# MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-to-stop-dvrs-from-recording-some-movies.html

Basically the MPAA wants to distribute movies to TV prior to when they are released on DVD, but only if they can enable SOC. SOC prevents copying or outputting to devices without DRM capability (ie: anything other than HDMI). The MPAA says that after a certain time period the restriction would be lifted. The FCC is currently deciding whether or not to allow this.

I don't see anything in the article specifically related to preventing recording on a DVR (despite the article title), but presumably if the MPAA sets flags preventing copying it would prevent recording (which is considered copying).


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-to-stop-dvrs-from-recording-some-movies.html
> 
> Basically the MPAA wants to distribute movies to TV prior to when they are released on DVD, but only if they can enable SOC. SOC prevents copying or outputting to devices without DRM capability (ie: anything other than HDMI). The MPAA says that after a certain time period the restriction would be lifted. The FCC is currently deciding whether or not to allow this.
> 
> I don't see anything in the article specifically related to preventing recording on a DVR (despite the article title), but presumably if the MPAA sets flags preventing copying it would prevent recording (which is considered copying).


dont see a big deal at all.

If they wont to put restrictions then let them- no one needs to buy the their product.

Sounds to me like they just want to block analog outputs along with the 90 minute dvr flag that already is allowed (and used to a degree) for ppv/vod/etc. (the CCI flags already have that ability I think- Not sure they can completely shut down analog, I know they can downrez it with CCI flags) So in the end I'm not even sure it would matter to DVR users who weren't going to simultaneously use the analog hole to make a copy.

I guess it WOULD be a MAJOR PIA to the early adopters without hdcp built into their sets. Didn't the FCC at one point say those people should be protected?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I guess it WOULD be a MAJOR PIA to the early adopters without hdcp built into their sets. Didn't the FCC at one point say those people should be protected?


Yes and currently doing what the MPAA wants to do is not allowed. Hence that's why it isn't being done currently and why they are petitioning the FCC for permission.

If I'm reading the article correctly (I didn't actually read the MPAA's proposal as sent to the FCC), they basically want to be able to prevent all copying of digital TV broadcasts of recently released movies (with "recently" to be determined by the MPAA). This would include movies that show up on HBO, Starz and even digital broadcast channels. To do this they would need to be allowed to tag the movies as CCI=0x03 and whatever the Macrovision equivalent tag would be that prevents copying or output to analog devices. That's what they are asking the FCC for permission for.

The MPAA would then be able to change the distribution order of recently released movies without hurting DVD sales. Currently movies come out in this order: theater, DVD, PPV/VOD, Pay channels, broadcast channels. With the change, they could push back the DVD release (or move up the other releases) without worrying about hurting DVD sales.


----------



## GoHokies! (Sep 21, 2005)

I read the article the same way - looks like 0x03 may be coming to more than just the PPV VOD channels.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> dont see a big deal at all. If they wont to put restrictions then let them- no one needs to buy the their product.


ITA. let them offer the service *their way *and see if anyone will buy it. If so, then it is a good service. If not, then they'll have to either not offer the service or change it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

it doesn't seem all that draconian- at least according to the article.

from the article:



> Movies go through a timeline of staged releases that lasts about three years. First they go to theaters; 60 days after that they start showing up in airplanes and hotels; in 120 days from their theatrical release they transfer to DVD and Internet download; about a month later to video on demand/pay-per-view; by the end of the year to premium subscription systems like HBO and Showtime; and eventually to basic cable and free TV.
> 
> ...
> 
> MPAA says these studios want to release their movies to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) "significantly earlier and prior to DVD release"-although the trade groups' filing won't say exactly how much sooner. But in exchange for the accelerated service, MPAA wants permission to obtain SOC blocking of recording capabilities. The group promises that once said movies have reached the home video sale/rental stage, the blocking will stop.


so it's just so they can show the movie EARLIER to people at home. Maybe for example you could buy PPV the day the movie hits the theater.

once the DVD comes out- then you can copy it via the analog whole.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

if this translated into streamingh that I can start and stop as neded over the course of 48 or more hours then I would think it a cool way to see movies without paying 60 bucks at the theater for my family.

The DRM itself seems a fair tradeoff to protect the content holders. of course I have been holding off on HDTV just so all this kind of stuff gets worked out.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

MichaelK said:


> it doesn't seem all that draconian


True, assuming that the MPAA isn't left wholly in charge of what constitutes 'recent'. If they end up with full control of that, they could abuse it by refusing to allow DVR recording for much longer that the current release schedules do.

I don't have a problem if they want control to allow PPV or Special Releases early, with the unencumbered HBO/Starz/Cinemax releases still showing up about 1 year after the theatrical release. But if they can force everyone to delay the unencumbered release 2 or 3 years I'd be kind of annoyed.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Exactly.

There would be nothing to stop the MPAA from defining "recent" as anything within the last 20 years.

Their stated goals and their intentions are not always (rarely) the same.

Actually, I should restate that. They have indicated in the past that they would like to see a pure pay per view model. This would be a good first step for them.

Al


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I would like to think that the prerelease would coincide with the hospitality release, with cannot record, DVD release PPV can record for 90 mins. When it reaches premium linear movie channels, it will go to copy once, no transfer, later to copy freely on basic cable and network airings.


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> once the DVD comes out- then you can copy it via the analog whole.


The joke on the MPAA is people copy DVD and Blue Ray disks today, without any analog holes or hdmi.

Somehow, people get bootlegged copies of feature films before they even hit the theater. I see them on city sidewalks for $5

Do they really think all these schemes will prevent copying?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The more difficult you make committing the transgression, the fewer transgressors will bother.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

I agree with acvthree - the entertainment industry wants a pay per view world where they get to tell you what you can watch, when you can watch it, how much you have to pay them, and somehow force you to watch commercials on top of it. Without government intervention that is exactly what we would get, I don't fault them for it - their job is to develop content that allows them to exact the maximum amount of money from us as possible and not necessarily to provide that content to us the way we want it.

On general principles I do not support anything that gives content providers any more control over how I use/view the content I purchase. 

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

And what it really comes down to is who do you send to Washington to represent your perspectives? I submit that if you send pro-business people to Washington, then you're basically saying that you support the pro-business perspective more than your desire to personally control your entertainment, _even_ if that isn't why you send those people to Washington. You cannot send half a person to Washington for some things and half a person for other things: Elected representatives are package deals. If you don't like how things are, consider how your other priorities are slaving you to supporting things you don't like. Even many Democrats (i.e., HRC) are pro-business these days, so this isn't a partisan issue. Rather, it is a reflection of just how much Americans care about fostering the economy more than their own personal leisure.



> Without government intervention that is exactly what we would get, I don't fault them for it - their job is to develop content that allows them to exact the maximum amount of money from us as possible and not necessarily to provide that content to us the way we want it.


Abso-friggen-lutely.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> if you send pro-business people to Washington, then you're basically saying that you support the pro-business


Unless someone believes in pure socialism (where the government owns and operates all industries) I think a person has to be pro-business. In our capitalist system everyones wealth (or standard of living) ultimately comes from private enterprise (business) production.

However one of the main purposes of our government is to determine what are and are not acceptable practices for businesses to use to maximize their profits. When I am looking at who I think should represent me in Washington, I am looking for someone who thinks the lines should be drawn in about the same places as I do.

Thanks,


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wblynch said:


> The joke on the MPAA is people copy DVD and Blue Ray disks today, without any analog holes or hdmi.
> 
> Somehow, people get bootlegged copies of feature films before they even hit the theater. I see them on city sidewalks for $5
> 
> Do they really think all these schemes will prevent copying?


correct - this is not about stopping bit torrent and pirate DVDs. These people are obviously not waiting for some release medium of the content but getting it ahead of time through contacts. only law enforcement will stop that.

but it will allow people to watch a movie in their home much earlier than the DVD release without their ability to make casual copies to hand out to friends and neighbors. That seems reasonable to me.

My worry is the old you have to watch in a 24 hour period or it is on at 8:15PM and your recording is gone at 10:45 - even worse for my preferences. that will not get my money.

