Most Monitors Will Not Play New HD Video

[phelix]

Also not all broadcasts cannot be archived, some can. The Broadcast Flag would actually make it easier to know what you can and cannot timeshift or archive. So that is actually a consumer benefit. But ultimately I'm against it as I'm sure most copyright holders will do their best to make timeshifting difficult and limiting, such as you must watch the timeshifted program within 24 or 48 hours or something.

What possible reason would broadcasters have to not simply leave the "Never Record" flag on all the time?

While I'm against HDCP and anything the limits my ability to use media as I choose to, I don't have a huge problem if I am still able to rip to a lower res version to put on a portable media player or stream to a computer in another room.

And what happens when the portable player of tommorrow has the resolution of HDTV today? And no broadcaster would ever willingly allow you to stream video to a general purpose computer.

The problem is the MPAA/RIAA/Legislative Branch/FCC never EVER look at a fair compromise. I think a fair compromise to this restrictive copyright enforcing system is to lower the length of time things can be locked up under copyright, like a repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act.

Public Domain is dead and buried in the USA, and the euology was delivered by the supreme court in ruling that congress could extend copyright indefinately (just pass more extension acts). Public Domain is never coming back.

I think people really underestimate the importance of this. We no longer own our culture; our children and grandchildren will have no innate right to it. The government and the **AA have broken the social contract that copyright was based on. We're far beyond the point where small changes can fix anything.

Sorry for the incoherent ranting, but it's late, and I'm tired of crap the ROF is spewing.

ROF, do you think it's right to live in a world where singing "Happy Birthday" to your child at a resturant without prior written permission is a crime? That's the kind of world you're arguing for, where every expressive act comes with a price.

[ROF]

What possible reason would broadcasters have to not simply leave the "Never Record" flag on all the time?

Digital Video Set Top Recorder manufacturers would be out of business along with a few other industries. I doubt this would occur but you would see I'd imagine alot of first run shows with a Never Record Flag attached.

And what happens when the portable player of tommorrow has the resolution of HDTV today? And no broadcaster would ever willingly allow you to stream video to a general purpose computer.

again, I think the manufacturer of such devices, quite a few of which are distributors of content would see that this is still possible accept you'd probably only get a lower resolution stream such as the new iTunes video downloads.

Public Domain is dead and buried in the USA, and the euology was delivered by the supreme court in ruling that congress could extend copyright indefinately (just pass more extension acts). Public Domain is never coming back.

I think people really underestimate the importance of this. We no longer own our culture; our children and grandchildren will have no innate right to it. The government and the **AA have broken the social contract that copyright was based on. We're far beyond the point where small changes can fix anything.

Do the authors not have a right to maintain control yet still allow you to enjoy their works at home? Public Domain is still alive and kicking. Without copyright controls the authors lose money. Under the current system hardware manufacturers are allowed to produce devices which can be used for both infringing and non-infringing purposes. Under the HDCP model, hardware manufacturers can still do this, but they won't be displaying the high definition video with their devices. I think as I've stated that quite a few people are getting worked up over nothing. I don't see the VCR disappearing and vinyl is still produced for quite a few audio recordings as well. There is always at least in the forseeable future a need for low resolution low quality video.

ROF, do you think it's right to live in a world where singing "Happy Birthday" to your child at a resturant without prior written permission is a crime? That's the kind of world you're arguing for, where every expressive act comes with a price.

Happy Birthday is public domain so there is no need to worry about this.

[ROF]

However, with respect to drives and media, I don't believe that the manufacturers do anything for the benefits of our wallets, nor can they be disentangled from the broadcast/film empires. For instance, Sony is one of the largest makers of hardware, media and is also one of the biggest distibutors.

Why should they be separated? Who knows better what types and quality of hardware to produce than the people who actually produce the broadcast/film that is displayed on such devices? Sony has been working hard to protect their media yet each time they produce a new software solution someone steals it and releases the method of stealing to anyone who can click the download button. HDCP will eliminate this thieving. if you don't believe manufacturers do anything to benefit consumers wallets why do they just produce two devices instead of complete lines of the same product at different retail price points? Sure, a portion of that is for market coverage, but in conjunction with that it's also so that the consumer has choices and different prices to pick and choose from while staying with their brand name. Do you only buy high end equipment? I don't know about you but my DVD Players are bought because of the exceptional value at low low prices. Some equipment I actually care what it's capable of, others I buy simply because of it's price tag. Quite a few products such as DVD players are throw away devices because of the price break the manufacturers provide to me.

[canadateck]

Happy Birthday is public domain so their is no need to worry about this

I dont think so, I remeber seeing somthing on TV about paying Fee's for this Song, Myabe I'm wrong,But they also said that they wouldnt go after People singing it at a Party,Only if used on TV/Movies Etc.

