# FCC approves studio control of outputs on your satellite/cable box



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

What little discussion of this up to this point was buried in forums only a few read such as* Legislative and Regulatory Issues* or vague references in other areas to possible "home access to new movies." So I'm posting it here in hopes that many of you will become aware of the situation.

Back in December of 2008, former FCC Chair Kevin Martin announced he wouldn't back the Motion Picture Association of America's request for a waiver on the agency's ban on selectively blocking video outputs. What is that about you might ask?

Simply the MPAA and the movie studios it represents (Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, Disney, and Warner Brothers) want to be able to "turn off" any output plug on the back of consumer electronics devices of an entertainment system during special video-on-demand movies on cable and satellite television.

Right after Martin made his position known, this was reported:


> It looks like Hollywood's bid to take over your home video system got a second wind this week. On Tuesday two top executives from Sony Television and Sony Pictures, accompanied by an influential lobbyist, met with the Federal Communications Commission to talk up (PDF) "the advantages of expanded consumer choices in the marketplace" which would supposedly come with a waiver on the agency's ban on Selectable Output Control. That bright idea originates with the Motion Pictures Association of America.
> 
> Present at the meeting were Sony Pictures TV President Steve Mosko, Sony Executive Vice President Frances Seghers, and Jim Free of the Free-Smith Group, which got almost a million bucks to lobby for Sony in 2008. They met with Interim FCC Chair Michael Copps and Paul Murray, the Wireless Bureau's senior attorney.


As some of you know, I have a hate on for Sony because I think ultimately it is the company that has plans to send a guy to stay at your home controlling all your audio/video equipment and charge you for the "improved" service protecting their wealth and power.

Well, today they won again. This afternoon in the LA Times:


> Federal regulators have granted a controversial waiver to the Hollywood studios that clears the way for them to show first-run movies in the home shortly after -- or even during -- their release in theaters.
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission on Friday granted a petition from the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the chief lobbying group for the major studios, that would permit for a limited-period use of "selectable output control" technology for watching movies in the home. The technology disables video and audio outputs on set-top boxes to prevent illicit recording.


What that means is that if your cable/satellite company wants to be among the "state of the business" competitors bragging about the ability to offer first run movies, they will have to allow a media conglomerate "switch" that essentially will turn off the component, composite, S-Video, and separate audio outputs and DVR functions on your set-top box.

The following is opinion that I cannot back except through inference, so take it for what it's worth. Sony, which has been ticked off ever since their "denied but real" scheme to control your computer through their music CDs had to be trashed, now has by "partnering" with other media conglomerates just gotten "temporary" approval for a scheme to limit virtually every potential home video source by controlling your A/V hardware.

Thus, the one and only conglomerate that both produces a huge share of the A/V hardware and owns a substantial interest in media production of all kinds is now in a position to blackmail your cable/satellite provider into giving them (OK, them and their "partners") control of the outputs on your A/V equipment.

Anyone who thinks the goal is to generously give you access to first run movies in your home through your TV service provider is naive. They could do that now. Instead, within five years, the media conglomerates are likely to apply the same switch to new episodes of TV shows with the exception of off-the-air broadcast channels.

And don't think for a moment they won't expand the switching to DVD's and internet streaming video. It's no coincidence that the HDMI plug is becoming ubiquitous on new computers and monitors.

Yeah, I know I'm paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As usual - customers been bent and f^&%&^% again.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

I've been posting about this here for years already.

HDMI or DVI w/HDCP is going to be the REQUIRED connection method for premium HD content sooner or later. Copy-protectionless analog outputs and digital outputs that don't support HDCP are going to be either down-rezzed or disabled entirely, at least for some content. It's been the plan all along.

These "simultaneously-released" movies will be the camel's nose under the tent, but don't think Showtime and HBO execs and others aren't scratching their chins and wondering how SOC can be made to work for them, too.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

And all we can do is "don't buy their "product""


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just wait for complains from J6P, many of them !


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> I've been posting about this here for years already.


So have I, and consistently saying that it is the content owners' absolute right to determine what they wish to offer for sale, and how, and the purchasers' absolute right to determine whether they wish to accept or decline such offers.

This delay was unfair, and the conditions placed on selectable output controls is unfair. It is essentially the government telling business what to do, when there is absolutely no life or health in danger. Teevee is not an essential of life. The marketplace should determine whether selectable output controls succeeds or not. If consumers don't like *they can simply no purchase services that require it*. Do without -- have some maturity and show some restraint, and make their preferences known that way, instead of wasting government resources -- which could be better pointed toward important things like health care, education, national security and the link -- and abusing government power by telling by essentially imposing consumerist wet dreams of socialist-type controls on the marketplace.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

scooper said:


> And all we can do is "don't buy their "product""


Right.

But don't think for a minute that that isn't a HUGE motivating factor. If MPAA does something that results in a big drop of sales, all of their member studios will have a fit and it'll be reversed.

But, ultimately, I don't think this is going to be a huge deal for MOST people. The biggest affected population are folks who are connected with a component cable instead of HDMI for no particular reason, and these folks will just go and buy an HDMI cable and problem solved.

A smaller number of people will need to buy an HDMI switcher due to lacking enough HDMI ports.

A relatively small number of consumers are using TVs/monitors that aren't HDCP-compliant, and they'll complain, loudly, but by now, most of those TVs are no longer the "primary" TV, and they'll just end up using this as an excuse to upgrade. The loudest members of this group will "cut off their nose to spite their face" and cancel their pay TV services and stop buying DVD/Blu-Rays, at least for a while, in protest.

A year later, everyone will be using HDMI for everything, TVs will start having analog inputs phased out, and everyone will have forgotten the issue.


----------



## jessshaun (Sep 14, 2005)

The only part that bothers me is the part about disabling separate audio controls.

I have my Dish reciever hooked up to a surround sound system via an optical cable. I'd be P.O.'d if I was told I had to use the TV's optical out because the movie I was watching disabled that port. I don't use the TV's sound. Plain and simple. (Probably because I have a Polaroid HDTV, and the sound sucks, but still...)

As far as the PPV however, oh well..... I don't buy PPV after they won't allow it to be stored on the DVR.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

This is just a start for the studios to gain total control of how we watch tv, not just what we watch. At some point we won't be able to skip through commercials, just like you can't skip through previews on some DVDs. Sure there will be a lot of complaining but as the complaints over the screen bugs and those tv pop up ads during shows has ceased, viewers will just accept it and we will have lost more control over our lives.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Every time they have come up with a way to stop people from recording programming and digitizing and sharing media, the desire to beat the protections has resurged and won out.

I expect no different results from this complete waste of time.
Where there is a will (a very strong one at that), there is a way.

If you build a big wall around something you're simply begging for people to try and get around it.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

They haven't won out on everything. HDMI is still unrecordable and undistributable. Or said another way, I can't record my favorite movie and burn a DVD of it. I haven't seen any cracks in that armor.

Dave


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Is there a way to watch Directv without a Directv receiver? I haven't heard of it being done, yet. If not then that is a example of a wall that hasn't been broken.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> Every time they have come up with a way to stop people from recording programming and digitizing and sharing media, the desire to beat the protections has resurged and won out.
> 
> I expect no different results from this complete waste of time.
> Where there is a will (a very strong one at that), there is a way.
> ...


For me the problem isn't that some hacker somewhere won't find a hole or work-around (though I don't know of any meaningful one for HDMI particularly if they can turn off the component and auido). But that won't be a viable thing for 99.8% of the market. It is not the same as the music industry that got away from Sony and the other media production conglomerates. About 98% of us are happy listening to music digitally recorded in the current MP3 standard.

What we are talking about is the professional movie and TV production industry, the folks who make the magic and who very effectively make the unreal seem real. This is the same industry that in January formed a committee to start designing the HDMI standards for 3-D after they already were selling 3-D compatible TV's. As always, they started selling the dream before it existed, taking your cash.

By combining A/V hardware industry-wide design standards with media production industry profit maximizing goals, priorities have been structured that are unrelated to the companies that solely design and build nifty hardware, those who focused on engineering the best home entertainment hardware.

The first priority in this new world is to protect their content from your use more than once. After successfully accomplishing that, the next priority is to make as much money as possible from your one-time use.

Yes, I have this vision of the system turning off my the component, composite, S-Video, and separate audio outputs and DVR functions on my receiver/DVR and because of some glitch either not turning them back on or screwing with the video or audio output.

But my point is that the systematic "bringing together'' under one unified umbrella the hardware world and the media production world, the only major conglomerate that had significant financial interests in both worlds - Sony, has successfully assured complete control of use for the professional movie and television production conglomerates, beginning with BluRay and now on to streaming digital content which today includes all "TV" and internet video.

Keep in mind that those "brought together" under the original Blu-ray Disc Founders included Sony Corporation, 20th Century Fox, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Panasonic Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung Electronics, Sharp, TDK and Thomson.

After it became the Blu-ray Disc Association, the membership broadened and "contributors" include every major hardware company that could have some interest with the likes of Monster Cable Products and the Gibson Guitar Corporation.

Make no mistake. The interests of the the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) successfully and consistently were represented by Sony in the development of the Blu-ray standard from the beginning. Now the interests of the the MPAA in professionally produced streaming video are being, and will continue to be, successfully represented by Sony before the federal government.

Of course, for historical reasons Sony hasn't been very successful in China in avoiding content piracy. But I'm sure sooner or later another member of the group that is not Japanese will explain to the Chinese that the government can censor A/V content distribution over the internet if they'd just join in the fun.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Seems to me thee is an important edge between protect your content by secure the content itself (eg, no camera in theaters, Macrovision and HDCP for disks) and the new invasion into *your property*, like PC (Sony's rootkit) and embedded switches on signal's routes inside you A/V equipment.

Will you agree if it come to your car's A/V system too ? Cell phones with HD player ?
Refrigerator with TV screen ?

Nasty trend.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Ill do the same thing Ive done all along. I stopped buying DirecTv Cinema when they implemented the 24 hr watch window, and Ill refuse to buy any content that limits my use.

If enough people dont care, and want to pay $$$ to watch a blockbuster at home once, then thats their choice. Lots of people go to the theatre (I dont do that anymore either) for a one time viewing. Just not my style. They will all end up on HBO eventually, and if THOSE channels start messing with my DVR, Ill cancel them as well.

That the FCC is sticking their nose into peoples DVRs and taking bribes from large corporations is the more disturbing trend.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm on the fence with regards to the concept, but firm in what I believe could be abused.

Theoretically, this could be used (as noted earlier in the thread) to limit PPV use... and I'm fine with that. PPV = Pay per view, and I know that going in... so if they wanted to be able to have that PPV encoded to expire so that it couldn't be viewed later because it would disable video/audio... I'm actually ok with that because the PPV model was always meant to be pay-once-view-once, but they did not have a way to enforce that until recent years.

What I don't like, however, are the situations where you might own content (like a Blu ray disc) and it could disable playback to certain TVs that might not be HDCP compliant.

Until last year, I had an HDTV without an HDMI (not even DVI) port... so if this came to pass and I still had that TV, I'd be out of luck for all my legitimate purchases! That would have ticked me off... especially when stores don't take returns on opened movies once you get home and figure out you can't watch it!

Fortunately (sort of) for me, that TV died and had to be replaced... so I now have an HDCP-compliant HDMI connection on my HDTV.

But we also have HDMI 1.4 coming to devices soon... so will that treat anything differently? Who knows... but HDMI has been such a technical mess with mechanical connector problems and handshaking issues between devices... that it's entirely possible to try and buy compatible/compliant devices that simply don't work together.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Theoretically, this could be used (as noted earlier in the thread) to limit PPV use... and I'm fine with that. PPV = Pay per view, and I know that going in... so if they wanted to be able to have that PPV encoded to expire so that it couldn't be viewed later because it would disable video/audio... I'm actually ok with that because the PPV model was always meant to be pay-once-view-once, but they did not have a way to enforce that until recent years.


But they have already take this too far. If they would limit it to one actual viewing, I would be more OK with it than what they have now with the 24-hour rule.

