AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I cant seem to figure out how to attach the jump thingy. Anyway there is an article under product reviews dated 8/22/01 at www.widescreenreview.com which says that Inline IN1408 video/DVI scaler bridges the divide between the analog video and DVI digital video worlds. I obviously don't understand it but wonder if it makes it safer to buy a Toshiba without upgrade guarantee???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Mistake


[This message has been edited by ERobS (edited 08-29-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Hay all,

It will not work on Copy-Protected DVI outputs. Face it you guys with HD sets other then Mitsubishi are simply out of luck. Your sets will not work with future technogy. The interface to support is IEEE1394 Firewire with 5C copy protection.



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

Bruce.in.Cary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,800 Posts
Dont get too smug Bruce, you're only going to have to fork over about a grand to Mitsubishi for their "promise."


Brian


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

Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead.
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,617 Posts
It would be used in a professional display system, where you either wanted to convert a DVI signal to analog, for an analog display, or where you wanted to send DVI & scaled analog video to a digital (DVI compatible) display.


The issue is that the DVI we talk about here at AVS will be encoded by program providers for security (!?!) reasons. The DVI referred to for the Inline product will be unencoded, like graphics from a PC or workstation


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

"Better living thru modern, expensive electronics devices"

tm
 

·
AVS Forum Special Member
Joined
·
11,139 Posts
Wow. The intro hyperlink must set a record. I usually give up trying to scroll horizontally to read text this stretched. Tried the substitute title[/U] c> technique (see forum FAQ) with that initial hyperlink in the TEST MESSAGE forum, but that doesn't work. Perhaps the forum's server software could be modified? -- John


[This message has been edited by John Mason (edited 08-30-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
A $1000. Hay I already have the funds set aside for the Promise Module and Mitsubishi DVHS VCR.




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

Bruce.in.Cary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
I wouldn't count my chickens just yet, Bruce. Mits' current position is that they will not provide a DVI input to their TVs (see here . None of the other television manufacturers have committed to DVI either. But the set-top manufacturers and many studios are congregating around the DVI camp. What if they provide only DVI outputs and not firewire? Then you're in the same boat as the rest of us.


Things are up in the air right now. You can either decide to buy something with the full knowledge that technology will change in a few year's time and you may not be able to take advantage of some of the new capabilities (but your set will still do what it did when you bought it), or you can sit on the sidelines and wait. It's exactly the same decision computer buyers face every day...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Sean Nelson

I do not know where you get your information. If you reserch the subjects instead of reading these theads you may just descover the truth about DVI.


All of the STB manufacturs, Cable Co. and Hollywood File Studios that has sign on support with DVI has also sign on support for IEEE1394 with 5C. The MPAA would like everyone to accept the DVI interface as the standard. The MPAA is promoting PAY PER VIEW and wants to kill off the possiblity of anyone recording HDTV programs. They perfer the DVI interface because it inpossible to record from it. With DVI everyone looses their Fair Use Right that was determine by the BataMax case.


With you being from Canada, I doubt that know anything about the BataMax case. Back in the Seventis when Sony fist brought out the BatMax VCR, a couple of the movie studios filed suit against Sony. This case went all of the way to the Surpreme Court. Basically the results of the this case is perciple of FAIR USE. The MPAA thinks that FAIR USE does not apply to digital media. So they think its legal for them to promote digital interfaces that are anti Fair Use.


Here is what I preceived to be the major problem with DVI.

If all of our HDTV sets uses DVI interfaces from STB(no recording) The Courts come along a decides against the MPAA

saying, You're wroung MPAA, FAIR USE does apply to Digital Media. We still loose because we have no HDTV VCRs.


Now if our HDTV digital interfaces are based on IEEE1394. And the courts make the same deceision and forces MPAA to turn off all Copy-Never flags, we win.


So when deciding what digital interface to use, it a clear desion. IEEE1394 is best for all.


Yes the Promise Module will not have DVI.


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

Bruce.in.Cary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
I don't understand why people insist on continuing to promote the theory that DVI is an MPAA-sponsored covert attack on fair-use home recording. Unless somebody builds a set-top that has a DVI/HDCP port but no 1394 port, the DVI output has exactly ZERO effect on home recording. ZERO!!! Is anybody building such a product?


