Analog Hole Legislation Formally Introduced

[BJ_M]

"Ars Technica is covering a recent bit of legislation introduced to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee this past week. The laws would seek to close the 'Analog Hole' that serves as a sort of last-ditch pirating mechanism when corporate DRM goes all crazy and tramples on your fair-use rights: 'Calling the ability to convert analog video content to a digital format a significant technical weakness in content protection, H.R. 4569 would require all consumer electronics video devices manufactured more than 12 months after the DTCSA is passed to be able to detect and obey a rights signaling system that would be used to limit how content is viewed and used. That rights signaling system would consist of two DRM technologies, Video Encoded Invisible Light (VEIL) and Content Generation Management System--Analog (CGMS-A), which would be embedded in broadcasts and other analog video content.'"

THis bill that would restrict owners of analog devices from recording analog content. For instance, if a fan wishes to tape a Baseball game on his VCR, the VCR would re-encode the content of that game and convert it into a digital form, which would then be filled with right restrictions and so forth. The process would be driven by VRAM (Veil Rights Assertion Mark), a technology that stamps analog content with DRM schemes."

[BJ_M]

The only real solution: copy-protect the actual audio output from the speakers, say by adding a high-energy ultrasonic screech (Ashley Simpson) which instantly obliterates all recording devices within hearing range.

[edDV]

Sheesh will it never let up?

They will only force all existing equipment to be uesless for watching any HDTV.

I think we should be allowed to personnally sue each Congressman to replace our "HD Ready" HDTV sets with one that actually can display HDTV after this legislation.

[jagabo]

Maybe we can turn this around by developing a terrorist audio/video encoding service that uses the technology to encrypt their private communications. Then the Feds will demand that all audio and video be encoded free of any encumberances. LOL

[ROF]

Interesting stuff. Will broadcasters go along with this? What equipment will they need to invest in?

On a sidenote, Analog law was introduced today that will cut off analog broadcasts completely by Feb 2009. Some Congressmen wanted to hold off until the NCAA Tournament that year but instead all analog broadcasts will be cutoff before this can take place. The subsidy was also slashed in half which means the government may not owe you a working television in 2009.

This will not effect subscription Cable or Sat customers as they will/already have digital receivers.

[painkiller]

I am beginning to form the opinion/idea that we (at least those of that are interested) file a class action suit against those Senators and House Reps that vote(d) for such steps.

By forcing a departure from the current analog broadcast system to digital (by 2009) they -
Force the public to spend money on television technology they may not want nor afford.
May bring about a great deal of electronic waste due to folks not even caring to keep current analog tv's past the cutoff date.
Enact the "Analog Hole" legislation for what purpose - to "live" for a max of 4 years? Most televison purchases right now are a split of digital (hdtv/edtv) and current models. I'm sure this "legislation" is going to solve the movie industry's problem overnight - or inside of 4 years. (hah)

These "legislators" should leave public office and go back to school, they surely don't have any total brains amongst them that would weigh even 1 pound of grey matter.

[ROF]

That's why I posted the bit about the 2009 deadline. It kinda makes the original topic here look silly if I'm reading it correctly. If the broadcasts are no longer in analog what does the electronics inside these new devices need to be added for? To block someone from dubbing an analog source they own to another analog source? It makes no sense but some laws are like that I guess. I just can't see introducing a law that will be negated by a current law that will not allow analog broadcasting after Feb 2009. 2009 may seem a few years away but in terms of legislation and enaction of such legislation it's just around the corner.

Also like I said before nobody owes citizens a working TV Tuner. If that were true I want my money back on every AM Radio I've ever purchased.

[lordsmurf]

AM Radios still work, and have a great number of stations.

[somebodeez]

Well, I wrote to my Rep. (again, sigh)
You can too. We're going to need a good number of people contacting their Reps. about this and keep at it. Don't give up because THEY sure as heck aren't!
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=181

[Roundabout]

More about this:

Pro-Hollywood bill aims to restrict digital tuners

A new proposal in Congress could please Hollywood studios, which are increasingly worried about Internet piracy, by embedding anticopying technology into the next generation of digital video products.

If the legislation were enacted, one year later it would outlaw the manufacture or sale of electronic devices that convert analog video signals into digital ones--unless those encoders honor an anticopying plan designed to curb redistribution. Affected devices would include PC-based tuners and digital video recorders.

"This legislation is designed to secure analog content from theft that has been made easier as a result of the transition to digital technologies," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican, said late Friday. Criminals "obtain copyrighted content and then redistribute for profit at the copyright owner's expense," he added.

