# DRM Protection coming to Dish??



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

Saw this over at satellite guys...

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-hd-discussions/115664-bad-news-regarding-dish-drm.html

Does anyone think this could be true? It doesn't make sense in my mind.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

DBS Commando said:


> Saw this over at satellite guys...
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-hd-discussions/115664-bad-news-regarding-dish-drm.html
> 
> Does anyone think this could be true? It doesn't make sense in my mind.


Anything can make sense to someone. My old Panasonic Plasma only has component.


----------



## jimb (Feb 13, 2006)

Well if they go through with this then they can swap my 622 leased reciever with a 722 that has a working HDMI port. Sounds like they would have to spend some bucks to make this switch.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

DBS Commando said:


> Saw this over at satellite guys...
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-hd-discussions/115664-bad-news-regarding-dish-drm.html
> 
> Does anyone think this could be true? It doesn't make sense in my mind.


There must already be some form of DRM in place for them to be able to restrict the viewing availability of material bought through DISHOnline, etc., no?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISHOnline and Movies on Demand have their own storage space on the receivers that does not appear into the "My Recordings" lists and cannot be transferred to external devices. This is the ultimate protection (other than simply not allowing playback). They could protect the outputs with macrovision (if they are not already doing so).

From what I understand the content owners want to control their content. Both of the above services are time limited. DISHOnline gives you 24 hours to view within seven days of download - Movies on Demand gives you 24 hours to view and E* controls what movies are on the receiver at any given time. If you start a movie, leave then want to watch the end make sure you finish before the initial 24 hours are up. You will have to buy another day to see any minute past 24 hours.

DRM on the movie channels can prevent people from copying programs to external devices. One must MOVE content. It was suggested on a Charlie Chat that one should make multiple recordings of movies if one wants them on multiple devices. I can see the day when content providers will want that prevented as well.

DRM is simply management of the rights. If a content owner makes their content available via a content provider such as E* they like to attach strings. It is up to the content owner to decide what those strings are --- giving E* the choice of either following the rules or not having the content. If a content provider gives E* the choice of carrying their content with restrictions or not at all I'd rather see it with restrictions. (Of course, 1st preference will always be "unrestricted".)

Having DRM doesn't mean that all content will be protected any better than it is today ... it just gives content owners the option to offer their content via E* without losing control of their property. I expect that D* is working on adding DRM to their receivers as well. (I certainly hope so.)


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

It smells of $ony here.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> It smells of $ony here.


Ditto...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I saw that discussion over there as well... but I think some folks are getting confused with what DRM means.

DRM = Digital rights management.

That deals with making copies and/or recording. As James said, DRM restrictions could mean no archiving to the external hard drive or no recording at all or recordings that expire after 24 hours or 7 days or something. These are all things that bite.

However, DRM does not equal downconversion over component. That is a completely different animal. It has to do with some of the handshaking and protocols in the HDMI connections and a flag that can be set to prevent full resolution on non-HDCP compliant connections like analog component.

This technology is already built-in to current HD DVD and Blu ray players. As of yet, no movie studios have enforced this downconversion on their movies due to heavy backlash from all the early adopters who have HDTVs like mine that do not have anything but component... and folks who have DVI but not HDCP-compliant DVI.

In summation... DRM is potentially bad... and limiting... but don't confuse the DRM use restrictions with downconversion via component connection. They are two different avenues of pursuit by the motion picture industry.

DRM is meeting less public restriction than is the downconversion. Downconversion affects everyone with an older HDTV. DRM restrictions affect everyone (new or old HDTV).


----------



## wweguy (Aug 28, 2007)

> However, DRM does not equal downconversion over component. That is a completely different animal. It has to do with some of the handshaking and protocols in the HDMI connections and a flag that can be set to prevent full resolution on non-HDCP compliant connections like analog component.


 Thats what they talked about today on the retailer chat. It looks like its coming in the future. The question now is when.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I saw a summary of the retailer chat, and it did sound like they were at least hinting at HDCP restrictions over component.

I can say this with a certainty. I bought a $3000 HDTV about 5 years ago and at that time HDMI did not exist in the marketplace. DVI wasn't even on most HDTVs at that time. I have no plans nor budget to replace my HDTV with a new one simply to get an HDMI connector.

IF and when Dish were to ever downconvert HD over component (whether they are forced to by programmers or not) this will be the day that I cancel the HD service. I won't pay for HD if I don't get to watch HD over component.

I have to think there would be a lot of early adopters in the same position as I am that would make the same decision.

As I said earlier.. I can understand DRM and wanting to protect recordings... but the HDCP and potential downconverting is not a good idea from the motion picture industry. They will only serve to alienate the early adopters who essentially fund development of new technologies.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Is there a way for us to put pressure on E* to not put in place the HDCP and potential downconverting?


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

Is there such a thing as an HDMI to component converter? If so couldn't you go ahead and output HDMI in HD then convert it to component retaining the HD quality? The receiver wouldn't know it's being converted. It would just think it's delivering the signal to an HDMI TV.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

TomH said:


> Is there such a thing as an HDMI to component converter? If so couldn't you go ahead and output HDMI in HD then convert it to component retaining the HD quality? The receiver wouldn't know it's being converted. It would just think it's delivering the signal to an HDMI TV.


No there isn't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> Is there a way for us to put pressure on E* to not put in place the HDCP and potential downconverting?


Nothing that I'd expect to be effective.

DRM is the future. It won't be _just_ E*'s future.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

HDMe said:


> As I said earlier.. I can understand DRM and wanting to protect recordings... but the HDCP and potential downconverting is not a good idea from the motion picture industry. They will only serve to alienate the early adopters who essentially fund development of new technologies.


Yeap... Downconverting non protected signals is something the industry has been pushing for a long time... It this starts to appear, the early adopters are going to feel pain. I have always been of the opinion, if there is any risk of given a customer less of an experience than they have with their current equipement because of some added security, dont' do that security. Security should never be at the cost of the honest end user experience. This is case where it could potentially and if this does appear... The blame needs to be directed to where the problem is... the content providers... Not the Cable, Sat or FIOS folks they are just the middle men.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Agreed.. I know this is not something Dish (or any other provider) would want to do... they would only do it if forced on them by the channels they carry. The problem, in this particular case, is that the best immediate reaction is for customers to drop HD packages which more immediately affects Dish than it does the motion picture people.

The movie people have traditionally been somewhat out of touch with reality when it comes to strongarming what they think they want onto the public.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DRM has the potential to ruin the industry. Hopefully the content owners are not as stupid as we attribute them to be.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

HDMe said:


> The movie people have traditionally been somewhat out of touch with reality when it comes to strongarming what they think they want onto the public.


Sometimes you wonder if these guys hang out in the same bars as the Recording industry.... So out of touch....


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

whatchel1 said:


> No there isn't.


Yes sir there are HDMI and DVI to Component interface boxes. However the rest of your statement is correct, HDCP would restrict the content because by converting the HDMI output to an analog YPrPb connection, the receiver would not be able to make an EDID handshake with the display thus telling HDCP that the connection is not terminating Digitally.


----------



## phobos512 (Nov 20, 2007)

Jason Nipp said:


> Yes sir there are HDMI and DVI to Component interface boxes. However the rest of your statement is correct, HDCP would restrict the content because by converting the HDMI output to an analog YPrPb connection, the receiver would not be able to make an EDID handshake with the display thus telling HDCP that the connection is not terminating Digitally.


Except that there are converters that handle the EDID handshaking internally, thus as far as the HDMI/HDCP connected source is concerned, it's an all digital interface. Google is a veritable fount of information.

That's not to say that I enjoy the idea of "DRM" (I just love their consumer spin oriented terminology - because you know everyone needs their rights managed, it's not that they're taking them away or anything), I hate it. Frakkin' content providers. But Joe Consumer's not going to know any better so what can we do, essentially nothing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As I hope I've already said ... I hate restrictions on content and expect that EVERY distributer will have the same challenge of honoring DRM requests.

DRM itself doesn't mean no more dubbing/etc. It just means that the rights that the content owner has assigned will not get lost in transmission.

I suspect some content providers will make the wrong decisions on their restrictions and I hope that the market straightens them out ... quickly and firmly.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> It smells of $ony here.


ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! and that has been $ony's downfall in the past and probably for the future.

