Most Monitors Will Not Play New HD Video

[ROF]

Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware, etc. If they get too flag happy in the early days the customers will seek other sources of entertainment.

Funny. I remember the same thing being said when automatic pin setters were added to bowling alleys. Try and find a bowling alley without them today is growing ever increasingly slim. I remember a similiar arguement when color was added to broadcasts. If recent memory serves wasn't the cost of satelite radio supposed to keep people in the terrestrial realm? Nobody bought me a satelite radio, yet I now own two of them. Nobody bought me a color television set, yet I've owned too many to count. Nobody bought me a new bowling ball when alleys switched from wooden to synthetic lanes.

I've always had to upgrade my own equipment in order to keep up with the changing times. Some people just take the free thing a little to literally and believe they are entitled to continue to receive the same level of entertainment without any or very little investment. That's just not the way of the technological world. You either buy now, knowing that a few years down the road your going to be buying again, or you get left out of the loop when newer technology supplants your aging equipment. Buying new doesn't mean buying wisely.

[edDV]

Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware, etc. If they get too flag happy in the early days the customers will seek other sources of entertainment.

Funny. I remember the same thing being said when automatic pin setters were added to bowling alleys. Try and find a bowling alley without them today is growing ever increasingly slim. I remember a similiar arguement when color was added to broadcasts. If recent memory serves wasn't the cost of satelite radio supposed to keep people in the terrestrial realm? Nobody bought me a satelite radio, yet I now own two of them. Nobody bought me a color television set, yet I've owned too many to count. Nobody bought me a new bowling ball when alleys switched from wooden to synthetic lanes.

I've always had to upgrade my own equipment in order to keep up with the changing times. Some people just take the free thing a little to literally and believe they are entitled to continue to receive the same level of entertainment without any or very little investment. That's just not the way of the technological world. You either buy now, knowing that a few years down the road your going to be buying again, or you get left out of the loop when newer technology supplants your aging equipment. Buying new doesn't mean buying wisely.

You are only supporting my point. The customer will go with the distribution and products that meet his needs and will resist inconvenience. I only need local broadcasters for local programming. I don't like having to merge my viewing schedule with broadcasters or dbs/cable companies. It takes too much effort to figure out what is on tonight.

I want to pick my own schedule and to h*** with broadcasters, cable and DBS. The only way I can make it work now is with multichannel DVR and lots of scheduling effort.

I say forget it. If they are going to restrict DVR usage. They can cancel the entire account. I want to set up a flexible weekly viewing schedule, download the programs and advertisers can go p*** in the wind if they won't get on board with internet download business models.

Sorry for the rant.

[somebodeez]

Buying new doesn't mean buying wisely.

OMG, he finally said something that I agree with
(Well, at least that 1 little tidbit anyway )

Like I said earlier - it makes no sense for me to go out and purchase a whole new system that will be a lot less functional than what I have already.

The customer will go with the distribution and products that meet his needs and will resist inconvenience.

Exactly.

[Cornucopia]

Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware, etc. If they get too flag happy in the early days the customers will seek other sources of entertainment.

Funny. I remember the same thing being said when automatic pin setters were added to bowling alleys. Try and find a bowling alley without them today is growing ever increasingly slim. I remember a similiar arguement when color was added to broadcasts. If recent memory serves wasn't the cost of satelite radio supposed to keep people in the terrestrial realm? Nobody bought me a satelite radio, yet I now own two of them. Nobody bought me a color television set, yet I've owned too many to count. Nobody bought me a new bowling ball when alleys switched from wooden to synthetic lanes.

I've always had to upgrade my own equipment in order to keep up with the changing times. Some people just take the free thing a little to literally and believe they are entitled to continue to receive the same level of entertainment without any or very little investment. That's just not the way of the technological world. You either buy now, knowing that a few years down the road your going to be buying again, or you get left out of the loop when newer technology supplants your aging equipment. Buying new doesn't mean buying wisely.

