Most Monitors Will Not Play New HD Video

[rhegedus]

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.

It is a monopoly when you consider that the smaller manufactureres have to dance to the big boys tune.

Second, ownership has nothing to do with who knows what medium it is best displayed on, which was your original point.

Everytime you get cornered you just come out with your 'HDCP and broadcast flags are good' mantra....

[ROF]

It is a monopoly when you consider that the smaller manufactureres have to dance to the big boys tune.

Second, ownership has nothing to do with who knows what medium it is best displayed on, which was your original point.

Everytime you get cornered you just come out with your 'HDCP and broadcast flags are good' mantra....

I don't see any corners anywhere here. The picture is clear and road has very few curves. As to your monopoly idea, can you name any technical manufacturing industry who doesn't have to dance to big boy tunes, pay industry licenses to use the technology in their products, or otherwise make sure their product complys with specifications? Ownership has everything to do with how the broadcast is displayed. That's pretty much the sole reason for high definition. HDCP and broadcast flags are what this topic is about. That's why I keep bringing them up. Perhaps we could discuss chinese restaurants but I'd imagine that would be off topic such as your postings in this thread. HDCP isn't about monopolies. It's about standards, quality, and protection.

[ROF]

@Adam

If you review the off topic postings in this thread about the birthday thing and Ronald McDonald and/or the parent standing up and singing. Those were all public exhibitions of a copyrighted song for which when sung in a public place such as a kids birthday at McDonalds is a violation of copyright.

[adam]

@Adam

If you review the off topic postings in this thread about the birthday thing and Ronald McDonald and/or the parent standing up and singing. Those were all public exhibitions of a copyrighted song for which when sung in a public place such as a kids birthday at McDonalds is a violation of copyright.

Yeah I read them, I posted about half of them. And if you will read the applicable sections of Title 17, and my prior posts to you in this thread, a performance is generally not "public" unless amplified through at least one speaker, usually 7. Public displays are also subject to 107 Fair Use exceptions and singing Happy Birthday to someone, on their birthday, for non-commercial purposes is clearly a fair use. A single performance of a single song would also be exempted under the de minimus rule. This would be true even if the restaurant was the one doing the singing.

Permission is not necessary for non-commercial, non-public, fair use, de minimus performances such as singing happy birthday to your child, even while in a restaurant.

Its NOT a violation of copyright. Stop saying that. You have consistently and repeatedly shown that you are not qualified to make such determinations.

[akrako1]

It's about standards, quality, and protection.

You also keep repeating this. STOP. As has been demonstrated in this very thread, HDCP has nothing to do with 'ensuring quality' as you keep touting. All it does is verify you have a valid HDCP device at the display end, it does nothing to ensure the device is even HD.

[painkiller]

To the person who used the seatbelt analogy ...

(I'm paraphrasing here: having equipment added to your vehicle to report when, and when not, wearing the seatbelt ...)

I was on a business trip recently on the West Coast.
Despite the volume of traffic on I-5, a CHP officer on motorcycle pulled us over since he couldn't see the strap over the shoulder of the driver. After looking inside and talking to the driver (who announced he had a broken collar bone) and finding the driver had the belt on incorrectly - the officer told him he had to fix it and wear it right.

So, at least in this case, you should see (ahem) this analogy doesn't quite fit this topic thread.

Nice try though.

[pdemondo]

adam wrote: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.

I didn't take it to mean that infringing was justified becasue the
media giants are making a lot of money, I took it to mean that
the "sky isn't falling" for MPAA/RIAA. I would suggest that
the movie and music industry are claiming that they are losing
money and need massive control over personal consumer electronics
to stop it.

So I would agree with you in that it doesn't matter how much money
they have at the end of the day. How much money the record and movie
companies have doesn't justify forcing electronic control on the public.

Who said anything about infringing?

[/b][/quote]

[adam]

Who said anything about infringing?

The protection mechanisms he is talking about aren't there for their health, its to stop infringements of course.

[rhegedus]

As to your monopoly idea, can you name any technical manufacturing industry who doesn't have to dance to big boy tunes, pay industry licenses to use the technology in their products, or otherwise make sure their product complys with specifications?

Exactly....... it's just that a few posts back you thought it was 'hardly a monopoly'. Have you changed your mind now?

Ownership has everything to do with how the broadcast is displayed. That's pretty much the sole reason for high definition. HDCP and broadcast flags are what this topic is about. That's why I keep bringing them up. Perhaps we could discuss chinese restaurants but I'd imagine that would be off topic such as your postings in this thread. HDCP isn't about monopolies. It's about standards, quality, and protection.