What I don't understand...is E* has their own encryption on the drives...so that we cant hook them up to our computers and burn movies...So the farthest they will go is the external drive...which means in order to keep all the movies we had, we would have to stay with the provider. Isn't that pretty much the same as being able to pay a site to download music...so long as it isn't able to leave our computers? Site pays record company...artist get paid...E* and D* pay for the channels.... MPA gets paid?

I seriously doubt that this would last long if they did it. People with components paying for the same service as those with HDMI, and then getting down converted HD?...uh uh. I have a feeling this would get slapped quicker than $ony did for trying to put tracking programs on peoples computers.

I can't see E* or D* who brag about picture quality letting this fly either...that whole claim would be out the window for a majority of HD customers...and could be a big business blow to them.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

What they want to do is restrict (or prevent) duplicating the video in high resolution format. As HD/BD burners become affordable I think is the time you'll see this become widespread.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> What they want to do is restrict (or prevent) duplicating the video in high resolution format. As HD/BD burners become affordable I think is the time you'll see this become widespread.


I understand that, but if we cant copy to our computers due to E*'s encryption....then we cant burn them...I think they need to lay the responsibility on the companies offering the DVR's or external drives to protect the video...since they are supplying the equipment...instead of screwing all the subs.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

In my case I already had to buy a Component to VGA converter from my CRT projector when I got the 622. Not sure I want to go through that again. So for me it is simple. When and if the changes come, I evaluate it and decide whether it is worthwhile keeping the service or not. The whole industry is changing heavily right now. There has been a crew of 4 guys in my cul de sac all week from AT&T putting in new cables to handle the Video, phone, internet competition for Comcast. I am not locked into any service. I can't imagine the networks would try to use DRM, more than likely it would be the PPV movies and I never rent those anyway. This all may turn out to be a storm in a teacup for a lot of us. 

..Doyle


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Not sure what you are saying here Texawolf.

I think E* and other companies have the copying content from the boxes addressed. The issue that is left that has the movie industry concerned is people taking the Hi-Rez non protected output of devices like DVRs, HD-DVD Players, Blu-Ray Players etc and pumping them into another box (like a stand alone HD-DVD burner or Blu-Ray Burner) to make hi-rez non-copy protected content. 

Downrezzing is what the movie industry has been wanting all along and I think eventually this might be where things are going. Isn't that what HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players do when outputting to component? 

If this does happen.. I don't think anyone can put the blame on the doorsteps of the Sat, Cable, or FIOS guys. The blame clearly in my eyes is on the guys making the product and they want to protect it. I understand their need to protect their investment, but also understand the reality of landscape and in my opinion that landscape should be respected.


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! and that has been $ony's downfall in the past and probably for the future.
> 
> What I don't understand...is E* has their own encryption on the drives...*so that we cant hook them up to our computers and burn movies*...So the farthest they will go is the external drive...which means in order to keep all the movies we had, we would have to stay with the provider. Isn't that pretty much the same as being able to pay a site to download music...so long as it isn't able to leave our computers? Site pays record company...artist get paid...E* and D* pay for the channels.... MPA gets paid?
> 
> ...


Not entirely true -

If your computer happened to be next to or near your receiver, you could use a capture card to capture everything being put out by the RCA/Component/S-Video outputs. You could also hook up a DVD-Recorder to the 622 and burn movies as they are playing. Granted, doing this is time consuming but it is possible. You can easily record a movie off of HBO and then make 1,000 copies and start handing them out like candy. How big production companies will combat this - I don't know.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> Downrezzing is what the movie industry has been wanting all along and I think eventually this might be where things are going. Isn't that what HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players do when outputting to component?


I hope that is as far as DRM is used ... but DRM itself is just management. If a content owner wanted to say something like "recordings made off of our channel can only be watched for a 24 hour period within 14 days of the air date" DRM would allow that to be enforced. The tightness or looseness of the restriction is up to the content provider.

Content providers could also say "no recording of free previews" (or otherwise limit them). No limit is unimaginable. Perhaps the content owner would say something like "content can only be played while the customer remains a subscriber to our channel" preventing people from adding a movie package, filling the HD, then canceling and keeping the content (turning ~$14.99 into the price of a month of viewing). Or perhaps a content provider would demand "NO unprotected outputs" and everything except HDMI with HDCP would be disabled.

Don't hit the panic button yet ... DRM does not mean the most restrictive restriction WILL be put in place, just that it is possible to give content owners the option. I expect that PPVs will be the hardest hit.



DBS Commando said:


> You can easily record a movie off of HBO and then make 1,000 copies and start handing them out like candy. How big production companies will combat this - I don't know.


By going after as many people that do that as possible. Bootlegging (even without profit) is a crime.

DRM will enforce the content owner's preference for "private home use" as well. That is the biggest difference.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

True James.. Bottom line is DRM is just Management of content. I was just addressing the down rezing aspect that I have heard for a long time. I remember being concerned if my Sony GWII was going to be obsoleted when I purchased it if things got really dicey in this area. 

DRM is definitely a slippery slope and in most cases it does not catch the bad guys while providing plenty of pain for the honest joe consumer.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> Not sure what you are saying here Texawolf.
> 
> I think E* and other companies have the copying content from the boxes addressed. The issue that is left that has the movie industry concerned is people taking the Hi-Rez non protected output of devices like DVRs, HD-DVD Players, Blu-Ray Players etc and pumping them into another box (like a stand alone HD-DVD burner or Blu-Ray Burner) to make hi-rez non-copy protected content.
> 
> ...


I was just saying that I think they should leave it to the sat companies to cover the protection....and they are. As far as people downloading then running it through a capture card then burning it on a disc...thats a pretty old way to copy a movie...not saying some people wouldn't do it...but simply having a membership at netflix and then burning a copy of the movie would be much easier if they really wanted to do it..plus that way you get all the chapters and menu's....going through all that to burn a movie, and then have to add your own chapters...forget it. I don't even use my capture card anymore..it's just to much hassle...and if someone is going to that, they aren't going to care about downrezzing. I can't imagine there is a mass market out there doing this to warrant this kind of action. Is it also a possibility that the falling box office numbers are also due to more people owning big HDTV's and surround systems...causing them to wait for movies to come on DVD, or movie channels and not pay the outrages prices? and downrezzing is one way to get them back into the theater for the great quality of the picture?

I run my component from my 622 because my HDMI is all messed up...does this mean E* will have to start replacing them, charging?


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> I was just saying that I think they should leave it to the sat companies to cover the protection....and they are. As far as people downloading then running it through a capture card then burning it on a disc...thats a pretty old way to copy a movie...not saying some people wouldn't do it...but simply having a membership at netflix and then burning a copy of the movie would be much easier if they really wanted to do it..plus that way you get all the chapters and menu's....going through all that to burn a movie, and then have to add your own chapters...forget it. I don't even use my capture card anymore..it's just to much hassle...and if someone is going to that, they aren't going to care about downrezzing. I can't imagine there is a mass market out there doing this to warrant this kind of action. Is it also a possibility that the falling box office numbers are also due to more people owning big HDTV's and surround systems...causing them to wait for movies to come on DVD, or movie channels and not pay the outrages prices? and downrezzing is one way to get them back into the theater for the great quality of the picture?


Theatrical box office is actually quite good. Look at the weekly box office numbers and you'll see that there are a lot of movie-goers out there. The ups and downs in the grosses are mainly due to the popularity of the films that are being released. There will always be people who prefer going to the movies to watching DVDs or HD premium channels. And there are lots of people who like both. If home video was going to kill the theatre business, it would have happened a long time ago.

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. The issue of movies being recorded or copied and then redistributed is overblown. Most of what the entertainment industry cites as "losses" from piracy comes from people who wouldn't have paid for the content anyway. All the studios are doing with these DRM schemes is encouraging people to find ways around them. If the studios couldn't stop hackers from cracking the supposedly super-secure encryption on Blu-ray and HD DVD, what makes them think they are going to be able to stop people from recording movies and other programs from TV, with or without DRM?


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

If this gets enforced I would like for a section of this Forum dedicated to listing the production company's (like Sony) pushing the hardest so we can boycott their products.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ssmith10pn said:


> If this gets enforced I would like for a section of this Forum dedicated to listing the production company's (like Sony) pushing the hardest so we can boycott their products.


