EFF Begins Digital Television Liberation Project 289
Dozix007 writes "One year from today, on July 1, 2005, an FCC
regulation known as the
Broadcast Flag will lock up your digital television signals. But EFF's
"DTV Liberation Project"
aims to help the public keep over-the-air
programming free. The Broadcast Flag, which places copy controls on DTV
signals, attempts to stop people from making digitally-perfect copies
of television shows and redistributing them. It also stops people from
making perfectly legitimate personal copies of broadcasts. More
disturbing, the Broadcast Flag will outlaw the import and manufacture
of a whole host of personal video recorders (PVRs), TiVo-like devices
that send DTV signals into a computer for backup, editing and playback.
After the Broadcast Flag regulations go into effect, all PVR
technologies must be Flag-compliant and 'robust' against user
modification -- and that means, once again, that the entertainment
industry is trying to tell you what you can do with your own machines."
I still don't really see what hte big deal is... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not so much telling you what you can do with your machine as telling you what you can do with their content.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but once you buy that content it becomes YOUR content (not in the IP sense) and you should be free to do with it as you wish (for personal use of course). We actually have laws in place to ensure that we have the right to make personal copies and this would eliminate that right.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless you bought it with the implicit agreement that you wouldn't do X, Y, or Z with it. And you did agree to that, by buying content that has the flag bit.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. Unfortunately this is the direction that we're headed in. Pretty soon all content will be licensed to you. You won't own anything and what you can and can't do with that content will be strictly controlled. Ugh... What a great future we have to look forward to.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds a lot like the Windows world that took over. But I've heard there's some weird thing that some people use instread. A penguin with open sores or something. Maybe the same thing will happen for television.
Or maybe not. :-(
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, without restricting the user's use of their computer/tivo/etc. Basically, someone needs to come up with a fair solution to the rampant piracy that is so common today.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope, piracy will solve itself once somebody comes up with a solution to the problem in the signature below. Most people feel no moral obligation to take piracy seriously when IP law gives away such ridiculous, unfair advantage to oligopoly players.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA a
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
An interesting point. Why is it that so-called "intellectual" work should be rewarded forever, while other types of work are rewarded only once? Does someone who builds a house get paid every time someone enters that house? If people who create "IP" want to retire on the earnings of their work, they should invest in retirement funds, like everyone else.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
While they own the content and we are unable to redistribute it as our own or for profit we are able to use it the way we want to.
Right? What right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your assertion makes about as much sense as saying you have the RIGHT to get on an airplane without a photo ID. You don't. You USED to be able to do it, but your ability to do so in the past wasn't a right, just a privilege.
Re:Right? What right? (Score:5, Insightful)
We look to the glorious future, the removal of uncertainty, the time when everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. For after all, the "rights" you have are made explicit in law. Anything else is merely "privilege".
Unfortunately, Fair Use permits certain activities as a right, not merely a privilege. So Fair Use must go, we must abolish it. It is rediculous to think that a citizen has the "right" to view a TV show at a time other than the time the producer wishes it to be seen at. The citizen's only "right" in this matter is the right to purchase the products advertised in the show.
Re:Right? What right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, without repealing the First Amendment, I am no longer permitted ownership of the work I have purchased, not even the copying of that work, not even the ability to copy for my own archives, for fear that I might distribute my archive without permission.
This, I think, means I am no longer permitted to own certain sorts of Presses. Henceforth, I will do as I'm told, and only as I'm told, by officially approved authority, as defined in the officially approved Press. So much for the First Amendment.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, it is not intended or permitted for this post to be replied to. Anyone illegally replying to this post will be arrested.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:2)
But once "their" IP hits the airwaves, the rules do get changed a bit.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Distributed yes.
It's not so much telling you what you can do with your machine as telling you what you can do with their content.
Two things: it is telling you what you can do with your machine leading to all sorts of annoyances (and disasters) with stupid hardware and programs that prevent entirely legitimate use.
Secondly, I don't like a world in which content users have so much power o
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think for a while of what the only perfect copy protection ever is. It's to prevent anyone from recording music, be it their own, or someone else's.
You can always copy by recording, even without the analog hole or whatever you want to call it.
