @09:43AM (#3644813)
    Right now, I have the incentive to download music from the net and burn my own CD's. That incentive is that I normally only like 1-2 songs per CD and I'm not going to pay $18 for two songs. Movies are different, it's worth it for me to pay $20 (ish) for a DVD because it will take a couple of hours to download and put the whole thing together (today). The trick for the recording/movie/tv studios is to set a price point for their media and create a distribution channel where its not worth it for me to download from the internet. Why should I pay for rock/movie stars to go to the space station when the answer to all their problems are just lower prices and common sense distribution?
  • first off, there is no way in hell they are going to technically pull it off. all they are going to do it make it a pain in the ass for regular joe public for only a short time before the tools to undo their garbage happens...

    And supposedly I'm the type of person they are after. YES, I have every Invader Zim episode on divx on Cd's. Why? I like the cartoon and it is going away. Nickelodeon has stated that they will NEVER release them on DVD, and I can go stuff it in my ass. well you know what? they cant tell me I'm stealing something that doesnt exist!! That' like saying that people who buy lemons are stealing from the lemonade bottling companies! It costs NOTHING to produce a show's archive for sale, and die-hard fans, the people that will buy the stuff, will buy it!

    IP is stupid, anyone that is supportive of IP is stupid, and we all need to get beck to reality instead of acting like a bunch of greedy 5 year old babies screaming "MINE MINE MINE"
    thinking they are going to become filthy,obsene rich.

    I'm tired of it, the world is getting tired of it, and we need to call a dog a dog.

    Until these "groups" are staffed with something other than yes-men that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about we will have extremely stupid and idiotic decisions and policies.

    we are at a time in history that most of the human species does not understand, nor can understand, the technology that is in use every day... and it is only going to get worse.
    • "It costs NOTHING to produce a show's archive for sale"

      Uh, bullshit.

      Programmers might be smart, but they really ought to need to take a couple business/economics classes before getting their sheepskin.

      1. Home video distribution rights. Who owns them? Can Nickelodeon acquire/license those rights?

      2. Digital transfer. The masters for the show are probably in analog format. A DVD transfer must be made. Possibly new soundtracks must be created (5.1 surrond, etc.)

      3. Additional content: Behind the scenes interviews, production stills, subtitles, etc. Authoring a DVD is a PITA, and the service doesn't come cheap.

      4. Locomotion is an AWESOME cartoon channel. How come we can't get it in the states? (oops, way off topic, nevermind)

      5. Packaging. Yeah, consumers still want packaging. Weird, I know.

      6. Distribution.

      7. Marketing.

      8. ...

      9. ...

      So no, it doesn't cost "NOTHING".

      Releasing on DVD has an "opportunity cost" as well. If it is available on DVD, then your cannibalizing your ad revenue for future showings/syndication.

      But hey, if you really like the series, talk to the producers. I'm sure they'd love for someone to foot the bill for them continuing their work. Maybe you can even buy the home video rights from them...
    • IP is stupid, anyone that is supportive of IP is stupid...

      That's quite a statement.

      If there were Invader Zim DVDs to buy, wouldn't you be, uh, supportive of that?

      And color me stupid, because I write and sell books. Guess I am part of the evil IP cartel! Now where's my Ferrari, dammit?
      • Yes, and if you wouldn't let me buy your book(s), I'd gladly take it(them) over to a photocopier and copy the sections I need/want. or (GASP) fint it at the library. (Funny, you publishers arent out hanging librarians and burning libraries.. they have photocopiers all ready and waiting for rampant copyright infringement! My God, Libraries are Cesspools of Wanton illegal activity! People are READING books they didnt pay for!!!!)

        so yes... if you published your books on the same model as television shows, you are in the exact same category.

  • Consumers could save digital broadcasts on DVDs, and transfer broadcasts for playback on different devices in the same house, they said. But they probably (my emphasis) would not be able to e-mail an episode of "The Simpsons" to a friend, or make it available on a file-sharing network like KaZaA.

    So there's going to have to be some mechanism built into all the electronic information transport mechanisms commonly available to consumers that will look for and honour the "It's MINE, I tell you, all MINE!!!!" flag? Even when the content has been transformed into a format suitable for transport?

