Japanese Digital TV Viewers Complain About DRM Restrictions 371
Riktov writes "The Japan Times reports that that viewers of digital broadcast TV, which started this past April, are complaining to national broadcaster NHK about restrictions on recording. Many of the complaints seem to arise from viewers who are confused as to why they can't copy rather than angry that they can't copy, but in the end all viewers are learning the hard way about content restrictions."
Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
The market isn't rejecting the DRM, instead their turning to us geeks and saying "What are you kids making a fuss about?" That's not a good sign for us at all...
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
we don't have any explaining to do. we've got TV modding to do! enter a new mod-chip industry. i'm thinking you stick a little doo-dad in between the signal decoder and the output to the screen.
if i'm thinkin' it, then chances are there's an enterprising korean kid somewhere who can actually do it with little more than some chop sticks and a little chicken wire.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2, Interesting)
Publishing the tools to do so may be under DMCA, though.
IT's not really like DirecTV... descrambling encrypted signals without permission falls into a different category than simply bypassing a trivial recording blocker... if you are descrambling DTV, you had no rights to view the material in the first place.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA TITLE 17 CHAPTER 12 Sec. 1202. (b)(1) [cornell.edu]
And that's ignoring any issues with modifying the TV receiver itself and that you managed to avoid any circumvention issues.
-
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Informative)
As scary sounding as the DMCA may be, copyright law is worse. Look at the penalties listed at the beginning of a movie in the FBI warning. Yet people copy movies all the time knowing there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting caught unless they're doing it on a large scale. It will be the same for DRM mod chips. A few guys will get busted selling them, but many people will use them undetected. This will be just like every other pointless and unsuccessful copyright scheme, easily defeated, inconveni
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Funny)
Chocolate cake is rape.
Oh, wait...that doesn't make sense either.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to elaborate?
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
This poses a bit of a problem for me. At the moment, I have made it my goal to record all six seasons of CHiPs (yes, I have a thing for cheesy police shows), and put them on DVDs for my personal viewing pleasure (as it is highly unlikely to come out on DVD). Part of that involves removing the commercials from the recorded episodes.
Using MythTV with a PVR-250, I can do that (the resulting stream is just MPEG-2, I can edit it in any MPEG-2 editor), and then throw it into a DVD authoring program, add a menu and maybe some special effects, and there I go. I can't do that with this new setup.
Plus, what's up with having to insert a card into your TV? Why the heck should I have to identify myself to a TV? (The article doesn't say what the identification is used for.)
-- Joe
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, it's timeshifting. It comes on at 4AM (CHiPs does come on at strange hours on TBS here, sometimes I get the Emergency Broadcast Test in the middle of the episode), so I'm going to have to record it anyway (I have to work during the day, I can't stay up until 6AM to watch TV). The only difference is that I'm not deleting the file after I have watched it - much like I might do with a real videotape.
Would it be any different if I just left the unmodified episodes on the PVR hard drive, as if it were a VHS tape (with commercials still there), and skip the commercials every time (FF/REW)? Or is the editing/archiving the episodes to TV that makes this non-legal?
As for the TV card... If it comes to the point where I have to insert a card into the TV (currently, with analog cable, I don't have to do this), or my existing recording equipment is disabled, I just might have to give up TV for good. Currently, it plays a very small role in my life, I'd rather fire up an editor and write some software, with the exception of the few shows I record.
The media needs to learn that not everybody wants things pushed into their brain - a lot of people want choice, and they want to exercise those choices.
-- Joe
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that is factually incorrect. It is in-fact the same thing. You are simply time-shifting the TV-shows so you can watch them over and over again.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
LOL. Of course it is. I don't even know where to begin arguing it because I can't imagine what makes you think it isn't fair use.
Most people make that sort of error based on a backwards reading of section 107 [cornell.edu], thinking that is is an exhaustive list granting fair use. In fact it is not an exhaustive list - it merely lists six examples of fair use and lists four examples of factors to include in determining fair use. Nor does it grant fair use. In fact all it does is recognize existing fair use rights (as stated in the congressional record when it was passed) and state that fair use is never copyright infringment. Fair use is not granted by copyright law, fair use sweeps away copyright law.
