Digital TV Foreshadows Erosion of Net Rights 312
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Tom Yager offers insight on how digital TV is rapidly heading toward the kind of lockdown that entertainment and broadcast lobbies desire for the Internet. Standards such as HDMI and HDCP are acting in concert to strip your equipment of its functionality, displaying 'incompatibility' messages when plugged into older HDMI-enabled devices, shutting down analog outputs when active, and requiring balky handshake credentials that force many consumers to reboot their TVs to recover permission to watch them. Even broadcast flagging, which has been overturned by the Court of Appeals, is still on the de-facto table, as the entertainment lobby retains the power to bully technology companies into baking broadcast flagging into their wares. Sure, digital TV has far fewer points of origin than the Internet and is therefore easier to control, but, as Yager writes, 'Internet rights restrictions come through your telecommunications equipment' — and it is likely through that equipment that the entertainment and broadcast lobbies will chip away at your rights on the Web."
I wonder. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder. (Score:4, Informative)
It may be our only option-onion routers to do what we want.
Re:I wonder. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The average 'consumer' just want their 'media' to work in the fashion they are used to(and want). Expect a lot of resistance for anything else.
I used to work as tech support for creative labs.
Most of my questions I had to deal with from callers were:
!: why can I NOT record my DV
Re:I wonder. (Score:5, Interesting)
But what happened then? Did they sue? Did they cancel their contract? Or, what I'd rather believe, did they leave it at that?
What's the net effect? So they buy stuff, it doesn't work, it pisses them off, they yell at the call center agent... how does that reduce the profit of the company? Because that's all that matters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure that's entirely a fair question. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if most tech support roles included tracking things like customer lawsuits and dropped contracts. Maybe if the guy causes the problem, but not if the problem is company policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
The international bandwidth costs come from those taxes, so it wouldn't be fair to the brits.
It would be nice if they made ad-sponsored videos, though. BBC news site already works that way, international users have advertisements rendered in the pages.
Re:I wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's in German, but it's Dr. Who! More or less...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
a) I can buy more bandwith or buy an unlimited plan
b) Tiered internet lobbying does not succeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_Internet [wikipedia.org]
Also, verizon did not block
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do not have a problem with bandwidth caps as long as
a) I can buy more bandwith or buy an unlimited plan
Cable is sold as unlimited. The only problem is that the providers oversold, once people started taking advantage of what they were sold the companies started complaining people used what they were sold.
As for Verizon it seems they are the only ones getting with the program. With their FiOS they are offering up to 50mbps [google.com] downloads and 20mbps uploads. Right now it's only in a few cities but they
bandwidth vs. throughput (Score:3, Informative)
Your connection is sold to you with a "bandwidth". Say an cable connection with 6 Mbps speed. That is a cap. And not even guaranteed. With US providers you'll probably get somewhere between 4.5 and 5.5 Mbps, depending how many others are on the wire with you and how many and how clean the connections between you and the ISP.
Your connection may or may not have a throughput limit. Unlimited throughput means the number of bytes you can download is not limited. In
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Flashback [savagechickens.com]!
So:True, I wonder, what did we expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn fools, that shit died years ago, get over it and start supporting our New American Ways of "Corporate-Welfare" socialism, Institutional Privatization of Personal Intellectual Property (IP-PIP), Government Bailout Protection (GBP) and Special Tax Incentives (STI) to support amoral Corporatist, Politician, and Clergy executive pay and privileges.
There is a new and better class of US Citizens representing their mantra "Separate, but equal" as the New America promise.
Internet TV (Score:2)
Simon
Re:Internet TV (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, Apple TV is still DRM-laden, and if the internet was to go the direction that Apple TV is, it's going to become a pretty awful place to be IMO.
Fortunately there's a project that looks like it's going to become the Firefox of internet tv... and it's called Miro [getmiro.org]. It's based on simple, common and open standards... RSS, bittorrent, and just plain old DRM-free codecs. It's not pretending to be something magical, and indeed, it shouldn't.
It's already pretty enjoyable to use, but I've been doing some volunteering on the project. Trust me, the next iteration is going to be really slick.
