Why was the Panasonic HD D-VHS unit pulled? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 03:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Even though it incorporated an early implementation of 1394/DTCP (Matsushita was[is?] a member of 5C and makes DTCP-capable 1394 interface chips), the Panasonic PV-HD1000 and TU-DST50 were discontinued. Why?

I cannot find much information on exactly how these things work. When they were introduced, the DTCP spec was stable, but the DTLA had not hashed out the Adopter's Agreement, which defines how the received and decrypted video can be handled. I'm guessing that the TU-DST50 accepts replayed stuff over the Firewire and plays it back in full HD resolution over its HD component video outputs. If so, I can understand why that was pulled--you might as well not have communicated the video to the STB in a secure fashion if you're then just going to send it in the clear to the monitor. But why pull the VCR? Was it because, in the absence of the unsecured STB, it had nothing to send/receive copy-protected video to/from?

Since these things will still talk (presumably) to the TU-DST50, I'd expect all future copy-protected video sources to ship with these listed on their certificate revocation lists and to refuse to send them copy-protected video (if they'll talk to at all). If the entire CRL thing was set up properly when they shipped, there's a chance that only the TU-DST50 will be on the lists, and the VCRs' revocation lists can be updated to prevent them from talking to those anymore.

-- Mike Scott

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
If I read your post right, you are proposing that a pre-recorded tape could contain instructions to disable an older STB.

I don't think they have that ability in the old STB's hardware. But if they did, doing such a thing would be illegal???

Those old STB were bought on an open market free and clear. It's Ok for them not to play a new pre-recorded tape that is not compatable in terms of copy protection. But it's not Ok to send what I would interpert as a virus into my STB or DVHS to disable functions it presently has. Such as playing back archived DVHS tapes. That would be clearly desrtuction of property.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #3 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 07:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
If I read your post right, you are proposing that a pre-recorded tape could contain instructions to disable an older STB.

I don't think they have that ability in the old STB's hardware. But if they did, doing such a thing would be illegal???

Those old STB were bought on an open market free and clear. It's Ok for them not to play a new pre-recorded tape that is not compatable in terms of copy protection. But it's not Ok to send what I would interpert as a virus into my STB or DVHS to disable functions it presently has. Such as playing back archived DVHS tapes. That would be clearly desrtuction of property.
Cool down. It's unclear from the public DTCP spec exactly what limitations are put on communication with equipment with revoked certificates--it refers the reader to the closed specification (available only to hardware implementors, I'd guess) for details. It seems to me that there would be no harm in sending such devices "Copy Freely" content, which would include all rebroadcast OTA information and probably most HD cable content, excluding movie channels and pay-per-view.

This doesn't exactly constitute a "virus". Many people expect that there will simply be some sort of black-market box eventually available to spoof a valid DTCP participant and transmit copy-protected video to their equipment in full HD resolution over analog outputs. The certificate revocation list was design to prevent this. In order to get a DTCP compliant video source to transmit a copy-protected program to it, an unlicensed spoofing device must first present a set of "credentials" in the form of a signed digital certificate. Every device in a 1394/DTCP A/V network contains a Certificate Revocation List in non-volatile memory, being a set of individual certificate signatures that are known to have been compromised (and/or identifiers of whole blocks of compromised signatures). After a device has authenticated a peer with which it's interacting, it may notice that its peer's CRL is more recent than its own, in which case it will replace its own CRL with that devices (or as much of it as its available NVRAM can hold). Devices that interact with outside sources, like cable and DBS STBs and DVD and tape players, may get fresher CRLs from those sources. A cable headend might download new CRLs with programming, the cable STB would store the new CRL and announce its CRL version in every AKE (authentication and key exchange) transaction that it performs with any of its peers and its peers would assess their CRLs and update them accordingly. DTCP compliant HD DVD and D-VHS players might pick up a fresher CRL when playing a recent prerecorded release.