But even that doesn't make sense because you clearly know that shifting is fair use. Under that sort of backwards reading of 107 even time-shifting would not be fair use. So I don't know what makes you think it somehow becomes infringment to edit out the commercials or to keep a private collection.
-
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Informative)
What it says is:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [examples] is not an infringement of copyright.
If something is fair use then it's not infringment. Fair use completely sweeps aside all of copyright law.
Of course that leaves the question of what is fair use? Well the rest of 107 is merely four examples of "factors to be considered" in determining fair use. Determining fair use is done by the courts. The courts shall weigh at a minimum those four factors, but they can weigh any other factors they like. To put it bluntly, fair use includes anything the courts decide it includes.
A fundamental aspect is that 107 is irrelevant. Fair use never appeared in copyright law before 1976, yet fair use existed before that. 107 could be striken from law and there would be no change. The congressional record says that 107 was merely written to acknowledge existing rights, that it was not intended to enlarge/diminish/alter fair use in any way at all.
Much of fair use was mapped out by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. For example it is almost impossible to effectively review or criticize a book or movie or political speach without copying portions of it into the review/criticism. The literal text of copyright law says that such copying is infringment. That means copyright law could unconstitutionally prohibit other people's 1st amendment protected right to make their own original reviews/criticism speech.
So prior to passing 107, copyright law was technically unconstitutional. Ordinarily the courts simply strike down any unconstitutional law as null and void. The courts wanted to aviod such a sweeping and disruptive result, so instead they bent over backwards to assume that copyright law implicitly never attempted to apply in the first place. They assumes that copyright law implicitly flees when faced with fair use.
There is no simple way to define fair use, and the Supreme Court has specificly said that it is impossible to give a full listing of fair use - that someone could show up tomorrow with a never before dreamt of use, and that only the courts can ultimately decide if it is fair use.
Probably one of the most enlightning aspects is that initially all use is fair use and that all such works lie in the public domain. The constitution give congress the power - if they chose to do so - to take a limited bundle of rights from the public for a limited time and give them to the copyright holder. Congress my only do so for the public benefit. The Supreme Court has explicitly said that the purpose of copyright *MUST* ultimately be for the benefit of the public, rejecting copyright holder benefit as a purpose of copyright law. The public willingly turns over this limited bundle of rights to copyright holders because the public expects to benefit from doing so. It gives creators an incentive to create for the public and an incentive to distribute thier works to the public. When copyright expires the work falls back into the public domain, where it was before copyright temporarily lifted it out of the public domain. Copyright law was created to encourage the flow of more works into the public domain, that is why it is constitutionally required to expire.
To put it simply, copyright holders were given a limited bundle of rights, an exclusive monopoly to commercially exploit a work. Anything not included in that bundle is fair use. For example making a backups and recording with a VCR do not infringe their limited monopoly to commercialize that work. Such uses were never a part of the bundle granted to copyright holders in the first place. They were never given any rights to relating to personal use. Once you have received a copy, private use is fair use. Whatever you do with it in your home is not part of the copyright grant.
Taping TV shows for personal use, building a collection, editing them, none of that infringes their lim
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to make a backup copy, maybe? The ability to edit it. The ability to run it through some filters. The ability to re-encode it to another format. The ability to send it to my other Tivo, maybe? They don't keep track of how many copies you currently have, they can only keep track of how many generations of copies it can go through. I could be doing everything perfectly legally, by deleting old copies, but this DRM would stop my perfectly legal activities.
Just because they own it, what right does it give them to dictate exactly how I'm allowed to watch it? If I want to remove every violent scene from a movie, why shouldn't I be able to do so? If I want to edit out the intro and the credits, why shouldn't I be allowed?
I can't believe there are people like you that actually think companies should be able to literally micromanage our lives.
Re:copy once (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Knock, Knock, Knock) Sumimasen
(Silence we try to pretend we're
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3)
What right do I have to it?
Who else can I trust to ensure I have a copy of the show once the copyright expires?
