or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › It's Back: The Broadcast Flag.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's Back: The Broadcast Flag. - Page 3  

post #61 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babula
I just wonder who the "THEY" are? IMHO, this problem has to do with the studios' GREED. This is a far cry from Thomas Jefferson's intent regarding copyright law.
My suspicion is that it's not about greed. It's more about keeping up appearances. Every electronic system that has been released to control access to copyrighted video has been broken eventually. Macrovision on VHS tapes was circumvented by a cheap box. CSS on DVD's worked for a while until it was broken and now it's not even an issue. 5C protection would be a major inconvenience for people who want to save programs on unapproved devices like computers... until they discover these supposedly "protected" programs are available on the Internet (transport streams in full HD) -- then it's only a minor inconvenience. Obviously someone has gotten around that too.

Content providers are fighting a losing war but they can't surrender and release content that any idiot can copy to a computer. They have to keep pushing any copyright protection system they can think of, even though they know they'll all be broken eventually or will be worthless from day one like the broadcast flag. The inconvenience these systems cause the customer sends them a message about how serious Hollywood is about protecting their content.
post #62 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
If I purchased a big screen SD set last year, who do I sue because it will not receive anything OTA in 2009?
You don't sue anyone, because as a condition of switching from SD to HD, set-top boxes that can convert the hd signal will be made available to you through congressionally-mandated subsidies. That's a good analogy though. Too bad it completely contradicts your own argument.

The fact of the matter is, a very sizable number of people have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars each for hardware which might not even work in the near future!

This is hardly the same thing as trying to make a 10-year old computer run a modern OS.
post #63 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
Sony, RCA, LG, Samsung....no one promised it would do anything but display what it was built for.
Which is HDTV.

Quote:
I can't run Windows XP on my P5 166....who should I sue?
Yes you can, it'll just run very slowly. There's no DRM on Windows XP that prevents you from trying.

Quote:
I can't run my EGA or CGA monitor on today's computer....who should I sue?
Complete red herring. First of all, how do you know? Secondly, even if this were the case, these monitors are decades old using completely different technology. No comparison.

Quote:
I can't run my 56k modem on my cable telephone line...who should I sue?

I can't find a battery anymore for my old laptop....who should I sue?

George Lucas changed ET and Star Wars.....who should I sue?
more and more red herrings. None of these cases you brought up have anything in common with what's happening with the broadcast flag mandate. You can still use a 56k modem if you want, in fact, many people do. Your inability to find a battery doesn't prevent you from using your laptop. George Lucas changing his movies? The fact that you have to resort to this type of analogy just shows how weak your argument is.

Quote:
As George says, companies are out to protect their rights. Like it or not, after what happened to the music industry and the current belief that downloading is not stealing, companies are going to protect their rights.
As citizens, we (used) to have rights too. In fact, call me crazy, but I think our real rights are more important than the corporations' percieved rights.
post #64 of 302
I purchased a SUV when gas was $1.29 a gallon...now its close to $3.00.

Who do I sue?

Get real.
post #65 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish
So, are you saying that Hollywood should stop providing programming for all over-the-air broadcasts?

That only leaves INFOMERCIALS.
This argument is a red herring. Broadcasters will always provide content the public wants to watch (apparent by their obsession with ratings) otherwise their real revenues from advertising will dry up. If broadcasters resent the public being able to record and watch their free over-the-air TV that is heavily subsidized by the tax payers, then they should get out of the OTA business and move over to private cable service. I'm sure some other enterprising business will fill that gap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foexeng
And you think EFF ACTUALLY WORKS? They are treated as a radical lobby group by the legistature and are ignored (in the same catagory as Green Peace and other so called "tree huggers").

But between you and me, BF is coming. Maybe not today, but Hollywood will not stop until it is enacted. You can bank on that.
Another red herring thrown out to discourage the opponent. Yes, EFF is pretty effective, they were instrumental in whipping FCC arse the last time around, and it is beneficial that EFF the organization become known by the mainstream for standing on the side of public. They deserve your trust more than the broadcast corporations.

