Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the keep-barking-up-that-tree dept.

Television 466

suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist: "The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

cancel ×

466 comments

Pirates (4, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073940)

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

Re:Pirates (5, Insightful)

nhytefall (1415959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073978)

It does make one wonder who is the true enemy... content pirates (those who take content for free), or those groups attempting to stop them and produce said content.

As Pogo said,

We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Re:Pirates (3, Interesting)

gedrin (1423917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074412)

Thought experiment:

World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.

Choose the world where X is greater.

For the pirated content consumer, the obvious ideal is a world where the number of pirates and producers are both maximized. For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized, and pirates exist only to make producers greatful for paying customers and provide incentive toward price moderation. Obviously, both these ideas are presented independent of any moral position or obligations.

Re:Pirates (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074454)

you are assuming the media companies are trying to stop the pirates.

The pirates, are a straw man for the media consortium to be able to give the users less (i.e. less work on the media companies part), while still ensuring payment of the same price.

I see both as the enemy - the pirates for giving the media companies this tool, the only tool in their belt, as well as being so inundated with a sense of entitlement that they can't consider doing without... And the media companies for just being greedy bastards.

Re:Pirates (2, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074630)

The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets.

I reckon that it is rather pointless to imagine that such a policy will affect people's ability to download/watch pirated content. If people want to watch a movie/series for free then there is very little stopping them as it is. At least if something like this offer existed those that wouldn't mind paying would be able to do so.

Re:Pirates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30073988)

The MAFIAA's position seems to be "we are the only ones who should be allowed to record anything, EVER."

Re:Pirates (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074226)

I think its more a case of 'we want you to copy things but only if we can control it so we can force you pay us every time you open a media file'

Re:Pirates (4, Funny)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073996)

"Do what we demand, or suffer."

On the contrary, I think delaying the release for the next Ryan Reynods + Sandra Bullock movie is good for everybody.

Re:Pirates (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074296)

I am already willing to wait for these "blockbusters" to hit the $5 movie bin.

I really couldn't give 2 hoots if it is on PPV a few weeks earlier.

Although I do object to not being able to record the cable I paid for in all of it's HD gory.

Re:Pirates (5, Insightful)

buswolley (591500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074134)

Ya know.. I don't want any more goods and services. I have enough, thank you.

Two words (4, Informative)

Karem Lore (649920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073960)

One begins with F and the other with O

Re:Two words (5, Funny)

db32 (862117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074022)

Why would you say "Fantastic Offer?" I think it is a pretty shitty offer.

Re:Two words (3, Funny)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074078)

How exactly would Fibre Optics help in this situation?

Re:Two words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074126)

How exactly would Fucking Outside help in this situation?

Re:Two words (3, Funny)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074184)

Because if you're doing that then there is no reason to be using the TV which solves the problem about having to care about this.

Re:Two words (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074496)

Because if you're doing that then there is no reason to be using the TV which solves the problem about having to care about this.

But still, what's up with the MPAA disabling usage of the analog port!?!

Especially in a situation with twin vixens and all :/

This news worries me!

Re:Two words (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074224)

Who cares!? It's the First of May!

Re:Two words (1)

growse (928427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074514)

Now is the month of May-ing, and merry lads are playing?
Fa la la la la la la, Fa la la la la la la?

?

Re:Two words (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074128)

Yeah, but why would Fleemus O'Flannigan care about any of this?

Re:Two words (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074436)

One begins with F and the other with O

Felch Orangutans? Outre and offensive. I like it.

Re:Two words (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074458)

One begins with F and the other with O

How the F did this get +3 informative??

Re:Two words (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074460)

Fresh Oranges are full of vitamin C, but I don't think it would help in this situation.

Really? (3, Insightful)

moogied (1175879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073968)

Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not, then we get normal release times.

Re:Really? (4, Interesting)

flonker (526111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074202)

The problem with that is, *all* sets will be of that type, or people who buy new devices would complain that their device is supposed to be new, yet they're still locked out of whatever. A few years later, they won't release any content without the anti-analog flag. At which point old TV sets won't work, (again,) and grandma won't have access to important information about hurricanes and stuff.

