FCC Gives Hollywood The Right To Break Your TV/DVR... Just 'Cause
from the nice-of-them dept
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):
"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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
@$$h@ts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FCC Overrides Supreme Court
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 thread ]
Anyone see Minority Report?
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 thread ]
Kindred Spirits
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 thread ]
Hot News, Too
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I stopped giving a damn
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 thread ]
Mixed Reviews
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 thread ]
What about the DVR makers
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 thread ]
Re: What about the DVR makers
/fixed It's 3:30am. I should be sleeping. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When can i just say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HAHA
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 thread ]
I've lived with this for years already.
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look beyond
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Mixed Reviews
All in all this is a really good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't even feel bad about it anymore
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Look beyond
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 thread ]
If they do it for sporting events...
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HA ha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah!!! That pesky record function being on of them.
You tell em evil AC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"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 thread ]
Worst Government money can buy.
The government castigates countries like Afghanistan for corruption while at the same time accepting millions in bribes themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Worst Government money can buy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You will notice...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Take a step back...
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 thread ]
Re: Take a step back...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Correct me if I'm wrong
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 thread ]
Really?
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 thread ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
I just spit Pepsi through my nose because I was laughing so hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
57 is right
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet districution
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 thread ]
Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
People thought video fingerprinting could only be used by the other side?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I blame the unauthorized file sharers
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 thread ]
Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mixed Reviews
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
What is "broken" in Newspeak?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
Well ... isn't that special.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumbasses!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Nobody Dies When It's Sunny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BcrDKhtcE4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.hulu.com/watch/55113/mr-warmth-the-don-rickles-project
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FCC & DRM
What a bunch of limp-wristed dills!
DRM is sabotage and should be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hearthily thank for these measures...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
all your dvd players belong to us
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
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 thread ]
Re: Breaking
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FCC inrusion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuckin' hollywood
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: When can i just say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
So they're going to have remotes made illegal? No more channel surfing during the commercials?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
"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 thread ]
Re: Fuckin' hollywood
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 thread ]
Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
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 thread ]
And Then.....
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ElijahBlue - The MPAA goons can go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
im going back to board games all this entertainment stupidity is rediculous
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 thread ]
@109 - I BLAME idiots like you
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 thread ]
and if more people tuned out and stopped watching
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rate increases in Canada go through the roof- so who cares
enjoy canada
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Myth-TV will IGNORE your SOC flag!
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 thread ]
MPAA still clinging to a sinking ship
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 thread ]
prometheefeu.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: I blame the unauthorized file sharers
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 thread ]
nameless one is right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
It's still perfectly usable as a thousand dollar doorstop, so what's all the screaming about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
Whoosh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I may become a pirate after all...
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Already tried
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 thread ]
FCC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FCC/HOLLYWOOD
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Already tried
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We tried like hell
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Turnabout's fair play
So, fair's fair. I am entitled to steal something back from them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FCC/HOLLYWOOD RTFA
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 thread ]
Never again.
--Declaration of Independence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Yes, the glorious FCC
Shocking, I tell you. The net neutrality crowd is myopic and deranged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I hearthily thank for these measures...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, the glorious FCC
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Turnabout's fair play
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
[ link to this | view in thread ]
VCR not for sale
bye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: VCR not for sale
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 thread ]
steal something back from
them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
steal something back from
them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
current movie?
pesta ulang tahun
insto moist untuk atasi mata merah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
peluang bisnis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Turnabout's fair play
peluang bisnis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The lobbyists who proposed this
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 thread ]
Good Articles
Thanks.
cara berhenti merokok - waptrick - 4shared - gambar animasi - pantun jenaka
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berita teknologi
Berita Teknologi Terbaru Dan Terupdate | Majalah tips dan informasi online terbaik Indonesia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aksesoris mobil
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: DVR Board
[ link to this | view in thread ]
paket wisata bromo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]