×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Pushes Once Again To Close the Analog Hole

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the encrypted-pipe-to-your-eardrum dept.

Television 275

Tyler Too writes "The MPAA is once again trying to badger the FCC into approving Selectable Output Control, which would plug the 'analog hole' during broadcasts of some prerelease HD movies. MPAA bigshots met with seven staffers from the FCC Media Bureau last week, calling the petition a 'pro-consumer' (!) move designed to 'enable movie studios to offer millions of Americans in-home access to high-value, high definition video content.' At least the studios are now acknowledging that SOC would break the functionality of some HDTVs, an admission they were previously unwilling to make: 'What's interesting about the group's latest filing, however, is that it effectively concedes that the output changes it wants could, in fact, hobble some home video systems. "The vast majority of consumers would not have to purchase new devices to receive the new, high-value content contemplated by MPAA's" request, the group assures the FCC.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

275 comments

Trying to badger? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310033)

http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/ !! WOOHOO Friday! :)

Like any partially treated wart (4, Insightful)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310039)

They will always be back.

Re:Like any partially treated wart (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310163)

A less-messy solution is to amend the People's Constitution:

Amendment __ : "Strike the phase 'exclusive Right'. Replace with 'temporary privilege'."

Re:Like any partially treated wart (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310309)

A less-messy solution is to amend the People's Constitution:

Amendment __ : "Strike the phase 'exclusive Right'. Replace with 'temporary privilege'."

The law already says "for limited Times" which ostensibly means temporary, but the Supreme Court turned that into toilet paper by upholding serial term extensions in Eldred v. Ashcroft. An amendment to outlaw perpetual copyright on the installment plan would have to explicitly outlaw legislative extensions of the term of a subsisting copyright.

Re:Like any partially treated wart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29311001)

The law already says "for limited Times" which ostensibly means temporary, but the Supreme Court turned that into toilet paper by upholding serial term extensions in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

This was a no-win situation for the court. If they read it strictly, they turn the Copyright Clause "into toilet paper". If they strike down a statute that has an explicitly limited extension, they're guilty of judicial activism. The possibility of future repeated extensions is a red-herring.

Re:Like any partially treated wart (4, Interesting)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310813)

So what does temporary mean, "forever less a day?" The constitution already provides for a "limited" time, and the forever less a day is effectively the argument that has won to date.

Really the best strategy regarding copyright duration is something like this:
a) an author receives an initial copyright for a period of 10 years. No formalities required.
b) between years 10-15 (term + 5 year grace period), and author with sufficient interest in maintaining the copyright should have to i) register the copyright, and ii) pay some less than nominal fee. The copyright will continue for an additional 30 years (a total of 40 years).
c) thereafter, the author pays an increasing amount for each additional 30 year period.
d) the copyright automatically expires on the 100th year.

This has lots of benefits: 1. everyone gets a copyright in their works without any formalities. 2. If it is economically viable after 10 years, they can pay a nominal amount and register it (no more orphan works). 3. It will last for most every author's lifetime and then some. 4. It puts works that an author no longer considers valuable into the public domain in relatively short order.

Re:Like any partially treated wart (5, Insightful)

mmeister (862972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310975)

Please do no present your rational and reasonable ideas on copyright. Clearly we have all moved beyond rational thought.

Think about who lobbies Congress on this issue, mega-Corporations that have everything to lose if they don't have perpetual copyrights. It's easily worth a few million to buy off Congressmen and Senators to guarantee unending copyrights that could generate billions over the years.

Corporations have taken over America.

Re:Like any partially treated wart (2, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311003)

Regardless of what the auth^H^H^H^Hcorporation who owns the copyright does, allowing copyright for a century is insane. Statistically speaking, that's longer than my school-age children will live. Which part of "temporary" is so confusing?

Do they mean.. (2, Insightful)

Pouic (1051024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310045)

...human ears?

Re:Do they mean.. (5, Funny)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310269)

Hollywood already started encrypting the story lines of movies. I watched Quantum of Solace, and the story made no sense, it was completely scrambled. I'm waiting for the brain-implant chip that will unscramble the story.