By preventing anyone from recording music/whatever without a certain entity's permission, you're not only preventing piracy, you're also preventing anyone else from creating and publishing music except for the few who have the legal right to record.
This would mean that, besides playing gigs, getting signed would be the only way for a band to spread their music around, because obviously the record companies would be the only "trustworthy" enough entity (for the government) to hold the rights to recording.
No i don't like that idea for a future either.
Huh? (Score:2)
But if it's not recorded, how are they going to sell it? They'd be better off selling 100 copies and having 1 million copies made for free than making no copies at all.
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:2, Troll)
Missed the Point (Score:2)
Re:Missed the Point (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Missed the Point (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait no. They don't even know anything about computers.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I still don't really see what hte big deal is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point, I agree. In that case, they are welcome to not use public television frequencies.
Re:Now for a show of hands.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think I'm off base, as I have in the past, and am doing again now, please list a chain store that has a small digital television set in stock. Requirements are it must replace a 20 to 25 inch set (motorhome, mobile home, mom's basement, apartment, & dorm room, dwellers) which includes built in (not DTV ready) DTV tuner. I'm looking for a plug in a UHF yagi antenna and a power cord and get DTV broadcasts. As an added bonus, it shouldn't cost more than double the analog set it replaces. Nobody's spending tons of money to watch over the air broadcasting. There is no value.
Please reply to this post with price, make and model of set, and name of chain carying the DTV in stock. NTSC tuners and home theatre don't count.
Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem that the lawmakers are dumbasses too but unfortunately for us they are getting paid to make desicions that benefit the conglomorates.
Do NOT support law makers that support these corporations and do NOT support companies that sell devices with the broadcast flag. While we will likely NOT win please do you best to educate the rest of the dumbasses to their rights that they are slowly losing.
Salient quote (Score:2)
H.L. Mencken
Re: quote (Score:2)
They didn't convince anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason why we need to stop campaign contributions from big business.
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:5, Informative)
Grey market devices will be available forever. the last DVD player I bought, is 100% region free and does not obey the "you cant skip this" flag on video files.
you can get them shipped directly to you and they are supposedly "illegal"
same goes for the DVR's in a couple years.... China will have the uncrippled versions for us.
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.re
http://www.zonefreedvd.com/
and then mine....
http://www.codefreedvd.com/dvd_codefree1500.htm
Pretty sad that the country known for opressing freedom (china) is becoming the source for freedom to US citizens.
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:2)
I cannot use my old DVD player w/the combo TV/VCR in my bedroom. I plug the DVD player in and immediately the Macrovision kicks in.
The device is immediately thinking that I am trying to record a DVD to VHS instead of waiting for me to hit record.
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:4, Insightful)
The industry isn't stupid. They knew damn well Macrovision wouldn't stop actual pirates, the ones with tons of custom VHS duplicators in their warehouses, from copying tapes. I can't believe they would be that stupid. Just once, I want to attribute it to malice.
Re:Our right to fair use has ended... (Score:2)
So yeah, just like you can stick your ipod into your line in of your soundcard and make "un-DRM'd" copies of your music, you probably wouldn't want to as the results will be less than optimal.
although ymmv,
e.
Re:It's only TV. (Score:2)
Thank you for that pearl of wisdom, anonymous bumper sticker troll.
Try watching a quality [imdb.com] documentary [imdb.com] sometime, then tell me that television is a waste of time.
Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:2)
And there's the exact problem. The industries know that what they put out is crap and that they aren't going to make money on it anyway so they must protect what little bit they MIGHT make back on what they wasted creating something they knew w
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because it isn't about stopping piracy at all... It's about control.
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:2)
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:2)
Can you read the constitution, and say with a straight face where it authorizes this?
If you can, then you must be a dynamite poker player.
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, something does smell fishy about how the balance of copyright has shifted away from the public good (so much so that it seems to me that the social contract basis of copyrights set out in the Constitution has been unceremoniously defenestrated onto a pile of fertilizer).
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with copyright holders defending their rights however they want, provided they don't have a government granted privelege that makes their rights take precedence over those of the people.
I wouldn't seek to take away their right to innovate if they would quit trying to take away mine. Don't stop the copyright holders, but don't stop the Digital cable manufacturers either.
If the market is unwilling to support restrictive copyright measures without a government mandate, the business model should be allowed fail on it's own. If the market will support works so restricted, the government intervention should be unnecessary.