    I wish them luck. Perhaps the broadcasters have finally found a form of sufficiently advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic (nods to the shade of Arthur C Clarke); would they now mind turning their attention to producing something that's worth watching even once?

    Somehow, I have a feeling that for this plan to fly they're going to have to get some more laws passed by their tame sock-puppets in the legislatures. If only because otherwise they'd have to fund the requisite extensive changes to the communications infrastructure themselves, which would doubtless bring about the end of civilisation as they know it....

  • Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
    by John Litzenberg [nbci.com]
    This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

    You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience

    the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins

    because your television will not be revolutionized.

    You will not have the option to view programming that reflects
    actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work

    because your television will not be revolutionized.

    You will not have more information at your disposal,
    but a great deal more disposable information;
    you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging
    or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints
    of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life;
    nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment
    that will best equip you to face other human beings
    who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence
    because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D.
    by absorbing the litany of T
    but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom
    vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports,
    or candid interviews with starvation victims
    in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast,"
    and may be convinced exists
    only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator,
    or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching
    carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands
    resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis,
    sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling,
    all of which may or not be created using special effects.

    Your television will not be revolutionized.

    You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television,
    in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence
    and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week,
    and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes
    or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections
    or wash-and-go shampoos.

    You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts
    of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa,
    but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like,
    "When did you first realize that you were different from other children?"
    and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes
    in between paid advertisement programs
    showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home,
    and they will be given equal air-time,
    and each will be gently disclaimed:
    "The opinions expressed by guests on this program
    do not necessarily reflect the views of this network,
    do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers,
    and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."

    You will continue to find yourself in a world
    that has an increasing number of methods for communication,
    and alarmingly less and less to say.

    You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that
    "the medium is the message,"
    and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning,
    "Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume,"
    and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra
    that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.

    Your television will not be revolutionized.
    • Oops..that got mangled, try again:
      Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized
      by John Litzenberg [nbci.com]
      This piece is called "Your Television Will Not Be Revolutionized" because despite what our so-called leaders of technology and communications may tell you, the chances are slim that your quality of life will be enhanced by further dependence on a device which has throughout its history been referred to as the "idiot box" or "boob tube." After Gil Scott-Heron's "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."
      You will not be able to sit back in your recliner and experience

      the sights and smells of an actual African safari with Marlon Perkins

      because your television will not be revolutionized.

      You will not have the option to view programming that reflects
      actual facts, opinions and situations of real people in real jobs doing real work

      because your television will not be revolutionized.

      You will not have more information at your disposal,
      but a great deal more disposable information;
      you will not experience a reduction in the amount of subliminal messaging
      or an increased exposure to the fully explored viewpoints
      of persons with alternative outlooks on the world and ways of life;
      nor will you have the ability to selectively choose shows and entertainment
      that will best equip you to face other human beings
      who may have differing and conflicting methods of dealing with everyday existence
      because, despite your ability to earn a Ph.D.
      by absorbing the litany of T & A, S & M, B & D and R & R
      on CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN,
      people who have important things to say
      regarding the fragility of relying on modern convenience
      will not be able to set up independent broadcast towers
      because the FCC, FBI and CIA will make sure
      that you do not find these programs included as part of "Must See TV,"
      and they will certainly not be sponsored
      by Mobil Oil Corporation and the Fortune 500.

      You will not be able to immediately gain access
      to the viewing public without waiting nine months
      on a list for new programs, waiting only to be passed over
      by a Committee for Fairness in Television
      because your views are not deemed interesting enough
      to command a favorable Nielson share.
      Nor will you be able to select features for your viewing pleasure
      that have not been hand-picked by the owners of the airwaves
      and their supporting advertisers.

      Your television will not be revolutionized.
      Your television will not be revolutionized.

      Your television will not be revolutionized.

      You will continue to experience a decrease in rapid eye movement,
      increasing cases of attention deficit disorder among your babies and children,
      and on-going, invasive modifications to your DNA
      caused by the barrage of an electron machine gun
      you have invited into your home to expose "viewers like you"
      to a thousand points of artificial light.

