AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 386 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For those of you on the fence, please consider the following points:


1) It will be at least a year before DVI/HDCP interfaces are available on a variety of STB's and displays


2) It will be even longer (three to four years) before these devices consitute 90% of the installed base of HD equipment


3) Content providers are not going to flip the switch on ANY content unless they know that 80% of the audience is able to watch


So, it is highly likely that three or four years are going to go by before we see the first instance of down rez'ed content for people who do not have DVI/HDCP. If you wait for all of this to be resolved, you are simply denying yourself one whole usage cycle of equipment.


Finally, if you wait and buy into DVI/HDCP you will participate in the elimination of your fair use rights to make personal copies of content for later viewing. It is for this reason that I submit that we should all boycott DVI/HDCP instead of waiting for it.


Cheers,


Bernd


[This message has been edited by Bernd (edited 08-03-2001).]


[This message has been edited by Bernd (edited 08-03-2001).]
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,532 Posts
IMO I repectfully disagree with your conclusion-although I agree with your 3 points- I realize present state of the art is in flux-equipment we buy today may not support HDTV 4 years from now- but did you boycott NTSC receivers 4 years ago? You should enjoy the limited HDTV we receive today and realize there will be a sea change in the market before we can realize HDTV on a regular basis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts
I second that.


Tomorrow I'm going to be able to watch over six hours of glorious HDTV from KQED. They will be broadcasting the Smart Travels series which I haven't seen yet. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


And I will be sending part of my Dubya check to them earmarked for DTV improvements.


The rest of my Dubya check will be going to the EFF to combat the DMCA.


Oh, I will also watch the KQED HD presentation Monday night about northern California. Should be spectacular.


It's not worth waiting for the DVI/HDCP/5C etc krap. Enjoy HDTV today and tomorrow.


------------------

Stephen Couch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Here's my game plan:


I will continue to enjoy my 53HS10 on HD-HBO, OTA HD beginning next Spring, and DVD.

I will be watching closely the store shelves around Christmas (which is when I project the bottom will fall out of the analog DTV market http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif ) for that incredible deal on a 38310 or Sony 36XBR for this office.

I will DEFINITELY buy a DVI/Firewire STB and monitor, plus HD recorder, when they arrive, probably around early 2003. I think we will see HD-DVD at about that time, also with DVI outputs. The new equipment will be enough of an improvement over the old that I'll probably replace the 53HS10 and DTC-100 at that time.

I fully expect to be viewing HD with few-to-NO restrictions throughout the "transition" period.

As more DVI gear gets sold, I expect the DTC-100 to have a few more restrictions, namely PPV, many recent movies on DTV, and possibly some sporting events. I expect no such restrictions in the next 3-5 years.

If this is rosy optimism, I'll accept that, but I think it's just common sense! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


John in VA


------------------

Change is coming, it is inevitable, it is not always bad, but is usually good on balance; there is nothing you can do to stop it, and waiting for the perfect technological solution is as futile as waiting for the final installment of Windows or Pentium processors; old equipment eventually becomes obsolete, but follows a well-illustrated pathway of lower utility before it reaches worthlessness (my kids are using my five-year-old formerly state-of-the-art Pentium 200MMX); no one is "out to get you", rather trends and conflicting interests cause everyone to shuttle about to keep up with the best value relationships in technology; and, most important, technology and intellectual property is getting more affordable, easier to access, and more robust, not the opposite of that! Look at the quality of HD and DVD today and its availability and price, compared with videotape and early laser disks fifteen years ago. Bucky Fuller called it "ephemeralization" and it's positively affecting everything!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
DVI/HDCP isn't going to downres anything, because that's just for use as an interconnect between a source device and a display device, and makes no restrictions on the outputs of the source device.


DTCP is the one to watch out for, since it's more likely to be used in the compressed streams from content providors. If you're going to boycott something, it might as well the right thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Chris, you keep saying that all over the place, and it's just not true. Both HDCP and DTCP have provisions for the downrezzing of analog outputs. I suggest you read the HDCP license agreement more carefully.


And gnosys, what is wrong with you and that signature? A few people have told you that it's rude to take up 4 inches of useless space every time you post . Hell, your signature is longer than most of the posts! Please cut it out!


------------------

Vic Ruiz
STOP HDCP/DFAST/5C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Chris -

"DVI/HDCP isn't going to downres anything"

Not directly, but indirectly. An example. Right now DirecTV does not show Paramount movies on HDTV PPV. DirecTV could deploy set top boxes with only DVI/HDCP output. Paramount might then say to DirecTV, "You can now show Paramount movies at 1080i to anyone with a DVI/HDCP set top box. Activate the CGMS circuitry for all others." This means that with my DTC100 I will not be able to see the Paramount movie at 1080i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Alan,


I agree that technically speaking, down rez'ing might happen in the scenario you mention. However, in order for it to be viable financial decision for a studio (Paramount) and a carrier (DirecTV or a Cable Co.), there must be a large enough number of people who have DVI/HDCP who are willing to pay to view the movie on a restricted content basis. IMHO it will be a long time (three to four years) before there is a large enough of an installed base of the equipment so that it would be a good financial decision for a carrier to lease the movie from the studio and make a good return on the number of folks who take the PPV offer.


