FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause

from the nice-of-them dept

Fri, May 7th 2010 7:42pm — Mike Masnick

For a couple years now, the MPAA has been asking the FCC to break your TV/DVR, and let them effectively put a type of DRM (by enabling "Selectable Output Control" or SOC) on video content, such that you will not be able to access the content via third party devices, such as your DVR or your Slingbox. Effectively, they want to break the ability of your equipment to work. You wouldn't be able to legally record the movie that was playing on your TV. The MPAA's argument here makes absolutely no sense at all -- and when they're called on it, the doubletalk comes out.

The MPAA's argument is that if it could block people from recording movies, they could release the movies on things like PPV before they release them on DVD, adding yet another window to the long list of windows that Hollywood uses. It's still not clear how more windows helps anyone but Hollywood, but they keep claiming this is some sort of consumer benefit. The thing is, their argument makes absolutely no sense at all when you look at the details. First of all, there was nothing whatsoever stopping them from releasing movies on PPV prior to the DVD release. Nothing. You don't need DRM to do it. In fact, some major studios already do this without breaking your TV in the process.

Of course, the MPAA's response is that it would never release movies this way without SOC, because then people would copy them and... um... piracy... oh mygod... Hollywood is dying. Or something like that. But that makes no sense. First, as noted, some studios already release movies this way. They don't need SOC. Second, the whole claim that this will lead to more unauthorized file sharing is a total red herring -- because all of the movies they're talking about were already in theaters -- and once a movie is in the theaters, it's already available widely on file sharing networks. There is no increase possible, because the content would already be widely available. On top of that, of course, as the GAO just noted, the MPAA's ridiculous claims of losses from "piracy" are totally bogus.

Given all that, it seemed ridiculous to think that the FCC would give in... but late last year the reports were that the FCC had already decided to give in to Hollywood, and today the FCC made it official (pdf):

The FCC's reasoning is bizarrely troubling and blatantly wrong. First, it claims that the studios "are unlikely to offer the service absent the ability to activate SOC." But... as noted, some studios already do offer such a service. On top of that, why is it the FCC's job to give the MPAA yet another window? Windows are anti-consumer, not pro-consumer. But, the FCC claims it's good for the consumers, and the MPAA's victory announcement makes the same ridiculous claim:

"This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes..."

That logic is backwards. Basically, Hollywood is saying that it held the public hostage until the FCC let it break your TVs, and because the FCC caved in and Hollywood will release the movies it easily could have released before, consumers win. When someone is taken hostage and the family pays up, that's not a "win" for the family. As Public Knowledge points out, this appears to be the FCC doing this just as a favor to Hollywood.

Of course, in typical Genachowski FCC fashion, this ruling tries to walk that line between each side, in that it didn't grant the MPAA's full waiver, but tries to limit it, by saying it can only be used on films before the DVDs are released or for 90 days on a particular film (whichever comes first). The FCC will also "revisit" the issue in two years -- even under threats from the MPAA that if the FCC could revisit this issue, that uncertainty would lead the studios to scamper away, run and hide and not offer this service out of fear that the FCC would take away their right to break your TV. The FCC thought that was silly. It's not clear why the FCC didn't believe the MPAA's threat not to invest if the ruling could be reviewed, but do believe the threat not to release movies on TV earlier without this ruling... but that's the way this particular FCC seems to function.

In the meantime, now that the FCC has opened this door, expect more efforts to expand it much wider. Already -- before it had even been approved -- there was talk among politicians that it should be expanded to cover sporting events as well -- because, you know, we can't have people DVR'ing a sporting event any more.

The really ridiculous thing about all of this is that it's taking away functionality from the vast majority of law-abiding TV viewers who bought their TVs and DVRs expecting -- reasonably and accurately -- that they'd be able to record whatever is on TV, because of an amorphous and unproven "threat" of "piracy" which is based on bogus numbers and totally irrelevant given that the movies in question will already be widely available on file sharing networks.

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: fcc, movies, ppv, selectable output control, soc, tv, vod
Companies: mpaa

182 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Quick Brown Fox, 7 May 2010 @ 7:49pm

Money talks, and Hollywood money speaks volumes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:02pm

Good thing I don't give a f*ck about Hollywood's sh*tty products. And to the extent I do, there's downloading from the Internet. Ha, ha, sorry MegaStateCorp, I and everyone else still dictate the real rules, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- misti, 25 Dec 2012 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: DVR Board
  www.security360cameras.com provides affordable surveillance equipment for business and homes that can be remotely monitored with any PC, smart phones, i-pad, i-phone,mac or laptop. Clients do not have to pay a monthly fee. The apps are free and easy to use. The Stand Alone DVR's are easy to use . One can add as much Hard drive as they wish, We provide special AV( Audio Video) specially made by western digital for this purpose DVR Board.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:06pm

and yet we're supposed to trust the FCC to regulate the Internet? These people are, and have always been, nefarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:09pm

"In the meantime, now that the FCC has opened this door, expect more efforts to expand it much wider."

Well, yeah, copyright started out to last only 14 years but now look at the monstrosity that it's become. Books go out of print and effectively disappear from history before they become public domain, only some very luck popular books might make it to the public domain if some library decides to hold it long enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:13pm

Remember it is only Piracy if the first person wasn't supposed to have it legally.

BTW how will this stop people who just break the drm and put it on the net anyway? Seems like a better business model would to be put it on the internet with some ads (like 2) at the start. At least they know lots of people would see it :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:22pm

The MPAA gives us yet another reason NOT to buy.

@$$h@ts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:29pm

FCC Overrides Supreme Court
This is kind of like the FCC finding a way to override the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that video recording devices themselves were legal, but now the FCC has found a way around that decision by making it illegal to *use* such devices by way of the DMCA. So, yeah, you can still buy video recorders, just don't expect to necessarily be able to use them (without committing a federal offense, that is).

I've said it before and I say it again:

ABOLISH THE FCC.

Period. Seriously. Or at least reduce their funding to ZERO so they can't do anything. They've just become corporate lap dogs that do far more harm than good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kenneth Welch, 7 May 2010 @ 8:35pm

Anyone see Minority Report?
this is basically punishing people (the VAST majority of which are NOT pirates) for something they may do. that's just like arresting someone for murder after they've bought a gun. most people who own guns haven't shot anyone, and would rather not have to.

i just love how paranoid the MPAA and industry really is. to put it blatantly, they're a bunch of scared little pussies... afraid of kids sharing files and movies they like, while still making billions of dollars.

it's dumb shit like this that just piss off the pirates. a large part of their motivation is just to revolt against this kinda crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:37pm

Kindred Spirits
The MPAA's argument here makes absolutely no sense at all -- and when they're called on it, the doubletalk comes out.

Well then, no wonder the FCC cozied up to them. The FCC just loves doubletalk itself and obviously recognized a kindred spirit in the MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:42pm

Hot News, Too
In the meantime, now that the FCC has opened this door, expect more efforts to expand it much wider. Already -- before it had even been approved -- there was talk among politicians that it should be expanded to cover sporting events as well -- because, you know, we can't have people DVR'ing a sporting event any more.

And of course it will have to be expanded to news broadcasts too to embrace the newly federally recognized "hot news" doctrine. We can't have people going around "stealing" the news!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 8:49pm

Meh. The pirates have the anti-DRM for this particular type of DRM ready (according to engadget). So, yes, once again (as with all the DRM) this is only making the legal product worse than the pirated product. Meh again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 5:31am
  
  Re:
  I second that meh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 6:54am
  
  Re:
  Third... hell keep trying to push "drm" or whatever the hell you want you corporate morons. You are only killing yourself and making pirates laugh at your attempts of anti piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 9:04pm

It's amazing. The FCC talks up a storm about this need for TV anywhere and the ability to watch and record anything you want on your cable television and anywhere, etc... but when it comes to something like this for the consumer they never get anything done. The moment industry asks for something they are quick to get things done. Congress acts the same way. They are quick to pass laws, like ACTA, DMCA, etc.. that the industry wants, but they never seem to pass anything that consumers want, they merely keep talking about it and never get anything done. The competition in the U.S. sucks and is overpriced, the government restricts competition, the service sucks, and the government talks about doing something and never does anything for the consumer. Some new threat comes along where people might diminish the effect of people who sue for patents they do not own and the government is quick to pass laws to stop that even. The moment something that's good for the consumer comes along the government is quick to stop it. The moment the industry wants something, they are quick to pass laws to help them. Whenever the government should do something good for the consumer, like open up broadband offerings to competition, all we ever get are a bunch of broken promises and lies. Nothing ever gets done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2010 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re:
  and the fact that some closed source consortium prevents companies, like Boxee and Apple, from making DVR's for cable. Only TiVo was able to jump through those hoops. The cableco companies also get a monopoly in this respect thanks to our government. The FCC keeps talking about opening the cable card reader standards to everyone allowing anyone to freely make their own cable cards that can record things so that Boxee et al can record content from your cable and allow you to watch it wherever you want, but they never get anything done. NEVER. Everything they do is uniformly for the industry, nothing for the consumer.
  