Our national broadcasters are the same group that hamper HDTV transition and tie up both analog and digital spectrums, which leaves us vulnerable in face of a national catastrophe without the much needed emergency communication system required by first responders, as was obivous after Katrina.

The level of contemp in that comment about "banking" on the BS Flag scheme becoming reality and discounting those who own non-HDCP displays is enough of reason to despise this group and fight them tooth and nail. If they are going to win, its best to bloody them and show them such a precedent (corporatizing all of our resources) will not come so easy.

Make sure you visit the EFF and donate, as well as write all your congresscritters and fight the GOOD FIGHT, and don't get distracted with the defeatist suing nonsense.
post #66 of 302
OOOH, Kei Clark! SNAP! I like the dexterity of your parries! That was elegant eloquence! Bravo! (plus I like it that your on our side!)
post #67 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei Clark
Our national broadcasters are the same group that hamper HDTV transition and tie up both analog and digital spectrums, which leaves us vulnerable in face of a national catastrophe without the much needed emergency communication system required by first responders, as was obivous after Katrina.
And Kei throws out the red herring as well. Pot calling kettle black?

The spectrum the broadcasters are giving back WILL BE AUCTIONED OFF TO REDUCE FEDERAL DEBT. It will not be given to first responders or anything of the like so don't even go there.

The USA could have had HD in the late 80s. HBO had announced a fulltime C Band HDTV to be delivered by the end of 1988. But the digital age came around and instead of making 2 changes as Japan was forced to do, the FCC decided to wait and go with a state of the art digital system from the beginning. If they had not, the spectrum you crave would be even less considering what it takes to broadcast analog HDTV.

In terms of Katrina, considering the Mayors office did not even have an Iridium Sat Phone and had to break into an Office Depot to steal a Cisco Router to get an internet connection - and the fact that I am better prepared every time I travel - shows where the breakdown was in that situation. And lets not forget the Hyatt Hotel they camped out in had at minimum 2 or more routers they could have used.

If it weren't for the National Media coming into Louisiana and Mississippi with their Satphones and the like - and lending them to the public trying to make communication with the outside world, it would have been even more of a mess.

So throw out your Red Herrings, but the truth is all providers will protect their content. I don't like it, but I don't own it either.

And when someone buys a DVI to VGA convertor from you to get rid of their EID information and that device is blacklisted and license revoked, are those people going to sue you for a device that does not work any longer to avoid Copy Protection?
post #68 of 302
Funny, I watched a senate hearing on this issue not long ago, where this topic was considered an urgent issue, specifically by Sen. McCain. Reference below:

Quote:
Legislation in the 108th Congress (H.R. 1425, the Homeland Emergency Operations Response Act introduced by Rep. Harmon on March 25, 2003) would prohibit any delay in reassigning the 24 MHz for public safety purposes, and require those frequencies to be operational by January 1, 2007.
No red herring there, most of the spectrum would be sold off most likely to cell companies, but a small band would be used by the government. The longer the delay, the less secure we are.

I'm sure you're aware that we don't manufacturer anything, and product we sell serve a function. That there are alternate featues is no fault of mine, nor do I advertise any product for any purpose other than the device was desinged to do.
post #69 of 302
I almost hate to chime in on this thread, but oh well here goes.

First of all I have no problem with the content providers wanting to protect their content.

Second of all that said the concept that these guys are actually losing money from movie piracy is total BS. The percentage of people able to copy DVDs or copy HD streams is so small it's not even worth mentioning. People who want to copy media WILL ALWAYS DO SO, so matter what protection you put.

Third My only argument with copy protection(aside form it's a waste of time and money) is that it limits my legitimate fair use of media. It limits my ability to time shift and to backup a very error prone DVD medium. If they truly want to lock DVDs so you cna't back them up then they need to solve the failure rate or offer serious replacenment warranties.