Now, the problem is that, if your TU-DST50 outputs full resolution HD of copy-protected material through its analog outputs, it constitutes a hole in this security scheme. How they will plug that hole up, I'm uncertain, but if the recorder properly implements CRLs, the answer is simple--just update the CRL through DBS transmissions, and don't let the recorder send any copy-protected recordings back to the STB for display. Now, I don't think anything has been transmitted with copy-protection on it (on purpose, at least), so you shouldn't have any existing copy-protected recordings. If they've taken the tact that I'd take toward non-copy-protected content--what-the-hell: send it to any device, revoked or not--then your existing library should continue to play fine through your existing set-up, and you should be able to make and play recordings of non-copy-protected content in the future. But it's impossible to know how they've chosen to play this until they "turn the copy-protection switch on", if they ever do, since they've chosen to keep those details of DTCP private.

-- Mike Scott


[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-27-2001).]

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #4 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 10:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
To answer the topic question, according to involved sources that wish to remain anonymous, it was due to pressure from the MPAA. I think it's useless to speculate as to the details why this was deemed necessary. The bottom line was that fear motivated the action.

How things proceed from here is not yet determined.

------------------
"Better living thru modern, expensive electronics devices"
tm

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #5 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 11:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chris Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The information I received at CES from a Panasonic rep was this: The MPAA informed Panasonic that their member companies would not purchase any Panasonic Broadcast equipment unless this item was pulled. Which sounds like coercion to me, and something very close to racketeering.
Chris Williams is offline  
post #6 of 17 Old 09-27-2001, 11:41 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Chris Williams got the same story I did at NAB in 2000. At that time I was shown the actual letter. The wording was not like Chris described but the meaning was the same. It was more like: We would like Panasonic to continue to receive the support from our studios purchasing but need your cooperation etc. etc. It was not the TUDST 50/51 that was mentioned but the PVHD1000 DVHS VCR. IT should ne noted that the VCR does contain 5C circuitry but the early 50's tuner did not. It requires 5C to be implemented at both ends of the 1394 cable to be effective. Panasionic does not know how the system will react to 5C protection without full implementation. The best techs and engineers on the subject don't agree. The opposing arguments are that it is inert to 5C to it will be blacked out, even for copy once flag. Because Panasonic could not answer this without actual testing, which they didn't do, they had no counter for the MPAA request and given the very small market for the PVHD1000, simply discontinued it but did sell off all existing inventory.

The story continues... At NAB this past year I was at the JVC booth receiving a demo of both the WVHS and the HMHD30000 DVHS announced for US market in October release. Standing beside me was a gentleman from Panasonic who was the market research specialist for their DVHS HD recorders. He told me that they will introduce a new version of the PVHD1000 if the JVC proves successful in the USA. He said they were prepared to announce within 30 days after the JVC is released. I asked what would be different from the HD1000. He said it would be more like the JVC with 1394 and component outputs. It would have a OTA tuner built in but would need 1394 for the DBS connection. Thus, we would be back to the "panny" combo system again for HDTV off of Dish Network.
Now you are probably asking at this point, why not put an RGBHV or Component input? The easy answer to this is that the circuitry for mpeg real time encoding as well as audio AC-3 integration to the MPEG 2 stream for DVHS would be very costly in one box. The lowest cost MPEG realtime encoders are now being released in the DVD-R recorders and these add $2000 retail to the price of the DVD-R recorder. Maybe in a year it will all be possible for affordable pricing but for now the best we have is the Panny combo of 2000 that works. The current direction the industry and the consumer is heading is that I predict we will have both HDTV time shift digital recorders (like TIVO) and DVHS VCR's for HDTV that will work via copy protected 1394. 1394 is rapidly becoming a universal method of handling digital video among both professionals and consumers.