That is after all why you are getting a copyright on it in the first place, so that the public domain can have it for anything/everything after the term expires.
How many works have been lost so far that are rightfully the property of the
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pray tell, why do you think there is a divine right to copyright protection?
Explaining This... (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't pay for it if I tried! I love the show, so you're saying I shouldn't download it? I should just forget the show even existed? Not my fault people edited out the commercials.
Re:Explaining This... (Score:3, Interesting)
- Nobody bought the broacast rights to the show in your area... meaning that the station/network that used to pay the producers for the right for you to see the show with their ads inserted stopped paying. You should be complaining to either that station to start paying again, or telling another station in your area to pick up the show instead.
- Somebody
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll, but I hope you don't con too many people into giving you karma.
Public domain? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is supposed to benefit sosciety because the copyrighted material shall fall into the public domain after a limited copyright period. Thus increasing the cultural base that society may use freely. Since all ideas are inspired by others, this is how it is supposed to benefit society and promote arts and science.
How come people allways forget this last bit when making discussions regarding copyright?
And to anyone trying to restrict the way I can use legally purchased items: Screw goat! Literal
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I always had a second copy. The first copy would degrade (it was VHS, so repeated watchings would do that), or get lost, or get jammed in the machine and become worthless. By having a second copy I'm still safe.
So now my 2 year old scratches the disk and it's ruined. Now what? My second copy wasn't part of a piriting scam. It was just backup. Legal, didn't hurt anyone or devalue the property. It was just for me. Now I won't be able to do that. I've lost a perfectly fair right to use something I own in a valid way.
Bricks can be used for evil (many people use them every year to bash someone's skull or break windows) but bricks aren't outlawed. People run over other people in cars PURPOSLY, but cars are still legal.
If you take away everything that can be used illegally, you'll have nothing. You'll be naked and cold. But you could still use your arms to puch someone or strangle someone so...
It's a slippery slope. The above paragraph is hyperboly, but you can't ban something because a few people use it wrong. When 70% of people use it for illegal stuff, then you can talk about banning it. But when 1-5% do (I would bet lower than that in many circumstances) you shouldn't ban it.
PS: Every time something is copied, put a unique identifier into the video that tells what machine duplicated/edited it. That way you can trace the pirated copies to where they came from and shut 'em down. I wouldn't mind that. I keep my rights, and the studio can shut down the pirates.
But as a consumer I would win in that situation so I guess it's not a option, huh.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
OR, you could examine the law that is making it illegal, and wonder if maybe it's time to change the law, since it doesn't seem to be in concert with "the will of the people" anymore...
When a large section of the population does something that's against the law, the solution is not to ban it, it's to update/change/revoke the law to more match the current climate.
But hey, banning something worked so well for marijuana, it will probably work just as well here, right?
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:4, Insightful)
I usually support the software and music industry regarding their copyrights but in this case it doesn't make sense. When I purchase a piece of software I'm bound by a licence agreement, a contract on my use of the software that I paid for. With broadcast TV, you have not agreed nor signed to such a contract, therefor, how can DRM be enforceable?
How do you define a copy of broadcast TV anyway? It's being transmitted from a base station that could reach an infinite number of devices. The issue is really about a consumers ability to TIMESHIFT the video so they can watch it at a later time.
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
In general (in the US at least) I agree with you. However in this case they may have signed a contract. Every household is supposed to pay for a license for
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2)
because (Score:3, Insightful)
Because most don't like to be treated like a criminals when they are not? Do you think it'd be OK to ban all CD-RW drives because some people make copies of copyrighted CDs? Don't punish everyone for the sins of a few.
Another thing that pisses people off is when they have buy hardware (i.e. a TV) that is purposely crippled - especially when it's s
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:2)
You can't fix a social problem (theft) with a technological solution. You need to get to the root is the social problem and make the change there. Assuming that we're all criminals because of the acts of a few is a bad thing (and that's basically what they're doing here).