Give me my fair use rights back, I won't bother breaking your protection. Failed business models don't deserve government protection.
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It must give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that we're all moving towards living in a police state just for your benefit.
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is my right to protect my intellectual property from redistribution, public performance, and copying whether you like it or not.
You do not have the right to stop people from copying your work, in certain fashions. That is legal and allowed.
Until Copyright Law changes these are MY rights and you can't take them away.
Until Copyright Law changes fair use is MY right and you can't take it away.
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
last thursday I went to watch the Detroit Tigers play a glood game. the gatekeeper checking my ticket started harassing me about my fancy digital camera... "That doesnt record video does it?" "recording video is stealing"
These SOB's have everyone including the average joe that works the ticket booth at a ballpark that recording is stealing and is as bad or worse than trying to smuggle in a machine gun or bomb.
it will not change until you have a major and almost violent public backlash. having a riot at a ballpark over a stupid policy and having the place burned to the ground or severly damaged MIGHT get the message through to the morons in the executive suite...
but it will not happen, the people that live in this country like to walk in line and say BAAAAAH.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a land grab silly! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do all of this then?
Control. This is the primary issue. It is not about dollars, though they stand to make a bunch of them if we cannot easily archive things.
If we cannot easily produce and distribute our own content, they will continue to profit from being the only ones to do so. Today it is possible to make music on your own, distribute it and perform it, with results on par with the big productions. This is quickly becoming true for movies as well.
What happens when we start enjoying our own stories and music again? The megamedia corps lose plain 'n simple. Prior to the electronic age, this is how things were. I believe we are headed back that direction, if they don't suppress the movement first via legal and technological means.
Think about governments too. Don't you just love what Michael Moore has recently done with F911. How about when people call their leaders in their lies and manupulations and bad calls with actual published proof. Controlling what gets recorded and what does not puts the megamedia companies in control of our culture, expression and access to recent history.
All of these things limit the voice of dissent. All of these things make it easier for those in a position to govern to do so without the proper checks and balances.
There is a growing movement toward both openness and closedness in our society today. It it beginning to trancend the technology issues. Make no mistake, dollars are behind it, but control is at the root.
I own a ton of DVD media. As far as I am concerned, DVD is pretty damn open, just like CD is. In a short time, DVD authoring tools based on open software will be perfectly useable. The megamediacorps are looking *hard* to prevent this mistake from happening again.
They will continue their attempts at legal means to close the door for us until they succeed in getting a platform to profit from. They will never stop because they know their longer term days are numbered due to increasingly powerful technology solutions being delivered to the masses.
If this flag is not neutered, they will lock open technologies out of the next round of hardware developments. If that happens, we all begin to lose our freedom of expression and basic rights to control our own computing environments. Look at DVD. CSS was not a big deal. I play media on Linux every day because its easy and it works. Why don't the distros put in DVD support? Because of legal entanglements. Look at cell phones and how content is handled there. I wrote this:
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&n
[google search for "Closed Computing a Future Look Today" if the link is too mangled.]
Coming to hardware near you simply because they think they can.
This flag will prevent us from easily building our own solutions. Now the geeks will continue to do what they do and will likely be affected little, if at all, but they will never be able to compete with the established interests.
Why not? Every last one of these established interests was started by some geeks in a garage. All of them know their demise is cooking in a garage near you. Rather than compete, they would kill the innovation we all deserve.
Sucks doesn't it?
Get pissed, donate to the EFF, write your leaders, tell your friends and buy open technology. Work hard to understand the differences between open and closed. --You will be glad you did.
It's not a forgone conclusion, it's a gamble. (Score:2)
They could just as easily push everyone to use the content that doesn't use these mechanisms.
Spot on. (Score:2)
Re:Is piracy really that much of a problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would like to think that you're right, but I think they are just extrapolating from the losses in markets like gaming, where the easy ability to bootleg games basically killed the Dreamcast, and caused publishers to drop support for the Playstation earlier than they would have otherwise.
I'm as big a fan of fair use rights as anyone - I make mix CD-Rs from my legally purchased albums, I've ripped the music from a DVD to make a soundtrack CD when one wasn't available, and one of my hobbies is hacking the Legacy of Kain series of games. None of those things would be possible in a 100% copyright-enforcement society.