Netflix streaming is the way forward for me, so far :up:
(just waiting on a Blu-ray player with Netflix included)


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

No one in American, politician or otherwise, is not pro-business.

We are not looking at pro-business vs. socialist. That is a false dichotomy that we are often presented with to hide agendas. We can see in history what a non-regulated US would be like with the boom and bust cycles of the 1800s (or the more recent credit crisis). We can speculate that over regulation drags down the economy. We can see how thoughtless deregulation can give us things like the savings and loan calapse.

Some form of intelligent, well thought out, regulation that provides the least interferance but does try to curb excesses, provides transparency to the markets and fits minimum social responsibility seems reasonable to me. But then when did reasonable get into the picture.

Is this a Tivo forum?

Al


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

First the movie industry claimed that TV would ruin movies. -- it didn't, it only made them more money.

Then VCRs were the end of the movie industry -- except they made more money than ever before, and world wide.

Then DVDs, with their digital quality, were the biggest threat yet. How could the industry survive? -- guess what? Yep, more money, beyond their wildest dreams.

Now HD-DVD, Blue Ray and High Definition broadcast... Oh, and can't forget the internet... all these will destroy the profits of the movie makers. --- now, imagine why I just don't believe them?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Unless someone believes in pure socialism (where the government owns and operates all industries) I think a person has to be pro-business.


I disagree. I think there is a spectrum of positions between the extremes. In our country, it breaks down to pro-business and pro-consumer, but neither side is 100% either. The point I was making was with respect to the available choices.



atmuscarella said:


> However one of the main purposes of our government is to determine what are and are not acceptable practices for businesses to use to maximize their profits. When I am looking at who I think should represent me in Washington, I am looking for someone who thinks the lines should be drawn in about the same places as I do.


Indeed, but I think very few voters choose candidates based on where they sit with respect to the pro-business/pro-consumer dichotomy.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

acvthree said:


> No one in American, politician or otherwise, is not pro-business.


See above.



acvthree said:


> Is this a Tivo forum?


Absolutely, and the unshakable reality is regulation directly affects what TiVo offers, and what its competitors can offer.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

acvthree said:


> No one in American, politician or otherwise, is not pro-business.
> 
> We are not looking at pro-business vs. socialist. That is a false dichotomy that we are often presented with to hide agendas. We can see in history what a non-regulated US would be like with the boom and bust cycles of the 1800s (or the more recent credit crisis). We can speculate that over regulation drags down the economy. We can see how thoughtless deregulation can give us things like the savings and loan calapse.
> 
> ...


I was confused as to FORUM as well when I read your very reasonable post. Now all we need to do is get some intelligent, well thought out people to run for office.


----------



## beejay2 (Sep 24, 2006)

As an avid Tivo and DVD user I have very mixed feelings about this topic. I wouldn't watch much TV if I had to stick to a schedule and was not able to FF thru ads. I haven't been in a movie theatre in several years because I have Netflix and a HT setup at home. I like many of you are their worst nightmare.

That said, how and why would the networks continue to develop and produce programming with no revenue stream. And DVDs and HT have had a significant impact on the movie industry and it will only get worse as more and more consumers decide to wait for the DVD. 

All I can say is I admire the problem but don't have the solution. Hopefully someone does and its not the MPAA.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

beejay2 said:


> As an avid Tivo and DVD user I have very mixed feelings about this topic. I wouldn't watch much TV if I had to stick to a schedule and was not able to FF thru ads. I haven't been in a movie theatre in several years because I have Netflix and a HT setup at home. I like many of you are their worst nightmare.
> 
> That said, how and why would the networks continue to develop and produce programming with no revenue stream. .


you have described their issue perfectly - Movie theater revenues are down, plain and simple. It is not the same experience any more. I am now very selective about which movies I want to see on a big screen and when I finally buy into a 50 inch HDTV and Blu-ray then I really get no benefit from the "movie theater screen" and can run my own concession stand. 

I am sure the idea is you will pay extra (maybe even 20 to 40$) to see the Movie in your house during its theater run and before DVD release. Thus the higher likelihood to try and get it on a medium you can share.


----------



## NA9D (May 26, 2008)

wblynch said:


> First the movie industry claimed that TV would ruin movies. -- it didn't, it only made them more money.
> 
> Then VCRs were the end of the movie industry -- except they made more money than ever before, and world wide.


The scary part is that one Supreme Court Justice's vote was all that allowed VCRs to remain legal.

I'm suspicious of the entertainment industry too...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

NA9D said:


> The scary part is that one Supreme Court Justice's vote was all that allowed VCRs to remain legal.


Burger - deceased
Brennan - deceased
White - deceased
O'Connor - retired
Stevens - still serving

A lot has changed in twenty four years. If this issue first came before the court right now you can be absolutely sure that the case would have been decided in the opposite direction... so much so that a reversal of the precedent might even be in the offing, if VCRs were still of major concern. As it is, the 5-4 thin majority twenty four years ago would probably translate into a 6-3 majority in the opposite direction for a similar issue brought to the court today IMHO.


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

Supreme court may be swinging back soon...


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

How so?

Scalia is 72, but the older justices are the more liberal (non are actually liberal) side of the court.

Robert is 53, Thomas is 59 and Alito is 58. At best, if Obama wins, the current mix will be maintained. Maybe Kennedy at 71 could be replaced with someone more liberal...maybe. If McCain wins he has promised to appoint more Alito's and it could go farther right.

What forum is this? Ok, I not helping any. I'll stop. 

Al


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stevens is most likely to be replaced soon... and he's the most liberal member.

But focusing specifically on the "What forum is this?" question --- this discussion points out very pointedly why who wins the election in November has *a lot* to do with TiVo.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> The more difficult you make committing the transgression, the fewer transgressors will bother.


But the more profitable the transgression becomes.

For the purposes of digital media though, all it takes is one person to copy something and put it out there in unprotected form for DRM to be a failure.

By the way, the FCC is taking public comments on this currently (see the original link) so it's a chance to have your voice heard.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> But the more profitable the transgression becomes.


Content owners don't (shouldn't) care how much profit transgressors get. They only (should) care about how much profit *they* lose.



morac said:


> For the purposes of digital media though, all it takes is one person to copy something and put it out there in unprotected form for DRM to be a failure.


For good or ill, that's another good argument for more invasive protections, and for stiffer penalties.


----------



## Glich (Feb 19, 2002)

Humm I would not have a problem as long as there were some poison pills in it.

1. It can ONLY be used on thether released moves ONLY NO EXPECTPIONS no using it on mini-series or made for TV movies. 

2. It can ONLY be used for fixed period after the ORIGINAL release (180 days?) re-releaseing a movie will not restart a clock and if it was shown in one showing 4 months before wide release for award reasons that is that showing the starts the clock.

3. There MUST be a CLEAR and MAJOR fine for misuse . like say $250,000 per mistake per market. So a oops like the American Gladiators thing a few weeks ago hits them where it hurts. The pocketbook!


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Are you going to send in that comment?

Al


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, used DVDs at Blockbuster for $5 probably prevents more pirating than all the protection schemes combined.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> Stevens is most likely to be replaced soon... and he's the most liberal member.
> 
> But focusing specifically on the "What forum is this?" question --- this discussion points out very pointedly why who wins the election in November has *a lot* to do with TiVo.


Ah, now the light comes on - you were not a troll for the cable companies but a deep palnt for Obama... Nicely played


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wblynch said:


> Well, used DVDs at Blockbuster for $5 probably prevents more pirating than all the protection schemes combined.


why would I want to pirate Talledega Nights now


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Ah, now the light comes on - you were not a troll for the cable companies but a deep palnt for Obama... Nicely played


But Stevens was somewhat my point.

If Obama wins, it won't change the court. You assume a more liberal candidate and you will still have a 5-4 court with Kennedy as a swing vote.

If McCain wins it, at best, eleminates the questions that about a swing vote with, as he promised, a justice in the Scalia mold. Maybe that won't happen since he will have a Democratic congress that will only let a middle of the road candidate through the system. Then, maybe, you have two swing votes which would make the court more interesting.