The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:5, Insightful)
MS tried to lock down Windows and Office.
result
The Movie industry is loosing viewers in droves to the internet. If the experiance is substandard to Internet
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
U
BTW: I am n ur computer!!!!can I has cheezberger?
P.S.
I don't really get 'it'.
What's with all of the:
loose/lose, than/then/, a/an, thing/think. their/they're, lose/loose confusion? (yes, I no that eye listed loose/lose twyce, but stil, WTF?!?!)
All sarcasm aside oldspewy(1303305), I really do not understand this 'newspeak' that seems prevalent now days. Is it some kind of SMS 133tspe
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:5, Insightful)
You are aware that we're heading towards (or already arrived at) a de facto monopoly for ISPs, yes? And there is heavy lobbying to keep it that way.
To create an ISP, it takes more than a few routers and some fat pipe to some uplink. It's the infamous last mile. And for that last mile, you need the cooperation of a lot of governmental agencies, whether you want to build that last line through a wire above the ground or below, even if you want to use wireless technology, you need some sort of permit. If you don't already, just wait and see.
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:5, Interesting)
You also need a willing backbone provider, all of which would also be your competitors. so you'll end up being a vassal of one of them.
Even if you were able to negotiate peerage with other ISPs, most of them are going to be vassals of the big ones.
Much as I would love to see a huge geek co-op raise a new net (Internet III?), I just don't think it is possible anymore.
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:4, Interesting)
This sort of system would allow very large areas to be connected cheaply, but would have low bandwidth and high latency.
IIRC, domain names were looked up and connections could be made as though you were using an ordinary Ethernet connection, but I no longer remember all the details.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that we're heading towards (or already arrived at) a de facto monopoly for ISPs, yes? And there is heavy lobbying to keep it that way.
When have we NOT had a monopoly in ISPs? In how long I have kept up with computers there has only been 1 or 2 ISPs per small town (there are probably more options in larger cities). Now some of those ISPs used to be small and not like AT&T or Comcast, but for those living in the town they were still a monopoly. Now we have the same: 1 or 2 ISPs per small town, but the 1 or 2 happen to be absolutely huge companies that look at customers as if they were meaningless.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any idea how much capital investment it takes to develop an "average" consumer electronic device? A modern semiconductor chip? A "simple" interface like IEEE-1394, or DVI, or HDMI, or DisplayPort?
Any schmoe can download GCC and start writing commercial-grade software. But free alternatives for silicon design and Open Access silicon fabs don't (meaningfully) exist.
It just kills me every time I see HDCP as a marketing bullet point, and not on the defects list where it belongs...
Schwab
Re:The more you squeeze, the more they slip though (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps it's because of Youtube and Vimeo? In my household, we probably average about as much YT as TV, even with a dish DVR. We don't watch commercials much at all, and what network a show is on is, for us, irrelevant because it records the shows we want, not the stations we like.
Anybody who'd say that things haven't radically changed is simply oblivious to the fact that they have. Business is no longer usual!
Re: (Score:2)
If
Not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not exactly (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is that once the technology to allow that control is in place, the old adage about absolute power begins to apply. Other companies will begin to build on this groundwork, or just license it outright; eventually leading to the near complete subversion of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, governments could prevent it, but I can rather see them in the same boat as the companies. Because governments are players in the same game, albeit for different reasons. Their reason to decrease your rights is to increase their power over you. People with less p
copy protection is costing you money (Score:4, Insightful)
and the insane part about it all, is that it's not stopping piracy. it NEVER will. whole seasons are still on bittorrent in HD.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't need a box to tell me what to think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
i had a $6000 tv set drop a hdmi port due to a faulty hdcp signal. why the hell should i even be forced into having hdcp to start with? we need to fight back in the only way possible - with our wallets.
Like, by not buying $6000 TVs in the first place? You don't need a special campaign to convince me not to do that. Anyone who pays that much for a damn TV is bending over and begging to get screwed. If it's not the DRM, it'll be the cables, the new receivers and switches, and having to upgrade everything else you own when you notice that scaled-up content looks awful.
