×

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!

Does HDCP Herald The End Of Time-Shifting?

Cliff posted more than 13 years ago | from the copy-protection-moves-to-hardware...again dept.

Slashdot.org 247

Kagato writes: "HDTV is starting to roll in many markets now, and the question on many peoples' minds is how do I record all this high quality content? Two years ago Panasonic made a HDTV recorder for the consumer market, but for some unknown reason the product was pulled from the market. Now JVC is bringing out its D-VHS recorder, but instead of using the conventional Y/Pr/Pb inputs they now use a DVI input. On the surface DVI (similar to firewire) is a good thing: high speed audio and video all on one cable. However, it seems the express reason for using DVI is for high-bandwidth digital content protection (HDCP). Hmm, sounds a lot like CSS..." One of the more disturbing aspects of HDCP is that it has a blacklist of devices that it will expressly not work with that can be updated by the manufacturer. If your VCR is on the blacklist...no video for you.

"In researching HDCP I've found that HDCP encrypts the content between the HDTV tuner and the Display and/or HDTV recorder. HDCP allows the content provider to choose if you have the right to record the programming that comes into your home. According to this article HDCP also allows supports a master lists of devices not to work with (a.k.a. Key Device Revocation). For example if the APEX of the HDTV recording world is unleashed the content provider can instruct your HDTV tuner not to send it any content. That's a least what I'm reading into it.

Are we on the verge of having our right to timeshift taken away? Will all the consumers have won with the Sony Betamax suit be lost in one swoop that is the DMCA and HDCP? Or, am I reading too much into this and the MPAA has our best interests in mind?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

247 comments

More importantly... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507964)

We could find a way to "update the blacklist" to be empty...

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507965)

You have violated DCMA, by conspiring against it. We are coming for you, will kick down your door and imprison you until you confess you are guilty and then we put you in jail for life, for comming an insidious crime of conspiring with communists and terrorists to bring down righteous content control system, and making possible to steal all information from everybody and distribute it without any consent of original creators. YOU WILL BURN IN HELL!

And when all mfgs adhere to the new anti-cop std? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507966)

We're boned.

Or point a video camera at the tv screen. Crappy res, but let's see them stop that!

All audio formats must at some point be audiable to the ears and all video formats must at some point be visible to the eyes. I'm sure this pisses the MPAA/RIAA off to no end.

Re:Only One Answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507967)

But everyone doesn't use recreational drugs.

A better analogy: the DMCA turning everybody into "pirates" is a lot like the Federally-mandated 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit turning 90%+ of drivers into lawbreakers.

As a society, we've come to recognize that any law that defines 90% of the populace as criminals is probably not a good law. Once the Supreme Court is given a chance to revisit Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios (464 U.S. 417)
in the context of the DMCA, I believe it's safe to say the DMCA proponents will be in for a grave disappointment.

Bad lawmaking is bad lawmaking, and as the repeal of the NMSL demonstrated, eventually even Congress gets the clue. So it is indeed a "good thing" that the manufacturers are moving to restrict our fair-use rights to such an overt and inflammatory degree. It'll hurt, sure, but it'll be over quicker that way.

Device Revocation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507968)

Device Revocation

The HDCP system is revocable. If the display device has been compromised and the secret device keys are exposed, the licensing administrator places the KSV that matches the compromised device key on a key-revocation list. Each display device carries a unique set of keys and KSVs, so revocation is confined solely to the specific compromised (or "hacked") device.

The key-revocation list is carried by system renewability messages (SRMs). The host manages the SRMs and updates them whenever it is presented with a valid, new SRM. SRMs can be fed to the host from a prerecorded or broadcast source.

Sounds like if someone cracked the "licensing administrator" they could broadcast lots of revocations and break millions of TV's and VCR's.
I wonder if they included a provision for un-revocation?

Copy Protection in DVD (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#507969)

I have the JVC D-VHS recorder. It's a fantastic machine, but until now, I haven't found a way to copy a DVD digitally on tapes. The reason is the 3 copy protections a DVD has. The first two are the regional encoding and the macrovision copy protection. These two are easily hacked, and it's enough to remove them from your player to record in VHS or SVHS. But for digitalk copies....no way until now. There's a 3rd copy protection in DVD, something called the Line25 copy protection. The 25th line in a DVD movie contains a code which is not seen on TV. This code basically tells the VCR that you are trying to make a digital copy of the DVD, and the VCR simply refuses to record. I really like to hear from other people if they succesfully prevented their players to send the Line 25 code to the VCR.

Re:HDTV could be dangerous. (2)

volsung (378) | more than 13 years ago | (#507975)

Much research has been done into how framerates and High Definition television fool the unconscious mind . . .

This is either really interesting, or total BS. Do you have a reference?

Re:Free airwaves were a 20th century aberration (2)

AndyS (655) | more than 13 years ago | (#507978)

Basically in Britain we have a non-commercial broadcaster known as the BBC.

Now, the BBC is not funded by the government, but instead through a license fee. This license fee allows them to provide programming (for both Radio and TV, but you don't need a Radio license) without requiring advertising or sponsorship. And the BBC does produce some good stuff.

The license is set by parliament (think Congress), and is currently about £102 (about $160 or so) for a year, although this can be paid in installments, and people on benefits have their TV license paid for them, as well as some other groups.

The license has some issues which have annoyed people - you have to get a license for at least 3 months (which gets students) and you have to pay even if you don't actually watch the BBC.

BUT, it is nice to watch programs without commercials, and the BBC is not particurly government controlled (and of course, there is always competition from ITV, a terrestrial broadcaster which is commercial). Aside from this, the BBC has produced quite a lot of quality programming, such as Red Dwarf, Blake's 7 (remember this?), Dr Who, and a raft of other shows.

If you buy a TV you have to have a license but you only need one per property, so, for example, your house can have 5 TVs, and only one TV license. And also you can live with non-relatives, but for example, in student halls, each student must have a license because you effectively have a room (sort of like an appartment), which can suck as us poor students aren't loaded and don't get any discounts.

That's a basically summary, and if you look at www.bbc.co.uk they probably have more information on when you need a license in the UK and how much it currently costs (mine was about £102, but it might have recently gone up).

Re:8mm transfer (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 13 years ago | (#507983)

well you can also just intercept the analouge signal and record that. It's not what the corps are worried about, they're worried about flawless copies of their digital masters.

Then why don't they just have the new equipment overlay a 'bug' in the lower left (since the lower right is taken already) corner of the screen rather than absolutely prohibit copying? Or just introduce single bit errors that will multiply with generational copying?

I suspect that this time they're more worried about not being able to make everything pay per view and not being able to force you to actually watch the commercials (or at least not fast forward through them).

Re:Library does track habits WAS Re:Book (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 13 years ago | (#507984)

So they DO track the reading habits of patrons. Okay, maybe not on an individual level, but they do know what they're checking out most frequently. And they're computerizing more, so they should be able to track patrons on an individual level.