On the other hand, I see thousands of people pirating movies, music, and games of all types on a regular basis and wonder how small of a minority I represent. Most of them don't even have the shakey "I can't afford it" alibi - they do it because they *can*, and don't care that they are ripping off the producers and making it less likely for legitimate fair use rights to survive.
Look at something like the HDLoader for the PS2 - it's a pretty cool idea, a product that lets you install your PS2 games to the add-on hard drive to make them load faster and play more smoothly. Only a tiny percentage of gamers are going to use it for that capability though, with the vast majority seeing it as a way to get free games from their friends and the rental store.
Call to arms (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Call to arms (Score:2)
Congress can control their budget, though. So far. I think. And they do pay some attention to that, though not much. Usually they just wait for the protests to roll over and then re-enact whatever measure they were temporarily coerced into repealing...or putting on hold.
Well, one does what one can.
Re:Call to arms (Score:5, Insightful)
A little history.. There was a government that wanted to raise some revenue. They put a tax on luxery items. The rich can afford it. They budgeted spending the income on their favorite projects. The rich stopped buying yachts from that country. The yacht makers failed as a business.
Shift to today.. Allow content users to change the rules regarding the over the air broadcasts. Good programming migrates to subscription instead of advertiser supported. Cheap to produce content fills the void. (TV today)
Shift to tomorrow.. Allow content producers to protect their content over the air. All content becomes encrypted. Users don't buy many of the much more expensive sets. Advertisers are not reaching the audiance and stop funding content. Over the air broadcasters fold due to lack of viewership or move to web based to increase viewership.
Sorry for the doom and gloom, but I don't see much of a future for over the air programming unless they start releasing good content to attract viewers to attract advertisers. Content producers are simply putting on too many restrictions on content trying to squeeze the last buck out of content. It has strangled the industry.
This kind of restriction seems pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
All in all the only people this will harm are the legitimate paying customers. How long can a business model last that pisses of the people who pay the wages?
Re:This kind of restriction seems pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
All in all the only people this will harm are the legitimate paying customers. How long can a business model last that pisses of the people who pay the wages?
This is pretty much the case
This isn't that big a deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope.
Reminds me of a Family Guy moment (Score:5, Funny)
They flashback to Peter standing by his tv with a football game on and pushes a button on his vcr, then cops come busting through the door and ask if he has permission from both CBS and the NFL. Peter sheepishly admits that he only has permission from the NFL, and the police then proceed to destroy his VCR.
Truth is stranger than fiction it seems
Re:Reminds me of a Family Guy moment (Score:2, Funny)
Ship in international waters with a large broadcasting tower.
Bart: What are those guys doing?
Homer: They're broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent instead of express written consent.
like there is any chance this WON'T happen (Score:5, Insightful)
"what are you in prison for?"
"I recorded a TV show illegally."
just a matter of time.
Re:like there is any chance this WON'T happen (Score:2)
Boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
I will not pay money to companies that behave in this manner. Many Slashdot readers are vociferous opponents of Microsoft, but they continue to pay money to the media establishment for such things as Spiderman II and cable television.
Perhaps it's time to find ways of entertaining ourselves other than media worship which enriches these gigantic conglomerates.
Is television all that good anyway? I personally have not watched broadcast or cable television with any regularity for 15 years. From 93-01 I did not even own a TV set-- I grudgingly got one to pacify friends who called me deprived because I did not have one, and for a while I actually tried to force myself to sit down and watch the thing, but I couldn't stomach it-- nothing on cable that appealed to me even remotely.
So, if they're going to behave this way, let them behave this way, and leverage all the technology we have at our disposal to support independent media groups. If you have to have Star Trek Voyager, there's always BT.
Boycotts work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
Everything they do in this regard strengthens the many small outlets. More and more people are becoming aware that the huge conglomerates-- Hollywood, Sony etc-- do not have their best interests at heart in any way, and are in fact not releasing intellectually stimulating, well written material but are instead drive
Broadcast flag on news reports (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that it is shown that often anyway, but images like those of Mr. Powell in front of the U.N. pointing at satellite photos would be available for replay by a lot less people (The news stations, national archives, etc.). Right now you see some debate about who said what at what point. Using Patriot($nr) to stop stations from sending (and stopping from telling they are not sending) a certain case is not that unthinkable. Those amateur documentary makers on both the right and left side of the fence (Check e.g. suprnova for 9-11 related amateur documentaries) will not have much content to use.
