US Politicians Want To Raise Broadcast Flag

[gll99]

Adam wrote:

What are you people talking about? The broadcast flag is not intended to prevent you from copying anything, its supposed to prevent you from distributing those copies. Before anymore of you throw out senseless little claims that the sky is falling please go read about the technology we are actually dealing with.

This may or may no be broadcast flag related but I think it illustrates what is possible.

I have digital cable with most of the premium channels but only use standard digital terminals.

My son (Rogers cable, Ont Canada) decided to try a rental pvr terminal in his home. Shortly after, he rented/purchased a pay per view movie (about $5) and he and his wife settled down with their bowl of popcorn to enjoy a good evening movie. Friends dropped by part way though the movie. No problem he thought, I'll just record the rest and we can finish it later. Not so! It wouldn't record. He called the next day and got conflicting info. One rep said to bring the unit back because it was defective. He did this but the truth is as he found out that you cannot record pay per view on their pvr. Had he connected his computer to the box and captured the signal he would have at least been able to view the rest later. Bet that new computer capture cards will even block this avenue.
I'm sure that the intent is that any future copying of broadcast material will only be possible to protected hardware for time shifting purposes with express time limits on retention and then only the material which they allow.

btw) He was told that although he couldn't record the signal to his rented Rogers owned pvr , he could have a 24 hour feed of any movie he rented/bought for an additional $1 per movie.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I have to agree with edDV et al that the costs and inconvenience incured by consumers will be rediculous if this flag goes into effect.I think any piracy is wrong but the draconian measures that the MPAA wants hurts the legitimate user.
I'm glad this post has spurred alot of debate...maybe we can channel it towards our representatives in Congress.

[lordsmurf]

I'm glad this post has spurred alot of debate...maybe we can channel it towards our representatives in Congress.

My current representative is a stupid twat. When you write her with your desires as her constituent, she writes back some half-wit template that basically tell you her idea (note, HER idea, not that of her constituents she's SUPPOSED to be listening to), and then basically blows you off as insignificant to whatever her final decision is. Cold bitch. Hate her.

All others I've ever written to usually give you a canned letter, but it at least lets you know they'll be listening to and properly representing constituent opinions (regardless of his/her own) when it comes time to take action.

[adam]

http://www.siliconimage.com/docs/Press_PDFs/223300.pdf

According to that it really doesn't sound that complicated to make the addition. Other than swapping the connector its not much different than installing a modchip. I just can't see manufacturers saying sorry buy another, when its so much cheaper and easier to just fix the existing units. My guess is that it will be the manufacturers eating the expense since they had the option of including HDCP from its inception.

I can totally see the potential for alienation of a relatively large segment of people, which is exactly why I don't think it will ever happen. There is no way the bill will pass without taking care of them, IMO. But we'll see.

[adam]

Well gll99 the Betamax ruling which created the right to time-shift did expressly state that it does not apply to PPV. It also expressly stated that repeated viewings were allowed for family members but not friends. (4 members of the family can each watch it separately...if friends are there for any viewing that's fine. But your friends don't get their own viewing.) Just saying...

[edDV]

http://www.siliconimage.com/docs/Press_PDFs/223300.pdf

According to that it really doesn't sound that complicated to make the addition. Other than swapping the connector its not much different than installing a modchip. I just can't see manufacturers saying sorry buy another, when its so much cheaper and easier to just fix the existing units. My guess is that it will be the manufacturers eating the expense since they had the option of including HDCP from its inception.

I can totally see the potential for alienation of a relatively large segment of people, which is exactly why I don't think it will ever happen. There is no way the bill will pass without taking care of them, IMO. But we'll see.

But if it is that easy why couldn't the "fix" be used as a generalized HDCP encryption breaker? How could it be tied to a specific piece of equipment?
The handshake of authorization keys is the complication.