So, for Tivo, Obama would be status quo and McCain would be more MPAA/RIAA sympathetic.

Al


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Ah, now the light comes on - you were not a troll for the cable companies but a deep palnt for Obama... Nicely played


Hehe.

I'd have a very hard time voting for Obama. The choices suck -- bad -- VERY bad -- this year.


acvthree said:


> So, for Tivo, Obama would be status quo and McCain would be more MPAA/RIAA sympathetic.


Status quo is already MPAA/RIAA sympathetic of course, much more so than the Burger court that issued the aforementioned decision.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

Interesting.

I think we have the best choices in years.



Al


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

In glancing over the comments I can't believe what I'm seeing. You people for the most part don't have a problem with this? We are going to trust an organization that certainly doesn't have our best interests at heart on this issue? PPV can already be protected, so why this change? This is a tactic by the MPAA to gain control over the broadcast medium and recording. I also find the fact that they would prevent certain televisions from displaying the content disturbing.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

It is easy to understand when the flag is only for PPV and VOD. Even then some providers are turning the flag on for all digital.

If it gets complicated as to when to flag and when not to flag, the cable providers will be even more inclined to just turn the flags on for everything they are not specifically required to not flag.

I see this as a huge threat for third party devices.

Al


----------



## h0mi (Dec 29, 2007)

My frustration with Cox setting the non archive flag on everything but broadcast channels has me looking at this proposal with a wary eye. I don't like it, I don't want it to pass as it reduces functionality I already barely have with my tivo and opens the door for content providers to demand even more restrictions. Now it's movies, tomorrow it will be tv shows (after all, they're all broadcast well before they're released on DVD) and soon tivo to go functionality will be useless.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Never. TiVo will evolve. As long as there is a desire to record programming for playback a little later, and there are people willing to pay the price, there will be a way to purchase something that will do the trick.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

bicker said:


> Never. TiVo will evolve. As long as there is a desire to record programming for playback a little later, and there are people willing to pay the price, there will be a way to purchase something that will do the trick.


Legally?


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

If Tivo is outlawed, or made unusable, then it might be the best thing for me!

Since we've had Tivo all I do is watch TV. I've gained 20 pounds in the past 8 years!

Maybe I need intervention?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

wblynch said:


> If Tivo is outlawed, or made unusable, then it might be the best thing for me!
> 
> Since we've had Tivo all I do is watch TV. I've gained 20 pounds in the past 8 years!
> 
> Maybe I need intervention?


No, TiVo is your solution.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> For good or ill, that's another good argument for more invasive protections, and for stiffer penalties.


The problem with "more invasive protections" is that it can be cracked. AACS, the DRM on Blu-ray discs, was touted as uncrackable. It was cracked. BD+, which is an additional layer of protection for Blu-ray discs (just in case AACS failed) was also deemed uncrackable. It was also cracked. Putting DRM in hardware, will just result in people cracking open the case and using a soldering iron.

DRM does very little to prevent piracy and mainly hurts regular people who find the video/audio they just bought doesn't work on any of the devices they own.

The RIAA is beginning to understand this, which is why iTunes and Amazon now sell unprotected mp3 files. The MPAA appears to not be learning from the RIAA's mistakes.

I can tell you first hand that DRM is bad. I have problems with my local CW channel frequently getting the CCI=0x03 bit flipped on which prevents recording it via cable. If something like this is happening when it's illegal to do so, I'd hate to see what happens when it becomes legal to flag non-PPV/OD channels as such.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

acvthree said:


> Legally?


This is America. There will always be a price at which you can buy a service, at a conceptual level, if you are willing to pay the price.

Unfortunately, also since this is America, people will choose to rationalize bad behavior just as readily.


----------



## en sabur nur (Oct 30, 2007)

h0mi said:


> I don't like it, I don't want it to pass as it reduces functionality I already barely have with my tivo and opens the door for content providers to demand even more restrictions. Now it's movies, tomorrow it will be tv shows


I agree. Keep the OTA broadcast system the way it is.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Their content, their rules.... <Shrug>


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Yes, definitely. :up:


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

New Day is Coming.

Funny thing about Entertainment. It's the one industry where supply always outpaces demand.

If "their content" becomes too problematic there will be new content to replace it.

As the world turns and more and more people are able to get their content published, the distribution chain will be broken down. You can start to see this with YouTube.

Certainly, the content on YouTube isn't anywhere near what's available from Hollywood or Network TV but just you wait.

Content providers would serve themselves well to not alienate the viewing public. The day will soon arrive when the public will tell them to take "their content" and "their rules" and stuff them up a dark sweaty crevice.

Ask anyone in the newspaper industry how the internet impacted their business model.


----------



## en sabur nur (Oct 30, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> Their content, their rules.... <Shrug>


Not their broadcast system, though.

Again... leave it the way it is.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Indeed. This approach should only be used for programming from cable networks, or direct sources, not from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW, PBS.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

en sabur nur said:


> Not their broadcast system, though.
> 
> Again... leave it the way it is.


So? What good is a broadcast system if you can't broadcast anything because the content providers won't let you?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *Adam1115*
> Their content, their rules.... <Shrug>


*Wrong *- Their content but the rules are the US Government"s rules (at least here in the US). The only absolute "right" content providers/producers have is to not provide/produce the content - after that everything else is what ever the government legislates. Just about every piece of the chain has some legislation involved with it - what they can produce - who they can provide it too - and how it can be delivered.

Naturally content providers/produces will try and influence passage of legislation favorable to themselves- there is absolutely no reason the rest of us shouldn't do the same.

Thanks,


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> *Wrong *- Their content but the rules are the US Government"s rules (at least here in the US). The only absolute "right" content providers/producers have is to not provide/produce the content - after that everything else is what ever the government legislates. Just about every piece of the chain has some legislation involved with it - what they can produce - who they can provide it too - and how it can be delivered.
> 
> Naturally content providers/produces will try and influence passage of legislation favorable to themselves- there is absolutely no reason the rest of us shouldn't do the same.
> 
> Thanks,


What are you talking about.

The government doesn't force movie companies to make their movies pay per view....


----------



## wblynch (Aug 13, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> *Wrong *- Their content but the rules are the US Government"s rules (at least here in the US). The only absolute "right" content providers/producers have is to not provide/produce the content - after that everything else is what ever the government legislates. Just about every piece of the chain has some legislation involved with it - what they can produce - who they can provide it too - and how it can be delivered.
> 
> Naturally content providers/produces will try and influence passage of legislation favorable to themselves- there is absolutely no reason the rest of us shouldn't do the same.
> 
> Thanks,


I'm sure you're talking about broadcasting TV and radio over the public airwaves, right?

I wonder if the US government or the FCC has, or should have, any role in privately distributed programming? (books, theaters, dvds, cds, records, internet, podcasts...)

I know there is supposedly a First Amendment in the US constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Well, maybe THAT one is gone now too...


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

so people would actually object if say FOX bought the rights to show Star Wars episode 7 - 2 weeks after it's in theaters with the stipulation that this new flag was applied?

I guess it messes up early adopters who must use analog- but beyond that I really dont see the downside- IF ITS PROPERLY REGULATED. THe FCC should codify the schedule timelines but beyond that I dont see the downside to getting content made availible to teh public earlier in exchange for some new restrictions.

If you dont like the earlier restrictions just wait it out till the unrestricted viewing ocomes along in a couple years and you will have the same options as we do now.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> I'm sure you're talking about broadcasting TV and radio over the public airwaves, right?
> 
> I wonder if the US government or the FCC has, or should have, any role in privately distributed programming? (books, theaters, dvds, cds, records, internet, podcasts...)
> 
> ...


I think you will find the Government can regulate all the things this thread was talking about without touching the freedoms you mentioned - example the Government could easily mandate a "fair use" statute through legislation without touching any constitutional rights - remember the only reason content providers/producers can prevent you from copying something is because of laws - just look at what happens in counties that don't care about our copyright laws.

Thanks,


----------



## en sabur nur (Oct 30, 2007)

Adam1115 said:


> So? What good is a broadcast system if you can't broadcast anything because the content providers won't let you?