Man, ROF, your analogies are getting wilder and wilder!

But what do they have to do with the topic?

*Sure, bowling alleys are now using auto pinsetting (and computer scorekeeping), but if a customer is not satisfied or doesn't have as good an experience, they'll manually reset the pins/change the score/etc. Why? Because business rule #1 is THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT! That's why there's no complaints about modern bowling alleys, the "experience" is as smooth/convenient as always.

*Sat radio (XM/Sirius) isn't even yet mainstream and hasn't made a dent in FM/AM market share, yet it doesn't restrict what you do with the signal once received and so would be "wildly overabused" according your standards. It isn't. It also doesn't effect current user's current equipment. Guess what, any system that does affect or does restrict will be strongly avoided by consumers. I don't think the Stockholders of those businesses would like that scenario any more than they like "piracy".

*Color TV?? What are you talking about? The color signal does NOTHING to the experience of past-present-or-future Black-and-White TV owners! It's a matter of Hidden Enhancement, not Hidden Potential Restriction.

Moderator, this thing is wildly off topic!

Does anybody have a fresh angle/news to this, or is this going to keep being rehashed?

Scott

[painkiller]

It's a difficult call - especially as we all just dance around the issue.

All I can do is ask myself, would I ever find myself interested enough to buy such hardware that would keep me from enjoying the media I spend so much time with?

And - why would I want anyone else telling me what I can and cannot watch and record?

After all, Prohibition demonstrated how much and how far people are willing to go - particularly when they are told they can't have it, or do it.

All I see here is a repeat of the same thing - just in a different framework.

All of the so-called technical and legal discussions about us just fuels the fire. There seems to be no solution here.

[edDV]

The solution is in the hands of the current media providers and their future competitors. It isn't so much an issue for the consumer other than the inconvenience of changing entertainment suppliers. The power is with the consumer.

[rhegedus]

You mean you don't know the answer to this? After this many pages? It's the broadcasters and content distributors. They have contracts between one another which allow what you currently see on your television set.

That's such a blanket statement, it's practically meaningless!

Which ones?

[CaptainVideo]

There seems to be no solution here.

There is, but no one wants to compromise. The broadcast and recording industries want to lock up IP forever and want 100% restricted control over it. The only reasonable solution is to have strict controls with the release of IP to the public domain after a reasonable amount of time.

Of course what constitutes reasonable? I would say reasonable was what was put in place prior to the 1976 overhaul.

[ROF]

You mean you don't know the answer to this? After this many pages? It's the broadcasters and content distributors. They have contracts between one another which allow what you currently see on your television set.

That's such a blanket statement, it's practically meaningless!

Which ones?

Turn on your television. Those ones!!

[ROF]

The solution is in the hands of the current media providers and their future competitors. It isn't so much an issue for the consumer other than the inconvenience of changing entertainment suppliers. The power is with the consumer.

That pretty much sums it up. The power remains with the consumer, while the solution remains with the media providers and their future competitors. You can buy into HDTV/HDCP/DVI or not. Your digital television or converter will still continue to function, but for HD programming your set will be blank unless you meet the standards set by the broadcasters/media providers in order to protect their IP and maintain their profits for their shareholders.

[ROF]

There seems to be no solution here.

There is, but no one wants to compromise. The broadcast and recording industries want to lock up IP forever and want 100% restricted control over it. The only reasonable solution is to have strict controls with the release of IP to the public domain after a reasonable amount of time.

Of course what constitutes reasonable? I would say reasonable was what was put in place prior to the 1976 overhaul.

You speak from a consumer standpoint. I think most broadcast and media shareholders would disagree with you. The broadcast and recording industry want 100% control over their assets. You enjoy 100% control over the decisions you make involving your assets why should they be any different? Right now, they have almost zero control. People can violate the law without a care in the world and practically without fear of ever being prosecuted for their crimes of theft. The compromise solution is to allow the broadcasters and media providers to have some control over their assets.