To further this analysis, under what circumstances would such a PPV even be interesting? Only if the movie were early run enough so that you could see it close after it left most movie screens, and before it showed up on DVD. This would make the lease of the movie by the carrier very expensive which would require that the carrier know that they had a large installed base of PPV customers who had the required equipment. So the likely terms of such a PPV offering push the date out ever further than would normally be the case.


Therefore, given the dynamics in favor of a slow uptake of this technology anyway, we are in a great position to boycott it. If all of us early adopters stand fast and do not buy it, who is?


Cheeers,


Bernd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by vruiz:
And gnosys, what is wrong with you and that signature? A few people have told you that it's rude to take up 4 inches of useless space every time you post . Hell, your signature is longer than most of the posts! Please cut it out!
Vic, I don't personally care one whit what you and others think who want to spread your messages and silence mine. If you add up the total bandwidth of my signature and compare it with the voluminous whining you have done on at least 20 threads, your space more than doubles mine.

If I include my signature in a post, it's because it's important enough to put it there. On many posts, I don't include it because it's not part of what I want to communicate. If you don't want to read it, don't read it!

I believe it's especially important to put out information that encourages people to think about these issues in a reasonable way, as opposed to the mass hysteria you and some others are promoting. If you don't like my signature, don't read it! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

And you try to wrap your arguments in Constitutional law, what a joke http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


John in Hollywood, VA





------------------

Change is coming, it is inevitable, it is not always bad, but is usually good on balance; there is nothing you can do to stop it, and waiting for the perfect technological solution is as futile as waiting for the final installment of Windows or Pentium processors; old equipment eventually becomes obsolete, but follows a well-illustrated pathway of lower utility before it reaches worthlessness (my kids are using my five-year-old formerly state-of-the-art Pentium 200MMX); no one is "out to get you", rather trends and conflicting interests cause everyone to shuttle about to keep up with the best value relationships in technology; and, most important, technology and intellectual property is getting more affordable, easier to access, and more robust, not the opposite of that! Look at the quality of HD and DVD today and its availability and price, compared with videotape and early laser disks fifteen years ago. Bucky Fuller called it "ephemeralization" and it's positively affecting everything!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
valid points


------------------

Alex


The thinking person can have little doubt that change is at least a substantial part of reality. Even in those objects which appear to our native senses to be completely inert, we are told that there is ceaseless activity, that atomic and sub-atomic particles are in continuous (or some kind of) motion. We can choose to ignore activity we can't perceive, of course; this yields our standard "object/event" model of reality, wherein matter is a "thing" which can be in motion or not. We can also try to encompass all scales of change whenever we think of reality. This, of course, is a lot harder to do, perhaps even impossible given our current models of reality.


Other views, notably drawn from process theories and theories of cycles, present a somewhat different picture. In process theories, change is fundamental to reality, always present at one scale or another, whether we can perceive it at the moment or not. Something is always "happening", even in the quietest (to our senses) moments.


Why should we concern ourselves about something as ubiquitous as change? If a phenomenon is all-pervasive, we might conclude that it needn't be dealt with, other than as a kind of substrate upon which all else rests. True enough, except that we seem to want to know everything we can about substrates, perhaps out of sheer curiosity, but likely also because it might turn out to be useful in more ways than simply providing career opportunities for hungry researchers.



There is another view which says that if some feature or other of reality is all-pervasive, it must have a fundamental importance which outweighs any simple concern about substrates. For instance, we humans think a lot about error in the course of doing our lives. What if error is impacted by this all-pervasive feature? Indeed, if the feature is all-pervasive, it must impinge on all models and concepts we hold in our heads.


Moreover, there is a general sense that our standard methods of creating models no longer really capture reality well enough to help us penetrate much farther into its innards. For instance, the concept of error needs to be reexamined in order to go farther into reality, not to mention such relatively undefined entities as gravitation. And of course, we find it increasingly necessary to reexamine other basic premisses such as change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by gnosys:
Vic, I don't personally care one whit what you and others think who want to spread your messages and silence mine. If you add up the total bandwidth of my signature and compare it with the voluminous whining you have done on at least 20 threads, your space more than doubles mine.

If I include my signature in a post, it's because it's important enough to put it there. On many posts, I don't include it because it's not part of what I want to communicate. If you don't want to read it, don't read it!

I believe it's especially important to put out information that encourages people to think about these issues in a reasonable way, as opposed to the mass hysteria you and some others are promoting. If you don't like my signature, don't read it! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

And you try to wrap your arguments in Constitutional law, what a joke http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif


John in Hollywood, VA

The point is, what you are doing is just poor netiquette. You should make you point in your post and keep your signature line to a reasonable length. What you are doing it just rude to others and wasteful of screen real-estate and bandwidth. No one here wants to quash your options even though we may disagree with them. All I think we are asking is if you would please be more mindful of others and net etiquette.