-- Joe
Re:Uh oh, We've got to the explaining to do... (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to get drawn into a conversation like this, esp. with an AC, but with the rise of the Internet, non-corporeal goods (mp3s, e-texts, etc.) no longer have any monetary value. You might argue that companies like Apple *are* selling music online, but you have to understand that, since they have no resale value (they can't be resold), they have no intrinsic value in the first place. It's not that people are being suckered into buying something that's re
Confused? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Confused? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. Maybe Riktov has missed some of the finer points of Japanese culture. The article itself doesn't even suggest that "most" customers are confused, ...drawn a flood of complaints from TV users... ...more than 15,000 inquiries and complaints...
The only references to confusion/lack of understanding are "Customers often ask me about 'duplication control' but I have difficulty in helping them understand it," said store manager Yuki Kanno. and "But the duplication control is difficult for elderly people to understand," a sales clerk said. - both from the industry side of the argument. Customers are pissed, and they aren't accepting the explanations given to them by sales people. Maybe that's because it was a bad idea?
They suggest it's due to popular TV dramas being copied and mass marketed around Asia. Imagine that - broadcasting media and then people having it for free! I'm not saying selling the copies is right, but if the media companies aren't competitive in that market, they should be addresing that rather than screwing their bread and butter customers. I wonder which particlar media companies are behind this? The article seemed to leave this snippet of information out...
Coincidently (Score:5, Funny)
-Grump
Re:Coincidently (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Coincidently (Score:2)
Grump
Mr Sparkle Says: (Score:4, Funny)
it's not long.... (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone live in Japan and want to host him? Anyone know the guys email address?
Re:it's not long.... (Score:2)
Very true but it's not going to help the older consumers that are the ones purchasing the new digital TVs. They have a hard time grasping what the restrictions are let alone how to circumvent them.
Re:it's not long.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider one group that's going to have problems with this setup-the anime community. Check the links Taco put on the front page and you'll see it's a well organized international community of thousands of hardcore enthusiasts. Some of them put a lot of effort into getting high quality copies of Japanese TV shows. As soon as these DRM schemes start getting in the way of fansubbing Naruto within 24 hours of its Japanese airing, you're going to see a lot of smart, technical people with too much free time dedicated to breaking the restrictions.
I predict that people like the anime fansubbers can make a laughingstock of the DRM in a matter of days. So imagine what professional pirates will do. Even without beowulf clusters. There's groups making millions off the bootleg videos that have become ubiquitous in Asia. They have professional-quality printing equipment and the ability to make packaging the average consumer can't tell apart from the real thing. The perception that DRM prevents copying will just make it easier to convince people that bootlegs are real, and it won't slow down the pirates at all.
So whether you're getting your Japanese TV shows from groups that encourage buying DVD's [animesuki.com] and respect foreign licenses or greedy pirates [slashdot.org] flooding the retail market with bootlegs and providing the argument in favor of these systems, the DRM won't be much of a problem.
It's only going to screw you over if you're an elderly Japanese couple that wants to watch your TV the same way you could with your fancy VCR (that still blinks 12:00).
Re:it's not long.... (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's DVD.Jon@guantanamo.cu, but he's awfully slow to reply :)
Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully something good comes out of it, and industry would get its nose rubbed into real life customer experience...
Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:5, Funny)
@ssh0le
How do you pronounce that? Atsshzerole?
Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:3, Funny)
That's not the only way to abbreviate it either. Sometimes it's just shortened to "a/s/l", except the latter almost always refers to one's self.
Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:3, Funny)
It might be crazy enough to work. Sign me up, I'm a purebred American asshole.
Yep, I wonder what it'd take... (Score:2)
Kjella
Re:Confused Japanese customer = pissed off US one (Score:3, Informative)
B-CAS card? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess this begs the question as to why do you need a card to watch TV when the purpose is to not allow duplication?
Sure.. I guess it could have it's positive uses... Like if you ground your kids from the TV, you just take away their access card and they can't sneak in a program or 2 when returning home from school. It could also lock out programs that children cant watch, depending on the V-chip ratings. But this is in Japan, where they don't have the same censorship the US now has. The article really doesn't get into it...
Re:B-CAS card? (Score:2)
Honey, where's my TV card?
or CRUNCH!