While I sympathize, we don't do crusades and petitions here at DBSTalk. 

People do need to know what content is restricted and how. I expect providers (such as E* and D*) to be VERY up front about this. If a program "expires" or can't be played without HDMI/HDCP (as suggested by the first post) their subscribers need to know before they put their money down.


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2007)

Commenting on or debating DRM hardly constitutes a crusade. Sony is definitely one of the villains as far as trying to take away fair use rights of consumers. They are fighting a losing battle and they aren't even smart enough to know it. They deserve to be crushed in the HD market in the same way they were crushed with the Betamax. After reading all of the posts in this forum about Sony products that don't work as advertised because of copy-protection "features" that have been built in, I wouldn't touch any of their consumer electronics equipment, whether it's TVs, DVD players, or anything else for that matter.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Commenting on or debating DRM hardly constitutes a crusade. Sony is definitely one of the villains as far as trying to take away fair use rights of consumers. They are fighting a losing battle and they aren't even smart enough to know it. They deserve to be crushed in the HD market in the same way they were crushed with the Betamax. After reading all of the posts in this forum about Sony products that don't work as advertised because of copy-protection "features" that have been built in, I wouldn't touch any of their consumer electronics equipment, whether it's TVs, DVD players, or anything else for that matter.


The only time I buy $ony is if it is a major deal, and the best one at the time...need a replacement receiver after mine went, and scooped one of theirs for $99...i will never buy their product at full price...even waited til the ps2 went to $150. They will choke themselves out in the format war too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Commenting on or debating DRM hardly constitutes a crusade.


What I was referring to is an organized effort to "boycott Sony" or (as suggested) a forum where people could organize such activity. If commenting on and debating DRM were a crusade this thread would be closed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2007)

Glad to hear that, James. This is turning into an interesting thread. Not quite as entertaining as some other recent threads, but a good discussion nonetheless. 

I think you may be overestimating the ability of the content providers to force DRM on unsuspecting satellite subscribers. They may be able to get away with using DRM in some situations, like PPV and VOD, but it isn't likely to fly with the regular programming. Even if they succeeded in coercing DirecTV or Dish into enforcing their DRM schemes, the likely effect would be to drive customers back to cable and standalone recording devices that can bypass the DRM.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

If the content producers get there way, I don't think Cable companies will be immune to DRM or new stand alone recorder. Yes the Standalone recorders out today would could be immune but if this makes it to reality it will effect all as I see it though the Stand Alone guys don't have the relationships that the Cable/Sat guys need to deal with so they might be able to get away with more..


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

I just dont see it happening, at least for long if it does...DRM will end up right back in court....would be interesting to see D* and E* and cable stand together to fight it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> If the content producers get there way, I don't think Cable companies will be immune to DRM or new stand alone recorder. Yes the Standalone recorders out today would could be immune but if this makes it to reality it will effect all as I see it though the Stand Alone guys don't have the relationships that the Cable/Sat guys need to deal with so they might be able to get away with more..


There is nothing the content producers can do that would prevent standalone recorders that bypass DRM from being used. Recording shows from TV is "fair use" and there is nothing they can do about it under current law. They've been trying stuff like this since the first VCRs hit the market and they have never yet succeeded. They even got the FCC to try to force makers of DVD recorders and other equipment to include "broadcast flag" technology in their standalone devices at one point, but they were slapped down in court. Not that it would have done any good anyway. Even if they had succeeded, it just would have created a gray market in devices that can bypass the DRM.

Look at it this way: how long did it take for hackers to get around the supposedly super-secure encryption used with Blu-ray and HD DVD? And how long do you think it will take to defeat whatever kind of DRM they can conjure up?


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> There is nothing the content producers can do that would prevent standalone recorders that bypass DRM from being used. Recording shows from TV is "fair use" and there is nothing they can do about it under current law. They've been trying stuff like this since the first VCRs hit the market and they have never yet succeeded. They even got the FCC to try to force makers of DVD recorders and other equipment to include "broadcast flag" technology in their standalone devices at one point, but they were slapped down in court. Not that it would have done any good anyway. Even if they had succeeded, it just would have created a gray market in devices that can bypass the DRM.
> 
> Look at it this way: how long did it take for hackers to get around the supposedly super-secure encryption used with Blu-ray and HD DVD? And how long do you think it will take to defeat whatever kind of DRM they can conjure up?


True enough...they will never stop hackers and pirates.....$ony and the MPA can pay all they want to pay "brains" to come up with encryption techniques ....while a 15 year old sits at home and cracks them in half for free...and then works on his next virus to beat up a Microsoft product....resistance is futile.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

Right now, if Dish or DirecTV were to go along with content producers' demands that they enforce DRM through their integrated DVRs, all I would have to do is switch over to cable and get a CableCard and Tivo HD. I would then have capabilities that I don't have right now, even without DRM being enforced on DirecTV's DVR. I could not only record shows and keep them as long as I like, I could also transfer the recordings to a PC and even burn them to DVDs. And their isn't anything the content producers could do about it, since they have no way of forcing Tivo to comply with their DRM restrictions.

The popularity of integrated DVRs is what has emboldened the content producers. They think they can leverage that to enforce their DRM, but it will only cause a shift to standalone devices, which are made by companies that aren't dependent on the content. That's one of the reasons I like the to see technologies like CableCard, which are intended to separate the DVR from the TV service provider.

Whatever kind of DRM schemes these media giants come up with, there is always going to be a way around it. They are fighting a losing battle.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

Actually there are ways. I have a video processor that accepts almost any type of video signal. It con upconvert, downconvert, etc and output at most resolutions through HDMI. It can also output component, S Video, etc. I could take a 1080p hdmi input and output a 1080i component signal.

But why? DISH shouldn't do this. Oh, and video processors cost as much as TVs.:eek2:



whatchel1 said:


> No there isn't.





TomH said:


> Is there such a thing as an HDMI to component converter? If so couldn't you go ahead and output HDMI in HD then convert it to component retaining the HD quality? The receiver wouldn't know it's being converted. It would just think it's delivering the signal to an HDMI TV.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> ... all I would have to do is switch over to cable and get a CableCard and Tivo HD. I would then have capabilities that I don't have right now, even without DRM being enforced on DirecTV's DVR.


Sounds nice in theory, but the problem is that cable companies aren't exactly playing nice when it comes to CableCard. Time Warner, for example, has roughly 70% of their HD channels residing on a switched network that CableCards cannot address, and every new HD channel they add lives on this switched network. They're able to get around the FCC rules on CableCards by marketing these new channels as "free with a TW HD STB".


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

DRM in our DVR's will become real, if Blu-Ray wins out over HD-DVD. This will give Sony its extra leverage with all the other Content companies. The only reason that Sony's HDMI only for HD (HDMI1.2a version is where the standard was created,I believe) there are competetors, ie HD-DVD, that wont enforce it, the same DRM tech. Where HDMI is a group of Companies, it was Sony's idea to try to enforce this DRM downconverting. 
Reading over that post from the Satguys site, almost sounds like a installer has found away to make a little extra cash during a install, as HDMI cables are 1. NOT INCLUDED, and 2. EXPENSIVE, for the enduser- lots of markup profit in those cables.


----------



## phobos512 (Nov 20, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> DRM in our DVR's will become real, if Blu-Ray wins out over HD-DVD.


I hate to take things out of context but in this case I just can't resist.

Riiiiiiiiight, because MICROSOFT doesn't mind people pirating their stuff. You've heard of Windows Genuine Advantage right? Well, imagine Microsoft HD Advantage.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

phobos512 said:


> I hate to take things out of context but in this case I just can't resist.
> 
> Riiiiiiiiight, because MICROSOFT doesn't mind people pirating their stuff. You've heard of Windows Genuine Advantage right? Well, imagine Microsoft HD Advantage.


To be fair, Microsoft was the lead entity in lobbying for a 1-2 year moratorium on enforcing the Image Constraint Token over analog connections in the HD-DVD camp, after which point the BluRay camp agreed to the same.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Not to start a Pissing war here, but Sony has over and over and over again, tried to control both Music and Video. Each has failed or been cracked to prove how bad it was, long live the Sharpie. Yes Microsoft, APPLE, SUN, HP, and so on, Heck, EVERYBODY THAT SELL's software, protects their software. Sony wants to do even more, you don't see Mr. Bill, adding in all sorts of so called content protection into HDMI, and trying to force an entire industry to use that technology, or adding spy software onto CD's, creating 0 tracks to prevent tracking and so on. 