Libraries have always done that. Otherwise they wouldn't know if a book was overdue (or never returned at all). Their shelves would be empty in a matter of weeks.

Re:Has copy protection ever really worked? (4)

sjames (1099) | more than 13 years ago | (#507987)

Can anyone name an incident where copy protection really worked and there was no way to get around it. I can't even think of something that wasn't fairly easy to get around. Of course I am only 19 and don't have the history that some slashdot people do, but I can't remember anything that was really impossible to manipulate.

So far, none. However, all of those were broken when it wasn't a felony to manufacture the needed devices. If you read the ads for the various devices you'll notice that they all claim to be useful for some other purpose. Macrovision defeating devices claim to be video stabilizers. When the content is being delivered with crystal clear digital quality, what excuse will there be for a device that tricks the VCR into letting you record something the broadcaster explicitly set the 'no copy' flag on?

Keep in mind, under the DMCA, if the excuse doesn't hold water, it's a felony with very little wiggle room. Look at what has happened so far with DeCSS in spite of having a legal use!

Re:Not the end of time shifting (3)

the red pen (3138) | more than 13 years ago | (#507996)

  • consumers will eventually win. The free market demands it.
"Market Forces" are the "God's Will" of secular society. Why not just say that God will take care of consumers? It's equally meaningful.

The fact is that market forces serve the market, not consumers. Market forces drove down the price VHS VCRs and made them as common as dirt. Market forces didn't force Sony to license the Beta standard to other manufacturers and Beta disappeared. The consumers did not win.

You are correct that consumers are used to being able to record TV shows and watch them later. There's nothing in the proposed technology that will stop them. I expect that HDCP-compliant receivers will gladly pipe output to an HDCP-compliant Tivo. This HDCP Tivo would only deliver the content back to a display device, but not to a media recorder of any type. Thus, Joe Sixpack can timeshift to his heart's content, but he can't record "Battlefield Earth" off HBO-HD, transfer it to HD-DVD and resell it on Ebay. His HDCP Tivo will refuse transfer that valuable intellectual property to the DVD recorder.

Sure, there will be some way to make a copy of the HBO-HD broadcast of "BattleField Earth," but the pirate copy will be robbed of the full glory of the original digital clarity, robbing the viewer of the full effect of the spine-tingling special effects.

Of course, you will also be prevented from doing something perfectly legal, such as making a "Best of the Simpsons" compilation for your own personal use. You lose. The question is, will the market care? My money says "no".

This *HAS* to be a Troll (5)

the red pen (3138) | more than 13 years ago | (#507997)

  • when you are watching a PAL or NTSC television set, you are unconsciously aware that what you are watching is false, at some deep level.
...and when you are watching a SECAM television set, you are unconciously aware that you might be in France.
  • However, at high framerates and definitions, this is not the case. The id can no longer seperate fantasy and fiction
Wow! If I could invent an extremely high resolution image with no flicker at all, I could control the world! I'd give this terrifying new technology some kind of fancy name, with a Greek root or something... How about photograph?

Not the end of time shifting (5)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 13 years ago | (#507999)

Fortunately, two decades of ordinary VCR's will prevent The Industry from putting an end to time shifting. Consumers have gotten used to the idea.

The bottom line on this kind of stuff is that consumers will eventually win. The free market demands it. From a technology perspective, bulletproof copy protection is impossible. Every single attempt has been defeated. From the errors on Track 40 of a Commodore-64 floppy (and the copy programs that put those errors on the duplicate), to Macrovision on VHS (and the sync repeaters that worked around it), to CSS (and DeCSS), technology has proven time and again that you can't give a consumer access to some sort of media and completely lock out the ability to copy it. The only sure-fire way to prevent copying is to deliver all pay-per-view programming with an accompanying lawyer, policeman, or whatever in the consumer's living room. And that ain't gonna happen.

Big Media scumbags tried to prevent the consumer public from gaining access to cassette recorders, and later VCR's. Why should this round be any different?
--

Re:high quallity content (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 13 years ago | (#508011)

I don't think that in the end, any current US TV watcher has much choice. The gov't is mandating a change over to digital/HDTV broadcasts in order to free up the part of the spectrum currently used by broadcasters.

Re:What about market-shifting? (1)

swb (14022) | more than 13 years ago | (#508013)

The market being what it is, and consumers being what they are, I'm guessing that this "Key Device Revocation" won't last too long. As HDTV becomes more and more the standard, consumers and/or companies will begin to complain and of their respective losses (quality or the ability to record for the consumers, ability to make money off the consumers for the companies, and probably all sorts of little things in between). In short, I don't expect this "problem" to be much of a problem when HDTV takes over.

Consumers have bitched for years about being sodomized by the cable TV industry and nothing has come of it. The cable TV industry just jacked up rates again, worsened picture quality and hired another pack of crack-heads to work in customer service. If you think for a minute that the "industry" will ever believe that relaxed copy protection = increased sales, you've been smoking crack, too.

Oh, it will backfire soon enough. (5)

Nemosoft Unv. (16776) | more than 13 years ago | (#508015)

Just imagine the uproar that will ensue when half a nation comes home from work, school, dancing lesson or whatever, and finds out their favorite show or the NBA game of their team has not been recorded on their VCRs because the broadcaster decided to flip the "Nay" switch. It may be too late for a refund, but it will be the last time they will buy such equipment!

Frankly, I don't really see the point of forcing customers to be at home to watch a program; the only reason I can come up with is that they can't fast-forward through the commercials. We are so used to taping programs for our use, no-one will accept such measures.

As for the video-blacklist: yes, that's a shame. And no, I don't think the MPAA has the best intentions for the consumer's right, only their own.

Re:Divx (2)

Quarters (18322) | more than 13 years ago | (#508016)

While heartening, this isn't a perfect annology. Divx was a non-standard medium that was being supported by a minority of manufacturers and was only being sold in a small number of retail outlets.

HDTV, HD Recorders, and the copy protections that will appear therein are supported by the entire industry. The copy protection will probably be in all devices and those devices will be sold in all retail outlets. There will be no choice, more than likely. Either you buy one of these protected devices or you don't partake in HDTV. In 10 years that will probably mean that your choices are either a)submit to this or b)don't watch televsion.

Re:Speak with your money (3)

amccall (24406) | more than 13 years ago | (#508020)

This will probably work about 10x better for HDTV than it would for DVDs, Microsoft, and the like, for the simple reason that: the average consumer understands the inability to have a VCR.

There is currently such a large market for VCRs, and Tivo like devices, that most major electronics companies have a vested interest in keeping these products alive. Remember, it doesn't benifit the ones making the electronics, only the ones making the media. Kindof like the whole Hard drive copy protection business.