Now to the crux of the problem I see with the Broadcast flag verison of copy protection. I see three main issues here. The first is that I see this as the movie studios saying "I'm too lazy and stupid to make a real copy protection scheme, so just let me add one bit to my media and legislate that the rest of the world takes care of it for me". The second issue I see here is that this will put undo burden on the small and startup hardware manufacturers to comply with the rules being created by the big corps and enforeced for them by our gov't. I'm sure someone will patent a schem for doing this and everone else will have to pay them roaylties to even make product. Which leads to the last issue, which is WTF is our governemt doing getting involved with trying to help the movie studios stay in business(assuming there is even a threat). If you can convince everyone in the market to honor your flag because it makes sense form a business standpoint for you and them then(I may not like it), but mor power to you.
post #70 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
I purchased a SUV when gas was $1.29 a gallon...now its close to $3.00.

Who do I sue?

Get real.
Your dumbest argument yet... apparently you can still buy gasoline for your vehicle, correct? If this passes through I might not be able to watch any HDTV on my CRT HDTV that only has component video in.
post #71 of 302
I don't understand how it is a "right" of the media companies to prevent me from backing up my data. I do that already for almost everything important on my hard drive. Yet somehow, it's illegal/immoral for me to back up a dvd I own, or to record a show I'm watching on tv? Come on, it's got nothing to do with rights on their part. It's a money grab.
post #72 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by gottahavit
Which leads to the last issue, which is WTF is our governemt doing getting involved with trying to help the movie studios stay in business(assuming there is even a threat).
It's all about the benjamins.
post #73 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by gottahavit
Which leads to the last issue, which is WTF is our governemt doing getting involved with trying to help the movie studios stay in business(assuming there is even a threat).
The government isn't really doing that, what they are doing concerns copyright law, the real or perceived value of the content isn't really the issue, it's the ownership of and the rights of ownership of that content that the studios are trying to protect and why the government is involved.

BTW, when you buy a DVD you are actually purchasing a license to view it, you're not buying the content that's actually on the DVD.

That said, I am not a fan of the broadcast flag, but it's not unreasonable that content owners would want to protect their property. I do think the responsibility to protect the content should be with the content owners more than having the government legislate it for them.
post #74 of 302
Good thing I have 3 HDTV tuner cards that ignore the BS Flag. They can turn it on all they want, and I'll still be recording. :cool:

However, I will help fight Hollywood and their greedy minions in congress.
post #75 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan
BTW, when you buy a DVD you are actually purchasing a license to view it, you're not buying the content that's actually on the DVD.
Not quite correct. What you're buying is the physical DVD -- and your rights to use or dispose of that physical product. What you're not buying is the right to make a copy, since that right is reserved to the copyright holder.

So your point is partially, but not completely, correct.
post #76 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond
Not quite correct. What you're buying is the physical DVD -- and your rights to use or dispose of that physical product. What you're not buying is the right to make a copy, since that right is reserved to the copyright holder.

So your point is partially, but not completely, correct.
True. :)
post #77 of 302
Quote:
First of all I have no problem with the content providers wanting to protect their content.
No argument here, and they already do just that. Practically everything we purchase already has that, DVD, Satellite and Cable service, DVHS, etc. as well as all the displays.

Quote:
Second of all that said the concept that these guys are actually losing money from movie piracy is total BS. The percentage of people able to copy DVDs or copy HD streams is so small it's not even worth mentioning. People who want to copy media WILL ALWAYS DO SO, so matter what protection you put.

Third My only argument with copy protection(aside form it's a waste of time and money) is that it limits my legitimate fair use of media. It limits my ability to time shift and to backup a very error prone DVD medium. If they truly want to lock DVDs so you cna't back them up then they need to solve the failure rate or offer serious replacenment warranties.
Here in lies one of the biggest problems. The public broadcasters have reframed the issue as if they have the luxury of being treated same as the pay services. That too is a red herring. The fight is not about whether they can protect their content, the issue is that once the same content is broadcast on our airwaves, they no longer can make receiving that signal difficult if not impossible.