From: http://www.sigmadesigns.com/support/DVI_HDMI.htm
"In addition to the encryption and decryption functions, HDCP implements authentication to verify that the receiving device (such as a display or television) is licensed to receive encrypted content. Re-authentication occurs approximately every two seconds to continuously confirm the security of the DVI or HDMI interface. If, at any time, re-authentication does not occur, for example by disconnecting a device and/or connecting an illegal recording device, the source device (such as a DVD player or set-top box) ends transmission of encrypted content.

If a device's encryption/decryption keys have been compromised, the HDCP licensing administrator places the compromised device on a revocation list carried by System Renewability Messages (SRMs). SRMs are passed on to devices via prerecorded or broadcasted content, or received from another compliant device. Thus, once a device has been compromised, it will eventually no longer be able to send or receive encrypted content."

Hopefully a "fix" will be provided.

[gll99]

@Adam
This wasn't about their friends being able to view the movie. All they wanted to do was finish the rest later after their unexpected company left.

=====================================

I understand the principle behind it but this can extend as far as the broadcaster wants. The limit I suppose is the how much will customers put up with it. Right now pvr units make money and draw new customers so there are few limits to pvr recording, in fact had they had a dvd recorder connected they could have probably recorded to that but I can see that changing too.

I don't think any of this has anything to do with stopping any form of internet piracy. Just follow the $ sign. I'm guessing that the people who download tv shows are still in the minority and many of those already have broadband and likely paying for cable etc.. and could have seen the show but may just be catching up on a missed episode.

There is a fairly new market for after broadcast sales which they realized was left unprotected. While vhs distribution started it, the growth of the DVD market probably accelerated the push. One of the first attempts to protect the content was the broadcast logo. This in effect stamps the video and makes it less desirable to own than a dvd release. The other selling point is that of restoring an old tv series to a higher quality. This is ok for the older shows but as was pointed out HD quality is hard to improve upon. So the next step is to prevent the average person from making a copy and keeping it which they hope means increasing the possibility of future sales.

As far as I'm concerned they have every right to do this since they own the product.

I also have the right to decide if, in the case of movies, I will pay to view it in the theatre, on rental or purchased dvd, on pay tv, on a subscription movie network or eventually on network tv (with all the commercials) or not at all.
Of course, most tv productions don't have a theatre release and the dvd usually comes at the end (if at all) but in all cases we have no real right to the material.

The vcr was great but it spoiled us. I must have 150 - 200 (6hr elp) vhs tapes of old tv show, movies, sports which I recorded while I was out enjoying myself but thought at the time oh I can't miss this show so I'll tape it for later. Truth is that while I watched a few and re-recorded over them, a lot of them ended up in boxes while I went out and bought more cheap tapes to record new stuff. Now they sit in the basement and few of them have ever been seen again. I tried a transfer of a couple of them a few years ago and while the chosen tape looked fine the tranferred quality was awful and not worth the effort. How would I ever find the time to watch those old tapes again but who knows maybe some day I will start.

I guess I just want the option to do the same thing as I did with vhs tape but of course I would probably end up with hundreds of unwatched disks just sitting there with me thinking... One day I have to get around to watching those old shows I recorded... but of course there is never enough time because with cable there are so many new shows and I can't watch them all so I'll just record them and watch them later..... but later I have to watch the new shows and who has the time....... and on and on ..............

The average consumer will live with what is available and I don't think this means more or less sales. The so called pirates and savy tech types will always get around things and pay less or get something for free. Legislation may be passed supposedly with them in mind but they are the least effected by all these changes. It's just another challenge to quickly overcome and boast about.

[adam]

But if it is that easy why couldn't the "fix" be used as a generalized HDCP encryption breaker? How could it be tied to a specific piece of equipment?
The handshake of authorization keys is the complication.

If I am reading it correctly it is not the device that is continually checked for compliance its the connector and corresponding circuitry, and it just runs these tests itself...on itself. It becomes tied to the specific piece of equipment when the manufacturer installs it. And its not like you could make a non-HDCP device compatible yourself just by installing the hardware because its useless without the keys and only the manufacturer can get those.