Re:Do they mean.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310453)

Yeah, simple encryption was already quite visible in the 2000 film Memento (the plot played backwards), but later dropped for the more secure, random key plot you mention.

Re:Do they mean.. (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310939)

No, it wasn't encrypted. It just was, as the title promised, a quantum story. Since you cannot observe the complete quantum state, quantum things usually don't seem to make sense to the classical mind.

Oxymoron (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310049)

"High-value content ?!"

MPAA, listen closely: when it comes to TV, there is no such thing.

Re:Oxymoron (3, Insightful)

oracle_of_power (750351) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310071)

"High-value content ?!"

MPAA, listen closely: when it comes to TV, there is no such thing.

I think you have made the mistake of assuming that they "listen".

Re:Oxymoron (3, Informative)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310087)

No, it's high-value all right. To them; and once they monopolize the output stream, then it'll become ever more high-value, i.e. expensive.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310115)

Please define high value content. Is it the value the ack-ack's place upon what they consider to be high value, or is the the value the artists place on their works?

Re:Oxymoron (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310265)

Why buy it? I don't.

Disclaimer: I've never been a "consumer", so I can't understand why people who appear to be normal accept being referred to as "consumers", or why they run out and purchase every moronic bit of shit they see in a commercial.

Re:Oxymoron (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310121)

If you equal "cost" or "price" to "value", then yes.

In the view of the MPAA, "high-value" probably means "content that will generate lots of money". Not anything related to artistic merit.

Re:Oxymoron (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310963)

Price rarely equates to value and with monopoly protected products far less so. The whole point monopoly rights lies in the ability to control price without competition, and avoiding market discovery of the equilibrium point of value, when the price of non-scarce goods like the MPAA products would otherwise fall towards zero. The value to individual buyers on the other hand may lie anywhere above the sale price for the deals that do happen and anyway below the sale price for the deals that are foregone.

Of course, with an artificially scarce good, that means the value the good would hold for everyone who refrains from purchasing (due to price being higher than value) will be lost to the economy (as the marginal cost per reproduction approaches zero).

Either way the MPAA would be more accurate saying 'high price' content.

Re:Oxymoron (4, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310275)

If it was worth watching I would have watched in the the Cinema .....since it is on TV it is either old hat, or is about to go straight to DVD ... neither is High Value ...

I live in the UK so if this ever comes here they will discover that besides a flat fee TV licence, most people do not pay for TV at all ....and it is generally good quality

There is very little "high value" content that people can be bothered to pay for ... except for live broadcasts ....

Re:Oxymoron (1)

mmeister (862972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311009)

As an American, I wish that I could pay for a UK license (last I checked, I can't) and receive the shows you get. It's definitely better quality than MOST of the stuff that airs here.

We have 500 channels, 480 of which are probably showing some damn infomercial at this moment.

I still have my Super VHS camcorder (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310077)

No it isn't "HD" but it does provide a nice clear DVD quality image (640x480) which is good enough for most people. Heck even blurry 320x240 ipod downloads are good enough, since most of what Hollywood makes is crap anyway. It might as well look as bad as it plays.

Re:I still have my Super VHS camcorder (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310257)

Not to mention that they'll need to patch the digital hole. Before the big breakthroughs on AACS/BD+ there were HDCP breakers and HDMI capture cards to make pure digital copies, even though it had to be transcoded since it was already decoded. AACS/BD+ isn't totally broken in that AnyDVD must release new versions of the decrypting tool but HDCP is, just like CSS is for DVDs. There's no fixing that without replacing every HDMI and DVI/HDCP connection out there.

Re:I still have my Super VHS camcorder (2, Informative)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310557)

Heck, like many other problems, you can just throw a little less money than they are extorting out of you to solve the problem.

For $180, you can begin get a HDMI to Component converter. [hdtvsupply.com] It's not as cheap as those other solutions but it's still cheaper than running out to get your MPAA approved device.