The most odious portion of the BS Flag that the MPAA does not like to mention is the use of HDCP. As it stands, you can watch OTA on almost any display including the millions of PC monitors. Here is Dan Glickman's statement about the BS Flag:

Quote:
"The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network--it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks."
What he holds out and don't spell out, perhaps because he thinks our elected representatives (as well as most consumers) are not technical enough to understand is that many people will no longer be able to just watch HDTV, nevermind recording and re-distributing on your network. Who does this benefit? The HDCP licensors.


Quote:
Now to the crux of the problem I see with the Broadcast flag verison of copy protection. I see three main issues here. The first is that I see this as the movie studios saying "I'm too lazy and stupid to make a real copy protection scheme, so just let me add one bit to my media and legislate that the rest of the world takes care of it for me".
That's not what they are saying. What they are trying to do is change the traditional agreement they had with the public, that is that what comes over the public airwaves cannot be copy protected. Once they pass the hurdle and get a law on the books, I predict that it will get worse.

Quote:
The second issue I see here is that this will put undo burden on the small and startup hardware manufacturers to comply with the rules being created by the big corps and enforeced for them by our gov't. I'm sure someone will patent a schem for doing this and everone else will have to pay them roaylties to even make product.
Indeed, the government should do no harm, should not write laws that inhibit competition and innovation. This alone is enough to fight over. If they are going to require this scheme, maybe they need to subsidize the cost of business start up, or require exemptions for small businesses that qualify under certain criteria.

I leave you with the following quotes from Sen. McCain regarding the obligation the governement has with the public, and what they need to hold up anytime they want to make new laws:

"Make no mistake, I continue to be a firm believer in market forces, which is why I believe that this voluntary proposal is an appropriate step at this time. We must be mindful, however, that valuable public resources are at stake here. Should the transition continue to be delayed, alternative measures will need to be taken in order to reclaim the spectrum for which so many other productive uses can be found and which rightfully belongs to the American taxpayers.

"I believe therefore, that Congress needs to be prepared to intervene, if necessary, to protect the taxpayers of this country. If significant progress isn't made in the DTV transition, then I will introduce legislation that will not be voluntary...."

The lawmakers need to uphold their obligations to you, the public.
post #78 of 302
My main fear is that the broadcast flag WILL impinge on picture quality due to a myriad of technical reasons.


For that reason alone, we must fight it!
post #79 of 302
"This argument is a red herring. Broadcasters will always provide content the public wants to watch (apparent by their obsession with ratings) otherwise their real revenues from advertising will dry up. If broadcasters resent the public being able to record and watch their free over-the-air TV that is heavily subsidized by the tax payers, then they should get out of the OTA business and move over to private cable service. I'm sure some other enterprising business will fill that gap."

Talk about "red herrings".........If the people who are already in the business of broadcasting can't make this work, why do people think some new "dot-bomb" types are going to come in on their white horses and spend billions of dollars to give away programming? Have you seen the types of people who are currently buying up the broadcast spectrum? Televangelists, home shopping networks, people running old public-domain programming.....are these the "entreprenuers" we want running the new DTV industry?

Too many people are listening to President McCain instead of listening to reason.
post #80 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish
Talk about "red herrings".........If the people who are already in the business of broadcasting can't make this work, why do people think some new "dot-bomb" types are going to come in on their white horses and spend billions of dollars to give away programming? Have you seen the types of people who are currently buying up the broadcast spectrum? Televangelists, home shopping networks, people running old public-domain programming.....are these the "entreprenuers" we want running the new DTV industry?

Too many people are listening to President McCain instead of listening to reason.
"Can't make this work?" They are currently making BILLIONS of dollars on broadcast tv. The only thing they "can't make work" is an unhackable DRM scheme, which is why they are trying to go through the corrupt congress to LEGISLATE what they can't do technologically. Come on, take your own advice and listen to reason.

Pirates are going to get what want anyways, the only people affected by this type of legislation are the technologically-challenged out there, who will no longer be able to record tv shows. THIS WILL NOT REDUCE PIRACY IN ANY WAY.