Sony has a track record of this, and As a Major Studio, and "if" Blu-Ray wins out over HD-DVD, Sony will have even more to pressure others to follow there lead on this. So even if Toshiba, Microsoft, Intel and the rest win out with HD-DVD, Mr. Bill owns NO Movie or TV company, neither do the rest of them. They wont be pushing for DRM that throttles us down to nothing. Sony will Throttle US, with yes you pay for, yes you own it, but you will only watch it, and copy it, and save it the way we want you too, as its really ours. The non Studio companies could care less, as they have nothing to lose how you copy, store or watch your Video's.

I love how Sony and Disney(another control freak company)now say their movies are HD DVD's, using BluRay.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok... Lets not turn this into a Bashing Sony thread or and HD-DVD/Blue Ray thread.... I have my personal opinions on MS, Sony, and others in relation to protecting their IP. Sony is by no means the only bad guy here so in context of this thread and DRM is not just a concept driven by one company. It is a industry issue that may start effecting Set top boxes so lets keep this thread focused there.

this is an industry wide issue that effects both Music and video. Both of these segments in my opinion are not changing with the times and instead of changing their business model to meet the change in landscape they have chosen to protect there model through trying to control the distribution model. To me... it is not a good thing and hopefully it will eventually be realized. 

I mean you go to a theater. By 10 bucks to watch a movie. You have a commercial telling you how bad software piracy is hurting all, and then you sit through 1 and 30 minutes of time that in a lot cases you want back because the movie was so poorly done.... The key to this problem is not at the DRM end it is at the value/cost end. They need to start given more bang for the buck and make it easier for people to get the product they want and a reasonable price. 

DRM in my opinion usually give the Average Joe the pain while the bad guys always find ways around it.... So why do it? These two industry rathering trying their best be more creative, want to spend the efforts on the false notion that they can protect there content while providing the desired experience to the people supporting the industry.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Ok... Lets not turn this into a Bashing Sony thread or and HD-DVD/Blue Ray thread....
> 
> DRM in my opinion usually give the Average Joe the pain while the bad guys always find ways around it.... So why do it? These two industry rathering trying their best be more creative, want to spend the efforts on the false notion that they can protect there content while providing the desired experience to the people supporting the industry.


They will try to inforce some kind of DRM, to force the Avg Joe, to pay more for something, when the bad guys will get it for free. Problem is more Avg Joe's than bad guys, so they will make more money, all they while complaining its the hackers casuing the issue. Case in point, Napster, Napster was killing them in lost sales, or so they said, even though Records were selling like hot cakes( all time highs as a matter of a fact), they close down Napster and shortly there after Records sells fall. The idea that Piracy is costing them money is a crock. MOST people, the Majority want to own there music, and Video's. Napsters at its high point, opened up more sells, as people were willing to try something for free, say hey this is good, and then go out and buy it. 
Some people would rather spend a dollar to make $10, some would rather spend $10 to keep from losing the dollar. Music industry and the Movie Studies are now following, would rather Spend the $10 to save that dollar, and just don't get it, as they are so out of touch. (Granted they both have the same major player ) it is a INDUSTRY greed issue though.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Everyone STOP IT ----Dish is not going to force everyone to use HDMI---as far as DRM is concered this is not Dish's call it is up to the content provider.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

tomcrown1 said:


> Everyone STOP IT ----Dish is not going to force everyone to use HDMI---as far as DRM is concered this is not Dish's call it is up to the content provider.


I agree, it wont be DISH or even D* that will force DRM, it will be the content providers, who don't understand open standards are better than proprietary standards. Proprietary standards almost always fail, and with luck we will never have to worry about it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> I agree, it wont be DISH or even D* that will force DRM, it will be the content providers, who don't understand open standards are better than proprietary standards. Proprietary standards almost always fail, and with luck we will never have to worry about it.


And again, there are always ways around it. If the content owners haven't been able to enforce DRM with the supposedly super-secure encryption on Blu-ray and HD DVD, why does anyone think they will be any more successful with DVRs? I don't believe Dish and DirecTV will even agree to anything like that, but if they do it will be their own downfall.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2007)

Moridin said:


> Sounds nice in theory, but the problem is that cable companies aren't exactly playing nice when it comes to CableCard. Time Warner, for example, has roughly 70% of their HD channels residing on a switched network that CableCards cannot address, and every new HD channel they add lives on this switched network. They're able to get around the FCC rules on CableCards by marketing these new channels as "free with a TW HD STB".


There are workarounds for just about anything. Read the following:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9823095-7.html

CableCard is a federal mandate and it isn't going away. Its intent is to allow consumers to buy whatever set-top boxes and DVRs offer the best features instead of being tied to what the cable company offers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Individuals conspiring to defeat the encryption of other content sources is not E* and D*'s problem. Providers who refuse to allow their content to be released via E* or D* because of a lack of DRM is the problem. E* and D* are just putting the tools in place so they can continue to offer the content that their customers expect - even if it means that they will lose a few viewers due to problems with HDCP.

Better to lose a few with "incompatible TVs" than not be able to sell the content at all.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2007)

James Long said:


> Individuals conspiring to defeat the encryption of other content sources is not E* and D*'s problem. Providers who refuse to allow their content to be released via E* or D* because of a lack of DRM is the problem. E* and D* are just putting the tools in place so they can continue to offer the content that their customers expect - even if it means that they will lose a few viewers due to problems with HDCP.
> 
> Better to lose a few with "incompatible TVs" than not be able to sell the content at all.


If it were as simple as you make it sound - content providers demanding that Dish and DirecTV implement their DRM and those companies meekly complying - they would have done it already. The giant media companies have been trying to regain control of how people use their TVs since the first VCRs hit the market 30 years ago. They are trying to put a genie back in the bottle and it just isn't going to work.

Individuals "conspiring" to defeat DRM may not be E* and D*'s problem, but loss of millions of unhappy customers certainly is. The satellite companies are already facing major technical challenges in competing with cable. How do you think those millions of viewers who are now accustomed to recording shows on their DVRs would react if they suddenly found that commercials couldn't be skipped because of DRM or that shows were being deleted before they had time to watch them? Would they meekly accept that outcome, or would they start looking at alternatives? I think the answer to that is obvious. Much as I dislike cable, if I ever find that my DVR doesn't work the way it's supposed to because DirecTV has implemented content companies' DRM schemes, I will be out the door so fast it will make your head spin.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2007)

James Long said:


> Individuals conspiring to defeat the encryption of other content sources is not E* and D*'s problem.


Using a CableCard and standalone Tivo hardly constitutes a conspiracy.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> If it were as simple as you make it sound - content providers demanding that Dish and DirecTV implement their DRM and those companies meekly complying - they would have done it already. The giant media companies have been trying to regain control of how people use their TVs since the first VCRs hit the market 30 years ago. They are trying to put a genie back in the bottle and it just isn't going to work.
> 
> Individuals "conspiring" to defeat DRM may not be E* and D*'s problem, but loss of millions of unhappy customers certainly is. The satellite companies are already facing major technical challenges in competing with cable. How do you think those millions of viewers who are now accustomed to recording shows on their DVRs would react if they suddenly found that commercials couldn't be skipped because of DRM or that shows were being deleted before they had time to watch them? Would they meekly accept that outcome, or would they start looking at alternatives? I think the answer to that is obvious. Much as I dislike cable, if I ever find that my DVR doesn't work the way it's supposed to because DirecTV has implemented content companies' DRM schemes, I will be out the door so fast it will make your head spin.


I agree with you, but I think that a vast majority of cable/sat subscribers are going to accept the functionality of the STB or DVR the cable company provides for them. If this weren't the case Tivo's subscription numbers would certainly be much higher because all the people using crappy Motorola or other DVRs would have jumped ship already. People that read this forum, and others like it, are a very small minority of the total cable/sat subscribers, the majority are ingnorant of their choices.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> There are workarounds for just about anything. Read the following:
> 
> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9823095-7.html
> 
> CableCard is a federal mandate and it isn't going away. Its intent is to allow consumers to buy whatever set-top boxes and DVRs offer the best features instead of being tied to what the cable company offers.


