FCC to kill Tivo and all modern DVRs

[Makosuke]

It's misguided to think that the FCC is doing this just because of the actions of the few. Yes, they're billing it as "anti-piracy", but the fact is, flat-out illegal piracy is the least of the big stuios' (movie or music) problems.

Their problem is greed, plain and simple, and the spiraling production costs that go along with it. As previous posters pointed out, when you turn on the TV, your TV watching is paid for by the commercials. In theory. Cable, in theory, should be paid for by the $40 a month I fork over, and in the case of HBO/Showtime, their special $15-ish premium does pay for nothing but TV.

But look at non-premium cable--all them ads anyway. And go to a movie. $10 for a ticket apparently isn't enough, so now you've gotta sit through a Coke (or TNT, ironically) ad before the film starts. And that's on top of the millions generated by cross-promotion with car companies, fast food chains, and more.

Funny how decent TV and movies still got made in the era before all this happened, and in fact people got rich off them, too--just not quite as rich.

Now there are millions of people who want a little more convinience in their lives after being forced to watch the prime time shows at prime time every day, or being out of luck if they forgot to tape Monk last week. A little bit of added convienence and the potential it might put a tiny dent in their ad stream means it's well worth it to buy into some laws now and get in ahead of the game, instead of waiting like the RIAA did.

The sad thing is, there are plenty of people--myself included--who would still happily buy or rent DVDs of TV shows even if they had a DVR and could burn a disc themselves at high quality. It's just easier to buy the DVD, it gives you a sense of having "collected" something, and it's a slicker production. Heck, I PREFER to watch the stuff I like on DVD to avoid the hassles of commericals, bugs (of the bottom right corner of the screen variety) and timing my viewing around their schedule, and it's worth at least the rental for me to do it.

Evil greedy scum, the lot of 'em.

 

[yosoyjay]

To get around this...

The way to get around this is to buy said media recording equipment before manufacturers begin to sale only DRM respecting stuff.

You could also always make your own PVR using a Linux box and MythTV which is a bit harder to implement but offers tremendous freedom.

 

[Cooknn]

The way to get around this is to buy said media recording equipment before manufacturers begin to sale only DRM respecting stuff.

You could also always make your own PVR using a Linux box and MythTV which is a bit harder to implement but offers tremendous freedom.

No you can't. As I mentioned ealier, the cable companies have already enabled copy protection on Hi-Def. Buy a non-compliant device today and it will be useless. Our freedom is gone as of about 2 months ago when all the HDTV channels started showing up as "copy once". Without a compliant device you can't even do that - Linux included...

 

[wdlove]

You're right, that's what this is about. But it's bull**** that they're doing it. There's no "piracy" here. People pay for the shows, and the courts have already said it's ok to copy those shows for your own personal viewing.

That is my thought exactly, there should not be restrictions for private home use. Hollywood needs to worry about Hollywood and leave us alone.

 

[rendezvouscp]

How many people would've bought the series finally of Friends on DVD if they could get the exact same thing over the air and burn it?
Lethal

That's the really catchy part. I buy the Season DVD's, but that one show I would not have bought. My gf has yet to see the whole show, and I could have just recorded it for her and given her a copy, and her friend too. I really think they are stepping over the line with this. This isn't fair to consumers. Now, I'm starting to rant, so you can ignore the rest of my post: Why do people always have to step in and say what we can and can't do? Now, I'm talking from an American POV, so I'm sorry that I'm ignoring all other countries right now (I don't like people in America to do that. We have a horrible rep for that as it is). Isn't this free America? Aren't there supposed to be legal immigrants that come to a free land? Weren't we built on the facet of freedom from over-ruling kings and queens? Isn't that what the FCC is now doing to us? This isn't fair. So what if I want to record a show and watch it over and over again. So what if a few thousand people cheat the industry. That's out of how many Americans? What the hell do they think they're really going to accomplish? Gr, first it's take the pledge out of schools (but we do have freedom of speech...), and now it's this. Maybe my rant is uncalled for, but that's my point.