[junkmalle]

Canadateck is right, the Happy Birthday song was copyrighted in 1935. Under current US law it's copyright wont expire until 2030.

Since Mickey Mouse was copyrighted in 1928 Happy Birthday's copyright will probably never expire.

Maybe I should explain: every time Mickey Mouse has approached the end if its copyright term Disney has successfully lobbied congress to lengthen the term of copyrights. So anything produced after 1928 will likely never fall out of copyright.

[ROF]

I stand corrected. Happy Birthday is still under copyright and brings in $2 million annually. It is slated after an extension to be approved in 2009 for an expiration in 2030 and enter public domain at that point. I agree that this is a good thing but I fail to see what it has to do with HDCP and monitors displaying high definition video.

[adam]

phelix singing happy birthday to your kid is not even an infringement, let alone a crime. It has to be a commercial use or rise to the level of a public performance (generally requires amplification through multiple speakers). You can sing it 24 hours a day if you want, the restaurant just can't sing it to their customers without paying royalties on it. Even if they do its still not a crime. Generally speaking, copyright infringement is a civil violation only. It takes alot to rise to the level of criminal copyright infringement.

junkmalle you are exaggerating again. Disney sucessfully lobbied to get copyright terms extended only once and that was the most recent modification. The previous extensions had nothing to do with disney or mickey. They were implemented to bring US terms into conformance with European ones. The vast majority of countries with copyright law go by the life +50 years standard. Europe extended this to life +70 years and then the US followed suit with pressure from Disney.

[junkmalle]

junkmalle: Just for the record, US copyright terms have only been extended 4 times. They of course have increased substantially in those 4 extensions though.

Thanks for refreshing my memory. Copyright law has been amended many times but only four have dealt with term extensions. Here's a quick summary:

1790: 14 years plus 14 years renewal on request
1831: 28 years plus 14 years renewal on request
1909: 28 years plus 28 years renewal on request
1976: life of author plus 50 years, 75 years for works-for-hire
1998: life of author plus 70 years, 95 years for works-for-hire

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html

[racerxnet]

ROF,


Shut up and go away to your controlled world. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

[rhegedus]

Why should they be separated? Who knows better what types and quality of hardware to produce than the people who actually produce the broadcast/film that is displayed on such devices? etc.

First, do you think a monopoly is healthy for the consumer?

Second, making films has sweet FA to do with the medium on which it is distributed: it's one film that gets chopped and edited for cinema, DVD, VHS, TV, HDTV etc. The source is the same........

[rhegedus]

You can sing it 24 hours a day if you want, the restaurant just can't sing it to their customers without paying royalties on it.

So Ronald McDonald can't sing it at a kids birthday party at McDonalds without stumping up $?

[adam]

So Ronald McDonald can't sing it at a kids birthday party at McDonalds without stumping up $?

Correct because this is a commercial use. Its the same with any other song.

[rhegedus]

But it's OK for one of the parents to stand up and sing it

[ROF]

Nope, it's still infringement no matter who sings it in public. Why do you think restaurants sing those goofy happy birthday jingles and not the Happy Birthday song? It's copyrighted and as such should be protected from exhibition without permission from the owners.

[ROF]

Why should they be separated? Who knows better what types and quality of hardware to produce than the people who actually produce the broadcast/film that is displayed on such devices? etc.

First, do you think a monopoly is healthy for the consumer?

Second, making films has sweet FA to do with the medium on which it is distributed: it's one film that gets chopped and edited for cinema, DVD, VHS, TV, HDTV etc. The source is the same........

It's hardly a monopoly. When I purchased my HDCP television as stated earlier in this thread I had several choices from several manufacturers. As to the second part, all those "editions" are property of someone who is looking to make a profit for everyone involved in bringing you those editions. HDCP and broadcast flags will ensure the consumer views these without certain consumers ripping them and not paying a dime for the viewing. HDCP is for the consumer benefit even if it does limit certain aspects of the viewing experience. I'm quite sure these will work themselves out.

[pdemondo]

YES FOR SURE HDCP is for the consumer.
ROF, are you serious? It is all about CONTROL. The media companies
just want to control what, where, when, and how you watch programs.
They media companies then can make almost any rules they want.

If this is such a good idea, how about a camera in each movie
producers office, to make sure they aren't taking taking advantage of
women, doing drugs, etc?

Why is it okay to use technology to CONTROL people when it comes
to the trivial issue of copying media, and not CONTROL people in more
important areas, like how you use your car or your home,
to make sure you don't break any laws, like murder?

Isn't murder a more serious and harmful crime than movie copying?
Shouldn't every kitchen be contorlled so the knives can't be used for
stabbing? Think with the right control, we can eliminate all crime!!