Future Post (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310083)

Subject: New Setup

posted by eldavojohn (898314) * on 2060.09.04 9:05

So, being an old man, I thought I would go legit and get all of my path transmitters MPAA approved. I already had the Z-Ray player that has a 128 core processor to handle all the Z Discs and decrypt the DRM but I spent the extra $50 on the MPAA approved cord from that to my MPAA approved TV (which already has a 256 core processor to hand the encryption). Once all that was in place, I made the big purchase. It was only $100 to have an MPAA approved zoning specialist come in and stake off and area of my living approved by the MPAA for me and my family to view their copyrighted material in. Once that was complete, I got triplicate signoff on a form that allowed me to pay $500 to install two units on either side of the room that emit some sort of crazy field so that the photons leaving my MPAA TV unit can be seen normally within the MPAA designated zone in my living room. It's really neat to stand outside it and see static and then step inside and see it perfectly. You also have to put on headphones (only one set) to hear the sound because they haven't found a similar technology for it yet. Whatever it is that those things generate sure is strong. If the dog gets too close to one of them, it shits itself and walks in circles for about an hour. Also, you can't have metal things on you otherwise they heat up and burn you.

But a couple thousand later and I can finally sit back and not worry about being prosecuted. You guys are all chumps for not enjoying this sort of MPAA certified technology!

Re:Future Post (0, Troll)

e-scetic (1003976) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310407)

I actually think folks who watch TV and movies ARE chumps. I stopped ages ago, you should too. What will it take to get the majority of people to stop? Sometimes I think people will take ANYTHING up the ass and say thank you too.

Re:Future Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310513)

It's true. You're paying for television service only to deal with ads? Just pony up the $9 a month and get Netflix (and your normal cost for internet connection - watch the price on this go up). Seeing no ads on something you're paying for is great, along with being able to watch it when you please (through browser or xBox 360).

Re:Future Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310657)

moooooooon RIVER

Re:Future Post (2, Funny)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310661)

Ages ago? Man. You've missed some rather interesting shows that might appeal to your nerdier side.

I'll just say "Good Eats" and leave it at that.

Re:Future Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310883)

Some people torrent that stuff, you know. And with the legit thing getting more and more clamped down and therefore glitchy, I'm sure that overtime this will be a more and more attractive option.

Re:Future Post (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310809)

Won't happen. It'd be as stupid as to say everyone that is listening to music are chumps, that they should all play instruments themselves or find something else worthwhile to do. Or those that read books instead of writing them. Being told a good story is fun - that you don't see it is your loss, not mine. Of course there's crap series, crap movies too but I don't have a problem sorting out the lemons.

Re:Future Post (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311037)

As a self-righteous vegan, I too am superior to everyone else. And, like you, I don't hesitate to let everyone within earshot know it whenever possible. Thanks for enlightening us filthy, TV-watching heathen. Your wisdom is like a beacon, guiding us down the path to our salvation.

Re:Future Post (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310439)

"It was only $100 to have an MPAA approved zoning specialist come in and stake off and area of my living approved by the MPAA for me and my family to view their copyrighted material in."

But what if you need to cover more people than your immediate family, or, heaven forbid, you have another child? You'll have to renegotiate your viewing contract. You should have gone for the "unlimited" option for $100 more that would cover future family members without having to resurvey the entertainment room. It also covers friends that might visit (as long as the total number of viewers is within your license), whereas with your current arrangement they have to remember to bring and plug in their own MPAA viewing cards to your equipment so that their viewing account can be automatically deducted. You'll regret it when one of your friends walks into the field, the viewbox turns to static, and the police show up a few minutes later at your door asking about attempted copyright violation.

Always pay the extra fees to upgrade to the "ultimate" versions! Didn't they teach you that in school?

More heavy-handed every day (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310109)

Just once I would like to know what it was like to have a government that represented me, and told the MPAA/RIAA to shut *its* hole. Unfortunately, with the Democrats beholden to Hollywood, and the Republicans beholden to big business, it's likely that the MPAA/RIAA will get whatever they ask for in the end.