Ownership is a legal matter - how best to display is a technical one. Broadcast flags do not improve the product quality - check out DivX's high definition demos all playable without bradcast flags. Therefore, these flags are not necessary for quality.

What the flags do is force the consumer to use the media in the predesignated hardware in a predesignated way. Nothing to do with quality.....

[pdemondo]

But those mechanisms STEAL control of my TV. Why does hollywood get
to dictate technology? Becasue they provide some content?

If they refuse to provide content, which I argue they won't, under less
than ideal circumstances, SOMEBODY ELSE WILL.

Look at the Compact Disc. We have had a lot of years during which
CD copying has been very easy but did the record companies quit
making discs? NO! They have been trying to get us to adopt the
"hi def" audio but few people want to give up CD freedom for
SACD and DVD-A control . SACD and DVD-A are dying but CD sales
go on. And even "copy protected" CDs don't put a big
copy protectiion notice on their discs, Why not? The RIAA was
lobbying congress against a proposed law to require copy protection
notices on CDs. If this stuff is so great, why would they want to
hide it?

Because it is possible to infringe, should the media industry have
control of our televisions?

Even most of us who don't care about copying DVI signals will
pick the non HDCP over HDCP.

I say if I am found guilty of infiriging, then the penalty can be an
HDCP TV.

[junkmalle]

With a mandatory internet connection the next step is to make all HD pay per view.

Now that they know who you are they will track all your viewing. You will recieve directed advertising, spam, special ads in the middle of your movie, etc. Your name, address, phone number, and viewing habits will be sold to whoever will pay. You signed up for this in your T&C's remember. Oh, you didn't bother to read 20 pages of small print each time you started a show? That's your problem!

And once they figure out how to count the number of people watching (webcam required to watch?) they'll make you pay per viewer too.

Once they have that they will force you to watch advertising. If anybody leaves for a bathroom break the ad will pause until they get back. If you stop looking at the screen the ad will pause. You won't be able to turn down the volume.

If someone else comes into the room the video will pause and tell you that you have to pay for another viewer to continue watching.

The possibilities are endless! And all brought to you by the control that HDCP gives them.

[rhegedus]

@ROF

Out of curiosity, do you think hacking set-top DVD players to play all region DVDs reduces standards, quality and [consumer] protection?

[ROF]

As to your monopoly idea, can you name any technical manufacturing industry who doesn't have to dance to big boy tunes, pay industry licenses to use the technology in their products, or otherwise make sure their product complys with specifications?

Exactly....... it's just that a few posts back you thought it was 'hardly a monopoly'. Have you changed your mind now?

Ownership has everything to do with how the broadcast is displayed. That's pretty much the sole reason for high definition. HDCP and broadcast flags are what this topic is about. That's why I keep bringing them up. Perhaps we could discuss chinese restaurants but I'd imagine that would be off topic such as your postings in this thread. HDCP isn't about monopolies. It's about standards, quality, and protection.

What the flags do is force the consumer to use the media in the predesignated hardware in a predesignated way. Nothing to do with quality.....

Nope. There is no Monopoly. There are already a ton of manufacturers who are producing HDCP capable sets. In order for a monopoly to occur it must be one business entity. HDCP is licensed to whoever maintains the standards similiar to but not the same as how MPEG Technology is treated by hardware and software manufacturers today. The broadcast flags are different from HDCP. They also have a different function entirely. They ensure that casual law breakers won't be continuing there current illegal activities of archiving, copying, etc. Some consumers may see this as a restriction, while most see it as a way to ensure you do not violate any laws and use the broadcasts in the way the broadcasters and producers intended. They own the broadcast and have the right to maintain the integrity of their broadcasts. Their shareholders demand no less.

[Stingray]

As to your monopoly idea, can you name any technical manufacturing industry who doesn't have to dance to big boy tunes, pay industry licenses to use the technology in their products, or otherwise make sure their product complys with specifications?

Exactly....... it's just that a few posts back you thought it was 'hardly a monopoly'. Have you changed your mind now?

Ownership has everything to do with how the broadcast is displayed. That's pretty much the sole reason for high definition. HDCP and broadcast flags are what this topic is about. That's why I keep bringing them up. Perhaps we could discuss chinese restaurants but I'd imagine that would be off topic such as your postings in this thread. HDCP isn't about monopolies. It's about standards, quality, and protection.

What the flags do is force the consumer to use the media in the predesignated hardware in a predesignated way. Nothing to do with quality.....