[CaptainVideo]

I'll agree to restrictive copyright protections that the MPAA/RIAA want as long as the Sonny Bono Copyright Act of 1998 and the 1976 Copyright Act are repealed.

Once that is done I'm all for whatever restrictions they want. Because at least in my lifetime (knock on wood) some great works make it to public domain.

[pdemondo]

Just saw this quote on DOOM9.org --

Technology is about facilitating our lives and make them more enriching, not about putting more and more limitations about what we can do and how we use the product we paid good money for. And it's not like MPAA and RIAA aren't entering the poor house any time soon, they are still reaping huge profits despite what they call "rampant piracy".


--Well Said!!

[ROF]

YES FOR SURE HDCP is for the consumer.
ROF, are you serious? It is all about CONTROL. The media companies
just want to control what, where, when, and how you watch programs.
They media companies then can make almost any rules they want.

Of course it's about control. Control over what makes the industry profitable to their artists, producers, shareholders, etc. What makes you go to work everyday besides the enjoyment and satisfaction? I'll bet the paycheck is right up there on your list. These industry people own the products, they own the broadcasts, they license the viewing of the contents. The consumer never owns the contents of the media they purchase or own the broadcasts they receive. Theft of these products has reached a point where something more secure is required. Networked hardware based protection is necessary in order for the above people to continue putting food on the table. Remember artists are used to living a certain lifestyle. Entertainment has big dollar value. Continued theft reduces this dollar value. The problem is that certain consumers don't see anything wrong with archiving a whole seasons worth of episodes or backing up their media purchases. HDCP will help them to not casually continue to break the law.

If this is such a good idea, how about a camera in each movie
producers office, to make sure they aren't taking taking advantage of
women, doing drugs, etc?

I don't know about you but as I walk towards my workplace there are cameras. As I enter the building, there is a camera. As I walk down corridotrs there are cameras. In certain discrete locations there are cameras. Even where I purchase my movies there are cameras. They even have them in the parking lot of my local stores. Guess what, that privacy people claim to want has long since disappeared. It's never coming back no matter what anyone does. But really, what does this have to do with HDCP and monitors not being able to display HD Video?

Why is it okay to use technology to CONTROL people when it comes
to the trivial issue of copying media, and not CONTROL people in more
important areas, like how you use your car or your home,
to make sure you don't break any laws, like murder?

You do know that in most US States it's against the law to not wear a seatbelt? Guess that throws the idea of not being controlled while you are in your own car.

Isn't murder a more serious and harmful crime than movie copying?
Shouldn't every kitchen be contorlled so the knives can't be used for
stabbing? Think with the right control, we can eliminate all crime!!

You should work in law enforcement technology. Your ideas are somewhat futuristic but with a little help and some funding I'm quite sure you could make a difference in soceity to help control crime. Knives that can't be used for stabbing, I like that. Now if we could just get paper not to produce paper cuts I'm sure all office workers might consider that a pretty good invention.

[somebodeez]

These industry people own the products, they own the broadcasts, they license the viewing of the contents. The consumer never owns the contents of the media they purchase or own the broadcasts they receive.

You need to remember that we consumers own our eyes and wallets.
What you say the industry owns isn't very valuable without what the consumers own. :P

What was it Princess Leah said in Star Wars to Darth Vader? Oh yeah - something like this:
"The more you tighten your grip, the more we'll slip through your fingers"

[ROF]

Not for me. I already own an HDCP capable TV and I'm considering purchasing a 26" HDCP ready TV for another room. The cost is $599 which when you compare features, that cost is relatively cheap. HDCP will not effect my viewing habits at all.

[somebodeez]

Doesn't matter - there is just no denying that fact.
All that you say the industry owns doesn't mean a hill o' beans without what the consumers own - the almighty $.

I don't own any sort of HD equipment at all at this time and going by what you claim, it will all be so crippled compared to what I have now so I don't feel compelled to put out any $ whatsoever for any of it.
So I just cancelled out your purchases

[pdemondo]

I don't agree with seatbelt laws, I have always worn one becasue I believe its a good idea. So yes we aren't completely free in our car
either. BUT the day we have a detector to phone the police when
we don't wear our seatbelt, that's when we will have MPAA-like controls
on our cars.

It's not about copyright protection. Yes, if they find evidence you'er
are violating their copyright, go after you but to have prior restraint,
that takes it to the next level.

If a company chooses to build HDCP product, that is fine, but
when it becomes unlawful for me to defeat those controls, that is a problem.

Consider the PC, who would be happy if any program you choose to
run must be approved by microsoft and defeating that restriction
would be a crime? Well that is probably coming soon as well.

If they are afraid to provide HDEF for fear of copying, then DON'T!
But there will be someone who would be willing to provide such content.