[adam]

@Adam
This wasn't about their friends being able to view the movie. All they wanted to do was finish the rest later after their unexpected company left.

Yeah, that's exactly what the Supreme Court said you cannot do. They reasoned that the ordering system of PPV gives you enough control over when you receive the broadcast that there is not enough justification for a time-shifting right in this case. You simply cannot time-shift PPV content under the current ruling.

[lordsmurf]

But if it is that easy why couldn't the "fix" be used as a generalized HDCP encryption breaker? How could it be tied to a specific piece of equipment?
The handshake of authorization keys is the complication.

If I am reading it correctly it is not the device that is continually checked for compliance its the connector and corresponding circuitry, and it just runs these tests itself...on itself. It becomes tied to the specific piece of equipment when the manufacturer installs it. And its not like you could make a non-HDCP device compatible yourself just by installing the hardware because its useless without the keys and only the manufacturer can get those.

"Marriage" via an EEPROM chip embedded in an external interface that is somewhere on the rear inputs of the tv? Satellite receivers do something very similar with CAMs.

If I'm understanding you correctly...

[somebodeez]

Those who defend this broadcast flag please explain to me why I should go out and purchase a few thousand dollars worth of new equipment to replace what I have now when the new stuff won't be as functional as what I currently have.

Also please explain to me why we should keep on paying my cable co. all of the $ that we do if we cannot enjoy what we want to when we want to and on whatever player that we want to and where we want to as we currently do now.

Because the content will look better?
Not according to what I've seen so far so you'll have to give me a better reason than that.

So go ahead - do your darndest to convince me.

[adam]

Not all laws are consumer friendly. You aren't getting anything out of this, the big media copyright holders are. The goal is to enable them to get the protection they want, because they claim they cannot introduce new digital technologies without it, without having to alienate any of their customers. Here's to hoping that you won't have to replace any of your equipment and that the whole thing will be a smooth transition...assuming it passes but I really think it will inevitably happen at some point.

The ideal scheme is that you'd never know the flag was even there until you tried to do something illegal. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I think the technology of the flag and the language of the bill need major reworking in order to achieve that.

[somebodeez]

Not all laws are consumer friendly. You aren't getting anything out of this, the big media copyright holders are.

Looks like they won't be getting any of my $ if there's nothing in it for me then. Very simple business concept really. :P

The ideal scheme is that you'd never know the flag was even there until you tried to do something illegal.

And there we have the problem.
Think about it.

[adam]

The ideal scheme is that you'd never know the flag was even there until you tried to do something illegal.

And there we have the problem.
Think about it.

Could you explain please? That sounds like the perfect security feature to me; it only affects those its supposed to and ignores the legitimate users.

[somebodeez]

The ideal scheme is that you'd never know the flag was even there until you tried to do something illegal.

And there we have the problem.
Think about it.

Could you explain please? That sounds like the perfect security feature to me; it only affects those its supposed to and ignores the legitimate users.

My idea of "legitimate" users and theirs seems to be 2 different things.

Like I stated above, I perfer to have the freedom to cap/record what I want using whatever equipment I have (for example, my PC now takes the place of my VCR), burn that material onto DVDrs, watch that recorded/capped material on whatever I want, whenever I want to, where ever I want. (I forgot to add however many times I want).

I do not want that material to be locked onto any specific device that I am expected to go out and have to purchase nor do I to be SOL if my current device breaks and whatever I have won't play on other devices that I have because it's locked to that broken device.

If I understand correctly, this is not their idea of "legal" or "legitimate" usage.

the perfect security feature

May force me to hunt for "illegal" ways & means that will allow me to continue to enjoy my viewing habits in the same manner to which I have become accustomed to.

I have paid for my devices, I pay for my cable service, I pay for my DVDrs. I do not mass produce DVDs for marketing purposes...
THAT makes me a "legitimate" user, IMHO.