There will always be content to broadcast. What are you talking about?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I'm not sure what Adam was saying, but I can see an issue here. If non-broadcast distribution channels becomes sufficiently ubiquitous, then there may come a point where broadcast can no longer compete against those other channels for content. We'll end up with the opposite of what we had thirty years ago: All the good stuff will be "on cable" while broadcast will be relegated to lesser and lesser quality, each year, because there aren't provisions with broadcast to sufficiently safeguard the value of the content as an asset for the content owner.

Not this year, not next year, but eventually perhaps.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

The National Association of Theater Owners is against the MPAA's proposal. Probably because they fear loss of revenue if people watch newly released movies at home.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Couldn't they make the theater-going experience more attractive to combat the thread?


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> The National Association of Theater Owners is against the MPAA's proposal. Probably because they fear loss of revenue if people watch newly released movies at home.


what little moeny they get from me would indeed become even less if I could watch Movies at home


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Couldn't they make the theater-going experience more attractive to combat the thread?


Many are doing this, but it causes the price of tickets and food to go up. A few years ago I used to be able to see a movie for $8 with $5 matinees before 5 pm. Now movies are $10 after 4 pm and $8 before 4 pm. "Matinees" still cost $5, but are between 8 am and 11 am weekdays. The theater did get a digital projector and every theater has dolby digital surround, but none of the screens are "HD".

As it is now theaters don't make much on ticket sales since the MPAA takes a huge chunk of the profits. That's why theaters charge $6.00 for 30 cents worth of popcorn (and the price of corn may drive this up).

The fact that the MPAA basically controls how much theater owners make is why NATO is being very delicate with their comments.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Let the two competitors, home viewing and theater viewing, compete with each other on their own merits. If theater viewing cannot provide a viable alternative, in terms of value provided and price it is offered for, then they should lose in the marketplace.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

Adam1115 said:


> Their content, their rules.... <Shrug>


It's amazing to see the change in the conception of copyright since the term "intellectual property" was coined.

Orwell would be proud of whoever came up with that one. It really does prove that he who controls the language controls the debate. Even most people who disagree with the absolutist construction implied by that term fall victim to arguing against it as if it is a natural conception.

In reality, the opposite is true. Luckily, the framers of our Constitution were bright enough to realize that not rewarding the producers of ideas would have a chilling effect on (some) people's motivation to do so. Unlike with real property, if I make a copy of the words on a page or an audiovisual production, I am not inherently depriving the creator of its use. Nor does the creator have an inherent right to control his creation.

That's not to say that is a correct way of going about things, either. A balance is obviously necessary, but it's impossible to have a rational debate when people operate from the conception that creative works are inherently the property of their creators alone and that the creator has some natural right to control their creation. Inherently, the creator only has the right to whatever embodiment of that work they have in their posession.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It is only "impossible to have a rational debate" when you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of others to hold different beliefs, interpretations, values and perspectives from you, and still be considered "rational". Just because you choose to perceive of something a certain way doesn't mean all other ways of perceiving that thing are irrational. Reasonable people disagree. While that must be frustrating when the impact of so many people disagreeing with your perspective results in you not getting your way, it is a reality of life.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wierdo said:


> , but it's impossible to have a rational debate when people operate from the conception that creative works are inherently the property of their creators alone and that the creator has some natural right to control their creation. Inherently, the creator only has the right to whatever embodiment of that work they have in their posession.


so the only way a Stanly Kubrick could control the distribution of his work is to invite everyone over to his house to watch the Movie. Yah that would be rational


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

wierdo said:


> If I make a copy of the words on a page or an audiovisual production, I am not inherently depriving the creator of its use. Nor does the creator have an inherent right to control his creation.


You may be depriving the creator of any benefit (usually financial), by duplicating the work. It may devalue the original, or any licensed duplicates. The least of which you are +1 for that work, and the creator has +0 to show for that work in your posession.

Yes, a creator (or their agent or licensor) has the right to control their work, deciding on what (presumably mutual) terms a person may obtain a copy of their work.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so the only way a Stanly Kubrick could control the distribution of his work is to invite everyone over to his house to watch the Movie. Yah that would be rational


It might work, but then he'd get in trouble with the National Association of Theater Owners.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

classicsat said:


> Yes, a creator (or their agent or licensor) has the right to control their work, deciding on what (presumably mutual) terms a person may obtain a copy of their work.


Yes, but he only has that right (in the US) because 
1) The US Constitution gave Congress premission to grant such a right (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
2) Congress choose to pass legislation enacting that right
3) (and later) the Senate approved the Berne Copyright Treaty.

Without those the creator wouldn't have a legal right to their works.
(Now maybe you are saying that they _should_ have such an inherant right, but historically that hasn't been the case)

Personally, I think that the creator of a work should be granted some control over that work. 
But I also believe that the length of time currently granted is totaly unreasonable and should be vastly shortened.* (I'll follow up with a more detailed explanation)

See this1841 speach to the British Parlement for some of the reasons that I think life+X copyrights are the wrong way to induce writers.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Ok, sorry for the extended copyright rant. I managed to punch my own buttons on this.

There are several ways to do it which might balance the damage I see in overlong copyrights. Unfortuatly all of them would require pulling out of the Berne treaty for international copyright.

One compromise would be to distinguish between individual and corporate copyright. Which would let Disney keep their seemingly perpetual copyrights while mitigating much of the harm that overlong copyrights do in other areas.

A better would would require an active renewal periodically (possibly with some fee either fixed or sliding) to maintain extended copyright. If you don't value your copyright enough to renew it then it _should_ be released into the public domain

At a minimum I feel that anyone maintaining a copyright for a century should be required to take steps to ensure that at the end of that copyright term, when the work finally enters the public domain, that the public is able make the copies of the work that they are now legally allowed to. I don't care if they do this by intially selling copies that aren't DRM'd of if they hold a safe non-DRM copy until copyright exires and then release it. (The former increases the posibility of illegal copyright infringement during the copyright lifetime, the later increases archive cost since a copy must be mantained until the copyright expires, even if it isn't profitable)

And I'm sure there are other ways to balance the tiny number of properties which are valuable to retain control over for a century or two against the overwhelming majority which economically play out in under a decade.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Jonathan_S said:


> And I'm sure there are other ways to balance the tiny number of properties which are valuable to retain control over for a century or two against the overwhelming majority which economically play out in under a decade.


yes, I do agree with that balancing act.
Basically the system needs to ensure a Return on Investment that a creator can count on. IN this way, if needed, he can get investors backing the project for money needed in the creation. I pull out my prime example of invetors willing to back Peter Jackson with 300 million dollars for Lord Of The Rings based on the profit they would exect from movie rights, DVD sales/rentals, PPV/VOD and TV deals. This is a prime example of the rights are not on the original material but on the movie from their perspective.
However whend oes it become legit for the Tlokein Estate to not benefit from the money made off those movies? An obvious case of the original books, now very old being directly related to the worth of the movies.

So yes, copyrightshould be about enticing innovation by encouraging investment versus generations of royalties that put many creative things in the dustbin for no real reason. Old "Get Smart" episodes come to mind. Why do I not see them on TV anymore?

Still some things like LOTR are worth protecting from bad knockoffs. I like the idea of having to renew every so often :up:


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> It is only "impossible to have a rational debate" when you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of others to hold different beliefs, interpretations, values and perspectives from you, and still be considered "rational". Just because you choose to perceive of something a certain way doesn't mean all other ways of perceiving that thing are irrational. Reasonable people disagree. While that must be frustrating when the impact of so many people disagreeing with your perspective results in you not getting your way, it is a reality of life.


If you read my post, you wouldn't be saying this. I was merely explaining what is actually the inherent right of the authors of creative works. Nothing. Jonathon_S was kind enough to expand upon the fact that we choose to grant authors more rights to their work. That doesn't mean that they are inherent rights as rights in real property or the right to free speech are.

As I think I mentioned previously, I think it's a good idea that we grant the authors of creative works more than bupkis, but if one starts from the completely opposite end of the spectrum, that the rights of the authors of creative works are inherently identical to those of the owner of real property or the creator of a specific physical thing (as opposed to a new kind of thing), you're at odds with history and we end up with absurd results like the term "intellectual property."