Thank you for letting me rant. America, don't take my ability to rant on MacRumors.
–Chase

 

[LethalWolfe]

That's the really catchy part. I buy the Season DVD's, but that one show I would not have bought. My gf has yet to see the whole show, and I could have just recorded it for her and given her a copy, and her friend too. I really think they are stepping over the line with this. This isn't fair to consumers. Now, I'm starting to rant, so you can ignore the rest of my post: Why do people always have to step in and say what we can and can't do? Now, I'm talking from an American POV, so I'm sorry that I'm ignoring all other countries right now (I don't like people in America to do that. We have a horrible rep for that as it is). Isn't this free America? Aren't there supposed to be legal immigrants that come to a free land? Weren't we built on the facet of freedom from over-ruling kings and queens? Isn't that what the FCC is now doing to us? This isn't fair. So what if I want to record a show and watch it over and over again. So what if a few thousand people cheat the industry. That's out of how many Americans? What the hell do they think they're really going to accomplish? Gr, first it's take the pledge out of schools (but we do have freedom of speech...), and now it's this. Maybe my rant is uncalled for, but that's my point.

Thank you for letting me rant. America, don't take my ability to rant on MacRumors.
–Chase

You are free to do whatever you want w/yer property but TV shows, movies, books, music, magazines, etc., do not belong to you. You purchase the meduim the content is distributed on and a license to use it in the privacy of your own home for non-commerical purposes. But you never own the content. It is not yours to do with what you see fit.

What, exactly, isn't fair to consumers? The 10's of thousands of hours of TV programing that you get for free? The hundreds of channels and 100's of thousands of hours of programming you can get on cable (not including PPV) for a relatively low cost. Consumers have rights but so do copyright holders. Don't confuse "freedom" w/"anarchy."

Just from what I read in the original post you'll have the option of outputing an analog or digital signal but at a reduced quality of 720x480. Oh the Horror! You'll have to endure DVD quality images. :gasp:

I don't remember anyone dieing when all VCRs became MacroVision complient so save the mellodrama until more about the specifics of this DRM is known. Everyone seems to be accepting of the DRM at iTMS.

"A few thousand" is a severe low-ball and you know it. At any given time there's 3 million people on Kazaa alone. All in the US? Of course not. But I think saying there are a few million file "sharers" in the US is significantly more accurate than "a few thousand."

The digital age has new rules for everyone. Consumers and creators. Most of the people that complain about content providers living the past are living in the past themselves.

I can't blame an industry for trying to play it safe when upgrading to HD is going to cost a lot. A whole lot. I work at a medium sized post/prodcution house in LA (in our niche we're pretty big, but over-all I'd say we are average in size) and for us to replace all of our SD equipment w/HD would cost millions. Not to mention operating costs increasing (it's $100 for 1 90minute HD tape ). Obviously this isn't going to all happen at once, but I'd say it's going to be years before everything is HD and not just SD up-converted to HD. Well, now I've gone off on a rant....

Long story short. New formats. New rules (for everyone). Deal w/it and don't have a heart attak over the growing pains.


Lethal

 

[anonymous161]

I still feel that the FCC is not doing it's job. I understand copyright and I know that businesses need to make money and that ultimately its their content. What ever happened to the consumer? I'm sorry that I feel like television should have a better resolution now that 20 friggin years ago, that should have been a natural evolution of the technology. So what if you can record HD without quality loss? So what if you can distribute it to other people? I can do the same thing with music but I don't. I don't give songs I buy on iTunes out to others. I rip songs off of CDs I own or I download them and they stay in my possession. I know alot of people pirate but the record industry is suffering from poor content, not people ripping them off. Even if you can pirate, the majority of people don't and never will. If they television/film industry feels like they are getting cheated (instead of cheating us like they always have) then they should just raise prices, because its not like any actual competition exists in cable tv anyway. My point is the FCC should just tell the industry to suck it up and focus on content, not piracy unless they want to suffer the same fate as the music industry. The FCC should protect us, because no matter how much Hollywood gets "ripped off," its not like they are going to just refuse to make movies and tv. If they do, f**k 'em, someone else will come along with more content that will probably be better anyway.

 

[rendezvouscp]

LethalWolfe, I'm not trying to start something, but here's my response:

We do have rights as to what we can do with the content. That's what FairPlay is for. Sure, it's a DRM, but it's not destructive. I can play music almost anywhere I want to. It would be nice if movies were the same.

Actually, I didn't know that it was millions. You actually educated me. Thank you (I'm serious, I'm not being cocky). Although, I was looking at the people who pirate movies and such. But it's probably in the millions too.

Good post though, brings up some good points.
–Chase

 

[LethalWolfe]

What ever happened to the consumer? I'm sorry that I feel like television should have a better resolution now that 20 friggin years ago, that should have been a natural evolution of the technology.