------------------
Don Landis
Home Theater Pics at: www.scubatech.com Last updated 3/25/01


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #7 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott:
Now, the problem is that, if your TU-DST50 outputs full resolution HD of copy-protected material through its analog outputs, it constitutes a hole in this security scheme. How they will plug that hole up, I'm uncertain, but if the recorder properly implements CRLs, the answer is simple--just update the CRL through DBS transmissions, and don't let the recorder send any copy-protected recordings back to the STB for display. Now, I don't think anything has been transmitted with copy-protection on it (on purpose, at least), so you shouldn't have any existing copy-protected recordings. If they've taken the tact that I'd take toward non-copy-protected content--what-the-hell: send it to any device, revoked or not--then your existing library should continue to play fine through your existing set-up, and you should be able to make and play recordings of non-copy-protected content in the future. But it's impossible to know how they've chosen to play this until they "turn the copy-protection switch on", if they ever do, since they've chosen to keep those details of DTCP private.

-- Mike Scott


[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-27-2001).][/b]
While your theory is certainly techincally possible, consider this: How many DTSU50/51's were sold? The fcat that both teh STB and VCR command hight than list price of the product tells us there aren't that many out there.

Who cares if a handfull of boxes can get full rez analog on constrained material. Those people that would have enough to do than worry about this.

No one on this forum has been sucessful in getting any form of service documentation for these STBs. You aren't going to find the custom ASICs available either, even if you could troubleshoot down to that level. These units have a heat problem which does damage the hardware over time.

Bottom line, these boxes aren't going to be around in a few years.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #8 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 01:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
Who cares if a handfull of boxes can get full rez analog on constrained material. Those people that would have enough to do than worry about this.
They (the major studios) care. If you're going to create a secure transmission system, any hole in that system must be attacked zealously, or you might as well not bother. It would be like putting up an electrified fence and not bothering to fix breaks big enough to walk through. If these STBs do constitute a security hole, and they don't move to fix it, the few that do exist will become very valuable ready made HD video pirating devices.

-- Mike Scott


Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #9 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 03:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott:
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
Who cares if a handfull of boxes can get full rez analog on constrained material. Those people that would have enough to do than worry about this.
They (the major studios) care. If you're going to create a secure transmission system, any hole in that system must be attacked zealously, or you might as well not bother. It would be like putting up an electrified fence and not bothering to fix breaks big enough to walk through. If these STBs do constitute a security hole, and they don't move to fix it, the few that do exist will become very valuable ready made HD video pirating devices.

-- Mike Scott

I disagree. They will not expend any effort to recall or otherwise disable legacy STB's. I know because I work in this business. Like I said thet will be no support for these boxes in the near future.

I have 200 HDTV movies on the shelf now from PPV, HBO, & Showtime. Quite a few other members here have them too. WHat are they going to do about that?

So unprotected full bandwidth HD is the problem. Tell me how other than legal enforcementa re they going to fix this:

I take a 1394 equipped direct view TV and pick the RGB off the CRT cathodes and sync from the defelection yoke and process it through some simple analog circuits to make an HDTV analog signal equilivant to the STB output.

Now I know they prohibit exposed analog circuitry in the spec but somebody didn't do their homework. How do you seal the drive to the CRT. That's a high voltage circuit and it runs hot so sticking it in a chip isn't likely. Burring it inside the CRT isn't an option either. Remember a CRT is a vaccumm tube and must operate a high tempatures internally to work.

The point is all the can do is apply reasonable safegaurds to curd piracy. They can't prevent it. They know that too. Remember all these themes cost money. Just how much will they spend to prevent a few bootleggers. There is a point of no retrun. And if the pirate operation is really big enough to hurt them, we still have the law enforcement. A large operation would be difficult to keep quite for very long.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #10 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 04:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
You know full documentation to these copyright protection systems must be disclosed to manufactures. People are going to have access to this information as well as the keys. I have no doube these employees will have to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be advised of criminal prosecution as well as losing their jobs if they leak it.

Now picture some $30K hardware or software engineer and some dark figure comes along and offers $50K for a copy of those documents.