What are we supposed to do? Put it in our wallets? Hmmm... that's kind of funny actually...
Re:B-CAS card? (Score:3, Interesting)
(especially if combined with measures like those I consider here [slashdot.org]...)
..a special user identification card.. (Score:5, Funny)
The US implementation is going to do away with such a cumbersome step. It will simply require a blood sample to identify your DNA to confirm you are an authorized viewer. Of course, it will also have special retina burning devices to ensure that only the authorized individual can view the product. Visual piracy immediately punished. No appeals!
Re:..a special user identification card.. (Score:3, Funny)
Leading the way (Score:5, Interesting)
I think right now an easier solution would be to just get a hdtv card in a htpc and use that to record shows.
argh!! (Score:2, Funny)
"Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause of the leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P."
Hot air (Score:2)
Perhaps they need to personify the broadcast flag into a cutesy anime character, to allow them to sell it better:P
Re:Hot air (Score:2)
Best part of the story: (Score:5, Interesting)
The duplication controls have been adopted to protect broadcast copyrights, an NHK official said, adding, "Easy violation of copyright would make movie and music copyright holders reluctant to provide their works and prompt actors and singers to refuse to appear on TV."
Really? You mean they're not going to act or sing anymore? How are they going to get paid?
This guy is a total fuddite.
Re:Best part of the story: (Score:2)
Re:Best part of the story: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the major copyright holders, who just happen to also be better known as the MPAA and RIAA member companies, who don't want to see movies and songs copied. Major actors and singers might go along with their handlers in backing anti-copying campaigns, but if they didn't want to take part in TV, then there'd be hundreds of people glad to take their place.
PSST... the kids appearing on American Idol are not being paid cash for doing so. They're given free accomidations in Hollywood and taken care of nicely while they're with the show, but they're not promised a financially rewarding expirience by the producers. However, people are lining up like crazy to audition for the show because even so-bad-it's-funny suinger William Hung is making money after appearing on the show. The grand prize winner isn't even given a direct cash prize, they're given a recording contract that they're required to agree to as a condition of the contest. It's the people who come in runner-up or even unranked positions who stand to profit more than that...
Re:Best part of the story: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the most insightful comment I've seen. This is all about disintermediation, it is not about whether or not actors, singers, writers, or whatever will be paid.
If we want people to make stuff, we're going to have to figure out a way to pay them. All this DRM garbage is about making sure the way we pay them still has money going through the same hands it always did.
Personally, I'd rather a completely collapsed content industry than this dangerous, freedom-sucking garbage. The content industry would rebuild itself around a model that actually worked for everybody instead of a model that largely padded the pockets and insured the profits of the current set of middlemen.
Re:Best part of the story: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's ever going to come to this, but the point of Television is to sell commercials. Selling commercials means money.
Suppose there were two families, and one watched show A, and the other show B, and then the next day, they traded tapes. Or maybe it's two good friends. Or a brother and sister.
The next day, the person gets to skip through all the commercials. This isn't so bad, really, because the networks know that not everyone is goin
This is a key problem with the whole issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, we all "know" that industry is here to serve us, but we've given them free reign. Industry (particularly the media, and other "celebrity" industries) is under the impression that we should pay what they think. This is because their previous leaders (the ones with intelligence) have brilliantly conditioned us as consumers to believe them!
You
Tech Flag Ultra Prime: Battle! (Score:2, Funny)
Jo: We'll see about that, Flagness. That's my recorder, you can't tell me what to do!
Flagness: I own the stream you fool!
Jo: I pay for the stream! Everybody pays for the stream! That stream is as good as ours!
Arfie: Arf!
Jo: You tell 'em, Arfie! We're not taking it anymore!
Flagness: I cannot be toooooooooooooooold!
Jo: Wanna beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet?!
*Shink*
Tune in next week to see who dies!
I'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
I should have watched the beginning of the episode. I would have recorded it, but ...
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
By the time they know it, its already too late (Score:4, Interesting)
speaking of which... (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read (example [wikipedia.org]), it's supposed to be within two and half years.