Further there is no really defined standard for an HDTV recorder. We'll probably have something like the Betamax vs. VCR wars again in this next couple of years. Hopefully the nonproprietary standard will win again, bolstered by consumer confidence. I don't put the lack of VCR like products for HDTV on some conspiracy, but the simple facts that: 1. Extremely few people own a HDTV, so the market is little. 2. These people are probably watching off broadcast anyway, as most HDTV signals aren't really there yet.(There's been more than a few technical problems, and last I heard unless you were sitting on station, it doesn't work all that great.) So they have VCR's. 3. These same people are probably only using the HDTV capabilities to watch their latest DVDs anyways.

Just my $2.00.

Re:Book (1)

Big G (26054) | more than 13 years ago | (#508021)

You had better believe libraries track. I've had some MLSs (master of livrary science) tell me some very uncomfortable facts about trends among libraries.

Think about all the intra- and inter- library loans too. It's not just the corner library that has access to your information.

Super Bowl (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 13 years ago | (#508022)

Gee, they're going to force me to stop taping the Super Bowl so I won't be able to watch all those good commercials? Or will they turn off the "never copy" flag during the commercials? That will be convenient, if I don't have to watch that football that keeps delaying the commercials.

Re:So don't buy 'em. (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 13 years ago | (#508023)

I've also gone through two winter buying seasons without buying DVD stuff. When I can put DVD players in my Linux boxes, then I'll invest in DVD media and compatible home DVD players.

I don't blame them, but... (1)

vanyel (28049) | more than 13 years ago | (#508024)

Given the rampant copying that goes on, I don't blame them, but quite frankly if I can't record a show and take it over to a friend's house to watch or loan it to them, I'm simply not going to use the technology at all, on principle. But if I can't time shift, the technology is completely useless, because my schedule is just never going to mesh with the broadcast schedule. Having had Replay for a year or so, I can't stand to watch live commercial TV anyway. They're just shooting themselves in the foot if they don't allow these capabilities because it will be DOA.

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (1)

Knos (30446) | more than 13 years ago | (#508026)

Yes that's because the information chain between people is still channelled thru very global nodes of information: news paper, tv, radios.
we can only hope that the general public will start using todays technology (internet?) more and more as its source of information. There the sources of information are more and more distributed and less controllable. Less concentration => less power of advertising.
It's just a question of beeing sufficiently disconnected from the major media channels.

Of course production of media content is not always cheap... Well perhaps the public will just turn itself to look into cheaper media/art. (nothing in the word entertaining implies that it has to be expensive to produce)

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (2)

Knos (30446) | more than 13 years ago | (#508027)

The difference here is that media is not scarce. Anybody is able to produce art. Even if hollywood and the big companies would like you to believe you can't have good quality content without them. They will realize, once the general public will be too pissed off by protection techniques and will begin to look into other sources of content, that they don't have a monopoly on creativity.
We don't NEED any of their productions. Face it, and make them feel that way.

Re:Not the end of time shifting (1)

CSC (31551) | more than 13 years ago | (#508028)

you can now buy ASICs with hardware protection and encrypted digital links. you can also get tamper proof devices all the way from antenna to decoder to screen...

On this subject an interesting (though somewhat OT) link: Design Principles for Tamper-Resistant Smartcard Processors [usenix.org] with a lot of info on how to, well, hack hardware.

Where's Don Knuth? (5)

Captain Zion (33522) | more than 13 years ago | (#508030)

Now JVC is bringing out its D-VHS recorder, but instead of using the convent.ional Y/Pr/Pb inputs they now use a DVI input.
Wow. I bet the TV shows are written in TeX!

Re:Not the end of time shifting (2)

Snowfox (34467) | more than 13 years ago | (#508031)

The bottom line on this kind of stuff is that consumers will eventually win. The free market demands it. From a technology perspective, bulletproof copy protection is impossible. Every single attempt has been defeated. From the errors on Track 40 of a Commodore-64 floppy (and the copy programs that put those errors on the duplicate), to Macrovision on VHS (and the sync repeaters that worked around it), to CSS (and DeCSS), technology has proven time and again that you can't give a consumer access to some sort of media and completely lock out the ability to copy it. The only sure-fire way to prevent copying is to deliver all pay-per-view programming with an accompanying lawyer, policeman, or whatever in the consumer's living room. And that ain't gonna happen.

Unfortunately, you list some examples of just how evil/reckless business can be about trying to protect their intellectual property. I mean - the track 35+ disk logic was destroying the alignment of C-64 disk drives left and right - even legitimate software users would get a hold of the cracks just to save their hardware. Yet business persisted with this for YEARS just because it stopped the casual user for a few months each time. Like it or not - whatever draws capital will always put the user's best interests second, no matter how loudly they complain.

more than you think. (1)

gimpboy (34912) | more than 13 years ago | (#508032)

i believe you would be surprised at the number of people who have at least tried recreational drugs. look at the current prision population to see the results of the war on drugs. two weeks ago, i was at the busstop in the middle of pittsburgh on fifth and bigelo and someone lit up a joint.

the major difference between this and the dmca typ stuff is that corporations are using copyright/property laws to get what they want. ie. theft of content is taking something you dont own even if it is digitally. drug laws are more closely related to legislating morals. people who buy drugs work with you, eat at the same resturants you do and piss in the same toilet as you do. dont be fooled into thinking its only homeless/poor people who do them.

use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (2)

knarf (34928) | more than 13 years ago | (#508033)

Let's face it, without entertainment or leisure of some sort, we go insane.

True, very true. However, nothing says that entertainment and leisure have to come in bite-size chunks, individually packaged and foil-wrapped for your protection. There's a whole world full of entertainment and leisure out there which is (mostly) outside the reach of the 'entertainment industry', from live music at the local pub (or other locations) through learning to make it (no matter what :-) yourself to the 'alternative' media, etc. People, real people, not canned ones, await you at places like that. People who say things they mean to say, not things which have been written into some script 'cause someone paid them to say it.

The 'entertainment industry', and probably the whole 'media industry' has outlived its welcome. They have shown their true colours, which are dark. Pretty soon - when ever more stringent laws prohibit advertising for more and more products - the products of the media industry will be virtually indistinguishable from commercials (if they are even now distinguishable from them...). Who wants to endure hours and hours of commercials?

...

I know I don't...

So, tune out, turn off and live your life the way you want, not the way they tell you to live it...

Free airwaves were a 20th century aberration (2)

esnible (36716) | more than 13 years ago | (#508034)

In Britain it's illegal to watch broadcast analog TV without a non-cheap license. The police have vans which pick up the tiny signals leaked by every working TV set. They drive to houses of non-subscribers, and when their probes detect a signal they fine you for stealing broadcast TV.

Failure to pay the fine results in months of jail time. Michael Moore's TV nation once showed a clip of a young welfare mother who was in jail because she couldn't pay the fine.

That's the treatment you can expect from a western democracy.

Do you really think a *corporation* is going to let you off any easier?