Nope. There is no Monopoly. There are already a ton of manufacturers who are producing HDCP capable sets. In order for a monopoly to occur it must be one business entity. HDCP is licensed to whoever maintains the standards similiar to but not the same as how MPEG Technology is treated by hardware and software manufacturers today. The broadcast flags are different from HDCP. They also have a different function entirely. They ensure that casual law breakers won't be continuing there current illegal activities of archiving, copying, etc. Some consumers may see this as a restriction, while most see it as a way to ensure you do not violate any laws and use the broadcasts in the way the broadcasters and producers intended. They own the broadcast and have the right to maintain the integrity of their broadcasts. Their shareholders demand no less.

I think its pretty fair to say that "most" people will NOT see it as something positive...

[somebodeez]

Some consumers may see this as a restriction, while most see it as a way to ensure you do not violate any laws and use the broadcasts in the way the broadcasters and producers intended.

I'd like to see some numbers on this.
How about a poll?

[painkiller]

I'm inclined to agree with having a poll.

At the least - for purposes of discussion, it may be helpful to get a sense of how many folks would prefer to NOT be affected by external controls (such as broadcast flags, etc.) versus those who don't care if such controls exist.

In my opinion, I don't wish for government - nor private companies - to tell me what I can and cannot save for my own private library. And such a library is a mix of store bought DVDs, store bought VHS tapes and various recordings of tv serials and such for later/repeat viewings.

I paid for my equipment, as well as the media and enjoy all of it.

[jpconard]

Interesting thread, haven't been here in awhile.

First, ROF is a little off-base. You will never stop the thiefs, so why punish the law-abiders? Using a variation of his gun example, will taking away the guns (like Australia did) stop criminals from having guns? NO

The goal is great, but it won't happen.

Second, the digital copyright flag will not stop existing systems from functioning in HD modes as they do now. Quote from Avermedia "** Information regarding FCC’s Broadcast Flag Mandate – According to Federal Communication Commission’s Broadcast Flag mandate (MB Docket 02-230) adopted on November 4, 2003, All Digital TV receiver products (like the AVerTVHD MCE A180) built on and after July 1, 2005 are required to obtain Digital Broadcast Content Protection. The mandate does not affect HDTV receiver products manufactured or sold before July 1, 2005. As such, the AVerTVHD MCE A180 will continue to function exactly in the same manner it does today after the July 1, 2005 legislation date."

That July 2005 date was struct down in the lawsuit librarians vs. FCC. The FCC lost and the copy-right flag is on hold. Therefore I would have to say any HD equipment currently sold will have to function as it does now, forever. They may try to bring a new date, but that would not affect equipment sold now.

Third, the Betamax and fair use arguement is relevant as somebody mentioned, law regards precedent very highly. Usually laws are not designed or interpreted verbatim, but rather as to the meaning of the law. So it is difficult to say that the law is only for VCRs, or only for TV recordings, or only for Betamax. Later laws must respect prior laws or they have to revoke the previous law. Usually requires court action.

Fourth, archiving is not illegal, as I seen mentioned. Media Center fully supports archiving to DVD from recorded TV, as long as it is not copy protected. Now with Rollup 2, it even allows archiving of HD content to DVD, but since DVD is 720x480 standard it converts down to that (technical reason, not copyright issue). Is MS breaking the law by designing this into MCE? I would think not.

Lastly, I hope my new 1920x1080 37" LCD will work, it says it has HDCP, HDMI, and DVI modes (using that now), and my X700 card says to support HDCP.

I think if my system will support this, then many peoples' will as I don't buy top of line stuff. Can't afford it. Do I like the plan, no but I do like HD. Keep in mind you need fairly fast PC and video card to play back HD in 1920x1080 resolutions, regardless of this HDCP stuff.

The comments about T2 Extreme HD-WMV I agree with. That is a pain. Not only do you have to connect to get the license (every couple weeks), you have to use their player that crappy whatever it is (removed if from PC). You would think DRM - fine, connect to license - fine, but at least let me play WMVs in Media Center.

The comment of ROF working for Sony - classic. Have you ever been in a Sony store? They have armed gaurds and pat down people, even those with suits and ties. I made the mistake of asking the clerk how their Media Center PCs will handle HD when the digital flag starts up. That caused quite a stir. Thought I would get arrested. I think Sony thinks everybody is going to steal from them. That is the mentality the content providers are going to have to get away from or we will never have any solutions.

[adam]

jpconard: The Betamax decision has been cited possibly more times than any other copyright suit in history. Its meaning and scope are well known. It only speaks to time-shifting and this has become a statutorily defined word so it is not open to interpretation. It means to record television broadcasts and store them temporarily for a ONE time later viewing. As far as hardware it applies to any PVR.

