US Politicians Want To Raise Broadcast Flag

[MOVIEGEEK]

It looks like the MPAA is still whining about HDCP:
http://beta.news.com.com/Politicians+want+to+raise+broadcast+flag/2100-1028_3-5886722....l?tag=nefd.top

[lordsmurf]

You know, stuff like this doesn't even make sense.

I can understand not wanting in-theatre movies over P2P. It's competition that could lose them a few dollars.

I can understand not wanting rips of retail DVDs, copying rentals. It's competition that could lose them a few dollars.

But recording from tv? Are they afraid somebody will take their digital recordings and make a pirate station? No, I think not.

The only possible consideration would be because they don't want people to record shows from tv on their own, competition for latter retail releases. But you know what? Probably 95% or more of tv is unreleased, and most of that will never be released. So what the hell is their problem? Not to mention most people would easily dump their homemade version for the release, especially if it was done correctly (no butchering/editing prior to release) and had a couple worthwhile extras.

It actually disgusts me that they want to have a strangle-hold over people in this manner. Companies are well known for abusing and mishandling their own libraries. I've seen many instances in the recent past where studios had to seek out broadcast masters from tv stations, sometimes even reels and homemade recordings from private collectors. If something as retarded as a broadcast flag had been in places in years past, material would have been lost to time.

In the so-called "age of information" we should be looking at how to better archive and preserve it, not how to be a stingy bastard and prevent people from owning personal archives of a couple things they liked off tv.

[adam]

But recording from tv? Are they afraid somebody will take their digital recordings and make a pirate station?

YES! Look at all the high definition content being aired now. Its higher quality than anything you can currently buy on the market. Until HD-DVD and blue ray come out and catch on, broadcast television is the best source, quality-wise, for pirating material. Tons of movies available on DVD right now get broadcast in much higher quality HD all the time, that's the whole appeal of the service. Those LOTR broadcasts make my DVDs look like an rm file. I'm very much opposed to piracy and even I'm tempted to download them.

I don't have a problem with the broadcast flag in theory. Why anyone would need to cap something and then send it to someone else over the internet (not within their local network) is beyond me. What I'm afraid of are the security checks. I think alot of people are going to find themselves locked out entirely because they aren't using a major manufacturer's equipment.

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.

[Raen]

There should be some !@$@ing law that says once your proposal had been voted down that you can't try again for at a year.

Should also be some !@#@ing law that doesn't allow politicials to add on non-realivant material to a proposal. Get it through the front door or dont get it in at all.

Actually there should be some !@#$ing law that gives us a the right to shot dead any politicial that !!@#s with the process to get what his bankroll backers want.

[lordsmurf]

But recording from tv? Are they afraid somebody will take their digital recordings and make a pirate station?

YES!

Sounds a bit ridiculous to me. I don't see this happening at all. I don't even see how one cold draw this conclusion. Even with a lot of stretches. Care to give some examples?

Why anyone would need to cap something and then send it to someone else over the internet (not within their local network) is beyond me.

That makes two of us. Why somebody would spend all that time and energy on free work is beyond me.

Although I don't know how this is related. The only damage P2P does with regards to television shows is waste time, waste bandwidth, and flood computers with subpar quality material. For most people, stuff online is undesireable, as well as a nuisance (time, resources required). There really are not that many people sharing shows online. I mean the suppliers, the one that recorded it originally and uploaded it. Those people are going to lose interest eventually anyway, it usually happens before a season even ends, so you often have incomplete shows. The quality of those files is also nowhere near being great. Not to mention a broadcast flag will do nothing to stop the suppliers.

The most it will do is piss off people like myself that want to record a show and watch it later. The whole watch-once thing is unreasonable. I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I fall asleep watching a DVD of something I recorded . It's not uncommon for me to have to watch it 2-3 times before I actually see all of it. I'll wake up with the DVD menu playing in a loop. Go answer the phone, answer the door, daydream, run to the bathroom, get sidetracked by family walking in and talking, etc.

Not permitting movement across media is also unreasonable. I've had DVD-RW and DVD+RW die on me, and had to transfer the data to a new disc. Whatever could be salvaged, at least.

Anyway, back to the point, this sort of law is 100% useless. It harms consumers and does nothing to stop the few people that they are wanting to curb (and why they even care to curb these people is beyond me).