  See the TWIL episode where they discuss this.
  
  http://twit.tv/twil58
  
  It's all talk, they keep making promises and nothing but broken promises that they're going to make things better for the consumer but they only make things better for industry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ElijahBlue (profile), 7 May 2010 @ 9:13pm

The MPAA goons can go f--k themselves and the dying horse they rode in on. I'm one of those suckers you bozos call a paying customer, and you can stick a fork in me, because I'm done. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a potential criminal with all of this crappy DRM, locked-up DVRs and the whining about how the movie studios can't make a dime anymore because of all the thieves who are downloading movies without paying for them. Now you want to f--k with my DVR? Well, f--k you.

Most public libraries have DVD movies you can check out like a book and bring it back when you're done. Flea markets, swap meets, thrift stores and garage sales are great places to buy used DVDs at a fraction of the retail price. The only way we're going to beat these a-s at the MPAA and the RIAA is with financial starvation. I say it's time to starve the beast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Emilio, 9 May 2010 @ 4:21am
  
  Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
  So quit, man... Cut the Cable. You can do it. Get up off your a**, unplug that thing, and put it in your car to drop off at the cable company. Then sit around in the silent void left by a lifetime of Cable addiction, and wonder at the lack of crass, commercial slime being pumped into your subconscious...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 6:14am
    
    Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
    What void?
    
    I don't have cable and don't watch TV.
    
    For years now and I can say that you can find alternatives that will keep anyone occupied for a lifetime and I'm not talking about online options or other videos only, it is everything.
    
    There is no void, no silence if you don't want too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck, 9 May 2010 @ 9:00am
    
    Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
    Absolutely right, however most people don't have the strength of character to make that choice, they are so sated on the paplam that is fed to them they don't know what to do. Television used to be free in this country (and still is if you have an antenna). Take the $85.00 a month and pay off your credit card!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ElijahBlue (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 11:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
      I've already done it, actually. At first the decision was financial, but now that I can afford cable TV again, the thought of getting owned once again by these bastards makes me sick.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck, 9 May 2010 @ 9:03am
  
  Re:
  THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE DVD OUT THERE THAT IS WORTH $20.00 OR MORE. bUT PEOPLE IN BLIND IGNORANCE JUST OPEN UP THIER POCKET AND FORK OVER A FRESH $20.00 FOR A BUNCH OF CRAP.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tailsnake, 7 May 2010 @ 11:42pm

So the winners here are release groups (who can pick one of the many ways to record HDCP video) and pirates (who will now get high quality movies long before they come out on DVD/Blu-Ray), and the losers are possibly legitimate customers who might've been willing to fork out the highway robbery that will be what ever these movies cost (I'm assuming $15+) but have older HDTVs. This seems completely logical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 7 May 2010 @ 11:43pm

I stopped giving a damn
The same time I could not watch a movie from a pay channel that I had recorded in windows media center.
Now I just hit the sites to find what I want to watch.
If I want to rent a movie I go to red box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef, 8 May 2010 @ 12:16am

Mixed Reviews
I'm not completely with you on this one Mike. I'm not a fan of the MPAA, but they are not "breaking" your TV/DVR. They are disabling a function for a limited amount of time. Big deal. So I'm not allowed to record a movie that I paid to see one time.

I can still download it if I choose and run it through my TV, so why did I pay for it? Better quality? I'm sure someone out there knows how to circumvent this and copy the high quality broadcast. If I wait a few hours it should be on the net for me to download. Wow! It is. Thanks MPAA. I hated those videos shot in the movie theaters. This is much nicer.

The interesting thing to see is if the MPAA will actually offer the service that they say this FCC Mandate will allow. The thing that doesn't make sense is why the MPAA even made the petition. The service that they are proposing will only increase the file sharing that they claim is the reason the service doesn't exist.

I'm all for any new window that hastens the demise of the MPAA. They are thinking of the short term gain instead of long term survival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: Mixed Reviews
  Josef you are one of few people that seems to understand this. What the FCC did is a good thing. It makes it more difficult for the consumer. It pisses people off. It increases the rate of infringement. It creates a false sense of security for the TV and movie industry. It leads us down the road to becoming like spain. Where the delays in allowing people to see what they want when they want makes people seek other options for access.
  
  All in all this is a really good thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 8 May 2010 @ 6:44pm
  
  Re: Mixed Reviews
  > but they are not "breaking" your TV/DVR
  
  Of course they are.
  
  You try to watch a show and the screen goes black.
  
  It doesn't get any more broke than that.
  
  Subtleties about different types of cables will be lost on the vast majority of consumers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
taoareyou (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 12:33am

What about the DVR makers
This reduces the value of a DVR. Fewer people will buy equipment they know will likely be limited even further over time. Companies that make DVRs will lose money. Electronics stores that sell DVRs will lose sales. People will lose their jobs because companies will have to cut back to compensate for the job losses.

The government will have to step in and make it a requirement that if you own a television you MUST also have a DVR (even though you cannot record anything interesting) in order to save the failing DVR business.

No matter how you look at it, the consumers will eventually foot the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- taoareyou (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 12:35am
  
  Re: What about the DVR makers
  "jobs because companies will have to cut back to compensate for the sales losses."
  
  /fixed It's 3:30am. I should be sleeping. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 8 May 2010 @ 3:06am

When can i just say
FUCK OFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck, 9 May 2010 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: When can i just say
  WHEN? You always could say FUCK OFF just turn off the T.V., cancel the cable, stop buying DVD's. People have control, if nobody's watching then things will change to make the viewer the boss......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 8 May 2010 @ 3:08am

HAHA
and so started the HOME cam event where all the buds gathered for a beer and video tapped it

and ya know despite the bs your told we can build cams
so again
when can i say
FUCK OFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Canadian, eh?, 8 May 2010 @ 4:04am

I've lived with this for years already.
I bought a Toshiba DVR many years ago. It cost me $1000 at the time and supports technology whose express purpose is to control what a person can and cannot record. My cable provider is Shaw, and I have their Motorola digital cable box connected to this DVR. More often than not, it will stop recording after about a minute with a message stating the material I'm trying to record is copy protected. In this case Shaw is (ab)using CGMS-A which is specifically designed to operate over analog connections.

For example, I went to record a great documentary on Antarctica the other day. I had seen it a couple of months ago and wanted to record it so I could share it with my wife, who was at work and thus unable to see it any other way. After a minute of recording it stopped due to "copy protected" content. Another example is the movie I was watching not too long ago. I wasn't able to see the last twenty minutes of it because I had a dentist appointment. No big deal, right? Just tell the DVR to record the last little bit and finish watching it when I get home. No such luck.

How did I end up dealing with this idiocy in the end? I gave up on my DVR, which is now a $1000 paperweight. I've switched to bittorrent and couldn't be happier. My wife got to see that documentary and I eventually got to see the end of that movie I had been watching. I am living proof that the more abusive business practices become, the greater the likelihood is that one will turn to unauthorized venues in order to get the entertainment they crave. Since I still pay my rather expensive cable bill every month, I don't feel guilty whatsoever about downloading. It is also a lot more convenient than trying to manage a bunch of timers on my DVR.

I suppose this shouldn't be all that surprising, considering how anti-consumer their network practices tend to be as well. Thankfully I don't use them as my ISP, just cable. It is probably worth noting that there is one other way to get around the copy protection problem. If I were to buy a new $1000 cable box from Shaw that has it's own built in DVR, I wouldn't experience any of the recording issues I've seen. How is that for a anti-consumer conflict of interest? If and when I finally decide to invest in such a cable box, it certainly won't be with them. Oh, and where is the CRTC in all of this? Turning a blind eye as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 5:21am

actually, the fcc gave them the right to block certain functions if you choose to use a selected service. they cannot just randomly break anything. typical masnick over reach panic posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Modplan (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 5:43am
  
  Re:
  I miss the good old days when you'd actually log in and provide longer posts that at least attempted to indicate what you thought was specifically wrong with a post. Even if I thought you were an idiotic troll, you were at least an idiot who took pride in his work and committed to the end goal of making really stupid statements and arguments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 5:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    I miss the good old days when ... blah blah blah
    
    Whoosh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 8 May 2010 @ 6:16am
  
  Re:
  "they cannot just randomly break anything"
  
  There is nothing random about it. They want to control the media, all of it, all the time, everywhere. This is their goal, and their present day excuses are just the beginning.
  
  I, like many others was considering new purchases, tv, vcr, etc. I was putting it off because I thought the price was too high for what you get. Now, you pay the same and get less. I have no reason to buy. Maybe I'll spend that money I saved on something useful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    but you see, they arent breaking anything. it is like saying that a movie theater breaks your video camera. it doesnt, they are just two things that dont go together. when you go to a theater, you dont use a video camera. when you watch pre-release or early release movies at home, you cannot dvr them. how frigging hard is that to understand? if you dont want them to 'break' something, just dont watch ahead of time, similar to not going to the theater because you cant seem to keep your video camera at home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They are taking away functionality, that's effectively breaking it.
      
      "if you dont want them to 'break' something, just dont watch ahead of time"
      
      So I'm going to take a sledge hammer to your computer and make it stop working. I'm not breaking anything, if you don't want me to break anything just don't use your computer. How hard is that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        sorry, but you arent making sense. they take away functionality when you are watching a single program source and only for the time you are watching that source. you are not forced to watch the source, and they are not putting a sledgehammer through anything. you know that dont you mike?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "sorry, but you arent making sense."
        