I wonder if any of the conspiracy theorists have any information to support a claim that the MPAA is trying to prevent STB manufacturers from including 1394? I rather doubt it. The MPAA is in love with 1394.


DVI is supported by the set-top builders because they recognize that it is in many ways a more flexible display connection that 1394. Those same companies have said that 1394 is the recording interface of choice.


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

Mike Kobb

(Formerly "ReplayMike", but no longer affiliated with the company; these opinions are mine alone.)


[This message has been edited by JustMike (edited 08-31-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Bruce,


No actually you are wrong. I am from America and I think you only read the cliffnotes version of the Betamax case. The Betamax case is in reference to OTA only and was finalized in 1984 not the 70's. Why should the courts ask DBS or Cable to shut off their copy never when showing PPV movies or very recent blockbuster movies. If they would use their copy never flags lightly and over %50 of the DBS or cable channels were copy never then we would be in a different ball game. The point is that copy never will only be implemented on very selective broadcasting, hence, it is in the best interest for them to protect their valuable content. To quote the NYTIMES artice.. " The (Betamax) decision did not address transmissions via pay per view, cable TV, pay TV, or the right to make permanent copies."



--MIKE http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/30/technology/circuits/30PIRA.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
That quote was made by an MPAA lawyer therefore it is nothing more than spin doctoring by the MPAA.


The final Supreme Court decision was made in 1984 but the original suit that started it all (Universal & Disney v. Sony) was brought in 1976.


For those that only read the cliff notes the complete Sony v. Universal Studios decision is here for your reading pleasure.


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

Vic Ruiz
STOP HDCP/DFAST/5C


[This message has been edited by vruiz (edited 08-31-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by mikexny:
" The (Betamax) decision did not address transmissions via pay per view, cable TV, pay TV, or the right to make permanent copies.
Well, that decision certainly did address the making of permanent copies, in footnote 39:
Quote:
[ Footnote 39 ] "This suggestion lacks merit. By definition, time-shift recording entails viewing and erasing, so the program will no longer be on tape when the later theater run begins. Of course, plaintiffs may fear that the Betamax owners will keep the tapes long enough to satisfy all their interest in [464 U.S. 417, 454] the program and will, therefore, not patronize later theater exhibitions. To the extent that this practice involves librarying, it is addressed in section V. C., infra. It should also be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the public interest in later theatrical exhibitions of motion pictures will be reduced any more by Betamax recording than it already is by the television broadcast of the film." Id., at 467.
Basically "let's shut our eyes and pretend that it'll never happen". Gag me. It happens every day, and people share copies of stuff that they've paid to view with people who haven't paid to view it, potentially costing the IP holders profit. I know people who do it and I know people who know people who do it.


PPV wasn't a business model 17 years ago when that decision was handed down and it deserves a new court test against "fair use". It, and other pay-for-single-play delivery models are the only type of material that DTCP can be used to prevent copying of, as per the DTCP Adopter's Agreement. In my mind, prohibiting the use of "Copy Never" on PPV would be restraint of trade, since it destroys a business model that seeks to compete with prerecorded media rental (which it is illegal to copy, AFAIK). I don't see how they can continue PPV as it exists today in HD without it--with it, they can make it a fresher, more useful service. Not much different from renting a DVD from Blockbuster, except that I don't have to go get it and I don't have to bring it back. With an HD PVR (i.e., Tivo), I can even pause and rewind it, since such a device is allowed to retain up to 90 minutes of "Copy Never" data.


-- Mike Scott



[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 08-31-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,220 Posts
In an interview in HDTV Magazine with an executive from Mitsubishi, the Mitsubishi executive said that studios have an agenda to do more than prevent copying and that is why the prefer DVI over 1394/5C. The 1394/5C has copy never, copy once, and copy freely options. It is my understanding that DVI has copy/play until a specified date options. This is why the studios want to control you. As a result I can understand 1394/5C but not DVI.


Rick R
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top