The quality is going up, what's your point? And it can't happen very often because it requires completely different TVs, completely different broadcasting equipment, and completely different post/production equipment. In short it is a major overhaul of an entire industry.

If they television/film industry feels like they are getting cheated (instead of cheating us like they always have) then they should just raise prices, because its not like any actual competition exists in cable tv anyway.

Raise the prices of what? Ad revenue pays the entire cost of broadcast TV so YOU GET IT FOR FREE. Ad revenue also pays the vast majority of the cost of content on cable TV. I think you are confusing the cable company w/the companies that actually create the shows you see on cable TV.

My point is the FCC should just tell the industry to suck it up and focus on content, not piracy unless they want to suffer the same fate as the music industry. The FCC should protect us, because no matter how much Hollywood gets "ripped off," its not like they are going to just refuse to make movies and tv. If they do, f**k 'em, someone else will come along with more content that will probably be better anyway.

So, in other words, to hell w/copyrights? The music industry didn't think about copy protection for years and look at the mess they are in now. That's exactly what other people are trying to avoid.


Lethal

 

[LethalWolfe]

LethalWolfe, I'm not trying to start something, but here's my response:

No worries, I like civil discussions.

We do have rights as to what we can do with the content. That's what FairPlay is for. Sure, it's a DRM, but it's not destructive. I can play music almost anywhere I want to. It would be nice if movies were the same.

The rights we have are extended to us by the copyright holder. FairPlay (whose limitations were agreed upon by the music labels) might not be destructive but the media it is attached to is degraded from what you'd get off a CD. Just going from the original post you can burn/output via analog or digital connection from your DRM'd "TiVo" but it will be degraded quality (instead of HD quality it will be DVD quality). I really don't think that's something to get overly upset about.

Actually, I didn't know that it was millions. You actually educated me. Thank you (I'm serious, I'm not being cocky). Although, I was looking at the people who pirate movies and such. But it's probably in the millions too.

I'm sure the number of movie "sharers" is lower than the number of music "sharers" just because music files are smaller and take less effort to encode. Digital media and the internet has changed the rules. "Armchair pirates" can upload a perfect copy of a CD onto the internet and distribute it to millions of people in a matter of minutes. This is something that was impossible 10 years ago. Any company that deals w/digital media (be it music, movies, or software) looks at China and quakes w/fear that that will happen in the US. And you've got to nip it in the bud. You can't let the pirating genie out of the bottle and ever expect it to go back in. Just look at the music industry. No attempt, at all, to secure their product and now, after the fact, they are scrambling like mad and doing more harm than good.

Good post though, brings up some good points.
–Chase

Thank you.

It would be so much easier (for everyone) if there wasn't any DRM or copy protection but that's just not a realistic outlook. Give me a fair, reasonable DRM/copy protection and I'll be happy. And that is possible now w/digital content because we can have "smart devices" and "smart DRM." Like FairPlay and iTMS.


-Lethal

 

[Cooknn]

720x480

Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability.

Although 5C Copy Protection (Broadcast Flag) is already being enabled, I can't believe that HDTV resolution degradation would ever happen. Existing 5C compliant HD DVR's record at 480i, 480p, 720p or 1080i resolution formats. What the heck is 720x480? Not Hi-Def! This in and of itself will be the most compelling reason to purchase an HD DVR/TiVO before (if) this part of the FCC mandate ever flies.

[EDIT] DOH. I just read this again. The key word here is "or". Record with DRM Devices OR suffer the consequences of degraded resolution on your Non-DRM device. Anyone else interpret this the same?

 

[rendezvouscp]

The rights we have are extended to us by the copyright holder. FairPlay (whose limitations were agreed upon by the music labels) might not be destructive but the media it is attached to is degraded from what you'd get off a CD. Just going from the original post you can burn/output via analog or digital connection from your DRM'd "TiVo" but it will be degraded quality (instead of HD quality it will be DVD quality). I really don't think that's something to get overly upset about.
-Lethal

That makes a bit more sense now. I wish Apple hadn't brought down the quality, but in this light this whole thing makes a bit more sense.
–Chase

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

It seems to me many of you are missing the point entirely (not everyone though). This has nothing to do with compatting piracy, in fact it will have no effect on piracy. Further more one gentleman suggested that current HD tuners that are not DRMed will stop working. This is also patently false. Please read the original article provided in the link. It clears this stuff up pretty clearly.

