MPAA swipes at PVR

[GullyFoyle]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/12/20/mpaa_swipes_at_pvr/

A new bill before the US Congress favours the MPAA with proposed anti-copying restrictions on all digital video recording devices. Aimed specifically at PVR/DVR technologies, the bill will force all PC TV Tuner cards and TiVo-like commercial devices to adhere to various copy protection standards.

"This legislation is designed to secure analogue content from theft that has been made easier as a result of the transition to digital technologies," Senator Sensenbrenner (R, Wisconsin) said. He further went on to say that "criminals obtain copyrighted content and then redistribute for profit at the copyright owner's expense."

As reported by CNet News, the Sensenbrenner-Conyers Proposal has some of the following items:

* Digital video recorders with analogue 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."

* Analogue 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.

Those of you who know me know I've got a tremendous dislike of anything even resembling DRM. But am I so wrong in saying "LEAVE MY COMPUTER AND TV ALONE"? And as for "profiting" from their copying of freely aired content, when was the last time you paid Bit-Torrent anything? Oh, perhaps they mean that this will cut into the DVD sales of TV shows, which the producers are already paid handsomely for when the show airs by the networks.

Personally, I'm a bit sick of the RIAA, MPAA, and the idiots in my Congress that make these ridiculous claims of loss and then make laws to protect against it. But since this is not an opinion column, I'll leave you to tune in to our forums and vent your own spleen.

Oh, but don't record it, or we'll sue.

http://news.com.com/Pro-Hollywood+bill+aims+to+restrict+digital+tuners/2100-1028_3-6001825.html

Pro-Hollywood bill aims to restrict digital tuners

By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/Pro-Hollywood+bill+aims+to+restrict+digital+tuners/2100-1028_3-6001825.html

Story last modified Mon Dec 19 17:08:00 PST 2005

advertisement

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.
In other news:

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.

What is this Batmobile Toy thing mentioned?

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/027706.php

econd Class Citizens

Perhaps the most striking thing about the Sensenbrenner bill is this passage:

PROFESSIONAL DEVICE.—(A) The term‘‘professional device’’ means a device that is designed, manufactured, marketed, and intended for use by a person who regularly employs such a device for lawful business or industrial purposes, such as making, performing, displaying, distributing, or transmitting copies of audiovisual works on a commercial scale at the request of, or with the explicit permission of, the copyright owner.

(B) If a device is marketed to or is commonly purchased by persons other than those described in subparagraph (A), then such device shall not be considered to be a ‘‘professional device’’.

“Professional” devices, you see, are exempt from the restrictions that apply to all other audiovisual products. This raises some obvious questions: is it the responsibility of a “professional device” maker to ensure that too many “non-professionals” don’t purchase their product? If a company lowers its price too much, thereby allowing too many of the riffraff to buy it, does the company become guilty of distributing a piracy device? Perhaps the government needs to start issueing “video professional” licenses so we know who’s allowed to be part of this elite class?

I think this legislative strategy is extremely revealing. Clearly, Sensenbrenner’s Hollywood allies realized that all this copy-protection nonsense could cause problems for their own employees, who obviously need the unfettered ability to create, manipulate, and convert analog and digital content. This is quite a reasonable fear: if you require all devices to recognize and respect encoded copy-protection information, you might discover that content which you have a legitimate right to access has been locked out of reach by over-zealous hardware. But rather than taking that as a hint that there’s something wrong with the whole concept of legislatively-mandated copy-protection technology, Hollywood’s lobbyists took the easy way out: they got themselves exempted from the reach of the legislation.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. McCain and Feingold, like Sensenbrenner, faced a difficult problem: a straightforward reading of their legislation, which prohibited people from spending large sums of money on political advocacy, would seem to prevent corporate entities like the New York Times and Fox News from talking about politics in the closing weeks of the election. Clearly, that wouldn’t do. But rather than taking this as evidence that there was something fundamentally wrong with their approach, they simply created a class of journalists to whom the rules did not apply. If Michael Moore wants to spend a million dollars promoting John Kerry’s election, that’s free speech. But if you or I spent a million dollars on anti-Bush ads in the closing weeks of the election, we could wind up in jail.

Like McCain and Feingold, Sensenbrenner demonstrates a profound contempt for ordinary Americans, whom his legislation literally makes second-class citizens. It seems that he can’t imagine that ordinary consumers might ever have legitimate reasons to use “professional” video editing tools for personal projects. Consumers, after all, are just that—passive recipients of the culture made for them by the professional magic-makers of Hollywood. We wouldn’t want the riffraff to make culture of their own.

[Laddydaddy]

Check out this link; http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-02-10-toys_x.htm. It gives a little info on the Video Encoded Invisible Light and the Batmobile toy. Apparently when the Batmobile revs it's engine on the Batman TV show, the Batmobile toy does likewise via the magic of the Invisible Light.

[painkiller]

I don't know whether this is an exploratory example on Tivo's part, but recently Tivo and CNet partnered to "push" 10 to 15 minute CNet videos to subscribers.

I opted in for that when it started.

Interesting enough, after getting the first video - I found that it can't be transferred even if you have the TivoToGo upgrade. In addition to that, you can't play that video through the Tivo's VCR connectors. It will eventually be deleted, or you can delete it early if you want.

Harbinger of things to come, I suppose.

Let's face it folks, they don't really care about us so much as they just want our money.

[Headbanger's Ball]

Let's face it folks, they don't really care about us so much as they just want our money.

And they have a firm belief they are entitled to it by right.