Sensenbrenner's bill, also backed by Democratic Rep. John Conyers, is designed to plug what technologists have come to call the "analog hole." That's the practice of converting copy-protected digital material to analog format, stripping away copy protection, and shifting the material back to digital format with only a slight loss in quality.

The Motion Picture Association of America applauded the legislation, called the Digital Transition Content Security Act. MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said in a statement that it was a "very important piece of legislation that will promote more consumer choice as it protects copyright owners in the digital age."

The legislation was introduced just as Congress is departing for the holidays, so it likely won't be considered for the next few months. But it could draw strong opposition from consumer electronics makers and advocacy groups such as Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which already had expressed alarm over an earlier version.

Learning from earlier setbacks
Because the Sensenbrenner-Conyers legislation would hand broad power to the Commerce Department to police the consumer electronics industry, it could yield an aggressive industry response similar to last year's tussle over the Induce Act.

During that process, electronics manufacturers and some Internet providers managed to defeat the Induce Act by arguing that it might be intended to restrict file swapping, but it would actually imperil devices such as Apple Computer's iPod. A 2002 proposal to forcibly implant anticopying technology in consumer gear also was defeated.

The wording of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers proposal seems to indicate that the MPAA and its congressional allies have learned from earlier rounds in Congress over digital copyright. Their bill partially exempts libraries and educators, for instance, chipping away at one potential source of opposition. It also says:

• Digital video recorders with analog tuners or inputs would only be allowed to record "copy-prohibited" shows for 90 minutes. After that, the digital recording must be "destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable."

• Analog video output of "copy-prohibited" recordings would be permitted as long as it was to a VGA output with a resolution of no more than 720 pixels by 480 pixels.

• Violations would be punished by civil penalties between $200 and $2,500 per product. Commercial offenders would be imprisoned for up to five years and fined not more than $500,000.

• The two copy-protection systems that must be supported are Video Encoded Invisible Light--used in a Batmobile toy--and Content Generation Management System-Analog. Products manufactured and also sold to consumers before the law's restrictions kick in a year after its enactment would be legal to resell.


LINK to article

Link to PDF file of "Digital Transition Content Security Act" (DTCSA)

[rkr1958]

As I read this I'm in the process of converting four of my VHS tapes to DVD. "Home Alone", "It's a Wonderful Life", "Blue's Clues: ABC's & 123", and "Bob the Builder, Can we Fix It?". I've paid for these once and don't really want to buy them again.

By the way, I'm using my Sony TRV-320 DV to convert the analog signal to digital (VCR to my camera via RCA cable) and pass-through via firewire capture to my PC. The funny thing is if I were to try to copy the VHS to DV tape the camera stops me because it detects a MV signal. However, no problem if I remove the DV tape and passthrough the signal to my PC.

[mbellot]

I think we should be allowed to personnally sue each Congressman to replace our "HD Ready" HDTV sets with one that actually can display HDTV after this legislation.

So when its your TV they aim to obsolete its time to sue, but when OTA analog broadcasts being stopped prematurely stand to take out millions of TV sets (including mine) we should all just roll over and play dead.

Nice.

This will not effect subscription Cable or Sat customers as they will/already have digital receivers.

Not quite. I have DTV for "cable" channels but still use OTA for local channels. Quite simply I find it ridiculous that they charge $3 - $5 extra for local channels when even the most stripped down cable plan includes them. $36 - $60 per year more out of my pocket is not "no effect" in my opinion.

For anyone who responds "its only $60 per year, thats not alot of money" I will be happy to PM you my PayPal address.

I think if they really want to plug the a-hole they need to find Jack Valenti.

[somebodeez]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051218-5797.html

It doesn't take too much imagination to see where this is headed.

Once the MPAA and pals have their way, you're going to pay through the nose for even the most basic of Fair Use rights. You're going to pay for the right to rewind and "re-experience" content. The Copy Prohibited Content class, complete with its asinine insta-delete feature is nothing but a back door into attacking what the content industry hates most: your ability to timeshift content.

And this bill is ridiculously hard on timeshifting. Section 201 (b) (1) of the DTCSA gives you all of 90 minutes from the initial reception of a "unit of content" to watch your recordings. Heaven forbid you get a long phone call or an unscheduled visit from a neighbor when you're engaged in some delayed viewing—once that 90-minute window closes you're out of luck until the next broadcast.