[racerxnet]

And ROF,

You speak like an uneducated chump. NUF said.

[rhegedus]

You mean you don't know the answer to this? After this many pages? It's the broadcasters and content distributors. They have contracts between one another which allow what you currently see on your television set.

That's such a blanket statement, it's practically meaningless!

Which ones?

Turn on your television. Those ones!!

That's franchise cable/satelite stations. Come on, who's at the top of the pile - names please?

[ROF]

@rhegedus

Nobody is at the top. It's up to individual media distributors and their contracts with broadcasters to determine how and what broadcast flagging is attached to the IP being transmitted. Name any studio that produces a TV show. Name any broadcaster that distrbutes that show. You now have two. Multiply by that by all broadcasters and all television show and movie production companies and you now have your list. It's a contractual business that brings the media to your home. There are contracts negotiated each and every day. You need only turn on your TV or flip on your radio to listen to contractual IP. The people who bring it to you and those who produce it have the right to control how it's distributed and how the revenue from such assets are distributed. It's spelled out on paper long before the IP reaches your home.

There are way to many contracts per day to begin naming any. But for starters let's go with Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, Sony, Universal, Lions Gate, MGM, Warner Bros, Paramount, Columbia, Disney, HBO, CNN, Miramax, Starz, WYMX, WHTT, Nickelodean, Bravo, Dreamworks, and the list goes on and on. They all have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits. Broadcast flags will allow them to accomplish that.

So now you have some names, How are they any more relevant to this discussion then just saying broadcasters and media distributors?

The list of name provided is a very short list of thousands of names of broadcasters and distributors who will all have a say in broadcast/distribution contract negotiations about any broadcast flags added prior to the IP being transmitted. I fail to see where naming names helps with this discussion?

[ROF]

*Sat radio (XM/Sirius) isn't even yet mainstream and hasn't made a dent in FM/AM market share, yet it doesn't restrict what you do with the signal once received and so would be "wildly overabused" according your standards. It isn't. It also doesn't effect current user's current equipment. Guess what, any system that does affect or does restrict will be strongly avoided by consumers. I don't think the Stockholders of those businesses would like that scenario any more than they like "piracy".

Have you ever heard of TimeTrax? Did you know that embedded within your signal being recorded is the serial number of your receiver which is logged when you subscribe to satelite radio. Satelite Radio is being guarded against illegal recording by virtue of it's digital nature. Digital television can have the same protections but with added features such as prevention of recording as is done for pay per view today. Any protection measure which safeguards the protection of assets shareholders have a stake in will be supported by shareholders. Most XM/Sirius subscribers don't even realize their recordings can be traced back to their individual receiver. It's a hidden layer of protection of the IP being broadcasted to the masses willing to pay for the broadcast. It doesn't limit me in any way except prevent me from violating the law.

*Color TV?? What are you talking about? The color signal does NOTHING to the experience of past-present-or-future Black-and-White TV owners! It's a matter of Hidden Enhancement, not Hidden Potential Restriction.

Color TV was in reference to EdTV's "Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware." Nobody bought me a new set. Nobody bought me a converter box. Why should the government or broadcasters pay for their upgrades was my question in bringing up the switch to Color Television.

[Cornucopia]

Have you ever heard of TimeTrax? Did you know that embedded within your signal being recorded is the serial number of your receiver which is logged when you subscribe to satelite radio. Satelite Radio is being guarded against illegal recording by virtue of it's digital nature. Digital television can have the same protections but with added features such as prevention of recording as is done for pay per view today. Any protection measure which safeguards the protection of assets shareholders have a stake in will be supported by shareholders. Most XM/Sirius subscribers don't even realize their recordings can be traced back to their individual receiver. It's a hidden layer of protection of the IP being broadcasted to the masses willing to pay for the broadcast. It doesn't limit me in any way except prevent me from violating the law.

