It's Back: The Broadcast Flag. - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 06:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
OK, lets all at least get on the same page so everyone has the benefit of the beginnings of a level playing field.

First, I think everyone needs to remember that there are two forms of public OTA broadcasting. One is Non-Commercial/Educational (PBS and some religious, not all). The other is Commercial (everything else).

Non-Commercial/Educational is for non-profit broadcasting by educational institutions and a limited defined others. Commercial is for profit broadcasting, period.

The "public airwaves" that everyone loves to behove really isn't as public as many would like to believe. In a commercial station, the purpose is to make money by what ever legal means including subscription pay TV, analog or digital, leasing air time or spectrum or selling advertising. As long as a station shows it has served the public with PSAs, or news stories that directly affect the community (like election coverage, weather coverage beyond a regular newscast, etc) or provide programming that addresses issues of concern to the community (specials on community problems like drug abuse or child abuse) and document the required Children's Education commitment, you have fulfilled the "public airwaves" part of the FCC rules. That isn't new. That has been in the rules since commercial broadcasting started 80 years ago. What you do with the rest of the time/spectrum other than the required legal ID's at the top of the hour, not showing breasts or saying the F-word, is left up to the owner of the station to make money as they see fit. If they don't make money, they either sell out to someone else or go dark. The FCC has no problem with that. It is free market. From the FCC's webpage of its mission: the FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. No where does that say they are here to protect the public or business interests. Just to regulate communications in the US. Certainly one of the things they have to do is protect the public's interest, this is a free society, but it also has a responsiblity to help business grew the US economy. ("Hi! I am from the government and I am here to help!") Talk about a tight wire act. You can theorize about the "public airwaves" all you want, but beyond what I have outlined above, that is as far as it legally goes in the commercial broadcasting world; radio and TV.

Now enter anti-piracy schemes. Because commercial broadcast is in business to make money by providing programming for you to watch and for advertisers to buy to reach "you the viewer," they have a right to protect their programming from piracy. Many on here think that ant-piracy means "you the viewer" has no rights. That simply isn't true. "You the viewer" do have rights, but so do the program providers who sell their programs to networks and stations. Some here refuse to accept the second part of that sentence, however, as somehow un-American or anti-free market or criminal, or who knows what else.

The fact that the broadcast flags only purpose is to stop Internet piracy is a fact that many times gets lost in the anti-broadcast flag spin. The problem is how does the broadcast flag differentiate you wanting to move a recorded program from your TiVo to your server for your own private use (which Hollywood has admitted IS your right) or taking that program and sharing it on the Internet (which is clearly NOT your right) in lew of copyright violation.

At this point, there is no way to tell other than to put a tiered system of always copy, copy once, or never copy tags, originated by the content owner, on the broadcast signal. That is a huge flaw in the system. But instead of belly aching about how this is wrong, getting on soapboxes about rights or lack there of, spreading half truths and in some cases Urban Legend, I do not hear anyone making suggestions on how to make this work so that content providers are protected and your rights as a viewer are protected as well. (I don't know, I am not that smart. If I were, I would have by now bought an island in the Caribbean Sea!) It has turned into an all or nothing on both sides.

The way I see this is that most people are not well versed on this topic. They get bits and pieces from here and there (some places VERY suspectable) and regurgitate it as gospel. (I mean it MUST be right. I read it on the Internet!)

Now I have no idea what connection Kei Clark has other than an interested viewer. Her sig gives the impression she is somehow connected to a group or magazine that champions digital rights. Great! I have no problem with that. If she is a writer for a magazine, then she is a part of the hypocrisy she is railing against. But that isn't bad either. We need more dissent, but we need more INFORMED dissent. If she is a writer, then she has a bully pulpit that she can help educate her readers on this truly thorny issue. (if you are not, have you ever considered being a writer?)