If stopping certain content from surfacing again is just a matter of limiting a few companies and organizations, we might even start doubting things we knew happened.
Funny. Reminds me of a book I once read.
And yes, yes, turban of tinfoil and all that, don't give me that bullshit. If I said three years ago that law agencies some time in the future will be able to get lists of who-reads-what from libraries in secrecy, you would laugh and ask me to stay off those late night X-Files reruns.
Re:Broadcast flag on news reports (Score:3, Informative)
This means the Congresional record isn't an accurate record of what was said on the floor.
old hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Me, I want this flag to come into effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Prediction - China won't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or the other situation that is just as likely is Hauppauge releases their PVR-550 or whatever and some dude(tte) with a hex editor "fixes" the firmware that is loaded when the driver loads.
It's pointless.
I still have "personal" rights. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey There,
I'm the first to admit I'm "legally" challenged.
But I don't think that this is an attempt to tell us what we can do with our machines.
But rather, it is an attempt
to tell people who want to sell goods and services in the public venue
what we as a community will and will not tolerate
if you want to operate in the community.
I think the community has not onl
Renting vs. Buying Media and Software (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy solution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Movies are mildly entertaining to a large group of people while books are extremely entertaining to the niche market they cater to. Plus no one says when I can read, how many times I'm allowed to read it and if anyone is allowed to borrow it.
Re:Easy solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us still like to flip through pages to read what's next and not having to push a button.
The whole point is that the future isn't likely going to be what you want, but rather what the media and the government do.
If I was given the choice, I'd prefer the good ol' books, too.
Control vs. Content (Score:2)
Quality content is really a big problem, I'm not living in the States so sometimes I don't share the same sense of humor or editiorial judgements that I watch in the american channels. But unfortunately local canadian production is non-existent, all we get is american channels.
Besides watching the news (when I'm not on the net) and some PBS specials I stopped watching tv mo
100,000,000 channels of shit (Score:2)
VCRs were useful in the 3 channel TV world and became irrelivant once cable carried 300 channels.
Likewise, PVRs will become irrelivant in the 100 million channel world and we are inexorably heading that way.
Copyright makes sense if there is money to made from copies, but as the cost to make copies approaches zero, no amount of markup can make copyrights a viable business model.
Current TIVOs? (Score:2)
Also what is to happen to our current TIVOs? Will they no longer record digital cable?
IP will be the death of us all. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing the "It's THEIR property, if you don't LIKE it, don't BUY it, it's not your ENTITLEMENT to free entertainment," et.al. argument.
What these Joe Public (and even Joe Slashdot) morons don't grasp is that yes, it IS our property! When someone writes/sings/films/programs something, it IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC.
However, they are given, as an incentive to KEEP creating these useful things, a limited monopoly. This was formed by the Congress, by the will of the people. However, thanks to the media cartels becoming bigger and more influential than the actual voting block, the "limited" part is sent right out the door. So even though the people gave these rights to the content creators, they now find themselves unable to take them away...even though the numbers clearly don't lie (Isn't it like 60 million fileheads in the US?)
The public has lived up to their part, by saying "yes, we'll pay you for these things."
However, those in "the business" haven't lived up to their end of the bargain - eg; releasing control of their works to the public domain in a limited, reasonable period (95+ years ain't it, folks. I don't care how big-media friendly you are, 95 years isn't within "the spirit of the law" by any stretch of the word...)
And human beings DO have an ENTITLEMENT to be entertained and have fun! Music, words, and images belong to ALL of us. They do not belong to any one person. It is certainly right to give incentive and rewards to those who can MANIPULATE these forces, but to say they can do no wrong, simply because it is "theirs" is bullshit, plain and simple.
Not that bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep rubbing it in... (Score:4, Interesting)
If there's something similar to "TCO" that is "Total Value of Acquisition", including rights, limitations, legality etc. I'd say bought content is getting lower, while pirated content is getting higher. That can't be good for the RIAA/MPAA...