Imagine the following scenario. You have to stay late at work one night, and will probably miss the newest episode of your favorite tv show, Lost. You turn on your DVR and try to record the program, but, uh oh, The DVR detects that ABC has set the broadcast flag for that show to "no copy". What are your options now? Let's see:

1) curse at the DVR/ABC and vow never to see the show again and return the useless DVR. Result: loss of viewership for ABC, potential loss of revenue for DVR manufacturers.

2) mutter to yourself, but say oh well, I'll just download it off **********. Result: another pirate is born.

3) sigh and wait for a rerun. Result: your enjoyment of the show is diminished, but ABC isn't harmed because you will continue to watch.

Which of those scenarios is the most likely in this case? In this day and age, it'll be #2 for sure. You think this bogus "broadcast flag" is going to prevent hackers from copying it? No chance. #1 is also very likely. This type of law is basically a no-win for the consumer.
post #81 of 302
Nicely done donotremove! Must say, I am mightily impressed with the debating skills of folks participating here, but do realize of course that those on our side have the decidedly inequitable advantage of being right (never fails to diminish the challenge in a debate).
post #82 of 302
The BF wasn't designed to totally stop the professional hacker. It was designed to stop the people who are making a few extra bucks selling copies of shows on E-Bay and at flea markets, and the ones who are trading vast amounts of material over the net.

I have always said that it should be like the copy management system used for DAT and CD. You should be able to set it for Never Copy, Copy Once, or Copy all ya want. So, shows could be made Copy All, and could be copied over and over. Shows could be Copy Once, meaning you could make one copy (say, a PVR) but not copy that copy. Never Copy would be something that should be grounds for public lynching.
post #83 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps24eva
My main fear is that the broadcast flag WILL impinge on picture quality due to a myriad of technical reasons.

For that reason alone, we must fight it!
Multi subs will KILL HD way before they get "the flag" legal again, you will LOOSE no matter. BTW; this sucks, it sucks big time as they say. :(
post #84 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish
The BF wasn't designed to totally stop the professional hacker. It was designed to stop the people who are making a few extra bucks selling copies of shows on E-Bay and at flea markets, and the ones who are trading vast amounts of material over the net.
Please... the people who are selling stuff on e-bay or flea markets are downloading and burning, or getting pirated stuff from Asia. They're not sitting home with a 169time box saving HD versions of Lost, and then converting them to DVD spec to burn and sell in a flea market.
post #85 of 302
Well, here is how the Copy Once provision is going to mess with me:

I cannot watch TV during real time prime time -- got to time shift. I use 3.5 hour tapes, the current max time limit, but only have so many -- must reuse. If there is something I want to save, I must transfer it to another tape.

I already know my gear goes haywire with the BF anyway and folks have rendered their equipment worthless installing the upgrade -- they are fidgety enough even without the BF -- just variations of signal from station to station trigger uneven unreliable effects.

Now you may say that I should not not have a right to that transferred copy -- tell you what -- just sidestepping that issue, with the block breakup during motion from bit flow starvation, commercials, etc., I'd just as soon wait for the HD DVD, but my early generation monitor will no doubt not accept the signal, so I get screwed either way, owing to this same so-called "anti-piracy" frenzy.

All in repayment for the gleeful, innocent commitment of my resources in support of an industry now determined to see to it that I suffer. I've never so much as copied a CD let alone anything else -- couldn't interest me in a bootleg if it were for a dime and not, say, thirty dollars but bona fide. So you tell me why this is good for me, knowing that the international market will run rampant in any event.
post #86 of 302
Quote:
Talk about "red herrings".........If the people who are already in the business of broadcasting can't make this work, why do people think some new "dot-bomb" types are going to come in on their white horses and spend billions of dollars to give away programming?
Can't make what work? Broadcasters already make big bucks from ad revenues. If the current broadcasters can't budget from the revenues they already take in, maybe they need to relinquish rather than squat on the spectrum they've been granted. Give away? They give away nothing. Its a business model that has upheld since the beginning of TV broadcasting, and it has not changed. Its a bluff that no broadcaster would take seriously.