      You will continue to form images subconsciously inside your physical brain
      without the benefit of seeing them outside your head,
      and without the ability to blink and shut them out or slow them down
      so as to maintain the facility to selectively choose
      the sound bytes and sound tracks and sound effects and
      hypnotic waves of electricity that will influence
      your spending patterns, your methods of recreation, your opinions on procreation,
      your impression of reality and
      your overall sense of physical health and well-being.

      Your television will not be revolutionized.

      Your retention of information will continue to decrease,
      while the available percentage of brain cells at your disposal
      will continued to be used up by phrases from sitcom theme songs,
      by deductive meanderings on who shot J.R., and
      by images of politicians wrapped in flags and kissing babies,
      eating chitterlings, slicing pizza and
      spreading lox on bagels.

      You will not be able to take your message to the streets
      or distribute pamphlets questioning the party line
      at union meetings or city council sessions,
      because your fellow citizens will be safe at home,
      unified only in the respect that they are all watching re-runs
      of the same shows so it can be assured there will be a topic of conversation
      when we are all turned loose to exercise
      our First Amendment rights
      assisted by a new and improved level of communication
      brought to you by the Association for the Preservation of Technological Megalomaniacs.

      You will not be able to tell the difference between an embrace
      offered by a virtual reality image of your dead father
      and the gentle purring of a live kitten grasping your shoulder;
      but you will continue to be able to anesthetize your sense of boredom
      vicariously, whether through the war game simulation of professional sports,
      or candid interviews with starvation victims
      in a country of which you were not even aware "prior to this newscast,"
      and may be convinced exists
      only thanks to the believability score of the on-the-scene commentator,
      or by gripping the edge of your seat while watching
      carnage and bloodshed and laying on of hands
      resulting in cures for leprosy, AIDS, infantile paralysis,
      sickle cell anemia, and that awful bloated feeling,
      all of which may or not be created using special effects.

      Your television will not be revolutionized.

      You will continue to trust in a world that has been edited for television,
      in situations that will be re-enacted based on circumstantial evidence
      and the imagination of financial advisors to the producers during "sweeps" week,
      and in actors who are paid to tell you their headache disappeared in minutes
      or that they actually spent time at their last dinner party discussing yeast infections
      or wash-and-go shampoos.

      You will be able to see inside the minds and hear the thoughts
      of Richard Nixon, of Jeffrey Dahmer, of Charles Manson and Mother Theresa,
      but you will see them being asked the same questions, things like,
      "When did you first realize that you were different from other children?"
      and you will see the same one-liners being used to promote their causes
      in between paid advertisement programs
      showcasing the efficiency and pleasure provided by shopping at home,
      and they will be given equal air-time,
      and each will be gently disclaimed:
      "The opinions expressed by guests on this program
      do not necessarily reflect the views of this network,
      do not support the philosophy or political leanings of the majority of our viewers,
      and are not intended to stimulate, educate or otherwise affect anyone at all."

      You will continue to find yourself in a world
      that has an increasing number of methods for communication,
      and alarmingly less and less to say.

      You will find it true, as Marshall McLuhan once said, that
      "the medium is the message,"
      and that its sweet velvet voice is crooning,
      "Learn to consume as you have taught me to consume,"
      and reminding us in the words of Jello Biafra
      that the conveniences we have requested are now mandatory.

      Your television will not be revolutionized.

  • What about sneaker net? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rev Snow ( 21340 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @10:24AM (#3645184)
    I know some school teachers who occasionally see a television program that is relevant to their class. They record the program on video tape, then carry the tape to school and play it for the class on the school's VCR.

    Would this kind of use be permitted under the proposed DRM scheme?

  • Copy local or copy never, but not copy once (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday June 05, 2002 @11:01AM (#3645474) Homepage

    I don't think that this article says or even implies that there's a "copy once" bit.

    What it implies is a new standard for gateway digital devices that will pass content only to other devices of the same class, and (I suspect) over a proprietary, non-IP network. Then (whatever actual encoding is used) there's going to be an identifying watermark that the receiving device must look for. It will either be a simple identifier (so that you can copy from one PVR to another if you plug them together) or a "copy never" bit so that you can stream it to another PVR, but this second PVR will not make a copy, it will only stream on to a display. Technically, there might be a "copy once" bit, but only on the original broadcast, so once it hits your PVR, it's "copy never".