Re:Not the end of time shifting (2)

Zurk (37028) | more than 13 years ago | (#508035)

unfortunately copy protection schemes have gotten smarter. you can now buy ASICs with hardware protection and encrypted digital links. you can also get tamper proof devices all the way from antenna to decoder to screen...the only way to beat it would be a camcorder or equivalent but that degrades the signal too much. although none of these have gotten anywhere in the real world, they ARE being implemented slowly even if everyone fights them every step of the way. for example, the FPGAs/ASICs with tamper proof hardware resistant to electron microscopes and logic analysers are being introduced gradually in several products especially on the high end. The trickle down effect almost guarantees the low end will experience it. just like software copy protection schemes with FlexLM licensing servers (instead of stupid "unhackable" copy protection requiring physical media such as cds which doesnt work) as on the SGI machines is gradually trickling down along with ASPs which store and control data remotely.

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (1)

Medieval (41719) | more than 13 years ago | (#508040)

Fortunately, the people have learned; just one week ago, the Memory Stick Walkman was dropped by CompUSA, and dropped in price from $399.99 to $299.88

Do note that when the price of an item goes from XXX.99 to XXX.88 in most any U.S. store, the 88 cents means the item is either discontinued or the store is reducing the price to get rid of it because they will no longer carry it. It is this way at Wal-Mart, CompUSA, Staples, Office Depot, etc.

WTF?! (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 13 years ago | (#508041)

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK? First, they try and control what you can and cannot record... now they're controlling what you can and cannot record it WITH???

This has got to stop. It's gone beyond the point of rediculous into new unxplored areas of stupidity.

Re:Quantum Copyright Protection Scheme Shows Promi (1)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 13 years ago | (#508042)

But I can listen or view it at least ONCE, right? Then who cares if "the entire universe" is protecting it. If I can view it then I can record it in some fashion. For a quantum physicist, this guy seems a little dumb.

What about Fair Use? (3)

gcondon (45047) | more than 13 years ago | (#508043)

Since the early days of VCRs, the Courts have upheld the individual's right to record broadcast programming for the purposes of time shifting under fair use. However, content that arrives in a non-ephemeral medium, such as tape or disk, seems to be allowed to incorporate copy-protection because there is no need to duplicate for fair use. This appears to be the rationale behind technologies such as Macrovision which prevents DVD to VHS duplication.

As we are all painfully aware, content providers have recently been fighting tooth and nail to stop any form of duplication, fair use or otherwise. Although people of good conscience can argue about the fairness of music swapping services such as Napster, recording of broadcast programming for private time shifted use is clearly within the already accepted bounds of case law (IANAL).

Therefore, content providers have shifted the debate to the 'perfection' of digital-to-digital duplication. Since a D->D copy is exactly identical to the original, natural controls on duplication such as generational degredation disappear. Content providers argue that the removal of this barrier will cast the world into a miasma of unbridled piracy which, in turn, will stifle creative pursuits, destroy the global economy and perhaps send the Earth hurtling into the Sun.

Such arguments have been used to incorporate copy-once protection into consumer grade DAT devices and appears to be the motivation for this new round of copy protection efforts. (It is interesting to note that Macrovision protects against a form of copying that already includes generation degradation, however a sense of irony is not a strength of the MPAA/RIAA.) The motivation of content providers is, not surprisingly, to implement as much copy protection as they can and then to let the Courts push them back a little later. IMHO, the important issue is to keep the quality of duplication out of the debate over the limits of fair use. This may lead to a copy-once scheme similar to DAT but that would represent a compromise between the rights of content owners and users. As some smartypants once remarked, we must give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Re:8mm transfer (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508048)

I dont know about you but I watch two types of bootlegs, camcorder jobs for the movies that are currently in the cinema and dvd rips for everything else. The dvd rips are pure digital. Digital off the dvd, pump it into virtual dub, recompress it with divx (and press "never show me this warning again" when it detects it) and fuck around for 15 minutes getting the sound just right.

Re:Not the end of time shifting (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508050)

Hardware is definitely possible of protecting the "digitalness" of the content. If I program a microprocessor to contain a decryption key and distribute all media that to you encrypted with that key (or one of the many keys in the processor), and the chip outputs an analogue signal when asked to decrypt (to say your tv), then there is only two ways that you can get the digital content. 1) You can break the encryption, I think we can safely say that it is possible to use hard to break encryption or 2) you can somehow tamper with the chip and there are chips that claim to be tamperproof. For digital dvds that only plug into digital televisions the problem is already solved. We just program the said microprocessor to only communicate with devices that can offer up a digital certificate signed by some authority that only issues certificates to "safe" devices. If the digital content never leaves these tamperproof chips in digital unencrypted form, you are forced to tamper with the chip which is supposedly impossible.

Re:8mm transfer (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508052)

well you can also just intercept the analouge signal and record that. It's not what the corps are worried about, they're worried about flawless copies of their digital masters.

Re:Book (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508053)

better yet, buy that book from a second hand book store. Chances are they wont even accept your credit card and they dont pay any royalties.

Re:Oh, it will backfire soon enough. (3)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508056)

Digital VCRs will probably include software to do time shifting (without fast forwarding the commercials). There will just be no way to get the unencrypted digital stream out of the VCR. What's more the user interfaces in these VCR's will probably be so superiour that people will immediately forget about the freedom they used to have to fast forward, especially seeing more people will be timeshifting than used to. New users fix everything.

Quantum Copyright Protection Scheme Shows Promise (3)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#508057)

Physicists have developed a software only form of data streaming that just might send hackers packing. The technology, based on the Hiesenburg uncertainty principle, makes it possible to send a digital song or movie over the internet without fear of the data being intercepted or copied at the final destination. Dr Peter Hackinsack from the University of Southern California explains:

"It's truly amazing. When we first started thinking about sending quantum data over the Internet we were talking about optic fiber and very complicated optic only switches."

Electromagnetic fields have been shown to disrupt the stability of quantum super states and has been a major hurdle in quantum computing.

"Then one day we decided to try measuring a quantum state but not actually observing the calculations until they had passed over the Internet as normal data. We expected the results to be skewed and indeed they were. It was during this process that we discovered that we could shape the data into any form we wanted!"

Dr Hackinsack continues to explain how the data passes through a complex encryption mechanism that is the key to the data's encoding. Dr Hackinsack ensures us that the encryption process is very fast and can be done on a media company's web server in real time. The data then passes over the Internet to the user's home computer where a program such as Windows Media Player or Winamp can deliver it to the end user.

"They can store the data for as long as they like and make as many copies as they like. But once the song or movie or whatever is actually istened to, all the copies revert to random garbage!"

The process is called "quantum state destablization" and is observed daily by researchers in quantum computing. Dr Hackinsack and a number of associates who requested not to be identified have formed a startup company and secured funding from the MPAA.

"Oh we're going to make the SDMI obsolete. There's no reason to rely on big numbers when you've got the power of the universe to protect you."

But securing funding has not been easy. Describing the process to media executives has been grueling for scientists who deal with this kind of physics day by day.

"They were such a pain. We tried everything. They didn't want to learn about the technology and they didn't understand the demo we erformed. In the end we got some undergraduates to explain it and they seemed happy. Well they gave us the money!"

