FCC Poised To Let Hollywood Break Your TV And DVR
from the based-on-nothing dept
Earlier today, we wrote about how even the MPAA's own members have shown they don't need to break your TV and DVR with selectable output control in order to release video-on-demand movies prior to DVD releases. Yet, if you hadn't noticed, the MPAA has been on a big rampage lately insisting that they need to do this to add yet another window to its release schedule. That's because the way Hollywood thinks is that they only way to make money is to take away what consumers want and, instead, add more annoying "windows." This is faulty thinking. However, it's even more faulty to claim that they need to break your TV and DVR to release this content. The MPAA's basic argument is that without this, there will be piracy -- but even the MPAA admits that every movie is pirated by the time it's in the theaters (i.e., before it would need this window).Want to know why the MPAA got 60 Minutes to run its propaganda piece on movie piracy this week? Because it knew this fight was close to a deciding point, and a little moral panic might help tip it over the edge into Hollywood's favor.
For a while, the FCC has pushed back and refused to grant the movie studios an exemption in order to break your TV, but word is coming down that, despite promises to make decisions based on "evidence," the FCC is ready to give in and let the MPAA break your TV and DVR in order to stop you from recording the movies it releases. Why? There's no good reason at all, other than the administration's cozy relationship with Hollywood these days. The industry's own actions show that this will do nothing to make it easier for it to release movies earlier. The industry's own claims show that it will do nothing to decrease piracy.
The only thing it will do is harm millions of consumers who believe their TV and DVR should work the way they were intended to work.
Public Knowledge is asking people to send a letter to the FCC, protesting this decision. I'm not a fan of "form letters," but I would suggest reading over the suggested letter and then crafting your own (polite, well argued) version, and sending it to the FCC. Hopefully the FCC realizes that breaking your TV and DVR for the sake of protecting Hollywood's billions (which still continue to go up) is not progress. It's a blatant attempt to take away consumer rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drm, hollywood, selectable output control, soc, tv
Companies: fcc, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If that's going to be the case, I am ditching my TV forever or get only Chinese imports that don't have these ridiculous controls.
I don't even watch Movies! Why should my TV be subjects to Hollywood control? Why give them the right?
Why is a total stranger allowed to come in my house, put a lock on my property, and start telling me what I can and cannot watch or use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Feature creep at its worst...
Okay, so as a Tivo user, here's my question. At what point do I get to go back to Tivo and start demanding penalty-less service disconnection and some money back on my hardware? After all, it is no longer performing as they told me it would. Maybe I'm not listening hard enough or to the right voices, but I have yet to hear Tivo or any other DVR manufacturer voice any strong opposition to this nonsense.
Okay, so here's the real question:
Why is it that one industry can institute a system or policy or technology whose SOLE purpose is to prohibit the use of a separate firm's product? It'd be like if Microsoft was able to prohibit PST email files from being backed up by third party email archivers and only allowing whatever Microsoft archiving solution is out there to do the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Big Deal?
Why is this such a big deal? Personally, I never get VOD anyway because it's overpriced and it's not like they get offered all that much earlier anyway. It's a much better deal to use Netflix or something, or just find a torrent of the movie online if you're so inclined. Are there really that many people out there so attached to VOD?
And even if there are, do they care so much to buy a new television to watch it? It seems to me that this is a worse move for the MPAA, such that it would sell significantly fewer movies on demand. I don't see how this really inconveniences consumers all that much, unless of course I'm not understanding this issue correctly...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's the Golden Rule
No one in their right mind could possibly think that this is necessary. Unfortunately government regulation offices are chock full of former special interest group members put there specifically to get special treatment for their old employers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No More Distribution Windows
Maybe it's the geek in me, but I see Hollywood as still trying to drive distribution into a sort of FIFO function. I don't need the newest. I like watching what is relevant.
Because of that, I'm more interested in what people like and recommend, and what's available over maintaining a distribution window because that way of thinking is not applicable anymore.
Think of it this way:
The more "Buzz" created to get me out to the theater, the more I realize I need a flyswatter!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's the Golden Rule
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The road to being able to take the content you legally buy everywhere with you is to give up some of your "free speech" control over your stuff. You have to give a little in order to get a lot.
Imagine every device you own has an ID chip in it. You register your chip online for each device, and then the content you have purchased IN ANY FORMAT can be played on any other format you own. Buy an MP3, play it on your TV if you like. Buy a DVD, play it on your PSP. DVR a TV show, watch it in reruns on your cell phone.