I am in no way a fan of the DMCA, IMO, one of the worst digital laws ever written, but after researching the broadcast flag, I really can't find anything that brings the kind of wrath that it gets. As I have said, it isn't the perfect law, but it isn't on the same level of the DMCA either. Now, on the left of this issue, EFF is WAY out there. No basis in reality I can find. On the right of this issue, some Hollywood types ARE trying to stiff the public, but you can't tar and feather everyone in that group the same because many are just trying to get a fair shake and they see the broadcast flag as a way to do that. Until something better comes along, they will push very hard for it since they are talking about their livelihood with this and that is where it comes from. The fact that the committee that developed the broadcast flag was fractured itself on how to proceed tells an interesting story.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 06:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by donotremove
says the industry shill.
If that is the best you can do, please, don't waste YOUR time.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #183 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 06:28 PM
Senior Member
 
donotremove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The best I can do? lol, we've already destroyed your arguments, and your lame attempts to call us commies and liars. I was responding to you calling someone else names again, since you couldn't combat him on the merits of your rhetorical skills.
donotremove is offline  
post #184 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 06:38 PM
Senior Member
 
donotremove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Electronic Frontier Foundation are among our most important advocates for the preservation of YOUR rights as a consumer in the digital age. Don't believe the hype about them being a loony far left organization. That's just the talk of those trying to marginalize their efforts. Read their website yourself at www.eff.org. They are the ones who helped defeat the Broadcast Flag the first and second time around. Without them, it probably would've already been passed.
donotremove is offline  
post #185 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 08:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
George Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Westchester, NY
Posts: 1,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Foxeng,
I think that is a fair assessment of the situation. Not perfect, but is necessary. Far too much emotional, clueless sentiment expressed in this thread.

Views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer or its parent company.
George Thompson is offline  
post #186 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 10:43 PM
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv_moron
The simple truth is broadcasters have already lost. They put out crap programming and cable kicked their butts. Instead of making any attempt to improve the content and service they provide they would rather legislate. Don't actually compete. Just cry like a bunch of stuck pigs about how they _deserve_ to be given their corporate handouts. Ugghhhh.

It is almost too funny to watch.
You're right ---it's too funny to see the idiotic statements here. A Cable has yet to beat a big 6 OTA Network Broadcaster in ratings.

If you are speaking of the decline in OTA ratings, guess what....everything is down. Newspaper. Magazines....yes even Playboy. Even AT&T doesn't have the share it did years ago.

Welcome to the new century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv_moron
On the other topic, I'm with Optiva. I bought a component only HDTV because I was promised that when the "standards" for HDTV were finally hammered out my HDTV would be "compatable." It was actually used as a KEY selling point. An ADVANTAGE as to why the tuners were not built in! That's a nice lie to drop on someone when they fork up >$5000. I will never buy anything HDTV again. F*** 'em. If it don't work with my outdated ancient component input only HDTV then they don't get any money from me. It really is quite simple (as simple as the death of divx). I'll get some real HDTV by going outside and looking at it with my own eyes.
I hope you got that promise in writing, lol.

As foxeng says, your screen name says it all.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #187 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 10:48 PM
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Woe is me. I purchased a Black and White TV in 1963 and it won't even pick up this UHF thing. I was promised it would pick up all TV and it only has 2-13.

I'm going to sue someone!!!!!!!

And I can't plug in this YPbPr output from my DVHS or forthcoming Blu-Ray!!!

I'm never going to buy another TV again!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Thompson
Far too much emotional, clueless sentiment expressed in this thread.
Amen!
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #188 of 302 Old 10-13-2005, 11:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
Non-Commercial/Educational is for non-profit broadcasting by educational institutions and a limited defined others. Commercial is for profit broadcasting, period.
By the FCC’s own definition, here’s the only difference between non-commercial/educational vs. commercial broadcasting:

Commercial and Noncommercial-Educational Stations. We license radio and TV stations to be either commercial or noncommercial-educational. Commercial stations generally support themselves by advertising. In contrast, noncommercial-educational stations (including public stations) generally support themselves by contributions from listeners and viewers, and they may also receive government funding. Noncommercial-educational stations may also receive contributions from for-profit entities, and they may acknowledge such contributions or underwriting donations with announcements naming and generally describing the entity. However, noncommercial-educational stations may not broadcast promotional announcements or commercials on behalf of for-profit entities.