If their DRM only effected pirates, it would be one thing. But at this point, the DRM is becoming so oppressive that it's having a negative effect on those of us who *try* to be honest. When I have to crack my player just to be able to skip 10 minutes of mandatory commercials at the beginning of a DVD/blu-ray, that's a sad day. I have already refused to pay for any more movie tickets because of this--I'll be damned if I'm paying $10 to sit through a bunch of TV commercials at the beginning of a movie (anyone remember when the beginning of a movie had a cartoon and a couple of trailers, and *NO* soda or car commercials?). Now the DMCA has turned me into a criminal just because I insist on controlling the $20 disc I legitimately *bought*.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310185)

Well see, this post contains the problem "if their DRM only effected pirates" ought to be "if their DRM effected pirates". The reality of DRM is that it takes another hour to strip the DRM before posting the torrent, with the end result that pirates have to wait another hour and customers have to deal with the DRM. I mean, look at games. Several companies have recently decided to stop forcing people to use CD's to play, but pirates have had that option for ages - they just stuck the no-cd crack in the torrent file. I've pirated games I own to get rid of some of the more egregious DRM...

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310267)

No, it's supposed to be AFFECTED, not effected, duh!

Re:More heavy-handed every day (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310301)

An apropos grammar error! It should be "if their DRM *affected* pirates". But, strangely, effecting pirates is also right, since their DRM does cause piracy.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310941)

affected

Just throwing that out there...

Re:More heavy-handed every day (2, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310213)

Just to add to your point, FYI, according the MPAA you haven't bought anything.

Next they will try to figure out a system where you pay more if more than one person is in the room viewing the disk.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310651)

You didn't read the slashdot post of the set top box with the IR sensor, or camera, or whatever?

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310723)

Duct tape.

Who is the customer? (5, Insightful)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310243)

Companies who lose sight of who the real customer is often die - a slow, lingering demise, but terminal nonetheless.

Methinks the great failing of Vista (and M$'s overall strategy flaw) was that M$ decided the customer is Dell (and other huge-volume buyers), IT departments, and DRM-lusting IP/content owners - forgetting that the real customer is each user clicking their way around the screen. Result: some 50% of Apple users are new to the product line, happy to put up with Jobs as a benevolent dictator who cares about their experience, happy to escape being treated as a mere marketing resource of eyeballs and wallets.

So long as we still have some technological liberties, someone will realize who the customer really is, serve them, and be rewarded - and drive **AA & government control out.

Re:Who is the customer? (3, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310299)

The current state of consumer ignorance about technology allows this type of corporate abuse. At least part of the solution is education. Tough because you have a populace that for the most part doesn't care until they get burnt with a DRM restriction.

The second part of the double whammy though is government and big media in bed with the corporate approved POV on this.

Still... someday the DRM crap will be pushed so far as to cause a critical mass and there will suddenly be "outraged" people on CNN talking about it... but we're going to be deep in the crap pile by then.

Re:Who is the customer? (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310937)

It is worse than that when the DRM kicks in most people assume they have done something wrong and it is their fault it doesn't work.

To be honest I just don't bother now, I have plenty of things to do that don't involve sitting watching a box.

Re:Who is the customer? (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310611)

Kudos to Jobs and his crew, but if your real customer is Dell and the *IAA, then you have a better hand. You can eventually cut the price of your product to zero, or lower, and still make money.

Apple has an uphill battle, but it is winnable. Just look at the bottled water industry to find out how to sell a product that most people can get free or nearly free.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (5, Informative)

mttlg (174815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310779)

>If their DRM only effected pirates,

DRM has nothing to do with pirates. The goal of DRM is to give the content providers full control of the distribution system, right up until the point where the light hits your eyeballs (and I doubt they'll stop once they get that far). Ideally, they would want every viewer to pay every time their content is heard or viewed, but for now they'll settle for ensuring that every view is through an approved path that they have been directly compensated for. This ensures that people aren't using content in any non-approved manner, regardless of whether such non-approved use is legal. The pirates may be inconvenienced, but they will continue to operate. The real payoff is in convincing the public that following the **AA's mandates is perfectly acceptable, thus allowing them to do as they please with home entertainment, without regard for individual rights.

This is a dangerous path to go down, but we're already a fair way along and there seems to be no way back. HDMI and Firewire are already locked down, so it's not surprising that they want to turn off component. Regardless of their "pre-DVD release" example cited in the article, it is clear that if this is allowed, it would be applied to all HD content across the board by default, except where otherwise required by law (e.g., DTCP). From there, it's only a small step to disabling SD video altogether (after all, everyone has an approved HD viewing device now, right?).