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Still some things like LOTR are worth protecting from bad knockoffs.


Ah, the "Mickey Mouse" argument. My SO used to try it on me anytime I was talking about how copyrights are absurdly long. She loves Mickey Mouse. Of course, the actual name is trademarked, so it would really be Jim Bob Mouse appearing in porn or whatever horror story she thinks would come to pass.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

wierdo said:


> Ah, the "Mickey Mouse" argument. My SO used to try it on me anytime I was talking about how copyrights are absurdly long. She loves Mickey Mouse. Of course, the actual name is trademarked, so it would really be Jim Bob Mouse appearing in porn or whatever horror story she thinks would come to pass.


Except you couldn't even do that, because Mickey's likeness is also trademarked.

As long as Disney didn't let the trademarks on Mickey's name and likeness expire you couldn't make new Mickey films, nor could you make films of a "Jim Bob Mouse" that just happened to look like him.

Even if the Disney copyright on Steamboat Willie expired tomorrow all you'd be able to do it make copies and distribute them legally. Because making derivative works (in this case) would almost certainly get you tangled up in the still viable trademarks.

(And, no, I don't personally have any problems with trademarks lasting for as long as they are actively used and defended)


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

wierdo said:


> Ah, the "Mickey Mouse" argument. My SO used to try it on me anytime I was talking about how copyrights are absurdly long. She loves Mickey Mouse. Of course, the actual name is trademarked, so it would really be Jim Bob Mouse appearing in porn or whatever horror story she thinks would come to pass.


not so much really bad knockoffs as much as flooding the market with stuff and dilluting the potential of the thing. If the pron was satire than it could be done anyway under artistic freedom.

But any argument that does not recognize Disney's legal right/business model to be the only one using Mickey Mouse just misses the mark by a mile.

Also any argument that says my buying a 19$ DVD entitles me to own the 100 million dollar movie contents also misses by a mile.

My fair use to watch the content on what I want and how and where(outside the public purview) I want - that is the line that the MPAA and other would cross in a heartbeat. I nsme regard they have a reasonable cause - a PPV with a 24 hour watch it on that TV licsense is just that.
A DVD I rip to a protable hard drive player? what aboutt hem wantng to sell that format.
Then the flip side - I get portable file and burn it to a DVD - then lend it to a friend. etc etc..

There are no easy answers here and the general population will pay as little as they can, even if that means bypasing encryption and sharing among friends.
Bitt torrent certainly has given them the ability to convince lawmakers of their need to lock down content.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> But any argument that does not recognize Disney's legal right/business model to be the only one using Mickey Mouse just misses the mark by a mile.


I disagree that Disney has a perpetual right to keep making money off something created almost a hundred years ago. If that's their business model, perhaps they should have thought farther ahead.

As it stands, the Mickey argument (and Disney money) has already caused copyrights to extend far too long.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rather, it has caused copyrights to be extended just long enough.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> Rather, it has caused copyrights to be extended just long enough.


Just long enough for their purposes, I grant. Too long in my opinion.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> Rather, it has caused copyrights to be extended just long enough.


I strongly disagree with that. The copyright system was designed to protect an artists work, but it was balanced so to also promote creativity. It was never designed so that someone could create something and then continue to profit off of it for generations.

To put things in prospective, in the U.S. patents only last 20 years while copyrights can last up to 120 years (and it will probably be extended again before 2019). The original 56 year max was already very generous.

I think it's ironic that Disney keeps getting the copyright time extended, considering most of their movies are based off of stories in the public domain.

It's worth noting that Mickey Mouse is considered being in the public domain nearly everywhere other than the U.S. since other countries never extended their copyrights durations. Micky is still trademarked by Disney in those countries though


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> But any argument that does not recognize Disney's legal right/business model to be the only one using Mickey Mouse just misses the mark by a mile.


You only have to look into Disney's own archives to find just that argument. A *huge* portion of Disney's products are re-imaginings of earlier works from the public domain. Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 -- Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White, and the Little Mermaid that Disney adapted from the public domain to make millions (more likely a few billion) over the years. Disney deserves every last cent of this, as they had talented artists working hard to create good content, and equally talented people working hard to exploit the moneymaking possibilities of those products. Copyrights are intended to spur that creative and entrepreneurial spirit, like Disney's, by granting the creator a limited duration monopoly.

The key is limited duration. Steamboat Willie is 80 years old this year. Disney created Snow White only 70 years after the Brothers Grimm first published the tale. (Yes, it was present in folklore before then -- The Little Mermaid may be a better example, as it had no antecedent before Hans Christensen Andersen.) Had either authors published their work a few decades later, under the type of extensions Disney champions, their heirs or their corporation could have blocked Disney from making the movies and all the subsequent merchandise. This would have made us culturally poorer, and Disney stockholders literally poorer. Yet this is exactly what Disney would like to do to others, from now on.

You could argue that the Berne Convention came about precisely to protect the Grimms and Andersens, but the point is -- allowing others to reinterpret a character works, both culturally and economically. The Little Mermaid was a good story in 1837, and a great film in 1989. Snow White was a good story in 1857, and a great film in 1937.

Innovators need copyright protection to ensure they can profit from their work. At some point, however, indefinite protection of any industry leads to stagnation, and it hurts future entrepreneurs more than it spurs creativity/productivity from anybody. At that point, the government needs to step out of the way so that all can compete in a free and open market. The challenge, especially today, is figuring out exactly where that point lies, so that the original creator has enormous incentive, but that future creators can arise. I do not know where it lies, but I submit that Disney's own history shows that it lies somewhere short of forever.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I don't get the big debate.

There are two possible choices:

1) Movies are distributed in HD prior to sale on DVD because FCC allows them to restrict the content.

2) Movies are NOT distributed in HD prior to sale on DVD.

If you want 1, you play by their rules.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Adam1115 said:


> I don't get the big debate.
> 
> There are two possible choices:
> 
> ...


Well, yeah, sure, if you want to bring the thread back on topic , I agree.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> I strongly disagree with that.


As weirdo indicates, this is a matter of opinion. As a person who wants more rights over content we gain license to use, obviously our inclination would be to have such additional rights. As a person who creates intellectual property, obviously our inclination would be to retain such rights with the content owners. Society makes the final decision, in society's interest, not in the consumer's or the owner's interest exclusively. Society focuses on the overall impact, such as how protecting intellectual property fosters the economy overall, thereby benefiting everyone.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Innovators need copyright protection to ensure they can profit from their work. At some point, however, indefinite protection of any industry leads to stagnation, and it hurts future entrepreneurs more than it spurs creativity/productivity from anybody.


And duration, I think, is not a major issue. Yeah, sure, maybe it should be XX years instead XX + 10 years. Indexing the duration by life expectancy makes some sort of sense, but it really doesn't matter much AFIAC. What really matters here is that within that duration, the law should foster protections necessary to ensure, the extent possible within the current technology, compliance with the wishes of the content owner. The consumer should have only the rights that the content owner has offered; alternatively, the consumer can elect to eschew the copyrighted content.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> alternatively, the consumer can elect to eschew the copyrighted content.


Therein lies the problem with the exorbitantly long copyright periods we currently have. Perhaps a good compromise would be to reduce copyright to life of the author with a minimum of 60 years, or 75 years for a corporate produced work, and require renewals at some interval between 15 and 25 years. As it stands, many abandoned works are disappearing due to the original author not caring about the work (and/or being impossible to contact) and others being legally prohibited from archiving the content.

The only reason we got rid of the renewal requirement in the first place is because of a couple of high profile screwups by motion picture studios that lost them a copyright or two.

As far as protection technologies are concerned, I'm OK with just about anything _provided it respects fair use rights_, which currently protection technologies do not.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

wierdo said:


> As far as protection technologies are concerned, I'm OK with just about anything _provided it respects fair use rights_, which currently protection technologies do not.