A couple of weeks ago, my wife wanted to watch Sherlock Holmes. It was a spur of the moment decision as our daughter was at her grandparents, and I didn't want to go out to Blockbuster. Well, about an hour into the movie, my mom calls and my daughter has an earache. So we go get her, and by the time we get back, it is too late to finish the movie. So we tried to finish the next night, but by the time we got to it, it had expired. Not even a full viewing. We have the technology to know when it has been viewed in full.

That was the first PPV I had bought in a couple of years, and will be the last for a couple more. Allowing a full viewing might just bring me back.



> What I don't like, however, are the situations where you might own content (like a Blu ray disc) and it could disable playback to certain TVs that might not be HDCP compliant..


I really don't see why they would bother with Blu-ray. As it is now, I can use DVDFab and make as many copies of BR movies as I want. (I haven't, but I could), so what could I do with a component feed of a movie that I can't do with a $49 computer program. Or even a free one.


----------



## dubber deux (Mar 8, 2009)

P Smith said:


> As usual - customers been bent and f^&%&^% again.


This reminds me of the recent oil rig disaster,....we now know that the regulatory agency is essentially "in bed" with the oil companies!!!! Shocking!!

This is no surprise...

You can easily solve this problem by ceasing your patronage of all pay tv sources. I probably will next year, when the D* bill has no more promotional prices on it and the normal charges are outrageous!!!!

Heck most of what Hollywood produces there days is outright garbage anyway!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> A couple of weeks ago, my wife wanted to watch Sherlock Holmes. It was a spur of the moment decision as our daughter was at her grandparents, and I didn't want to go out to Blockbuster. Well, about an hour into the movie, my mom calls and my daughter has an earache. So we go get her, and by the time we get back, it is too late to finish the movie. So we tried to finish the next night, but by the time we got to it, it had expired. Not even a full viewing. We have the technology to know when it has been viewed in full.


To be fair, though... if the exact same thing happened and you were in a movie theater (instead of at home with PPV)... it is unlikely you'd get a free ticket to come back and watch the movie at the theater later.

I speak from personal experience even... "Village of the Damned", arguably a bad movie apparently... but about 30 minutes into watching it at a movie theater when it came out and I was violently ill... so much so that the friend I was with called my parents to come get me because I couldn't stay not-sick long enough to get in the car to ride home.

To this day, I still haven't seen that whole movie... but it wouldn't have even occurred to me to expect the theater to give me a break and let me go back and watch for free later because I had gotten sick the first time.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

No need to trigger the alarm; it is quite simple:

If you are willing to pay $30 - $50 to watch a day and date movie on your home entertainment system; then 99% of you already have HDMI! Do you really expect that someone paying that kind of money will watch it on their component video only TV?

If you are complaining that you cannot use your analog ports in addition to your HDMI, then it is because you want to make a day and date HD-quality copy. That option is being closed...

If you are not happy with this situation, wait 90-120 days and watch it on payperview and/or DVD/BluRay, with all the analog port glory!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

This is a tricky issue for me.

I completely understand the "slippery slope" problem that this starts. First this, then they turn off the component outputs on your BD player. (Oh yeah, that is already in the schedule...)

I also completely understand the reasonable need for even more secure ways to protect a blockbuster if distributed to the home on opening weekend. There is some serious dollars that could be generated and/or lost.

So what to do? What will the market bear?

If a company abused the SOC rule and goes down the slippery slope, will the market respond by avoiding those products? A number of people stopped watching PPV when the studios created the 24hr rule. Would this happen on a bigger scale with SOC abuse? 

I think the market will respond; just as it did with digital music. The answer is to treat the majority of customers well and with innovative products. Then customers won't mind reasonable protections. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

MichaelLAX said:


> If you are willing to pay $30 - $50 to watch a day and date movie on your home entertainment system; then 99% of you already have HDMI! Do you really expect that someone paying that kind of money will watch it on their component video only TV?
> 
> If you are complaining that you cannot use your analog ports in addition to your HDMI, then it is because you want to make a day and date HD-quality copy. That option is being closed...


My living room TV doesn't have HDMI. Why am I excluded from being able to watch a movie on the day it comes out because I won't plunk down $800 to get an equivalent size LCD to replace my CRT?



Tom Robertson said:


> I think the market will respond; just as it did with digital music.


Downloading it from a Russian site for 14 cents in high quality?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> This is just a start for the studios to gain total control of how we watch tv, not just what we watch. At some point we won't be able to skip through commercials, just like you can't skip through previews on some DVDs. Sure there will be a lot of complaining but as the complaints over the screen bugs and those tv pop up ads during shows has ceased, viewers will just accept it and we will have lost more control over our lives.


That's ridiculously melodramatic.

Turn off the television. Go outside. Enjoy the spring.

You have totally control over your lives. Don't *ever *give television so much power of you that you think of it in the terms you've used. If you don't like the way broadcast television is being offered to you, then find other things to entertain you. Discs, perhaps. Or go out to the theater. Or read books. You have choices.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> Every time they have come up with a way to stop people from recording programming and digitizing and sharing media, the desire to beat the protections has resurged and won out.


If it happens "every time" then no one "beats" anyone. It is a never-ending struggle against people trying to avoid paying full value for what they're getting. It won't ever end. And so we consumers not only will be made to pay full value, but we'll also be made to pay a premium to account for the cost of coming up with new ways to stop those among us who seek to break the protections that ensure we're paying full value.

Also, as drded pointed out, little by little there does seem to be some progress being made against transgression.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

matt1124 said:


> My living room TV doesn't have HDMI. Why am I excluded from being able to watch a movie on the day it comes out because I won't plunk down $800 to get an equivalent size LCD to replace my CRT?


You answered your own question.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair, though... if the exact same thing happened and you were in a movie theater (instead of at home with PPV)... it is unlikely you'd get a free ticket to come back and watch the movie at the theater later.


That is a fair point. But I have never been able to do that at a theater. The 24-hour rule is fairly new as I used to be able to keep and watch PPV's for longer than 24-hours.

As Tom pointed out, my concern is not first-run movies, but once the camel's nose is under the tent, who knows what restrictions they will come up with?


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

I agree with the "camel's nose under the tent" concerns. Where will it go from here? I still use component connections on all of my equipment, because I've had enough issues getting HDMI to work properly in all cases. Component just plain works without having to worry about equipment having compatible HDMI versions, and handshaking, and a host of other issues. If they decide to turn off the component outputs on a whim, why should I be penalized because they can't stop playing with the standards and routinely breaking once-working connections?



Stewart Vernon said:


> To be fair, though... if the exact same thing happened and you were in a movie theater (instead of at home with PPV)... it is unlikely you'd get a free ticket to come back and watch the movie at the theater later.
> 
> %snip%
> 
> To this day, I still haven't seen that whole movie... but it wouldn't have even occurred to me to expect the theater to give me a break and let me go back and watch for free later because I had gotten sick the first time.


Actually, you might have had a chance, had you talked to management. A similar (though less dramatic and "colorful") situation happened to us once. We were taking my son and a neighbor kid to the movie. It was loud enough that it gave the neighbor kid a bad migraine which made him nauseous. We left in the middle of the movie, and while we were talking to the kid in the lobby to see if he felt well enough to go home (or should we wait a bit, if you know what I mean...) the manager came over to see what was the issue. Upon explaining it to him, he refunded our ticket prices and gave us passes to come back later. Just like you, it never occurred to us to ask, but the observant manager took it upon himself to help out. Are all theaters and managers like that? I don't know. But there is a chance of actually seeing the full move that you've paid for.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> So what to do? What will the market bear?
> 
> I think the market will respond; just as it did with digital music. The answer is to treat the majority of customers well and with innovative products.


Uh? I cannot think of a more fully formed disaster (okay, lets just limit that to consumer electronics!) than the RIAA and digital music.

But the 'camel nose under the tent' is already going on well before this 'new' decision. I have a broadcast station in my city (and it's part a group of stations that are all doing the same) that were given extra priority channel slots on Comcast, SPECIFICALLY to avoid having their produced content ('local news') carried by DirecTV. So we are already being denied something that is supposed to be HIGH on the list of things local stations are supposed to be doing, that is denied to a certain segment of the public, over PUBLIC airwaves (that those companies don't pay one thin dime for).

So right now, it's some new category of pay-per-view. Tomorrow it's some other form of pay tv (NFL?), next week it's network programming, the month after that it's local news.

OH WAIT! It's already at that point. Greed has absolutely no bounds, and in Hollywood, it's at it's pinnacle.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree vigilance is required to keep things out of hand.

I would be ok with the ideas related to PPV and day-of-release movies in the home... the idea of allowing a single viewing of those purchases, then after that (or a specified expiration date) the playback would no longer work.

What I don't like, however, is the idea of shutting down everything but HDCP-HDMI connections for even that first viewing.

If it weren't for a TV failure last year, I'd be happily viewing on my old CRT HDTV 65" screen through component connections... and would be really ticked if they turned off my analog connections OR downgraded the resolution.

I know there are plans to do this... and they already wanted to do this, but were convinced to wait until at least 2011 (I think that's what I remember) on Blu rays... but personally I think it is a bad idea to ever consider doing it.

As others note... hackers eventually find their way around such things... so all this will really do is mess with legal paying customers with older equipment either because they can't afford an upgrade OR because their old stuff still works!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> That's ridiculously melodramatic.
> 
> Turn off the television. Go outside. Enjoy the spring.
> 
> You have totally control over your lives. Don't *ever *give television so much power of you that you think of it in the terms you've used. If you don't like the way broadcast television is being offered to you, then find other things to entertain you. Discs, perhaps. Or go out to the theater. Or read books. You have choices.


Well, right at the moment I'm still recovering from surgery and it's raining and cold outside (we haven't had spring this year due to global warming or something). So my choices are somewhat limited as are those of others on this forum. My situation will improve, but for some that will not be true.

I've responded to the many variations on the "it's only TV" assertion before.

It's true. It's only TV. And I'm sending this on "it's only the internet". My life was good without the internet or personal computers before 1980. My life was good before we got TV in 1951. My grandparents lives were good before the automobile or electricity.

If you're elderly or disabled and except for an occasional outing, spend 24/7 at home, then TV may take on a completely different meaning in your life. But they aren't the only ones whose interest is involved.

My 7-year-old Pany plasma without an HDMI plug, my Toshiba A/V receiver, and my Bose speakers work just fine if they have some reliable HD-with-dolby audio/video source coming through the component and optical outputs.

Now some greedy conglomerates have gotten approval essentially to turn off my TV. Yes, only if I make a choice to watch a first run movie, for now. But I know that "they" will get broader approval in a few years.

And yes, my old Pany will give up the ghost at some point, so I'll have to replace it anyway which will likely solve the problem when they limit new episodes of TV shows to TV's with HDMI. Heck, they might even get HDMI to work consistently in a few years, though the record to date would be embarrassing to some other than Sony.

So I don't see it as being melodramatic to have concerns over our complete abandonment of control over home entertainment to the whims of Sony and friends no matter what I think of the FCC.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

This conversation came about when VHS tapes started having special encoding that made recordings become static. Forcing everything to HDMI will actually make it easier to break. I had a box I could plug RCA/S-VIDEO cables into and it would mimic the authentication. The same thing will come out for HDMI. If companies get too intrusive I just no longer deal with them. I stopped buying EA games because of the issues they had with DRM. Once they stepped back from it I started buying them again. It will be no different with this.


----------



## VLaslow (Aug 16, 2006)

I haven't bought any PPV since the 24hr rule and have no intention to buy with my analog outputs shut down. I use those outputs to move SD video to my bedroom and use it for about 15 minutes each evening (no, I won't be paying for MRV either).

This is only the beginning for the content providers. It won't take long to get those analog outputs shut down FOREVER.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

My biggest "fear" of the camel nose under the tent is camel boogers. They are a horrible mess to deal with...


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Forcing everything to HDMI will actually make it easier to break


As others have also posted... HDCP is _extremely_ easy to get around. Many folks have done so in recent years simply to make HDMI (and specifically HDMI switchers) work properly, as in just WORK.

I had to do so about a year and a half ago, for my main home theater display. Worked great, but I went back to component simply because I have a component switcher with tons more inputs on it. But I could go back in about an hour of swapping cables around.