In order to do it, you would have to let someone know what you own. Not hard. But everyone goes "DRM SUCKS! DRM SUCKS!" and then wonders why companies have to develop insane ways of limiting your access. You are your own worst enemy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
I went ahead and wrote my own letter asking the FCC to turn down this request.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Feature creep at its worst...
Correct. You need some one-on-one time with Dr. Nancy Snyderman. She's Jewish, but don't let that keep you.
Also, while your Tivo is broken, consider *NOT* listening to Glenn Beck in the car. If you happen to carpool and your co-worker listens to Glenn Beck, get a $6.95 backstage pass to The Phil Hendrie Show loaded up on an iPod or iPhone would work. If you consider wearing headphones while carpooling rude, just do the opposite of what Glenn Beck says.
Following these tips will keep you'll keep from going bat shit insane.
http://www.philhendrieshow.com/Free/lordvader.asx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Besides exactly what DRM system is so great that you suggest we model for all content use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Feature creep at its worst...
Good one :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nonetheless I wrote the FCC a friendly letter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Actually Broken
This only bends your DVR a little.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Actually Broken
Until they decide that the only thing I should be able to watch is Fox News because they got their foot in the door with this SOC crap...
Then I'd have to kill myself, after asking permission of the **AA's of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Now what if out of the blue there's a spat between say Sony (The TV Manufacturer)and say Warner Bros? Oops! Warner stops issuing keys to Sony and boom, now I have to buy a Warner Bros. Approved television.
What happens when they turn the DRM servers off?
I happen to firmly agree with Mike here content NEEDS to be free (as in speech) and in many cases free as in beer makes sense economically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I say we all burn copyies of our DVD collection, then mail the disk back to hollyhood. They want millions of discs out in the world, then i say we give them what they want... just in a more localized area ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The road to being able to take the content you legally buy everywhere with you is to give up some of your "free speech" control over your stuff. You have to give a little in order to get a lot."
------------
I don't think you get it. We don't want content we legally buy to be restricted with DRM. We want the content we buy to work on what we have without buying new equipment or a movie production studio/distributor forcing us to use certain equipment it has control over to play it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing New
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Actually Broken
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It wouldn't be single device related. It wouldn't be single company related. Imagine every device you buy having a standard key style that is managed by a central system. You register all your stuff, it modifies the smart card style chip inside the device, and suddenly, you can move your content from one play to another REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURE!
Now, here's the key... because you have agreed to work within the structure, the prices of everything is suddenly MUCH lower, because you are no longer paying for the freeloaders.
Amazing, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
(and why do I keep thinking of that scene with Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam where he asks a complete question in mostly initials?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
Hey, don't drive you car. Today they control the airbags, maybe tomorrow they will control the air.
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
This is yet another example of attempting to use purchased legislation to prop up a business model that has become invalid. If we did this in the 1900's we would all still be riding around in horse drawn buggies because of laws passed to prohibit the production and use of motorized vehicles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, here's the key... because I have complete control over my files, and manufactures aren't forced to incur the costs of implementing a content control scheme, and there is no need to connect to a central key system, and no extra fees to pay for the "privilege" of being in such a system. It actually works all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, here's the key... because you have agreed to work within the structure, the prices of everything is suddenly MUCH lower, because you are no longer paying for the freeloaders.
None of what you said there agrees with what the RIAA/MPAA has been pushing for. Every single piece of DRM I have seen has put more restrictions over what I can do with the content I purchase, not less.
What you say sounds nice, but sure doesn't seem to be the way that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing things. The ability to play content on multiple devices can already be easily done without DRM, and people have shown willingness to pay for DRM-free content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
At no point have companies collectively decided to lower profits to increase consumer satisfaction. If given the opportunity to charge additional fees for something they will. Just look at CSS will you? It is a inter-company standard but if you buy a DVD in Europe will it play on a US DVD player? OF COURSE NOT. Because the friendly inter-company organization decided they wanted to be able to fix different prices on different regions and to control the release dates per region to maximize profits REGARDLESS of what the users want. Ask an Australian, they always get the short end of the stick on distribution, late and more expensive.
SOC is out an out wrong. It is legislation to prop up a broken business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stop punishing the real customers who are actually trying to get content legitimately or the value of your product is going to work its way towards zero. The more hassle you make it for us to watch your content, the less value it has to me. There's really NOTHING on TV or at the movies that I absolutely MUST see.
