Attn Newbies: You Cannot Record in Hi-Def Resolution on Current DVD Recorders - Page 20 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #571 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 07:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

Is this the JVC you are asking about: JVC SR-HD1250US Blu-Ray Disc and HDD Recorder?

Here is a review from an Amazon customer:

. . . . the manual it gives recoding lengths for each recording mode and how they apply to each recording format. For example, if you record a title in the SP mode, which is 2 hour on standard definition 4.7g DVD-R it would translate to 10.5 hours on a 25g BD-R.

To any reasonable person this would imply that this machine could actually put standard defintion on a BD-R? It cannot. If you record in standard definition you must dub it to a DVD-R or RW. It cannot be dubbed to BD-R. So why tell the buyer that you can get 10.5 hours of standard definition on a BD-R disc, when this machine cannot do it.

Not to debate the merits or faults of this device, I just want to make it clear that there is no technical reason that would preclude one from authoring MPEG-2 encoded SD material onto a BD-R in BD-Video format. Although marketing has been very successful at associating BluRay & HD content, authoring SD to BluRay is perfectly allowable and I've done quite a bit of it myself. MPEG-2 is one of the three video formats supported under BluRay format (MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, VC-1). I've taken SD/2.0 video titles recorded on a Panasonic E-85 via OTA or VHS transfer and I've taken SD/5.1 titles ripped from my commercial DVD's and authored them as BD-Video with nice HD menus and burned to BD-R. They play back very well in a BD player.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #572 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 08:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Not to debate the merits or faults of this device, I just want to make it clear that there is no technical reason that would preclude one from authoring MPEG-2 encoded SD material onto a BD-R in BD-Video format.

There is however a possible marketing reason. If they had made the machine capable of doing so it would potentially confuse some owners why such discs were incapable of playing back on any DVD players.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is online now  
post #573 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Church AV Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: High Desert, California
Posts: 4,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye View Post

...By the way Michael I was born in 1961 and every year I see stricter and stricter rules for manufacturers have to abide by A) I/O rules and B) copy protection rules. Take HDMI - full of crappy restrictions for example. How much cheaper and easier and more compatible without idiotic crippling handshakes it would be to use HD-SDI instead of HDMI for consumer use. Remember DVI? Why you think it was replaced by HDMI for consumer TV and BD use. How about new BD decks crippling the analog outs in the near future - no Michael I wasn't born yesterday

What do you mean, in the future? The new BD player I just purchased has analog output restrictions. As soon as I plugged a cable into the HDMI port on the machine, all the analog outputs were disabled. The selected resolution didn't matter. If there was an HDMI connection, the analog ports are non-functional.

Luke

Evil is charming and beautiful. It makes you doubt yourself. It asks for one small compromise after another until it whittles you down, and it functions best when no one believes in it.-JOA
Church AV Guy is offline  
post #574 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 10:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Dish Network ad-skipping feature Auto Hop irks network TV execs

An NBC executive called the satellite broadcaster's new offering enabling customers to block commercials from certain recorded shows 'an attack on our ecosystem' while a Fox executive described Dish's decision to offer the feature 'a strange thing to do.'

By Joe Flint, Los Angeles Times
May 15, 2012

NEW YORK Satellite broadcaster Dish Network Corp.'s new Auto Hop feature, which makes it easier for viewers to avoid watching commercials, is not winning the company any fans in the television business.

Dish's new offering lets customers block commercials from recorded shows that have aired on broadcast networks ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox during the previous day.

Although consumers with digital video recorders can already fast-forward through commercials of recorded shows, Auto Hop takes it a step further. The screen goes black when a commercial break appears. A few seconds later, the program returns. The Auto Hop feature can't be used on a show during the same day that it's being broadcast, or on live programming, such as a sporting event, that has been recorded.

"I think this is an attack on our ecosystem," NBC Broadcasting Chairman Ted Harbert told reporters.

During the network's presentation of its fall schedule to advertisers Monday at Radio City Music Hall, Harbert told advertisers that Dish's commercial zapping device is an "insult" to all the money NBC and its parent, Comcast Corp., spend on sports and entertainment programming. "Just because technology gives you the ability to do something, does that mean you should? Not always," Harbert said.

With more than 14 million subscribers, Dish Network's new technology is of great concern to the networks and advertisers. Dish's announcement of its new service came last week, days before the major broadcast networks presented their schedules to advertisers who are already worried about the effectiveness of their commercials as technology changes the way people view television.