Of course, the bean counters will justify all of this because they'll be able to get the 1/100th of 1% of consumers to buy the 'product', and that will either be enough to pay for their bloated bonuses, or else if it isn't enough they'll simply blame piracy.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Where would this leave those with HDMI splitters or HDMI to composite devices? With only HDMI active wouldn't it still be possible to send the HDMI signal elsewhere with these?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ShapeShifter said:


> I agree with the "camel's nose under the tent" concerns. Where will it go from here?


It will go wherever it goes, as a reflection of where consumers perceive value.

I think there is this warped sense some consumers have that the more they value something the less they should pay for it (because they WANT it, so they should be able to have it without having to incur painful costs to get it...) Of course, the opposite is true. The more consumers value something, the more they should pay for it.



ShapeShifter said:


> I still use component connections on all of my equipment, because I've had enough issues getting HDMI to work properly in all cases.


But neither the studios nor viewers who want to see feature films in the comfort of their own homes at the same time they're playing in the theaters should be affected by your personal issues in this regard. If the technology was not stable and reliable for practically everyone, then they wouldn't be trying to sell a new service exploiting that technology. Or if they did, it would fail long before the "camel's nose" concern becomes significant. I think your concern is that this will succeed. That lots of people will have no problem with using HDMI, and will love the fact the new service, and that will open the door to using the same technology to better secure assets from the rampant theft that goes on in our society.



ShapeShifter said:


> If they decide to turn off the component outputs on a whim, why should I be penalized because they can't stop playing with the standards and routinely breaking once-working connections?


Because you're just one person, and entertainment is a for-profit industry.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Uh? I cannot think of a more fully formed disaster (okay, lets just limit that to consumer electronics!) than the RIAA and digital music.


I agree. The music industry basically castrated itself because of its failure to come up with and sell a way to employ something like HDMI's protection against copying. Their inability to control how people use what they sell, how people can make as many perfect copies as they want, giving them to whoever they want, with impunity, has destroyed the music industry as a worthwhile investment. The poor folks who had invested a lot of money in the industry were essentially raped by the industry's inability to effectively employ DRM.



1948GG said:


> OH WAIT! It's already at that point. Greed has absolutely no bounds, and


[on the Internet]


1948GG said:


> it's at it's pinnacle.


Fixed your post. The most remarkable greed out there is the self-centered selfishness of consumers, who will use whatever means necessary to deprive the folks who produce entertainment of full value for the work they do.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> I've responded to the many variations on the "it's only TV" assertion before.


But what I think keeps getting lost in your dissertations is that the only way to justify claims of "greed" on the part of the industry is with one's own greed -- essentially claiming that you deserve something of someone else, for no other reason than you feel that what you want should prevail over what they want, and you don't want to be fair about it, and leave it up to market forces.



phrelin said:


> So I don't see it as being melodramatic to have concerns over our complete abandonment of control over home entertainment to the whims of Sony and friends no matter what I think of the FCC.


Yes, totally and completely melodrama. You simply added a bit _more _melo- to the drama in your reply.

You don't own what other people do. They own it. They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create. They actually deserve full value for what they've done, not some lesser amount that you'd rather pay, but the full amount of what it is worth, based on the only honest vote you can enter into the process -- what you're willing to pay for it. And if you don't like that they limit your choices, because it is the best way they can keep their work from being stolen this week, then consumers should show some maturity and not buy what they're offering.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"_They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create_" - please meet MPAA/RIAA lawyer. *Your *position is well known, no necessary to repeat it again and again


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> And if you don't like that they limit your choices, because it is the best way they can keep their work from being stolen this week,


That's the problem, its not the best way. All it does is keep consumers who actually paid for it from using it. How is shutting off analogs going to prevent piracy when I can drop a copy in a computer have a bit for bit copy in an hour?

Maybe for day and date releases, but once it hits DVD/BR all bets are off.


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> I think there is this warped sense some consumers have that the more they value something the less they should pay for it (because they WANT it, so they should be able to have it without having to incur painful costs to get it...) Of course, the opposite is true. The more consumers value something, the more they should pay for it.


I couldn't agree with you more, that's the way a free market works. And if there is true value in the newer, bigger, better, faster, larger, whatever, new product, and it serves my needs, I will buy it. But at the same time, while the manufacturers are trying to maximize their profit, I am trying to minimize my expenses. That's the way the free market works, and I have no issues with it. But what I resent is when I've bought that equipment, and then they disable it so that I have to buy something else purely because the company wants to increase their profits and sell more widgets. It's much like if a car company would come out with a new model car, and remotely trigger a mode in your old car to cripple it and force you to buy a new one, so that they can make more money. That just isn't kosher.

You've mentioned rampant piracy and how it affects RIAA. When I want some music, I buy the CD, or I pay for the download at a legal source. I've never downloaded a bootleg song or video. I don't believe I should get something for nothing. However, once I've paid for it, I should be able to use it for my own purposes, in the manner that I want to use it. If I want to copy it from that CD that I own, onto an MP3 player that I own, and listen to it on my own, I should be able to do that -- it's called fair use under copyright law, and it's legal. But you seem to believe I should buy a copy for each CD player and each MP3 player that I want to use to listen to it. I don't want something for nothing, but that's going too far, in my opinion.



bicker1 said:


> If the technology was not stable and reliable for practically everyone, then they wouldn't be trying to sell a new service exploiting that technology. Or if they did, it would fail long before the "camel's nose" concern becomes significant.


Open your eyes. HDMI is far from a stable or successful platform. The basics work, but it doesn't take much research to find that there are a lot of people dealing with incompatibility issues between sources and displays, and they mostly revolve around the issues with the copy protection. I'm not complaining about the copy protection itself, as long as it is solid, bullet proof, and works. But, for the dedicated hacker, it's easy to get around, while the honest consumer is burdened with the need to constantly upgrade various pieces of equipment to be compatible with the latest standards, just so they can use the equipment that they have purchased.

You say they wouldn't be trying to sell a technology that doesn't work well. Of course they would! The more unstable it becomes, and the more they change it, the more consumers will go out and keep buying new equipment! It's the perfect scenario for the companies! Of course, that only works if the unstable technology is the only choice. If people have a choice to use a simpler, more stable technology, they will do so, and the plan to sell the flawed technology will stumble.

But wait! They now have a way to turn off the older technology and FORCE you to use the flawed technology that they keep updating. They can now FORCE you to keep upgrading your equipment, just to keep core functionality. Right now, it doesn't affect me, because I don't really care for the first-release movies. But once they get away with controlling that, what will they control next? PPV? I don't care about that. Sporting events? Yes, I can see that happening. HBO and similar type post-theater releases? Now I'm starting to get concerned. Eventually I can see it spreading to routine television shows. That's what I mean about the "camel's nose under the tent."



bicker1 said:


> Because you're just one person, and entertainment is a for-profit industry.


I am far from the only person in my position and with my concerns. But you're right, the mindless sheep who always have to have the latest and greatest will go ahead and keep upgrading their equipment every year or two, and waste lots of money. The crackers and pirates will see it as a personal challenge, and within days of each new security standard will have a work around that lets them keep on stealing whatever they want. The rest of us who don't want to be on the bleeding edge spending all our disposable income on the latest technology, or who aren't interested in breaking the system and stealing the content, we are the ones who will get the raw end of the deal, as we struggle to maintian fully legal systems, for fully legal purpases, that used to work, but are now broken by the latest security "improvement."



bicker1 said:


> You don't own what other people do. They own it. They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create. They actually deserve full value for what they've done, not some lesser amount that you'd rather pay, but the full amount of what it is worth, based on the only honest vote you can enter into the process -- what you're willing to pay for it. *And if you don't like that they limit your choices, *because it is the best way they can keep their work from being stolen this week, then *consumers should show some maturity and not buy what they're offering.*


Yes, they own it. Yes they deserve to be fairly compensated. Yes, it's unfortunate that many people want something for nothing. And yes, I don't like the way they are doing things, and I certainly won't be buying what they're offering. It's been a long time since I've bought anything from Sony, and it will be a long time before I do. I don't have a problem with content owners wanting to protect their property. I don't have a problem with equipment manufacturers trying to maximize their profit. Where I have a problem is when the content owners and the equipment manufacturers are one and the same, and they think they can force their equipment on us, because they've figured out a way to make their content only work on their equipment in the manner that they want. In any other context it could likely be considered a monopoly, a conspiracy, or racketeering.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

No one is suggesting that piracy will be completely erraticated, no matter what measures are taken. There will always be piracy. MPAA knows that.

What MPAA is trying to prevent is pirating being so easy that even your grandma can do it. If it's so easy that even the self-professed "computer illiterates" can crank out a copy (or multiple copies), then MPAA has a huge problem.

MPAA is trying to get to a place where legit customers can get access to a lot of premium content (at a price - hey, they're trying to make some money), but that pirating that content is difficult enough that the masses won't bother trying.

Yes, early adopters with non-HDCP TVs, and folks who have chosen component connections for whatever reasons, will be excluded, but MPAA knows that those numbers are fairly small, since the number of TVs sold in the last 7 years that have HDMI inputs is over 90%, with a larger number each year. Most people with a non-HDCP TV are likely not even using that TV as their primary TV anymore, as it's likely that they've upgraded to something better in the meantime.

A small number of people are going to be out of luck with this premium content. A larger number of people will have to switch to an HDMI cable, and maybe buy an HDMI switch, in order to view it. Folks will grumble, but it won't last very long, because sooner or later, the content will be available to everyone.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

matt1124 said:


> My living room TV doesn't have HDMI. Why am I excluded from being able to watch a movie on the day it comes out because I won't plunk down $800 to get an equivalent size LCD to replace my CRT?


Why? Because old technology always loses out to new technology:

My grandmother could not drive her Model-T on the Freeway...

My cousin could not run Windows 95 on his IBM-AT computer...

And you, my friend, will not be able to watch day and date releases on your CRT!

You have options: Go see them in a theater! Buy a new HDTV! or just wait 90-120 days, like you do now...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sounds like lobbied politician at some legislative place.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> Why? Because old technology always loses out to new technology:
> 
> My grandmother could not drive her Model-T on the Freeway...


Ford never mentioned any such limitation when I bought my Model T! I think they should upgrade me for free!



> My cousin could not run Windows 95 on his IBM-AT computer...


WHAT? I paid well over $5000 for my IBM AT only 4 years ago, and you're telling me it won't run the OS that everyone is using? We need a class-action!



> And you, my friend, will not be able to watch day and date releases on your CRT!


That's just crazy! My TV should be absolutely supported for this new feature that didn't even exist when it was sold. It's not like early-adopters have ever been obsoleted before... oh wait.


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

Very funny post, BattleZone, we need some humor injected into this topic! :goodjob:



BattleZone said:


> My TV should be absolutely supported for this new feature that didn't even exist when it was sold.


I couldn't care less about that new feature that didn't exist before (day of release viewing.) I'm worried about not being able to use the features that we've had all along, that were stable and robust when I bought the equipment, that are now being turned off because some conglomerate wants to make more money. It's only day of release movies right now, but once they have that level of control, more restrictions will follow.

Progress is bringing out new technology and new features, in order to improve the quality of service, and generate new revenue streams. That's great! If people want those features, they will pay for them. If not, they won't, and they'll continue along the way that they always have. But progress is not trying to take over an industry and disable long standing features that are inconvenient to your new revenue generation plans.

Sure, the Model T is not appropriate for driving on the Interstate Highway system that didn't exist when the Model T came out. If grandma wants to drive the new super highways, she has to upgrade her equipment. That's fair. But would it be fair to then say that now that the new transportation technology is available, grandma may no longer drive her Model T on the back roads to the bingo parlor, which was the only reason she bought the Model T in the first place? Why should grandma have to get a new car when she's not interested in the new technology? That's what gets my goat about this, where will it stop? Today it's day of release movies. Tomorrow it'll be special sports events. Eventually you'll need upgraded equipment and have to pay every time you want to watch a network TV show episode (and you can bet that there will still be commercials!)