        Don't apologize for your inability to formulate a coherent thought TAM.
        
        "they take away functionality when you are watching a single program source and only for the time you are watching that source."
        
        and to that extent they are breaking it.
        
        "you are not forced to watch the source"
        
        You are not forced to use your computer. Don't use it.
        
        "and they are not putting a sledgehammer through anything."
        
        They are doing something that takes away functionality, same thing. Changing the software on your computer to make it no longer boot is the same thing, they are breaking it. Or changing your computer to make your Internet not work is the same thing. They are taking away functionality. The correct response isn't, "well, don't use the Internet" it's, "don't break my computer." Same difference here.
        
        "you know that dont you mike?"
        
        Sorry, I'm not Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and personally, I don't mind them having this ability if it weren't for the monopoly power that the government grants cable companies et al. I'll just switch to a competitor. but the government does grant them monopoly power making it very difficult for new comers to enter the market and offer their own DVR's and cable services and for the government to allow them to abuse their monopoly power like this is unacceptable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joey six paq, 9 May 2010 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Breaking
        Dude, breaking meaning they get to control your machine for you.. you don't get to have all the functions you agreed to when you bought it... It's like Toyota deciding that they think you shouldn't have access to your brakes anymore and randomly pressing a button somewhere that takes your brake fuction away from you... :) What a good idea...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ElijahBlue (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 9:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you a shill or did you actually read the story? Look at the comment I've lived with this for years already and you'll understand why these kinds of policies negatively affect those of us who haven't stolen anything. The MPAA and the RIAA have declared open season on the paying consumer, and they're too stupid to realize this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        man bought a $1000 non-compatible device. shaw rents or sells digital cable boxes with dvr. the story is like someone buying 19 inch rims for a mercedes and then being surprised they dont fit on his kia rio. perhaps you want to read his full story more closely before realizing he wasted his money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 8 May 2010 @ 10:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your bad analogies add nothing to the discussion.
        
        What makes you think they will stop with SOC? Like I said, this is only the beginning. I see no reason to purchase something today which, by design, will become less functional tomorrow. The choice is simple, for me anyways, money does not grow on trees around here. I fail to see why you are dancing around this point making bad analogies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        because the hollywood is so important that they get to have a say in how a completely other industry makes their products. it's in the constitution. entertainment is better than electronics and should be able to control what electronic's makers make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 9 May 2010 @ 12:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Idiotic comment is ruffle sponge orange drink. (ie: nonsense)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 9 May 2010 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Non-compatible? How do you determine that? Because Shaw turned it off? Sorry, that's not incompatible (the word you were really looking for), that's what SOC is. So, yeah. You're being an idiot. Again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 8 May 2010 @ 6:47pm
      
      What is "broken" in Newspeak?
      The mind boggles at the excuses here.
      
      Yes, if you can't watch TV it is infact BROKEN. It's not merely "disabling features", it is completely shutting off the connection between the cable box and the TV.
      
      Not everyone is saavy enough to prepare for this shenanigan.
      
      Suddenly, TVs will be going black and the n00bs won't have any clue why.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 5:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      but you see, they arent breaking anything.
      
      Oh, I see how that works. Kind of like when a guard breaks a prisoner's legs. They aren't really breaking anything, they're just preventing the prisoner from escaping to freedom. Prison and freedom are "just two things that dont [sic] go together", so breaking a prisoner's legs isn't really breaking anything at all. At least not in the world of the MPAA, the FCC and you, anyway. Hey, I bet you're one of those who claims that water-boarding isn't really torture either, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  "right to block certain functions"
  Yeah!!! That pesky record function being on of them.
  
  You tell em evil AC.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cipher-0, 8 May 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  actually, the fcc gave them the right to block certain functions if you choose to use a selected service.
  Why should a third party be able to reduce the functionality of a product, precisely?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re:
  actually, the fcc gave them the right to block certain functions if you choose to use a selected service. they cannot just randomly break anything. typical masnick over reach panic posting.
  
  It's still perfectly usable as a thousand dollar doorstop, so what's all the screaming about?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  "actually, the fcc gave them the right to block certain functions if you choose to use a selected service."
  
  OK. That's better. I mean, choice is good. I like that.
  
  Now please tell me how I get to choose what content is defined a "selected service"...what? Not me? Well, then who get's to choose that? The big media companies? Aw, fudge!
  
  And you say they might seek to expand that to basically say anything they want, i.e. everything, is a "selected service". But they won't seek that, right?
  
  I gotta stop worrying. It seems like my media hardware is working for now, and in safe hands with the xIAA. Naw, it's much better not to "panic". We consumers should just keep grazing and providing our rich wool to the sweater industry. Baaa.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 5:51am

Look beyond
Look at who is behind the MPAA and boycott all of their products. Simple! You don't need to buy Sony's crap anyway, it breaks as soon as the warranty is over. So screw them, they lose. I buy nothing from Sony and avoid Time Warner at all costs. These people understand NOTHING BUT CASH. If you stop giving them the cash they die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 8:18am
  
  Re: Look beyond
  "it breaks as soon as the warranty is over."
  
  I wonder if it has a time bomb. I heard rumors that some of HP's printers had time bombs with the inc cartridges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:08am

WAR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 7:22am

The Obama administration is paying back Hollywood for its campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 8:17am

This is why people download via torrents. I and many others have zero respect for copyright law and no incentive to even acknowledge it. If this continues I may even cancel my satellite TV service altogether and simply download everything.

I don't even feel bad about it anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 8 May 2010 @ 8:28am

If they do it for sporting events...
I have been a fan of a couple teams for over 30 years, but if they take DVR functionality away from my sports, I will simply cease to be a fan.

Games on the East Coast start at 4:30 here, when I'm still at work. If they try to make me watch it live, I'll just move on to more convenient (and less expensive) interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 8:43am

If you treat people like criminals then they will just become criminals. They can pass all the laws they like it still will not change human behavior and there is not enough money to enforces stupid unpopular laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 8:48am

HA ha
This is just going to make more ppl discover the encrypted news groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 9:11am

Worst Government money can buy.
It's obvious that the studios are slipping money to the FCC under the table. Wonder how much they had to pay? The government agencies and congress are FAR more concerned with getting money, drugs, and hookers from anyone who will pay than taking care of the needs of voters. Voters are always at the bottom of the priority list. Will SOC stop piracy? Ha! This will encourage more people to go for torrents and probably also destroy the movie theaters, who probably can't match the studios in "gifts" to the FCC. Laws and rules now go in favor of the highest bidder.

The government castigates countries like Afghanistan for corruption while at the same time accepting millions in bribes themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Worst Government money can buy.
  It is obvious. I really see no other reasonable explanation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:56am

I watching beelinetv no SOC there LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 8 May 2010 @ 10:56am

You will notice...
Take a moment and notice something. The ONLY industry who's products do this (remove functionality AFTER purchase, limit consumer choices) is the media one. You see this with things like the PS3 debacle, DVR's now, and things like revoking keys on BluRay discs. Offhand, I cant think of ANY other industry that sells a retail product where this kind of rampant, anti-consumer "removal of existing features to reduce functionality" garbage exists. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure SEEMS to be all big media. Expect it to only get worse, as no one seems to be standing up to these greedy idiots and instead is in their pockets (hi TAM!) to promote this anti-consumer crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 8 May 2010 @ 11:08am

Take a step back...
Let's step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture.

MPAA works hard for the last year to delay DVD/BRs for 30 days to folks like NetFlix, Redbox, and BB (although BB ended up giving a nice percentage back to avoid the delay).

MPAA works hard to continue trying to get laws passed that put the ISP as the cop which is both arguably politically tolerable (versus going after individual file sharers) and probably more effective.

FCC - (cough) out of thin air - just decides to enable SOC BS.

Obviously, the MPAA thinks that they'll be able to grab more "rental" income for themselves with these changes. Maintain, the DVD/BRs sales market, and finally make end of life money from folks like NetFlix, etc.

In some ways, you can see why their plan makes business sense. The big elephant in the room though are torrents which they haven't been able to clamp down on. I'd except to see an intense focus from them in the next year going after torrents. However, even with torrents they've essentially managed to strong arm themselves and probably kill or make a serious dent into the new release rental business so they can keep those profits for themselves.

I think a better title for this article would be how the FCC just killed the new release rental market.

That said, ultimately the movie industry is going to have to come to terms with the digital world and provide the consumers what they want like the music industry has essentially done - although far from perfect but much closer than the movie industry. In some weird ways this is actually like two steps forward and one step back short of thing.