If the anti-analog flag is there, many people will want to use it on everything because they won't consider the negative effects. It's just human nature.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074434)

The problem with that is, *all* sets will be of that type, or people who buy new devices would complain that their device is supposed to be new, yet they're still locked out of whatever. A few years later, they won't release any content without the anti-analog flag. At which point old TV sets won't work, (again,) and grandma won't have access to important information about hurricanes and stuff.

Can we just disown Grandma and leave her to fend for herself already? She's holding back technological progress!

Re:Really? (1)

gedrin (1423917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074230)

This seems like another non-issue. I'm not sure why it would even be illegal to enter into a contract that allows the content provider to do this. Is there something to this issue that I'm missing?
Perhaps there is concern that providers will begin to offer content only under these terms, thus eliminating the use of the analog port?

Re:Really? (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074568)

yes, that is the concern. The prime issue would be with broadcasters, who by using the public airwaves are required to provide a certain type of service. If they send with an analog no-copy flag, they could be argued to be degrading the content, which they're not supposed to do.

Re:Really? (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074236)

I say we just let them suffer until they HAVE to bring new products and services, and they still don't get to muck with my Tv hardware.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074246)

Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.

So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.

I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.

-Steve

Re:Really? (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074256)

Until they ONLY make releases for those types of sets.
</paranoia>

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

davek (18465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074284)

Shouldn't this be a decision that consumers make? I buy a certain TYPE of set that enables this and I can see there dumb ass content a week earlier.. if not, then we get normal release times.

What a perfectly reasonable solution! However, you're falsely assuming that the MPAA or the FCC have any care whatsoever about the consumer. Its never been about the consumer, its about controlling and maintaining the status quo and the lifestyles of Hollywood royalty.

I wonder... (3, Interesting)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30073994)

Wonder how well that would work for people using a computer with a TV tuner for watching?

Re:I wonder... (1)

net28573 (1516385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074180)

Im wondering about this as well. My computer has a dual digital and analog receiver installed on my pc. You would think that because digital is so much easier to tinker with that it would be easier to modify and work around these limitations. Maybe it is easier. either way im sick of this crap they call high quality. I would go for analog static over the choppy weak signals of digital tv any old day of the week.

Re:I wonder... (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074198)

Guess what else they want control over.

Re:I wonder... (1)

jiriw (444695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074210)

For that, they invented TPM, HDMI and various other consumer experience impeding technologies.
If you can demand the whole chain is signed -bios, operating system, drivers and display hardware (via HDMI)- you can make 'sure' (unless an exploring and fearless hacker shows otherwise - risking a criminal offense per DCMA) the movie is only played when you want to. And I think the MPAA won't allow TV tuner hardware to decode this 'premium' content before they 'cum in their mandatory TPM wet dream'.

Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas (5, Funny)

sohmc (595388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074004)

It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels. It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.

Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!

You just can't make this stuff up.

Re:Even Hollywood lawyers are out of ideas (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074632)

Seriously. FCC has no business deciding TV feature set. But FCC really should mandate all TVs sold to lawyers have circular screens with rabbit antenna.

OK if... (1)

jquest (530244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074006)

I'd be OK with something like this IF the MPAA was required to always offer the movies for rental at or below the lowest price from ANY country that the movie is offered in. Then something like this might be ok...

Cartel (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074008)

When is the MPAA and RIAA going to be broken up as a cartel? They all price match each other, control pricing, and even sue as a group.

It's a perfect cartel. I wonder if they like OPEC? Probably.

Easy solution (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074032)

We don't want those products...

keep em...

Re:Easy solution (2, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074124)

This is the MPAA. You'll want what you're told to want.

They've totally lost the plot (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074046)

It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy. Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.

I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy. They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.

Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.

Re:They've totally lost the plot (1)

Tihstae (86842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074110)

Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.

Ding ding ding. We have a winna!

Re:They've totally lost the plot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074136)

Why do they care about the analog hole still?
Because of all those TV Shows that end up on torrent sites the day they are being aired.

Re:They've totally lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074168)

One word (well, four): PDTV

Re:They've totally lost the plot (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074218)

If it is broadcast over the airwaves then there is no way they can stop it from being copied.

This can only ever be relevant for "cable only" TV content.

Re:They've totally lost the plot (2, Funny)

techoi (1435019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074540)

In Soviet Russia, analog hole watches you!