Dang. BattleZone had brought a little ray of sunshine into this discussion, and now I've rained on it. I'm so sorry... :bang


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> You don't own what other people do. They own it. They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create. They actually deserve full value for what they've done, not some lesser amount that you'd rather pay, but the full amount of what it is worth, based on the only honest vote you can enter into the process -- what you're willing to pay for it. And if you don't like that they limit your choices, because it is the best way they can keep their work from being stolen this week, then consumers should show some maturity and not buy what they're offering.


Here's where you and I part ways dramatically, maybe even melodramatically.

If I buy a toaster designed by other people, made by other people, they don't own it, _*I do*_. If I buy bread and put it in the slots, it performs like a toaster should until it breaks or until I replace it, as long as I pay my electric bill. If someone steals bread in China or down the street, no one is going to remotely turn off my toaster unless I buy a new one because the bakeries aren't happy with their profits.

I purchased a Pany Plasma about seven years ago on which to watch TV. It works as it should, as long as I pay my electric bill and my satellite bill. I don't steal content, I pay for it. But because someone in China or down the street copies media content to the detriment of media conglomerates, the media conglomerates now can turn off my TV.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem here is Sony. Sony is the only one making toasters and baking bread. Because someone is stealing bread, Sony has talked every toaster manufacturer and the government into accepting technology to turn off toasters in private homes to solve the baking industry's theft problems.

If the government had proposed technology to turn off your electricity until you proved you weren't a terrorist because the terrorist down the street was using electricty, you'd be disturbed.

But you're ok with this because it is an international cartel of _*all*_ the important A/V hardware manufacturing corporations and all the important media production corporations that agreed on a hardware system to turn off my TV in my home to protect the media production corporations' profits because the guy down the street steals movies.

I don't know when it became OK for corporations that control huge amounts of wealth to act in this manner. But apparently my government under the leadership of that socialist Obama thinks it's OK. But I don't think it's OK.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

As you would expect, this will work about as well as gun control (except no one gets killed). The law abiding citizens will be inconvenienced and the ones who make copies for the black market will be undeterred after a week or so when they find a way around whatever restrictions they place on our equipment. As usual, the criminals get around the restrictions and continue their business unhindered, while the rest of us are stopped or inconvenienced.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

Does this solve the problem........

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390181976954&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

P Smith said:


> "_They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create_" - please meet MPAA/RIAA lawyer. *Your *position is well known, no necessary to repeat it again and again


Any time these Gangsters pop up, the way to quickly get rid of them is to bring up Buchwald v. Paramount; Hollywood was well in advance of Enron, the oil companies, and (with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act) showed that both the Congress and the Courts need a full investigation of payola by an independent prosecutor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

FussyBob said:


> Does this solve the problem........
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=390181976954&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT


No.

That device will convert HDMI to component, BUT it will not function if restricted by HDCP protections, which will be used for the premium content we are discussing on this thread. The same with the HD Fury products for the computer: they'll work fine for unprotected content, but as soon as you send protected content to the interface, you lose signal.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

BattleZone said:


> No.
> 
> That device will convert HDMI to component, BUT it will not function if restricted by HDCP protections, which will be used for the premium content we are discussing on this thread. The same with the HD Fury products for the computer: they'll work fine for unprotected content, but as soon as you send protected content to the interface, you lose signal.


So this is likely to create a black market for HDMI splitters, switchers, and converters with the HDCP protection conveniently removed


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> So this is likely to create a black market for HDMI splitters, switchers, and converters with the HDCP protection conveniently removed


Then you run into the problem with 47 CFR 73.9002(b) stating in part: "No party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements and Demodulator Robustness Requirements." :nono:


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

frederic1943 said:


> Then you run into the problem with 47 CFR 73.9002(b) stating in part: "No party shall sell or distribute in interstate commerce a Covered Demodulator Product that does not comply with the Demodulator Compliance Requirements and Demodulator Robustness Requirements." :nono:


And as we all know, the Chinese will adhere to that rule tightly making it nearly impossible to get devices that don't conform for under $50.:sure:


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Here's where you and I part ways dramatically, maybe even melodramatically.
> 
> If I buy a toaster designed by other people, made by other people, they don't own it, _*I do*_. If I buy bread and put it in the slots, it performs like a toaster should until it breaks or until I replace it, as long as I pay my electric bill. If someone steals bread in China or down the street, no one is going to remotely turn off my toaster unless I buy a new one because the bakeries aren't happy with their profits.
> 
> ...


If you are angry and this is just a resulting rant, then sobeit!

But if you are serious, then you are either: completely uninformed about the nature of intellectual property, and the proper legal protection of such; or you are informed, but you are just some sort of socialist/communist that feels everyone should have the right to share someone else's property. I will let you decide which:

Last time I checked, you are not the one investing $30 - $200 million with with to make and market a modern day motion picture. These investors are willing to project these movies day-and-date into the home in high definition quality so that you can watch them ONCE, and not make copies from these high quality telecasts.

It is their property; they own the copyright and those are the rules of the game. If you do not want to play by these rules; then either:

1. You should not rent these day-and-date movies. Nothing ventured; nothing gained. Your seven year old Panny is just as functional as it was yesterday.

2. If you want to make a high quality copy off of the analog outputs, so that you can watch it one more time: Sorry, that option was not offered to you; and you do not have the right to demand that it be offered to you. This is not a "first sale doctrine" situation.

3. If you want to make a high quality copy off of the analog outputs, so that you can share it with a few million of your closest friends on the internet, well I am sure the FBI would like to know who is behind your forum nickname...

Your toaster analogy is way off base:

How about the extra bedroom you have in the back of your home, that you rarely use. Next time I come into your city, instead of staying at some greedy hotel, I will use your extra bedroom. After all, it is there; it is empty and it will continue to be available to you after I finish using it...


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

P Smith said:


> "_They should have total and complete control over what they worked so hard to create_" - please meet MPAA/RIAA lawyer. *Your *position is well known, no necessary to repeat it again and again


Just like the position of every blind consumerist is well known and it is not necessary to repeat it again and again.

It's called balance. Both sides of the issue represented equally.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> That's the problem, its not the best way.


Yes; it is the best way, or at least among the ways that are indeed likely to be the best for them.



Herdfan said:


> All it does is keep consumers who actually paid for it from using it.


No. Wrong. It discourages casual transgression.



Herdfan said:


> How is shutting off analogs going to prevent piracy when I can drop a copy in a computer have a bit for bit copy in an hour?


If you think everyone can, and everyone who can will, do as you suggest, then you are out of touch with reality.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ShapeShifter said:


> I couldn't agree with you more, that's the way a free market works. And if there is true value in the newer, bigger, better, faster, larger, whatever, new product, and it serves my needs, I will buy it. But at the same time, while the manufacturers are trying to maximize their profit, I am trying to minimize my expenses. That's the way the free market works, and I have no issues with it.


Absolutely, and folks should recognize that... no harm, no foul.



ShapeShifter said:


> But what I resent is when I've bought that equipment, and then they disable it so that I have to buy something else purely because the company wants to increase their profits and sell more widgets.


First mistake: You're talking about "they" and "the company" as if the whole world is just you and this amorphous company that you do business with. The CE manufacturer makes a device that does what it does. They don't pretend it does everything, and will always do everything. And it continues to do what they promised it would do after external factors may render it obsolete. The service providers offer a service. The service they offer affords you what they promise at the time they promise it, and there are no promises that it will work exactly the same next month. At any time the service no longer serves your needs adequately you can dump it (as long as you haven't traded a discount for being locked-in for a period of time -- your choice).

These two different companies often work at cross-purposes to each other. Thinking of them, as you have, as a single entity, is irrational.

The real problem here is that service offered is constantly under attack by your neighbors trying to steal it or abuse it in one way or another. If you want someone to be upset with, be upset with your neighbors. It is their transgressive nature that cause almost everything you don't like.



ShapeShifter said:


> It's much like if a car company would come out with a new model car, and remotely trigger a mode in your old car to cripple it and force you to buy a new one, so that they can make more money.


No it's not like that at all. Rather, it is like a company sells you an FM radio, and then a year or so later, some FM stations start switching from using a small portion of their 200 KHz for HD Radio to using 100% of their 200 KHz for HD Radio, and so your regular (non-HD) FM radio now no longer receives stations.



ShapeShifter said:


> You've mentioned rampant piracy and how it affects RIAA. When I want some music, I buy the CD, or I pay for the download at a legal source. I've never downloaded a bootleg song or video. I don't believe I should get something for nothing.


You're one person. I'm sure you're not denying that some people pirate, and that that affects the music industry's profits. You just have to look at how profits have plummeted over the last twenty years to see how badly piracy of perfect digital copies has destroyed the industry's profitability.



ShapeShifter said:


> However, once I've paid for it, I should be able to use it for my own purposes, in the manner that I want to use it.


Wrong. Specifically, the word that is wrong is "should". Rather, you *WANT TO* be able to use it for your own purposes. The *reality* is that you *should* be able to use it *only *for the purposes that you and the seller came to agreement on. If you do not agree with the limitation that the seller insists on, then do without. Period, full-stop. There is no justification for imposing your own fiat on a contract. You're welcome to counter-offer, but they're welcome to categorically decline counter-offers (and they do). So the only responsible options are accept their restriction or do without. Everything else is just rationalization for selfish, transgressive behavior.



ShapeShifter said:


> > *If the technology was not stable and reliable for practically everyone, then they wouldn't be trying to sell a new service exploiting that technology. Or if they did, it would fail long before the "camel's nose" concern becomes significant.*
> 
> 
> Open your eyes. HDMI is far from a stable or successful platform.


I have open eyes. Read what I wrote again and stop rationalizing. HDMI works. Get over it.



ShapeShifter said:


> But, for the dedicated hacker...


And this is key... copy protection practically eliminates casual transgression. Most people are lazy.



ShapeShifter said:


> You say they wouldn't be trying to sell a technology that doesn't work well. Of course they would!


Bull. Again, stop rationalizing.



ShapeShifter said:


> The more unstable it becomes, and the more they change it, the more consumers will go out and keep buying new equipment! It's the perfect scenario for the companies!


You're again making the mistake of thinking of CE manufacturers and service provides as one company. That's ridiculous, and it is leading you to erroneous conclusions.



ShapeShifter said:


> I am far from the only person in my position and with my concerns.


True, but you're a small minority.



ShapeShifter said:


> But you're right, the mindless sheep who always have to have the latest and greatest will go ahead and keep upgrading their equipment every year or two, and waste lots of money.


And there you go resorting to callously insulting anyone who holds to beliefs and values different from your own. They're people. They have different priorities. They probably find some of the things you care about to be vacuous -- does that mean that those things *you *value are vacuous?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Here's where you and I part ways dramatically, maybe even melodramatically. If I buy a toaster designed by other people, made by other people, they don't own it, _*I do*_.


Bad example: You can't make perfect copies of the toaster for practically no cost to you. You also cannot make perfect copies of bread for practically no cost to you.

So basically, your argument is based solely on illogic.



phrelin said:


> I purchased a Pany Plasma about seven years ago on which to watch TV. It works as it should, as long as I pay my electric bill and my satellite bill.


It sounds to me that you're trying to claim your satisfaction with it is the gauge as to whether it is doing what is supposed to. That would be ridiculous. The television should do what it was *designed* to do, and what the company promised it would do in its offering to you. Nothing more. If they didn't promise that it would work with gateway technology - technology that came out seven years after the sale was made - then it *shouldn't *necessary work with gateway technology, and your expectation for it to work with gateway technology is utterly unreasonable.



phrelin said:


> I don't steal content, I pay for it.


People have to stop thinking of themselves as the center of the Universe. These things you're saying are utterly and completely meaningless. They have no significance in this context. None. Zero. Nada. They are instances of you ignoring your actual place within the market.



phrelin said:


> I don't know when it became OK for corporations that control huge amounts of wealth to act in this manner. But apparently my government under the leadership of that socialist Obama thinks it's OK. But I don't think it's OK.


First, it has always been this way. You just are trying to find some justification for your condemnations of it. Second, yes, even the Democrats recognize that their tax-and-spend politics were fostering a nation of self-centered consumption and decimating our ability to maintain our standard-of-living as a productive society would.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Let's leave politics out of this, please.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> People have to stop thinking of themselves as the center of the Universe. These things you're saying are utterly and completely meaningless. They have no significance in this context. None. Zero. Nada. They are instances of you ignoring your actual place within the market.