The last brand-new TV I bought cost $300 and was big enough for my living room. HDCP isn't even on my radar as long as comparably sized sets
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you surrendered almost immediately. Buying a $6000 TV is so rebellious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and the insane part about it all, is that it's not stopping piracy. it NEVER will. whole seasons are still on bittorrent in HD.
It never will stop piracy. It can't: the people doing the "real" piracy, the people making copies of the discs and selling them illegally don't need to break the "copy protection," they just copy them as-is and press complete copies. You don't need to decrypt a message to make a complete bit-for-bit copy.
But what it does stop is people from doing things like taking the Blu-ray they bought and copying it onto their PC and then re-encoding it for their iPod or PSP or other mobile device. It stops people f
Television not behaving? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try turning it off.
I'm not kidding, nor am I trolling. Until and unless watching television becomes mandatory, if you're not participating in the system, THE SYSTEM CANNOT CONTROL YOU.
Re:Television not behaving? (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in 2003 (when I stopped watching television) a typical 60 minutes of television contained 21 minutes of advertisement and 39 minutes of program. I thought, "Why the hell am I actually paying for this mess."
I can only imagine that it has gotten worse. Anyone have some numbers?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I was watching a lot more anime around those days along with discovering the wonders of Netflix, and since the laptop had a DVD player, having a TV didn't make much sense. So I chucked it.
Later on, I borrowed my friend's rather modern game system (won't say which due to stupid jokes), and bought an El Gato TV Tuner and haven't looked back.
Plus, the torrents satisfy any curiosity for a broadcasted series and the extra padding known as commercials is stripped.
Oddly enough,
Re:Television not behaving? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not an elitist, it's just that I'd much rather sculpt or write in my journal or read Proust than sit there passively staring at some phosphorescent screen. If I need a fix of passive audio-visual stimulation, I'll go to catch a Bergman or Truffaut film down at the university. I certainly wouldn't waste my time watching the so-called Learning Channel or, God forbid, any of the mind sewage the majo
Re: (Score:2)
I am a phosphor, you insensitive clod!
Sorry--I couldn't resist. :D
who' in control? (Score:3, Insightful)
if you're not participating in the system, THE SYSTEM CANNOT CONTROL YOU.
Sure it can, indirectly. When it controls those around you it effects you as well.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox news is not "government controlled"--they're just stupid enough to believe that the government is right more than it actually is.
Re: (Score:2)
No they are just partisan and their guy is in the white house. If Obama gets elected, we'll be treated to years of bitching about the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
So they design a system to make it harder for me to watch the television programs I enjoy, and I fight back by not watching them at all?
It's called voting with your wallet. If the TV companies lose money because of the restrictions that they have placed on the medium, they will stop using those restrictions. If it's still profitable for them, they'll make money--but each person who stops watching stops contributing to their profit.
What's next, fighting back against internet censorship by not connecting to the internet?
If you honestly think that you're comparing apples with apples, then there are more fundamental flaws in your grasp of logic than can be corrected in a Slashdot post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Internet is not a public resource, and never has been. Same with broadcast spectra. Both were bought and paid for, first by the government, then by Big Media. Big Media paid for the infrastructure that we now use, either by computer, or by radio and television.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any cable/broadband company that requires you to buy cable to get cable internet, but my only experience is with Charter and Time Warner.
Content Lockdown (Score:2)
weird definition of "rights" (Score:2)
And this infringes what "right," exactly? My right to have products available that do exactly what I want, at exactly the price I want to pay? Sounds like my "right" to a free lunch.
If you don't like the way Toshiba makes digital TVs, and feel they have sold out to the Devil by following "broadcast flags" sent down the pipe by
Re: (Score:2)
So first you'd have to invent your own open HD standard, then you'd have to buy a major cable company to distribute it, then you'd have to buy all the movie companies, because there's no way in hell they'd sell you distribution rights if it were known you were going to distribute the
Re: (Score:2)
While you're at it, ask Donald too because I doubt Bill has enough dough for the project.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly asking, since I can't believe nobody built a box that simply ignores that broadcast flag if there's nothing keeping them from doing it. Hell, if nobody else the Chinese would gladly ignore it to sell boxes to us!