The biggest threat to this industry isn't the pirates, it's a population that believes that how they view content should be up to them and not dictated by a higher power. This is the mentality that allows people to justify turning to piracy when the legal route is too difficult. Rather than making the legal route easier (as the music industry seems to have figured out in only a decade or so), the MPAA is committed to creating a world where they are an altruistic god showering the people with "high-value content," asking only for our money and obedience in return. The scariest part is the thought that some of the people in control might actually believe that what they are doing is for the public good.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310801)

There used to be a time before TV and movies, best bet probably would be if everyone stopped watching it, then those guys could go back selling bibles and screwing farmers instead.

Not that I would mind seing the media conglomerates going the way of the dodo.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310903)

I have already refused to pay for any more movie tickets because of this--I'll be damned if I'm paying $10 to sit through a bunch of TV commercials at the beginning of a movie

Simple solution, enter the screening area 10 minute later. You won't miss anything, and unless you're watching a blockbuster near release date, you'll have no problems getting decent seats. Of course, if you want the best seats you have to get in early enough, just like any other venue.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310969)

It's not about stopping piracy. DRM has always been about control. They know that no matter what kind of DRM they use, it's going to end up on the net. What they want is control. They'd also like to sell you a dozen copies of the same content. You need one for your TV, your computer, your iPhone, etc, etc...

DRM only effects those who actually pay for the content.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (2, Funny)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311013)

Wait - You're saying the Demopublicans and the Republocrats provide the same outcome? Shit. Perhaps we give them a paper cut with the Constitution.

Re:More heavy-handed every day (1)

mmeister (862972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311055)

Actually, the RIAA and MPAA did pretty well under Republicans as well.

Truth is, corporations own most of the politicians. Since they never know which side is in power, they buy both sides. Problem solved --- for them.

Meanwhile, our society begins to decay more and more.

Living on your knees (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310151)

So lemme get this straight. The MPAA and their handlers want the general population to live on their knees, justified by the possible "benefit" to consumers (god I hate that word) like "parents who can't afford a babysitter." If they can't afford a babysitter, why would they be paying good money to watch pre-release movies? Shouldn't that money go toward food and rent? (yeah, I know, that's a completely different rant.)

The MPAA and their ilk would love the consumer population to live on their knees and just fork over money on command. But they've got a plan! Pursuant to implementation of CRAHP (Content Repositioning to Appropriate Height Placement,) all video rental stores will be required to install media shelving no taller than 3ft/1m tall. Think of how much more convenient that will be for people in wheelchairs!

Video standards are there to promote interoperability, not to guarantee a revenue model.

Of course it is a pro-consumer! (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310165)

calling the petition a 'pro-consumer' (!)

Of course it pro-consumer. It will ensure that only role you can play is being obedient couch potato.

Also that might help finally solve the problem with the pesky indie studios by making it even more expensive to air anything anywhere.

Golden Rule (1)

lalder (1476797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310197)

It's the Golden Rule, he who has the gold makes the rules!!!! It's the finest law money can BUY!!!

Close the digital hole first. (4, Funny)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310211)

That sounds like too much effort. They should just close the digital hole first. Encrypt the content using a 8192bit key and then throw it away. It fixes all the piracy issues. It would be decades before any pirate could recover the key, and since no player could play it, there would be no way for the pirates to steal the analog signal. It kills 2 birds with 1 stone. If the MPAA wants to buy the patent from me, that'll be $1M please.

Re:Close the digital hole first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310621)

I've always thought that the audio "analog hole" was the ear canal... if you add video, then you've got a couple of analog cornea->retinas in the system too.

I suppose they're going to outlaw analog recording/playback equipment next.

Re:Close the digital hole first. (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310833)

You jest, but when the **AA starts to encode content specifically to each user, they'll stop copyright infringement. They'll encode so that only you can decode, and if you give the content to someone else they'll be able to use their master key to track it back to you and you'll be banned from watching movies for life. (or bankrupted by the lawsuit)

Re:Close the digital hole first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29311027)

The MPAA already has a patent on things that don't work.