Quote:
The "public airwaves" that everyone loves to behove really isn't as public as many would like to believe.
Really? Senator McCain disagrees:

The lesson we should have learned from the failure of the 1996 Telecom Act is that the interests of major telecommunications companies and average American consumers are not the same. Where the interests of the industries and the interests of the consumers diverge, Congress must assure that the consumers come first.

Quote:
In a commercial station, the purpose is to make money by what ever legal means including subscription pay TV, analog or digital, leasing air time or spectrum or selling advertising. As long as a station shows it has served the public with PSAs, or news stories that directly affect the community (like election coverage, weather coverage beyond a regular newscast, etc) or provide programming that addresses issues of concern to the community (specials on community problems like drug abuse or child abuse) and document the required Children's Education commitment, you have fulfilled the "public airwaves" part of the FCC rules.
Can’t do that if your public can’t receive and watch your station due to encryption.

Quote:
That has been in the rules since commercial broadcasting started 80 years ago. What you do with the rest of the time/spectrum other than the required legal ID's at the top of the hour, not showing breasts or saying the F-word, is left up to the owner of the station to make money as they see fit. If they don't make money, they either sell out to someone else or go dark. The FCC has no problem with that. It is free market. From the FCC's webpage of its mission: the FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. No where does that say they are here to protect the public or business interests.
Ummm, actually it does say that the act protects the public in the form of the doctrine “Public interest, convenience, and necessityâ€, and the general outline is summed up in the following:

The obligation to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity" is demonstrated through myriad broadcast policies. Licensing requirements, the equal-time and candidate access rules, the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Broadcasting and Cable Acts are just some examples of regulations which were implemented to safeguard the public from the possible selfish motives of broadcasters.
History has proven that interpretation of the "public interest, convenience and necessity" is subject to prevailing political forces. The development of new technologies continues to test the trusteeship model of broadcasting and what the public interest epitomizes. Despite it's ambiguity, this phrase remains the regulatory cornerstone of telecommunications policy in the United States.


Also, the one thing FCC states they can’t do, which they tried and got trounced in the courts, courtesy of the FCC website:

We cannot regulate the production, distribution and rating of motion pictures; the publishing of newspapers, books, or other printed material; or the manufacture and distribution of audio and video recordings. We do not administer copyright laws.

Quote:
Certainly one of the things they have to do is protect the public's interest, this is a free society, but it also has a responsiblity to help business grew the US economy. ("Hi! I am from the government and I am here to help!") Talk about a tight wire act. You can theorize about the "public airwaves" all you want, but beyond what I have outlined above, that is as far as it legally goes in the commercial broadcasting world; radio and TV.
I’m sure that is what the industry likes to believe, but ensuring your success is not one of their mandates. If you fail, they will offer to license another in your stead.

Quote:
Now enter anti-piracy schemes. Because commercial broadcast is in business to make money by providing programming for you to watch and for advertisers to buy to reach "you the viewer," they have a right to protect their programming from piracy……clip.
Clipped mostly for irrelevance.

Quote:
Now I have no idea what connection Kei Clark has other than an interested viewer. Her sig gives the impression she is somehow connected to a group or magazine that champions digital rights. Great! I have no problem with that. If she is a writer for a magazine, then she is a part of the hypocrisy she is railing against. But that isn't bad either. We need more dissent, but we need more INFORMED dissent. If she is a writer, then she has a bully pulpit that she can help educate her readers on this truly thorny issue. (if you are not, have you ever considered being a writer?)
You and other posters that use pretty much the same sig (Views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer……) can insult me all you want, but it gives me immense pleasure in knowing that I must really be antagonizing you guys to have to resort to the cheap “clueless†shots.

But since you show some interest, good to know that I’m no hypocrite as I don’t write for a magazine.

Quote:
I am in no way a fan of the DMCA, IMO, one of the worst digital laws ever written, but after researching the broadcast flag, I really can't find anything that brings the kind of wrath that it gets. As I have said, it isn't the perfect law, but it isn't on the same level of the DMCA either. Now, on the left of this issue, EFF is WAY out there. No basis in reality I can find. On the right of this issue, some Hollywood types ARE trying to stiff the public, but you can't tar and feather everyone in that group the same because many are just trying to get a fair shake and they see the broadcast flag as a way to do that. Until something better comes along, they will push very hard for it since they are talking about their livelihood with this and that is where it comes from. The fact that the committee that developed the broadcast flag was fractured itself on how to proceed tells an interesting story.
DMCA has nothing to do with any of this, unless someone wants to crack the encryption.