My question to you Bicker1 is exactly what you think our place in the market is?

What should we as the people who spend the money for the product assume is our place?

Should we have certain "rights" with regard to our purchase to go along with the "responsiblities"?

If we are to allow the movie companies to control certain abilities of our hardware, what mechanism will they provide to fix it when they inevitably screw up... they are human after all?

If that doesn't seem realistic to you, you should recall the instance where NBC "accidently" flagged some TV shows with a "Do Not Record" flag when someone "forgot" to reset it.

I don't have a problem with content providers protecting their content, what I have problems with is their own track recording with creating problems when they protect content (think Sony audio cd content protection software installed on PC's without first warning the user and think the recent release of Avatar on Blu Ray with content protection that kept it from being played on many players).

I think that the industry does a lot of "knee jerk" reactions without cooler heads sitting down and figuring out what it is that consumers want as well as it what it is that they need and then organizing a well thought out, well documented response to the problem.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> How is shutting off analogs going to prevent piracy when I can drop a copy in a computer have a bit for bit copy in an hour?





bicker1 said:


> If you think everyone can, and everyone who can will, do as you suggest, then you are out of touch with reality.


I would bet my house that there are more people with the capability to burn a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD, than have the ability to record content from an analog component connection.

I still stand by my argument that *they* are out-of-touch with reality. They have spent millions of $ fighting with K-Space over their system that allows copies of DVD's to be burned to a HDD and then played throughout the house. Given that K-scapes start at around $20K and go north very quickly, they have probably spent more in legal fees than they have lost had every K-scape owner used Netflix for every movie they burned to their system.

Those who want to steal content will. The college kid down the block spent a summer getting movies from Netflix and burning a copy of every single one to HDD's. He probably had 3-4TB of movies, yet technically I violate the law because when I buy my daughter a DVD, I burn a copy, give her the copy and put the original on the shelf.

Again, I have less of an issue with day/date releases being protected, although the pirates will find a way around the HDMI issue. My concern is a movie that hits HBO long after the DVD has been released and they are limited it to HDMI. At that point, they are closing the barn door long after the horse has left.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Bicker1 - Who is the center of the universe ? WE (the consumers) ARE ! 

If we didn't want the content, then it wouldn't be produced in the first place.

There are ALWAYS ways around any kind of copy protection - at worst - buy your "legal" equipment and an HD camera and goto town. This is just to show the point that the content producers can never completely stop the "analog hole".


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

bicker1, I'm not going to refute every point you've made. I've made my points, you've made yours. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind by repeating our stances. So if I don't specifically address some of your points below, don't take that as a tacit agreement with your views, or an implication that I have nothing further to say. It's simply that I'm leaving most things at an "agree to disagree" status. (BTW, I have no personal issues with you, I'm actually enjoying the give and take here. I wish I could buy you a beer. :goodjob: )



bicker1 said:


> First mistake: You're talking about "they" and "the company" as if the whole world is just you and this amorphous company that you do business with. The CE manufacturer makes a device that does what it does. They don't pretend it does everything, and will always do everything. And it continues to do what they promised it would do after external factors may render it obsolete. The service providers offer a service. The service they offer affords you what they promise at the time they promise it, and there are no promises that it will work exactly the same next month. At any time the service no longer serves your needs adequately you can dump it (as long as you haven't traded a discount for being locked-in for a period of time -- your choice).
> 
> These two different companies often work at cross-purposes to each other. Thinking of them, as you have, as a single entity, is irrational.


Yes, CE manufacturers and service providers have different business models, and generally work independently from each other, and sometimes have conflicting goals. I really don't have a significant issue with the CE manufacturers and the service/content providers wanting to do the things that they do. It's business.

But it is not irrational to treat them as a single entity, because the single entity is very real: Sony. They are the ones I have a problem with. They control a significant portion of the content and its production, and they control a significant portion of the CE manufacturing, including a large stake in setting the standards that the other CE manufacturers need to follow to stay alive. I see it as a conflict of interest to have such total control in what are normally independently competitive markets. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned that in many other contexts it could be considered a monopoly, conspiracy, or racketeering.



> The real problem here is that service offered is constantly under attack by your neighbors trying to steal it or abuse it in one way or another. If you want someone to be upset with, be upset with your neighbors. It is their transgressive nature that cause almost everything you don't like.


True. And because of it, "The Company" (and I use that term only to irritate you! ) is going to punish everybody for it, rather than address the root of the problem.



> Wrong. Specifically, the word that is wrong is "should". Rather, you *WANT TO* be able to use it for your own purposes. The *reality* is that you *should* be able to use it *only *for the purposes that you and the seller came to agreement on. If you do not agree with the limitation that the seller insists on, then do without. Period, full-stop. There is no justification for imposing your own fiat on a contract. You're welcome to counter-offer, but they're welcome to categorically decline counter-offers (and they do). So the only responsible options are accept their restriction or do without. Everything else is just rationalization for selfish, transgressive behavior.


No, I want to use it for what the "fair use" provisions of copyright law allow. I have no problem complying with the law, and with license agreements on intellectual properly. The EULA on most computer software clearly states that the software is licensed, not owned, and licensed for use on only a single computer system. I understand that and I do actually comply with that. But I don't see anything like that on the CDs or DVDs that I have purchased. Where does it say that it is offered for sale (or licensed) for use on strictly a single CD or DVD player? All I see is a copyright notice, and I am dutifully complying with that. I am not imposing my own fiat on any contract.

Now, day of release or pay per view is an entirely different subject. I understand and respect those restrictions. I don't like the restrictions, so I will not buy those services. Period. Full Stop. But my argument is not with those items, it's with Sony and where will they next try to extend their control?

Yes, I have a personal issue with Sony. I don't agree with their policies and aspirations. It has been several years since I have purchased any hardware, CDs, DVDs, or anything else from them. And if anyone doesn't like it, tough, because that's my decision, and that's the way that the free market operates.



> You're again making the mistake of thinking of CE manufacturers and service provides as one company. That's ridiculous, and it is leading you to erroneous conclusions.


And you are again ignoring the fact that one such conglomeration company does exist: Sony. First they tried putting root kits on our computers so that they could control what we do with our equipment. We all know what an outcry that caused and how it turned out to be a debacle. Now they want to be able to turn off outputs on our equipment so that they can again control what we do with our equipment. Why should anyone be surprised that there is again an outcry?



> They probably find some of the things you care about to be vacuous -- does that mean that those things *you *value are vacuous?


To them? Yes, it most certainly does. And they may actually be right about it. But either way, it doesn't matter, because they are entitled to their opinions.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> My question to you Bicker1 is exactly what you think our place in the market is?


Each of us get only one vote.



LarryFlowers said:


> What should we as the people who spend the money for the product assume is our place?


Our place is to evaluate the offers available and accept the offers that we feel are worth the price, and do without the rest.



LarryFlowers said:


> Should we have certain "rights" with regard to our purchase to go along with the "responsiblities"?


The rights we have, beyond aspects that affect life, health, safety, etc., are solely and exclusively the right to consider offers made, and accept or decline them. If we accept them, then we have a right to get exactly what was explicitly promised to us, and get compensated when promises are broken.

We can even choose to counter-offer, but have no right whatsoever to expect our counter-offers will be accepted. There is no such right.



LarryFlowers said:


> If we are to allow the movie companies to control certain abilities of our hardware, what mechanism will they provide to fix it when they inevitably screw up... they are human after all?


Your question is internally non-sequitur. The movie studios would be making their content available subject to the invocation of the selectable output control technology. The CE manufacturers bear the responsibility for implementing it in a compliant and robust manner. If they screw up, then seek recompense from them in accordance with already-established procedures for redress of grievances in the consumer marketplace.



LarryFlowers said:


> If that doesn't seem realistic to you, you should recall the instance where NBC "accidently" flagged some TV shows with a "Do Not Record" flag when someone "forgot" to reset it.


Accidents (i.e., invoking the selectable output control feature when it is not ordered by the studio) will happen. Get over it. Complain about the mistake to the people who make it at the time. If they displease you enough, withdraw your patronage of their service. Let the market, and the refunds they are forced to provide, if any, drive them to do their jobs correctly, as with practically everything else in the consumer marketplace.



LarryFlowers said:


> I don't have a problem with content providers protecting their content, what I have problems with is their own track recording with creating problems when they protect content


Then punish them by withholding your patronage. Just stop with the ridiculous "I'm entitled"-type thinking. You're entitled to review the service offerings, accept those that you feel are worth while, get what you are promised, and get compensated when a supplier fails to live up to their promises. Period.



LarryFlowers said:


> I think that the industry does a lot of "knee jerk" reactions without cooler heads sitting down and figuring out what it is that consumers want as well as it what it is that they need and then organizing a well thought out, well documented response to the problem.


I think consumers do that 10000 times more than the industry does.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I would bet my house that there are more people with the capability to burn a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD, than have the ability to record content from an analog component connection.


This thread is about selectable output controls that would restrict output to HDMI outputs. DVDs don't present HD programming. I think the industry considers SD at least in part, and perhaps mostly, a lost-cause already and are just trying not to make the same critical error with regard to HD of leaving the door open to easy casual piracy.



Herdfan said:


> I still stand by my argument that *they* are out-of-touch with reality.


I see no reason to believe a consumer making value judgments about what's best for a business.



Herdfan said:


> Those who want to steal content will.


Incorrect. I won't go into detail, but I have seen just this weekend how copy protection has effectively removed some casual piracy from the system. You can chose to close your eyes to the reality, but there is no question that the more hoops you have to jump through, and the more often you have to learn the new hoops that you have to jump through, to steal something, the fewer people expend the time and energy to do so.

A good amount of the whining with regard to copy protection comes from folks who are sick and tired of having to learn the new hoops to jump through -- they just want their transgressive exploitation to be easy.  I'm sure there are other folks who are just trying to do other things, which are not necessarily exploitative, but I also suspect that a lot of those folks really are doing things that are beyond the rights granted to them by the terms and conditions of what they purchased... they just refuse to acknowledge that fact.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

scooper said:


> Bicker1 - Who is the center of the universe ? WE (the consumers) ARE !


But YOU are not. Only "WE" are, collectively, in total, all of us together, meaning the consensus of us, i.e., with regard to what the biggest bulk of us think and do -- again not what you personally prefer, yourself.



scooper said:


> If we didn't want the content, then it wouldn't be produced in the first place.


And if WE aren't willing to make producing content to be the very best use of investment capital that there is, then investors would be morons to let their money be used to make movies and televisions, and should instead put their money toward making pharmaceuticals or building bridges or whatever.



scooper said:


> There are ALWAYS ways around any kind of copy protection


But has already been pointed out repeatedly, it takes up-to-date knowledge and a willingness to put forth a certain effort, both of which effectively reduces the theft, which is the objective of copy protection.

If it wasn't a non-trivial thing, then you wouldn't be *****ing about it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Bad example: You can't make perfect copies of the toaster for practically no cost to you. You also cannot make perfect copies of bread for practically no cost to you.
> 
> So basically, your argument is based solely on illogic.


Actually, I can make satisfactory copies of the bread at relatively no cost. You're avoiding my point which is _toaster manufacturers don't focus on protecting bakeries_.


> It sounds to me that you're trying to claim your satisfaction with it is the gauge as to whether it is doing what is supposed to. That would be ridiculous. The television should do what it was *designed* to do, and what the company promised it would do in its offering to you. Nothing more. If they didn't promise that it would work with gateway technology - technology that came out seven years after the sale was made - then it *shouldn't *necessary work with gateway technology, and your expectation for it to work with gateway technology is utterly unreasonable.


I don't care if it works with gateway technology as long as I can continue to watch 720p/dolby 5.1 content on my A/V system.

What I fear is that Sony - the company that delivered a crappy software DRM system to computers everywhere through music CD's - will team up with NBC - the company that created havoc on TV's around the nation inadvertently testing a DRM system.