But yes, we vote with or money, so I will not purchase HDCP products,
got a pre-HDCP DVI bigscreen. If the cable company scrambles their
HD DVI that I put on the screen, I will cancel my cable and stick with
over-the-air HD.

But you know, as well as I, that if a consumer can choose between
HDCP and NON HDCP, 99% will choose non HDCP. that would be a free market choice.

[adam]

Nope, it's still infringement no matter who sings it in public. Why do you think restaurants sing those goofy happy birthday jingles and not the Happy Birthday song? It's copyrighted and as such should be protected from exhibition without permission from the owners.

ROF remember when I asked you to please refrain from making any legal comments unless you had done the research and were prepared to provide your source, since you were repeatedly getting it wrong? Well you did it again. Like I said in my earlier post, a display or performance is generally only considered "public" if it is being amplified and singing happy birthday for your kid clearly falls under Fair Use.

Restaurants don't have this luxury since their singing to their customers is lumped in with all the other services they provide and thus they are using the song commercially.

For the last time please just stop. Stick to your layman opinions only because your legal ones are consistently wrong.

[adam]

Just saw this quote on DOOM9.org --

Technology is about facilitating our lives and make them more enriching, not about putting more and more limitations about what we can do and how we use the product we paid good money for. And it's not like MPAA and RIAA aren't entering the poor house any time soon, they are still reaping huge profits despite what they call "rampant piracy".


--Well Said!!

No its not well said, that is the same backassward thinking that people use to justify stealing from Walmart as opposed to a mom and pop store. How much money the company has at the end of the day is irrellevant. Stealing is wrong no matter who the victim is. And before anyone responds that piracy isn't stealing, please look up stealing in the dictionary and realize why it differs from the definition of theft.

[jntaylor63]

adam,

Where the F*&k in Doom9's quote had anything to do with stealing? What he is saying is that all of the choke holds put by non govt. bodies is keeping consumer's from enjoying their products to the fullest. These groups are crying over theft without a profit loss to back it up. When I see Sony-BMG or Universal close down, I'll beleive what they are saying. Yes people are stealing and stealing is wrong. But thats been going from the begining of time. Companies should do what they can to prevent loss, but only to a point. What if you had to have a pat down and an inspection everytime you left a store. What if everytime you bought a car, you had to buy every option, could not add any private optons and only you could drive it.

Because were talking about movies and music, most of the public takes it on the chin (wallets) and moves on. The problem is that this stuff bulids up over time and one day we'll look around and wonder were our "consumer" freedoms went.

[adam]

Where the F*&k in Doom9's quote had anything to do with stealing?

That would be the part where he brings up piracy.

These groups are crying over theft without a profit loss to back it up. Companies should do what they can to prevent loss, but only to a point.

You are confusing theft and stealing just like I knew would happen. Stealing just means to take something that isn't yours and this is expressly what copyrights protect against, whether it results in monetary loss or not. Theft is a specific type of stealing and only applies to tangible goods. The intangible equivalent is piracy.

This is the same argument I see time and time again and it is self defeating. You, and doom9, say they shouldn't complain unless they can show actual profit loss. Well despite the fact that this is literally impossible to do, everytime they conduct a survey everyone complains how wrong it is. You can't show how much piracy effects profits on such a large scale as the motion picture industry. Its impossible, and ultimately its pointless. Piracy is illegal and as representatives of the copyright holders they have a legal right to try to prevent it.

I can tell you didn't read my earlier posts in this thread. I came to the same conclusion as you, that its a matter of degree not right. Like you say they should do what they can to protect their interests but within reason. I agree and that's why I do not think the broadcast flag or HDCP are "good" technologies, because even though the industry has a right to prevent piracy and unauthorized use, these are not reasonable countermeasures.

But whether or not these companies can afford piracy is not the issue. They have a legal right to do something about it. All these Robin Hoods out there talking about how its ok to steal from the rich are hypocrites because they aren't giving to the poor, they are keeping it for themselves.

[somebodeez]

Lemme tell you how I see this HDCP lock down stuff vs my current setup:

A. Here we have the brand new HDCP um - er equipment


Extremely pleasing to the eyes but that's all he's good for since he does absolutley nothing else.
Cost: Approx. $3000


B. Here we have the current equipment:



Maybe not as flashy looking as model A but still very nice to look at plus he'll take me out to dinner whenever I want, get off his butt and and cut the grass and clean the gutters, change the oil in my car and open jars for me.
Cost: Approx. $800

Being the practical type, I gotta go with B

[adam]

On this forum, any analogies have to use pictures of women or we just don't understand them. The top guy does sort of have boobies though...

[somebodeez]

On this forum, any analogies have to use pictures of women or we just don't understand them. The top guy does sort of have boobies though...

Well - I did say that is how *I* see it