Kjella
Where is the consumer demand for such technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its kinda funny that they're fighting for the adoption of the new HDTV technology and at the same time invent new ways to prevent people from using it. People don't give a shit about the quality of the recording, why do you think people go into theaters with camcorders. All this fear of people making digital perfect copies of TV shows... Who cares!
If Beastie Boys release and get flamed for it, and therefore sales drop - all these genius executives that think that they'll still have a market once they effectively lock everything down.
DVD Macrovision and now this!! (Score:2, Informative)
Do it without hardware (Score:3, Interesting)
Support the EFF (Score:5, Informative)
"How else can I help the EFF," you ask? 30% of the profits from book purchases at No Starch Press (when follow the link [nostarch.com] from the EFF's website) are donated back to the EFF.
Interstate Commerce?? (Score:3, Interesting)
So remove the flag! (Score:5, Informative)
Lemme just say first... I am something of an expert on digital television... it is my job.
Digital TV is for the most part based on the ATSC standard, which in turn is based on the ISO/IEC 13818-1 standard (AKA "Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio information: Systems".
Our enemy though, is the "Redistribution Control" As defined in ATSC Standard A/65B, now for a quick overview...
Within 13818, a stream of data (the transport stream is made up of packets who's length is always 188 bytes, within the first 4 bytes of the transport packet there is a field known as the PID which helps a decoder to know what is in a stream.
100 dollars worth of hardware could easily build a part which would demodulate an 8vsb signal on one end and pass the contained transport stream into a FPGA for instance who's sole job would be to do basic processing of the transport stream's EIT's to see what PID carry's the Redistribution Control (RC). Once the PID is detected, locating packets which carry it would be a simple task. Finally, once a packet is found to be carrying an RC, the FPGA would restamp the PID of the packet to 1FFF (the PID of a null packet who's payload is ignored by the decoder) then finally pass the stream to a modulator which would create the signal your decoder would receive and bada bing bada boom! No more Redistribution Control!
Sad thing is... I work with hardware everyday which would be capable of doing this... but even with my employee discount it's still far out of my price range. Of course such a device (as described above) would be illegal as it's only real use would be to bypass a copy control mechanism.
Copyright violation... (Score:3, Interesting)
You can say whatever you want about piracy. Many people say, "Oh, but it is theft to copy blah blah blah," like when they're talking about videotaping something in movie theaters. Yes, it's theft... but what's the bigger theft over here? I say it's the copyright holders being allowed to become my Big Brother, watching my every move like I'm a criminal, deemed guilty until proven innocent, even without a chance to prove myself innocent.
The people who think videotaping a movie in the theater is theft just don't understand that the legislation doesn't stop there. It starts there.
Yesterday, we were at point A. At point A, you could videotape a movie off television to watch it later. I have a few movies that were recorded in this way. And you could also make copies of videotapes if you wanted to, though the copies didn't come out perfectly, but it was ok anyway. Then, the movie industry came up with DVD, and all its stupid region coding and CSS and other bullshit, so while it is possible to make a perfect copy of a movie, they have made it difficult to do. They have put together a system that is deliberately crippled. So now, we're at point B. Next, they're gonna make it so you can't record television, when YOU pay taxes and/or the cable/satellite companies for the priveledge of viewing that shit. So, we'll be at point C. Then, they'll make it impossible to view anything on TV, when you pay your taxes and cable fees, without paying an ADDITIONAL pay-per-view fee, and you won't be able to record it for later use. Then, we'll be at point D. Then, they'll increase the price. And increase it more. And increase it more. Then, we'll be at point E. Then, they'll do like Microsoft and update the television signals every two years, so you have to replace your perfectly good television with a new one, or else you won't be able to watch most broadcasts. Then, we'll be at point F.