And no doubt you would not agree with EFF if you feel they somehow threaten your livelihood. But they are simply an organization with resources to fight corporate interest for a public that does not own lawyers and lobbyist to twist public policy. But I’m sure none of that is of interest to you.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #189 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 03:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
Can’t do that if your public can’t receive and watch your station due to encryption.
Why would public service programming be encrypted? As long as that programming is in the clear, the public airwaves argument seems weak.

The irony is that if PVR usage is restricted by use of the flag, internet file distribution of shows could actually increase. The networks want to sell replays, but it remains to see if anyone wants to pay $2 per show.
TVOD is offline  
post #190 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 03:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdtv_moron
The simple truth is broadcasters have already lost. They put out crap programming and cable kicked their butts.
The simple truth is that many if not most of the cable channels are owned by the same companies that own networks and TV stations.
TVOD is offline  
post #191 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 04:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by donotremove
The Electronic Frontier Foundation are among our most important advocates for the preservation of YOUR rights as a consumer in the digital age.
WOW! What flavor of Kool Aid is that?

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #192 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 04:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
foxeng's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where ever I am is where I am.
Posts: 14,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
By the FCC’s own definition, here’s the only difference between non-commercial/educational vs. commercial broadcasting:

Commercial and Noncommercial-Educational Stations. We license radio and TV stations to be either commercial or noncommercial-educational. Commercial stations generally support themselves by advertising. In contrast, noncommercial-educational stations (including public stations) generally support themselves by contributions from listeners and viewers, and they may also receive government funding. Noncommercial-educational stations may also receive contributions from for-profit entities, and they may acknowledge such contributions or underwriting donations with announcements naming and generally describing the entity. However, noncommercial-educational stations may not broadcast promotional announcements or commercials on behalf of for-profit entities.
Thought that is what I basically said? So we DO agree.

Quote:
Really? Senator McCain disagrees.
Senator McCain has the right to say or believe anything he wants. I stated from Title 47 CFR 73, the FCC's own Broadcasting Rules. Title 47 CFR 73 IS the law for broadcasters, Senator McCain bedamned.

Quote:
Can’t do that if your public can’t receive and watch your station due to encryption.
As Ronald Reagan used to say, "there you go again" assuming that EVER station WANTS to be seen by as many people as possible. That ISN'T always true. Some stations, particularly in the late 70's, could only make a go of it by providing subscription service TV. This was a precursor of cable pay TV. You bought a subscription to the station and they provided programming to you. Some did better than others, but after the big cable penetration of the early 80's most if not all of those stations either went dark, were sold and/or stopped the subscription service. But the rules still permit it and you will see some of that in digital TV. USDTV being the first "form" of that. So the myth that EVER station wants the biggest audience share only works when that means they can get the most money, something that is becoming harder and harder to do these days. Money talks in commercial TV.

Quote:
Ummm, actually it does say that the act protects the public in the form of the doctrine “Public interest, convenience, and necessityâ€, and the general outline is summed up in the following:

The obligation to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity" is demonstrated through myriad broadcast policies. Licensing requirements, the equal-time and candidate access rules, the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Broadcasting and Cable Acts are just some examples of regulations which were implemented to safeguard the public from the possible selfish motives of broadcasters.
History has proven that interpretation of the "public interest, convenience and necessity" is subject to prevailing political forces. The development of new technologies continues to test the trusteeship model of broadcasting and what the public interest epitomizes. Despite it's ambiguity, this phrase remains the regulatory cornerstone of telecommunications policy in the United States.
Every example I cited fall under those categories. Nothing new there.