...and for those who have to see it anyways, guess what - they'll find a source for it *somewhere*. Would the content companies prefer that source be some underground site in Russia, or from them? Their choice...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There are already laws covering "fair use" and "first right of sale".
My music is DRM free and plays on every device I own. My movies do too. My music is at CD quality and my movies range between DVD and HD quality.
Let's face it. Anyone who has a business based on an arrangement of 1's and 0's has nothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's drop them
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It will be illegal to import equipment without such controls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Technology shall prevail over those who are set on breaking it...
Go ahead. Break our TVs, our DVRs, our music players. Those who are computer savy will avoid the televisions, the movie theaters, the dvd rental & retail stores, the CDs. We'll get our movies and entertainment needs from the pirates and gray-markets. No more DRM to deal with. YOUR the ones standing on the edge of the cliff, not us. Your business model has already taken the plunge. And your fans are about ready to give you the final push over the side. Were tired of your crap of standing against us. Blind & deaf to our needs. Either join us, or step aside! " }:> "
A dam can only hold back so much water. The pressure is rising on yours. Some of it has already found a different way around...
;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Feature creep at its worst...
Demand all you want. You can go pound sand too, for all they care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Big Deal?
There are bigger questions here. Sorry to tell you this, but I don't care about your personal viewing habits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Betamax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Because you say so?
You have to give a little in order to get a lot.
More like give up a lot to get a little. It kind of cheapens all the blood sacrifices that have been made for freedom. But who cares, just keep us entertained, right?
Imagine every device you own has an ID chip in it.
Imagine no device you own has any ID chip in it and you can use it however you like. That sounds a lot better to me.
In order to do it, you would have to let someone know what you own.
That's not true at all. That's just the way the copyright industry *wants* it to be.
But everyone goes "DRM SUCKS! DRM SUCKS!"
It does.
You are your own worst enemy.
No, I think that would be the likes of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure. DRM schemes have been around for a long time and there have been plenty of those kind of claims from the DRM industry and they've always been false. The fact of the matter is companies like to use non-interoperable DRM systems to lock users in and competition out.
Now, here's the key... because you have agreed to work within the structure, the prices of everything is suddenly MUCH lower, because you are no longer paying for the freeloaders.
Except that goes against basic economics and observed practices. Competing with "free" actually tends to push prices lower, not raise them. But why let reality interfere with your fantasy?
Amazing, isn't it?
What's amazing is that you seem think we're naive enough to believe your made-up crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
Oh yeah the "terrorist" card. That's another one the copyright industry and their shills like to trot out.
Sheesh!
Indeed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not Actually Broken
No, your TV currently works on all channels. After this, it won't. That's "broken" compared to how it was before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
No, it will break your current equipment. You'll likely have to buy new equipment to continue viewing all channels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Let's drop them
Wrong. This is about broadcast television.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Technology shall prevail over those who are set on breaking it...
Not very much. When you own the gov't the way corporate America and the entertainment industry in particular does, the only thing you have to fear is a revolution against said gov't. There's no way the well-trained populace of America today would ever do anything like that. As long as they've got toys and a party to go to this weekend, they're happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
STOP! NO!!
The road to being able to take the content you legally buy everywhere with you is to give up some of your "free speech" control over your stuff. You have to give a little in order to get a lot.
----
STOP!!!!
I stopped reading the comments at this point. NO! You damn industry SHILL, YOU DON'T GET IT, I will NOT give up a little of my free speech (which you so helpfully put in quotes, almost if mocking them), not an inch. If I give it up for this, then I'll have to give it up for the next thing, and etc.. that road doesn't end with a little loss of free speech, but rather will total control.
I don't care if its for some sort of ubiquitous DRM system to make our lives "better" (nice trick there with the quotes, eh?) or for anything else. In fact, you just convinced me to never, ever, willingly spend money on industry crap. Pirating all the way!
/rant
//sorry to all the regulars for the outburst, that little statement from the shill was too much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ease up mate, you're hurting your argument
It's late, last story of the day, no biggy, but it does weaken the message for those of us who aren't just kneejerk reactionaries. less noise more message please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Obviously you have never dealed with the shadier side of your local electronic stores.
On a sort of related note, everyone is all dissed about DVD region lock. Guess what, I can walk down the street and get an "all-region" DVD player right now, that'll play, anything you throw at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't even aware that my local electronic stores had shadier sides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is typically a place for civility and intellectualism, but this comment all I have to say is "fuck you".