But what I could see is something like this: To actually display HD content, you have to decrypt something if I got that part straight. Now, when decryption is a matter, a key is usually not far away. Who owns that k
Re: (Score:2)
But it turns out that you can't legally strip broadcast flag because corporations are granted _right_ to forbid usage of unauthorized decryption devices.
Explicit licensing (Score:2)
Lobby your Congress critters for this. DO IT.
(The scary thing is that I'm half-serious about this.)
I Told You So (Score:2, Insightful)
But, as it happens, I posted about this on Slashdot almost eight years ago [slashdot.org], sounding the warning that all this bullshit was coming down the pike, unless you -- yes, you, Mr. VLSI Designer and Mr. Software Designer -- did something to stop it.
Result: HDCP is now a marketing bullet point instead of a product defect, and the word "security" has been perverted Orwell-style to refer to copy protection and not to system integrity.
Grow a pair, peo
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Eight Years between comment and I told you so? Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What really frosts my cookies about the whole thing -- thereby prompting the snark -- is how it seems no one who is in a position to stop this garbage actually bothers to stop it. For this stuff to actually come to fruition, and for each company participating, executive staff had to take it on as a priority, middle management h
Re:Closing loopholes != erosion of rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closing loopholes != erosion of rights (Score:4, Insightful)
After locks were invented, someone invented lockpicks.
But the existence of that technology does not excuse its use.
Sure it does, actually the invention of the lock necessitated the need for lockpicks. I don't know if it's happened to you but I ran into a number of people who got locked out of their car or home. Years ago I shared a home with others. I smoke but I go outside to smoke at home and even though I was sitting on a bench in front of the door with a window next to it from where a person could clearly see me, one of the others living there was paranoid about an unlocked door and he kept locking it on me. Now what if I didn't have my keys, I started carrying them with me just because of him, and he locked the door then left? Or what about a car, about the same tyme I was locked out I had a lady ask me if she could use my cellphone to call the police, she had left the keys in the ignition with the engine running and left a baby in the vehicle but locked the door.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Interesting)
So now I have to call Pioneer tomorrow to figure out how to get the stupid TV to turn on again.
That is fucking stupid considering any thief can easily circumvent. Any ordinary user wont even be trying...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]
So, as it turns out, we really did have the right to record TV shows to watch them later, until legislation and technology began acting together to snuff out those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I've been lending books for as long as I can remember.
eliminating Fair Use is an erosion of rights (Score:4, Informative)
The US Supreme Court disagreed with you when it decided in the Betamax ruling [wikipedia.org] that
"fair use" != "right" (Score:2)
Re:"fair use" != "right" (Score:4, Insightful)
I break it - not "bloody copyright infringement" yet.
On the other hand, what I just did violates a completely separate bought-and-paid-for law.
which is exactly my point... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can look at it like this: now copyright holders have the right to determine whether or not their works are encrypted. If someone goes against their wishes, they are trampling a right that copyright gives copyright holders, and thus infringing on that copyright.
Re:Closing loopholes != erosion of rights (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the case that a fair few of the things that HDCP and friends are designed to prevent were never legal to begin with. Not all, however, are. If nothing else, building DRM that understands fair use exceptions is going to have to wait for the introduction of AI competent enough to interpret case law on the fly. Depending on the DRM and the country in question, various sorts of timeshifting and format shifting are also likely to be legal but blocked.
The problem with these DRM systems is that they, in effect, allow the companies that control them to make law just by setting a few DRM flags(under the DMCA and similar, DRM basically has force of law because you can't legally break it, and in other instances, joe user will de facto be bound by it). That is the really disturbing bit. If DRM were simply technology catching up with law, that would be one thing(still not a good thing, I would argue; but that is outside the scope of this particular argument); but DRM is something much, much, more than that. It is the expansion of technology to eclipse, and to write, law without even the pretense of legislative process.