Quote:
Also, the one thing FCC states they can’t do, which they tried and got trounced in the courts, courtesy of the FCC website:

We cannot regulate the production, distribution and rating of motion pictures; the publishing of newspapers, books, or other printed material; or the manufacture and distribution of audio and video recordings. We do not administer copyright laws.
Yes, but the court DID NOT say Congress COULD NOT do it since one of the things Congress does is set national business regulations.

Quote:
I’m sure that is what the industry likes to believe, but ensuring your success is not one of their mandates. If you fail, they will offer to license another in your stead.
No one guarantees you anything. The government is here to be sure things remain somewhat organized and everyone has a fair chance at success. No one is asking for an advantage that I can see in the broadcast flag. They want a chance to succeed, just like any other business in the US and not be ripped off in the process.

Quote:
Clipped mostly for irrelevance.
Irrelevance? Is the truth irrelevant now? You seem to think so.

Quote:
You and other posters that use pretty much the same sig (Views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer……) can insult me all you want, but it gives me immense pleasure in knowing that I must really be antagonizing you guys to have to resort to the cheap “clueless†shots.
The ONLY reason I responded to your posts were because you seemed to have a level head on your shoulders, something that was missing with some of my testosterone colleagues. With that statement I am now beginning to wonder if that was a good evaluation. I did not insult you, I actually was complimenting you, but you just insulted me. So when you ran out of rebutal points, you went to the insults. Typical tactic of the extreme left/right. I make my points facts. You make your points from opinion, gosip and hearsay and when that doesn't work, insults.

The reason I have the disclaimer is because I DO work in the media and I want it to be clear that I am speaking as a fellow viewer and in no way am I speaking for my employer so I can be honest in my comments. So if I say something that is contrary to my employers viewers, you know that. It is just good "business." Are you hiding something?

Quote:
And no doubt you would not agree with EFF if you feel they somehow threaten your livelihood. But they are simply an organization with resources to fight corporate interest for a public that does not own lawyers and lobbyist to twist public policy. But I’m sure none of that is of interest to you.
EFF hasn't and doesn't threaten my livelihood at all. And I still think they are wackos. They don't need my help to spread that around, they do a good job by themselves. Now if you think differently, then by all means go ahead, but I don't drink their Kool Aid and I don't think I need to be insulted for not drinking it either.

We are done.

All opinions expressed (unless otherwise noted) are the posters and NOT the posters employers. The poster in NO WAY is/will speak for his employers.
foxeng is online now  
post #193 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 06:14 AM
 
optivity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
The fact that the broadcast flags only purpose is to stop Internet piracy is a fact that many times gets lost in the anti-broadcast flag spin. The problem is how does the broadcast flag differentiate you wanting to move a recorded program from your TiVo to your server for your own private use (which Hollywood has admitted IS your right) or taking that program and sharing it on the Internet (which is clearly NOT your right) in lew of copyright violation.

At this point, there is no way to tell other than to put a tiered system of always copy, copy once, or never copy tags, originated by the content owner, on the broadcast signal. That is a huge flaw in the system. But instead of belly aching about how this is wrong, getting on soapboxes about rights or lack there of, spreading half truths and in some cases Urban Legend, I do not hear anyone making suggestions on how to make this work so that content providers are protected and your rights as a viewer are protected as well.
Software coding has created this problem and can be modified to resolve it. These corporations are not stupid and their design is by intent, not something that just happened to work out that way in the real world. A firmware update to an SA PowerKEY CableCARD and my Panasonic TV is all it takes. No amount of "lip service" being paid by you, content or cable providers changes the fact they intentionally disable the digital interface(s) of our DCR TVs/DVRs to manipulate people into using their STBs and lock them into their service. This is not an "urban myth." It's a fact I experience every time I select a channel where these policies are enforced. I pay for this content and I expect to have the right to enjoy it the way I wish in the privacy of my home. It is an "insult" to treat individuals, who play by the rules, like criminals. People will not continue to pay a lot for that privilege.
optivity is offline  
post #194 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:16 AM
Senior Member
 
donotremove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I find it so amusing that the side that's had to resort to pulling the commie-card, AND throw out red herrings and childish insults, would accuse those of us in support of consumer rights of being overly emotional! LOL! What are you guys so afraid of? Why are you so emotional?
donotremove is offline  
post #195 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:20 AM
Senior Member
 
donotremove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by optivity
It is an "insult" to treat individuals, who play by the rules, like criminals. People will not continue to pay a lot for that privilege.
Exactly! The sad thing is, when people eventually decide NOT to pay alot for that privilege, hollywood's gonna blame their losses on "piracy" and try to clamp down even more. :rolleyes:
donotremove is offline  
post #196 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:39 AM
 
optivity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,907
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Eh, we'll have to start reading more books... or heaven forbid... talk more with our spouse! :eek:

So much for the guy who spends $15,000 on a digital cable ready LG-60PY2DR plasma TV and believing he can record HD to the internal DVR. The broadcast flag/copy protection "joke" is on him... not that he's laughing.
optivity is offline  
post #197 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 382 Post(s)
Liked: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxeng
At this point, there is no way to tell other than to put a tiered system of always copy, copy once, or never copy tags, originated by the content owner, on the broadcast signal. That is a huge flaw in the system.
There is a bigger flaw, and that is that this tiered system simply does not work as designed.

I live in Charlotte, a major metropolitan area and somewhat of an HDTV hot-spot, in that we've had all 7 of our broadcast stations transmitting a digital signal for several years now. I switched to TWC in order to be able to tape-record HD content to my D-VHS deck via firewire. A year and a half later, they still do not have "copy freely" or "copy once" content working the way it's supposed to. I can only record about half of content flagged "copy freely" (what's the point in that designation, anyway?), and "copy once" is dicey (currently HDNet and HDNet Movies are unavailable to me via firewire - kind of ironic considering Mark Cuban's well-publicized feelings about HDCP).

So, I ask this relevant question: What good is this system if it's so hopelessly flawed from a technological sense to begin with?
archiguy is offline  
post #198 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD
Why would public service programming be encrypted? As long as that programming is in the clear, the public airwaves argument seems weak.

The irony is that if PVR usage is restricted by use of the flag, internet file distribution of shows could actually increase. The networks want to sell replays, but it remains to see if anyone wants to pay $2 per show.
TVOD,

How would a person with HDCP encrypted source without HDCP display know if the public service is not encrypted if they can't get a picture on their TV at all?

That is the difference between HDCP and BS Flag.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #199 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Senator McCain has the right to say or believe anything he wants. I stated from Title 47 CFR 73, the FCC's own Broadcasting Rules. Title 47 CFR 73 IS the law for broadcasters, Senator McCain bedamned.
I made a mistake of just reading the 1996 modified 1934 Commnication Act that did not specifiy anything about stations' right to encrypt, I found the document and most of Title 47 CFR73 pretty much an operational manual of rules for the users of granted airwaves to follow. I'm not sure what section you are pointing to as the document is quite lengthy, care to point to any particlar subsection that addresses the issue?

Quote:
Yes, but the court DID NOT say Congress COULD NOT do it since one of the things Congress does is set national business regulations.
Totally agree with you there, that's why we are having this discussion. And consumers are going to have to let their congresscritters know that stealth attachments to other legislation is not going to cut it, this is a public debate that needs to see the light of day.

Quote:
The ONLY reason I responded to your posts were because you seemed to have a level head on your shoulders, something that was missing with some of my testosterone colleagues. With that statement I am now beginning to wonder if that was a good evaluation. I did not insult you, I actually was complimenting you, but you just insulted me. So when you ran out of rebutal points, you went to the insults. Typical tactic of the extreme left/right. I make my points facts. You make your points from opinion, gosip and hearsay and when that doesn't work, insults.
The jab wasn't really pointed at you since the quoted comment didn't have a mention of "clueless", but I do appreciate your conversation, in fact I like your renewed vigor at contributing real info here, and dare I say that I no longer disklike you? ;)

Quote:
Irrelevance? Is the truth irrelevant now? You seem to think so.
I'm tired of the piracy comments which occur here ad nauseam. Its been rehashed so many times, and I think it takes away from the subject at hand, which is not about piracy and ownership of IP, but rather the scope of the broadcasters rights and obligations.