> People have to stop thinking of themselves as the center of the Universe. These things you're saying are utterly and completely meaningless. They have no significance in this context. None. Zero. Nada. They are instances of you ignoring your actual place within the market.
> 
> First, it has always been this way. You just are trying to find some justification for your condemnations of it.


In my lifetime there was a time that a commonly accepted part of the retail free enterprise belief system was "the customer is always right." So I don't accept your "it has always been this way."

Nor do I accept as a fixed reality a mantra that says "if it's in the best interest of a huge international multinational corporation, then it's in the best interest of Americans so shut up and live with it." Reminds me of a statement made 50+ years ago that approximated "What's good for General Motors is good for the country."

Finally, if we're going to wax philosophically, there really is no other way a person can be except as the center of his/her universe. That doesn't automatically mean you're selfish. It means you're seeing the world with your eyes and reacting.

I could never _*accept*_ your existential nihilism view that the individual person is meaningless within the marketplace. That abandons individual human action in favor of some form of collective corporatism whether organized through the power of the state or the power of wealth.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> This thread is about selectable output controls that would restrict output to HDMI outputs. DVDs don't present HD programming. I think the industry considers SD at least in part, and perhaps mostly, a lost-cause already and are just trying not to make the same critical error with regard to HD of leaving the door open to easy casual piracy.


The same DVDFab program I use to make backup copies of DVD's for my daughter will also copy Blu-Ray bit-for-bit. Just as easy, although for now a tad more expensive for blank media.



> I see no reason to believe a consumer making value judgments about what's best for a business.


Consumers make value judgements about business everyday. Sponsors drop paid endorsers all the time because they don't want consumers to make a value judgements about their company. Sometimes companies have to change what they want to do because of consumer pressure. I am sure Nike would much rather make shoes in 25 cents an hour sweatshops, but consumer pressure has forced them to at least look like they abore the practice.



> but there is no question that the more hoops you have to jump through, and the more often you have to learn the new hoops that you have to jump through, to steal something, the fewer people expend the time and energy to do so.


Fewer consumers who are doing it to save a few $ by copying a rented movie or PPV, maybe. Pirates who make a profit from being able to copy and sell said movie, not a chance.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ShapeShifter said:


> So if I don't specifically address some of your points below, don't take that as a tacit agreement with your views,


Fair enough.



ShapeShifter said:


> or an implication that I have nothing further to say.


Well, I'm sure that if you had something further to say, that you would say it. You don't have to have something further to say though. You can just conclude, as apparently you have, in some cases, than there is nothing you can say that will make your case any stronger than what you've already said. And that's, again, fair enough.



ShapeShifter said:


> (BTW, I have no personal issues with you, I'm actually enjoying the give and take here. I wish I could buy you a beer. :goodjob: )


I give good _argument_, they tell me.



ShapeShifter said:


> Yes, CE manufacturers and service providers have different business models, and generally work independently from each other, and sometimes have conflicting goals. I really don't have a significant issue with the CE manufacturers and the service/content providers wanting to do the things that they do. It's business.
> 
> But it is not irrational to treat them as a single entity, because the single entity is very real: Sony.


Sony's different BUs have separate P&L. Regardless, if you want to dump on Sony specifically, then dump on Sony specifically. As soon as you try to project something that is Sony-specific onto the industry-in-general, then you're going beyond the scope of what you can defend, and I'll highlight that gap in your argument.



ShapeShifter said:


> This is what I was referring to when I mentioned that in many other contexts it could be considered a monopoly, conspiracy, or racketeering.


Again, be very careful then that you are referring specifically to Sony and only Sony, and specifically with regard to the fact that the are a major force in both content generation and consumer electronic equipment.

I won't argue that that is something that regulators need to pay attention to. However, your comments even in _that_ regard seem to imply that they are not being reviewed. That's ridiculous IMHO. Regulators in the industry and judges reviewing complaints know the big players. They don't share your concern. That puts your criteria for anti-trust concerns into the unreasonable category. You want a marketplace *more* biased in favor of the consumer than is fair to expect. The reality is that Sony has competitors, big ones, at both the content generation and the consumer electronics manufacturing layers. Their competitors are not pushovers. That which you are concerned about is actually not having the impact your alleging it does.



ShapeShifter said:


> True. And because of it, "The Company" (and I use that term only to irritate you! ) is going to punish everybody for it, rather than address the root of the problem.


It isn't any company's responsibility to teach consumers better morals. That's society's responsibility, and indirectly therefore government's responsibility. So at best your complaints are misdirected. As I said, you should be blaming your neighbors, not the companies who are just doing what they need to within the hostile environment your neighbors create.

Why do you blame the companies instead of your neighbors? I know that if you considered that question seriously, and gave an honest answer, you'll acknowledge that it is a practically non-remedial situation. There is no way to make individual people stop being selfish, stop being exploitative, stop being transgressive. While society and government can effectively take action that keeps most corporations on the straight and narrow most of the time, society and government is practically ineffective against sleazy consumers.

So my projection is that you blame companies instead of your neighbors because you have a reasonable hope of bringing about the implementation of unfairness to companies, to your benefit, and practically no hope of bringing about the implementation of fairness with regard to stopping transgressive individuals.



ShapeShifter said:


> No, I want to use it for what the "fair use" provisions of copyright law allow.


Most people with a reasonable understanding of Fair Use recognize that it is not applicable in this context, and that's despite its use as a basis for the Betamax decision. Most folks who hold to the opposite perspective don't push the issue, because they know that if they provide an opportunity to revisit the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court will reverse their earlier decision in that regard.

Fair Use is for scholarly, review or criticism purposes.

Fair Use is use of a limited portion of a work, not its entirety.

Fair Use has nothing to do with having a backup copy of anything.

And I know that most of you disagree with that, but you're all wrong, and wrong because you aren't basing your judgment on the law, but rather basing your judgment on what you want, combined a little bit with the foundation of the erroneous use of Fair Use in the Betamax decision.

But, heck... if you want to chance it, push what you want on that basis. Drive it through the courts asserting that selectable output controls should be illegal on that basis, and cite the Betamax decision as your precedent. I dare you. Because what is fair is for the courts to fix what they broke, and overturn the Betamax decision. All that is needed is for someone with your perspective to push it far enough that the courts get the chance to remedy things.

By the way, I think that if the Betamax decision is indeed ever vacated, it won't mean the end of DVRs and such. Rather, the gap will be filled very quickly and neatly to allow for limited time-shifting, and perhaps limited place-shifting, but nothing unlimited, and not archiving.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Actually, I can make satisfactory copies of the bread at relatively no cost.


No you can't. You're effectively defiling the thread by asserting that you can, in direct contradiction to reality.

The analogy to what you're asserting here is that you can write your own play that is similar to a specific movie, and act it out yourself, and film it, and call that a "satisfactory copy" of the movie.  So do that, instead of asserting that you should be able to impose on content owners or distributors your own personal rules for what they should be allowed to sell and prohibited from selling.



phrelin said:


> You're avoiding my point which is toaster manufacturers don't focus on protecting bakeries.


Actually, I'm not avoiding your point. Your point simply doesn't apply in that case. By contrast, aircraft manufacturers do do analogous "protecting" of airlines. Just because there is one thing in the world that doesn't have one specific interdependency doesn't mean that there shalt be no such interdependency whatsoever.

Beyond that, the CE manufacturers aren't "protecting" studios. Rather, they are providing a product that will be able to present the content that the studios are going to be putting out. They're providing their customers utility, not protecting the studios. And again, going back to the airlines example, it is no different from an aircraft manufacturer building an airframe to accommodate how an airline might want to put in a few extra rows.



phrelin said:


> I don't care if it works with gateway technology as long as I can continue to watch 720p/dolby 5.1 content on my A/V system.


If it can't, tough. You aren't God. You don't get to declare that everything that happens must absolutely be good for you.



phrelin said:


> In my lifetime there was a time that a commonly accepted part of the retail free enterprise belief system was "the customer is always right." So I don't accept your "it has always been this way."


With respect, that's incredibly naive. The adage, in practice, was *always* more like "always make the customer feel like they're right". Big difference. Beyond that, the change that *has *occurred is mostly a reflection of how much consumers have become increasingly exploitative and disloyal over time. And I can tell you from personal experience as a researcher in the 1980s that the exploitation and disloyalty of consumers *preceded* the reaction by consumer products companies.



phrelin said:


> Nor do I accept as a fixed reality a mantra that says "if it's in the best interest of a huge international multinational corporation, then it's in the best interest of Americans so shut up and live with it."


No one is asserting that.

What *is* very clear, though, is that what is in the myopic best interests of consumerists is not in the best interest of America.



phrelin said:


> Finally, if we're going to wax philosophically, there really is no other way a person can be except as the center of his/her universe.


No, sorry. Many of us are _reasonable _about our place in the universe.



phrelin said:


> That doesn't automatically mean you're selfish. It means you're seeing the world with your eyes and reacting.


Reacting instead of thinking.



phrelin said:


> I could never _*accept*_ your existential nihilism view that the individual person is meaningless within the marketplace.


Not absolutely meaningless, but rather relatively so.



phrelin said:


> That abandons individual human action in favor of some form of collective corporatism whether organized through the power of the state or the power of wealth.


Actually, specifically, is the power of the people acting collectively. You can deny it all you want, but it is actually the way things actually work. Denying it isn't nihilism -- it is accepting reality.


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

bicker1: My previous comments about not attempting to respond to every point still stand. As this unfolds, it appears that we are more in agreement than either of us initially realized, although there are still some significant fundamental differences in our views.



bicker1 said:


> Sony's different BUs have separate P&L.


That may be true. They may be independently run. But (at least to me) they certainly appear to be talking to each other, and making deals that are in their collective best interest. That certainly fits one definition of conspiracy _("to act in harmony toward a common end")_ while it remains to be seen if it fits the more sinister meanings.



bicker1 said:


> I won't argue that that is something that regulators need to pay attention to. However, your comments even in _that_ regard seem to imply that they are not being reviewed.


That's your inference, not my implication. I said nothing about that. I simply tried to say the situation is worrisome, and perhaps you tend to agree or you likely wouldn't have said:


bicker1 said:


> I won't argue that that is something that regulators need to pay attention to.


(Sorry for quoting that sentence twice, but it bears repeating.)



bicker1 said:


> Why do you blame the companies instead of your neighbors?


Where did I say that I don't blame my neighbors? You said "The real problem here is that service offered is constantly under attack by your neighbors trying to steal it or abuse it in one way or another" and I said "True." I never said I don't blame them. I then said it would appear that "The Company" (and you know who I mean) is trying to punish everyone -- I don't think that's fair, and I would guess you might agree since you say it's not a company's place to teach morals.

Yes, I think the neighbors casually copying intellectual property and distributing it to their friends is a problem. But I think the bigger problem is the ones who are actively pirating IP on a large scale, distributing it to large markets, and making large profits. They will very quickly work around just about anything like this, and in short order. The proposed protections are aimed at the small fish, while causing collateral damage to the legitimate users, and causing no significant impact to the big fish. I think the content providers could make better use of their time going after the big fish and making a real impact, rather than only going after the smaller fish just because it's easier. That doesn't mean that I think that the small fish should get a free ride, quite the contrary. I feel society as a whole (corporations and private citizens) would be better off by concentrating on a scheme that would stop the large and small scale piracy, while not damaging the legitimate users.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Neither do the CE manufacturers or the content owners/producers. So instead, Sony steps up, and with the FCC's help, they want to take the easy path and shoot the small fish in the barrel, taking a bunch of innocent fish with them, while the sharks continue to devour their backsides unimpeded. <sigh>

You seem to be happy with that mode of operation as you have stated several times that the goal of this selective output control scheme is to stop the casual copier, and you conceded it will have limited impact on the determined pirate. But if that's all it was, I would let you slide. The part I have a problem accepting is that you apparently don't care if it impacts innocent users, because you've made it abundantly clear to me that you believe there is no such thing as an innocent user: we must all be guilty pirates, simply because we complain. Sorry, I just can't let that slide.



bicker1 said:


> A good amount of *the whining with regard to copy protection comes from folks who are sick and tired of having to learn the new hoops to jump through -- they just want their transgressive exploitation to be easy.*  I'm sure there are other folks who are just trying to do other things, which are not necessarily exploitative, but I also suspect that *a lot of those folks really are doing things that are beyond the rights granted to them by the terms and conditions of what they purchased... they just refuse to acknowledge that fact.*





bicker1 said:


> *If it wasn't a non-trivial thing, then you wouldn't be *****ing about it.*


From the highlighted portions of your posts, it appears to me that you are trying to be the judge, jury, and executioner, and you have already passed sentence on us all: Guilty, punishable by death. Since your mind seems to be made up, I guess there's not much point to discussing it. (OK, so I'm being a bit melodramatic on the "by death" part.  )


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> You can deny it all you want, but it is actually the way things actually work. Denying it isn't nihilism -- it is accepting reality.