The object behind this DRM is to combat the use of Tivo-like devices. That is the sole purpose of this anti-technology. When ReplayTV was first introduced (it came befor tivo but hasn't done as well due to lawsuits) the MPAA sued them. The arguement wasn't that it could be used to record and distribute programming (ie piracy) but that any device used to timeshift and skip commercials was illegal. In fact they further argued that any time you leave the room, change the channel, mute the tv, or otherwise do not pay attention to commercials you are commiting an illegal act.

There were suggestions then that technology be used to prevent people from ignoring commercials and tracking people who do. The courts found that ignoring commercials and time shifting programming was not illegal and that programmers should simply understand their medium and do their best to make their medium profitable without legislation.

The FCC is ignoring the law when they insist that DRM of this nature be added to hardware. When the consumer has paid for cable, paid extra for HD, paid extra for HD hardware, paid extra for DVR hardware, and paid extra for DVR subscriptions it is ridiculous to claim that this consumer is a greedy pirate when all they want to do is use their expensive hardware and expensive subscriptions to use it as it was intended to be used. This means you can only enjoy HD quality on live TV that is not filtered through a DVR device. Using a DVR to timeshift (pause live tv) or record (record tv then watch it later) will prevent you from fully enjoying the HD quality that you have paid a premium for. This is simply ridiculous.

Anyone who has purchased a DVR knows that you start watching everything through it. It is not used to simply record and archive television (in fact most users woudl never do this) but to watch shows on your own schedule and never have to worry about when a tv program is aired.

Broadcasters couldn't stop us through the courts so they appealed to the FCC to damage our ability to use these devices. This is what the issues is and all discussion re-piracy has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[pooky]

Just so you know, Hollywood is run by Democrats so this is not as much Powell as it is more Jack Valenti or Spielberg

Actually, Hollywood is populated by democrats. It's run by people who'll pay off whoever they can to make as much money as easily as possible, same as all big business. Right now, that happens to be the FCC, which, at the moment, is run by republicans.

 

[Muzukun]

nyeh... I got used to all of this stuff already, whenever I'm at home and try to record something using a VHS it just comes up garbled or something thanks to that happy lil satellite... I really miss the days when I was a wee bit younger and could just record any show I wanted to so I could enjoy it later but nooooo those days are gone...

Overall though I find alot of companies overreacting to the degree of piracy, I see them reporting record profits and if not still making a rather large sum of money. However they scream and rant at the thought of losing so much as a dime from one person or another. Granted there is a very large sum of those individuals but they act as if their efforts will stop it all together. Despite any form of protection they put up you know there is going to be at least that one person out there who cracks the system and gets the thing on the internet anyways who will hopefully be in a different country just so they can get away from the happy US courts... except they'll pressure the other country into obeying what they want and the person will be beaten anyways...

In conclusion I am displeased with the FCC's decision and find it all to be based upon an all to powerful system of corperations who have seen companies such as the RIAA bitch their way to the point where they sue little kids and with a government who wont step up and slap them over this more and more are following suit to the point where we will have to have a fingerprint and iris scan before buying a blank DVD or vhs... happy happy day ^-^

 

[dvdh]

The music industry is suffering from the popularity of rap and the mindset of the people who listen to it. After all, the music itself glorifies theft, so what is the big surprise that people are pirating it. Country on the other hand is actually growing in sales and listeners.

I would cautious about making such blatant and prejudice remarks. BTW, I am no fan of rap, but to make the generalization that rap glorifies theft and therefore its listeners share that mindset is far out of line.

Personally, I think that the governing bodies have taken the wrong approach to the piracy problems: for them the answer to ever problem is restriction or removal of rights. They seem to spend little time education and advertising the benefits of legal music acquisition (artist's share, quality recordings, extra features, art . . . .). They should be putting more effort into illustrating why people should buy their music and video rather than concentrating there efforts on try to scare (or force) everyone away from downloading. They have currently positioned themselves in many peoples mind as the 'bad guys' and that will serve no benefit to their long term efforts.

Obviously this is easier said than done, but that doesn't constitute a rational for failing to try.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It seems to me many of you are missing the point entirely (not everyone though). This has nothing to do with compatting piracy, in fact it will have no effect on piracy. Further more one gentleman suggested that current HD tuners that are not DRMed will stop working. This is also patently false. Please read the original article provided in the link. It clears this stuff up pretty clearly.