Ever hear of the analog hole? Your ears are analog, your speakers are analog, most likely your amp is analog, therefore a recorder hooked up with it has no "embedded serial #" (unless you mean watermarking). This, BTW, would be the standard component chain anyway, given no provided/integrated recording device.
At that stage, it is also impossible for some "content distributor" upstream to tell what is being done with the signal, so there is no tracing involved. The only time tracing is involved would be if: content provider used watermarking (which has be shown to be questionalbly perceiveable anyway), subscriber recorded content, subscriber then distributed/uploaded content, and content provider got wind that such distributed content was in fact one of theirs.
Going to analog does NOT in fact lose anything from any high fidelity experience (although multiple subsequent A/D, D/A conversions might)-given good equipment. I speak here from the experience of being a professional audio engineer for 20+ years.
Therefore, as a consumer, I lose NO convenience or functionality in graduating from previous technologies using this system, whereas the currently proposed HDMI/HDCP/BF scenario does.

Color TV was in reference to EdTV's "Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware." Nobody bought me a new set. Nobody bought me a converter box. Why should the government or broadcasters pay for their upgrades was my question in bringing up the switch to Color Television.

Why? #1-because ultimately the airwaves belong to the people--not to the businesses. #2-because pragmatically, it'll never get off the ground if they don't. #3-because your ideas of this corporate sponsored NewWorldOrder won't mean anything to Granny if-by no fault of her own-she loses the ability to watch her "stories" (soaps), when analog goes off the air. Don't make granny cry or get her mad. #4-because it's the right/just/fair thing to do, not just the Bottom Line (even though it ultimately will also be that too).

Scott

[ROF]

Going to analog does NOT in fact lose anything from any high fidelity experience (although multiple subsequent A/D, D/A conversions might)-given good equipment. I speak here from the experience of being a professional audio engineer for 20+ years.
Therefore, as a consumer, I lose NO convenience or functionality in graduating from previous technologies using this system, whereas the currently proposed HDMI/HDCP/BF scenario does.

You are correct. You lose the ability to violate the law. You also lose the ability to violate the intent of the distributor when they make the IP available. To some, that shift will mean nothing. To others that will mean they need to change their outlook on how they view the media entering their realm.

Color TV was in reference to EdTV's "Broadcast TV has a major task getting the non-cable customer up and running with DTV tuners, new channel numbers, new DVR hardware." Nobody bought me a new set. Nobody bought me a converter box. Why should the government or broadcasters pay for their upgrades was my question in bringing up the switch to Color Television.

Why? #1-because ultimately the airwaves belong to the people--not to the businesses. #2-because pragmatically, it'll never get off the ground if they don't. #3-because your ideas of this corporate sponsored NewWorldOrder won't mean anything to Granny if-by no fault of her own-she loses the ability to watch her "stories" (soaps), when analog goes off the air. Don't make granny cry or get her mad. #4-because it's the right/just/fair thing to do, not just the Bottom Line (even though it ultimately will also be that too).

1) The airwaves don't belong to the people. They are licensed to those with approved equipment to receive them. If the airwaves belonged to the people how come I can't transmit on police and fire frequencies? How come I can't open up a radio station and begin broadcasting? How come I have to pay a license fee for HAM operation? The only people who own the airwaves is those who have paid for the airwaves.

2) Pragmatically it's already off the ground. Check out how many HDCP capable TV Sets are available in your local electronics store. I own one. My neighbor owns one. His cousin has two of them. My brother who lives across the country has one. It;s already flying. People have bought into it and will continue to buy into it or they will be left without TV, which in my opinion some people could and should truely go without it if only for a little while.

3) Granny doesn't have to cry. My wife doesn't and she's a granny. She'll continue to watch TV which is an entertainment device and a luxury item. Some people seem to think TV is a right and that if they don't own one somebody else should buy it for them. Nobody bought me my TVs. I'm certainly not going to support my government or other agency buying equipment for others. if they want to continue to enjoy their entertainment devices, they have the right to go out and be among the privileged who own devices to display audio/visual signals in the frequency being broadcast.