Our Fair Use rights have been on the endangered list for the past several years, and the passage of this legislation would mark a habitat loss so severe that it would threaten the very survival of the species. No matter what the MPAA and RIAA tell us, it's not about piracy. It's about squeezing every last dollar out of our pockets if we want to do anything other than watch a live broadcast.

This is bad legislation for everyone except Hollywood and its lackeys. If you are represented by a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, contact him or her and make your feelings known. Given what's at stake here, expressing your views to your congressional representative and senators is an excellent idea as well.

[painkiller]

Thanks for that link, Somebodeez.
I sent a message as well.

[adam]

Not quite. I have DTV for "cable" channels but still use OTA for local channels.

And you still will use OTA for local channels, it will just be in digital format which your existing reciever will accept. You are one of the people that won't even notice the analogue cutoff. If anything the broadcast quality will just be a little better.

The analogue cutoff doesn't remove any broadcasts it just changes them to digital. As long as your hardware is capable of receiving digital broadcasts you will still get those same broadcasts and they will still be ota, AKA free.

I actually don't have a problem with the analogue cuttoff. Even though it will inconvenience some, even many depending on how you count it, it has definite positive aspects and yes many of those do accrue to the common consumer. Its got its ups and downs but the transition does need to be done eventually.

The analogue hole legislation, on the other hand, is mostly dumb to me. I just don't think the hole is very big and with everything moving towards digital, it gets smaller everyday. Forcing manufacturers to change will probably increase costs and there are bound to be defects and hiccups in the product lines. Its just not worth it.

[SilverBlade]

I don't live in the U.S, but I have a feeling that this new legislation will heavily affect Canadian TV viewers (lets face it, more then 80% of the channels canadians get ARE american anyways). I wish I could have a say in this too because I will be affected by this!.

Unless the laws in Canada are different for this type of thing...

[edDV]

"TITLE I

Section 101. No person shall

(a) manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any – (1) analog video input device that converts into digital form an analog videosignal that is received in a covered format, or an analog video signal in a covered format that is read from a recording on an inserted storage medium, unless any portions of such device that are designed to access, record or pass the content of the analog video signal within that device: (i) detect and respond to the rights signaling system with respect to a particular work ... "

And it goes on for 13 pages.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/analog_hole_discussion_draft.pdf

[adam]

SilverBlade, I don't think this legislation could affect Canadians at all. Even assuming you are receiving US broadcasts, which may be illegal I have no idea, the imbedded protections do nothing unless the hardware recognizes them. Unless a similar bill is passed in Canada, your hardware will ignore the protection. Unless you imported a US VCR/PVR/whatever...

[edDV]

I think we should be allowed to personnally sue each Congressman to replace our "HD Ready" HDTV sets with one that actually can display HDTV after this legislation.

So when its your TV they aim to obsolete its time to sue, but when OTA analog broadcasts being stopped prematurely stand to take out millions of TV sets (including mine) we should all just roll over and play dead.

Nice.

Your analog TV will still work, you will just need a cheap set top DTV tuner.

This legislation prohibits unencrypted* analog HD outputs from such a tuner or cable box.

* all existing analog HD devices including HDTVs with component analog inputs would be obsoleted.

[MikieV]

By the way, I'm using my Sony TRV-320 DV to convert the analog signal to digital (VCR to my camera via RCA cable) and pass-through via firewire capture to my PC. The funny thing is if I were to try to copy the VHS to DV tape the camera stops me because it detects a MV signal. However, no problem if I remove the DV tape and passthrough the signal to my PC.

Nice!

I'll have to see if my sony pc-350 works the same way.

Thanks for the tip.

Mike

[MikieV]

... Unless a similar bill is passed in Canada, your hardware will ignore the protection. Unless you imported a US VCR/PVR/whatever...

If this crap does pass, and thereby forces manufacturers to build these a-hole protectors into all hardware bound for the US market, I would be surprised if wasn't added to any hardware heading for North America.

Why build two versions of a recorder, just so one version can have the US-mandated features - while the other can only be sold in Canada and Mexico.

Only people outside the US who recieve US-based broadcasts would get screwed - like silverblade.

The others wouldn't even know the crap had been added.

It would be interesting if Canadian & Mexican recorders didn't get the "upgrade" - and then see what kind of black market developed to bring them into the US.

They can't stop immigrants and drugs, but they probably think they can seal the border against VCRs!!

[adam]

Considering the fact that each unit that implements this will have to pay licensing fees, and the fact that laws differ so much from region to region that manufacturers already have to frequently release different models and packaging in each region, I would personally be extremely suprised if any manufacturer implemented this across the board if it were only required in the US.