[Epicurus8a]

Lordsmurf, you are 100% correct. Unfortunately we live in the age of paranoia. Furthermore most politicians are corrupt, IMO. They don't care about the people they claim to represent, instead they care about lobbiest $$$$$. :WTF:

[RottenFoxBreath]

paranoia-cha cha cha! paranoia cha cha cha!!

[gadgetguy]

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.

[adam]

lordsmurf I already did give you examples. The LOTR trilogy is a major selling DVD and they are broadcasting all of them in hi def eventually. There are caps of them available online that are superior in quality to the available DVDs. Just look at some of the program schedules... Matrix Trilogy, Star Wars Prequels. There are your examples.

Then look at shows like Lost, Alias, 24, CSI, ER, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.... The popular tv series always make their way to DVD and they are the ones most commonly pirated. The tv capping scene is HUGE. Look at all the major torrent sites. There are at least as many tv caps there as there are movies...probably more.

[painkiller]

I have to agree here, as well.

What I don't get is the legislators want to protect broadcast images that are now including advertisements over the broadcast programs.

How on earth is it preventing income from copyright holders - when they superimpose advertising on top of the show? And even then, in one corner you have the station logo, another corner a weather advisory, another corner the program rating - on WB they advertise upcoming programs with wipes that cover alomst 1/3 of the screen.

How on earth are we to ever watch the program?

And the powers think there should be a broadcast flag to keep us from saving all that.

Can I stand the illogic of it all.

[lordsmurf]

There are caps of them available online that are superior in quality to the available DVDs.

You forget...

Commercial breaks?
Aspect edits?
Network logos?
Content edits? Language, nudity, etc.

Superior?

[adam]

Commercial breaks?
Aspect edits?
Network logos?
Content edits? Language, nudity, etc.

Superior?

You've obviously never even seen a premium channel's HD broadcast since none of those are even applicable. Yes they are superior to a DVD in every way.

Besides, you are not really seeing the big picture. If the studios just wanted to protect their DVD sales then they wouldn't license their movies for broadcast in the first place. Broadcasting is a major source of income for them...MAJOR. What's good for the broadcasting industry is good for them, and vice-versa.

Even with the logos, commercial breaks, and content editing of non-premium channel broadcasts, people obviously still pay for this service. If the same content, with commercials removed no less, is being offered for free online then obviously this is bad for their business and bad for their suppliers (the studios.)

BTW did you know that broadcasts are protected by their own copyright separate from the copyright on the existing film/show? Obviously the broadcaster has an interest in seeing that their broadcast isn't distributed through completely different channels without their permission. That is really all the broadcast flag is meant to do. If the broadcasting network doesn't feel the flag is necessary then they can simply choose not to use it.

[RottenFoxBreath]

premium channels content does have logos,and edits,the old chestnut" edited for tv"and "tv version" springs to mind on some movies.

[schunn99]

hey, all
d#mn, the mpaa, greedy b@$#ards. I think the mpaa and the riaa are monopolies and need to be taken down. both don't "look out" for the best interests of the artists, no all they care about is money and getting more.I think that broadcast flag should be blocked from congress, it was shot down once and it should not be before congress. it is the greedy mpaa trying to get a stranglehold on the market like them currently have on the dvd market. I firmly believe that you should be able to go watch a movie in a theater and if you like it, then you should be able to walk into the movie theater lobby and buy the dvd without have to wait anywhere from 6-8 months for it to come out normally.

but that is my two cents.
schunn99

[painkiller]

After reading, and giving serious thought to, Adam's recent response - I have to say, he's right.

What he said makes perfect business sense.

But I still have concerns about the direction the recording industries are taking.

The decisions made back in the Sony Betamax case were at least to the consumers benefit in describing the machines can be used for both legal, and illegal, means.

So far, I don't see or hear such a case to decide the fate of the current batch of digital recorders.

Instead, I see the industries are pressing for technologies to provide them the means to switch when, and what, we can record and when we can't.

Which only tells me there will come a time that we won't be allowed to record anything. Even just for our individual selves.

I hope I'm gone before that happens.

[lenti_75]

just **** them all....

[adam]

premium channels content does have logos,and edits,the old chestnut" edited for tv"and "tv version" springs to mind on some movies.