Quote:
EFF hasn't and doesn't threaten my livelihood at all. And I still think they are wackos. They don't need my help to spread that around, they do a good job by themselves. Now if you think differently, then by all means go ahead, but I don't drink their Kool Aid and I don't think I need to be insulted for not drinking it either.
No surprise how you would feel about the EFF, but I'm wondering why you would use a Kool-Aid reference in a non-political forum. Or is the BS Flag a metaphor for "Intelligent Design"?

Quote:
We are done.
Not the first time I've heard that from a man. :D
Kei Clark is offline  
post #200 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:13 PM
 
HDTVFanAtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Posts: 8,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gosh - maybe cable should just unencrypt everything and not charge for HBO and HDNET. Let people pay by the honor system.

Everyone is so honest, right? Spouting about how they are not criminals and it impacts their rights in one post and then showing their knowledge of **********s in the next, lol.

Not the first time "I'm not a crook" has been said by someone breaking the law either.
HDTVFanAtic is offline  
post #201 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
RSF_LA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
TVOD,

How would a person with HDCP encrypted source without HDCP display know if the public service is not encrypted if they can't get a picture on their TV at all?

That is the difference between HDCP and BS Flag.
I thought the broadcast flag was a copy protection method, while HDCP was a secure distribution link. If the broadcast flag is set for "copy freely" or if there is no flag at all, couldn't a HD tuner card be allowed to output to a HDMI, DVI or 1394 output, or create unencrypted files on a hard drive? Can't the HDCP transmit side be controlled by the broadcast flag as to not require handshaking and pass the digital signal?

I can see that any tuner card would require a HDCP controlled output for secured material and thus require an expensive license. But I also assume that tuner cards also require licenses for such technologies as AC3. It sounds like the HDCP license fee structure is what is in question.

I also assume that hardware encryption would be required for creating files on a PC type PVR. As for compatibility with legacy displays, I'm sure there could be HDMI/DVI to analog converter with HDCP product.
RSF_LA is offline  
post #202 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
TVOD,

How would a person with HDCP encrypted source without HDCP display know if the public service is not encrypted if they can't get a picture on their TV at all?

That is the difference between HDCP and BS Flag.
I thought the broadcast flag was a copy protection method, while HDCP was a secure distribution link. If the broadcast flag is set for "copy freely" or if there is no flag at all, couldn't a HD tuner card be allowed to output to a HDMI, DVI or 1394 output, or create unencrypted files on a hard drive? Can't the HDCP transmit side be controlled by the broadcast flag as to not require handshaking and pass the digital signal?

I can see that tuner cards would require HDCP to output full resolution on secured material, and require an expensive license. But I also assume that tuner cards also require licenses for such technologies as AC3 (probably part of the cost of the hardware used). It sounds like the HDCP license fee structure is what is in question.

I also assume that hardware encryption would be required for creating files on a PC type PVR. As for compatibility with legacy displays, I'm sure there could be HDMI/DVI to analog converter with HDCP product.
TVOD is offline  
post #203 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:33 PM
Senior Member
 
donotremove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You guys should check this out, this is part of the reason bogus laws like the DMCA get passed and probably how some sneaky weasel is going to try to get the broadcast flag inacted again:

http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

That's right people, as I'm sure most of you know, Congress doesn't even read the laws it votes on! And this is how lobbyists use that information:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/20..._your_sen.html

Yep, they tried to get the bf passed the first time around by using their corrupt cronies to attach it as a rider to the end of a completely unrelated appropriations bill!

And as for the broadcast flag rider itself, who do you suppose wrote it in the first place? The bought-and-paid-for congressmen who don't even read the laws they pass...or the lobbyists themselves maybe?

I'm going to bet on the latter:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG8DF4U7K1.DTL
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/11/comm...rate_lobbying/

This is why you guys should support organizations like the EFF. They, along with other consumer rights 'wackos' like The American Library Association :p , help bring issues like the broadcast flag issue to the public light.

They've already won the first time around (http://www.librarian.net/stax/1289), and the second time around (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003730.php), so don't think this is a lost cause and don't buy the rhetoric spewed by the other side.
donotremove is offline  
post #204 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
Gosh - maybe cable should just unencrypt everything and not charge for HBO and HDNET. Let people pay by the honor system.