Though I am strongly in favor of the creator/owner's rights, I tend to be against DRM-style protection as the mechanism because ultimately, I think they annoy consumers and become self defeating. The lesson of the iTunes music store should be that, if you sell content with protection that prevents/makes inconvenient mass production, but does not stand in the way of fair use cases (e.g. transfering between computers and ipods) that the audience wants, the vast majority of people will play by the rules, and you can make a fortune. Hopefully, the MPAA can learn this same lesson without as many fits and false starts.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wierdo said:


> Therein lies the problem with the exorbitantly long copyright periods we currently have.


It isn't a problem, _per se_. It is simply something you don't like.


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> It isn't a problem, _per se_. It is simply something you don't like.


No, it is a serious problem with your proposed alternative. Since no new content is passing into the public domain, there's little alternative for many forms of creative expression. Take video games, for example. Even the oldest video game is still under copyright. There are a few kind souls who have written completely public domain computer software, but it's very rare.

It also makes us poorer as a society in that derivative works (aside from the certain protected uses like satire) are impossible. And current DRM schemes even make the protected derivations impossible without violating the DMCA.

Hell, if I were to eschew copyrighted works in general, I couldn't so much as use the Internet, a TiVo, my television set, or most any computer. It's an absurd result. Reading your comment would be impossible, and if you were an *******, you could drag me into court for reproducing your comment as a quote on this board. Worse still, there's not really any way of telling who would win.

Courts have become very strict in their view of copyrights lately, such that even what obviously seems to be fair use within the _intent_ of the law is not protected.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wierdo said:


> No, it is a serious problem with your proposed alternative. Since no new content is passing into the public domain, there's little alternative for many forms of creative expression.


Holy carp. I'm amazed at your never-ending capability to distort your personal preference into what you perceive as a societal concern. 

Again, I acknowledge that you aren't getting the control over other people's stuff that you *want *in the time-frame you want to get it, but that's not a problem. You may have a problem with it, but it isn't a problem. Society is not adversely affected by your preference in this regard not being satisfied.



wierdo said:


> Take video games, for example. Even the oldest video game is still under copyright. There are a few kind souls who have written completely public domain computer software, but it's very rare.


Which isn't really a very important thing.



wierdo said:


> It also makes us poorer as a society


Proof?



wierdo said:


> Courts have become very strict in their view of copyrights lately....


Accept that reasonable people disagree about this, and that the winning side in this argument is clearly the folks who disagree with you.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It is only "impossible to have a rational debate" when you refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of others to hold different beliefs, interpretations, values and perspectives from you, and still be considered "rational". Just because you choose to perceive of something a certain way doesn't mean all other ways of perceiving that thing are irrational. Reasonable people disagree. ....


just thought that was a quotable moment from bicker...


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Which isn't really a very important thing.


Now *that* is an opinion. , but revisting Roger Ebert's "Are Videogames Art" essay and all the debates on their merit veers even more wildly offtopic than the thread has gone so far. 


bicker said:


> Proof?


If something is kept out of the public domain too long, we unquestionably lose something. We lose the ability for a new artist/owner/inventor to make derivative works. How much that is worth is open to debate, but certainly if the creator is no longer using the work in question -- so society gets no further benefit out of them -- that is a net loss. It may not be a mathematical proof, but it seems obvious in some cases, at least, society would lose out. On the flip side, and just as certainly, if we fail to protect the original creators long enough, we lose out even more by not giving them enough incentive to create in the first place.

Armies of lawyers can argue what "long enough" means, but the law needs to strike the proper balance between those often competing goods. DMCA restrictions and perpetual copyright extensions, taken to their logical conclusion, threaten to eliminate the possibility of striking any such sort of balance, so it does not seem unreasonable to raise concerns about trends towards completely locked down content and effectively unlimited durations.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Now *that* is an opinion.


It sure is, just like what it was replying to.



Fassade said:


> but revisting Roger Ebert's "Are Videogames Art" essay and all the debates on their merit veers even more wildly offtopic than the thread has gone so far.


Especially since that's just one more opinion.



Fassade said:


> If something is kept out of the public domain too long, we unquestionably lose something.


Our society's decision is that the net benefit to society outweighs the loss. I'm sorry you don't like that.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

It obviously was not a decision made by our entire society.

It may or may not have been made in the best interest of our society.

It may have been made in the best interest of a small set of powerful people and groups of people.

Al


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> Our society's decision is that the net benefit to society outweighs the loss. I'm sorry you don't like that.


Holy carp  I never wrote anything of the sort. In response to your question, I outlined a scenario where society could lose -- that there is some time beyond which protection hurts more than it helps. I'm sorry you read more into it than that but glad you note a loss does in fact occur. I agree completely that for a *long* timeframe, that loss is outweighed by the substantial benefit encouraging creators provides society. However, given that there can be a loss, the question that benefits society most is not whether to to draw the public domain line, but when, and under what conditions. Legal protection itself is not a problem (at least not for me); perpetual, open-ended, unidirectional protection, which has *not* (yet?) been part of any societal decision, would be.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

acvthree said:


> It obviously was not a decision made by our entire society.


It was a decision made by our society. People don't get to opt-out of inclusion in "society" because they dislike what's going on -- because their perspective is a minority perspective that doesn't rule the day.



Fassade said:


> Holy carp  I never wrote anything of the sort.


Then I guess you're okay with how things are. Sorry for my confusion.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

>>>their perspective is a minority perspective that doesn't rule the day.

Their perspective may not be the minority perspective. All we know is that it is not the perspective of the people who have the power to set the rules.

Al


----------



## wierdo (Apr 7, 2002)

bicker said:


> Holy carp. I'm amazed at your never-ending capability to distort your personal preference into what you perceive as a societal concern.


Just as I'm amazed at your ability to dismiss a concern because it is an opinion, as is almost everything else someone brings up as a "societal concern." Take some people's hyperventilating about the murder rate in this country. They think it's excessive. I think it doesn't merit much concern. I think you're still hung up on my saying that most people approach this particular subject from the wrong end, the end not borne out by history and tradition in this country.

I find it hard to believe, you, who want the government to enforce your preference regarding video captioning, can't grasp that restricting derivative works for periods exceeding a hundred years isn't reducing the amount of creative work that happens. I don't understand how someone so rigidly logical can't look back at the historical record and see that art was just as vibrant, if not more so, before we extended copyright terms to what they are now.

The only difference is that it has enabled ever larger companies to make ever larger sums of money while locking others out of the dialogue.

Another thing I find hard to believe is that you dismiss all of the opposition to the last copyright extension bill.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

acvthree said:


> All we know is that it is not the perspective of the people who have the power to set the rules.


Sorry but I cannot help but cue the X-Files music here. Without objective evidence of wrong-doing, an assertion along those lines is inappropriate.



wierdo said:


> Just as I'm amazed at your ability to dismiss a concern because it is an opinion, as is almost everything else someone brings up as a "societal concern."


And each time someone presents their personal preference as a societal concern, I hope someone, or perhaps several posters, will highlight the inappropriateness of that implication.



wierdo said:


> I find it hard to believe, you, who want the government to enforce your preference regarding video captioning, can't grasp that restricting derivative works for periods exceeding a hundred years isn't reducing the amount of creative work that happens.


I cannot believe you cannot see the difference between reasonable accommodation for the hearing impaired expected from a money-making enterprise, using society's resources (i.e., our banking system) to make profit, and taking for one's self, as a consumer, the rights due a content owner. That sense of perspective is way off-base, AFAIC.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

>>>Sorry but I cannot help but cue the X-Files music here. Without objective evidence of wrong-doing, an assertion along those lines is inappropriate.

I did not imply a conspiracy or illegal behavior in any way. (good shut down though)

But if the definition of Society that you are using includes all individuals in a particular group, it could be that 80&#37; of those inviduals believe that society (they) were not servered by that decision. The powerful, duly elected congressmen and congresswomen, influenced by powerful companies (those that can afford lobbyist) make those dicisions.

All, to my knowledge legally.

Al


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

We'll just have to disagree (especially about your implication that 80&#37; of people even CARE about something like this), and as I said before, I'm sorry you don't like the way things are.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

No needto say you are sorry. I haven't stated that I liked or disliked the way things are.