Not any of the ones I've seen. Maybe my definition of "premium channel" is incorrect. I'm talking about things like HBO-HD, Showtime-HD, and Cinemax-HD. No logos and never edited and of course no commercials. Maybe it differs from region to region, I'm talking about Houston, Texas area.

If you look at the HD rips of movies online they don' thave any logos, only the tv series do.

@schunn99, the broadcast flag wasn't exactly shot down. The FCC tried to implement it themselves and a Court ruled that it was outside of their scope of authority and would have to be created by Congress. It was raised, twice I believe, during one session and not passed. But that happens with almost all legislation. There's no harm in raising and re-raising bills so long as we can trust our legislators to make wise decisions each time it is raised. But its the coat tail bills that screw up the order of the system. It forces legislators into an all or nothing decision when the laws are not even remotely related.

[edDV]

...

to provide them the means to switch when, and what, we can record and when we can't.

Which only tells me there will come a time that we won't be allowed to record anything. Even just for our individual selves.

I hope I'm gone before that happens.

If implemented as originally proposed, it goes much further than blocking user timeshift recording, it also will block both my HDTV sets (CRT and projector) from receiving HDTV resolutions. I would have to watch LOST (or whatever) in 480i because I don't have HDCP on either set.

If the record flag is honored by Comcast, well ... cancellation of account will follow the next morning. I'm paying over $1000 a year to Comcast.

I will personally boycott any advertiser of a broadcast flagged program and if PBS does it, my membership will be cancelled.

Ref:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/HDTV/
http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

"The Broadcast Flag, as it was:

The essence of the FCC's rule was in 47 CFR 73.9002(b) and the following sections:

"No party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements and Demodulator Robustness Requirements."

The Demodulator Compliance Requirements insisted that all HDTV demodulators must listen for the flag (or assume it to be present in all signals). Flagged content must be output only to "protected outputs" or in degraded form: through analog outputs or digital outputs with visual resolution of 720x480 pixels or less--less than 1/4 of HDTV's capability. Flagged content may be recorded only by "Authorized" methods, which may include tethering of recordings to a single device. "


Of course all of the above still apply to future HD DVD players making the technology useless. Why buy a HD DVD player and HD DVDs if you can't play them in HDTV? What is the point?

[Alan69]

You know, stuff like this doesn't even make sense.

I can understand not wanting in-theatre movies over P2P. It's competition that could lose them a few dollars.

I can understand not wanting rips of retail DVDs, copying rentals. It's competition that could lose them a few dollars.

But recording from tv? Are they afraid somebody will take their digital recordings and make a pirate station? No, I think not.

The only possible consideration would be because they don't want people to record shows from tv on their own, competition for latter retail

In the so-called "age of information" we should be looking at how to better archive and preserve it, not how to be a stingy bastard and prevent people from owning personal archives of a couple things they liked off tv.

??? Hmmm? I thought you made/converted people's videos for pay, or something similar, at least at some time? Under this thinking they should be perfectly allowed to come in, copy your work, not pay you, and archive and preserve it for themselves. Legally there is no right at all to a personal backup of someone else's work without the compensation they desire.. Doesn't matter whether that 'someone else' is a network etc or you.


And that is exactly the consideration, even though it's ass backwards of them. Watch the history channel, $24.95 for about every show. Some idiots out there have decided that those numbers are real, and if only they could stop copying they could make all that money. They have the right to stop copying if they like, but for sure the percentage conversion of that into actual sales will be far lower than they'd claim right now.

More important, I'd bet ya that it won't even work. Missing a show here or there is one of the fastest ways to lose an audience. People not being able to record the shows they aren't home for would just about destroy the audience for many shows, to the point they'd almost have to turn it back off to compete with whatever few shows have the sense to not turn it on.. Equally good shows on at the same time, the audience would tend to gravitate to what they can record and reliably get to watch. Business 101 covers 'don't annoy your customers', you'd think someone there would have taken the class.

Still a moot point, the reality is this kind of junk is generally easy to bypass. No doubt some companies will be making perfectly legal units that people have figured the mod for in no time. There would be real hardware mods for DVD players/recorders, but there are so many units out there with easy hacks that it simply isn't needed. Make something like this with no easy hacks and there will be more than a few who take on the challenge. A flag like this can also be filtered before the signal even hits the unit if necessary.