Yeah, I had read that. This new device is still not part of the CableCard spec, and so cable operators are not required to offer it. Also, the original press release I read from Tivo stated that the device will not be offered for purchase, but will be leased/rented from the cable providers.

Hopefully it will work great and be universally available, though.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> If it were as simple as you make it sound - content providers demanding that Dish and DirecTV implement their DRM and those companies meekly complying - they would have done it already.


It takes time for technology to catch up. Perhaps D* and E* have been delaying it but there are such things as deadlines.



> The giant media companies have been trying to regain control of how people use their TVs since the first VCRs hit the market 30 years ago. They are trying to put a genie back in the bottle and it just isn't going to work.


A lot has changed over those 30 years ... we are now much closer to a point where end to end control is possible and enough equipment is in the marketplace that providers are willing to take the risk of losing viewers in exchange for gaining control.



> Individuals "conspiring" to defeat DRM may not be E* and D*'s problem, but loss of millions of unhappy customers certainly is. The satellite companies are already facing major technical challenges in competing with cable. How do you think those millions of viewers who are now accustomed to recording shows on their DVRs would react if they suddenly found that commercials couldn't be skipped because of DRM or that shows were being deleted before they had time to watch them? Would they meekly accept that outcome, or would they start looking at alternatives? I think the answer to that is obvious. Much as I dislike cable, if I ever find that my DVR doesn't work the way it's supposed to because DirecTV has implemented content companies' DRM schemes, I will be out the door so fast it will make your head spin.


Hopefully the content owners won't get that tight on their controls ... but the choice will come down to have the content WITH DRM or not have the content at all. Which is a wash when it comes to customers who can't or won't accept the limits of DRM ... they are gone anyways. The with DRM option allows E* and D* to continue to serve at least some and likely most of their customers instead of NONE.

And, as a hopefully calming reminder, there are worst case scenarios and best case scenarios. DRM allows for both. It can be as simple as HBO Networks not allowing copying of their content to external devices (allowing moves only to PocketDish or external drives). It can also get much more complex (PPVs having expiration times on playback and storage or perhaps "live only" with no saving of the file on certain PPV events).

Don't panic. Just because the tool is there does not mean that it will be used.



rcoleman111 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Individuals conspiring to defeat the encryption of other content sources is not E* and D*'s problem.
> ...


I didn't say that particular method was ... it just falls in the range of "outside of D*'s and E*'s problems".

Hopefully that cablecard solution will continue to work ... but there are no guarantees. Cable systems can simply move the content over to streaming or some other system that is incompatible with that work around.

It's a battle that content providers have been fighting for 30 years. Do you see them giving up now?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Slightly off topic but along the same lines...

*Western Digital drive is DRM-crippled for your safety*


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> Slightly off topic but along the same lines...
> 
> *Western Digital drive is DRM-crippled for your safety*


Correct me if I'm wrong...but the remote access would be useless to us anyway right? since the encryption is only for your reciever? I was just about to by the 500gb mybook too.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2007)

James Long said:


> It's a battle that content providers have been fighting for 30 years. Do you see them giving up now?


I don't see them giving up, but I also don't see them winning. They've been fighting a losing battle for 30 years, and fighting it for another 30 years won't change the outcome.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2007)

James Long said:


> It takes time for technology to catch up. Perhaps D* and E* have been delaying it but there are such things as deadlines.
> 
> A lot has changed over those 30 years ... we are now much closer to a point where end to end control is possible and enough equipment is in the marketplace that providers are willing to take the risk of losing viewers in exchange for gaining control.


The technology for has been in place for a number of years. If it were just a matter of what the content providers want, it would have happened long before now. There isn't any doubt that content providers would like to control how you watch TV. Making it happen is another matter.



James Long said:


> Hopefully the content owners won't get that tight on their controls ... but the choice will come down to have the content WITH DRM or not have the content at all. Which is a wash when it comes to customers who can't or won't accept the limits of DRM ... they are gone anyways. The with DRM option allows E* and D* to continue to serve at least some and likely most of their customers instead of NONE.


And again, you're making the simplistic assumption that it all comes down to what the content owners want. Not the case at all.



James Long said:


> Don't panic. Just because the tool is there does not mean that it will be used.


I'm not panicking at all; I just think you're overestimating the content providers' chances of pulling it off.



James Long said:


> Hopefully that cablecard solution will continue to work ... but there are no guarantees. Cable systems can simply move the content over to streaming or some other system that is incompatible with that work around.
> 
> It's a battle that content providers have been fighting for 30 years. Do you see them giving up now?


CableCard is a federal mandate and it isn't going away. A more likely scenario is that the same type of mandate is applied to satellite. And if the content providers haven't won after 30 years of fighting this battle, what makes you think they will now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> The technology for has been in place for a number of years. If it were just a matter of what the content providers want, it would have happened long before now. There isn't any doubt that content providers would like to control how you watch TV. Making it happen is another matter.


The technology has not been in peoples homes for very long ... at least not at a critical mass level where WHEN enforced there will still be viewers.

Demanding DRM be active two years ago would have hurt the content providers a lot worse than demanding DRM be active at a soon approaching date.



> And again, you're making the simplistic assumption that it all comes down to what the content owners want. Not the case at all.


Your "simplistic assumption" is that somehow E* and D* won't follow the DRM rules? That they will ignore the content provider's deadline and risk not being able to deliver that content to ANY of it's customers?

It has already begun with HBO/Cinemax ... Video on Demand and DishONLINE both protect content even more securely. The next step of requiring HDCP isn't that far away. Not for every program and every channel but for any content provider that demands it as part of the deal to be able to carry their content.



> CableCard is a federal mandate and it isn't going away. A more likely scenario is that the same type of mandate is applied to satellite. And if the content providers haven't won after 30 years of fighting this battle, what makes you think they will now?


As noted in my previous post, the technology is there. They ARE able to control the content from end to end ... and you can be sure that once they begin to turn on the protection they will do what they can to kill off the loopholes. CableCard devices that don't support and enforce DRM are more likely to be found unusable than the industry allowing any loophole to exist.

CableCard rules extended to satellite? The satellite companies have enough problems with hackers ... they don't need another door. It is an easier target for hackers (since the signal is the same nationwide and into Canada/Mexico the codes are the same). Besides, satellite providers are dealing with THOUSANDS of channels on their systems, not hundreds like the typical cable system. Most of those channels are required to be blocked outside of their local markets by federal law. Plus (at the moment) the two remaining DBS companies use incompatible receiver technology. A third party would have to build a D* receiver or E* receiver ... not a generic "bring your own card" receiver for both. There are compelling reasons not to require DBS to play along.

But enough about that ... it really is beyond the reality of what IS happening and WILL be enforced sooner than later. DRM is being used at E* today and they apparently plan on expanding the suite of options available to content providers fairly soon. Including, perhaps, requiring HDMI/HDCP on selected content.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HobbyTalk said:


> Slightly off topic but along the same lines...
> 
> *Western Digital drive is DRM-crippled for your safety*


After reading this I won't buy any of their HDD's anymore. I have my own s/w to keep me safe, I don't need help like this.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

James Long said:


> It has already begun with HBO/Cinemax ... Video on Demand and DishONLINE both protect content even more securely. The next step of requiring HDCP isn't that far away. Not for every program and every channel but for any content provider that demands it as part of the deal to be able to carry their content.
> 
> As noted in my previous post, the technology is there. They ARE able to control the content from end to end ... and you can be sure that once they begin to turn on the protection they will do what they can to kill off the loopholes. CableCard devices that don't support and enforce DRM are more likely to be found unusable than the industry allowing any loophole to exist.
> 
> ...


Sat co's are only a little less secure than the cable co's. The sat co's could start rolling access codes every hour if they want to and that would kill most hacks. On the other hand including new DRM's is only going to make it more attractive to hackers to break into the new boxes to hack them. Because once the ability to use material that one has purchased fairly for fair use will open a new very profitable hack market. It will be sad to see this happen again. Been there done that in the C-band days.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> ... use material that one has purchased fairly for fair use ...


The content providers would likely disagree with that thought. Think of it from a licensing perspective ... they have licensed the content for viewing under certain restrictions. The customer does not get free title to the content.