I am not giving up a damn thing for any conglomerate organization and for you to think it is OK tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Easy to get around?
There is something about it I am not understanding.
Have to admit though that I do not use a DVR.
The only way I can think it would work is to not use a flag but an entire encryption method. And my understanding was that the bandwidth for the HDTV was already strangled enough to get it to be nice and high def in a single stream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It doesn't matter if the technology can be circumvented. Ultimately, it always can be. The problem is in the FCC supporting their DEMAND for it.
If this technology had some consumer incentive, they could sell it as a service and people would buy it. ("Get access to movies before anyone else does!") But it's obvious that they realize people are NOT that eager for this technology, and since they can't SELL it to us, they're out to FORCE it on us.
Don't let them get away with this. Where do they get off punishing us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
The change isn't to your DVR, but on the signal-supply side. If new boxes/DVRs are required to implement this, they they will function as designed.
Hence, the DVR isn't broken, it's just bent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guarantee rise in piracy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not Actually Broken
I was wrong. It will "break" your equipment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Correcting Myself
While it won't technically break anything, you won't be able to watch protected VOD programs with older equipment. This is more than just "bending" but would require new equipment to view those channels and programs.
I stand corrected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, I had one. And those particular Apex models wound up getting banned from import by the federal gov't too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The next version, which we are testing, actually ignites flash paper in a small cavity, and drops the flaming paper on the carpet. It's supposed to start a fire in the living room/bedroom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get a pirated movie...no problem. And no annoying previews or FBI warnings to wait through.
But when I buy a movie, legit, at a store in Spain...no workie.
The anyregion DVD hack for my GoVideo player (which I bought special to augment my Sony, because the GoVideo had a hack) didn't really work reliably.
I have a PC with two DVD players, one coded to the EU region, and one to the North American region to get around this studio nonsense. I rip the movies (oooh, breaking the DRM) then I can play the files anywhere. When will these studio guys stop putting in extra effort make our lives more difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Feature creep at its worst...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
OMG! Occam's Razor much? Guess not. The fact that you are wiling to torture common sense to these ridiculous ends in order to propose a "good" business model is a testament to how ridiculous DRM is.
Who pays for that chip in every device? ME? Who runs the service that brokers authorization? Do I trust them? Do they shut down the server and lock all my content when your stupid idea goes belly up, like the MSFT PlaysForSure server? Who decides how many devices I can register as mine. For example, iTunes lets peoople use up to 5(or 7?) devices with their bought music. What if I have 12?
And all of this waste of money, time, and hassle takes place even as ALL of the same content is readily available, DRM free, on sharing networks? Which would the smart consumer choose?
Tell me why I should pay a company like Hitachi a few extra dollars to put in a tool that blocks certain content from working?
You have made one big assumption that we don't make:
"companies have to develop insane ways of limiting your access"
No they don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Remember those programs the major studios offered:
- trade up your LPs for a free 8-Track replacement (1965)
- trade up your 8-tracks for half-price cassettes (1970s)
- trade up your cassettes for cost-priced CDs (1982)
- trade up your VHS plus a small premium for DVDs (1995)
Neither do I. That's because those programs didn't exist. Of course, studios are all to happy to let us buy the same content over and over for all our different devices, different places, and different formats.
When has it ever been their goal to allow us unfettered universal access to the content we bought?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Technology shall prevail over those who are set on breaking it...
We are a lazy people when it comes to politics. Europeans are much more involved. We will bend over and take it. But really, can we even expect most citizens to understand the tech, economic, and legal issue at hand?
Our congress, however, is responsible for informing themselves on the issue, and representing our interests. How's that working for us?
When the revolution you describe starts, you, me, and a handful of other Techdirt-type informed geeks will stand against the lobbying might of the **AA. Everyone else will just go to Walmart and buy whatever they're selling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ease up mate, you're hurting your argument
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Correcting Myself
This is a total camel nose in the tent door.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Technology shall prevail over those who are set on breaking it...
;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: dumbest post ever
You give media what they want and every single device you own ,you will have to rent every song,every movie and you get to keep NOTHING.Are you insane?!!!!!!!!!!!Because thats what they are looking for you to do,buy every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyway, I prefer other means of acquiring desired media output--I emphasise desired, because their output contains about .01% desirable content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]