I don't understand (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310221)

This will 'enable movie studios to offer millions of Americans in-home access to high-value, high definition video content.' So what's preventing them from doing that now?

I'd like to leave my car parked with the doors open to make it easier for me to put the shopping in when I get back to the car park. There's nothing stopping me but I don't because I don't want it stolen. If they think someone will "steal" the content then just don't offer it. If they want people to see it then offer it.

What about this one? (5, Insightful)

iCantSpell (1162581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310253)

This is why I have absolutely no problem with downloading anything and everything I want.

They claim their losing money because I download content for free... Something interesting here.

1. I wasn't going to buy the movie anyway.
2. You can't lose money you didn't have.
3. The movie sucked anyway.
4. It's not my fault you think $50 million dollar special effects makes a good movie.
5. You want me to pay you to tell me how to use my property?
6. You didn't know as long as I can see it I can copy it?

Re:What about this one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310313)

Also 7. You aren't distributing it anyway, so you didn't exactly sell it.

waste of energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310307)

I need to leave my tv on when I play with PS3. If I turn my tv on, a drm system will get confused, and I will only see a colorful noise video. So, if I take a three hour break from a PS3 game where I cannot save right now, I will not only leave my PS3 on, but also the 200 W flat panel... Pro-consumer perhaps, but against the polar bears...

Re:waste of energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310789)

Thats HDCP snow your most likely seeing, sounds like its probably your tv in need of a firmware upgrade since its not properly representing a hotplug on power up

increased value? really? (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310331)

your television was not designed to offer you value. your television is an illuminated advertising engine designed to make sure you continue to perpetuate the myth that consumerism is a healthy and natural part of your life.

the MPAA wants the analog hole closed because its business model of closed services mandates it.

the MPAA will get what it wants not because of democrats or republicans, but because the MPAA is a very powerful lobbying force in american and international politics capable of influencing most governments at a rather fundamental level. "art" or "artists" have nothing to do with anything the MPAA stand for.

so how do you defeat it? most americans cant. by opting into the present model of television and entertainment a collective "boiled frog" response has been given. by ignoring fundamental principles of television broadcast and accepting as a norm things like inline advertisement and product placement most americans are inclined to believe this system of MPAA enforced content is acceptable. the news segments on most television channels, once designed to fulfill a federal content requirement to give back to communities, have all but dissolved into reactionary sensationalized content mills designed to keep you reacting and hooked long enough to sell you more things you likely never needed.

the saddest part of these "news" programs is that most do more to divide us as a people and a nation than they do to "give back" in any form, crafted to entertain and hold the interests of a select group by hard left or hard right opinions and stories.

its all a bit off-topic, i know, but for any of us to wring our hands, shake our heads, and wonder what ever will be done to stop this evil empire while we all shuffle off to the theaters for the next installment of Transformers is paradoxic. We have all done so much to make sure this "interest group" continues to dominate.

Re:increased value? really? (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310841)

We first have to ask which analog hole they want to close.
Well depends on the analog hole, but I think given their anal affection with politics the probably want to plug the rear end.

Oh noez! (3, Insightful)

AtomicDevice (926814) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310341)

My mythtv box will no longer be able to play ripped dvd's to my massive 40" gateway destination CRT (that's right, I've got one). Err. wait, this digital cable mumbo jumbo is a total racket anyways. The more the make it an expensive pain in the ass to watch tv, the more people will just watch stuff on hulu (with fraps running in the background). And besides, even in you need to be the biggest super nerd with expensive equipment to crack their ridiculous encryption, if one person in the whole world can do it, they'll put it on the internet, and we'll all have it for free on our own time the way we want it. Perhaps the should consider a convenient, inexpensive, and value-additive method of selling me their content.

Millions of SDTVs still in use (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310343)

From the article:

"The side effect," warns the consumer group Public Knowledge in an educational video it has put out on this question, "is that SOC would break all eleven million HDTVs in the US that don't have digital input.

Not only that, but blocking all analog outputs would break 80 million standard-definition televisions [engadgethd.com]. True, SDTV is the past and HDTV is the future, but the present has always been a mix of the past and the future. So I don't see how "The vast majority of consumers would not have to purchase new devices to receive the new, high-value content" when it isn't yet true that "[t]he vast majority of consumers" already own an HDTV.