And if that is not good enough for anyone see above:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1382041#1382041

[QuaiBoy]

Not being able to time-shift the END of a movie that someone paid for too much for to begin with is the perfect way to sour people's perceptions of a technology. Rest assured that they won't use it again.
A video rental (even if you pay full price, and there's no need to) will allow you to play and replay, skip and pause a movie (and it's special features) until you need to take it back. All for less than the price of ordering a movie through cable. The copyright holders are really killing themselves profit-wise by persuing this to become law. If they insist on making blatantly unnessesary restrictions in the name of stopping piracy it will fail.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm damn tired of the media companies assuming (actually, TELLING me) that I'm going to steal their product. It's quite the slap in the face. We all know that if someone wants to make a copy, they will. All these laws and restrictions do is piss off the paying customer.

-Evan-

[mbellot]

A more fair solution would be an exchange of a compatible new set with all expenses paid by the media license holders.

LMFAO - edDV you are too funny.

Its the consumer's fiscal problem when the government wants to shove Digital OTA down people's throats.

But when they want to shove copy protection down your throat (and obsolete your equipment) then they should give you all new equipment at no charge.

Hypocrite.

[oldfart13]

Since what most of you are talking about seems to be USA law, how does this affect the rest of the world at large? The USA is NOT "The World", something some people seem painfully unaware of...

[edDV]

Since what most of you are talking about seems to be USA law, how does this affect the rest of the world at large? The USA is NOT "The World", something some people seem painfully unaware of...

Consider yourself lucky.

[painkiller]

True. We aren't the world.

(contrary to the song title.)

What is also true is that we seem to enjoy bantering about - trying to find the ideal - simple truth - so we can enjoy our technology.

Too bad our legislators - and supposed free-enterprise system - like to gum it all up. All in the name of greed. Pure and sinple.

As for Adam's simple description of supposedly the broadcast flag being 'invisible to the user until he attempts something illegal.' Sorry, but my opinion, as an engineer - nothing man invents is ever foolproof.

So, remember that TIVO's little "accident" recently uncovered the fact that a syndicated, cartoon, repeat broadcast was FLAGGED so it could NOT be transferred or saved longer than a certain duration. And THAT isn't even the broadcast flag everyone is discussing here.

And we are going to solve this issue that sits in the hands of Hollywood and our Congress (cough).

In that case, if anyone is interested, I'd recommend reading the following article.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/02/20_congressjerks_who.html

[adam]

As for Adam's simple description of supposedly the broadcast flag being 'invisible to the user until he attempts something illegal.' Sorry, but my opinion, as an engineer - nothing man invents is ever foolproof.

That was not my description of the broadcast flag at all. I said that is ideally how it would work and that I don't think its anywhere close to being at that stage yet.

I think its also worth pointing out that as much as our legislator's "gum it all up" they've still killed this bill both times it has been presented to them. Let's have a little faith. If and when this bill does get passed the implications may not be nearly as bad as so many are fearing.

[lordsmurf]

Since what most of you are talking about seems to be USA law, how does this affect the rest of the world at large? The USA is NOT "The World", something some people seem painfully unaware of...

Yeah, that's true .... temporarily.
In most cases, we lead, you follow. Monkey see, monkey do?

On that note, it doesn't mean I like it. Just an observation.

[whitejremiah]

What happens to the people that ONLY have a computer, and have say a cable box wired to it, and use something like oh, say, an ATI all in wonder card to watch cable on their computers? sounds like they get ****ed over again.....not that i would PERSONALLY qualify as being one of those people, but even so, i know one or two people that would qualify in that situation.....

[edDV]

What happens to the people that ONLY have a computer, and have say a cable box wired to it, and use something like oh, say, an ATI all in wonder card to watch cable on their computers? sounds like they get ****ed over again.....not that i would PERSONALLY qualify as being one of those people, but even so, i know one or two people that would qualify in that situation.....

It means a HD cable box* will not output in HD resolutions unless the computer capture card is HDCP encryption capable and communicates with valid keys from a licensed manufacturer. An example might be a future ATI HD All-In-Wonder card that obeys all the display and recording rules to the letter.