Dish's new technology is offered for use only on broadcast programming, not shows from cable networks. Dish spokesman Bob Toevs said there was no technological reason that Auto Hop wouldn't work on cable, but that it was being offered for use only on broadcast shows because those are most popular with Dish customers.

Toevs said the satellite broadcaster "believes that consumers deserve a choice when it comes to television viewing, and Dish's Auto Hop feature is all about choice. Viewers have been skipping commercials since the advent of the remote control. We are simply making it easier."

That may not satisfy network executives.

"It seems a strange thing to do," said Peter Rice, chairman of entertainment for the Fox Networks Group.

Rice, speaking with reporters on a conference call Monday to announce Fox's fall schedule, noted that broadcast networks such as Fox are the largest content providers to pay-TV distributors such as Dish, and wondered why they'd risk alienating that relationship. As for whether the network will consider legal action to try to derail Dish's new commercial-zapping offering, Rice said Fox is "still evaluating it."

This is not the first time such a technology has been launched. Several years ago, a service called ReplayTV did virtually the same thing and the broadcast networks sued and won on copyright infringement grounds.

joe.flint@latimes.com
MichaelLAX is offline  
post #575 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CitiBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbawc View Post

Okay, Citibear, I understand your aversion to "conspiracy theories." But, please explain one thing to me - when JVC made their BD recorder for the US market, why didn't they just include an input that would allow us to record HD from a DVR? Would it have been that expensive, or difficult? I don't mean a tuner, or timer recording, just an input. Wouldn't that simple addition have increased US sales?

It wouldn't have been that expensive or difficult, kjbawc, but it also doesn't fit in with their mfring strategy or intended market. DVD/HDD recorders with analog component inputs have not been sold for quite a few years, and BluRay/HDD came out long after those so component input wasn't even given a passing thought. The only global market that actually has any use for analog component inputs is the North American consumer with a cable or satellite decoder box: but this consumer had long proved disinterested in buying an expensive recorder. So BD/HDD mfrs pre-emptively chose not to sell the machines here: they were all designed for Europe/Asia/Australia.

Those countries do no really require any external inputs, because they share common satellite and broadcast systems with built-in EPG. There is no external cable or satellite box to integrate: DVD and BD recorders for other countries tap their dual internal HDTV tuners for everything except camcorder input. The semi-pro niche JVC targeted with the SR-HD1250 does not use analog component, either: they long since migrated to digital. We must step outside of our normal consumer POV to put the JVC in context: it was not intended as a multi-purpose consumer device for TV recording. It is marketed specifically as an accessory for JVC (and some other) camcorders, kind of like a Sony VR-DMC6 on steroids. At the time of introduction, it was very affordable for a standalone BD/HDD, so the HD-by-FireWire-only limitation was not a serious drawback for a unit targeted at the burgeoning market of event videographers needing to provide immediate proof discs to clients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Kjbawc, excellent point, but I'm confident you are just wasting your time. He's made up his mind regarding "how things are" and any info from industry experts such as CNET which contradicts his way of thinking he simply dismisses and trashes:

I have not attacked you personally in any post, m. zilch, and have in fact taken pains to post apologies for one post that could be misconstrued as such when you called me out on it. Criticism of "industry websites" is another story: if you're gonna throw links at people, they're gonna respond with their opinion of the linked source, and I'm sorry but c/net is not the last word on anything. They give a handy overview on some points, and provide some specifics and external info links if you're lucky. But all such gigantic generic sites miss important points or are completely wrong on occasion: c/net is no better than Consumer Reports or Ken Rockwell in this regard.

I *did* answer your bolded quotes from c/net, your disagreement with my reply doesn't mean I didn't reply. They are flat-out wrong in their assessment that BD recorders were not marketed in North America solely because of draconian copy protection limitations: our consumer market is complex and the failure of advanced disc recorders is due to several tangled interlocking factors, the most important having nothing whatever to do with Hollywood restrictions. That is why my "rants" go on for many paragraphs: people can ask "why no BD recorders in USA?" as if its a simple question, but the answers aren't simple. North America is cable/sat dependent, cable/sat is the wild wild west with no uniform standards and an agenda to lock subscribers into proprietary rental hardware: thats the gist.