Deployment of the product is still some months away.

Read [segfault.org] other fake news..

"never trust the client" (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 13 years ago | (#508061)

They seem to keep forgetting that, if you really want to be "secure," you can never trust the client. Of course, consumer media consumption will always require a client... so there wil lalways be a way to work around whatever fuckage they put into the product.

I doubt they will ever learn to not do it, though. I do imagine that they will make their next target open-source systems.

- - - - -

DVI? Firewire? (1)

jkujawa (56195) | more than 13 years ago | (#508063)

On the surface DVI (similar to firewire) is a good thing: high speed audio and video all on one cable

What the hell is this guy smoking? DVI is a digital video connection, mostly used for flat panel displays. Firewire is serial SCSI. DVI is similar to Firewire in as much as they both pass bits, but that's about it.

8mm transfer (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 13 years ago | (#508064)

People will hook up a device with a tiny LCD and a digital camera on opposite ends of a hood, like the 8mm -> VTR converters, if they have to. Most people will deal with the tiny amount of degradation.

Here's some good news (5)

VFVTHUNTER (66253) | more than 13 years ago | (#508066)

that I saw on TechTV yesterday. Although manufacturers can build content protection of public television streams into their devices, Dvorak and others made reference to a Supreme Court case a few years old that gives consumers an absolute right to record these public streams. Dvorak et al seemed baffled that the FCC had let HDTV copy pretection pass, since this ruling effectively nullifies it.

What does this mean to us geeks? It means that although manufacturers can make copy-protected TV's, they don't have to. Companies (e.g., Apex Digital, makers of the best $170 DVD player ever made) can simply choose to make TV's and VCR's etc that ignore this copy-protection scheme, just and Hedrick has gotten T.13 to do with CPRM.

WOO HOO CRYPTO! (1)

nealrs (75987) | more than 13 years ago | (#508069)

how long before we have a distributed project to crack this crypto? i can see it now, an optical cracking machine so we can record video on our digital vcrs. or, i could just rent a flick at blockbuster.... -n-rs-

Re:Book (2)

TheShadow (76709) | more than 13 years ago | (#508070)

Oh fuck that...

everytime someone wants to take our rights to use something away... someone has to suggest an alternative... hay, can you watch the SuperBowl on a book? No.

--

Re:Trial balloon (1)

Vandermar (79246) | more than 13 years ago | (#508071)

You're correct in saying that broadcasters need more eyeballs on their programming but let's not forget why these whores want the eyeballs....ADVERTISING. How many commercials were there during the Dune miniseries? These companies don't make any money by broadcasting programs. The programs cost them money to produce or buy the rights to air. They want programs that will get more people watching so their commercials are seen by more people. Anyone else annoyed by those idiotic semi-transparent logos that presist in the bottom right hand side of the screen constantly reminding us what channel we are watching? A&E ABC and NBC I know for sure do this and others do too I'm sure. Some have gone so far as to use that space for commercials while the program/movie is running!

I suspect that the main reason that networks wouldn't want people to be able to record their content is the ability to cut out commercials. Many people do this with their Tivo or ReplayTV type devices with all their watching. I'm tired of commercials every 5-8 minutes, anyone else? It's definately made me appreciate PBS.

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (1)

Rares Marian (83629) | more than 13 years ago | (#508074)

/paraphrase
No one can stop you from creating artwork.
/paraphrase

My ass.

I want to write and direct artworks. I want to support fans of my work who want to translate it.
If the media hardware is made by publishers, I'm going to get raped by the pricing of recording hardware, which would make it impossible for me to concentrate on projects where need to express superceeds the need to make a killing. Both me and my fans, who could do better at advertising my work than anyone else, will get fucked over by the blacklists and all the rest of the paranoid psychosis that seems to have bewitched publishers.

I have no problem with artists designing hardware. However, publishers are in a position to fuck everyone on both sides, consumers and artists.

I'm forced to sacrifice opportunities because a bunch of publishers can't get their heads out of their asses to use the net rather than screw it.

Re:Here's some good news (4)

Speare (84249) | more than 13 years ago | (#508076)

This is similar to a California ruling where the judge upheld a Californian resident's right to descramble satellite broadcasts, stating if they didn't want him to see their content, then get it off of his property. This doesn't mean that the judge said satellite broadcasts cannot be scrambled, just that if they aren't scrambled sufficiently, then they cannot prosecute home users that descramble the signal.

It would seem that this is thrown out the window by the DMCA, however.

Previously, if I went to the retail store and bought a piece of glass-plastic-and-burnt-aluminum, I was able to do whatever I wanted with that glass-plastic-and-burnt-aluminum, for my own noncommercial use. I wanted to read the content on it, descramble it, and view it. I was rightly allowed to, and the courts upheld that notion. Paraphrased, "if they don't want me to use the content inside, they shouldn't let me bring the media home."

(As an aside, I'd say that I would go along with the notion that I couldn't make revenue off content that I bought at retail. Retail is for private end-consumers. If I want to become a distributor, I should acquire a business agreement with the distributor(s) higher up the chain.)

But the DMCA changes this world. Congress has altered the law, and the courts are charged with interpreting the current law, not the old case law. Akin to the bedroom laws, these media laws senselessly restrict what I can do with people and objects I bring into my own home.

Re:Trial balloon (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 13 years ago | (#508084)

You're correct in saying that broadcasters need more eyeballs on their programming but let's not forget why these whores want the eyeballs....ADVERTISING.

Well, duh.

Not wanting to belittle your comment, but did you ever think that one of the reasons we see so many commericals is on the off chance that you may forget to fast forward through them? How about the fact that while channel flipping you see the same spots on all the channel?

The programs cost them money to produce or buy the rights to air. They want programs that will get more people watching so their commercials are seen by more people.

So you are in favor of pay per view?

Trial balloon (2)

grumling (94709) | more than 13 years ago | (#508085)

Did you ever think that this could just be something "they" threw out just to get a reaction? Why would ANYONE want something that is transmitted over the airwaves to not be viewable? The broadcast business model depends on having as many eyeballs out there watching your program instead of your competitor's program. I really doubt that the broadcast world would record inhibit their broadcasts. They just managed to convince the FCC that they need it.

Pay Per View is not a useful model for making much money. It allows for incremental revenue to an already released product, porn and other *quality* programming, but I doubt that anyone is seriously thinking that PPV will be a long term moneymaker for broadcasters.

BTW: In case you haven't heard, the FCC has been sold to the highest bidder.

Re:Not the end of time shifting (1)

rweir (96112) | more than 13 years ago | (#508087)

as much as i hope you're right, i can see one way that they can still win...

all they need to do is to bring it in slowly, so that people don't notice, until it's too late. they've got all the time in the world. what do they care if it takes a generation or two for all media to be protected like this? once they win, it won't be for now, or for a little while, it'll be FOREVER. when no one remembers what it was like when you could record anything you liked out of the air, they will have won. completely and finally.