The current ATI HD wonder card would have to disallow HDTV display or recording of any program that contains the broadcast flag. Display and recording would be limited to 720x480 when the broadcast flag is active.

* this assumes the cable companies honor and pass the broadcast flag.

For those outside the USA, all this applies directly to future HD DVD players. HD media will only play in HD to approved HDCP licensed devices.

[ungamunga]

I also generally hate it when completely unrelated laws get thrown into popular or necessary bills, like those involving budgets. Ever look at all the crap in the bill that proposed the Patriot Act? No one wanted to vote against it so it just became a free for all for weird and random little changes.

I hate it too, but how can it ever be changed? The people that abuse the system like that are the only ones that could propose a law to stop it.

I really don't see why it couldn't be changed if the political will was there among the people. It certainly isn't a universal practice around the world.

The whole practice of tacking on riders with unrelated legislative changes seems to be either specific to the US or just a heck of a lot more common there. Plenty of other healthy democracies don't use the backdoor riders that are so commonly used to slip in unpopular items into law in the US.

I've studied law here in Canada and work with legislation on a daily basis and I've never seen anything like that weirdness in Canadian or other Commonwealth statutes. Sometimes a new law here will include amendments to several other laws, but those changes are always tied to the goal of the original act.

Reading American statutes is downright painful and confusing compared to reading those of Commonwealth nations (and trust me, no nation's statutes can be described as light and fun reading). When I am trying to figure out US laws, half the time I end up finding out that the amendment I'm trying to track down was snuck in as the umpteenth item tacked on to an appropriations bill.

For someone from country with a different legislative approach, the use of riders by the US Congress is very confusing. I understand how riders are used to entice otherwise disinterested senators and congressmen to vote in favour of a particular act but frankly, they seem like a really sneaky and underhanded way of sliding things in the back door.

Here, when a law calls itself a "narcotics control act" (or some other reasonably popular notion) you can expect it to only deal with things related to what the title is. At worst, it might amend a few related acts in ways that could be argued to facilitate the stated purpose of the law. If the party in power tried to tack on tons of unrelated junk into a bill, the opposition would crucify them during question period in the house of commons, so the general rule is that anything in a bill can be expected to have at least a plausible connection to the bill's stated purpose.

I don't think unrelated riders are technically prohibited in any way but rather it is just accepted practice not to use them. Since much of our legislation is drafted by lawyers in our ministry of Justice (i.e. by non-partisan bureaucrats) at the behest of various ministries, I suppose there is no incentive for the drafters to sneak stuff in. Our politicos vet proposed legislation and suggest changes but the actually crafting and fine tuning of laws is mostly done by civil servants who are lawyers. Seperate topics are simply dealt with by seperate acts.

I suspect that the use of riders evolved in the US as a means of "horse-trading" to permit individual representatives to get their own legislation passed. It is my understanding that any member of Congress can introduce a bill and have genuine odds of getting it passed (if they can be persuasive enough). In theory, it is the same here but the reality is that in Westminster-style parliaments, the legislative agenda is almost totally dominated by the majority party (esp. by the cabinet ministers). Here, an opposition member can introduce legislation but it's pretty much a futile act. Even private member's bills from backbench members of the ruling party usually flounder. The vast majority of our laws are tabled (i.e. presented to parliament) by the party in power. They have no need to horse-trade if they hold a majority and maintain good party discipline.

Minority governments will cut deals with other parties (but rarely with individual members of parliament unless they are independants) to pass legislation, but these will involve doing other things (e.g. introducing a seperate piece of legislation, changing some budget expenditures, etc.) or modifying the law in a way that it is more pleasing to the potential ally. The notion of slipping a completely unrelated piece of legislation into a bill to make it appeal to a larger number of legislators isn't even on the table.

Maybe other countries than the US have problems with riders being used to porkbarrel, but I'm not aware of any. Here and elsewhere, the politicians have to use other means to dole out government pork. Here it tends to be done by non-legislative means such as government patronnage and discretionary spending. Wherever there are politicians trying to win re-election, there shall be government pork.