Fair use of the content the customer has licensed is a good question. Some think "fair use" means making one copy for oneself. Others believe it is fair to make multiple copies of anything they can ... as long as it is for personal use. Others take that a step further and loan their copies to other people without regard to them paying the fee required for the viewing. And of course there are those who go all the way to bootleg and actually sell copies. Most would agree that the bootleg sale of copies is not "fair use" ... but there are too many people ignoring the rights attached to the content.

If a content provider says that it is fair for a customer to pay $3.99 to view their content for a 24 hour period and the customer agrees to that restriction at the time of purchase it seems fair to me to enforce that restriction. You don't get to copy DVDs rented from the video store to watch forever (at least not legally). Why should the method of delivery change the agreement?

As long as E* and D* are honest about the restrictions up front (and I expect they will be) at the time of purchase any DRM restrictions are just part of the license to view.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> The content providers would likely disagree with that thought. Think of it from a licensing perspective ... they have licensed the content for viewing under certain restrictions. The customer does not get free title to the content.
> 
> Fair use of the content the customer has licensed is a good question. Some think "fair use" means making one copy for oneself. Others believe it is fair to make multiple copies of anything they can ... as long as it is for personal use. Others take that a step further and loan their copies to other people without regard to them paying the fee required for the viewing. And of course there are those who go all the way to bootleg and actually sell copies. Most would agree that the bootleg sale of copies is not "fair use" ... but there are too many people ignoring the rights attached to the content.


I do agree that "fair use" is a nebulous term at best, because some folks extend it to the very ends of possible meaning. So I understand the possible restrictions on copying, backing up, moving, or even keeping on the DVR for extended periods of time. These restrictions may annoy me but they at least do not interfere with my initial enjoyment of the programming.

Forced downconversion over component connections would affect my (and lots of others) enjoyment... and we would be folks buying and paying full price for the product and yet not being permitted to enjoy it at full resolution as provided. This is where I can clearly draw a line and say that HDCP and enforced downconversion without HDMI is crossing a line.

I also agree that ultimately this will only affect the honest and paying customers. Hackers will eventually find a way around this kind of protection, and that creates a black market for those devices for others who want to bypass it... Meanwhile the honest folks are forced to either choose to pay for something we can no longer watch OR to stop watching.

In the case of HD DVD/Blu ray... the studios have thus far not enforced the restriction. If in a few years they choose to enforce it, then I can stop buying HD discs but at least the ones I already have paid for will play properly. With Satellite/cable, we will lose the ability to play any DVRed HD properly as well as any future content... and at the time we were sold the services and devices were not told that "one day" we would not be able to use these as promised/intended.

Also pretty much all the initial HDTVs sold in this country will be rendered impotent for HD at that point, and there are a lot of sets out there. Think if this becomes a trend where once HDMI and HDCP has been hacked they have to implement a new connector type and then 5 years from now they tell everyone they have to again buy a brand new TV!

This could become insane.

I don't think consumers will stand for it... It's one thing to put reasonable restrictions... like when you buy a ticket at a movie theatre you aren't permitted to bring a movie camera and record it for later viewing... but they would have a hard time telling you that for the same price of the ticket you paid for entry you had to wear blurred goggles and sit in the back and watch an intentionally obscured experience because you were not driving the latest model car to the theater.

I hope/think that the public backlash will prevent this from happening with our HDTVs... but stranger things have happened.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

HDMe said:


> ... like when you buy a ticket at a movie theatre you aren't permitted to bring a movie camera and record it for later viewing... but they would have a hard time telling you that for the same price of the ticket you paid for entry you had to wear blurred goggles and sit in the back and watch an intentionally obscured experience because you were not driving the latest model car to the theater.


Content providers are already coming up with some strange restrictions on their own...please don't give them any more ideas.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2007)

James Long said:


> The technology has not been in peoples homes for very long ... at least not at a critical mass level where WHEN enforced there will still be viewers.
> 
> Demanding DRM be active two years ago would have hurt the content providers a lot worse than demanding DRM be active at a soon approaching date.


Simply not true. I got my first integrated Tivo DVR in mid-2003 and there were already millions of them in use at the time.

As to the second point, your argument is badly flawed. Implementing DRM restrictions in new devices that people are only starting to use would be much easier than having millions of people who have been using their DVRs for years suddenly discover that they don't work as advertised.



James Long said:


> Your "simplistic assumption" is that somehow E* and D* won't follow the DRM rules? That they will ignore the content provider's deadline and risk not being able to deliver that content to ANY of it's customers?


You're the one making the "simplistic assumption" that these companies will meekly agree to whatever demands content providers make. If it were as simple as content providers drawing up rules and satellite companies complying with them, it would have happened already. The satellite companies have to compete with cable and cannot afford to lose millions of subscribers who suddenly find that their DVRs don't work as expected. Not when there are alternatives that are readily available.



James Long said:


> It has already begun with HBO/Cinemax ... Video on Demand and DishONLINE both protect content even more securely. The next step of requiring HDCP isn't that far away. Not for every program and every channel but for any content provider that demands it as part of the deal to be able to carry their content.


That's video on demand, which is a whole different ballgame from regular TV. I've already stated in previous threads that I think VOD will be crippled by DRM, which will render it a niche market with limited appeal. If your argument is that VOD and PPV will be encumbered with DRM, we are in agreement on that point.

Regular TV is another matter. Millions of subscribers suddenly finding that they can't FF through commercials or that programs have deleted themselves would create a huge backlash. Not only would many of their customers switch to cable and standalone devices, there would also be enormous political pressure on Congress and the FCC to enact new regulations to protect consumers. That's what happened back in the early '80s, when the entertainment industry won a federal appeals court decision that ruled consumers were violating copyrights by recording TV shows. Bills were introduced in both houses of Congress within 24 hours of that decision, Congressional hearings were held, and the right of "fair use" was established.

Maybe you should offer some clarification as to exactly what you are predicting. If you are saying that VOD and PPV will be encumbered with DRM that will block common functionality like ad-skipping or allow programs to delete themselves, you are probably right. If you are predicting that the same thing will happen with regular TV, I don't see it happening.



James Long said:


> As noted in my previous post, the technology is there. They ARE able to control the content from end to end ... and you can be sure that once they begin to turn on the protection they will do what they can to kill off the loopholes. CableCard devices that don't support and enforce DRM are more likely to be found unusable than the industry allowing any loophole to exist.


Once again, you're ignoring the facts and forcing me to repeat myself. CableCard is a federal mandate. It isn't going away. The cable companies don't like it, but they have to comply. They can't simply render it unusable. How many times do I need to say it?



James Long said:


> CableCard rules extended to satellite? The satellite companies have enough problems with hackers ... they don't need another door. It is an easier target for hackers (since the signal is the same nationwide and into Canada/Mexico the codes are the same). Besides, satellite providers are dealing with THOUSANDS of channels on their systems, not hundreds like the typical cable system. Most of those channels are required to be blocked outside of their local markets by federal law. Plus (at the moment) the two remaining DBS companies use incompatible receiver technology. A third party would have to build a D* receiver or E* receiver ... not a generic "bring your own card" receiver for both. There are compelling reasons not to require DBS to play along.


And what makes you think they would have a choice? CableCard didn't come about because the cable companies asked for it. They don't like it, they fought it every step of the way, and they wish it would just go away. The idea behind CableCard is to allow freedom of choice for users. It's pro-consumer regulation, not pro-cable company regulation. It's just like the regulations that freed telephone customers from having to use the phones made by the phone companies. It's only going to expand, not go away.



James Long said:


> But enough about that ... it really is beyond the reality of what IS happening and WILL be enforced sooner than later. DRM is being used at E* today and they apparently plan on expanding the suite of options available to content providers fairly soon. Including, perhaps, requiring HDMI/HDCP on selected content.


Stating what you _think_ is going to happen doesn't make it reality, no matter how many times you say it. Unless you have some proof, these are just predictions, not facts.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's what happened back in the early '80s, when the entertainment industry won a federal appeals court decision that ruled consumers were violating copyrights by recording TV shows. Bills were introduced in both houses of Congress within 24 hours of that decision, Congressional hearings were held, and the right of "fair use" was established.


I believe that Fair Use is part of the Copyright Act enacted in 1976.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:



> Simply not true. I got my first integrated Tivo DVR in mid-2003 and there were already millions of them in use at the time.