Archiving copyrighted material IS illegal unless expressly exempted, hell ALL copying is made illegal unless exempted. The only express exemptions for arching that we have in the US are for computer software and musical recordings. Time-shifting expressly DISALLOWS archiving and that is the only right to copy that consumers have to their broadcasts.

Archiving commercial VHS, DVD, laserdisc, or television broadcasts is illegal in the US. This is not up for debate or interpretation. The Betamax decision itself, which grants us the right to time-shift broadcasts, expressly states that archiving television broadcasts (library building) is illegal.

I don't understand what it matters that Media Center allows you to record broadcasts to DVD. Whether a recording is archived or not depends on what you do after its been recorded, and as I have said in this and other threads many times, manufacturers are held to the standard developed in the Betamax case and thus do not have to ensure that their devices aren't used illegally (ie: archiving) so long as they still have a substantially non-infringing purpose (time-shifting.)

[CaptainVideo]

Also, there is nothing preventing you from time-shifting content to a DVDR. You just have to destroy the DVDR when you are done viewing the contents. So saying that something allows you to burn to a DVDR doesn't suddenly eliminate the fact that you can't archive as adam states above.

[rhegedus]

@ROF

But if I understand it correctly, since there is no way to circumvent the broadcast flags, then in order to gain the most from your HDTV set in the future it must comply with the flags.

Who is behind the flags?

[painkiller]

rhegedus -

If you mean originally, Hollywood (basically) is behind the flags.
With the help of the FCC (before they were told they went too far).

If you mean amongst us, I can think of a couple who are not.

[ROF]

@ROF

But if I understand it correctly, since there is no way to circumvent the broadcast flags, then in order to gain the most from your HDTV set in the future it must comply with the flags.

Who is behind the flags?

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. Both will have a say in contracts as to how and under what circumstances or medium content is broadcast to the general public. Broadcast Flags provide both of these marketers with an added layer of protection for their assets.

[pdemondo]

The broadcast flags were stopped by the courts who said that
congress would have to pass a law to give the FCC authority
to implement such flags. Such a law was proposed in congress but sank
quickly. An attempt was made, a couple of times, to sneak it
through inside of other bills. Luckily, the word got out each time
and those ammendments were removed.

Imangine, such a good law, with lemon drops and gum balls for
all yet it is popular with nobody except Hollywood and the congressmen
and senators that hollywood buys off.

[edDV]

The broadcast flags were stopped by the courts who said that
congress would have to pass a law to give the FCC authority
to implement such flags. Such a law was proposed in congress but sank
quickly. An attempt was made, a couple of times, to sneak it
through inside of other bills. Luckily, the word got out each time
and those ammendments were removed.

Imangine, such a good law, with lemon drops and gum balls for
all yet it is popular with nobody except Hollywood and the congressmen
and senators that hollywood buys off.

Write these congressmen and share your thoughts with them.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004047.php
http://action.eff.org/site/DocServer/Pickering-Towns_broadcast_flag.pdf?docID=261

[ROF]

It's interesting in the first link that the bias goes on about hollywood not being able to follow through with cutting off free OTA digital broadcasts. To me as a consumer that makes no sense since the point of hollywood is to make money and if the end consumer is paying nothing, who makes any money off the broadcast. The broadcaster? How much does this revenue compare to paying satelite and cable customers? If I were marketing a product and I had the choice of a free distribution channel where no dollars were being collected from the end consumer or a distribution channel where excessive fees were being paid by the end consumer, I'm quite sure my stockholders would be in full support of me not distributing through the free channel. Thanks for the links, but what does this all have to do with HDCP/DVI and output monitors that won't support this standard? Do broadcast flags tie into the HDCP and enhance it or help to support the consumer in automated crime prevention? Yeah, I guess they kind of do work together to provide a secure environment for the consumer and the IP we enjoy.

[edDV]

It's interesting in the first link that the bias goes on about hollywood not being able to follow through with cutting off free OTA digital broadcasts. To me as a consumer that makes no sense since the point of hollywood is to make money and if the end consumer is paying nothing, who makes any money off the broadcast. The broadcaster? How much does this revenue compare to paying satelite and cable customers? If I were marketing a product and I had the choice of a free distribution channel where no dollars were being collected from the end consumer or a distribution channel where excessive fees were being paid by the end consumer, I'm quite sure my stockholders would be in full support of me not distributing through the free channel. Thanks for the links, but what does this all have to do with HDCP/DVI and output monitors that won't support this standard? Do broadcast flags tie into the HDCP and enhance it or help to support the consumer in automated crime prevention? Yeah, I guess they kind of do work together to provide a secure environment for the consumer and the IP we enjoy.