I think you're wrong. I don't think this is about skipping commercials and time shifting. I think it's about protecting the distribution of digital content. Look to the future AmbitiousLemon. HDTV+DVR+HDDVD = free over the air content that matches, in quality, what you buy off the store shelves. And, unlike in the past, the shows you see on TV are now being, and will continue to be, sold on store shelves . Eventually there will be movie/tv versions of on-line music stores and the movie/TV industry is trying to prepare for that instead of doing what the music industry did. Reread your original post. Everything it deals w/is outputing the content you record. If they try to "force" people to watch commercials and what not the courts will just bounce it again.

The object behind this DRM is to combat the use of Tivo-like devices. That is the sole purpose of this anti-technology. When ReplayTV was first introduced (it came befor tivo but hasn't done as well due to lawsuits) the MPAA sued them. The arguement wasn't that it could be used to record and distribute programming (ie piracy) but that any device used to timeshift and skip commercials was illegal. In fact they further argued that any time you leave the room, change the channel, mute the tv, or otherwise do not pay attention to commercials you are commiting an illegal act.

They aren't trying to kill DVR's they are trying to keep DVRs from turning into uncontrolable distribution devices. They are limiting/restricting the outputting abilities of the DVR. Not your ability to record, timeshift, and/or skip commercials.

The FCC is ignoring the law when they insist that DRM of this nature be added to hardware. When the consumer has paid for cable, paid extra for HD, paid extra for HD hardware, paid extra for DVR hardware, and paid extra for DVR subscriptions it is ridiculous to claim that this consumer is a greedy pirate when all they want to do is use their expensive hardware and expensive subscriptions to use it as it was intended to be used. This means you can only enjoy HD quality on live TV that is not filtered through a DVR device. Using a DVR to timeshift (pause live tv) or record (record tv then watch it later) will prevent you from fully enjoying the HD quality that you have paid a premium for. This is simply ridiculous.

You are paying a premium today for cutting edge tech. Just like 20 years ago people paid a premium for CD players. And 6-7 years ago people paid a premium for DVD players. In 5-10 years HD will be the norm. There will be no premium. You'll be able to get POS $90 HDTVs from Wal-Mart. I remember when everyone blasted the record companies for not planning ahead in terms of protecting digital content and now people are getting blasted for planning ahead. Talk about damed if you do/damned if you don't.

Anyone who has purchased a DVR knows that you start watching everything through it. It is not used to simply record and archive television (in fact most users woudl never do this) but to watch shows on your own schedule and never have to worry about when a tv program is aired.

And your ability to do this is hampered how by the restrictions mentioned in the original post?



No offense AL but you aren't thinking about the future. You are taking old products and old rulings and applying them to future prodcuts and a future that has aspects that are unparalleled. TV, good old, regular, over-the-air broadcast TV is turning into a source of distribution. Not just a a device to view content but a device to acquire lossless, HD quality content. In the not so distant future I really see VOD taking off. Rent the movie for $4 via your TV. Buy the movie for $12 via your TV w/DVR (think iTMS). Or buy the HD-DVD (w/all the bells, whistles, and special features) for $22.

They are just trying to set the ground rules of delivering video content the same way iTMS

Sorry if this post seems jumbled. I wrote it over the course a day when I had down time at work.


Lethal

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Lethal - I don't think we are going to agree on this. Perhaps because I have closely followed the progression to this point over the past several years, while it seems you haven't used a DVR before. This is the culmination of many years of legal struggles between content providers and device manufacturers. In every situation the courts found that the content providers were going to far in their interpretation of copyrights. So rather than deal with the law content providers went to the FCC to change the rules.

On another note, you keep pretending that this content is free (over the air). this is most certainly not the case. This is content that can only be provided by for pay systems such as cable and satellite. Further more this is content that will remain premium content. So the situation in which you have someone who has paid for cable, paid extra for HD, paid for DVR, paid extra for DVR service, and is unable to view any of the HD content he paid for is very real. Access to this material is not cheap. You pay for it in monthly fees and in large hardware purchases. This legislation limits the quality of what you are paying for and limits your choices as a consumer in what hardware you can buy. Say good bye to MythTV, EYETV, and all the technologies like them. This legislation makes hardware and software like this illegal.

Frankly i think you need to stop thinking that corporations and the government will always do what is good and right for you. If you do not stand up for yourself there is absolutely no chance the government will fight for you.

