FCC to kill Tivo and all modern DVRs

[slughead]

I was recording HDTV to my G5 .

How did you do that?

 

[slughead]

Everyone seems to be accepting of the DRM at iTMS.

Not me. Since they changed the agreement on music I had already bought (iTunes 4.5), I've stopped using them.. with the exception of two songs I bought a couple days ago when the counter was near 97,500,000 (I think).

DRM is BAD, very BAD.. BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. It's not morally wrong for the companies to do this, it's just BAD.

Why is it bad? Because ALL media companies end up changing the agreement to be more restrictive once you've already gotten yourself locked into their format.

We all trust Apple right? Well they did it too. Remember when (I think) iTunes 4.5 came out and it wouldn't let you burn the same playlist as many times? Sure, it was minor but the PRINCIPLE was the important thing. They could one day close the store and just tell iTunes to ERASE all your bought music and it'd be LEGAL.

That's messed up.

That being said, the good news is DRM of this magnitude (now referring to HDTV flags) is so restrictive anyway, there's almost no way they can restrict it even more! YAY!

HDTV is such a bust.. It was going to be cool but then the FCC mandated it, for probably the same reason we're seeing now: to take away your freedom.

It may be legal for you to record shows and watch them later but the 1998 DMCA makes it ILLEGAL for you to crack copy protection to do it.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

And it's mostly early adopters that will get burned. EDIT: And your ability to do this is not inhibited. Is there a quality loss? Yes. But the quality is still higher than what you can manage w/current digital non-HD signals.

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.

The term is "robust" not "fool proof." Open source/DIY will be out but off the shelf products may or may not be adversly<sp?> affected.

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.

HD has become the defacto digital standard and more and more TV stations are broadcasting, over the air, HD signals side-by-side w/their analog signals.
Standard Def video (ditial and analog) is slowly going the way of the dodo.

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.[/QUOTE

The cross over to all digital is going to be a pain for everyone (one reason it's going to take longer than planned). Do I look forward to the day that I'll either need to replace my analog devices or buy converter boxes because there are no more analog signals? No. But oh well.

The penetration rate for HD among consumers is a bit under 10%. I don't think the "confusion factor" will that bad considering that the vast majority of people will venture into HD land everything will be DRM'd.

And when it comes to technology we are all used to updateing. I had to get a new printer 'cause my last one wasn't supported by OS 10. I had to get a new scanner 'cause my last one wasn't supported by 0S 10. Before my parents got a Mac they couldn't use the software that came w/their digital camera 'cause their OS wasn't supported. Blah, Blah, Blah. We all have stories like this.

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.

It's not simply for the delivery for an "HD store" in the vien of iTMS (I never ment to imply that it was). But it does lay the ground work for such a system in the future. Isn't this, basically, what we're all waiting for to happen w/on-line digial music? An across the board DRM standard. What if FairPlay was licensed to everyone (it wouldn't be the best move for Apple but it would be great for consumers)?

Not trying to be snide but if you have alternate suggestions I'd love to hear them.

I have rambled long enough

But it was a good ramble and that's what counts. Seriously, no ramble there IMO. You brought up some good points. Although I think I hear some horse beatings off in the distance.


Lethal

 

[MarkCollette]

I'm surprised you guys are worried about this. In a year or two, cheap chinese players will flood the market which will allow you to circumvent this, and all will be cool again.

For example, you guys seem to want to save stuff to a hard drive, and then archive that to a DVD, right? Well, then, as long as it deletes it off of the hard drive after burning the DVD, then it's just moved it, not copied it, so you've still only copied once, as the broadcast bit thing allows. Heck, in a few years, it could just download it into RAM, and burn it as it goes, without a hard drive. Or, if it's on the hard drive, but the device is hooked up to your TV, and your computer network, who needs to copy it around anyway? Just play it right off of the PVR.

I understand righting for your freedoms, etc., but I'm just saying that one shouldn't actually worry too much over this.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Heck, in a few years, it could just download it into RAM, and burn it as it goes, without a hard drive. .

Although they are a bit expensive you can get a nice set-top device from Panasonic that can burn DVDs on the fly. It's the exact same functionality of a nice VCR execpt it's DVD instead of tape (there is also a model that comes w/a HDD). We had one at a place I used to work at and the biggest downside was createing chapter names using the remote control. Ugh. Depending on how many chapters there were it could take longer to label the disc than it took to actually burn it.


Lethal