I will agree with you about "Hollywood influence" to the extent that convenient external HDTV line inputs for use with our diverse cable/sat system were indeed expressly not included in the blueprints for BD/HDD recorders, to cut down on potential for easy piracy. But that really only impacts North Americans, and really only because of our anarchic cable/sat systems: it did not prevent the rest of the world from completely exploiting and enjoying full HDTV recording. Their BD/HDD recorders incorporate all the piracy-prevention restrictions we would have had here, the difference is those restrictions do not prevent users in those countries from conveniently recording all of their TV sources. Other countries don't need HDTV line inputs at all: the recorders contain uniform tuners with EPG for OTA and satellite and there's no cable lockout to deal with. The only "legit" external connection they need is for camcorders, so thats all they have.

This arrangement allowed full unrestricted normal TV and camcorder recording in Japan/Europe/Australia/NZ, despite not having vulnerable line inputs. Recorder mfrs were not going to go up against the Hollywood machine and try to sell what would be viewed as "America-only HDTV line input piracy workstations" in North America unless there was proven consumer demand and profits. There was not, as the mass exodus of $495 DVD/HDD models in 2006 attests. There is no getting around the fact the cheapest BD recorder sells for about $699 overseas, and that few North Americans are willing to pay that because it won't conveniently integrate with our cable/sat systems even if it had unrestricted HDMI inputs. Now that Asian and European countries have begun turning away from disc recording, the remaining market base is shrinking and will eventually be limited to niche devices like the JVC SR-HD1250. You want "supporting links"? Go peruse the slim disc/hdd recorder pickings on Amazon UK compared to last year at this time, or visit the Australian AVS forum.

Quote:
This is clearly a rather childish ad hominem attack, but since he is incapable of contradicting the actual point being made by CNET (highlighted in bold text in my last post), using third party references (he could have easily done by merely linking to, um, one of the more "trustworthy" industry tech sites than CNET), it's all he's got.

As for why JVC didn't include HD inputs (notice he completly trashes them too), of course we'll probably get some song and dance about "How they were too stupid to realize it might increase sales", "Everything they make breaks anyway, so who cares", "Their target audience would only want SD inputs, which they did include.", "The design they were stealing from didn't have HD inputs so neither did theirs"....etc. etc.

It's not worth pursuing, my friend. Frankly, I doubt I'll even bother to read any more of his rants "explaining how things are" either, so if he asks any questions of me, don't be surprised if they go unanswered.

You didn't like it when you thought I was putting (intelligent) words in your mouth, but its OK to put words in mine? If you're going to harp on linked sources for everything, at least quote me directly. I never suggested JVC was too stupid to include analog component inputs, or that their target market wanted only SD inputs, so lets drop that nonsense. As I noted to kjbawc, the JVC was pitched specifically as a HiDef camcorder accessory, it was based off the standard global BD/HDD platform which never incorporated component analog inputs, and its intended demographic was JVC HD camcorder owners who used FireWire connections. Pro and semi-pro environments are not using analog component recorder connections anymore, they've gone digital because everything video has long since migrated to laptops in the field and rack PCs in the studio.

Regarding my "failure to post supporting links," we are not in a courtroom here. It is a forum for opinions, and if we're lucky helpful advice for connecting, using, and repairing our gear. This particular question of "why no BD recorders in USA/Canada" is not some arcane technical task that requires "documentation" to ensure someone does not erase their project: the answer is a summary of industry trends that occurred over several years at a different pace in North America than it did elsewhere. My sources for this info were dealer friends, trade journals like T.W.I.C.E., Video Business, their affiliated websites, and user forums around the world. I did not bookmark every single reference to what was going on with recorder mfrs over the course of the last eight years: you want to comb thru the old coverage, you'll find them. Posting direct links to some of these sources can also be difficult as they are industry subscription sites not keen on being accessed by non-subscribers. BS, yes, but they can get pretty nasty about it.

The bulk of my opinions come from personal experience, just like everyone else here. Some of us, like Super Eye and myself, have traced an odd career path that includes years of exposure to the video retail and video production fields. This gives us a different perspective that others understandably won't have. It doesn't make us any more "right" than any other member here, it just means we've seen and heard things that some of you haven't and that can make our opinions seem strange compared to the AVS consensus. Speaking only for myself, I have no agenda of insisting anyone take my word as gospel: just that they add my perspective to all the others expressed as they consider certain topics. Mfr statements and "documentation" are often self-serving if not outright inaccurate, esp the English translations: some members post quotes from these materials in the belief they will completely contradict the direct experience of other members. But it doesn't quite work that way: just because we have an internet that makes pulling up "quotes" and "documentation" relatively easy doesn't make those sources any more accurate or applicable.