Everyone is so honest, right? Spouting about how they are not criminals and it impacts their rights in one post and then showing their knowledge of **********s in the next, lol.

Not the first time "I'm not a crook" has been said by someone breaking the law either.
Ummm, cable is a pay service (with some oversight where it encroaches public property and OTA broadcasts) and allowed to encrypt if they want, as long as they don't encrypt OTA. Not relevant to the BS Flag debate.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #205 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
As for compatibility with legacy displays, I'm sure there could be HDMI/DVI to analog converter with HDCP product.
Time for some homework.
Kei Clark is offline  
post #206 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
Time for some homework.
I'm not sure what that means, but from what I've seen the broadcast flag is meant to inhibit full resolution digital transmission to unsecure devices, and to limit copying (copy once). Recording flag protected files could require encryption. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that analog and lower resolution digital (720 x 480) outputs are acceptable means of passing signals without security. If a legacy device doesn't have a HDCP input, cannot an external secure device convert an HDCP output to analog or lower resolution digital for the display?
TVOD is offline  
post #207 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 03:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD
I'm not sure what that means, but from what I've seen the broadcast flag is meant to inhibit full resolution digital transmission to unsecure devices, and to limit copying (copy once). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that analog and lower resolution digital (720 x 480) outputs are acceptable means of passing signals without security. If a legacy device doesn't have a HDCP input, cannot an external secure device convert an HDCP output to analog or lower resolution digital for the display?
This is basicly correct, but not the whole story. The actual external device would have to limit resolution to 480p when the BF was set and pass the full 1080i or 720p when the BF was not set (for PBS programming for example).

However to acheive the status of a "secure device" you cannot have analog outputs capable of greater than 480p resolution - the regulations forbid such. The only permissable HD outputs are Firewire/DVI/HDMI/etc. format - digital interfaces capable of identifying the device being driven as compliant via a digital handshake.

These two rules taken togather make the external device you envisioned to drive legacy analog HD displays impossible to implement.

Thus anyone with a display that not only has a digital input of one of the recognized types but also has a model ID recognized as a "secure device" is OK. Anyone with a legacy display or a newer display with digital inputs but not on the list of "secure devices" recognized by the source component cannot get HD output from the source.

The actual implementation of the BF will certainly obsolete many legacy HD displays with no digital interfaces. Many owners of displays they believe are compliant digital displays are also likely to be rudely surprised. For example, inexpensive data grade front projectors with DVI inputs are likely to be classed as PC displays and never appear on the "secure device" list, and will never qualify for signals higher than 480p. A slightly different version of that same projector with a different model ID and sold at double/triple the price as a "home theater" component would appear on the list and would work at true HD resolutions.

Gary

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #208 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TVOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 70
I knew of the digital resolution restriction, but i wasn't sure if the analog was also restricted. I wonder if the aspect ratio is also limited - if only 4:3 is permitted.

While I acknowledge the concern of the rights holders for piracy, I've seen this technology as more intrusive than protective. I just don't know if the "public airwaves" and obsolete equipment is a strong enough argument to counter its approval. It's ironic that a conservative Congress is attempting to "protect" Hollywood interests.

The bottom line is that it likely won't do anything to slow file swapping. The broadcast industry needed a way to show they are doing something, and big industry made it into a profitable venture.

With the gradual loss of PQ from subchannels, maybe the 480 restriction will be a moot point.
TVOD is offline  
post #209 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
oxothuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy
when the BF was not set (for PBS programming for example).
Dream on. I think you'll see the BF set for most of the high-profile PBS shows also. PBS will claim it needs to protect potential DVD revenues for such shows in order to keep them on budget.

Bad as it is, I don't believe the BF itself has any requirement that analog video outputs be downrezzed.

My cable provider is Netflix
oxothuk is offline  
post #210 of 302 Old 10-14-2005, 07:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kei Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, US
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxothuk
Bad as it is, I don't believe the BF itself has any requirement that analog video outputs be downrezzed.
That would be the evil twin, HDCP.
Kei Clark is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

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