Revocation (1)

spludge (99050) | more than 13 years ago | (#508088)

HDCP also allows supports a master lists of devices not to work with (a.k.a. Key Device Revocation).

I would expect some of the less reputable manufacturers to come out with hardware that spoofs the ID of a more reputable manufacturer. Perhaps they would make the ID somehow software changeable so that users could input whatever ID they wanted. This could cause all sorts of problems for this type of scheme.

Re:8mm transfer (2)

Fjord (99230) | more than 13 years ago | (#508089)

No, the corps are woried about their profits. If they are successful in stopping digital copying through encryption, then the pirates will just move to digitized analogue, and the same effect will be had. Considering now pirates use analogue tapes, which have generational problems, having a digital copy of a first or second generation analogue rip will be better than what we have now. Most people will be dropping this on to VCR tape anyways, since they have a VCR and a DVD-R will be expensive for a while.

Re:Here's some good news (5)

Fjord (99230) | more than 13 years ago | (#508093)

Although manufacturers can build content protection of public television streams into their devices, Dvorak and others made reference to a Supreme Court case a few years old that gives consumers an absolute right to record these public streams.

This is an incorrect interpretation of the ruling. We do not have an inalienable right to timeshift, but the Supreme Court said that individuals cannot be brought up on criminal charges for recording a public broadcast. If the MPAA can come up with a way to scramble the recording, then it doesn't violate this ruling. But this ruling does say a home user recording content is are within their rights, even if that recording is scrambled to the point that it is not viewable.

This is similar to a California ruling where the judge upheld a Californian resident's right to descramble satellite broadcasts, stating if they didn't want him to see their content, then get it off of his property. This doesn't mean that the judge said satellite broadcasts cannot be scrambled, just that if they aren't scrambled sufficiently, then they cannot prosecute home users that descramble the signal..

Re:Oh, it will backfire soon enough. (3)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 13 years ago | (#508095)

Are we going to have to fight this fight everytime a new piece of hardware comes out ?

In a nutshell heres whats going on:

Add revenues are WAY down, NBC is laying off 10% of its work force, Turner has had a hiring freeze, because of this problem -> TV Adds aren't working anymore. The problem was this : Back in the 50's , the standard was something like 40 new shows a year ... Then they started doing sweeps, and the new shows were only during sweeps because, they got paid for the rest of the year based on sweeps's numbers ... Now in an attempt to "trick" people into watching, they've taken to staggering new shows and old shows during the new show season ... For instance: Futurama ... They didn't start the season until OCT 29, then they alternated new shows and old shows ... Add to this the fact that they're only making 15 new episodes a year of many shows.

Compounding the problem is, the quality of Television shows is similiar to the quality of MS products ... Most networks have degraded into "Shiny Things Networks" (an omage to the onion) ... Look at the string of just WORTHLESS shows, Temptation Island, Millionaire, suvivor, who wants to marry a ... etc etc ... people were attracted to these novelty shows because the television has become so formula driven its turning people off. Most shows are just about sex (Ally McBeal, Boston Public ... ) Even classic shows like star trek (DS-9, Voyager, just can't keep the interest of even their die hard viewers -- because the writing is just THAT bad).

So the networks are already in bad shape, because people who have better things to do then to watch teenage girls in dupres are doing that better thing ...

Now that you understand the trend in the market, TIVO's and VCR's become incredibly important -- because if they show is shown 52 times a year, and theres 15 new episodes, most people aren't gonna watch the other 37 shows OR the adds with them. They need to restore this revenue stream ... If you can't record it -> you gotta be there to watch it -> if you gotta be there you'll probaly watch it wether its a repeat or not because yuou've already rearranged your schedule.

I believe your supposition is correct, people won't stand for it, they'll just end up missing the TV they can't record, because, who can take the night off work to watch the simpsons?

I would like to think the public would start to see the encrypted HD's, the DVD CSS, HDCP and the DMCA as an attack on the sovreignthy (sp?) of the consumer ... HDCP just might be the issue that drives this problem to the public.

Ultimatley, this will create an opertunity for new broadcasters to get into the market, probably over high speed internet whenever that becomes a reality ... It dosen't take alot of money to make a good show, it takes alot of heart. I point towards BBC shoe-string classics like Monty Python, Black Adder, the Thin Blue Line, Upstairs Downstairs, All Creatures great and small, Danger UXB, Wallace and Gromit etc etc that were made in their entirity for less then one episode of Ally mcboring.

Digital means crackz (1)

terminal.dk (102718) | more than 13 years ago | (#508097)

All this means is that there will be crackz available, and averything is digital, so you get a good quality picture with a new ROM with embedded Linux.

And like with the DVDs, there will come cheap chinese equipment where the producer couln't afford the copy protection circuits, and left them out. My DVD player is all regions. And they use the cheaper video chip that can't generate Macrovision noise to confuse my video.

Re:Oh, it will backfire soon enough. (1)

jafuser (112236) | more than 13 years ago | (#508102)

Don't forget that people are watching less TV because of the internet. If TV continues to just shove prepackaged garbage down the pipe, the internet will just continue to beat it into the ground, because it won't be long before broadband delivers video on demand.

Our evolving society requires that we maximimze the use of our free time, and personally I prefer not to spend it watching commercials that tell me what I should be and who I should look like.

--
EFF Member #11254

Re:Not the end of time shifting (1)

jejones (115979) | more than 13 years ago | (#508105)

Agreed, you can't make unbeatable copy protection...but then, you can't keep people from getting drugs, either, and that doesn't stop our idiot government from trying at enormous expense and at the cost of turning the country into a police state.

So, now we can look forward to more cases of grandparents keeling over from a heart attack or being shot down as they try to defend themselves from intruders where the intruders are government agents--but now, instead of looking for drugs and having the wrong address, they'll be looking for DeCSS or something like it and have the wrong address.

Speak with your money (1)

Ricky Cousins (119722) | more than 13 years ago | (#508106)

Well just refuse to buy it, and make a point of writing to JVC to tell them why you will be buying a competing product. They won't bother trying to sell a product no one wants

Re:Only One Answer (1)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 13 years ago | (#508107)

Will the FBI bust into trailer parks across the US under...

  • FCC
    The FCC is not a lawmaking or institution, it is a commission.
  • DMCA
    You'd have to violate something in here [cornell.edu] first. Everything else is a civil offense.
  • UCITA
    The FBI doesn't investigate things under state jurisdiction.
  • CPRM laws?
    CPRM isn't a law...

As usual, IANAL.

Re:Speak with your money (1)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#508110)

Think about how a time-shifting recorder works. There doesn't necessarily need to be a standard unless there is some direct interchange of recordings which no one is going to make a standard for anyway because it would be seen as a tool for piracy and nothing else.