More DRM... (3, Insightful)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310349)

I think the *AA really believe that they are losing money to pirates, millions of dollars per pirated movie. They don't realize that they are losing money to the lack of actually good content being put out. What ever happened to the day when you would go to the theater and have to choose which movie to go to because many of them looked like they would be good to watch? They also seem to have forgotten the rights of "consumers" to consume their content any way they please. I would like to be able to copy movies to my laptop hard drive, or the SSD I have stuck in the ExpressCard slot so that I can watch them on flights, or let the kids watch them on car rides, but that option was taken away long ago to protect their rights to not have people see the movies for the crap they are before deciding whether to buy the movie, or pay to watch it in the theater. I have been recently heartened by some things I have seen recently with movies; you can now buy movies with the rights to download them to your computer. Unfortunately, even this is encumbered by massive DRM. I am not allowed to move the movies between computers in my home, I am not allowed to back up the movie in any way, and when I rebuild my computer, the movie is gone. I guess when they claim you are renting the movie when you pay 20$, they really mean it. What ever happened to the cheap movies and music we were told would come about when we moved off of magnetic media (cassette and VHS)?

To protect pre-release HD movies ? (5, Insightful)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310373)

Those are the same people that promised that the DVD region coding and CSS system was only to protect new films from being watched in countries where they hadn't been released yet.

Where in reality, even 50 year old B/W cowboy films are region coded and copy protected when they are re-released on DVD.

Re:To protect pre-release HD movies ? (2, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310859)

Those are the same people that promised that the DVD region coding and CSS system was only to protect new films from being watched in countries where they hadn't been released yet.

Where in reality, even 50 year old B/W cowboy films are region coded and copy protected when they are re-released on DVD.

You did trust them, didnÂt you. I didnt believe their bull**** from day zero. I would have been positively surprised though if they hadnÂt been lying. The media industry is like that give them a knife and they will stab you if they see they can get money out of you. Ah and yes before that they will buy a law which makes backstabbing in certain cases legal.

Don't worry... they cannot stop "us" now (4, Insightful)

CodePwned (1630439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310385)

You cannot control the flow of information. Corney sounding I know... but it's true. People will always find a way to view things the way they want. Eventually the law catches up with that. You hear the people preaching that "It's futile what the RIAA/MPAA is doing... blah blah" or "Their business model is outdated..." and frankly i get tired of hearing the same of drivel repeated by people who don't truly understand business or accept that most people don't WANT to "hack" their stuff. They just want it to work. They have a death grip on things. With Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks at an all time profit high their business is nowhere close to being destroyed. People want to be entertained and they will buy what entertains them. Most people don't give a rats ass about region coding, encryption etc... they just know it works. However... lately... to my bewildered amusement people are becoming more intelligent about these issues. Politicians and those usually uncaring are suddenly forced to recognize the problems as they are starting to affect them. The biggest being the completely unnecessary transition to Digital TV. It affects their pocket books. People start to realize just how strong of a grapple hold the industry has and have start to voice their concerns. Politicians have begun to realize they can gain support from their constituents by championing against the RIAA and MPAA. What was once a huge profit source for BOTH republicans and democrats has now become the target of ire from their customer base... AND those they supposedly protect (the artists). The genius of it all is that normal everyday people... are starting to think again. They aren't fanning over Paris "no brain" Hilton. Watch the news... it's slowly (painfully) changing from covering Britney Spears latest escapades... to now covering useful news like the economy, our lives, jobs, family etc. We are being encouraged on every front to promote Transparency. That movement... makes what the RIAA and MPAA do seem wrong to the normal joe and right now... Normal Joe is afraid of losing his job... angry at the decisions made by the previous administration... and looking for a source of anger. People touching his money... really piss him off. Enjoy these thoughts.