The level of brand loyalty expressed on forums like this verges on religious fervor, which tends to make any positive remark into an unquestioned eternal absolute and any negative statement land like an incendiary bomb. I find this particularly annoying with JVC products, and I take an unpopular stand on these in the hope that some potential JVC owners will investigate the products beyond the surface and not just blindly buy into forum hype. When they are in perfect working condition, yes: many JVC video products offer unique features and performance. But they tend toward breakdown, esp second-hand, and those breakdowns tend to be more difficult than average to get repaired properly.

This is based not only on my personal home experience, but what I've seen in studios and postproduction environments over the past 30 years. It is also based on nearly twenty years taking all manner of electronics over my store counter for repair, and resulting feedback from the dozens of repair technicians I've worked with. As long as you're aware of the glitches, JVC makes some nifty video gear- just don't assume they'll be rock-solid just because they're expensive or "pro-line" models (or because experts on forums relentlessly promote a single unique JVC input filter while ignoring every other operating aspect of the units). None of us knows everything, and no brand is 100% perfect (I love my Pioneer recorders to pieces, but I'm the first to say Pioneer had its fair share of lemon models and faulty parts). You'll never see me post a "rah rah only a Pioneer recorder is acceptable" manifesto, but there are many such polemics posted by JVC (and Magnavox) fans. Counterpoint to balance these should be welcomed as part of a larger overview, not chased off AVS because the fans don't like it.
CitiBear is offline  
post #576 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 142
"With the exception of Existing Models, any Licensed Player manufactured after December 31, 2010 shall limit analog video outputs for Decrypted AACS Content to SD Interlace Modes [composite video, s-video, 480i component video and 576i video] only"

Source: 2010: The year AACS and HDMI Killed Off Component Video

Anyone who thinks the AACS has a vested interest in completely eliminating HD analog outputs, only, due to the Hollywood un-friendly "analog hole" it provides, but they have no problem with manufacturers (potentially) providing HD analog inputs on any (potential) US consumer blu-ray recorders (such that consumers could then easily record from older blu-ray decks with still functioning HD analog outputs, using intermediate Macrovision/CGMS-A/etc. stripper boxes), I think is quite naive.

Here's author Clint DeBoer's bio, for anyone who's modis operandis is to trash third party info brought to this thread that conflicts with their world view, and wishing to launch a childish ad hominem attack against him, also, as a "worthless tool" or "not really a trustworthy tech source" [the later one I'm paraphrasing], instead of addressing the actual AACS licensing provision statement and its underlining motive, using substatiating links to back their claims:
http://www.audioholics.com/author/clint

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is online now  
post #577 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

There is however a possible marketing reason. If they had made the machine capable of doing so it would potentially confuse some owners why such discs were incapable of playing back on any DVD players.

In the context of my post to which you are responding, that does not make sense to me. Burning SD content to a BluRay disk results in a BluRay disk. People see a BluRay disk and know it needs to be put in a BD player. I don't see any confusion there.

Although it is not the point being discussed, I can see where burning HD content in AVCHD format onto a DVD-R/DL can indeed result in confusion. An AVCHD disk requires a BD player. That might confuse someone who sees a DVD-R and thinks DVD player.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #578 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

In the context of my post to which you are responding, that does not make sense to me. .

Some people,[especially, as just one example, wedding videographers who spend $2K to buy a BD recorder with no added functionality over a fully accessorized computer with software that can edit and burn HD onto BD, perhaps costng less than half the price and being more capable], may naively think standard definition material burned on optical discs can be played on DVD players, whereas in this case it can't.

I never said it would be a problem for smart people, but I don't think they're the ones buying that deck.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is online now  
post #579 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 02:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye View Post

Electronic companies are forced to abide by certain rules.

Example 1
VCRs required to have an AGC circuit that will not allow recording of copy-protected material.

Example 2 (although a little looser than my above example
Most DVD players abiding by A) region coding and B) Copy protection flags.

As to my JVC blu-ray example lacking the proper I/O interface. I highly suspect that in order to equip it with HD-SDI
A) You need to pay some kind of emnormous fees
B) You need to meet the strick requirements to include such interface.

By the way Michael I was born in 1961 and every year I see stricter and stricter rules for manufacturers have to abide by A) I/O rules and B) copy protection rules. Take HDMI – full of crappy restrictions for example. How much cheaper and easier and more compatible without idiotic crippling handshakes it would be to use HD-SDI instead of HDMI for consumer use. Remember DVI? Why you think it was replaced by HDMI for consumer TV and BD use. How about new BD decks crippling the analog outs in the near future – no Michael I wasn’t born yesterday…

Example 1 - I am no television engineer, but I understand that all classic TV tuners require Automatic Gain Circuits, including, VCR's so no conspiracy there.