I was just pointing out that your statement that society had made a decision was too broad a statement. Some portion of society that had the power to make such a decision made the decision.

Al


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

have to agree with acvthree here- did all of us in "society" decide the 300 million dollar bridge to nowhere in alaska was a good idea?

It's just silly to pretend that every deicision made by the government is directly approved by the people. We don&#8217;t have a direct democracy where we all run home every night and vote for or against the days bills with our tv remotes. So there's no way to even know how people really feel about any one issue. 

Of course one could say that all of us allowed these law to occur because we permit the current system to exist (or at least are not moved to try to change it). But to jump from that fact to some sort of assumption that the majority of people agree with every decision the government makes is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Rather, I think it is just sour grapes to disclaim society's decisions in the manner you both are.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Micky Mouse and Mario are branding items. They are different in that they have a large body of work behind them versus something like the Nike swoosh or the intel sounds they use in the commercials.
Plain and simple they need protection.

Cinderella does need so much protection. It is a movie.
However someone else can nad has done the Cinderella story as a movie, they simply can not use thye images Disney created. so saying Cinderella blocks out the earlier work is just wrong. Misses the mark by a mile again.

As a content owner I would need no copy as protection to show a movie on "TV" before DVD release. Obviously it will be pirated and that pirating will be directly proportional to how easy it is to pirate. If someone with a DVR can make a copy and keep it on the DVR - that copy will very frequently impacts DVD sales and rentals. If they can pull it off the DVR to a burned Disc - then even more so etc..

the request to the FCC seems very reasonable to me.

If I really want to watch a movie I might go for the "TV" showing before the DVD release with the full knowledge it is watch it right then and just the once.
If I want a copy I can watch whenever then I will stick with Netflix and wait for the DVD release.

in fact I do not use UNBOX becasue of its 24 hour restriction. I like the watch it now factor but will not give my money to a policy I do not like. If enough people vote correctly with their money then things change, just like how iTunes is chipping away at music download DRM. That is how society gets things done in a capitalistic society - money votes.

The Govt. is supposed to protect the rule of law and the welfare of its citizens so it plays a 2 pronged role of ensuring investors play within a known set of laws while not allwoing companies to use their corporate power to run roghshod over the general welfare of the people.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Micky Mouse and Mario are branding items. They are different in that they have a large body of work behind them versus something like the Nike swoosh or the intel sounds they use in the commercials.
> Plain and simple they need protection.


And, if I understand the situation correctly, they have it and should continue to have it, via trademark protection, not perpetual copyright of the stories they appeared in.


ZeoTiVo said:


> Cinderella does need so much protection. It is a movie.
> However someone else can nad has done the Cinderella story as a movie, they simply can not use thye images Disney created. so saying Cinderella blocks out the earlier work is just wrong. Misses the mark by a mile again.


This has always been the case with stories (such as Cinderella) that were in the public domain pre-Berne convention, which is one reason they have been revisited so many times. I believe we are in unchartered waters when it comes to remaking a story which was originally produced under copyright, but past expiration, and where the company holding the original copyright still exists. When that case comes -- or if it did, and I missed it -- I hope I am missing the mark by a mile.


ZeoTiVo said:


> the request to the FCC seems very reasonable to me.


No arguments here -- I dislike copy protection schemes that lump fair use cases with piracy (topic for another rant) on durable copies that I have purchased, but that does not apply here.


ZeoTiVo said:


> in fact I do not use UNBOX becasue of its 24 hour restriction. I like the watch it now factor but will not give my money to a policy I do not like. If enough people vote correctly with their money then things change, just like how iTunes is chipping away at music download DRM. That is how society gets things done in a capitalistic society - money votes.


:up: That is why I am not up in arms (other than, like you, voting with my dollars) either as a consumer or as a sometime content producer about the DRM schemes I dislike. I have the perhaps naive faith the market will correct, and that, just like the iTunes store and music, somebody will see the fortune to be made with a type of video DRM that makes outright piracy inconvenient without impeding the types of fair use cases customers want. In this particular case, the market may not be moving in that direction as fast as I might like, but its lessons are always *far* better internalized and more enduring.


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

bicker said:


> Rather, I think it is just sour grapes to disclaim society's decisions in the manner you both are.


\

And you would be wrong here as well.

Al


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Getting back on topic, I wonder how forcing people to use HDMI to view movies will fly with the public.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Probably about the same as forcing people to use a STB to view digital cable stations: A few people would express indignant frustration but the vast majority would understand that that is the way the service is offered. Moreover, a certain percentage of the former would go along with the latter and _still_ purchase the service that way, belying the sincerity of their indignation.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

the theaters won't like it, but consumer electronic companies will most likely do advertising around it.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

morac said:


> Getting back on topic, I wonder how forcing people to use HDMI to view movies will fly with the public.


not really up on these things- but isn't hdmi quickly becoming something of the defacto standard for new HD hardware?

To me- john Q public probably prefers a single skinny HDMI cable that moves all his video and audio rather then 3 component video cables and something else for audio. So the only people that would prefer componet might be people more in the know and that group isn't going to be massive or even in agreement that hdmi is a bad thing.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Good point... not only is that group going to be smaller, but their purchasing behaviors may be at least partially antithetical to the business objectives of the suppliers.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> To me- john Q public probably prefers a single skinny HDMI cable that moves all his video and audio rather then 3 component video cables and something else for audio. So the only people that would prefer componet might be people more in the know and that group isn't going to be massive or even in agreement that hdmi is a bad thing.


I had someone ask me yesterday what kind of cable to run in the house they are building. He was complaining that Audio from devices was such a pain to wire for. He wanted the proverbial "watch downstairs, pause , then continue upstairs scenario"
he knew he wanted cat wiring.
I said Coax of course and also HDMI. he had not heard of HDMI yet since he had not bought a new device in a while. He was most happy to hear that HDMI would carry both video and audio. he was not overly concerned about my DRM warning on HDMI but really wanted that simple hookup on a thin wire.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

MichaelK said:


> not really up on these things- but isn't hdmi quickly becoming something of the defacto standard for new HD hardware?
> 
> To me- john Q public probably prefers a single skinny HDMI cable that moves all his video and audio rather then 3 component video cables and something else for audio. So the only people that would prefer componet might be people more in the know and that group isn't going to be massive or even in agreement that hdmi is a bad thing.


As an aside, the first few years of HDMI equipment did not transmit both audio and video -- that did not come until version 1.1 of the specification. It was actually more cumbersome than component. Fortunately, when my HDMI 1.0 receiver conked out under warranty, I was able to get it replaced with an HDMI 1.3a version, so I am protected against obsolescence for at least a few more weeks .



ZeoTiVo said:


> I said Coax of course and also HDMI. he had not heard of HDMI yet since he had not bought a new device in a while. He was most happy to hear that HDMI would carry both video and audio. he was not overly concerned about my DRM warning on HDMI but really wanted that simple hookup on a thin wire.


He might also want to run cat6 or cat5e from room to room, and to a central patch panel near where your TV/phone/internet enters the house. He does not sound like the type to really use a home LAN, but more and more consumer devices are also using Ethernet. If the drywall is not even up, it is not that expensive to run, and it will be there if he decides to purchase those devices. (In my experience, 802.11x wireless does not quite cut it for media if there are a few walls and/or a nice cabinet between the device and the router.)

If your friend balks at the expense of running long HDMI cables, or is not sure where his 2nd room setup will be, he might also want to look at the wireless HDMI extenders that are starting to come out. Disclaimer: I have never used one, so, for all I know, it may have similar problem with regard to distance and walls. (Phillps demonstration video at last year's CES.)


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Resurrecting an old thread to note that the Consumer Electronics Association, of which TiVO is a member, finally weighed in on this issue with the FCC last week. It does not appear they raised any objection to the concept itself as regarding movies, but to a lack of specificity and limit of scope in the MPAA proposal.

Story on Ars Technica

The official notice of ex parte presentation letter is linked to from the article as well, though it is just the notification, not the meat of the presentation.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

An update from ArsTechnica:

The MPAA has basically blown off all criticism on their SOC waiver proposal. This includes a request from TiVo that they limit it to 120 days and allow all protected outputs sanctioned by CableLABS.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

the more i think about it the dumber i think the idea is.