Freedom

P.S. If you want your Cable/DTV media on your terms, there are devices in the market that take HDMI 1080p output, convert/remove all copy protection and output it to 1080p Analog which you can then use any standard DVR or capture card to record. These devices have been out forever and can be used for PS3, Bluray Players and so on. The official intent is to allow folks with older TVs, Projectors, and so on that don't have HDMI inputs to be able to play protected content at full resolution. These are illegal to make (at least in most countries) as they violate the HDMI/HDCP licensing agreements, but that doesn't seem stop folks from making and selling them. In short, methods already exist for totally make the SOC irrelevant at a personal level and as comments have shown, this means that torrent sites will just get higher quality versions sooner rather than later. I'd be curious to see how this ultimately effects DVD/Bluray sales...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 11:28am
  
  Re: Take a step back...
  The fact is that China can not stop illegal immigrants from continuing the drug war. I've known people that were able to bootleg satellite T.V. and others bootleg cable. The cable company et al simply can't stop the bootleg market. If China can't end the drug war, despite their communist nature, do you honestly believe that the record labels can stop bootlegging? If their efforts to stop it were strong enough to actually stop it those involved in bootlegging content (and there are a lot of people) would focus their efforts into forcing the government to change the laws and the laws would get changed to represent their interests. Otherwise, they have enough money to buy politicians but it's going to cost a WHOLE LOT MORE money to stop the organizations that continue the bootlegging legacy. Dictating general laws is cheap, controlling individual behavior is very expensive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sam I Am, 8 May 2010 @ 11:53am

Correct me if I'm wrong
Am I correct in understanding that this hardware tweak just makes it more difficult to take an unlawful copy so the products can be released sooner?

Is that all this is?
Merch available sooner because it's now a little more difficult to steal it?
And listen to the squeals!
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 8 May 2010 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
  "Am I correct in understanding that this hardware tweak just makes it more difficult to take an unlawful copy so the products can be released sooner?
  
  Is that all this is?
  Merch available sooner because it's now a little more difficult to steal it?
  And listen to the squeals!"
  
  Its a DVR you shithead. Its PURPOSE is to RECORD what airs (OTA, cable, satellite, whatever). The Sony betamax case already made it LEGAL to timeshift. This is a DVR. It timeshifts JUST like a VCR. No different in conception. Where do you get off with "illegally copy" in that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
    Either he didn't read the article or he has a reading comprehension problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ElijahBlue (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
    Its a DVR you shithead.
    I just spit Pepsi through my nose because I was laughing so hard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
  "And listen to the squeals!"
  
  Sit back for a second and read the article from the canadian above that starts with, "I bought a Toshiba DVR many years ago."
  
  This is the MPAA's intent. They intend to do no less, the industry has already done this in Canada, why should I believe they intend to do any different in the U.S? They don't. and just like with copyright, they will keep trying to expand the law. They will soon demand that include sports, that they can stop a movie from being recorded after a year, two years, etc.. and pretty soon your DVR will be useless, which was their original intent all along (after all, they already tried to stop citizens from recording content and the courts shot it down. The fact that they already tried to do this shows their true intent. They are merely incrementally continuing what they already started).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
  Am I correct in understanding that the citizens just want to make it lawful to record content that they paid their cable companies to watch? Is that all this is? Someone records a movie and listen to the squeals/lawsuits. They take it to court, trying to disallow people from recording content and playing it back. The courts shoot it down and they continue to cry like babies, demanding that they can control our boxes. No thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 9 May 2010 @ 10:05am
  
  Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
  Am I correct in understanding that this hardware tweak just makes it more difficult to take an unlawful copy so the products can be released sooner?
  
  Is that all this is?
  Merch available sooner because it's now a little more difficult to steal it?
  
  No, there's much more to it than that. This ruling allows Hollywood to prevent DVRs from recording these movies for your own personal use. It allows them to turn off the analog outputs on the box, so that anyone using an older TV that doesn't have the latest DRM crap, can't watch these movies at all. These things could be used to make illegal copies, however they also have perfectly valid uses that have nothing to do with copying.
  
  The real problem is that this is just the first step. How long do you think it will be before pay movie channels claim that their first-run movies and shows deserve the same protection? Or sporting events like the Olympics? Awards shows? Network shows?
  
  Hollywood and TV networks have never been happy with viewers being able to record their content, watch it whenever they want and keep it forever if they choose. Now, they have a ruling that allows them to take the first step toward eliminating home recording of video. IF they asked for blocking all recording, they'd have been turned down flat. So they asked a single exception. In a while, they or someone else will ask for another little exception. And another...
  
  The whole idea that they need to bring movies to VOD sooner is a lie anyway. Why do they need to have next month's movies on VOD now? WHat's wrong with viewers watching any of the 2 dozen+ movies that came out this month?
  
  At any given point in time, there are several new movies available. What's wrong with watching those?
  
  When I was little, movies used to take literally years to come to TV. I recall seeing ads for the movie Westworld when it first came out. My parents wouldn't take me to see it and I had to wait about 2-3 years before finally seeing it on network TV. Now it's supposed to be some kind of hardship if people have to wait an extra month to watch a movie in the comfort of their home?
  
  Of course they don't have to wait. There was nothing stopping Hollywood from putting movies on VOD as-is. Every single one of them was already available on the net, so how exactly is turning off features on cable boxes and DVRs supposed to prevent these films from being pirated?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
StarNoStar, 8 May 2010 @ 12:01pm

Really?
I told my parents that their dvr might lose much of its functionality, explaining to them the fcc's ruling on this issue...the funny thing is, after hearing this news, my parents asked me if I could show them how to download the very same movies they wont be able to record anymore.

Seems to me like Hollywood wants people to pirate their material so they can sue you for it, they aren't stupid and they would probably make more money off this business model than their "legit" one.

"screw the consumers, if we can make a marginally better profit, regardless of the expense to everyone else....do it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hiptech (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 12:39pm

There is a definite correlation between technology, distortion and greed...

Try not to feign shock and horror as most new technologies are designed to advance the first and push the boundaries of the latter.

Scams and corruption is the new business model of the 21st century where morality and business now only coexist in the dictionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 8 May 2010 @ 12:59pm

57 is right
this is the ugly head of fascism and its melding of state and corporations.

THE Only real solution is when it gets bad enough ( and it will cause these types can't help themselves)

is a actual revolution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul in MN, 8 May 2010 @ 1:33pm

Internet districution
The major television studios also hate DVRs because people zap commercials, so they're going to want to jump on this too. This is going to push television back to the 70s when you had to abide by the network schedule to see your shows.

I think the end result will be to drive people to the internet even more to watch content. Personally I could care less if I don't see movies in the first, second, third, or even fourth window. And with stupid moves like this, I'm not going to hesitate to download pirated content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 8 May 2010 @ 1:46pm

Already tried
"The major television studios also hate DVRs because people zap commercials, so they're going to want to jump on this too"

They already tried this about 10 years ago when the first TIVO's came out. They literally tried to get Congress (or maybe the FCC) to pass a law that would make it ILLEGAL TO FAST FORWARD THROUGH COMMERCIALS. Yes, they actually think this is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: Already tried
  and they're going to keep trying, contributing towards campaigns, until they get their way. We need to send a clear message to our politicians, you do not get elected by taking campaign contributions intended persuade you to act against our interests.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sam I Am, 8 May 2010 @ 3:28pm
    
    Re: Re: Already tried
    I’m one, AC, who has never stopped trying. Here in Manhattan I make as many meetings with my legislators as I do my business associates and customers. From our view, there is and has always been an implicit and prima facie, common sense contract between the content creator/provider and the consumer/viewer within the ad-supported model. If the consumer can remove or otherwise eliminate the advertising, the ads inherently lose value to the advertiser. Ads are all about eyeballs. A loss in value translates to a lowering of the price which in turn gives us less return on investment with which to create the content in the first place.
    
    We don’t *need* to persuade lawmakers towards this end, AC, because they respect and want to encourage the “free” content on television for their constituents, understanding that the dismantling of this implied contract can bring the whole thing slowly down. For myself, I’m very much against added fees or a tax to support the creation of the content. You may disagree. The ad model must work reliably if this is to be avoided and I hope it is. But you’ll have to convince your government representatives that working in our interests is NOT---actually--working in your best interests, too. No one has to purchase the vote of a politician when that politician ideologically agrees with your premise in the first place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 3:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already tried
      From our view, there is and has always been an implicit and prima facie, common sense contract between the content creator/provider and the consumer/viewer within the ad-supported model.
      
      Right. So DVRs are theft? And getting up to go to the bathroom during a commercial is theft?
      
      You have an incredibly wrong (legally and from a common sense standpoint) view of what a contract means.
      
      If the consumer can remove or otherwise eliminate the advertising, the ads inherently lose value to the advertiser.
      
      And that's an issue for the CONTENT PROVIDER to fix. You can't require people to watch stuff they don't want. If they don't want to watch ads, then it's the responsibility of the provider and the advertiser to either make better ads or to get a better business model.
      
      What you are discussing above goes against every fundamental value of American capitalism. You cannot force people to obey by your business model if your business model sucks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Sam I Am, 8 May 2010 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        .....getting up to go to the bathroom during a commercial is theft?
        
          Of course not. But to ignore the point of view of the advertiser who just happens to be paying for the whole thing is both specious and counterproductive. I’ve never seen a single complaint by anyone because an occasional spot is missed to a pee-break, Mike. But when it is attention that is being traded for the content, It’s just not realistic to expect using tech to strip that attention go uncontested.
        
        that's an issue for the CONTENT PROVIDER to fix. .......
        
        Absolutely, and if/when that linkage is finally rendered ineffective you can bet they will, too.
        
        You cannot force people to obey by your business model if your business model sucks.
        