[edDV]

I also generally hate it when completely unrelated laws get thrown into popular or necessary bills, like those involving budgets. Ever look at all the crap in the bill that proposed the Patriot Act? No one wanted to vote against it so it just became a free for all for weird and random little changes.

I hate it too, but how can it ever be changed? The people that abuse the system like that are the only ones that could propose a law to stop it.

...

I suspect that the use of riders evolved in the US as a means of "horse-trading" to permit individual representatives to get their own legislation passed. It is my understanding that any member of Congress can introduce a bill and have genuine odds of getting it passed (if they can be persuasive enough). In theory, it is the same here but the reality is that in Westminster-style parliaments, the legislative agenda is almost totally dominated by the majority party (esp. by the cabinet ministers). Here, an opposition member can introduce legislation but it's pretty much a futile act. Even private member's bills from backbench members of the ruling party usually flounder. The vast majority of our laws are tabled (i.e. presented to parliament) by the party in power. They have no need to horse-trade if they hold a majority and maintain good party discipline.

...

It seems to me that such a system that gives almost total legislative power to the majority party coalition of the day would result in sweeping changes every time a new government is formed following an election.

The US legislative system relies on complex webs of interest coalitions that cross party lines and remain in position when party majority changes. Only if a two thirds majority is achieved can a single party command the level of power of a parliamentary majority.

All of this is largely independent of the President in power and his party. The President has to convince his own party and individual members of the opposition to support his program. It is similar to "forming a govenment" around each piece of legislation.

All of this is designed to give some power to minority interests and to make major change difficult or impossible without two thirds support.

[adam]

@ungamunga: I completely agree, however one reason for riders is simply that the our legislative session is so ridiculously short compared to how much needs to get done. If a primary bill is shot down one session its not likely to even be given consideration in the next. The only way to even raise the issue is to consolidate it with something else. It can be a benign process.

But we saw the broadcast flag get shot down as a primary bill and then tacked on as a rider later in the same session, and now its being tacked on again later. So in this instance I think its a bad example of how riders function.

[ROF]

this is great news to consumers and artists alike. This Broadcast Flag does not prevent you from recording a show on TV. It prevents unauthorized re-broadcasting of your recordings. In some cases, depending on equipment, it can be used to prevent recording because the device used to record it is not up to prevention of copyrights.

Don't make this out to be more than it is. You can still record, time shift, or whatever with your television broadcasts. You just can't share your recordings with everyone in the world or burn copy after copy for distribution. It's a security prevention measure for the consumer and the artist.

[somebodeez]

this is great news to consumers and artists alike...

Don't make this out to be more than it is...

... It's a security prevention measure for the consumer and the artist.

Yes, let's not make this out to be more than it is. It is NOT for the consumer!

[ROF]

Those who defend this broadcast flag please explain to me why I should go out and purchase a few thousand dollars worth of new equipment to replace what I have now when the new stuff won't be as functional as what I currently have.

Also please explain to me why we should keep on paying my cable co. all of the $ that we do if we cannot enjoy what we want to when we want to and on whatever player that we want to and where we want to as we currently do now.

Because the content will look better?
Not according to what I've seen so far so you'll have to give me a better reason than that.

So go ahead - do your darndest to convince me.

One word: Piracy!

You must suffer the consequences for the most part because of the reason why 70% of people who visit this and other sites around the net dealing with video. Quite a few people are looking for the cheap way to record and archive television(Violation of the law). Others are looking for the cheap way to own movies they didn't pay for(Pay Per View Recordings). Unfortunately, measures such as these are necessary because of a lack of self-control or prevention measures that continue to be broken by those unscrupulous individuals. There is one thing you can look forward to which seems to prevail under any copy protection method:

If it can be viewed, it can be recorded. If it can be recorded, it can be copied. This is why hardware/network based security measures will and must be instituted. Rampant piracy will continue to a point where it's no longer profitable to produce entertainment.