Just as my universe is not your universe or _the_ universe, I have noticed "things" work in ways people permit or encourage them to work. I may have to tolerate "things" at times, but I most certainly will continue to try to change "things" I don't like instead of just bending over. Yes, some may see it as "tilting at windmills" but for me it means I'm still alive as an individual.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Follow his argumentation and thorough following, seems to me he is belong to layers' cohort or legal department of such companies.


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

P Smith said:


> Follow his argumentation and thorough following, seems to me he is belong to layers' cohort or legal department of such companies.


And you're just figuring this out now?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Pretty interesting argument from all sides. Fun to read, but ultimately some perspectives sound a lot like "lawyer talk." The OP quoted a LA Times Article (link below) that contained the following:



> The Federal Communications Commission on Friday granted a petition from the Motion Picture Assn. of America, the chief lobbying group for the major studios, that would permit for a limited-period use of "selectable output control" technology for watching movies in the home. The technology disables video and audio outputs on set-top boxes to prevent illicit recording.


The focus of the petition is to prevent illicit recording. I suppose you can argue either POV for other reasons, but this will not prevent illicit recordings...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent.../fcc-grants-technology-waiver-to-studios.html


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

dsw2112 said:


> ...The focus of the petition is to prevent illicit recording. I suppose you can argue either POV for other reasons, but this will not prevent illicit recordings...


What do you base your comment ("...this will not prevent illicit recordings...") on?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

MichaelLAX said:


> What do you base your comment ("...this will not prevent illicit recordings...") on?


There are several articles on the math behind the HDCP handshake and how it can be overcome. HDCP "strippers" exist now, but studios have the ability to revoke their encryption key (rendering them useless.)

I'm not aware of anyone that created a device to exploit the HDCP math, but turning off non-HDMI outputs will certainly provide some fuel.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ShapeShifter said:


> That may be true. They may be independently run. But (at least to me) they certainly appear to be talking to each other, and making deals that are in their collective best interest.


There is nothing whatsoever that precludes the possibility of there being things that are in the "collective best interest" of Panasonic and Universal Media Studios. You're effectively chasing a ghost.



ShapeShifter said:


> ...while it remains to be seen if it fits the more sinister meanings.


You can chose to impose whatever sinister meanings you wish, but that doesn't make the situation sinister. It just puts you in a position of seeing things unclearly. There is no reason to believe your bias over the SEC's implicit judgment demonstrated by their non-action. You can choose to equivocate that away, essentially accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you suspicion as being somehow either negligent or complicit, but again, that just puts you in a position of seeing things unclearly.

Try this: Stop trying to *find *fault, and start trying to appreciate things from the perspective of the other side (in this case, Sony). Recognize that their priorities (legally make as much money as practicable) are as valid as yours, and therefore the way things are will reflect respect for their efforts in that regard, rather than what you're doing, seeking to find some excuse for labeling their efforts in a "sinister" manner.



ShapeShifter said:


> I simply tried to say the situation is worrisome


Sorry, but I think in this context that that's just engaging in innuendo to try to project a nefarious cast where there is no legitimate basis for one. By doing it via innuendo, you seek to avoid having to defend your back-handed accusations. It's scurrilous rhetoric, and not deserving of any credence whatsoever. Speak clearly, and definitively, and be prepared to back up accusations with hard evidence, or be ready to grant that all it is is that you *just don't like *not having ultimate power over the entire market.



ShapeShifter said:


> You said "The real problem here is that service offered is constantly under attack by your neighbors trying to steal it or abuse it in one way or another" and I said "True." I never said I don't blame them.


So you do blame your neighbors who are exploitative. Please say it that way so there is no confusion. Saying that you "never said you didn't" is vague and essentially just more meaningless innuendo.



ShapeShifter said:


> I then said it would appear that "The Company" (and you know who I mean) is trying to punish everyone -- I don't think that's fair, and I would guess you might agree since you say it's not a company's place to teach morals.


The problem with this line of reason is that it is false. The industry isn't "punishing" at all. They're applying asset protection. You're trying to make it sound bad by _referring to it _as punishment, when it is nothing of the sort. Not even a little. Punishment doesn't generate profit, and businesses don't bother doing things that don't generate profit.

You have chosen to feel punished. Big difference. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. In this case, you are choosing to feel punished; no one is punishing anyone.



ShapeShifter said:


> Yes, I think the neighbors casually copying intellectual property and distributing it to their friends is a problem. But I think the bigger problem is the ones who are actively pirating IP on a large scale, distributing it to large markets, and making large profits.


Remarkably, both are significant and each should be fought, incurring costs that are justified by the losses that applying those costs justify.



ShapeShifter said:


> The proposed protections are aimed at the small fish, while causing collateral damage to the legitimate users, and causing no significant impact to the big fish.


It sure is easy, and fun, belittling the concerns of others, but it is utterly indefensible. When it is *your *money being stolen, then you get to determine whether it is significant versus "small fish".

The protections are aimed at the substantial amount of casual violation. Its real money. And just because it isn't your money doesn't mean it doesn't matter.



ShapeShifter said:


> I think the content providers could make better use of their time going after the big fish and making a real impact, rather than only going after the smaller fish just because it's easier.


And, of course, you're almost surely *wrong *about that. They are expending their resources in accordance with their professional expertise. You're guessing based on what *you don't like*. Again, there are costs and benefits, and companies apply resources in the direction that provide the *greatest* return on investment. There is no rational basis for your assumption that they're doing something other than that. The only evident basis is your animosity toward _what_ they're doing.



ShapeShifter said:


> Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Neither do the CE manufacturers or the content owners/producers.


So you even admit that what you're suggesting is not just merely a bad return on investment, but offers *no* return on investment. How do you defend making the statements you made above? Do you realize that, if you step away from the blinders so many consumers wear, how what you've suggested above with regard to pursuing wholesale pirates versus casual pirates is absolutely irrational? That it makes no sense whatsoever?



ShapeShifter said:


> You seem to be happy with that mode of operation as you have stated several times that the goal of this selective output control scheme is to stop the casual copier, and you conceded it will have limited impact on the determined pirate.


You're confused. I'm happy about the prospect of being able to use PPV to see films the same time they're playing in theaters. That's what I'm happy about.

And as I pointed out above, and you yourself through your admissions must have realized, stopping the casual pirate is effectively accomplished through this means. If doing so provides positive ROI, then you have no legitimate basis on which to criticize it, as a business decision. You're perverting your own personal preferences into some kind of universal ethic. You have no standing to do that. You're not God.

There are other measures being taken to address wholesale pirates, specifically measures for which the cost is likely to be justified by the benefit. Again, as you yourself pointed out, the options there are limited. Regardless, this is just another logical fallacy that you're engaging, that being your insinuation that the industry must devote all its protection efforts in one direction or the other -- that they cannot approach both issues separately at the same time. Otherwise, you wouldn't be trying to hard to disparage their efforts with regard to the casual pirate, and wouldn't be trying so hard to defend your criticisms in that regard by implying that they should be doing more about the wholesale pirates.



ShapeShifter said:


> But if that's all it was, I would let you slide. The part I have a problem accepting is that you apparently don't care if it impacts innocent users, because you've made it abundantly clear to me that you believe there is no such thing as an innocent user: we must all be guilty pirates, simply because we complain.


Bullpuckies. You're just making that up. Please don't lie about my position.

Your complaints in this regard are indeed vacuous, but not because you're not an innocent user, but rather because you're asserting rights that you don't have. You're claiming that you deserve something beyond what the people you're buying things from wish to offer you. That's indefensible, yet you not only insist on it, but consider it something that you're entitled to, so much so that you condemn them for trying to craft their offering the way they choose to.

Sorry, I just can't let that slide.



ShapeShifter said:


> From the highlighted portions of your posts, it appears to me that you are trying to be the judge, jury, and executioner


Not at all. You're just lying about my position perhaps because you don't have any legitimate counter-arguments to what I've said.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Follow his argumentation and thorough following, seems to me he is belong to layers' cohort or legal department of such companies.


Not at all. It is about being *fair *-- seeing *both *sides of the issue, and respecting that *both *sides have the rights they have. Others in this thread simply are choose to see the consumerist perspective -- their perspective -- as the only valid perspective.

Its exactly like me deciding that you're evil because (presumably) you eat meat. (I'm a vegetarian.) Ridiculous, right? But that's exactly what ShapeShifter is doing by refusing to acknowledge and accept the legitimacy of the industry's objectives.



dsw2112 said:


> Pretty interesting argument from all sides. Fun to read, but ultimately some perspectives sound a lot like "lawyer talk."


Why is *fairness* presumed to be "lawyer talk"? Are lawyers the only people who have to be fair?


----------



## ShapeShifter (Apr 21, 2008)

It is clear that we have reached the point of diminishing returns, especially when you say things such as this:



bicker1 said:


> So you do blame your neighbors who are exploitative. *Please say it that way so there is no confusion.* Saying that you "never said you didn't" is vague and essentially just more meaningless innuendo.


How much more direct and non-confusing can I be by saying "True" in direct confirmation of your statement about neighbors stealing content? If you can't understand simple words like "True" then there is no point in this discussion.



> Bullpuckies. You're just making that up. Please don't lie about my position.





> Not at all. You're just lying about my position perhaps because you don't have any legitimate counter-arguments to what I've said.


Don't call me a liar. There is no need for direct attacks. I've not lied about anything. I've expressed my feelings, and I've stated my interpretations about what you've written. You may not agree with my feelings, and you may not agree with my interpretations of your statements, but they are far from lies. Rather than making a direct attack, if you don't like the way I've interpreted your words, just say so, or better yet go back and re-read what you've written with an objective eye, and try and see what you've said that appears to be prejudiced and judgmental.

You were making some good points up until now, but youv'e lost all credibility in my eye by making personal attacks. You've crossed the line, and I'm done. Have a nice day. :wave:


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

ShapeShifter said:


> There is no need for direct attacks. I've not lied about anything.


You lied about the position I put forward in this thread, ascribing inferences to me that have no relation to what I actually said. Sorry, but you did. _That's_ a direct attack, on me... calling you out on it is a reasonable response.



ShapeShifter said:


> I've expressed my feelings, and I've stated my interpretations about what you've written. You may not agree with my feelings, and you may not agree with my interpretations of your statements, but they are far from lies.


I haven't taken you to task for your feelings. I've taken you to task for overtly misstating what my position is. No, you don't get a pass on that. Unlike your vague statements, what I said I said very clearly.



ShapeShifter said:


> You were making some good points up until now, but youv'e lost all credibility in my eye by making personal attacks.


From where I'm sitting, you got frustrated because you were not able to defend your consumerist perspectives, so changed your tactic from debating me reasonably to trying to argue against things I haven't said, to try to make it look like you're making a point.

Beyond that, you've drawn yourself into a corner with what you've said. If you claim that "You may not agree with my feelings, and you may not agree with my interpretations of your statements, but they are far from lies" then the same would apply to my comments. I never called you anything; never said you were "a liar". I labeled comments you made as they are: Lies. Those are, in your parlance, my "feelings" and my "interpretations of your statements". However, true to form for someone grasping at straws, as I see you now doing, you clearly feel comfortable asserting a double-standard, excusing your comments away but at the same time condemning me for doing something far less objectionable.

You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, surely, but don't ever try to defend your arguments by lying about what I'm saying. I cannot overlook that kind of dishonesty.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

_Please cease the personal attacks. If the conversation cannot be kept civil, the thread will most likely be closed and infractions could be issued.