With that said, the US exports soooo much IP that whenever they legislate in this area other countries are influenced as well.

[GullyFoyle]

If this crap does pass, and thereby forces manufacturers to build these a-hole protectors into all hardware bound for the US market, I would be surprised if wasn't added to any hardware heading for North America.

Why build two versions of a recorder, just so one version can have the US-mandated features - while the other can only be sold in Canada and Mexico.

Just more hidden menus and hacks.
Like region specific dvd players woked out so well.
Smart money built one model with hidden menus.
For every act there is a hack of defiance.

[drjtech]

I predict that within 5 years all citizens will be required to wear DRM corneal and aural implants that will block the ability to see or hear any "unlicensed" material.

You heard it here first.

-drj

[ROF]

This will not effect subscription Cable or Sat customers as they will/already have digital receivers.

Not quite. I have DTV for "cable" channels but still use OTA for local channels. Quite simply I find it ridiculous that they charge $3 - $5 extra for local channels when even the most stripped down cable plan includes them. $36 - $60 per year more out of my pocket is not "no effect" in my opinion.

Which cable subscription do you have that includes cable but not local stations?

My cable service does not offer this even for analog customers. I pay for cable in 3 markets and none of them offer such packaging. When you buy any subscription tier, local is included. In any case, this analog cutoff will not effect digital cable of sat customers and their subscription. Anyone currently receiving analog cable will be switched over in 2007 to digital.

does it effect me? Yes it does. I have cable but before the cable enters the digital box I have it spliced into my workshop so I can change stations in there without the need to run back to the cable box or rent an extra cable box for the shop. in 2009 my TV will go blank for broadcast signals.

[somebodeez]

Thanks for that link, Somebodeez.
I sent a message as well.

Thanks for writing!! These people need to be absolutely bombarded with calls and letters from every person in the US who opposes this bill before it's too late. It is perhaps the only way we can get the message through that we do NOT want this.

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=181

Spread the word too!

Only people outside the US who recieve US-based broadcasts would get screwed - like silverblade.

I think we'll all be screwed in some form or the other if this thing goes through.

[mbellot]

Not quite. I have DTV for "cable" channels but still use OTA for local channels.

And you still will use OTA for local channels, it will just be in digital format which your existing reciever will accept. You are one of the people that won't even notice the analogue cutoff. If anything the broadcast quality will just be a little better.

The analogue cutoff doesn't remove any broadcasts it just changes them to digital. As long as your hardware is capable of receiving digital broadcasts you will still get those same broadcasts and they will still be ota, AKA free.

Nope. None of my current TV equipment is capable of receiving any digital OTA local broadcasts. The DTV unit is an original model so the only way I can get "local" channels with it is to subscribe to them at an additional cost and none of the TV sets have built in ATSC tuners.

When they shut off analog OTA I will be forced to spend more money, either on monthly service, a set top converter box or a new TV.

Not to mention how this will affect my standalone Tivo that won't receive digital OTA or control a digital set top box (its too old and highly unlikely Tivo will upgrade the software). So there's even MORE money I'll need to shell out.

Your analog TV will still work, you will just need a cheap set top DTV tuner.

This legislation prohibits analog HD outputs from such a tuner or cable box.

So I should pay for a set top tuner (cheap or not) but you can sue for a new TV set? Piss off.

Which cable subscription do you have that includes cable but not local stations?

I do NOT have cable, I have DirecTV as my "cable" provider. Local channels are not included, they are an additional cost above and beyond my current "basic" channel lineup.

That was my point, even the most basic of "real" cable services provides local channels as part of the package. Not DirecTV.

[dphirschler]

"...promote more consumer choice as it protects copyright owners in the digital age."

I fail to see how this promotes more consumer choice.


Darryl

[ROF]

Which cable subscription do you have that includes cable but not local stations?

I do NOT have cable, I have DirecTV as my "cable" provider. Local channels are not included, they are an additional cost above and beyond my current "basic" channel lineup.

That was my point, even the most basic of "real" cable services provides local channels as part of the package. Not DirecTV.

and that was my point. DirecTV even in their most basic $41 package includes local channels. If you are paying extra for them you do not have DirecTV for those stations. If those stations aren't offered in your area, DirecTV has been giving you a discount on your subscription because of that unique situation.

[lordsmurf]

DirecTV charges extra for locals, it's $5-6 per month more. Always has been. Unless something recently changed, or is only in your area.

And what REALLY SUCKS about getting locals on satellite or cable is the fact that many people can get a cleaner picture with a $5 pair of rabbit ears from the dollar store.