[OT] BTW I now have direct personal knowledge that the MPAA is beginning to sue people who download television shows over p2p such as bit torrent.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Lethal - I don't think we are going to agree on this.

Maybe not, but we do seem to be discussing different points and, so far, it's interesting and I don't think we've started beating our horses yet.

Perhaps because I have closely followed the progression to this point over the past several years, while it seems you haven't used a DVR before. This is the culmination of many years of legal struggles between content providers and device manufacturers. In every situation the courts found that the content providers were going to far in their interpretation of copyrights. So rather than deal with the law content providers went to the FCC to change the rules.

I haven't followed everything as closely as you have, but I have been paying attention to them. And it's basically the same argruements/fears that were brought up (and shot down) in the "BetaMax" case. Which, as I'm sure you know, set the precedent for what consumers were allowed to do for personal/private use. And nothing in your original link mentions anything relating to those things. It all pretains to outputing of media.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, part of the reason for the ruling in the BetaMax case was that people recording shows w/their VCRs didn't cause any financial harm. But that might be changing (w/the now routine selling of TV shows on DVD and what not that I talked about before). A key piece of the Betamax case could be changing. Interesting times...

On another note, you keep pretending that this content is free (over the air). this is most certainly not the case. This is content that can only be provided by for pay systems such as cable and satellite. Further more this is content that will remain premium content. So the situation in which you have someone who has paid for cable, paid extra for HD, paid for DVR, paid extra for DVR service, and is unable to view any of the HD content he paid for is very real. Access to this material is not cheap. You pay for it in monthly fees and in large hardware purchases. This legislation limits the quality of what you are paying for and limits your choices as a consumer in what hardware you can buy. Say good bye to MythTV, EYETV, and all the technologies like them. This legislation makes hardware and software like this illegal.

Again, you are paying a premium for being on the cutting edge of tech. SD (standard def) is going away for ever. Over-the-air B'cast channels will be in HD. If you have a non-HD TV you will have to buy a converter to convert the HD signal into SD so you can watch it on your old TV. Are they today? No. But they will be in the relatively near future (I forget the FCC's time table). That's what this is all about. The future. The movie/TV industry is laying the ground work content downloading much in same vein of iTMS. And, unlike the music industry, they are trying to go at in an organized manor.

Frankly i think you need to stop thinking that corporations and the government will always do what is good and right for you. If you do not stand up for yourself there is absolutely no chance the government will fight for you.

I don't. Never have. I think the DMCA is crap. I think the Courts up holding the DMCA and, in turn, tramping 20 years of consumer rights and precident<sp?> is crap. I think the deregulation that took place in the mid-90's is crap.

But I am well aware of the other side of the coin. Sanctioned "content anarchy" is never going to happen so why not support a fair and reasonable comprimise? Give me Apple's DRM over Macrovision any day. Anyway, I'm not going to start freaking based on bunch of assumptions as to how this DRM will, or will not, ruin my life. If you can find out specifics regarding the restrictions I'd love to see them.

Nothing against EFF.org, I support what they do, but I'd like to see a little more fact and a little less FUD.

Cooknn,

720*480 is the current screen rez of standard def digital video. Of course, like anything digital, bitrate means just as much, if not more.


Lethal

 

[jsw]

That is my thought exactly, there should not be restrictions for private home use. Hollywood needs to worry about Hollywood and leave us alone.

Sorry - just noticed this thread and started reading through it. Having read hundreds of his posts, this is about as upset as I've seen wdlove. Seriously. That says something.

And I agree.

However, I personally believe that a workaround will be out there very soon. And, although it will almost undoubtedly be illegal, I'm certain it'll be very popular.

I don't pirate music. Mainly because I've got a decent enough collection that all the stuff I "just gotta have" is stuff from when I was younger, and I already own it.

But... this isn't piracy. Not to me. If I record a show and sell it or give it away or in any way reduce the profit of Hollywood, then, fine, it's theft. But if I record a show sent into my home to be viewed later by me or my family, then I do not consider that theft, regardless of whether it legally is theft. I paid for the service; I feel that I should be able to record and replay any shows sent to me privately as often as I want to. And, I'm sure, a solution will come out which will allow me to do so.

Or, I suppose, I could just cancel all but basic cable and then buy one or two DVD sets per month of whichever season of whichever show seems like a good one. Hmmm. It'd cost the same. Then I would have more time to read, code, etc.