    If it's the former case, and you can make copies by plugging two PVR's together, I think that's fair enough, because I can take my PVR round to my brother's house and make a copy of Buffy for him. That's raising the bar far enough, as it effectively restores the situation that case law has decided is fair use: making a few copies explicitely for known friends and family.

    However, that theory is replete with flaws. For one, it doesn't match the way the industry has been going. It's far more likely (I suggest) that it will be a "copy never" bit, and only local streaming will be allowed. For another, there's still that bloody great gaping hole at the tail in either case: sending to a display. Because unless the display also has to be one of these new devices, you just stream to a video capture card, then it's straight onto the internet with the content, and people will download it and stream it to their own non-compliant display devices.

    That's the sting. It has to cover display devices (TV's, monitors) and it has to be mandatory. Don't think this will stop with PVR's. For it to have even a hope in hell of making a difference, every display device sold will have to be compliant, and it will have to refuse to show content without the watermark. That means that PC video cards will also have to watermark their content. You see where this is going? It snowballs pretty rapidly. But unless they get everything, there's little point in them pushing ahead with it.

    To support this rather alarmist attitude, ask yourself this: if this is truly an industry consensus, why does it need to be legislated?. I suggest that the answer is that for it to work, it has to be mandatory, and it has to be across the board: every channel, every cable decoder, every PVR, every TV, every monitor, every video card, every DVD player, every VCR. Everything.

    Wake up, the coffee is brewing. This is Son of SSSCA, yet again. They're just hoping nobody notices this time until it's too late. Please, please, get out that pen and paper, and ask your elected representatives to have a good, long, hard look at this, because it has the potential to be as bad as you can possibly imagine, and then a whole lot worse.

  • Wow, these guys are working really hard to make sure that I don't buy a digital TV. I'm curious what economics class they took that said:

    "Don't listen to your customer's needs. Instead, assume they are a thief, and prevent your product from being miused at all costs! Only that way will you be able to maintain an ancient business model."

    It's real simple: I'm not buying a Digitial Video Recorder if it only lets me 'copy once'. They better hope that somebody hacks it if they want my money.

    You know, a couple of years ago I used to really love TV and Movies. Now I feel like we're fighting a war. It's amazing how much less value TV has when you're stressed about stuff you can't do with it.
  • and there is STILL nothing on to watch...
  • Its not going to happen.

    You don't need it for carrying commercials and reruns of "My Mother the Car."

    That's the direction the industry's headed in since day one. There's no compelling reason for the advertisers to invest in new infrastructure until the old one has collapsed.

    I hopy you LIKE the current resolution and aspect ratio because it ain't changing. Nobody wants to pay for it. Not the advertisers and certainly not YOU.
  • With the amount of copy protection you can build into dedicated appliances and the amount consumers are willing to pay for convenience, copyright violations are hardly a problem.
  • Looks like the EFF fought hard to get in and stay in the meeting process. It really seems as if the industry group didn't think that anyone else should have a say in this issue, even though it significantly affects fair use (and not to mention the millions of current HDTV owners being sent up that stinky creek). From the EFF's abstract of their well-written comments on the final report: [eff.org]
    We hope that readers of the Co-Chair's Report will find in this briefing, compelling evidence of the dangers presented by the BPDG recommendations and will recognize them as the self-interested aspirations of a small, partisan group seeking to write an anti-competitive law that protects its commercial interests at the public's expense.


    The BPDG "process" has been rife with acrimony, arbitrariness and confusion, to an extent that cannot be fully ascribed to mere haste. EFF believes that the failings of the BPDG process stem directly from BPDG's efforts to cloak a inter-industry horse-trading exercise in the trappings of a public undertaking, with nominal participation from all "affected industries." In reality, the representatives were hand-picked by the conveners of the BPDG to minimize any dissent, as is evidenced by the high degree of similarity between the original proposal brought to the group by its conveners and the final report that the co-chairs unilaterally present herein as the group's findings.[bold added by gt]

    Throughout the process, the absence of any formal charter or process afforded the co-chairs the opportunity to manipulate the rules of the group to suit their true purpose while maintaining its illusory openness, as when the scope of the group's discussions was summarily expanded to encompass all unauthorized redistribution of feature films, as opposed to unauthorized redistribution over the Internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.

Close