You have forgotten about the advertising revenue that funds free TV. The media distributors are well compensated by the broadcasters. If you restrict free TV, mass advertising revenue seeks other paths to the consumer. The free market does work.

[ROF]

You have forgotten about the advertising revenue that funds free TV. The media distributors are well compensated by the broadcasters. If you restrict free TV, mass advertising revenue seeks other paths to the consumer. The free market does work.

I didn't forget about the advertisers, but the relative price paid for OTA advertising as compared to cable, satelite, or internet broadcasting is trivial. Call for advertising rates to your regional broadcasters to see what I mean. Advertising on OTA channels as compared to cable or satelite channels is almost 6000% less in my local market. I ocassionally advertise on OTA broadcasts and on radio. I couldn't begin to afford the cost of cable or satelite advertising. Hollywood doesn't care about my small amount I pay and I'll bet the amount they receive from each ad isn't going to buy them a stick of gum. Whereas one ad placement on cable will buy them a new car. Make no mistake, broadcast flags are about control of distribution. Without control Digital OTA broadcasting will be replaced with the same static that analog sets will be receiving.

[edDV]

You have forgotten about the advertising revenue that funds free TV. The media distributors are well compensated by the broadcasters. If you restrict free TV, mass advertising revenue seeks other paths to the consumer. The free market does work.

I didn't forget about the advertisers, but the relative price paid for OTA advertising as compared to cable, satelite, or internet broadcasting is trivial. Call for advertising rates to your regional broadcasters to see what I mean. Advertising on OTA channels as compared to cable or satelite channels is almost 6000% less in my local market. I ocassionally advertise on OTA broadcasts and on radio. I couldn't begin to afford the cost of cable or satelite advertising. Hollywood doesn't care about my small amount I pay and I'll bet the amount they receive from each ad isn't going to buy them a stick of gum. Whereas one ad placement on cable will buy them a new car. Make no mistake, broadcast flags are about control of distribution. Without control Digital OTA broadcasting will be replaced with the same static that analog sets will be receiving.

Well the subject isn't advertising optimization but the amount of ad revenue spent on cable is very low vs that spent on OTA mass market ad placements. They are apples and oranges. OTA hits broad targets at low cost per eyeball set. Cable advertising is all about narrow targeting to a niche audience (e.g. home remodelers or MTV teens). These can be inserted down to the city or even zip code level. You pay more per eyeball set to get this precision of targeting to a potential customer.

[ROF]

Agreed, but the revenue generated is the point isn't it? Hollywood and their broadcasting partners are in business of doing business. The biggest part of any business is the bottom line. When the bottom line of one service is paying pennies, while the other is generating thousands of dollars that should tell you something as a business person. When you factor in broadcast flags for both, the revenue stream remains the same while an added level of protection for IP being broadcasted is added with minimal effort. It would only make sense to add broadcast flags to television. The home market doesn't seem to be able to control itself. There are people who believe fair use entitles them to make backups of their media when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. There's also people who believe they have the right to archive whole seasons worth of television shows. Both of those are illegal and currently can not be controlled. There are too many people who archive television shows, share them on the net, record movies, copy movies, etc. Broadcast Flags in cooperation with HDCP is a step in the right direction for marketers of digital IP.

[edDV]

Agreed, but the revenue generated is the point isn't it? Hollywood and their broadcasting partners are in business of doing business. The biggest part of any business is the bottom line. When the bottom line of one service is paying pennies, while the other is generating thousands of dollars that should tell you something. When you factor in broadcast flags for both, the revenue stream remains the same while an added level of protection for IP being broadcasted is added with minimal effort. It would only make sense to add broadcast flags to television. The home market doesn't seem to be able to control itself. There are too many people who archive television shows, share them on the net, record movies, copy movies, etc. Broadcast Flags in cooperation with HDCP is a step in the right direction for marketers of digital IP.

A great portion of advertising is targeted at the mass market (all income classes). OTA television is a great way to hit this target.

The elephant in the corner is whether cable/dbs will implement the broadcast flag as restrictively as proposed for broadcasters. They risk alienating their top paying customers (early adopter HDTV buyers and other home theater junkies). This group is highly mobile, highly vocal and has low provider loyalty.

If broadcast clamps down, cable/dbs has an advantage. If both clamp down then the internet becomes a major threat to their revenue stream*. The marketers in these distribution companies realize that their revenue is threatened if HDTV viewing, DVR recording, home networking and portable player dubbing become too restrictive.

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.

* For example, I would be happy to trade over half my cable bill (~$1200/yr) to a downloadable NetFlix type service that would allow more choice and less restrictive viewing options. Cable gets downsized back to extended basic.