Re:high quallity content (2)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#508112)

Have you ever seen HDTV? I am guessing you haven't because it looks incredible and I think that anyone who has seen it is pretty excited about the possibilities. You are right though that content matters more than quality, that's why people go back to playing emulation and bootleg movies on the internet. HDTV is great, and I think that once people see it, it will be hard to go back.

Has copy protection ever really worked? (3)

donglekey (124433) | more than 13 years ago | (#508113)

Can anyone name an incident where copy protection really worked and there was no way to get around it. I can't even think of something that wasn't fairly easy to get around. Of course I am only 19 and don't have the history that some slashdot people do, but I can't remember anything that was really impossible to manipulate. Cable TV seems like the hardest to me and even then there are cable descramblers and such all over the place.

What about market-shifting? (2)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 13 years ago | (#508116)

The market being what it is, and consumers being what they are, I'm guessing that this "Key Device Revocation" won't last too long. As HDTV becomes more and more the standard, consumers and/or companies will begin to complain and of their respective losses (quality or the ability to record for the consumers, ability to make money off the consumers for the companies, and probably all sorts of little things in between). In short, I don't expect this "problem" to be much of a problem when HDTV takes over.

As with any major market shift, it only takes time. Just look at where we are with CDs...

I don't understand (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#508117)

why this is such a big deal? Don't get all bitter and flame me but as one of those people that just don't record anthing from TV, I'm a bit lost. Is everyone getting pissed off 'cause this is a "death of a thousand cuts" strategy from the hardware/content providers or is this the "One big thing" that could end it all? These debates are a bit lost on me as I don't really give a shit about recording anything from TV. Last time I recorded something from TV was when I was interviewed on the local news. Like 5 years ago. If I understand this correctly, certain devices won't unload their content onto other devices if they don't like their certificate or "ID". This will provide the content people with some form of assurance that their stuff isn't being copied?

Re:Business opporutnity!!! (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#508118)

First off, can you enlighten me as to the amount of the "fortune" the napster people have made? I don't recall that they've "made" a cent.

Second of all, I'm not sure that there is this vast untapped market for hacks and workarounds that you do. I suspect that the vast majority of people could give a shit about how their VCR/DVD player encrypts or transfers the signal. All Joe 6-pack wants to do is stick his porn DVD in the player and have it work. Sure, he might be a sheep but he could care less. I, too, am of this mind. If I want to watch a movie, I can do it via PPV or go to blockbuster. If I want to watch it several times, I'll buy the fucking thing. In essence, I could care less how it works, as long as it works. I will, however, agree with you on region controls. I'm baffled as to why this is such an issue with the content industry.

Re:Free airwaves were a 20th century aberration (1)

prisoner (133137) | more than 13 years ago | (#508119)

Can you explain what a "non-cheap" license is? I don't get it. Does everyone have to have a license to watch TV?

A lot of effort for nothing (4)

luckykaa (134517) | more than 13 years ago | (#508121)

These "Casual pirates" DON'T cause a problem. If people subscribe to a TV channel, its a lot of effort to tape things for any purpose other than time shifting. Very few poeple are interested in recording PPV movies since people really only want to see it once anyway.

However, this will most likely add to the price. Surely the people who are having their content protected should subsidise this.

small shiny objects (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 13 years ago | (#508127)

ooh! small shiny object! you can examine it, take it apart, find out how it works, and use what you learned for bigger and better things.

hmmm. hdcp and tv. you can look at what they tell you to look at; just don't think about it, learn about it, or, heaven forbid, find out how it works. what fun is that?

"forget about your silly whim, it doesn't fit the plan"

Re:Only One Answer (1)

alleria (144919) | more than 13 years ago | (#508133)

Whatever. Until they force me to install cybernetic devices in my eyes and ears that control what I can see, I can always record the signal.

In the end, sound is nothing more than patterns of air molecules vibrating, and video is merely photons coming from a glass surface.

Like I said, I'm not concerned yet.

Re:Here's some good news (1)

Hitiek (150559) | more than 13 years ago | (#508138)

Is there any chance that this would also apply to scrambled cable channels? If you are paying for basic cable, and the cable company chooses to send the scrambled channels to you also, wouldn't the same "get it off his property" apply?

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (2)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 13 years ago | (#508140)

The difference here is that media is not scarce. Anybody is able to produce art. Even if hollywood and the big companies would like you to believe you can't have good quality content without them. They will realize, once the general public will be too pissed off by protection techniques and will begin to look into other sources of content, that they don't have a monopoly on creativity.----->

While you are correct in stating that they do not have a monopoly on creativity, Hollywood does have a de-facto monopoly on PUBLICITY. That's why you don't see many (or any) high-quality independent films at your local theatre.

I know. I own one. (A theatre, that is.) And if a movie doesn't have multiple millions of dollars pumped into pre-release advertising and so on then no matter how good the film is, the chance of it finding its way to your friendly local theatre is just about nil.

The film companies, by and large, do not provide the "creativity" or the "talent". They do provide the money, though, and without that you're pretty much out of luck.

So I agree completely that there are a great many high-quality films available. There are also a great many high-quality books and so on. But how many of them do you see? And how many of those that you do see are you seeing because of the associated advertising campaign rather than the actual content.

I could have the very best movie in the whole world playing at my theatre right now. If nobody knows that I've got it, who's going to come and watch it? Further, if it's something that you've never heard of, are you likely to come and see it, or just zip over to the next theatre and watch the latest James Bond instead?

Business opporutnity!!! (2)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 13 years ago | (#508141)

When is someone going to wake up and start an up-front "legit" business to get around all this content control stuff? There's a LOT OF MONEY TO BE MADE from makind region-free DVD players, content-control-free HDTV stuff, and so on. /.ers keep whining about the legitimate applications being oppressed - serve them! Make a buck! If Napster can openly make a fortune helping people steal music, then surely someone can make a fortune getting past all this oppressive tech by serving legitimate uses!

Re:One valid DUNE connotation. (2)

bonzoesc (155812) | more than 13 years ago | (#508147)

If everybody stopped selling the Memory Stick Walkman, and caused its' price to drop as low as you predict, where would we buy it?

On a different note, it really is demand that controls how much we pay for supply, and what gets supplied to us. If you want to timeshift digital TV, would there be a tuner that you can pull an analog signal out of for your analog VCR, or would there have to be some sort of masquerading device that you can put between your 'bad' VCR to make it look like a valid recorder?

Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate

Re:Where's Don Knuth? (2)

cfleming (161451) | more than 13 years ago | (#508148)

I had suspected that many television programs were using the same old document classes over and over.

Library does track habits WAS Re:Book (2)

firewort (180062) | more than 13 years ago | (#508159)

Actually, I inquired to the head of the Wake Co. Public Libraries why we have so many romance novels and so few reference books in our libraries. I was told that they want to encourage use of the library, and that's what gets checked out most frequently.

So they DO track the reading habits of patrons. Okay, maybe not on an individual level, but they do know what they're checking out most frequently. And they're computerizing more, so they should be able to track patrons on an individual level.