Quote:
The BF wasn't designed to totally stop the professional hacker. It was designed to stop the people who are making a few extra bucks selling copies of shows on E-Bay and at flea markets, and the ones who are trading vast amounts of material over the net.
If this is true, then the broadcasters even worse at managing the public resource than I imagined. Forcing the consumers to cough up millions of dollars to stop some people making a few bucks on E-Bay is really a dumb idea, not to mention there already are laws on the books that can be enforced on this crowd, that is if content providers really have the inclination to go after these petty criminals. Besides, the real issue here is HDCP, as in limiting the displays that users can use to watch public TV. If you decide to write your congress persons, this should be the first line of reason that you put forth, and why its not in the interest of the taxpayer.

Quote:
I have always said that it should be like the copy management system used for DAT and CD. You should be able to set it for Never Copy, Copy Once, or Copy all ya want. So, shows could be made Copy All, and could be copied over and over. Shows could be Copy Once, meaning you could make one copy (say, a PVR) but not copy that copy. Never Copy would be something that should be grounds for public lynching.
None of that is necessary, and actually according to the current law, it is illegal to encrypt public broadcasting, hence the move however subtle to change the laws. We're getting sidetracked by how the copy protection should be implented, when the real issue why they should be allowed to at all.

PRECEDENT....this is what the broadcasters want, the ability to push more draconian rules after the have shattered the first hurdle of public trust.
post #87 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps24eva
My main fear is that the broadcast flag WILL impinge on picture quality due to a myriad of technical reasons.
Nope, not at all.
post #88 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by donotremove
I don't understand how it is a "right" of the media companies to prevent me from backing up my data. I do that already for almost everything important on my hard drive. Yet somehow, it's illegal/immoral for me to back up a dvd I own, or to record a show I'm watching on tv? Come on, it's got nothing to do with rights on their part. It's a money grab.

It's not your data. That's where your argument is wrong.

And considering how few people use Bitorrent or know what it is - and how insecure it is as every tracker knows your IP even after you download - one would have to be financially nuts to take the risk in this day and age.

It's much easier to pay your cable company $10 for a DVR instead of the $7 they charge you for a HD STB Box.

For $3, most will go that route - not Bitorrent.
post #89 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenglish
Talk about "red herrings".........If the people who are already in the business of broadcasting can't make this work, why do people think some new "dot-bomb" types are going to come in on their white horses and spend billions of dollars to give away programming?
Sometimes it does take a fresh perspective that can come only from someone who hasn't been part of an industry.

Looking at the history of innovation in the broadcasting industry, it seems to me that a lot of it came from outsiders. It wasn't the entrenched big broadcast chains that developed the concept of "Top 40" radio in the fifties, but instead folks like Storer and McClendon. They became big in the industry as a result of their innovation, of course.

And in the late seventies and early eighties, I notice that the innovation came from folks like Ted Turner (who developed the concept of the SuperStation and an all-news channel), not from the established players. In fact, Turner tried to interest the big groups in going in with him on CNN -- and found no takers.

So, yeah, if the outsiders come in they may bomb. But they could also come up with something that turns around the industry in the way that Top 40 radio did in the fifties, or the way that satellite networks did for cable TV in the late seventies/early eighties.
post #90 of 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic
It's not your data. That's where your argument is wrong.

And considering how few people use Bitorrent or know what it is - and how insecure it is as every tracker knows your IP even after you download - one would have to be financially nuts to take the risk in this day and age.

It's much easier to pay your cable company $10 for a DVR instead of the $7 they charge you for a HD STB Box.

For $3, most will go that route - not Bitorrent.
See, it is MY data if I paid for it. Just because you've been brainwashed into believing so, does not mean that the copyright holders own the physical piece of property that I bought. That's like saying it's not my magazine or it's not my book, since I can't legally republish them. See how silly that sounds?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › It's Back: The Broadcast Flag.