Re:They've totally lost the plot (2, Informative)

ezelkow1 (693205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074610)

Most of those copies are not received through any analog holes. They are pure digital copies ripped from hacked, or in some markets even unhacked, dvr boxes. There is no need to do analog recordings to get a subpar digital copy to distribute all over the internet when its much quicker, easier, and higher quality to just take the original bistream. That is why this whole analog hole argument is BS, no real pirated copies are done by recording an analog output, its always a pure digital rip, of course just talking about things that are out on discs or broadcast, not theater copies of course.

Re:They've totally lost the plot (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074378)

Even if all the digital data is encrypted. The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information. A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies. Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it.

Re:They've totally lost the plot (2, Interesting)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074472)

It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies...

If you know of any ways to capture Hulu streams (either via webpage or their desktop app), I'd love to know. Even if it means the commercials are embedded, I've got no problem with that. The ability to download a show NOW to watch LATER (say, someplace where I don't have 'net access) would be awesome.

For the record, I've done my share of Googling and trying different capture apps that haven't worked as advertised. Maybe you know something I don't (I'm hoping).

Re:They've totally lost the plot (1)

Ozlanthos (1172125) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074474)

Actually I think it is more a precedent setting move than anything. Just like Roe V Wade is more about setting precedent for how much control the fed or state has over what you do to your body than abortion (keeps the fed from sticking RFiDs in everyone at birth). This would potentially set a precedent for allowing manufacturers to control all output points on devices they produce (including the big one in the front you spend 3 to 6 hours a day staring at) for the life of the product,

-Oz

MPAA = Who will THINK of the CHILDREN ??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074056)

The MPAA wants to plug up my analog hole ! Perverts ! BAD TOUCH ! I NEED AN ADULT !!!

Delusional? Let's hope so. (4, Insightful)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074072)

Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release? I didn't think so.

Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy. I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole." You're only going to hurt Mom & Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector. Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so. (4, Interesting)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074212)

Actually, not everyone. I tried using HDMI for everything and discovered that I was getting lots of audio dropouts. So I ended up switched back to the lovely component video which works just fine, TYVM.

Re:Delusional? Let's hope so. (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074274)

"Would any sane person consent to..."

When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies? Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices? These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.

Every time... (3, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074090)

... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?

Re:Every time... (2, Insightful)

broggyr (924379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074214)

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could charge for more goods to consumers."

There, fixed that for you.

Mistaking "could" and "would" (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074102)

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.

The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074248)

I caught the wording exactly like you did. There is not a lack of ability for them to show more content to us. They just don't want to.

I think that the MPAA should learn from the music market. DRM sucks; legitimate consumers are often hurt by it, and pirates always find a way around it. Tighter control helps nothing. Like you said, they're selling less product than ever. And they wonder why.

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would" (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074318)

as they tighten their control over the products they sell

They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!

Re:Mistaking "could" and "would" (1)

surmak (1238244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074612)

What we are seeing is the result of taking the statement "Give me what I want, or I will take my ball and go home." after it was translated by a PR flack.

MPAA control (5, Insightful)

prakslash (681585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074116)

Slashdot story in 2012: MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Re:MPAA control (2, Interesting)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074532)

Slashdot story in 2072: MPAA asks again for control of neural inputs

The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' neural input pathways, they could offer more goods to consumers.

Where's the +1 Prescient mod when you need it?

Unbelievable! (3, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074118)

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

Fuck you, you fucking fucks!

Re:Unbelievable! (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074268)

"...or as almost every word in a sentence: 'Fuck the fucking fuckers'"

Re:Unbelievable! (5, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074354)

The obvious George Carlin question here is " Why do they call it 'goods' when it sucks so badly?"

The work around is almost perfect. (2, Interesting)

iCantSpell (1162581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074122)

Sense a great deal of modern television sets are practicly embeded computers, this move will hopefully be the push to launch homebrew TV bios.

I would love to flash a HTC to enable cool video overlays or to allow simultaneous stream dumping.

Re:The work around is almost perfect. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074316)

I know mine is. Hell, I am 100% certain that it has an AC'97 audio chip and i've never opened it or otherwise checked out the technical specs of the device. Yes, the feature set (effects) of AC'97's is *that obvious* when you hear it.