Look at the damage that copyright law is doing to our society. Back in the day, when copyright actually EXPIRED after a few years, a lot of good books were published, everything from literature to technical books. For example, you can get a copy of Moby Dick printed by any number of publishers, or you can find it on on project Gutenberg. The author is long gone, who gives a damn if you copy his book. Who would give a damn if you did 20 years after he wrote it... you can't write one book and expect to live off it until the end of your days. What the hell kind of contribution to society is that in exchange for a monopoly on a work? There were also a lot of really good technical books published. They're long out of print, but you can buy brand new copies, actually facsimile copies of the original books, professionally printed and newly bound. These books are PRICELESS. They contain information that you simply cannot find anymore, since automation and computers have taken over a lot of the tasks that were once done by people, very, very smart people who were experts and craftsmen at what they did. Books that explain things like gears. Look in any modern book on gears and you won't find Jack Schitt on how they work or why things are done a certain way. But luckily, their copyright expired ages ago, and the books can be reproduced. What if their copyright had not expired? What if the great great grand children still had rights on that information? I can almost promise you that 99% of those works would have disappeared into oblivion, the copies being damaged, destroyed, or just plain thrown away one by one, until none, or nearly none, were left. And if God forbid anything should happen to the world that will leave us without the technology that does so much for us today, that information, which would
Even public domain programming will be flagged! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, broadcasters in the US will have MORE rights over content than even the original copyright holder did!
Re:Lousy FCC (Score:2)
Not a lot of at-home chip fabrication going on these days.
Should they get a one-off board made and populate it with surface mount parts?
Even if you had the talent to burn an ASIC to decode a protected bitstream, the DMCA makes it illegal to do so.
Re:Lousy FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:2)
If I listened in to conversations you had with your clients, and went on to have a little chat with them too, say
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't!
Copyright means that they have the right to control who makes copies, not whoever can get a copy! Otherwise I couldn't sell the copy that I have, nor could I even throw it away!
Title 17, thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976, means that the only thing they can control about the copy that they sell is the sale, and that's it. After first sale, they can't control anything about that copy. (They can of course prevent the sale of any copies of that copy, but you are absolutely allowed to make at least one archival copy of the copy that you purchase.)
e.g. it would be way cool if they distributed their entertainment products in digital files over the Internet that automagically provoked the recipient to pay a few cents to their coffers. That would exploit easy copyability, while hewing to copy-rights.
I am always allowed to make one archival copy of any copyrighted object that I purchase, regardless of what Nintendo tries to tell me, and they cannot charge me for making a copy. They have no standing to. Not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if I can make an archival copy of that copy if the first is destroyed, but I'd imagine so.
Nope its the Right TO Copy (Score:2)
The whole point of copyright law was to let people copy things after they were brand new.
Under the original law, the first tv broadcasts and movies would all be public domain now and we could all make our own copies of them. It was designed to make sure that works of art wouldn't lost. Think about it, can you find really old TV shows?
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:2)
Where exactly does it say that in the law? I ask because I've never been able to find any references which say that. There is a law that says you can make copies of computer programs (but not "any copyrighted object"), and there is a fair use exemption, which probably doesn't cover archival copies, because they are not for criticism or commentary, and their existence impacts the marketplace.
What do you know that I don
Re:Well, who owns the broadcasts? (Score:5, Informative)
At this point I feel that nearly anything which is done to damage, or even inconvenience them is laudible. What I'd really like is to get all their managers and lawyers thrown in jail...and not a country club either. Well, this won't happen. The law is too corrupt. And since the "law" won't act, I won't condemn anyone else who does. I may think them foolhardy, but I won't condemn them.
The corruption of the congress, the presidency, and of the courts should be considered a crime on the level of treason. As such, anyone who comits such a crime should pay an extravagant penalty. And when a company does so, not only should the company be attained, but also the decision making officers and those who implemented the decision. And those managers or directors who approved it. In many ways it's a far worse crime of treason than a soldier deserting in the face of the enemy. And it deserves a harsher penalty.
Re:reselling (Score:2)
I really doubt they'll bother to control that. They'll just make it so inconvenient that nobody bothers to do it. You do kno
Re:EFF lies about the Broadcast Flag (Score:5, Insightful)
There are NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANALOG OUTPUT in the broadcast flag ruling. There are restrictions on digital outputs only.
I don't think they're lying. I think you are just parsing it wrong. If they left out the word "output" after "analog", there would be implied parentheses around "analog or digital", and you'd be correct. Rather, they are saying that there are two kinds of "degraded form": (1) analog outputs (which is inherently degraded), and (2) digital outputs with reduced resolution.
Re:EFF lies about the Broadcast Flag (Score:5, Insightful)
Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability.
The two bolded portions are mutually exclusive.