4) It may seem right, fair, or otherwise to some, but to those who are losing money daily because someone is archiving whole television series and sharing those recordings with their friends, the people who bring you that entertainment are not being treated fair or just. Broadcast flags and HDCP are the solution to make it an even playing field in the broadcast/display realm. If you can't violate the law, you can't violate the law. Just because what you are doing today seems fair, it may not truely be fair to everyone in the chain.

It's true that there will be a financial burden on those who do not own HDCP capable sets or are used to violating the law by recording multiple episodes of television, but because there can be no happy median measures beyond the control of the end consumer are necessary in order to bring the law back to lawlessness of cable recording and media backups.

[rhegedus]

@ROF

That's a lot of names that say absolutely nothing! It's just a blanket spread of names of those that are involved with broadcast, not a list of those that are behind broadcast flags.

That list you produced may well want to protect their interests, but broadcast flags are nothing without the hardware that recognises the significance of those flags.

My point being that the list is infact much smaller - Forbes reports of an agreement between Hitach, Philips, Sony and Panasonic with AOL Time Warner, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Viacom and Disney to eliminate digital set-top boxes and develop "encoding rules". Regardless of the list you posted, it is, infact, the big boys pushing this and not a universal consensus between all broadcasters and hardware makers.

Thankfully, it would appear that the US Courts would believe the FCC has overstepped the mark.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag

[edDV]

But aren't we supposed to believe those Time-Warner execs are the pillars of American liberalism and only care about the little guy?

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/aboutus/fact_sheet.html

Why isn't CNN posting push polls on the record flag huh ????

Thankfully, it would appear that the US Courts would believe the FCC has overstepped the mark.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag

The FCC was forced into the "broadcast flag" by the media companies in exchange for going along with the Digital TV transition and relocation of frequencies.

Congress and the FCC wanted only to have TV vacate the VHF band in order to to free the frequencies for data and wireless commerce.

[shelbyGT]

People have bought into it and will continue to buy into it or they will be left without TV, which in my opinion some people could and should truely go without it if only for a little while.

While it's "being bought into", I wouldn't say whole-heartedly yet by the average consumer. Many people aren't going to own a HDTV capable set for years and years to come (or perhaps ever). I'll get the converter box when I have to, but as for now I honestly can't justify spending over $500 on a 32" TV. I would say that goes for a lot of people as well. You and all your friends having nice TV's doesn't put you in the middle of the road here, it puts you on the extreme end of taking up new technologies. I'm glad there are those like you, though, that will buy in to a product first so guys like me can sit back and wait for prices to come down and for bugs to get fixed.

[CaptainVideo]

You speak from a consumer standpoint. I think most broadcast and media shareholders would disagree with you. The broadcast and recording industry want 100% control over their assets. You enjoy 100% control over the decisions you make involving your assets why should they be any different? Right now, they have almost zero control. People can violate the law without a care in the world and practically without fear of ever being prosecuted for their crimes of theft. The compromise solution is to allow the broadcasters and media providers to have some control over their assets.

You obviously didn't read my post. I'm coming from a moderate reasonable position. Not just from a consumer position.

My post said a fair balance would be to allow the restriction and tight controls as long as the copyright extensions are repealed. That is balance. A wealth of useful material would be put into the public domain and the copyright holders will be able to extract the maximum amount of profit from their IP that is under strict copy control.

But apparently you are a shill for the MPAA because just like them, you don't think they need to compromise.

[CaptainVideo]

1) The airwaves don't belong to the people.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The airwaves are controlled and licensed out by the government. The government answers to the people. The people have a right to determine what is the best deal for the airwaves. So yes, the airwaves do belong to the people.