 

[yamabushi]

I agree that this has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with attempting to put additional restrictions on the use broadcast content. Basically hollywood wants to eliminate fair use in order to increase profits. They pay off whatever politicians happen to be in power in order to accomplish this.

 

[jiggie2g]

The music industry is suffering from the popularity of rap and the mindset of the people who listen to it. After all, the music itself glorifies theft, so what is the big surprise that people are pirating it. Country on the other hand is actually growing in sales and listeners.

I bet you have never even listened to a single Rap album in your life. I really hate when ignorant people say stupid Sh*t like this. granted some rap artist talk about crap in thier albums , but over all most rap artist just talk about getting laid and having a good time or about thier life experiences. no differn't from a rock group.

I guess some people just can't handle the fact that rap is the new rock as far as popularity & sales is concerned , but please if u don't even listen to the music shut your trap. People pirate music cuz it's easy and free not cuz 50 Cent or Eminem told them to.

as far as declining sales, maybe if Sam Goody's and other big name stores didn't try to ripp you off by charging $16.99 for a new album and $19.99 for an older one, maybe people wouldn't download music so much like they do now.

I feel no pitty for the Big 5 or RIAA , they have been ripping off artist and consumers for years. being that most artist get less then $1 out of a $17 album , these guys makes a killing. so to freakin bad if some rich music executive can't get that new Ferrari he's been wanting.

they have been Screwings us for years now it's thier turn to Bend Over.

Karma's a Motherf***ker

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

I don't understand how a government burocracy could think they have the authority to make such a rule. Then again, there's a lot of precedent for that, too.

it's politics, not bureacracy...

 

[LethalWolfe]

But if I record a show sent into my home to be viewed later by me or my family, then I do not consider that theft, regardless of whether it legally is theft. I paid for the service; I feel that I should be able to record and replay any shows sent to me privately as often as I want to. And, I'm sure, a solution will come out which will allow me to do so.

I'm confused. Nothing mentioned in the original post will inhibit your ability to time shift content.


Lethal

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

I'm confused. Nothing mentioned in the original post will inhibit your ability to time shift content.

This is the problem when you have lawmakers who don't understadn the technology. Time shifting is recording. Everything you watch with any DVR is recorded and delayed 30 seconds. This DRM restricts the quality of of recorded content. Now if your components are all DRM compliant (so your TV, tuner, internet networking equipment) then no quality loss. If any of these components are not compliant then the quality is compromised.

Certain types of systems will never be able to meet these guidelines. The guidelines say that the system must be free from tampering. So no tv tuners for computers will be able to be compliant. Devices such as replaytv that use network connections will not be able to be compliant. So Tivo and Replaytv will need to change considerably to be compliant and will have to eliminate many of their most appealing features. HDTV cards for computers will not be able to be compliant (formac studio and eyetv). So good bye to open source systems such as mythtv and freevo (or any of the windows based systems). Networking is going to be severly impacted by this. Most DVR devices require internet connections. Which for home users usually means connecting the DVR to your router (so you can share your net connection with the DVR and computer). In order to prevent a loss of the HD signal you will have to purchase a DRM router. So goodbye to devices like Apple's airport and Airport extreme which are not DRM compliant.

Further more while the FCC is transitioning all television to digital it is not transitioning to HD (HD and digital are two different things). HD will remain a premium offering. So if you pay a premium for HD you will need to make sure all your other devices are DRM compliant or lose the benefits of HD.

Imagine being a uneducated consumer who purchases HD (you are now paying well over $100 a month for TV) and don't notice a significant gain in picture quality. You spend a bunch of time on customer support and find out that you have one little devide connected that isn't DRM compliant (a vcr, dvr, router, computer, or any number of other devices). Its going to be a huge problem dealing with these issues.

This is a very poorly thought out plan. In addition to preventing us from doing things with tv that we are accustomed to doing its also going to create a great deal of customer confusion in situations in which the customer is trying to play by the rules.

In short it is trying to get more money out of consumers than is currently provided for by law. If it was simply planning for the delivery of HD content in an itms fashion it would be fashioned much differently. I am sure we could all think of good fair secure ways to deliver HD content on an itms fashion if we chose to and in the end it would not look anything like this current DRM.

I have rambled long enough

[o and FelixDerKater your comment really borders on some serious bigotry and I tend to be a bit ban happy when it comes to such things so please try to be a little more open minded in your future posts]