Of course, when the mandate was issued it probably seemed like a feasible idea to those without foresight. But now try getting re-elected when everybody (including the poor) is required to shell out over $1000 as well as dump every single existing analog set in the country just to maintain a previously available service. The was
What do we want? (Score:5, Interesting)
People like Apple slipping in the unreasonableness slowly so you gradually ajust to it (compare the 'no DRM at all, don't buy it and let the market kill it' position pre-iTunes to the current 'reasonable DRM is ok, it's not their fault' now*) are FAR more dangerous that the flat footed attempts of the WMA crowd.
The more violently the content producers introduce this stuff the better the chance of the populace waking up for the tenth of a second required to scare the media companies really badly and getting rid of DRM for at least a good long while more.
So this kind of thing is a good thing, not a bad thing. In the long run it'll mean less arbitrary restrictions and presumption of guilt for everyone.
*This is not a flame, this is the truth. I can't think of one slashdot post pre-iTunes (that was modded up anyway) that said that DRM would suffer anything but a crippling death because people would refuse to buy restricted products, then they would HAVE to come back with unencumbered goods. Now we see people falling over themselves to offer a misguided company congratulations because they fuck you over SLIGHTLY LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Wonderful.
It's worse than that. (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't just congratulations. You're absolutely right. The
Confused = angry (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the thing we might need to get used to (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll have the same problem with HDCP flag in HDTV (Score:3, Interesting)
Who Knows Where This Is From? (Score:3, Funny)
This could come here, nothing stops it. (Score:5, Interesting)
See, the Betamax ruling gave us the right to time-shift programming that comes down from TV stations, but that time-shifting implies that we're not going to keep our copies forever. It's impossible to keep an analog VCR tape forever because it will age and degrade over time, and analog copies are always lossy as well. However, a digital copy that you can recopy to avoid media-aging issues can in fact be kept forever.
There's no such thing at this moment as a law that enumerates all of our "fair use" rights when it comes to media that we have legally obtained. "Fair use" is just the result of things that Hollywood wishes we couldn't do but they can't take us to court over them because they're not (yet) against the law.
Right now, there's really nothing at all that prevents American broadcasters for using encryption on their HDTV broadcasts, and leaving only a low-quality MPEG stream available for those who don't want to play along with their scheme. Some stations in Utah are in the process of proving that with the current cable-over-DTV scheme, where they use their DTV channel to relay only an SD copy of their analog content, and then instead of ever going HD they use the remaining bandwidth to relay pay-to-watch cable channels.
Re:This could come here, nothing stops it. (Score:2)
Whereas in reality, we watch tapes from the early 80s with decent quality. So that's not quite true. Sure, to a cinephile, it's lost, but to the average consumer, VHS is eternal until destroyed.
and analog copies are always lossy as well.
We're not talking copies... we're talking home use of TV signals. Let's not cloud the issue for the moment.
However, a digital copy that you can recopy to avoid media-aging
There has to be a new business model here (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
key cracking effort (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple months ago, I came across a program with very little documentation that was a distributed key cracker/finder for some sort of DTV encryption key. It was being publicized by an anime group- with encrypted DTV, the fansub groups can't get high quality 'raw' versions to subtitle and re-encode.
If anyone has details or can find it, please reply...
Re:key cracking effort (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Forward to FCC and Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope this gets the electronics manufactures to lobby the FCC to lighten up - it will affect their bottom line if people do not want to upgrade their TVs and VCRs/DVRs because of consumer unfriendly restrictions.
Re:Forward to FCC and Sony (Score:2)
Re:Forward to FCC and Sony (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like the electronics industry will give it a shot [eetimes.com] and start a lobby [alliancefo...ogress.org]. After some further reading it looks like they are not going all out against the flag [alliancefo...ogress.org] thou
stupid . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Right now, you can download damn near dvd (read tivo compressed with xvid) quality rips of virtually every tv show off the internet - and usually very quickly (assuming you have broadband and that you are trying to get something that was aired in the last month). These rips have no commericals and look even better than what I get through the cable tv.