Nah, that would never happen.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #11 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 04:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Pericles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Xenia
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hehe...or some highschool kid running Linux at home and figuring out some holes in their software. That doesn't happen either http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
You know full documentation to these copyright protection systems must be disclosed to manufactures. People are going to have access to this information as well as the keys. I have no doube these employees will have to sign non-disclosure agreements and will be advised of criminal prosecution as well as losing their jobs if they leak it.

Now picture some $30K hardware or software engineer and some dark figure comes along and offers $50K for a copy of those documents.

Nah, that would never happen.


------------------
"I fear, from the experience of the last twenty-five years, that morals do not of necessity advance hand in hand with the sciences." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1815. ME 14:331

"I fear, from the experience of the last twenty-five years, that morals do not of necessity advance hand in hand with the sciences." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1815. ME 14:331
Pericles is offline  
post #12 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 04:26 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
I disagree. They will not expend any effort to recall or otherwise disable legacy STB's. I know because I work in this business. Like I said thet will be no support for these boxes in the near future.
I don't think that they need to completely disable them--just disable movie channels, PPV and prerecorded media. They should be just fine for watching all other HD sources.
Quote:
I have 200 HDTV movies on the shelf now from PPV, HBO, & Showtime. Quite a few other members here have them too. WHat are they going to do about that?
There's nothing that they can do about that and they knew the risks when they started transmitting recent HD movies for viewing on non-copy-protected equipment. They can't do anything about the several thousand DVD titles compromised by DeCSS, either--water under the bridge. All they can do is protect future IP.
Quote:

I take a 1394 equipped direct view TV and pick the RGB off the CRT cathodes and sync from the defelection yoke and process it through some simple analog circuits to make an HDTV analog signal equilivant to the STB output.

Now I know they prohibit exposed analog circuitry in the spec but somebody didn't do their homework. How do you seal the drive to the CRT. That's a high voltage circuit and it runs hot so sticking it in a chip isn't likely. Burring it inside the CRT isn't an option either. Remember a CRT is a vaccumm tube and must operate a high tempatures internally to work.
The CE manufacturers are obligated to do what they can to protect that, but there's probably no way to make it absolutely tamper proof. (The most important portion of the system to make tamper proof is the portion where the decrypted DTCP payload--the clear digital video stream--is handled). Only the really determined would try to tap the signal going to a CRT yoke--recording this, syncing it the the audio and turning it into a digital form that can be shipped around is a lot of work. There are off-the-shelf consumer and professional devices for recording HD component video.

In the end, you really just have to make the case of the television tamper proof--if the software can tell that the case has been opened by an unauthorized person, it can take itself out of the network. The Dell PC on my desk at work can sense this, and NT will tell me if the case has been opened next time I boot. There are probably ways of hacking this type of thing, but once again, not for Joe Six-Pack.
Quote:
The point is all the can do is apply reasonable safegaurds to curd piracy. They can't prevent it. They know that too.
Sure they do--they just hope to prevent non-hacker, non-professional pirates from doing it--they think that they can deal with the pros using due diligence and legal prosecution. They lose tons of money now by people casually recording things that they paid to watch and passing it around to their friends and families for free--that's the stuff they'd like to put a stop to. They'd also like to stop people like you from creating collections of copies of the newest HD movies by paying a few bucks for a pay-per-view and the cost of a blank tape.
Quote:

Remember all these themes cost money. Just how much will they spend to prevent a few bootleggers. There is a point of no retrun. And if the pirate operation is really big enough to hurt them, we still have the law enforcement. A large operation would be difficult to keep quite for very long.
They plan to distribute these these Certificate Revocation Lists embedded in all HD prerecorded media and in every subscription or pay HD broadcast over cable or DBS anyway. What's the cost of placing the certificates assigned to Panasonic's discontinued STBs on this list? Pretty much nil.

Maybe there's nothing to worry about. Maybe Panasonic's HD STBs and VCR were pulled from the market, not because they're not secure, but because they were shipped before that security had received the blessing of the studios. It could be that the STB properly implements Image Constraints for copy-protected content displayed through its analog HD outputs and there's no need to place its certificates on the revocation list.