        Quite true, and it’s the advance of tech that has created this potentially impending shift in model. If viewers in increasing numbers use tech to disconnect the linkage between the attention and the content to critical mass, there may come a permanent pay-per-view link between your monthly bill and your set-top box. Nobody wants a tax and "pay for what you take" is a perennial. Re-runs may cost but 99cents or so, but first-run, highly popular content will really cost something, and they will STILL lace it all with bad ads. lol
        Be careful what you advocate. ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        "But to ignore the point of view of the advertiser who just happens to be paying for the whole thing is both specious and counterproductive."
        
        The advertiser needs to find a new business model then. Governmental laws shouldn't be about what's in the best interest of industry. It should be about the best interest of consumers. and if it's in the consumer interest to ignore advertisers then so be it. There is nothing counterproductive or specious about a government acting in the consumer interest and about consumers acting in their own best interest. If anything, it's disingenuous to charge for cable and then put ads on top of that. Cable used to not have ads, the point of paying was that it didn't have ads. Ads are unnecessary and if it weren't for the monopoly power that cable providers get from our broken government cable prices would be cheaper and ads would be far fewer or non existent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        "If viewers in increasing numbers use tech to disconnect the linkage between the attention and the content to critical mass, there may come a permanent pay-per-view link between your monthly bill and your set-top box."
        
        This is a lie. If there were merely among cable providers prices would be cheaper and there would be far fewer ads. At one time cable had no ads and prices were cheaper. You demand monopoly power from the government exactly because you unfairly benefit from it and your benefit comes at public expense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        If there were competition among cable providers *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Church Lady, 8 May 2010 @ 8:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        "I’ve never seen a single complaint by anyone because an occasional spot is missed to a pee-break,"
        
        Well ... isn't that special.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 9 May 2010 @ 9:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        I’ve never seen a single complaint by anyone because an occasional spot is missed to a pee-break, Mike. But when it is attention that is being traded for the content, It’s just not realistic to expect using tech to strip that attention go uncontested.
        
        So they're going to have remotes made illegal? No more channel surfing during the commercials?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 9 May 2010 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        "So they're going to have remotes made illegal? No more channel surfing during the commercials?"
        
        Yes. This is on their wish list. But first they need the mandatory internet connection. That is how functionality is taken away after purchase. Sony has done it to PS3, it is only a matter of time till similar things are done to other internet connected items which you thought you owned. You should be very suspicious of advertising claims made about products which require an internet connection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        I’ve never seen a single complaint by anyone because an occasional spot is missed to a pee-break, Mike.
        
        Jamie Kellner, (former) CEO of Turner broadcasting, while he was still in that position:
        
        "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.... I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom. But if you formalize it and you create a device that skips certain second increments, you've got that only for one reason, unless you go to the bathroom for 30 seconds."
        
        It’s just not realistic to expect using tech to strip that attention go uncontested.
        
        Wait, really? You think that it makes sense to make the consumer experience worse just because your friends in the exec suite are too stupid to adapt? Yikes.
        
        Quite true, and it’s the advance of tech that has created this potentially impending shift in model. If viewers in increasing numbers use tech to disconnect the linkage between the attention and the content to critical mass, there may come a permanent pay-per-view link between your monthly bill and your set-top box. Nobody wants a tax and "pay for what you take" is a perennial. Re-runs may cost but 99cents or so, but first-run, highly popular content will really cost something, and they will STILL lace it all with bad ads. lol
        Be careful what you advocate. ;-)
        
        You must be the only person in the world who thinks technology that creates a better consumer solution leads to a more annoying business model. That's not how it works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 9:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        So then if someone changes the channels during a commercial to a non commercial channel it's theft? Wow.
        
        If and when I watch TV I usually deliberately either change the channels to non commercial channels during commercials or, if I can't find non commercials channels I don't like, I mute the T.V. and look away. I have absolutely no respect for the corporations that control programming and cable/broadcasting and so I will not listen to a commercial. If I listen to music to and from my way to school and/or work (ie: over the air wave music), I'll change the station during a commercial. Is that theft? and if all the stations have commercials, I usually turn it almost all the way down well below the point where I can make out any of the words. I do it on purpose, I absolutely refuse to listen to commercials.
        
        Now I listen to some podcasts, I used to listen to security now and there were some others that I occasionally listen to. They have sponsors that advertise. I respect these podcasts, I respect their author's business models (it doesn't involve lobbying the government), and I do listen to the ads and I wont' forward them or mute them or anything.
        
        If I watch a youtube or other video that tries to require me to listen to the ads ads, I will turn down my speakers almost all the way until the ads are over. Again, I have no respect for such business models and the money that goes to any parties that try to force me to watch ads.
        
        Statics show that ads increase sales. because of that I make an effort to go out of my way and make sure I do not contribute to these statistics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 9:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        non commercials channels I like *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        So then if someone changes the channels during a commercial to a non commercial channel it's theft? Wow.
        
        Yes, according to network TV honchos, that is correct. You may be a good citizen and go shoot yourself now to save the government/Hollywood the expense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        Consumers already pay monopoly prices for cable, why should they have to pay for ads on top of that? As far as public airwaves, it's the job of the government to allocate them in the public interest which doesn't simply mean giving them to whomever offers the highest bribe/bid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - trench0r (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
        I was going to make a long post, but this just sums it up
        
        "What you are discussing ... goes against every fundamental value of American capitalism. You cannot force people to obey by your business model if your business model sucks."
        
        The problem is though mike, they just did. It depresses me (too?) that my arch nemeses are, in fact, correct, and that we are moving to a communist country, the DPRK (Democratic Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia).
        
        Seriously though, if American (CAPITAL A!) values are going to prevail, as you seem to have some hope of happening (how?), then we can cherish every "successful" move the MAFIAA makes as another nail in the coffin. After all, the government hasn't been able to really do anything but piss off legit consumers right? it doesnt hurt piracy? I actually believe that part, since I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. But at what point will their new employees (the justice dept) just send the ATFC (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Content) be raiding my house with stormtrooper gear to take my iPhone? Seriously, I'm looking at moving to a less extreme country... like I dunno... china.. where I can just buy all my movies for $1 in an alley and be blissfully ignorant of ever having had any "rights"
        
        seriously, how about a post on ways to stay positive about the daily trashing of our rights as citizens of the united states?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already tried
      "because they respect and want to encourage the “free” content on television for their constituents"
      
      What free content? The government grants a copyright monopoly on the content, that's not free, and the government grants a monopoly on the cable infrastructure that people high prices to view the content. It's not free, it's excessively overly priced.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 7:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already tried
      "Here in Manhattan I make as many meetings with my legislators as I do my business associates and customers."
      
      Of course you do, you are one of those who unfairly benefit from the broken laws in place, so it's your job to lobby the government for free market distortions in your favor. My point is that the consumers, not merely the lobbyists, need to put more political pressure to act in the consumer interest, not just in your interest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 1:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already tried
      Contract Law in Europe, Australasia, Canada, and oh.. the USA begs to differ!
      
      An implied Contract that only one side knows about (or thinks is there) is not a contract since there has been no consideration from the other party.
      
      Oh and in Australia it's not just wrongful contract law & therefore voidable [actually it;s not voidable since there is no actuality of a contract in first instance.) It's actually unlawful under our Consumer laws (in Fact it's one of the only criminal actions in the Acts: Third Line Forcing)
      
      I'm not stating that Advertisers pay for product spots and the marketers of the networks show them pretty statistics of how many people MIGHT watch their ads. but to mandate that the marketing of products MUST be watched is not only unethical but in most EU and AU/NZ Countries..unlawful.
      
      You are basically stating if this contract is not complied with then the creator/provider could hold the customer in forfeiture of the contract since then it must be assumed that then the creator/provider has a liability to the purchaser of the advert spots (the advertiser) because of why? Could it be that the creator/provider promises figures to the advertisers that are bogus and bordering on fraudulent? hmmm? "Oh yes you pay us this amazingly expensive amount of dollars for a 15 sec spot on the world series, and we guarantee that you will sell a gazillion whatsits..How do we guarantee that you ask.. oh well we MAKE the audience watch on threat of civil/criminal action"
      
      Sounds unethical and immoral and unlawful to me. But that's just me..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 8:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already tried
      Shit, you have to stay put all through the ads and can only piss when the main program comes back on?!!!! Oh man, they must of seen you coming. You got a bum deal there. You need to get your contract changed. Mine just says "have a free program, we hope you watch the ads, we hope you like the ads, we hope the ads might even make you buy stuff, but if not, no worries mate!"... I still didn't even have to sign it, and I'll break or change it any time I feel like!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 4:08pm

Thank God I don't buy, rent or view anything from those people anymore.

Hope they end up in the poor house. I can sleep at night knowing that I don't contribute money to those weasels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 4:45pm

People should fingerprint ad's and use technology to automagically strip them from any stream LoL

People thought video fingerprinting could only be used by the other side?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nate, 8 May 2010 @ 4:55pm

You know, I often watch your ads, even when recorded, when they're worth watching. A major part of our pop culture has been the product of creative advertisers. If you feel the need, however, to legislatively cripple my home entertainment devices or, alternatively, move to an internet-inspired pay-as-you-go business model, I will take that as a sign to just stop paying. You CAN lose the audience's goodwill: see the last writers' strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sam I Am, 8 May 2010 @ 5:11pm
  
  I'm not saying the industry wants it, Nate, nor the politicians nor I. But common sense would indicate that if you use technology to dismantle a time tested pay model to the point that it no longer underwrites the content as it once did, another pay model will take its place. Sometimes getting what you want isn't what you really want.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 8 May 2010 @ 8:32pm
    
    Re:
    "another pay model will take its place"
    
    Oh, ok - I get it now ... this other pay model involves lies, deceit and general underhandedness in order to continue the free flow of money into the pockets of those least deserving.
    