Alan

[lordsmurf]

You've obviously never even seen a premium channel's HD broadcast since none of those are even applicable. Yes they are superior to a DVD in every way.

Even if this were true, then I still think they are in the wrong. If they want to make money off these movies, then sell them. In the absence of companies being willing to provide the content in an available format, then it's up to people to record it themselves, or face the option that it never be obtainable again.

I still have news recordings I made myself from the morning of 9-11. And I have live news coverage from the day the Challenger exploded. These are pieces of history, and are not available anywhere. Sure, I could buy some other *******'s "documentary" but it's not the same as watching the raw feed that I saw the day it happened. To tell me I cannot record these and keep them is ridiculous, and anybody that disagrees can quite frankly go **** themselves.

[somebodeez]

To tell me I cannot record these and keep them is ridiculous, and anybody that disagrees can quite frankly go **** themselves.

Yeah - what he said!

[adam]

If they want to make money off these movies, then sell them.

What the hell do you think they did? That's why the broadcasters are showing them, because they bought the rights. The broadcast flag, in its basic form at least, is just intended to allow the broadcasters, the buyers, to earn their fair return on their investment by making sure that if viewers want to see THEIR broadcast they actually get it from them at their price not for free on the internet. Are you really suggesting that anything available on DVD should not be broadcast on television as well?

As far as the rest of your rant I don't see what that has to do with the broadcast flag. It does not prevent you from recording content, you're just not going to be able to distribute it over the internet. Didn't you just agree that there's really no reason someone would need to do this?

[elektrik]

lordsmurf I already did give you examples. The LOTR trilogy is a major selling DVD and they are broadcasting all of them in hi def eventually. There are caps of them available online that are superior in quality to the available DVDs. Just look at some of the program schedules... Matrix Trilogy, Star Wars Prequels. There are your examples.

Then look at shows like Lost, Alias, 24, CSI, ER, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.... The popular tv series always make their way to DVD and they are the ones most commonly pirated. The tv capping scene is HUGE. Look at all the major torrent sites. There are at least as many tv caps there as there are movies...probably more.

Um... one phrase: Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

"...which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.."

Me thinks me doth see an update of this if enough consumers get pissed off about not being able to record HDTV....

[adam]

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.

My problem with the implementation is that it locks out hardware deemed insecure and that leads to it being overbroad. That's why I say I only agree with the flag in theory. But I don't have a problem with preventing people from uploading their "time-shifted" material onto the internet for others to download in mass because that is clearly not what time-shifting is intended for.

[lordsmurf]

to prevent you from distributing those copies.

No it does not. I would have no problem with this being the goal. Uploading is a waste of time and bandwidth. But this is impossible to regulate aside from police monitoring your every move in your home and online (even the commies couldn't do this 100%).

This flag is very broad, like you say. In fact, so broad that it prevents you from "distributing" to yourself (recovering to new media, "watching" a few times so you can see it all, etc).

Stuff like this is so "big brother". It makes huge sweeping limitations on the good-willed majority in the name of preventing bad activity by a few. The majority suffers, and the activity aimed to be stopped carries on in a new method.

Trying to control what people watch is dictatorial and fascist. That's what the flag does.

Existing laws already exist if they want to bust people on infringement that is damaging to the company. We don't need more. Not broken, don't fix it.

[adam]

this is impossible to regulate aside from police monitoring your every move in your home and online (even the commies couldn't do this 100%).

Existing laws already exist if they want to bust people on infringement that is damaging to the company. We don't need more. Not broken, don't fix it.

\

Well which is it? The law is working so well but there's no way to enforce it? Yeah that sounds ideal. No reason to try to improve upon that system.

I don't like the way the broadcast flag works and I hope to god that this bill is not passed. But saying that "stuff like this doesn't even make sense" is just more mindless MPAA bashing. It DOES make sense to stop piracy, or at least try to make a dent.

[lordsmurf]

Those statements are mutually exclusive.

There is no way they can prevent all "unwanted activity". Meaning stop it in advance. Even the commies and gestapos couldn't do that.

On the other hand, for those people that are the real troublemakers, they already have laws the censure them already.