It also takes more than a few seconds to "boot up"

Story recap video, overview from PK (1)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074132)

@publicknowledge has an excellent 2-part video recap, here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5t2DYT_SV8 [youtube.com] and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAeZwvvI7w [youtube.com]
and an issue section with several articles, http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc [publicknowledge.org]

Recording component output (4, Informative)

Puzzleer (309198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074170)

Ironically, there is only one product I know of that can even record content that comes out of the component output, and that's the Hauppauge HD-PVR. It's not like people all over the place are using the component video outputs to steal content (and those who do could probably just as easily hack around HDCP).

I don't have a tv, so I could care less. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074186)

Hearing that the MPAA wants control over TV ports is like hearing that the local
sewage treatment plant wants to be sure no one can eat shit for free.

Honestly, you'd have to be an idiot to even care about what you can watch on
TV. Every bit of it is utter crap, tuned to the attention span of a mindless fool.

Re:I don't have a tv, so I could care less. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074528)

Bravo, Mr. Walking Cliché. In your 10 o'clock show, will you discuss Aung San Suu Kyi, rail against multinational corporations, or tell us about how your hybrid has an Apple sticker on the back?

The old fashioned way (5, Insightful)

Wardish (699865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074200)

If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them. If the market wants them then tally-ho.

What's the point? (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074240)

If they want to force people to get rid of old TVs, they won't succeed. Because instead of spending the $1k or more on a new TV, they'll probably buy stuff like an HD-Fury2 so they can continue using their older HDTV set.

The Hauppage HD-PVR has been around a long while now, sure it only does component, but so do many older TVs. Blocking analog out does nothing that an HD-Fury2 can't fix.

So what, exactly, does this do again?

Re:What's the point? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074484)

It screws over people with less tech knowledge than you.

Great how am I... (1)

Zarf_is_with_you (1382411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074244)


Great how am I going to make my Boot Leg Beta Max tapes and sell them at the local Flea Market?

PA-HA-lease!

It seems to me these people are living a house made of Glass from a old industry that made them lots of money, I think if they keep throwing these stones at everyone something is going to get broken.

The amount of resources that they throw at projects like this, would be better put to selling the content in more inventive ways useful ways.

Give the Consumer what they want at a reasonable price

Much Ado About MPAA (0)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074272)

If they prominently put a warning on the packaged product stating that the product is not suitable for analog output, that would be okay with me.

It's kind of gross seeing so many slashdotters going ga ga over their "rights" in movies and music made by somebody else.

Make your own movies and music and don't buy their junk. That's the best way to stick it to the man. Cut yourself out of the homogenized herd.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA (2, Insightful)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074444)

My understanding is that the outrage isn't about the movie, but the MPAA wanting control over your TV.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA (1)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074500)

Me and my lady do make our own movies...oh, wait, maybe that's not what you meant... I buy very little 'content', since most of it isn't worth the bits it's made from. I don't even pirate, so I have effectively done what you suggest. Joe the Plumber doesn't have a clue about all this digitial rights management hoopla, he just wants his TV to turn on and display stuff, and maybe DVR a little on the side. This is why the *AA's of the world have been getting more or less what they want; an uneducated public is their best friend.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074530)

You don't get it. It's NOT their movies they want to control, it's MY TV. If it was just their movie, fine, put a label on it. I don't have to buy it. What they are trying to do is force ALL TV manufacturers to give THEM control over what can be recorded and how. That is not the same thing as just not buying their movies.

Re:Much Ado About MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074594)

And the MPAA doesn't make movies, nor do the RIAA make music. They just license it.

Yet another case (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074280)

...Of the Media companies trying to SOC it to everyone. They are probably pushing it by saying it will help the economy since everyone will have to buy new TVs and DVRs!

What's next? (1)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074292)

Let's say the FCC rolls over and says, "Sure! Plug all the holes you want!" and the SOC becomes reality. Then what? Will I be prevented from using a video camera to record the TV screen as it's playing? Digital implants in our optic nerves to prevent us from seeing contents for which we haven't paid?

Re:What's next? (1)

mkettler (6309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074380)

Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen. This protects the MPAA from you possibly describing, or heaven forbid, pantomiming their protected content to another person who has not yet paid for it. It further protects them from you replaying the previously viewed material to yourself in your mind, which would be an unpaid reproduction...

Re:What's next? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074572)

Memory implants, to prevent you from remembering exactly what you've seen.