-- Mike Scott

[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-29-2001).]

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #13 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott:
They'd also like to stop people like you from creating collections of copies of the newest HD movies by paying a few bucks for a pay-per-view and the cost of a blank tape.
[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-28-2001).]
Well, that's the easiest thing to fix and I think I can speak for the others here who do this as well. Let's see, a PPV is $6, the blank is $10 (yeah I know many pay half that) So at $12-$16, that's the price of a DVD. Give us pre-recorded DVHS at 1080i or later an HD-DVD for $24.95 and this will stop overnight. I mean it's a lot of hassel to record wih the Dish5000 setup.

This has been proven countless times over the past two decades that price the software reasonably and you don't have a "small business" piracy problem. The big off shore players can be handled by the FBI abd their foriegn counterparts.

But I know, they never learn. All this image constraint and similar protections are just going to wreck it for the honest people that just want HDTV. As Don said in another post, the market will suffer, they will feel that, and these paraniod concerns will be waived in turn for profits with some acceptable risk of losses from piracy.


Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #14 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 05:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
Well, that's the easiest thing to fix and I think I can speak for the others here who do this as well. Let's see, a PPV is $6, the blank is $10 (yeah I know many pay half that) So at $12-$16, that's the price of a DVD. Give us pre-recorded DVHS at 1080i or later an HD-DVD for $24.95 and this will stop overnight. I mean it's a lot of hassel to record wih the Dish5000 setup.

This has been proven countless times over the past two decades that price the software reasonably and you don't have a "small business" piracy problem. The big off shore players can be handled by the FBI abd their foriegn counterparts.

But I know, they never learn. All this image constraint and similar protections are just going to wreck it for the honest people that just want HDTV. As Don said in another post, the market will suffer, they will feel that, and these paraniod concerns will be waived in turn for profits with some acceptable risk of losses from piracy.
I've heard this argument before--my theft is justified because they won't sell it to me for a price that I want to pay. Please. I don't like the price of the Porsches either, but no one will complain if they put me in jail for stealing one.

The way supply and demand works is that, if they merchant isn't selling enough of whatever for the price that he's charging to make a decent profit, he drops his price in hopes of increasing the volume of sales more than enough to compensate. He does this until he arrives at the highest price that enough people will pay for him to make an acceptable profit. The highest price--that's not greed, that's good business. I want the company I work for and all the companies I invest in to go after the highest profits they can attain, and so, I feel certain, do you.

You, the consumer who wants something, does without it until it gets down to a price that you're willing to pay. If it never does, then you don't want it enough to own it (or it's simply outside of your means to own, like that 911 Carrera Cabriolet I'd like) and you do without.

I've pointed this out before, but we're talking about entertainment software here--the very definition of a luxury item. If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, you don't get it, and your life goes on pretty much the same as before you noticed it in the first place.

-- Mike Scott

[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-28-2001).]

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #15 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 217
Woah, I resent the implication of "stealing" and be prepared for a flood of flame from other mambers over that.

I am not stealing anything. I pay for all my satellite services. I paid for the hardware which was sold in the commercial market for that purpose. The hardware is in no way modified to circumvent and copy protections that may be in place. I record movies that are shown at odd times, which is my right as decided in the "Betamax case". I do not loan these tapes out. I do not make extra copies.

What you are saying is anybody who records PPV or Pay TV is stealing.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #16 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 06:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by Glimmie:
Woah, I resent the implication of "stealing" and be prepared for a flood of flame from other mambers over that.

I am not stealing anything. I pay for all my satellite services. I paid for the hardware which was sold in the commercial market for that purpose. The hardware is in no way modified to circumvent and copy protections that may be in place. I record movies that are shown at odd times, which is my right as decided in the "Betamax case". I do not loan these tapes out. I do not make extra copies.