Example 2 - DVD Region flags are contractually required by the patent holders who license their DVD technology.

As to your other example: copy protection schemes - it can be argued that they do not inhibit the true pirate while annoying the common consumer. That, however, is the decision of the copyright holder.

Are you arguing for a machine that is completely outfitted for piracy?

I know that many people do not understand intellectual property and do not believe that it should be afforded the same protections as physical property. However, that belief is not the current state of the law.

So if that is the "conspiracy" that is being suggested here: YES, there is a conspiracy among both content providers and electronic manufacturers to stop copyright piracy. The content providers to protect their flow of income and the electronic manufacturers to not be held liable for litigation for copyright infringement.
MichaelLAX is offline  
post #580 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 03:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
Super Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
You need to look up how macrovision will not be a problem with the AGC circuitry built into televisions yet the AGC circuitry built into VCRs will prevent macrovision tapes from being copied. In fact my consumer JVC VCRs are designed in such a way that you can daisy chain a deck passing a macrovision signal into another deck without a problem but as soon as you hit record the macrovision will throw off the AGC and prevent from copying. DVD recorders receiving a signal with macrovision via their analog inputs will read it as a flag that tells the recorder not to record.

As someone whom on many occasions worked directly for the content producers and content providers I have no problem with protecting intellectual property in the above manner. I do have a problem when that protection will interfere with legitimate copying as is the case with many people trying to copy their own home videos but distortion of home cameras may fool the VCR's AGC into thinking the distortion is macrovision. You really need to look up these common knowledge things and get informed about it before jumping into a debate.

I also have a problem with the higher-up crybabies trying to prevent me from recording television shows to a recorder of my choice. Recording none premium TV is obviously not a crime as over half of all North American households have a cable co. PVR in their home. Archiving these shows is not a crime and you yourself do it Michael, using your Hauppauge 12 12. Restricting HD in/outputs of third party recorders is done for one reason only. To prevent the consumer of easily using a third party recorder.
Super Eye is offline  
post #581 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 04:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye View Post

You need to look up how macrovision will not be a problem with the AGC circuitry built into televisions yet the AGC circuitry built into VCRs will prevent macrovision tapes from being copied. In fact my consumer JVC VCRs are designed in such a way that you can daisy chain a deck passing a macrovision signal into another deck without a problem but as soon as you hit record the macrovision will throw off the AGC and prevent from copying. DVD recorders receiving a signal with macrovision via their analog inputs will read it as a flag that tells the recorder not to record.

As someone whom on many occasions worked directly for the content producers and content providers I have no problem with protecting intellectual property in the above manner. I do have a problem when that protection will interfere with legitimate copying as is the case with many people trying to copy their own home videos but distortion of home cameras may fool the VCR's AGC into thinking the distortion is macrovision. You really need to look up these common knowledge things and get informed about it before jumping into a debate.

I also have a problem with the higher-up crybabies trying to prevent me from recording television shows to a recorder of my choice. Recording none premium TV is obviously not a crime as over half of all North American households have a cable co. PVR in their home. Archiving these shows is not a crime and you yourself do it Michael, using your Hauppauge 12 12. Restricting HD in/outputs of third party recorders is done for one reason only. To prevent the consumer of “easily” using a third party recorder.

Thanks for the pre-debate research advice; but are we really still confronting complaints about Macrovision in VCR's in 2012??!!??

While not a crime, copying premium TV in my opinion IS a copyright violation.

The SONY BetaMax decision was based solely on the concept of time-shifting over the air, free television programing. It specifically did not decide the issues inherent in copying from other sources or archiving. The rather close decision by the Supreme Court also did not want to call millions of otherwise lawful citizens copyright criminals, but today it is doubtful that the Court would resolve that issue the same way.

Most TV homes in this country do not receive it OTA anymore; they get it from cable, satellite, telco sources, which since 1992 is now required to pay for this programming and passes those costs to the viewing consumer (an issue never considered in Betamax).

Another example, pre-recorded content was in its infancy at the time of that decision; so the complex legal review of the issue of "fair-use" as a defense did not have to face the fact that today "use" is eating into millions of dollars of aftermarket sales of discs, and streaming sources, whether pay per view, or all you can eat types of streaming (now worth millions to the content suppliers).