Now I'll put my cynical side on. The government hasn't answered the people in my lifetime, they always look out for who is padding their wallets. So in that circumstance, no the airwaves do not belong to the people, but rather the highest bidder who paid off the official.

[edDV]

1) The airwaves don't belong to the people.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The airwaves are controlled and licensed out by the government. The government answers to the people. The people have a right to determine what is the best deal for the airwaves. So yes, the airwaves do belong to the people.

Now I'll put my cynical side on. The government hasn't answered the people in my lifetime, they always look out for who is padding their wallets. So in that circumstance, no the airwaves do not belong to the people, but rather the highest bidder who paid off the official.

The airwaves are like the interstate highways. They "belong to the people" but we elect representatives to interpret and balance the needs of the various interests. Everybody shouting on a kilowatt transmitter like those CB idiots is not in the consumer interest any more than every driver deciding which direction to drive in the south lanes of an interstate.

[painkiller]

As in everything else - the airwaves did indeed used to belong to the people.

For those of us that remember, there used to be free satellite television. But those dishes were very large, and hobnobbish folk zoned them out of their communities.

It wasn't until two things happened that produced what we have now.

1) General Instruments (if I remember that right) developed the Videocypher encryption/decryption set top box for subscription based satellite tv.

2) The advent, and launch of the new (at the time) DBS satellites which brought the ability to use much smaller dishes.

Practically overnite, it destroyed the previous satellite television system and gave us what we have now.

It was never in the public's head as to what was happening - and what it would mean to their wallets.

[ROF]

1) The airwaves don't belong to the people.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The airwaves are controlled and licensed out by the government. The government answers to the people. The people have a right to determine what is the best deal for the airwaves. So yes, the airwaves do belong to the people.

Now I'll put my cynical side on. The government hasn't answered the people in my lifetime, they always look out for who is padding their wallets. So in that circumstance, no the airwaves do not belong to the people, but rather the highest bidder who paid off the official.

Exactly. You can say that "the people" own the airwaves, but we all know the truth of the matter. You and I own the airwaves in the same sense that we own the highways. We pay for a license to drive, we pay tolls in some cases, even some of us fees and fines. Most even pay taxes. You may own the highway, but I'd love to see you start digging one up because you believe there might be gold underneath the highway you own. Similiar to airwaves. You can say you own the airwaves, but try and talk on the police bandwidth and see what your ownership gets you.

[ROF]

While it's "being bought into", I wouldn't say whole-heartedly yet by the average consumer. Many people aren't going to own a HDTV capable set for years and years to come (or perhaps ever).

I'll give it you that right now it's a relatively new market, but when color TV was introduced and it's out of sight pricing models were displayed the same was said, when in fact in a matter of a few short years, prices dropped and the masses began buying color sets. Right now, most of this technology is new and like all new technology it's extremely overpriced because of the R&D recoupment factor. I bought my set because my aging TV needed to be replaced. I bought HDCP because it's the future. I bought plasma because it looks good. I bought the hisense because it was a good price for the value added features. I bought this set because in some way I hope my purchase would help continue to reduce the pricing because I'm in the market for another one within the next year or so.

[phelix]

You speak from a consumer standpoint. I think most broadcast and media shareholders would disagree with you. The broadcast and recording industry want 100% control over their assets. You enjoy 100% control over the decisions you make involving your assets why should they be any different?

That's a strawman argument. Nobody has 100% over their assets.

The following story is a little preachy, but it does show you what the world could end up like if content provider ever got absolute 100% control.

The Right to Read

Again, I ask you: Is this the kind of world you want to live in? It's one thing to support copyright holders (a valid but unpopular position), but you argue for the very extremes presented in that story. Why?

[somebodeez]

The following story is a little preachy, but it does show you what the world could end up like if content provider ever got absolute 100% control.

The Right to Read

Again, I ask you: Is this the kind of world you want to live in? It's one thing to support copyright holders (a valid but unpopular position), but you argue for the very extremes presented in that story. Why?