So the industry should have shut off the remainder of viewers simply because Tivo was doing well? Do you believe content providers should have required everyone who wants to watch protected content to get a Tivo?

Tivo is not end to end. Tivo is end to almost end. The market place today has much more modern equipment in it than 2003.



> As to the second point, your argument is badly flawed. Implementing DRM restrictions in new devices that people are only starting to use would be much easier than having millions of people who have been using their DVRs for years suddenly discover that they don't work as advertised.


Perhaps you should sue Tivo ... Can you possibly relate your anger to the issue at hand, DRM coming to Dish?

In general, this is about new equipment. Most older equipment won't be able to get the content in the first place ... certainly not output it in high quality. It won't be too much longer until E*'s only HD receivers are ViPs. Older receivers will continue to work fine for SD and whatever other capabilities they have. If some content owner says HDMI/HDCP only on an SD channel E* will need to simply not offer the content to those customers.

Their DVRs will continue to work as well as they did when purchased. Just some content won't be available - and it seems that content is most likely to be PPVs.



> If it were as simple as content providers drawing up rules and satellite companies complying with them, it would have happened already.


I've read that before. Reading it again doesn't change my response. Perhaps rewording the response would help?

The "battle" between content providers and satellite companies isn't simple. But just as the content providers have apparently agreed to give the two HD DVD formats a pass on implementing DRM (by not setting the flags) it appears that content providers have given satellite and cable companies a pass. The HD DVD "free pass" will eventually expire. Why can't there be a deadline for satellite companies to get their act together and respect DRM?



> Regular TV is another matter. Millions of subscribers suddenly finding that they can't FF through commercials or that programs have deleted themselves would create a huge backlash.


Perhaps that is the problem. You are still stuck on worst case scenarios. DRM will be there (and as mentioned, already is in relation to moving instead of copying content to external devices). But DRM's existence does NOT mean that "regular TV" will be affected in the way you suggest.

Perhaps at some point it will be ... I certainly hope not ... but in that case ALL DRM compatible devices would have to obey the rules and non-DRM compatible devices will make nice doorstops.

Again, that is getting WAY ahead of the timeline. Don't worry about it. Don't panic.

Look for DRM in "reasonable" ways ... PPV and premium channels protecting their content. Jumping to worse than the worst case scenarios doesn't help.



> Maybe you should offer some clarification as to exactly what you are predicting. If you are saying that VOD and PPV will be encumbered with DRM that will block common functionality like ad-skipping or allow programs to delete themselves, you are probably right. If you are predicting that the same thing will happen with regular TV, I don't see it happening.


Don't panic.



> Stating what you _think_ is going to happen doesn't make it reality, no matter how many times you say it. Unless you have some proof, these are just predictions, not facts.


I'd like to apply the same statement to your opinions about CableCard. You seem to believe that CableCard will remain DRM free forever. I doubt that. I believe that a day will come that if your CableCard device doesn't respect DRM then it doesn't get the programming. Again, I'm not predicting that local OTA TV or even most basic "cable" services will bother with the more draconian DRM restrictions (such as no commercial skip or HDMI/HDCP only output). But all paths of distribution need to be able to honor DRM lest they simply not get the programming.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Everytying about DRM is bad for the consumer!


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Just read the summary of the Betamax case. Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.
Here's the DMCA it makes my head almost spin off. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Yes, that 1984 ruling is that the recording of full shows for the purpose of time-shifting falls under Fair Use.

The Fair Use doctrine became law in 1976
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2007)

James Long said:


> The "battle" between content providers and satellite companies isn't simple. But just as the content providers have apparently agreed to give the two HD DVD formats a pass on implementing DRM (by not setting the flags) it appears that content providers have given satellite and cable companies a pass. The HD DVD "free pass" will eventually expire. Why can't there be a deadline for satellite companies to get their act together and respect DRM?


Not sure where you got the idea that content providers have given the two hi-def DVD formats a "free pass", but that is incorrect. Both formats are locked down as tightly as they can be with DRM. The problem for the content providers is that it didn't take hackers very long to crack it. You would think they would have learned something from past experience, but it's obvious they haven't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Not sure where you got the idea that content providers have given the two hi-def DVD formats a "free pass", but that is incorrect.





HDMe said:


> In the case of HD DVD/Blu ray... the studios have thus far not enforced the restriction.


This (and stronger statements on the topic of content providers NOT activating protections at this time) is what I was referring to.

DRM is on E* receivers now (as evidenced by the restriction on copying HBO content to PocketDish - a move is required). What isn't happening now is enforcement. In a way, E* is operating under a "free pass". I expect that sooner than later we will start to see more restrictions (as previously discussed in this thread).


----------



## erh1117 (Feb 1, 2005)

OK, best guess... Will the content providers and DISH prevent all HD over the 622 via component, some broadcasts only, some networks only, or just mess with the DVR functionality?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

DRM will be on certain channels (as required by content provider) and certain programs (also, as required by content provider).

If Dish fails to apply DRM at request of content provider - they do not get the content for anybody.

If content provider wishes to prevent component output of material it will be blocked for component outputs. Dish has NO say in this, the content providers control their own material's distribution.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe 
In the case of HD DVD/Blu ray... the studios have thus far not enforced the restriction.



James Long said:


> This (and stronger statements on the topic of content providers NOT activating protections at this time) is what I was referring to.


You shouldn't believe everything you read, James. The fact that someone posted it doesn't make it true. Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use Advanced Access Content System (AACS). That's DRM - no two ways about it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2007)

James Long said:


> DRM is on E* receivers now (as evidenced by the restriction on copying HBO content to PocketDish - a move is required). What isn't happening now is enforcement. In a way, E* is operating under a "free pass". I expect that sooner than later we will start to see more restrictions (as previously discussed in this thread).


And as I've pointed out before, both Dish and DirecTV receivers have had such capabilities for a long time. The restriction on PocketDish works because it's a Dish device and was designed to work that way. The same wouldn't necessarily be true of standalone devices designed by other companies.

You've made your opinions and predictions pretty clear by now, but they are just that - opinions and predictions with little in the way of facts to back them up.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> Just read the summary of the Betamax case. Here it is:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.
> Here's the DMCA it makes my head almost spin off.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA


Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Sony had lost that case??? I still think VCRs would have eventually become widespread but it would have almost certainly delayed them, and worst case is we would have no DVRs - PERIOD (oh the humanity of it all)!! To think what would have happened if the MPAA and others were successful in stifling such advancements in enjoyment (and $$$ for themselves) over fears of infringment should be a lesson learned for them, obviously that is not the case. :bang


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> You shouldn't believe everything you read, James. The fact that someone posted it doesn't make it true. Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use Advanced Access Content System (AACS). That's DRM - no two ways about it.


And the studios are setting the flags?
I try not to believe _everything_ I read. Even if you write it. 



rcoleman111 said:


> And as I've pointed out before, both Dish and DirecTV receivers have had such capabilities for a long time. The restriction on PocketDish works because it's a Dish device and was designed to work that way. The same wouldn't necessarily be true of standalone devices designed by other companies.


The exact capabilities are unknown by the consumer. E*'s recent actions (telling their installers to use HDMI/HDCP connections so customers can avoid not being able to view certain unnamed channels) are a STRONG hint that either new capabilities are coming or the hidden capabilities will be used reasonably soon. (Which is what THIS thread is about!)



> You've made your opinions and predictions pretty clear by now, but they are just that - opinions and predictions with little in the way of facts to back them up.


Can I say ditto? Grand predictions that DRM won't come? Time will tell.

Past performance does not entirely predict future events. Stay tuned - and connect that HDMI cable!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Stay tuned - and connect that HDMI cable!


I would, but my old reliable Panasonic plasma display has components only (for HD). It's old though, by HDTV standards....


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

If E* does this then I'm scr**ed. I don't have anything that uses HDMI. I have the 622, Panny TU-HD20 OTA tuner Panny DVD/VCR (480 out) & a Voom all component. These all go thru an Onyko that only switches component.


----------



## PghGuy (Oct 13, 2006)

Will E* fix or send new DVR's for all the one's where the HDMI doesn't work? I am in that situation now and I have been just using the component because I don't want to lose a lot of programming that I have recorded that my kids watch constantly.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> If E* does this then I'm scr**ed. I don't have anything that uses HDMI. I have the 622, Panny TU-HD20 OTA tuner Panny DVD/VCR (480 out) & a Voom all component. These all go thru an Onyko that only switches component.