[hhhhbk]

wouldnt removing the right and abillity to record seriously hurt companies like sony who have both content and hardware

do they really think that stopping people recording things when they are out is going to boost ppv channels and sattelite and cable subscriptions

the companies need to start releasing more programs like lost at about $1 an episode online
or a full season subscription for like $50 and then they also ship you the dvd when the season is finished

there are a lot of companies like hauppauge whod be screwed over by removing/limiting recording ability as far fewer people would pay 3 or 4 times the price of a standard digital box just to be able to watch it on their pc as opposed to their tv

[painkiller]

Actually, the way they are going about it suggests to me that someday (soon?) all content will be pay-per-view.

[Nitemare]

painkiller Posted: Dec 21, 2005 22:19

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

Actually, the way they are going about it suggests to me that someday (soon?) all content will be pay-per-view.

It would be hilarious if that were true. I'd love to see the looks on their faces when they started losing MILLIONS. There is so little of anything good on television today that not much of it would be worth buying on a PPV basis.

What about ad revenue? If I have to pay to see it then advertisements are a deal breaker for sure. How would they overcome that hurdle? Like they do with the ads on DVDs I suppose ..."the ads make it cheaper for you"...

I swear... we should boycott the entire industry a full year and all start going to our local theaters for live shows.

Anyone interested? Let's make 2006 the year of the stage play!

[slacker]

Simply stop buying! Or do we all have an addiction problem?

[painkiller]

Oh, yeah.

I'm in complete-complete-complete control.

[GullyFoyle]

Actually, the way they are going about it suggests to me that someday (soon?) all content will be pay-per-view.

And on demand.
All of the On Demand channels have the fee statement somewhere.
Soon they will be plainly stating the price to watch what is supposedly free.

[mats.hogberg]

wouldnt removing the right and abillity to record seriously hurt companies like sony who have both content and hardware

That wouldn't be a first - Just consider the contradiction in Sony manufacturing MP3 players, at the same time as going to any length in stopping those who buy their CDs from doing anything but listening to them in their home audio system.

/Mats

[thecoalman]

Actually, the way they are going about it suggests to me that someday (soon?) all content will be pay-per-view.

I wouldn't doubt it for the future, pay-per-view on demand. You only need enough people on a network capable of maintaining the speeds they need to make it feasible. I know the cable connection in my area is in the 4 to 6 Mbps area, they are half there.

With a perfect connection and the 6 it would be possible. This has a upside though, if it's pay per view you're only paying for what you want. This would force companies to make content that someone would actually want to see instead of 1 good show and 50 filler shows.

[somebodeez]

I think I shall be keeping my current video card for a very looooong time.

[Snakebyte1]

thecoalman wrote:

This has a upside though, if it's pay per view you're only paying for what you want....


Unfortunately, most of these services require you to pay a subscription fee just to have the right to access pay-per-view.

[/quote]

[thecoalman]

Unfortunately, most of these services require you to pay a subscription fee just to have the right to access pay-per-view.

And if they don't deliver content that the user finds is worth it then it will fail. I'm on the fence on this one. On one side you have the large companies claiming they are losing profits and on the other side you have consumers claiming it's too much.....

If they aren't making profits... substanial ones.... then why are they still in business. On the consumer side if it costs too much why are you buying it?

20 - 15 years ago having HBO was great. At some point you could expect to see just about every movie that was in the movies. Usually 6 to 12 months, that is no longer true since HBO has so much competition now. I no longer subscribe to HBO.

If it's a pay-per-view basis then it's a win-win situation. The companies providing the content will have to deliver a product people are willing to pay for at a reasonable price or they won't make any money, they can't claim piracy since that's been taken out of the equation. The consumer gets the good content they want because they are only paying for what they want.

At some point all this DRM is going to come to a breaking point where consumers are going to revolt in mass and simply stop buying or the companies providing the content will have to give them what they want at a price they can afford. You can't sell what people don't want.

[Morse2]

Yikes! "Keep your hands off my computer and TV" is RIGHT!

Okay....so what "next generation" (last generation?) PVR card do I go for?

I'm pulling my Avermedia Ultra 500 out of the email machine and will hold onto it as a spare - but it would be nice to have a "next gen" card with HDTV, then pull one of my Leadteks and keep TWO spares.

Suggestions anyone?

OT rant: why can't those jackals in congress just leave the American people alone? Haven't they already done enough damage to us with their "reforms"? Everywhere they meddle to "improve" our lot, they make it worse!

[mbellot]

If they aren't making profits... substanial ones.... then why are they still in business.

As a guess, they are claiming losses against "projected profits". Its a great (read sleaze bag) approach that alot of companys use to limit raises/promotions and so forth.

For example:

Upper management declares that the company will make a profit next year that is 15% higher than the current year.

Bad news guys, we only made 12% more than last year so everyone is claiming we lost 3%. You better not ask for a raise, there are dozens of people who want your job and would take it for less money.

Ain't big buisness grand.

On the consumer side if it costs too much why are you buying it?

I have, with rare (child driven) exception. You could count the DVDs I own on just your hands, and its probably going to be that way for some time.

OT rant: why can't those jackals in congress just leave the American people alone? Haven't they already done enough damage to us with their "reforms"? Everywhere they meddle to "improve" our lot, they make it worse!

You need to use a simple political vocabulary filter.

Every time you here the word help, substitute the word screw.

Remember, they're just trying to help us.

[GullyFoyle]

Nice explanation for big medias unjustified actions.