Another example, anecdotally: My niece, knowing my comedy tastes, recently suggested that i catch up on the sit-com Community. I purchased the first two years on DVD (it is currently on year 3) from Amazon. Had I known about this show 3 years ago, I would have been archiving it and would have NEVER purchased the DVD series.

On the other hand, being a fan of David E. Kelly's past drama TV series, I have been archiving the series Harry's Law since its inception last year. I have just started to watch Season 2. There is no chance that I would purchase the DVD sets now...

So, yes, even though I believe that archiving should be a violation of the US copyright laws, until Congress modifies the law, or the Supreme Court readdresses the issue (and decides otherwise), I, like the rest of you, will continue to rely on the Betamax decision in this regard. I like to watch shows in "marathon" style and archiving gives me that ability.

In case you have not noticed, not ONE commercially available and bundled cable, satellite, or telco PVR allows you to archive the content to a 3rd party device (other than real-time digitization) with ease. This factor has lead to a nervous truce between the content providers and the content distributors: the providers are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the distributors under the current business model. They are not about to bite that hand unless they get slapped hard enough to make the fight economically worth while (Don't tell me about TiVo: TiVO is marginalized and no major cable, satellite or telco offers a bundled TiVO PVR - you have to go out and buy one).

Plus now major content is date deleted automatically on many PVRs...

Now that we are moving away from the disc delivery model (and away from the First Use Doctrine), with streaming, the concept is simple: if you pay to watch it once, then you can watch it once. If you want to pay more, you can watch it more than once for a limited period of time; and if you pay even more, you can watch it an unlimited amount of times!

All of that being said, there is no "conspiracy" to keep current manufacturers from including technologically archaic "analog" component inputs from their equipment. If technology exists to steal content and it has otherwise lawful uses (and is economically feasible to market), you can be d*mn sure that the electronic companies will market it!

The future is digital and digital is here. If HDMI gives the content owner the ability to stop illegal duplication of their content, so be it. The easy days of home "piracy" are probably over!
MichaelLAX is offline  
post #582 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 9,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

While not a crime, copying premium TV in my opinion IS a copyright violation.

Copyright violation IS a crime.

I'm really not sure what this debate is about any more. Does anyone disagree that content producers have the legal right, under copyright law, to protect their works from being copied without their permission or compensation?

They put up technical fences to prevent us from violating their rights -- DRM tools to hinder copying and license terms to restrict how certain inputs can be used. What we do is figure out ways to get around those fences so we can thumb our nose at them and copy their content anyway. Somewhere along the way people got the mistaken idea that it is our right to copy their content -- probably because we used to be able to do it before they locked it down. So people bitch and moan about the greedy whoever and how DRM should be banished and we should have HD inputs, yada, yada, yada. That's like the thieves bitching on their websites about the damn homeowners who lock their doors and windows and install alarm systems to prevent them from freely robbing their homes -- well I'm guilty of that so that must make me a greedy landowner.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #583 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 05:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Copyright violation IS a crime.

US Copyright law has both civil and criminal penalties.

However, an element of that crime is mens rea; in this case knowingly violating the copyright law (not to be confused with "ignorance of the law is not an excuse").

Reasonbly acting in reliance of the US Supreme Court's decision in Betamax, would shield a home copier of premium TV from criminal conviction in this regard, until such time as Congress or the Court itself clarifies or otherwise modifies those rules.

As to your other points - Yeah: I love the one about making a copy of one's own DVD is "fair use!"
MichaelLAX is offline  
post #584 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 08:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
profhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelLAX View Post

During the network's presentation of its fall schedule to advertisers Monday at Radio City Music Hall, Harbert told advertisers that Dish's commercial zapping device is an "insult" to all the money NBC and its parent, Comcast Corp., spend on sports and entertainment programming. "Just because technology gives you the ability to do something, does that mean you should? Not always," Harbert said.

I don't know if the guys at the HTPC forum will be laughing or crying with this comment.
profhat is offline  
post #585 of 585 Old 05-15-2012, 09:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Reminds me of years ago when Jamie Kellner, then President of Turner Broadcasting, said that commercial skipping was akin to stealing television!

I guess he never heard the famous story that when Milton Berle went to commercial on the Texaco Star Theater back in the 50s (one of the most popular shows of its time), water pressure dropped dramatically in New York City (from all the flushing toilets)!
MichaelLAX is offline  
Reply DVD Recorders (Standard Def)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off