I really can't see why people would want to actually sit in front of a TV and suffer through 20 minutes of commericals, especially given the fact that you can watch it when you want and not have to worry about setting the damn vcr or any of these bullshit copy restrictions.
Re:stupid . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
another incorrect use of "content" (Score:2, Informative)
It is not possible to copywrite content. Once I've uttered that green frogs exist in the world, you're free to go about repeating that. I can't stop you.
What you mean is, restriction on the bits that encode a particular presentation. Those are indeed copyrighted. The content, if any, is however free.
easily duplicated (Score:3, Insightful)
on a side note, wouldn't it always be possible to make nearly loss-less analog copies of digital media and then re-encode them to a digital format of your choice?
Re:easily duplicated (Score:2)
The FCC is required (Score:4, Informative)
Then why can't we just, like, launch a lawsuit demanding the FCC is bound by their own rules to prohibhit "DRM" from being broadcast on public airwaves?
Also, that said, we have really got to come up with a way to get the public to realize that "digital rights management" means that CORPORATIONS get to digitally manage YOUR rights.
Only One Way to Prevent this (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your life really incomplete if you don't find out what happened on Enterprise or the Sopranos? TV isn't a given. Its relevance is likely to be transient. Transition it along faster by refusing to watch DRM encumbered broadcasts.
What's really scary about DRM ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reluctant to provide their works or refuse to appear? I guess if we're reluctant to purchase / view / support DRM then where does the DRM effort go? Hopefully to the junk heap.
Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Miss sold a HDD/DVD recorder with CPRM (DRM!) (Score:3, Interesting)
I purchased Panasonic DMRE85HEBS (me things they got the 2nd and 3rd letter in wrong order!)
product [panasonic.co.uk]
They did not mention in any technical description that it had CPRM (DRM for hard discs and DVD-RAM). Bad customer support or what? I've not be encombered so far.
CPRM the register article [theregister.co.uk]
Here is some info from the manual.
From the Glossary
CPRM technology is used to protect broardcasts that are allowed to be
recorded only once. Such broadcasts can be recorded only with CPRM
compatible recorders and discs.
From the information on use of the player
* You can record broadcasts that allow "One time only recording". You
can transfer (dub) a recorded title to a CPRM compatible DVD-RAM,
however the title is erased from the HDD.
The future is bleak - the future is CPRM and other DRM
Cheers, now3d
Meanwhile in a Japanese home ... (Score:5, Funny)
Viewer: "Main screen turn on"
Screen: "All Your Bits Are Belong to Us!"
"You have no chance to record, make
your time!"
Viewer: "What you say?"
Easy solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Man in the middle attack. Once only for computers
It's not about rights, it's about power (Score:3, Insightful)
People who argue that corporations have certain "rights," just don't understand how the world works. You have consumers, who are trying to get as much content as possible for as little money, and you have media conglomerates, who are trying to give away as little content as possible for as much money as they can get. From this built-in confrontation we've created a social contract in the form of laws to settle disputes and smooth the way for transactions which makes most people happy.
Problems arise, however, when one side gets too much power. And that's exactly what's happening in the content distribution business. If the law doesn't suit the needs of media outlets, they can change it. If the economic playing field isn't in their favor, they will work to tilt it. In short, media giants are abandoning the symbiotic social contract they once had with consumers. They are basically saying "fuck you" to consumers. "We have the power to have absolute control over our content so we will," they say in so many words. Of course, consumers also pretty much said "fuck you" to the media corporations when they started downloading, copying, and distributing content when the power to do so became available. But my goal here is not to try to point blame.
My real point is that the media companies have much more power than consumers to change laws in this age of technological disruptions. Consumers are just too divided and powerless to compete in the political world where all these decisions are made and will come out holding a very short end of the stick. This isn't good for me and it isn't good for you, unless you are Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner.
So now that you know how it all works, go out and organize and "Fight the Power" and always remember which side you are on.
Re:Confused vs. angry (Score:3, Funny)
However, I think you're turning Japanese, I think you're turning Japanese, I really think so.
Hey, think The Vapors will sue me for this?