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Hypocites in the MPAA? (2)

Hitokage_Nishino (182038) | more than 13 years ago | (#508160)

Seems like in their jihad to crush all piracy even at the expense of their customers... they choose to break the law. IANAL, but I'm positive the Home Recording Act says this kind of BS is illegal.

Maybe this will be the issue that'll bring the DMCA under judicial review, I certainly hope so.

So don't buy 'em. (5)

OverCode@work (196386) | more than 13 years ago | (#508165)

You're a customer. Don't put up with this crap. I've bought one DVD in my life, and that was for the purpose of testing the Linux DVD players. The DVD CCA pisses me off, so they don't get my money.
Same goes with any manufacturer who supports SDMI (I've already returned one portable player). High-definition TV that limits my freedom to timeshift or make copies for friends is no different. A certain dorm room at Georgia Tech will not be equipped with one of these.

If enough people do this, it'll stop happening. If enough people don't do this (the likely case), we deserve what we get.

-John

Smartass (1)

Ando[evilmedic] (199537) | more than 13 years ago | (#508166)

It often leads me to wonder why people contribute to a discussion if they have little of value to add to the discussion.

If I'm reading about HDTV, I don't want to see the word "book."

- Ando

Re:high quallity content (2)

KevinMS (209602) | more than 13 years ago | (#508169)


I totally agree, could somebody tell me what, of everything I watch on tv, needs to be in high definition? I use tivo, and that REDUCED the quality of the picture, but I watch more tv because tivo makes it easier- if I'm an average consumer, what does that say about us, and how we'll accept HDTV?

Re:high quallity content (2)

KevinMS (209602) | more than 13 years ago | (#508170)


YES I HAVE, it looks cool, but who cares? I go to the movies too but I'm not bitching about the dust and hair I see projected on the screen. Consider the millions and millions of people that dont have perfect eyesight and cant see the screen perfectly. Consider all those people that had a bit of money to spend and they bought those projector tvs. Those SUCK, but people with money bought them anyway. And consider this, digital vcrs like tivo will not work, or work well, with HDTV. Having used tivo I can tell you that it is, without any doubt, a disruptive technology of great magnitude, and it will be less compatable with HDTV, which JUST has a better picture. I'm convinced that HDTV and digital vcrs are incompatable. Right now my tivo can only encode/decode a single channel, so I cant record two things at once, or watch one thing and record another. Soon they will offer "multi encoding/decoding" and people will learn to love it, and when they get HDTV, digital vcrs will probably only sample the signals, killing the resolution, or just barely handle one.

Re:Not the end of time shifting (1)

Marcel Waldvogel (219139) | more than 13 years ago | (#508177)

A tamperproof device in the hands of someone who knows what (s)he's doing, is not tamperproof anymore. Just have a look at what Ross Anderson [cam.ac.uk] and Markus Kuhn [cam.ac.uk] are doing to "tamperproof" devices.

-Marcel

Re:Hypocites in the MPAA? (1)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | more than 13 years ago | (#508178)

IANAL, but I'm positive the Home Recording Act says this kind of BS is illegal.

And that's why YANAL. "This kind of BS" is not illegal. The home recording act says that a consumer can record public broadcast, it does not specify that equipment manufacturers should assist the consumer in that quest, nor does it prohibit broadcasters from scrambling the signal and other such measures.

One valid DUNE connotation. (2)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#508182)

"He who controls the (media) controls the (people)!"

Let's face it, without entertainment or leisure of some sort, we go insane. Companies buy into this because they feel that they can get ultra-rich. Just look at Sony; the nefarious team of Norio Ohaga and Akio Morita has almost completely Japanized the entirety of American culture. Fortunately, the people have learned; just one week ago, the Memory Stick Walkman was dropped by CompUSA, and dropped in price from $399.99 to $299.88. However, don't you buy that thing! I want to stand and laugh when its price plummets to $39.88.

Only One Answer (5)

Fatal0E (230910) | more than 13 years ago | (#508184)

The days of simple PnP pirated video are prob coming to an end.

As the hardware gets smarter and smarter that only means that the game of cat and mouse between the pirates and broadcasters are is going to get more and more heated. As boradcasters get smarter and start adopting new tech, the people supplying the public with the means to circumvent are gonna have to catch up. Remember all those early copies of Phrack that had all those HOWTO-Cable Piracy tx files?

RANT

The worst part is that the paradigm of "pirate" is shifting more and more towards the mainstream, instead of on the fringe as it always was. It's gonna be John Q. Sixpack with his pirated (made in China) VCR that can record everything he wants, watching TV on his pirate TV (made in Taiwan) connected to his pirate Sattelite dish (modded in the good ole US) that lets him watch East Coast NBC and West Coast NBC.

I guess the assumption that Corps are only worried about the "big time" pirates are over. Even I myself had the assumption that they were only worried about the rings that were dupeing their movies across the Atlantic/Pacific in bulk and that reg ppl were small potatoes and could only be prosecuted (picked on) at a loss. Are those days over? Will the FBI bust into trailer parks across the US under FCC/DMCA/UCITA/CPRM laws? Stayed tuned....
"Me Ted"

Re:Has copy protection ever really worked? (1)

morthraneous (255691) | more than 13 years ago | (#508190)

I can name a personal instance where copy protection sorta worked :)

Back in the day when DOS games had all the weirdest fucking forms of copy protection (Code discs, manual references, yada yada yada... thank god for Xerox), I saw a game on the shelf. Looked good. It was Jet Fighter II.
And on the cover, in a nice, bold blazing sign it said "NO COPY PROTECTION"
I think that statement bought a customer that day for the hideous price of $49.99 :)


Ok ok... so it was the lack of copy protection on a game that seemed to be made by a buncha cool guys. I still bought it.

So what? HDTV is still miles away from us. (1)

winchester (265873) | more than 13 years ago | (#508196)

People have been talking about HDTV for a good 10 years or so, and I still have to see a prototype that actually has a better picture quality than my Bang & Olufsen television (and that one is still analogue... no 100Hz and all that crap). Of course, we Europeans always had the better TV systems (PAL/secam).

Besides that, there are millions and millions of old televisions out there.... it will be ages before they are all replaced with HDTV ones.

Re:HDTV could be dangerous. (2)

_n2d33p_ (304020) | more than 13 years ago | (#508202)

Crackhead. Sorry, but it's still just TV, TV with a pretty picture. But it's JUST TV. If you're the type of person that can be influenced by it, you're probabally distracted by small shiny objects also...

high quallity content (3)

blkros (304521) | more than 13 years ago | (#508206)

I find the use of the words "high quality content" enormously amusing. After all, we're still talking about TV and there ain't much high quality content on it now. I haven't found anything on it worth taping in years.

Divx (4)

flafish (305068) | more than 13 years ago | (#508207)

How long did it take for Circuit City to drop Divx ? Same will happen here if people don't buy into it? As bandwidth and computer speeds go up, the lenght of time that a code works to lockout ( the use of your equipment) goes down
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...