Regards,


Brian






[This message has been edited by btmoore (edited 08-03-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"If I include my signature in a post, it's because it's important enough to put it there."


Perhaps, but it's entirely unneccessary to use a whole paragraph in making your point. A signature is intended to be just that, and by definition should be short. Assaulting the reader with voluminous verbiage is indeed rude.


------------------
ABC = Another Boring Channel. Watch CBS on Monday Nights!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
gnosys, although you and I share many of the same opinions about the copy protection issue, I must respectively side with vruiz and others about your signature...


I read it the first time (actually the first time it was in the body of one of your posts where it belonged...). I read the first few words the second time. Since then I've just been skipping over it. By now I wouldn't notice even if you put the Secret of Life, the Universe and Everything in there. Why waste the space?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by btmoore:
The point is, what you are doing is just poor netiquette. You should make you point in your post and keep your signature line to a reasonable length. What you are doing it just rude to others and wasteful of screen real-estate and bandwidth. No one here wants to quash your options even though we may disagree with them. All I think we are asking is if you would please be more mindful of others and net etiquette.

Regards,

Brian

[This message has been edited by btmoore (edited 08-03-2001).]
That, Brian is YOUR opinion. My first amendment rights say I can include the signature WHEN I deem it necessary. Not everyone is glued to all these threads like some of you.


If you don't want to read it again, (although most of you who are complaining need to paste it to your bathroom mirrors!) then scroll down. It's not that long, and I will determine when it is shown.


Why don't the few of you find something else to do with your time?


John

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Was it Karl Marx or perhaps V Lenin who said: "If you can't attack the message, go after the messenger"

http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


[This message has been edited by gnosys (edited 08-03-2001).]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
John


Thank you


------------------

Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,884 Posts
This is turning into a very surreal thread, with some fairly deep philosophy counterpoint to the name calling and hair pulling.


Change is of course inevitable. During periods of change it is possible that habitual cognitive models and behavior patterns will not be optimal, leading to errors. And of course in the real world errors may lead to being eaten by a bear.


I actually agree with most of what Gnosys says in his sig .. I'm just tired of reading it. But ...


On the issue of what to boycott. At the risk of taking the pressure off the selfish and evil ones I will admit that I'm reassured that STB's are likely to still have analog component outputs that can still show full HD when not copy protected.


If my cable company (Comcast) were to offer a box with both protected digital and component outputs I would probably not hesitate.


But I would not run out and buy other new equipment for that reason. I would just boycott watching anything that didn't look good enough on what I had. Unencumbered material will continue to have significantly greater value to me and I will purchase accordingly.


And I will continue to lobby to keep consumer choice in the hands of consumers, not some content vendor cartel.


(and I guess my sig has been growing larger too http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif )


- Tom




------------------
Getting started with HTPC:
HTPC FAQ , DScaler , Xcel's Links , and
The Anti-DMCA Website .
s>
And Free Dmitri Sklyarovs>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,011 Posts
Well said Tom! I wouldn't hold my breath about Crumcast. Unfortuneatly, until I leave this apartment with a northeast facing balcony, Crumcast is my provider too. They'll offer decent picture quality and OAR when pigs speak Latin, me thinks! They are commited to mediocrity.


John, the first ammendment protects political speech. What's this forum got to do with that? Nada, zilch... Would you walk into a restaurant or night club and insist it was your right to defy the dress code? It's hard enough to read threads without having to skip over redundant stuff. Having you participate in a thread is a nussiance on that account. File that thing at the Department of Redundancy Department por favour. One or two lines is enough, the succinct approach would be greatly appreciated. The decorum is pretty easy here, respect it. Best wishes!


------------------


Rachael,la gata del disco Grande, meow meow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Damn Guys, I've gone back and forth on this thread and now I nave a headache.


My Idea is that, we are not yet HDTV literate to more than 8% of the population, and thats overrating it. How can we begin talking about the other technologies.


We can try to compare this to minidisks and CD writers. As we know, CD-writers took a while to catch on and if it wasnt for computers getting even more popular and and the onset of napster and MP3, CD burners would have probably not really caught on.


The point I an trying to make is, that ; For certain technologies to catch on, they have to be practical and ultimately revolutionary to the common man. Not just 10% of the population.


This translates to costs and numbers. NTSC has been around since the 50s. And a lot of people wouldnt give a hoot what all these other technologies are, as long as NTSC still serves them good. So since a lot of the good new technologies are not revolutionary, we might as well do what we did with DVDs and CDs. Slow integration into the society. Thats the only way it would work. Just like they did with Dolby Digital and then the onset of DTS, and processors and receivers slowly included DD and DTS. Thats the pace. So if someone wants to include new technology, I believe that it ha to be somehow incooperatable with the tech that is still or os being introduced: equipmentwise, that is without outrageous additional costs.


Hey, thats just my view, Thats the way I ee it.




------------------

Regards,

KNC


"Ofcourse thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller.



Boycott: DVI/HDCP/5C/DFAST/
 
1 - 20 of 386 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top