    Gee, it all makes so much sense now. Thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:11pm
      
      Re: Re:
      The existing model directs money into the hands of those who least deserve it, the monopolists who lobby the the government for their unowed monopoly rents.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 9:12pm
      
      Re: Re:
      unowed and unearned monopoly rents *
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nate, 9 May 2010 @ 10:29am
    
    Re:
    Sam, I think we may effectively be saying the same thing here, then. I think it channels one of the recurrent themes here on Techdirt, as well: that technology tends to disrupt and supplant established industries and their attendant business models.
    
    I realize that this may only tenuously relate to the article (since it was a decision in favor of the MPAA and not necessarily the content providers), but as regards the impact to the perceived value by the end user of his service, it is relevant. As of yet, content providers seem to be doing well enough to keep my business. While I do watch a large proportion of my video content online (via Netflix, Hulu, or the networks' own websites), I still pay for a full cable subscription with a DVR, and purchase several premium channels. As of yet, I don't feel that the internet offers as rich a selection.
    
    I fully anticipate that to change in the next several years, however, as higher bandwidth connections become more commonplace and the television networks realize that their traditional business model applies almost 1:1 over the public IP network.
    
    In my view, the content providers (the cable or satellite companies) can anticipate this trend and provide value by adding services (which I feel Verizon's FiOS is doing well so far), or they can endeavor to pre-empt it and most likely hasten it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
McBeese, 8 May 2010 @ 5:30pm

I blame the unauthorized file sharers
Is the MPAA run by douche bags? Yes, I think so.

Is the FCC run by political sycophants? Yes, I think so.

Are either of these organizations the root of the problem? No, I don't think so.

The people who break the law by copying and illegally distributing content are the root of the problem. If it weren't for them, there would be no need for DRM. The actions of the MPAA and FCC are an incompetent reaction to the issue of widespread copyright violation.

Keep hating on the MPAA and FCC because they're asking for it, but hate the source of the problem more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
  Human nature?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2010 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
  "The people who break the law by copying and illegally distributing content are the root of the problem."
  
  No, the law itself is the problem.
  
  "The actions of the MPAA and FCC are an incompetent reaction to the issue of widespread copyright violation."
  
  No, their action is an attempt to control us and prevent us from recording and replaying the overwhelming majority of shows, like they did in Canada and like they admitted to with the lawsuits they filed in an attempt to stop Tivo from selling DVR's (and when that was shot down by the courts the cable companies started selling their own DVR's to compete with TIVO, effectively infringing on TIVO's patent(s) even).
  
  and copyright law itself is part of the problem.
  
  "but hate the source of the problem more."
  
  The MPAA et al are the source of the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 8 May 2010 @ 8:43pm
  
  Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
  Ahhh, you assume too much McWheese.
  
  The much maligned file sharing miscreants are simply the big media excuse for removal of your rights.
  
  Purchase something today, but do not expect it to fully function tomorrow.
  
  We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the rest of your life, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
    you funny abc gum
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
  The people who break the law by copying and illegally distributing content are the root of the problem.
  
  And the FCC must be 100% behind those guys. Since the only thing this ruling does is reward "pirates" and punish legal users.
  
  But talking about "piracy" is a red herring. The functionality that the FCC is breaking is 100% legal. It is not infringement to DVR your shows, nor to make copies for personal use.
  
  And the FCC did this because the MPAA said they might release movies earlier. Maybe. If they feel like it.
  
  The whole thing is a load of bunk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 4:56pm
  
  Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
  The people who break the law by copying and illegally distributing content are the root of the problem.
  
  Uh, I hate to break it to you, since you clearly didn't read the details of this, but file sharing has absolutely NOTHING to do with this. This is solely about breaking DVRs from *legitimately* recording programs on TV.
  
  The movies that are being released this way are all *already* available on file sharing networks. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with stopping file sharing. It's entirely about stopping legal recording of shows on your television for the sake of time shifting.
  
  The entertainment industry has wanted this for a long time.
  
  If this had anything to do with stopping file sharing, you might have a point. But it's not.
  
  Keep hating on the MPAA and FCC because they're asking for it, but hate the source of the problem more.
  
  Again, this is not about piracy. This is about the entertainment industry trying to claw back LEGAL time shifting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Ford, 8 May 2010 @ 8:10pm

Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
Hey Hollywood!

The flag you refer to, SOC, is IGNORED on Windows Media Centre and Myth-tv!

So - whilst you may have a small win, what you will in effect do is annoy these people who have PVR's now, who may in effect class-action you into the ground....

Whilst I watch movies on my myth-tv system that I've ripped from DVD's from blockbuster or downloaded from the Internet. yeah... Makes sense this win doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cHUCK, 9 May 2010 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
  Your just one of the starry eyed that think they are getting some kind of percieved value by being a pirate. All you do is fan the flames, a selfish ignorant prick, over something as stupid as a remake movie, or other piece of crap they spew out of the land of Holly. Be a mna take a stand!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse, 9 May 2010 @ 12:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
    I do believe, 'Chuck,' that Chris IS taking a stand. It's just a stand opposite your personal shilltastic beliefs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 9 May 2010 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
  > The flag you refer to, SOC, is IGNORED on Windows Media Centre and Myth-tv!
  
  No. That SOC flag is going to disable your DVI and your component inputs. Anyone that tries to use those will find that the stuff they paid for is just a blank screen.
  
  People with "incompetent" cable setups and older hardware will be the primary victims here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 12:27am

Screw the MPAA, I'm Re-Installing my torrent.

Dumbasses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 2:13am

Nobody Dies When It's Sunny
I don't care anymore, and neither do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 2:19am

Good Bye Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 2:22am

It's up to you now. Best Wishes, Ta-Ta and Good Bye. Don't let the insult comedian get you, it's all part of the act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BcrDKhtcE4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 3:08am

Hulu has a better setup that doesn't screw up the viewing experience.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/55113/mr-warmth-the-don-rickles-project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 4:40am

FCC & DRM
Looks like the FCC are on Hollywood's payroll.
What a bunch of limp-wristed dills!

DRM is sabotage and should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mfioretti (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 4:50am

I hearthily thank for these measures...
... just the people who download everything they find, just because it's there. I don't mean that MPAA and friends are right. I only mean that those very people are the best allies of MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 11 May 2010 @ 3:53am
  
  Re: I hearthily thank for these measures...
  Except this has nothing to do with downloading, but with timeshifting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
packrat (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 4:56am

all your dvd players belong to us
beauty! NOW kids will learn to apply hack-patches as a normal function of literacy.

it's just filtering noise from the line, something VERY useful anyway.

************
ASSIMOV 3 laws (deliberate sp there) for a NWO
(new world order)

1: you're for or against us. (crit=terrorist/traitor)
2: it's compulsory or forbidden. ((but some of us are more equal than others)
3: You're guilty, guilty guilty! (preemptive arrest, etc)

Of course, this assumes big-brother's fink-world turns into death-by-lynchmobs. A s'kills world, right?

Gossip is NOT the credit society. Dis-credit yak (our mascot at large) is more usually bragging, plotting or throwing dirt-balls.

Personally, I can't wait till our leaders run in this muck. All the way to brazil, I'm betting.

My first clue was when youtube went from pie-in-the-face into three minute hates.

The last straw was outlawing fair-usage commentaries like hilter does the ACTRA treaty.

packrat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SteveHedberg, 9 May 2010 @ 5:01am

It never ceases to amaze me how obvious it is that our politicians/government are in the pocket of big industry and corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irritated, 9 May 2010 @ 6:07am

re
The thing is that most people have lives and jobs so that we can't be home when whatever it is that we wanted to watch is on. So wonderful dvr shows up and the only thing you ever watch ,you can have that back. Awesomeness. Because I'd hate to pay this freakin monthly bill and not get to watch what I am actually ALREADY paying for.Oh,wait.....what? Are you saying that I can pay my bill and unless I pay more (ppv) I won't get to watch it,or unless I can be home I won't get to watch it? Well ,ok here cable company here is your dvr back (19.00 a month ) and here is your digital box back (5.00 a month) you know what why don't you turn the whole thing off cause if I'm going to pay 85.00 dollars a month I want to use what I'm paying for so up yours buddy. I'm not doing it. How would yo like to go shopping and some @ssh@t tell you that you couldn't eat all that you paid for. Why ? Because. And I already know that it is limited to only special items right now but, that is what the 2 year trial is for.To be completely honest there are a lot of people that won't remember or even notice the change and in 2 years a lot of people will pick up a service who don't know any better .Two years is not a trial it is the time it takes to establish something. So in 2 years don't think it will go away in fact look for it to get worse because it will and by then there will be enough people paying that it won't matter if a few get fed up and quit.Thank you FCC we really needed that ! (sarcasim don't get the bills paid but, is a service I offer)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 9 May 2010 @ 7:19am

If they want to threaten not to invest, call their bluff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slot Bonus Guy (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 8:22am

FCC inrusion
Absolutely atrocious!. What in the world is happening. Why would any agenct believe that we would 'roll over' and accept that 'big brother' intrusion. It's a slippery slope to oblivion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoeppner, 9 May 2010 @ 8:44am

There is no such thing as DRM to content that ALWAYS becomes analog(Music or Video).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  That's what the MPAA is afraid of. SOC enables the content provider to not allow analog output.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 9 May 2010 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Karl,
    
    Content people talk of plugging the analog hole and you are correct in the statement that SOC is part of this effort, but I think what was being pointed out is the simple fact that when you view and or listen to content, it is analog. And it will remain this way until they can interface directly to your neurons.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 5:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, but the point I was making is this: if the MPAA actually goes through with this, the only way to use this "analog hole" with video, would be to point a camcorder at your TV.
      