Little off subject, since you are a Onyko guy, look at the New TX-SR605(LOVING IT and price wise at $389 great deal), Just picked one up to replace the piece of Crap Pioneer. Have always used Onkyo in the passed, Pioneer was a once, NEVER again buy, when I 1st went HD.
I wouldn't be that worried about all this DRM stuff, when it happens, we will get plenty of notice, it will happen to everybody, Cable, D*, E*.
Cool thread, why to much paranoia, going on though.


----------



## DBS Commando (Apr 7, 2006)

http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/117578-shocking-news-my-dish-installer.html

Another guy saying that someone told him about DRM. . .


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

One thing I do take with a grain of salt are things told to me by CSRs or installers. I lost count of the number of times I was told that the Raleigh, NC LiLs in HD were going to be on 129....even when they had already been uplinked and testing on 118.7.

I also remember all the times I was told that all HD was going away from 61.5 and would only be on 110/119... and then later that it would all be on 129 only... so there's lots of misinformation that floats around.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Little off subject, since you are a Onyko guy, look at the New TX-SR605(LOVING IT and price wise at $389 great deal), Just picked one up to replace the piece of Crap Pioneer. Have always used Onkyo in the passed, Pioneer was a once, NEVER again buy, when I 1st went HD.
> I wouldn't be that worried about all this DRM stuff, when it happens, we will get plenty of notice, it will happen to everybody, Cable, D*, E*.
> Cool thread, why to much paranoia, going on though.


I looked at this unit on line and it is the updated version of my unit. Mine doesn't have the HDMI that is the only difference.


----------



## Moridin (Mar 22, 2005)

James Long said:


> And the studios are setting the flags?


To add fuel to the fire: there have been three known cases in which the Image Constraint Token was enabled on HD-DVDs (one of which I recall being Resident Evil), all in Germany. A poster to the Insiders forum of AVS claimed that it was a mistake, and subsequent pressings have the ICT disabled.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

I am a member of the EFF so I have sent an email to them to verify if this is going to happen. If they do verify it I have asked if there is a way to "throw a monkey wrench" into the this plan. Here is the email that I sent to them. 

Are you aware that Dish network and Directv are going to be turning on HDCP this coming year? They will be starting with the PPV channels. It may very well tag it so that it will render useless all DVR recording ability on these very expensive home units. If this works then I would think that the next to want to trigger the HDCP would be the premium movie channels. There are many thousands of early adopters of HDTV like myself that have no way to be HDCP compliant. As a member of the EFF I would like for you verify this information. If we are going to have this done to us it is going to be a major problem. Is there anything that can be done to "throw a monkey wrench" into this abuse of premium customers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> I am a member of the EFF so I have sent an email to them to verify if this is going to happen. If they do verify it I have asked if there is a way to "throw a monkey wrench" into the this plan. Here is the email that I sent to them.
> 
> Are you aware that Dish network and Directv are going to be turning on HDCP this coming year? They will be starting with the PPV channels. It may very well tag it so that it will render useless all DVR recording ability on these very expensive home units. If this works then I would think that the next to want to trigger the HDCP would be the premium movie channels. There are many thousands of early adopters of HDTV like myself that have no way to be HDCP compliant. As a member of the EFF I would like for you verify this information. If we are going to have this done to us it is going to be a major problem. Is there anything that can be done to "throw a monkey wrench" into this abuse of premium customers.


I am not sure what your letter actually means. HDCP compliance has nothing to do with the DRM restrictions of DVRing PPVs or movie channels.

There are several levels that have been discussed in this thread.

One level is the restriction on recordings, archiving to external storage, and time-shifting of channels or PPVs. This is something that would apply to all the DVRs regardless of whether they are connected by HDMI-HDCP compliant, non-HDCP compliant, component, composite, or whatever.

Another level is the downconversion of HD to 480 or maybe 570 or so resolution if not connected via HDCP-compliant HDMI or DVI connections. This is something that applies to those of us without HDMI or DVI connections at all, anyone with DVI or HDMI that is non-compliant, folks with only 1 HDMI connection on their TV and already in use, folks who have compatibility problems OR find their component connections just look better than HDMI.

Your letter seems to combine parts of each level of the problem, and I'm not sure it makes sense.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> I am not sure what your letter actually means. HDCP compliance has nothing to do with the DRM restrictions of DVRing PPVs or movie channels.
> 
> There are several levels that have been discussed in this thread.
> 
> ...


It was general so that 1st they can start to just investigate & verify when and what they are going to do. I'm not the only member that has contacted them with info. So if several members keep contacting them they will find out what is going to be done. How it will affect usage of the viewers with their equipment.


----------



## Guest (Dec 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> And the studios are setting the flags?
> I try not to believe _everything_ I read. Even if you write it.


I suggest you do your homework on this one. All HD DVD and Blu-ray discs are protected by AACS, which is DRM. It's designed to prevent people from making copies of the discs, just as the copy protection on standard DVDs does. If the discs weren't protected by DRM, hackers wouldn't have had any need to crack the encryption.



James Long said:


> Can I say ditto? Grand predictions that DRM won't come? Time will tell.


You can say whatever you like, but you're the one who is making the "grand predictions" about DRM, not me. I'm simply providing a reality check on your comments.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> You can say whatever you like, but you're the one who is making the "grand predictions" about DRM, not me. I'm simply providing a reality check on your comments.


You have made your fair share of predictions in this thread ... but this isn't a personal battle so please don't go in that direction.

The reality is that the tools to implement DRM are either there or will be soon and installers are being asked to connect using HDMI/HDCP to prevent customers from losing content. All the side trips down rabbit holes do not change what E* will be doing. So as happy as you may be predicting that it will never happen - I wouldn't side with you on that bet.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2007)

James Long said:


> You have made your fair share of predictions in this thread ... but this isn't a personal battle so please don't go in that direction.
> 
> The reality is that the tools to implement DRM are either there or will be soon and installers are being asked to connect using HDMI/HDCP to prevent customers from losing content. All the side trips down rabbit holes do not change what E* will be doing. So as happy as you may be predicting that it will never happen - I wouldn't side with you on that bet.


The only one turning this personal is you. The reality is that nothing has changed recently as far as the "tools to implement DRM". Both the broadcasters and cable networks have been trying for years to figure out what to do about viewers time-shifting shows and skipping the ads, which are the primary uses of DVRs. If it were as simple as getting Dish Network to disable those capabilities through their DVRs, they would have already done it.

As to "side trips down rabbit holes", if you want to base your predictions on what installers are saying, that's up to you. This message board is full of posts about what installers have told people. Most of it has little relation to reality.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> If it were as simple as getting Dish Network to disable those capabilities through their DVRs, they would have already done it.


Past performance does not guarantee future results. There were no locals on Dish, until there were. There was no HD on Dish, until there were. There were no integrated DVRs for Dish, until there were.

Just because the switch has not been flipped yet does not mean that it won't be. Saying it isn't going to happen because it has not happened yet is kind of silly.

Stay tuned!


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

DRM has me terrified. I wonder if they'll ever make a movie about it that will run on the Monster Channel?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Artwood said:


> DRM has me terrified. I wonder if they'll ever make a movie about it that will run on the Monster Channel?


It'll be on Chiller, that way we won't have to see it. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If you pronounce it... DRM... DRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMM

It sounds more like something that would be on the Speed channel, not Monster or Chiller


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Just because the switch has not been flipped yet does not mean that it won't be. Saying it isn't going to happen because it has not happened yet is kind of silly.


Well, who knows? Maybe someone at Dish is sitting there right now ready to flip a switch that will render all of their boxes non-functional as DVRs. I wouldn't bet on it, but I guess we'll know soon enough.

It's been an interesting debate, but I think we've pretty much covered the topic of this thread, so it's probably time to call it a wrap. Let me emphasize once again that none of my comments should be taken as personal. There's nothing wrong with debating an issue as long as no one resorts to name-calling or insults. You've made some interesting predictions and I've had more than my share of fun debunking them, so why don't we leave it at that?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> You've made some interesting predictions and I've had more than my share of fun debunking them, so why don't we leave it at that?


Because that assumes that your predictions are right! You've made some amazing predictions as well ... quite frankly, it will be easier for my "predictions" to come true than yours.


----------