Re: (Score:2)
horse | the_barn
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Man, at least write functional code if you want to say the horse out of the barn:
tar xf barn.tar horse
Geeks these days. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you've always had the right to copy media you own and recording tv shows has always been legal. it's distribution you don't have the right to. and to shoot down your anlogy, it's more like door locks being invented and then locking you out of your own house.
Re: (Score:2)
Same applies to decompiling software, btw.
Time shifting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
" and I am just now downloading the torrent" right there, it isn't your recording it's someone elses. they are distributing it and THAT is infringment.
Re: (Score:2)
Downloading something on the other hand does not work the same way. Now, I'm fairly sure some network paid for the right to broadcast it, but I didn't pay/adwatch the network. So no, doesn't work out I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except we DO have those rights, both through constitutional interpretation and through law. See Sony v Universal and the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA)
The AHRA contains one positive provision for the consumer electronics industry and consumers, section 1008, a "Prohibition on certain infringement actions:"
"No action may b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To suggest that everyone should make content for you to consume for no money (or at least no exposure to advertising to pay for said content) is a laughable excuse people try to use to excuse their copying of material.
Re: (Score:2)
To suggest that content will not get produced unless people get paid for it is a laughable excuse that IP robber barons try to use, so as to excuse their attacks on free competitors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The suggestion that artistic and entertainment creations would continue to be made in the same volume or quality with the creators being given nothing in return is utterly ridiculous.
The current spate of HDCP and other copy prevention me
Re:Closing loopholes != erosion of rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The main reason why there is a "market" at all for those copies is simply that, unless you happen to sit right in the country where the movie is shown first, you are forced to wait. Allow me to give you an example. I like Dr. House. I watch it religiously. In my country, we're now in the middle of season 3. Now, that's about 2 seasons behind. I enjoy the show, and I wouldn't mind at all to watch it in English. Actually, I'd prefer it. But I neither get the option to see it in English, nor do I get the chance to see the latest episodes. I can't even go and buy the DVDs for seasons 1-3, and I won't be able to buy season 4 when it comes out in August, because no local distributor has been chosen yet, and of course, our networks showing it here have contracts that prevent such things from happening.
Can you see why the incentive to fire up some P2P client and simply download the other two seasons is pretty high?
And it's the same for pretty much everything else. For the US, it works in reverse with Anime, which also suffer (interesting enough) from insanely crappy translations when done by some studio, yet fansubs happen to be nearly flawless and true to the original.
It's not that people wouldn't want to pay artists for their work. The problem is that you often don't even get the choice to do just that!
Re:Closing loopholes != erosion of rights (Score:4, Insightful)
If you take away the special effects, BSG is just a story. People have been writing stories for centuries. It takes exactly one person, some paper, and a pen. That's not expensive, and many people write good stories for free.
If the market prefers cheaper or free entertainment, it is up to the entertainment industry to improve their quality, reduce volume, or go out of business. It is not up to the customers to pay more than they want to, when they are already happy with alternatives. Horse buggies went out of business when cars became popular. Once again I agree, yet point out the reverse: to suggest that good content doesn't get produced if people don't expect to be paid is just wrong.Re: (Score:2)
The actors are better
The design is better
The scripts are better
I mean, really, I've tried watching quite a lot of fan made/community made stuff, and while there are occasional gems, by and large all they serve to do is show why we pay those who make this content professionally... because they do it well.
Again, the way for them to get people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And in the US, at least, content makers have an obligation to provide their content into the public domain in order to enrich society, for which they're granted the limited privilege of copyright. For many, many years, those same content makers have shown absolutely no indication that they inten
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no real problem with this. I'll pay for my programming. After all, paying is what makes producers want to continue producing.
What I do have a problem with, though, is programmed obsolescence; when they change something apparently for the purpose of making you buy a new device to get what you had with the old device. Especially when there is no perceived benefit to the user.
When your TV is implemented in firmware and t
Re: (Score:2)
I just take issue with people pulling out the old 'information wants to be free'.
It's a load of shit, where not talking 'information' here
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that number two, too.