      Incidentally, if "analog hole" isn't up on the Urban Dictionary already, it really should be. Maybe we could vote on what it would be, the way Dan Savage did with "Santorum."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck, 9 May 2010 @ 8:52am

Fuckin' hollywood
Look its real easy people, STOP WATCHING AND BUYING MOVIES!!They cannot sell that which nobody wants!!Does anyone in thioer right mind believe that any movie is worht $20.00 or more to buy?? Right none are. They are not even worth $5.00. However that has not stopped millions from having closets full of useless DVD's, VHS tapes etc.Teach them they are full of shit, stop buying thier crap. YOu know in ancient Rome actors were given a social status BELOW that of a slave!! Why? Because they7 put on others faces and you can niot tell when they are truthful and when they were playing roles. That made them dangerous. I personally have not bought a DVD in more than 7 years, and I won't. I do not get cable, telephone or satilite television, just the little antenna on the top of the set. They make no money off of me and they can go screw themselves. Hollywood is now recycling all the old movies again, all they are doing i making remakes of old money makers and trying to pass them off on a whole new generation. Fuck'em I say!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: Fuckin' hollywood
  Well, obviously that's what people are doing.
  
  But their losses (in DVD's I guess, since theater profits are higher than ever) couldn't possibly be due to people getting sick of the MPAA's crap. No, it's all due to "piracy."
  
  Heads they win, tails you lose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 May 2010 @ 10:08am

And Then.....
I've just become one step closer to canceling my subscription for television from Comcast. Honestly, I pay over $70 a month and only watch a few shows a month that are actually on TV. I gave up on my DVR because most of the time it quits recording before the show is over, anyway, and if I set it up to record a few extra minutes, it doesn't record the next show that comes on. Plus I get a much better copy if I just download it and watch it on my PS3.

I mainly only keep it on so that my kid can watch Nick Jr., etc. He will have to learn to live without, I guess. F U Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 9 May 2010 @ 11:38am

im going back to board games all this entertainment stupidity is rediculous
keep your technology and dumb ass laws go nuts i'm off the grid next month for good,and that means no more me calming the hackers, ENJOY OBAMA i hope it really makes the rest of your term enjoyable. Funny how the white guy in that bomb video became a arab terrorist ...too.

and going totally opensource for computers and getting whatever games i can

completely removing myself form insanity and any children i have will be FORCED TO DO SAME
i'm not paying
THE AMERICAN TAX

ya see once you have a board game its physical
you cant tell me later what and where and whom i can share play with

you can't tie to a EULA that tells me i have to pay each time i play

you can't throttle or user base bill me on the use

you can't tell me to SHUT UP about it. you can't tell me to modify the rules and mix n match different board games ( war games etc ) you JUST eliminate yourselves
and i have my music
and say cya
as bell Canada gets ready to double the prices for CAIP independent users
i upload a complete copy of the entire united hackers association to a new shiny toy in the sky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 9 May 2010 @ 11:44am

@109 - I BLAME idiots like you
ya know copyright if it was 14 years there would be such a niceslection for poor people as there to be no excuse to file share inside that 14 year limit then hollywood could have super duper strict rules and laws
BUT they want it all

the precious
the everything
the sheer arrogance of presumptuous laziness is astounding
JUST ASTOUNDING and its gonna bit them back and i predict in Canada 20-30% of net users in the next 6 months too go poof

you say file sharers eh so my father who dont even know what the term means said and i'll quote.

"It's TOO damn expensive to just visit a few websites and check email"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 9 May 2010 @ 11:52am

and if more people tuned out and stopped watching
Ive said it
and its only way to push the point w people have control is if the entire country en mass or a huge part of them protested by not paying that monthly and turned it off
FOR ONE MONTH

that would send the right message
dont pay the internet bill
cancel for a summer whatever
if 200 million Americans said ENOUGH loud enough in this fashion it would almost bankrupt these bastards and shock there shareholders into a better do something about this or ....
BUT YOUR too stupid yes stupid ( NOT dumb cause difference is stupid knows better ) and there in lies the rub you get what you deserve.

I will choose at months end to say enough
i urge everyone not on a contract to try it and if you can afford the early termination do so and stay off longer then that termination fee wold last

SEND THE RIGHT message now
no cable no phone no internet
try it wow im sure you downloaded enough to keep sane for 4 months ?

by then ACTA will be made law everywhere, so agin it becomes a choice of why bother with internet
WHY seriously what has it to offer me other then a fraking bill, hollywood don't offer me the poor guy anything
nope notta
they want to take the public domain away too and have been doing it up the ass a poor people for decades slowly but surely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 9 May 2010 @ 12:06pm

rate increases in Canada go through the roof- so who cares
http://i41.tinypic.com/i5ra05.jpg

enjoy canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 1:23pm

More reasons to use a Linux install on a PC over a 'canned' DVR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Valkor, 10 May 2010 @ 4:18pm
  
  Re:
  More reasons to read a book printed on actual DEAD TREES!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kal Zekdor (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 2:41pm

MPAA still clinging to a sinking ship
Why do the majority of the media industry insist on forcing legislation to protect their outmoded business model? They are stretching an analog model to fit a digital world; and when it doesn't reach, they try to make the world smaller.

This is not 1980. Adapt or perish. The idea of fixed channels is rooted in the radio bandwidth limitations of a broadcast medium. DVDs/BRs are treated as physical products, not as a transmission medium for digital content. Advertising is rapidly approaching one third of a given program to try to make up for perceived "losses" due to DVRs.

The only choices should not be rigid, industry-centric consumerism; wherein good little citizens sit down every day at 6pm, get up every day at 11pm, laugh at the same time, cry at the same time, a single entity spread across every home; or, alternatively, content consumption as theft, anyone not adhering to the strict rules set down by the providers are hunted down and imprisoned.

I may have been overly bleak and exaggerative just there, but not by much.

There are examples of distribution entities that have adapted to a digital paradigm. Hulu, for instance. It's selection leaves a bit to be desired (particularly the completely asinine delay between broadcast and Hulu availability), but I am perfectly willing to sit through (and actually watch) three or four 15 second advertisements during the course of a 42-minute program (note 42-minutes, as shows are filmed with the archaic limitations of advertised channel programming in mind).

The only reason I can even watch broadcast television at all is my dvr. If that gets broken, well, then there's no need for me to have cable TV at all, is there?

The root of this entire issue is MPAA trying to force consumers to pay for the same movie multiple times. First, at the theatres, then (now, at least) via PPV, then DVD/BR, and then advertiser supported broadcast. In my opinion movies should be released at theatres and on DVD/BR simultaneously, though I'm not naive enough to believe that would ever actually happen.

With the advent of HDTV, and the ease of digital distribution today, there becomes less and less benefit from theatre viewing over home viewing of films. Content producers should bypass MPAA entirely and sell directly to consumers, it would be no end of good press. But, again, I'm not naive enough to believe that they would think of long-term gain, when short-term consumer raping seems so much more profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 4:35pm

prometheefeu.blogspot.com
This is great news. Again, the MPAA is shooting itself in the foot. I for one never watch something from cable without using my DVR first. (with very rare exceptions) Does that mean I will now change my movie-watching habits? You bet! I'm not going to watch anything that comes with a broadcast flag. If they start putting that flag on too much stuff, I'll just cancel cable TV. Libraries and Netflix have DVDs and there are plenty of websites that have the shows I'm looking for legally. What if I can't get a show online legally? Well too bad. I won't watch it. The great news is that unlike some of their other idiotic moves, this one is going to affect a lot of mainstream users. And those users eventually will learn the truth: Movies are just too much of a pain to deal with. Slowly but surely, they are alienating the public. Within a few years, sympathy is going to drop off the map and they are going to disappear. I will dance a jig on their grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rockman123 (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 6:03pm

nameless one is right
not about blaming obama for everything, but in lunacy comes the solution- if everyone or a sizable minority turned everything off for awhile, not forever, just for awhile, the business model becomes untenable. penitentiary joe the worthless cousin might lose his hillbilly string the cable to the house job but he's practically unemployable anyway. the good news as the guy over at ars mentioned is telesynched hdtvcams right out of the living room, no more idiots getting up for a pop corn run or to take off the jacket and upped to the usual joints before the last credits roll. see namelessone, obamas not the problem its just your lack of intellectual mobility, your lack of stealthily negotiating the modern world. sadly the 19th century is long past- time for you to update the intellectual paradigm i think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadderMak (profile), 9 May 2010 @ 6:29pm

My TV has ONLY analogue inputs.
I have a PVR with analogue outputs.
I PPV to watch a new release movie and get a BLANK screen.
Is this FRAUD?