There are some that would argue this isn't such a bad idea.

Selective Control (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074308)

I would like selective control over the coherent intellegence knob at the MafiAA. Someone needs to spray a little cleaner in there so it can be unstuck and turned up to an acceptable level. Also the mute button should be engaged so my tax paid courts quit wasting time on another dying industry. Just let it die.

Missing goods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30074314)

I wonder what wonderful "goods" we missed because the MPAA lost the VCR fight, and were unable to offer these things to consumers. I wonder what goods they can't offer now, and if, in the future, another technological advance happens that they can't control, if they will be able to offer anything at all.

XKCD said it best. (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074326)

I think this pretty much sums up our future if this is allowed to happen: http://xkcd.com/129/ [xkcd.com]

Scary thought...

Offering more goods (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074338)

I think the offering more goods line is mostly a load of bunk. But lets assume it's true. Do we want more overpriced goods that are fundamentally lower quality because we can't use them in the way we choose within our own homes having paid for them? Or are we happy with fewer goods which actually allow our property to function properly?

We should be able to have a full range of content without reducing the value of other, physical goods that we own. But if we can't have that, I'd personally rather stick with current content offerings and have appliances I buy continue to work for me.

Apply the same logic to auto repair industry! (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074342)

Groups representing public interest against these agendas (and lobbying for DMCA reform) should apply the same logic used to defend such oppression to the auto repair industry to demonstrate its absurdity.

"If only we could selectively disable people's engines, we could offer more innovative repair services to the public!"

What exactly are they asking for?? (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074360)

Just read the article and I don't get what the MPAA is even asking for?

How in the world would they shut off my TV's inputs?
AFAIK, component cables do not provide any control or data link to the TV.

Obviously, if my cable provider wanted to shut off the analog OUTPUTS of the cable box they rent to me, they can do that.

What are we talking about here?????

fixed the typo (1)

Xenious (24845) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074374)

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods^H^H^H^H^H screw more consumers."

Why? (2, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074376)

Why potentially cripple all of the television appliances just to allow a minority of people to watch movies a few days earlier? Once such a remote disable ability exists, it will be used and abused.

"would want to", not "could" (1)

jbarr (2233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074390)

The article states...

"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."

It should be... "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they would want to offer more goods to consumers." ...because it has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of offering more goods--it's all about the industry's desire to control what the consumer can do with what the consumer pays for.

It's an impasse that will likely only be resolved by legislation. Of course, because everything is now relative, THAT doesn't matter as it'll change a couple years later anyway.

Just to ask . . . (4, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074542)

Given that Blu-Ray/DVD/MP4 streams can all be ripped digitally without resorting to analog (with all the quality degradation that brings) - and given that somebody with sufficient skill and equipment to use the analog hole probably also has the skills and equipment to rip digital video without resorting to analog techniques - who cares?

Besides, if Hollyweird's streamed content breaks my TV, I'll just (A) Sue, (B) Vote with my wallet, and (C) Sue. Even if (A) and (C) are eliminated from the list, I'm pretty sure a lot of the cash-spending public will employ option (B).

Which reminds me - do they really have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it? I'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown, but not that often IMHO; and even then I think I'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless, faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics.

imagination land (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074588)

It takes a whole lot of disillusioned out of touch dinosaurs to come up with a system where removing a functionality would make it so " they could offer more goods to consumers."

Are they so deeply entrenched in their own lies and have completely lost touch with common sense that they actually believe what they are saying? It's either that, or they're knowingly trying to screw everyone (again).

The idiots in RIAA,MPAA (or whatever bullshit organization centered around imaginary property) should have NO say in non-imaginary property.

Sorry (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074616)

Unless you created the hardware, firmware, or software, I will not allow you to control the ports on a device I purchased.

I would be all for this (1)

Drummergeek0 (1513771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074642)

If the ports are only disabled when displaying said content. If the premium content is on demand and optional, while standard broadcast/cable channels operate the way they already do, I don't care. I already use HDMI on my cable box, and most consumers with any form of HD do as well. Component still holds on in some areas, but the worst that will happen with them is they wont get the new content, but still get what they always have until they upgrade. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Here is an Idea (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30074650)

Why not have a law that bans all record buttons since we are at it?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

MPAA proving Einstein right even now.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...