It's all about locking down analog. Which I understand.

But the reality is there's probably 300 chinese coders (or some other country that doesn't hold copyright views that we do) working right now to break the HDMI/HDCP locks so that if such pre dvd airings existed they'd be all over it and figuring out how to pirate in the digital relm.

why do all the content people think that all of a sudden they have outsmarted the folks that crack this stuff?


----------



## cditty (Jun 8, 2003)

How do you even lock down analog? Can't you just pipe it through the VCR or through a cable splitter (1 to the tv and 1 to a computer tv card)?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

All the DRM in the world won't stop the professional thieves (the ones who own/operate full blown off shore video duplicating factories). 

All this is, is the first step to eliminating personal use rights. You are watching the slippery slope theory in action. What the MPAA wants is total control which I am sure they believe will lead to a pay per view world (like a movie theater - 1 ticket = 1 viewing). 

If consumers put up with this we desire want we get. Even is they are allowed to put the no record flags on these early release moves - just say no!! and don't rent them and take the time to tell your cable/sat provider why!

Thanks,


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

cditty said:


> How do you even lock down analog? Can't you just pipe it through the VCR or through a cable splitter (1 to the tv and 1 to a computer tv card)?


Pretty much all consumer cable devices (including the S3/HD) built in the last few years have the ability to disable the analog output ports when a protected content flag is detected. Currently the FCC does not allow this flag to be set, but if it was then these devices would only output via HDMI.


----------



## cditty (Jun 8, 2003)

So this will only apply to dvrs that have HDMI ports then?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

besides shutting off analog above (actually i believe there is no shut off analog flag but rather image constraint that makes it lower resolution)- it's been the law for a while now (maybe the 1996 telecom act) that analog recording devices respect macro-vision- and the CCI flags to shut off analog copies just spit out the macro-vision don't copy flags if i understand.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The objective, though, is to reduce theft, not eliminate it. DRM keeps more people honest than lack-of-DRM does. It is a shame that such things are necessary -- that people aim to take without paying -- but it is the reality. We live in a society, and have to live with the ramifications that stem from the transgressive nature of others.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

No, this would apply to any DVD that could record from a service that provides pre-DVD or near theatrical release movies.

With an HDMI capable box, it could turn off analog outputs if HDMI is present or lacking HDCP, and/or reduce analog resolution.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> We live in a society, and have to live with the ramifications that stem from the transgressive nature of others.


yah, where is the forum where I can gripe about having to unlock my front door when I come home. Seems pointless to me since a pro-thief could break in anyway.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yah, where is the forum where I can gripe about having to unlock my front door when I come home. Seems pointless to me since a pro-thief could break in anyway.


I guess my question is who are they trying to stop- the little guy that makes a copy to hand to a friend or the big syndicate that makes thousands and seals them on street corners in NYC?

The syndicate will get a way somehow.

So I guess its all the little guys that are the problem they want to control?

Im curious- what do people think is the end game here. Isnt the end game going to be some sort of pirate hdmi chip sort of thing? Or does HDMI/HDCP actually stand a chance of controlling things for years?

About locking your front door- my parents had a wealthier friend when I was growing up- he was a lawyer and lived in a nicer town and perhaps even had an old wired burglar alarm. He went on vacation. Got robbed. The thieves cut a hole in his wall with a chain saw. Maybe we should outlaw chainsaws- laughing.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> yah, where is the forum where I can gripe about having to unlock my front door when I come home. Seems pointless to me since a pro-thief could break in anyway.


You just need to add more DRM (Door rights management) to your home.
Some things to try:
1. Get a large dog.
2. Get a home alarm system
3. Electrify your door.
4. Add booby traps in your house.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> Im curious- what do people think is the end game here. Isnt the end game going to be some sort of pirate hdmi chip sort of thing? Or does HDMI/HDCP actually stand a chance of controlling things for years?


I think it depends on how things work. If the analog output is not disabled, but simply protected with Macrovision, it won't do much. There's already devices out there that can strip out Macrovision protection. I have an old ATI Radeon AIW and found hacked drivers that will allow it to record Macrovision protected content.

If the analog output is actually disabled (or the resolution is severely degraded), then to record digitally, you'd need a recording device that uses HDMI/HDCP and pretends to be a TV. Any such device would violate all licensing agreements for HDMI.

And like you mentioned someone could come up with a pirate hdmi chip if all else fails.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I guess my question is who are they trying to stop


They're trying to stop _whatever _theft is profitable to try to stop.



MichaelK said:


> So I guess it's all the little guys that are the problem they want to control?


I'm sure they'd rather _no one_ steal anything.



MichaelK said:


> I'm curious- what do people think is the end game here.


I don't foresee an end-game yet. I think the game, itself, keeps changing, so much and so frequently, that all anyone can hope for is to try to keep up with the here-and-now.



MichaelK said:


> Maybe we should outlaw chainsaws- laughing.


I'd be in favor of restricting access to lock-pick sets to licensed locksmiths. Oh wait -- we already do. 

Actually, if every violation of video copyright was accompanied by a continuous 110 decibel alarm, that would probably be good too.


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> They're trying to stop _whatever _theft is profitable to try to stop.
> 
> I'm sure they'd rather _no one_ steal anything. ...


I totally get they want to stop as much pirating as they can for the optimum cost to them (in lost sales and investments in anti-pirating measures).

But I am wondering in this specific case what do the folks here in the forums think- does the MPAA honestly beleive they can stop the pros or are they just trying to stop the little guy.

And then if people think the MPAA is trying to stop the pros  is hdmi/hdcp capable of doing that for more then a few weeks?

My figuring. Seems to me that if they are going to broadcast HD before discs come out that its likely the pros will want at it to sell discs before retail even has it. I guess the MPAA thinks this peroposal will work and stop them- but is that realistic? You put out something before its available in retail (and apparently perhaps months before retail)- the pros are going to fall over themselves to steal it. People buy dvds on the streats of NY that are from camcorders in movie theaters- so people will by the tv version in a heart beat. So with such a profit incentive for the pirates- I cant imagine they wouldnt put an all out assault on hdmi/hdcp. So is that technology strong enough to hold them off?

And in the end its even possible that you prompt them to crack hdmi/hdcp even sooner then they would anyway because the content is such high value.

Will we see digital video stabiulizers on ebay for 17 bucks in a few years like you can find now that just happen to kill off macrovision?


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> ...
> I don't foresee an end-game yet. I think the game, itself, keeps changing, so much and so frequently, that all anyone can hope for is to try to keep up with the here-and-now....


think maybe you HAVE figured out the end game there Bicker.

Just fight whatever they can at the moment....

makes sense i suppose.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MichaelK said:


> I totally get they want to stop as much pirating as they can for the optimum cost to them


I'll have to take your word for that.



MichaelK said:


> But I am wondering in this specific case what do the folks here in the forums think- does the MPAA honestly beleive they can stop the pros or are they just trying to stop the little guy.


Your question exhibits the Fallacy of False Dichotomy.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

morac said:


> If the analog output is actually disabled (or the resolution is severely degraded), then to record digitally, you'd need a recording device that uses HDMI/HDCP and pretends to be a TV. Any such device would violate all licensing agreements for HDMI.
> 
> And like you mentioned someone could come up with a pirate hdmi chip if all else fails.


I think that is the end game in mind. Get everything onto a digital setup and forgo the analog as much as they can. CE companies can probably get behind that long term goal as they eventually eliminate the cost of analog hardware.

Long ago they must have resigned themsleves to Law enforcement for high revenue pirates who would be willing to spend some bucks on someone who can build them a pirate chip


----------



## MichaelK (Jan 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> I'll have to take your word for that.
> 
> Your question exhibits the Fallacy of False Dichotomy.


seriously bicker- can you ever have an amicable conversation?

/ignore


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I have loads of amicable conversations. Evidently, you cannot have one with someone who disagrees with you. My statements were *factual*. If you choose to take umbrage with it, that's your personal choice. I will not lie to make the conversation amicable in your mind.


----------