A law like this is akin to installing speedbumps on all the major interstates, so you can rest assured nobody will ever speed.

[adam]

A law like this is akin to installing speedbumps on all the major interstates, so you can rest assured nobody will ever speed.

I agree!!! But that doesn't mean its senseless to try to catch speeders. Now do you finally understand the point I've been making all along? No I'm sure you don't. I'm done.

[adam]

If implemented... I would have to watch LOST (or whatever) in 480i because I don't have HDCP on either set.

That of course is the unintended effect of the flag, but from reading up on HDCP online it is a trivial thing to add to an existing device once the manufacturer purchases the license and is approved. You basically just swap out the DVI connector and add an EEPROM. The circuitry is all built in. No real internal hardware must be modified and no firmware changes are needed. A tech could probably do it in a few minutes.

Manufacturers wouldn't just leave consumers alienated like that I don't think, they'd probably issue a recall of sorts and upgrade the equipment either for free or at low cost. No way to know for sure but I can't imagine they'd expect people to buy a new tv when all that needs to be replaced is a simple connector.

Other than these first gen tv's all of the core media devices are going to already have HDCP implemented. Its just going to be the computer hardware and software that is going to find itself getting rejected for a license. People will still be able to record their HDTV signals and replay them, they just aren't going to be able to transfer them to other equipment, aka a computer. You know this of course, but I don't think everyone else realizes this.

[edDV]

If implemented... I would have to watch LOST (or whatever) in 480i because I don't have HDCP on either set.

That of course is the unintended effect of the flag, but from reading up on HDCP online it is a trivial thing to add to an existing device once the manufacturer purchases the license and is approved. You basically just swap out the DVI connector and add an EEPROM. The circuitry is all built in. No real internal hardware must be modified and no firmware changes are needed. A tech could probably do it in a few minutes.

Manufacturers wouldn't just leave consumers alienated like that I don't think, they'd probably issue a recall of sorts and upgrade the equipment either for free or at low cost. No way to know for sure but I can't imagine they'd expect people to buy a new tv when all that needs to be replaced is a simple connector.

It's much more complicated than that. The set would need to be opened up and circuit boards replaced. Individuals are prohibited to add this equipment (unlicensed) themselves. The current TV industry position is that HDCP was a standard added by the content producers and the government after the fact and as such is not their responsibility. External devices that would accept HDCP encrypted data over DVI or HDMI and convert the stream to unencrypted DVI, VGA or analog component in HD resolutions have been specifcally prohibited under the proposed law. Such a device would render record flag or HD DVD encryption meaningless.

My prediction is another class action lawsuit against all deep pockets concerned (government exempted ofcourse) where lawyers make millions and the result for early adopter HDTV buyers will be a $100 voucher to apply to a new set. Keep in mind that early HDTV sets cost in the thousands to tens of thousands.

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

http://www.digital-cp.com/home
http://www.sigmadesigns.com/support/DVI_HDMI.htm

Other than these first gen tv's all of the core media devices are going to already have HDCP implemented. Its just going to be the computer hardware and software that is going to find itself getting rejected for a license. People will still be able to record their HDTV signals and replay them, they just aren't going to be able to transfer them to other equipment, aka a computer. You know this of course, but I don't think everyone else realizes this.

HDMI and HDCP only became available in mid to late 2004. Alot of equipment was sold before then as "HD Ready".

There will be major problems with most existing equipment (e.g. DTV/DBS HD tuners and DVRs, HDTV sets, computers, etc.). Most will need replacement to be HDCP, DTCP or CPRM (portables) ready.

HDTV will enter the home over DTV/DBS/Cable HD tuners, HD DVD players or as data downloads. Unless one has a HDCP display device, HD output will be blocked from all of these devices.

Computers will need new display cards, monitors and TV tuners. Networks will need encryption features added.

Solutions generally require buying all new equipment. The user is supposed to eat the expense of this premature obsolescence all for the goal of protecting someone elses property. It all seems Alice in Wonderlandish to me. Other than my DVD player, my current equipment is all HDTV compatible except for DRM.

The legitimate user will have to eat all this expense and the pirates will still have copies of cinema masters weeks before general release.

http://www.intel.com/technology/digitalhome/pdf/protecting_content.pdf
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/hw12031.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?sitesize=yes&i=2321