Thanks for the link, Phelix!
Very good read (oh dear - I hope the reading/thought police won't come get me now because I don't have special glasses that will protect my eyes from reading what They don't want me to read! Now I shall have to go to the nearest brainwashing center because - GASP! - I might retain what I've read! Society will label me as a terrorist because I haven't obeyed the mandatory "unsecure" equipment turn-in and given all my wordly posessions in trade for the approved "secure" equipment!
Well I might as well go the distance - I will be passing this link on since my email isn't locked down yet to MPAA/RIAA/M$ approved people only :P )

Yes that does seem extreme but it does seem to be the way Rof would like the world to be.
I too, would like to know why.

I think sometimes, history does repeat itself.
About the printing press:

...Later Erasmus, in the ecstasy of his sales, would call the printing press the greatest of all discoveries.

But not everyone was as enthusiastic as Fichet or Erasmus. In the Middle Ages every monastery was its own publishing house, and a monk with writing desk, ink, and parchment was his own publisher. The livelihood of monasteries was threatened, and copyists protested that printing would deprive them of income. Some of the elite in society (who could afford hand-copied books) saw the printing press as a mechanical vulgarization and feared that it would cause a reduction in the value of their manuscript libraries. Leaders in Church and State were concerned about the printing press because they saw in it a possible means of spreading subversive ideas.

The introduction of the printing press broke the monopoly of the monasteries as the publishing houses of Europe. It also changed forever the nature of publishing.

http://www.reformed.com/pub/cyber2.htm

So much to the nobles' dismay, suddenly the unwashed masses became literate. They became informed and enlightened and started thinking for themselves. But the nobles managed to come out on top.

Time marched on and the VCR entered the picture.
Oh no! People were able to decide when they going to watch what they wanted to watch!
Again, the "nobles" resisted and tried to stifle it but didn't succeed.
The peasants rejoiced.
In the end, once they learned to go with the flow, and because the peasants were happy peasants, the "nobles" made a pile of $ and managed to come out on top.

Time marched on and here we are now in the "information age". We are connected across the globe and once again, the "nobles" fear losing their lofty positions.
Now not only are people making up their own minds on what they will watch and when they'll watch it, they are also choosing on what they'll watch it on, what format, where they get it from and where they'll watch it!

[shelbyGT]

While it's "being bought into", I wouldn't say whole-heartedly yet by the average consumer. Many people aren't going to own a HDTV capable set for years and years to come (or perhaps ever).

I'll give it you that right now it's a relatively new market, but when color TV was introduced and it's out of sight pricing models were displayed the same was said, when in fact in a matter of a few short years, prices dropped and the masses began buying color sets. Right now, most of this technology is new and like all new technology it's extremely overpriced because of the R&D recoupment factor. I bought my set because my aging TV needed to be replaced. I bought HDCP because it's the future. I bought plasma because it looks good. I bought the hisense because it was a good price for the value added features. I bought this set because in some way I hope my purchase would help continue to reduce the pricing because I'm in the market for another one within the next year or so.

All I'm saying is you are a first adopter, you are not mainstream. That's all.

[ROF]

Now not only are people making up their own minds on what they will watch and when they'll watch it, they are also choosing on what they'll watch it on, what format, where they get it from and where they'll watch it!

Exactly. Broadcast Flags and HDCP will allow this continue but with an added security measure to prevent casual IP theft that occurs daily in this information age. Remember, you can not legally backup any media you purchase. You are also not authorized to media shift (another form of backups) in the US. Broadcast flags and HDCP will help the end consumer make the right legal decision about how and where they watch their broadcasts and media. Right now, there is virtually no restrictions and violation of law punishable by extreme fines and jail time could be in the future of those who continue to casually violate the law. Broadcast flags and HDCP will transparently help the end consumer avoid those punishments by not allowing the crime to occur.