Sometimes I wish they would... (1)

Benzido (959767) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310413)

Sometimes I wish the MPAA would go the whole hog and just block everyone from viewing any of their content outside of a cinema. I don't think we'd all die of grief. TV stations would have nothing to just broadcast but news and youtube clips. Then the whole recorded-images industry would collapse and die. But I suspect we might come up with something really great to replace its cultural role.

what the fuck? (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310441)

Isn't it their job to know that this wouldn't help anything?
They already have the option of offering Americans "in-home access to high-value, high definition video content"
This is evident because: Americans already HAVE "in-home access to high-value, high definition video content"

It sounds so dirty (2, Funny)

drkich (305460) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310469)

I don't know about you, but the title, "Close the Analog Hole" sounds like something you would hear on a pr0n site.

I'm just going to read books for now on. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310489)

They're much cheaper and the stories aren't ruined by screenplay writers.

Books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29310627)

are the future ... unless they all become digital. Then we'll all just sit around eating paste.

Bionic ear and eye upgrades needed (2, Funny)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310665)

I wanted to help the RIAA/MPAA close the analogue hole, but the closest I could come up with is to use my thumbs to plug my ears, and the rest of my fingers to cover my eyes. Maybe that's what they think of modern content they produce which is accounting for falling sales, so crap you should not watch or listen to it. Your fingers are "digital" encryption!

to turn off the analog hole (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310735)

you have to get rid of that pesky thing called THE HUMAN EAR

otherwise, if people are still listening WITH THEIR FUCKING EARS, the signal has to go analog at some point, and there you can intercept a signal

fucking morons

renders my tv useless (1)

lophophore (4087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310783)

My HDTV has no digital inputs. Yes. It is old. It only has analog component video. It *is* 1080i, though, and I don't feel like I should have to replace it because the MPAA is worried I will try to copy their crappy content through analog video cables. It also renders my friend's fancy video projector obsolete for the same reason. This move is totally anti-consumer.

There is a seriously large digital hole. Its called making a 1 for 1 copy of a DVD. Yes, I know that does not affect broadcast programs, but it is most likely the biggest piracy issue the movie studios face. Saving broadcast television through the "analog hole" will suffer loss of resolution due to noise and non-linearity of the analog path, not to mention the loss when the content is re-encoded to MPEG or whatever. It's not like a digital (read "lossless") copy at all.

There is little or nothing the studios can do to block wholesale piracy & bootlegging, which is their biggest exposure. Recording of broadcast television for one's personal, private use is completely reasonable and definitely should be allowed, just the same as we have been able to record and timeshift television programming with VCR and DVR technology for the last 30 years.

Re:renders my tv useless (1)

adnd74 (1022357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311051)

This move is totally anti-consumer.

Except for the fact that it forces consumers to spend more... how can you get more consumer than spending more :P ...

I agree with the parent. My TV is only a few years old and it doesn't have a digital in (or out), there is no legitimate reason to deem a few hundred dollar purchase worthless. I didn't expect to purchase another TV for another 10 years.

This is a fine example of why a consumer society doesn't work.

How the conversation should have gone (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310907)

MPAA Guy 1: We want to rape consumers
FCC Guy 1, 2, 3: Hahahahahahaha
FCC Guy 1: Next time you come in here to waste our time we are going to bill you $2000 per hour

How it probably went
MPAA Guy 1: We want to rape consumers
FCC Guy 1, 2, 3:>/b> Hahahahahaha
FCC Guy 1: Hand over the sacks of money and the legislation.

The final straw (3, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#29310977)

If they do anything that stops me using my mythbox to record tv I will totally cancel cable.
I'm too busy and my time is too valuable to me to only watch live broadcast at their start times, mostly because of all the commercial breaks, but also usually I'm just too busy to be around a a set time.
A normal 90 minute movie on cable takes like 3 hours even though they have cut the movie down 'for content' which is a PC way of saying 'removed good content to make more space for advertising breaks'.
Cable is already too expensive and has so terrible programming quality that I need mythbox to filter out all the commercials and shitty shows so I get anything worth watching at all. If they break my ability to use mythbox I'm seriously gone from TV. Netflix, Hulu etc here I come.
Good job there MPAA on killing the cash cow.

Have you noticed... (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29311053)

...that when the EFF does it, it's a heroic effort to educate the ignorant government regulators, but when the **AA do it, it's badgering?

Was the submitter afraid we wouldn't know whether this was good or bad without the slanted language? Just curious...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...