Meh. I no longer watch TV. I do not have a cable subscription. I do not listen to the radio.

My library is my friend and my life is so much MORE satisfying now.

Go outside - play with your kids, exercise, see a play, take up a sport (or 3), pave your patio. Life has so many more things that are so much more satisfying than paying to prop up a dying business model. Help me "kill" them off!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 2:40am

well if the MPAA want their PPV offerings to fail, they should go ahead and fuck with their customers... Meanwhile many people will be downloading their shit without paying a single dime.
Sure, artists and movie-makers should be paid for their hard work, but these big companies (Like Warner, Sony BMG, Universal, FOX, etc) that are represented by the RIAA and the MPAA don't give a damn about the artists, all they want to do is control the way you consume their crap.
Charge ridiculous amounts of money for stuff they invested as little as possible on.
Because they don't see us consumers as clients, but rather as money bags. They are not geared towards a consumer-friendly way of doing business.
It's just maffia 2.0, "nice mediabox you got there, would be a damned shame if something happened to it, like for instance be made useless".
Though I'm afraid I might have insulted the maffia with comparing them to the clueless scumbags that run the RIAA and the MPAA, who couldn't find a new business model if it dropped in their lap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 10 May 2010 @ 5:28am

I may become a pirate after all...
Dish Network has started putting a time limit on movies you record. You have to watch them within a certain timeframe or they "expire". I have had the movie Up on my DVR for a while waiting for my nieces to come stay with me. They are here now but the movie won't play. I paid $5 to rent it once and recorded it and now they want me to pay again? I don't think so. From now on, I will have no problems pirating movies in cases like this.

As an aside, I do not currently pirate movies, music, software or anything else. But with treatment like this, I will be in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 5:58am
  
  Re: I may become a pirate after all...
  As an aside, I do not currently pirate movies, music, software or anything else. But with treatment like this, I will be in the future.
  
  I don't either, but with the way things are shaking out, I'm starting to think that maybe I have a moral duty to do so as a form of civil disobedience to help my country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 10 May 2010 @ 6:08am

FCC
The FCC has always been run by incompetent, money hungry demigods. They are in dire need of a shakeup. Let that read throw all the bastards out and start over with people that don't view bandwidth as a GD ATM!!!!!! Yet another reason to reform the government of the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 10 May 2010 @ 6:16am

FCC/HOLLYWOOD
I remember a time when we were not able to play movies and record TV. Sounds like we, as a nation, need to lay off the DVDs and TIVOs for a while and let them try to eat the media left on the shelves!

Wouldn't it be nice to download a movie, 2012 for instance, make 50 copies and just leave them out for people to take, say at bus stops and such. Talk about fun! Hey, you could just make one copy of every DVD you own and leave those out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 10 May 2010 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: FCC/HOLLYWOOD RTFA
  "Wouldn't it be nice to download a movie, 2012 for instance, make 50 copies and just leave them out for people to take, say at bus stops and such. Talk about fun! Hey, you could just make one copy of every DVD you own and leave those out..."
  
  Once again, READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. This problem has NOTHING to do with piracy. Its about Hollywood and the FCC REMOVING the ability to watch a program you have a LEGAL RIGHT to RECORD via your LEGAL service (OTA, cable, satellite, etc).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 7:50am

I don't see...
I don't see how anyone is going to be losing, so what if your TV can't use another input/output while your streaming a movie?? As long as they are doing it while the movie is streaming, I don't have a problem with it the companies have the right to protect their content and the content providers should have a way to prevent pirating... Why would anyone have a problem with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: I don't see...
  Try glasses or contacts, I understand they help. First, time shifting is not pirating you are allowed to do this. Second, this is changing the terms of the item I bought after I bought it. They cannot do this no they should not ever be able to do it unless they would like to refund your purchase price on you hardware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joel (profile), 11 May 2010 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re: I don't see...
    I use glasses. I'm not talking about time shifting, I'm talking about someone recording the content and then selling it/keeping it; you are renting the movie not buying it or buying the rights to copy it. You can't buy a ticket at the theater to a movie and then record the movie and say that you want to watch it later.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
art (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 8:36am

We tried like hell
Public Knowledge did our best to fight this one off. In the end, the Media Bureau was bound and determined to give something to Hollywood for reasons that we can't fathom. Here are a couple of blog posts we did: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3056 http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3054 Here's our issue page. http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solomon Deweiss, 10 May 2010 @ 9:32am

Turnabout's fair play
The MPAA just stole something from me.

So, fair's fair. I am entitled to steal something back from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 May 2010 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Turnabout's fair play
  The MPAA just stole something from me. So, fair's fair. I am entitled to steal something back from them.
  
  No, copyright infringement isn't theft, but what the MPAA and FCC are doing actually is! Yes, the MPAA and FCC are actually WORSE than copyright infringers.
  
  So what should you do when the cops are the bad guys? Turn against them. It has now gotten to the point where I believe that everyone has a moral responsibility to deliberately infringe copyright as much as possible as a form of civil disobedience. Don't hold back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 12 May 2010 @ 5:38am
    
    Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
    When they make something worth pirating, I'll pirate it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Peluang bisnis, 4 Aug 2011 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
    thanks brooooo!!!
    peluang bisnis
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Peluang bisnis, 4 Aug 2011 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
    thanks brooooo!!!
    peluang bisnis
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 9:59am

Never again.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--Declaration of Independence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contemplationist, 10 May 2010 @ 11:27pm

Yes, the glorious FCC
yes but we can still trust those public-spirited, uncorrupted, philosopher king regulators to ONLY enforce standardized, network management principles (net neutrality) and not go any further. Oh noes, we dont want them regulating anything else. Just enforce neutrality...yeah...because they will never be lobbied by a million organisations for further tinkering, pushing, altering, and destruction. MPAA could never ask FCC to enforce a rule on ISPs to devote time and money to 'catching pirates' or blocking certain traffic. Oh heavens no, sire government would never do that!

Shocking, I tell you. The net neutrality crowd is myopic and deranged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anarchist, 11 May 2010 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re: Yes, the glorious FCC
  That applies to ALL government. None of it can be trusted and anyone who doesn't see that the only solution is the TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL GOVERNMENT is myopic and deranged!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairuse (profile), 15 May 2010 @ 9:53am

VCR not for sale
Muck up my DVR and I will dust off a antique VCR. Idiots at FCC will backpedal on this reg., elections this fall. Sidebar: Want perfect DVD of current movie? Go to your bar & grill and someone will ask you if want a movie. Even if it opened that day. Human nature should not be ignored. Sidebar End

bye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 16 May 2010 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re: VCR not for sale
  Muck up my DVR and I will dust off a antique VCR.
  
  VCRs all use analog inputs. Selectable Output Control gives the studios the ability to turn off the analog outputs on your cable box, so there is no signal to feed into your VCR. Which is exactly the point of this whole thing. When this is switched on, the only working output on your box will one that is encrypted and which can only be viewed on an approved device. Hook up the wrong type of device and you won't even get the digital signal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qinziro, 25 Apr 2011 @ 8:41pm

I am entitled to
steal something back from
them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qinziro, 25 Apr 2011 @ 8:41pm

I am entitled to
steal something back from
them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qins, 1 Jul 2011 @ 2:33am

He all... Greetings.. Plis read my article insto moist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alie, 3 Jul 2011 @ 5:11am

Want perfect DVD of
current movie?
pesta ulang tahun
insto moist untuk atasi mata merah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer with rights?, 4 Dec 2011 @ 11:18am

The lobbyists who proposed this
should be liable to pay for every piece of equipment and software that these stupid restricting right infringing 'laws' have disabled!

The FCC is a government office. For, of and by the people, or for of and by big business? It's starting to look more like the latter, judging from public opinion on their recent rulings!

There should be new organized crime acts which disband K street and their un-American influence in Washington!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berita Terkini, 5 Aug 2012 @ 8:45pm

Good Articles
As an aside, I do not currently pirate movies, music, software or anything else. But with treatment like this, I will be in the future.
Thanks.
cara berhenti merokok - waptrick - 4shared - gambar animasi - pantun jenaka
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berita teknologi, 12 Oct 2012 @ 4:39am

Berita teknologi
It's really ridiculous stuff made by FCC

Berita Teknologi Terbaru Dan Terupdate | Majalah tips dan informasi online terbaik Indonesia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aksesoris mobil, 24 Nov 2012 @ 11:13am

Aksesoris mobil
really i live the stuff, i use it and it very catch my attention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vandekriz, 25 Dec 2012 @ 3:15am

the war between the pirates and the movie maker :D . lets see who is the winner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paket wisata bromo, 27 Mar 2014 @ 6:31am

paket wisata bromo
When they make something worth pirating, I'll pirate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buket bunga eksklusif, 12 Aug 2016 @ 5:19am

just do it. enjoy your life dude. do not so serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]