What you are saying is anybody who records PPV or Pay TV is stealing.
When you buy a PPV, do you really think that the provider intends for you to make a copy of it to archive? Particularly when you archive it in HD, and the experience of watching the playback is indistinguishable from watching the original broadcast? Having made such a copy, what'd be your motivation for spending $24 or more for a prerecorded copy? You've probably made recordings for a $10 tape and a fraction of the monthly subscription cost to HBO and Showtime of movies being offered for sale on DVD for $20, and your tape copy is of much higher quality than the DVD. Do you really think that the studios are fine with this? Before HD broadcasting ever began, the studios have demanded copy protection, and I believe that they would not have continued to provide HD transfers of fresh content for transmission in your A/V network in the clear for much longer without it.

As for the "Fair Use" rulings, the MPAA's chief attorney recently made this statement to the press:
Quote:
''The Supreme Court said consumers have the right to record free, over-the-air broadcast television programs for time-shifting,'' said Fritz E. Attaway, the Washington general counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America. ''The decision did not address transmissions via pay per view, cable TV, pay TV, or the right to make permanent copies.''
Actually, I think I read in one of the decisions where the court did speak to the possible problem of people making permanent copies; the Justice writing the decision basically said that there was no proof that it would happen (he was also quite obviously talking about OTA broadcasts in that text). I may, however, be misremembering that.

And I don't care about flames--the fact is that the content copyright holders consider it theft (archiving, not timeshifting) and have always considered it theft--there was just nothing that they could do about it. The infancy of HD video gives them something that they can do about it, now, while no more than 1% of the television owning public has any HD equipment of any kind. The nature of HD video gives them more incentive to do something about it than ever before, since digital video can be copied endlessly without loss of quality--second generation VHS and beyond is pretty much worthless.

They still can't prevent you from archiving the older stuff that gets shown on the subscription movie channels--the DTCP Adopter's Agreement doesn't let them use "Copy Never" on that, so all they can do is stop you from making copies of your copies with "Copy One Generation" protection. It's been suggested here that they'll just do away with the subscription channels and make all premium movies on cable and DBS pay-per-view, but if they do they're fools--the movie channels make money and most of what they show on them is so old or unsuccessful that no one would pay-per-view it unless it was very inexpensive (I'd pay $2.00 an episode for "The Sopranos" and dump my HBO subscription, at a savings, if they aired it many times a day, every day). The "made for cable" movie industry would go out of existence, since nobody'd pay-per-view those.

All of these issues were hashed over endlessly and passionately in a topic in the HD Hardware forum that got so big (12 pages) it was shut down. Let's not do it again.

-- Mike Scott

[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-28-2001).]

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #17 of 17 Old 09-28-2001, 08:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 17,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 557 Post(s)
Liked: 607
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott:
As for the "Fair Use" rulings, the MPAA's chief attorney recently made this statement to the press:

<center>----------------------------------------------------------</center>
''The Supreme Court said consumers have the right to record free, over-the-air broadcast television programs for time-shifting,'' said Fritz E. Attaway, the Washington general counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America. ''The decision did not address transmissions via pay per view, cable TV, pay TV, or the right to make permanent copies.''
<center>----------------------------------------------------------</center>

Actually, I think I read in one of the decisions where the court did speak to the possible problem of people making permanent copies; the Justice writing the decision basically said that there was no proof that it would happen (he was also quite obviously talking about OTA broadcasts in that text). I may, however, be misremembering that.
Turns out that I did misremember that. I looked again at that 1984 Sony v Universal Surpreme Court decision and saw the following under Footnote 2 :
Quote:
This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes.
I could find no subsequent related decision by the SC, or at least none that cited this one, which any such certainly would. So it seems that the MPAA's lawyer was right--the Supreme Court explicitly chose not to deal with issues of pay television, and technology which limit and/or prevent the recording of such has not been ruled on by the law (or at least by the Supreme Court).

-- Mike Scott

[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 09-29-2001).]

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
" -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Recorders

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