Back to topic._


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

bicker1 said:


> Why is *fairness* presumed to be "lawyer talk"? Are lawyers the only people who have to be fair?


"For the record", I never equated the two... My post referenced an opinion that this will not prevent illicit recording. I don't believe it will.

As for your question regarding only lawyers being fair; argumentative


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> My post referenced an opinion that this will not prevent illicit recording. I don't believe it will.


And it isn't intended to. Rather, it is intended to ...
- discourage (not "prevent")
- casual (not wholesale)
... piracy.



dsw2112 said:


> As for your question regarding only lawyers being fair; argumentative


Hehe.... but my point was a bit more than that: Much of what you've read in this thread, that I suspect you wouldn't label as "lawyer talk", was essentially presentation of *personal preference *as God's law, folks asserting rights over things that they actually have no rights over. Look: I'm pretty adaptable. You put me in a society which is more pink or one that is more blue or one that is lorded over by a fairy princess and I suppose I can adjust. What I see happening, a lot, though, is folks accepting the benefits of our society, but refusing to accept all that that entails, especially with regard to the fact that other folks also deserve to realize the benefits of our society. I see this conflict as similar to local conflicts, where people storm City Hall on Wednesday to demand more teachers in our schools, and then storm City Hall on Thursday to demand lower taxes. :nono2:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

bicker1 said:


> And it isn't intended to. Rather, it is intended to ...
> - discourage (not "prevent")
> - casual (not wholesale)
> ... piracy.


Just MHO, but "casual" piracy involves copying DVD's and BR's that have been rented from BB or Netflix. It does not include component capture devices.

My reasoning is that most people have computers with burners. All they need from that point a free program. (I use a commericial program, but I like it). To use a component capture card, they need to go buy one and although the prices have come down, they aren't free. Then they need to take the time to play the content through the capture card. No way to speed that up.

I completely understand the idea of restricting output of day/date releases and that is not my concern. My concern is that once we head down this path, it won't stop until they have full control of all content and fair use goes out the window.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Just MHO, but "casual" piracy involves copying DVD's and BR's that have been rented from BB or Netflix. It does not include component capture devices.


Anything that doesn't involve material gain is "casual" piracy. Wholesale piracy can be taken to mean selling copies for profit.



Herdfan said:


> My concern is that once we head down this path, it won't stop until they have full control of all content and fair use goes out the window.


Again: Fair Use never legitimately applied to this situation, but even if you go with the idea that does, as set forth in the (flawed) rationalization set forth in the Betamax decision, then you have to accept all of what that decision entails, specifically that Fair Use is *only* a defense. It is not a right. The right of the content owner to copy protect what they offer is absolutely and unequivocally *inviolate*. They legally and morally have that "full control" now, and always have -- they simply haven't have a technical means to enforce it.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> ... Fair Use is *only* a defense. It is not a right. ...


Actually that is not accurate: courts have held that the First Amendment's effect on the copyright laws requires the "fair use" exception.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> ...The right of the content owner to copy protect what they offer is absolutely and unequivocally *inviolate*. They legally and morally have that "full control" now, and always have -- they simply haven't have a technical means to enforce it.


overstated.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Like bicker1, I don't have a quarrel with the content producers right to distribute their content in a way that protects their copyright. They can easily sell limited use of the content. Put it on a DVD/BD that erases itself or will only play once, or something. Clearly label the packaging, and I can then choose to not buy it.

Just don't meddle with _*my*_ A/V equipment or computer as that is my property which has associated property rights. Sony meddled with my (well, my wife's, but I had to deal with it) computer once without sufficient warning by putting DRM software on a CD. That's crossing a line.

Had we been given a warning that clearly said "should you choose to use this CD or other Sony media products on your computer, Sony Inc., will from that point on have all rights and privileges to screw with your computer and your home network, at will, at any time, because protecting Sony's copyright is more important to us than any customer's property rights" then we wouldn't have bought the CD. It's that simple.

Dish Network does a fine job of limiting use of PPV movies to 24 hours. The DRM function on the HDMI plug works although some customers can't watch the movie they paid for, ironically on some Sony TV's because they screwed up the HDMI, which they subsequently fixed with a firmware update months after they were aware of the problem. I don't watch these movies. I won't buy Sony products, hardware or content, and that's my choice.

Again, without my full understanding and approval, altering the functionality of my A/V system - my property - violates my property rights.

The studios could release "first run movies" on a cleverly designed play-once BD for sale in stores. Instead, they are choosing to introduce the ability to block my A/V system component plugs through my cable or satellite or ISP company, something they couldn't do without FCC approval. Here we have that pesky camel getting his nose under the tent. I believe I have reason to fear this encroachment.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> Actually that is not accurate: courts have held that the First Amendment's effect on the copyright laws requires the "fair use" exception.


Sorry, but that's not accurate: Despite the connection you allude to, Fair Use is a defense. It is not a right. But let's not quibble about words. The crux of the issue is this: No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

phrelin said:


> Like bicker1, I don't have a quarrel with the content producers right to distribute their content in a way that protects their copyright. They can easily sell limited use of the content. Put it on a DVD/BD that erases itself or will only play once, or something. Clearly label the packaging, and I can then choose to not buy it.


You've just described DIVX, short-lived (deservedly) competitor to DVD. Not eco-friendly either.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Indeed, and the resource efficiency of broadcasting, as compared to either narrow-casting or physical media distribution, really underscores the need for supporting a means via broadcasting of securely distributing content in a way that best protects the copyright against casual piracy.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> Sorry, but that's not accurate: Despite the connection you allude to, Fair Use is a defense. It is not a right. But let's not quibble about words. The crux of the issue is this: No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.


You are entitled to your opinion, not your facts...

Your statement ("No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.") is again so overstated, as to be incapable of intelligent rebuttal.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Like bicker1, I don't have a quarrel with the content producers right to distribute their content in a way that protects their copyright. They can easily sell limited use of the content. Put it on a DVD/BD that erases itself or will only play once, or something. Clearly label the packaging, and I can then choose to not buy it.
> 
> Just don't meddle with _*my*_ A/V equipment or computer as that is my property which has associated property rights. Sony meddled with my (well, my wife's, but I had to deal with it) computer once without sufficient warning by putting DRM software on a CD. That's crossing a line.
> 
> ...


This plan does not do anything to your AV equipment that you would not agree to in advance by purchasing a license to watch the day and date movie...

If you do not like the restrictions, you do not have to utiliize it.

This is NOT the SONY CD DRM boondoggle, and there is no point to discuss that matter here...

i understand that the major studios considered your proposal for DiVX BR's but they have informed me that they rejected it in favor of their current proposal. They did say, however, to thank you for your well thought out proposal...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Just keep in mind that it was Sony execs who lobbied the new FCC chairman and other members.

And when they turn off our component outputs on new episodes of cable TV series shows in a few years, remember I predicted it. Hopefully, it will be after either my seven year old Pany Plasma dies or I die.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

bicker1 said:


> And it isn't intended to. Rather, it is intended to ...
> - discourage (not "prevent")
> - casual (not wholesale)
> ... piracy.


I'm not sure what the petition wording entailed, but "prevent" came from the LA Times article.



> ...The technology disables video and audio outputs on set-top boxes to prevent illicit recording....


I'll search in a bit to try and find the petition itself, does anyone have a link by chance?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> Your statement ("No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.") is again so overstated, as to be incapable of intelligent rebuttal.


Bull. If you have a citation showing that a content creator has been compelled to facilitate or leave unobstructed their content to facilitate Fair Use, then present it.

Your cute/cheap little rhetorical tactic of calling things "overstated" and trying to make it sound like you know something thinking that you don't have to stand behind your insinuations is inane.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> And when they turn off our component outputs on new episodes of cable TV series shows in a few years, remember I predicted it.


Just remember that it was *I* who relayed to the thread that it was legal.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> I'm not sure what the petition wording entailed, but "prevent" came from the LA Times article.


Newspapers are notorious for dumbing things down, and often in the process losing nuances that are necessary to understand the reality of what they're trying to inform people about. :nono2:

Rest assured, no one believes that any copy protection, anywhere, with regard to anything, ever would "prevent" anything. Door locks and alarm systems don't "prevent" home theft -- they discourage it. Passwords and secure transactions don't "prevent" identity theft -- they discourage it.



dsw2112 said:


> I'll search in a bit to try and find the petition itself, does anyone have a link by chance?


Why, though, would you think that a petition _against_ something would necessarily accurately present the details of what they're opposing? Figure that they have a vested interest in making what they oppose sound worse than it really is.

Beyond that, you also have to factor in that you're taking a sentence out of context. A door lock does "prevent" most casual thieves from breaking into your home, and so as a matter of common parlance, that word might be used.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

bicker1 said:


> Why, though, would you think that a petition _against_ something would necessarily accurately present the details of what they're opposing? Figure that they have a vested interest in making what they oppose sound worse than it really is.


I guess the same thing can be said regarding viewpoints in this thread... In the end you can really only argue the specific details in the petition (which I haven't seen.) I would tend to agree that the petition viewpoint is likely biased; wouldn't that make it "fair" for some posters to also introduce their own biased viewpoint?



bicker1 said:


> Beyond that, you also have to factor in that you're taking a sentence out of context. A door lock does "prevent" most casual thieves from breaking into your home, and so as a matter of common parlance, that word might be used.


I don't think it's as much out of context as you're pointing out a semantics issue.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

@dsw2112: I agree that we may have been talking past each other.

Here's the LINK you were looking for.

Note the following:


> ... we agree with PK that SOC *will not eliminate* illegal copying, SOC *will impede *such copying


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

bicker1 said:


> Sorry, but that's not accurate: Despite the connection you allude to, *Fair Use is a defense. It is not a right.* But let's not quibble about words. The crux of the issue is this: *No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.*





MichaelLAX said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, not your facts...
> 
> Your statement ("No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.") is again so overstated, as to be incapable of intelligent rebuttal.





bicker1 said:


> Bull. If you have a citation showing that a content creator has been compelled to facilitate or leave unobstructed their content to facilitate Fair Use, then present it.
> 
> Your cute/cheap little rhetorical tactic of calling things "overstated" and trying to make it sound like you know something thinking that you don't have to stand behind your insinuations is inane.


"...The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing *for limited Times* to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." *US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8*

On the contrary, your assertion (which contains no "citation") would give the content owner unlimited monopoly power of their content.

"...the fair use of a copyrighted work..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement of copyright*." US Copyright Act, Section 107.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> "...The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing *for limited Times* to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." *US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8*
> 
> On the contrary, your assertion (which contains no "citation") would give the content owner unlimited monopoly power of their content.
> 
> "...the fair use of a copyrighted work..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement of copyright*." US Copyright Act, Section 107.


We could, of course, debate what the founding fathers meant by "limited Times" but we already know that. The Patent Act of 1790 adopted by the first U.S. Congress, signed by George Washington, administered by folks like Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph allowed 14 years.

Now, of course, we live with such monstrosities as the Sonny Bono Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998 which extended the term to life of the author plus 70 years, and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.:nono2:


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

phrelin said:


> We could, of course, debate what the founding fathers meant by "limited Times" ...


But we should all agree: content owners should not be allowed to use technology to achieve unlimited and hence perpetual control over their content.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> But we should all agree: content owners should not be allowed to use technology to achieve unlimited and hence perpetual control over their content.


I agree. But watching the debate around the Sonny Bono Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998 it appeared that the goal was to find a way around the idea that perpetual and unlimited rights were prohibited by the Constitution, particularly for corporations, people not so much.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

phrelin said:


> I agree. But watching the debate around the Sonny Bono Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998 it appeared that the goal was to find a way around the idea that perpetual and unlimited rights were prohibited by the Constitution, particularly for corporations, people not so much.


That debate is stale and pretty much moot since the Supreme Court upheld the extension.

I'd prefer to stay on topic, which is the FCC's approval of SOC for Day and Date Movie releases...


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

MichaelLAX said:


> "...The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing *for limited Times* to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." *US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8*


The copyright laws outlined such time limitations. I'm surprised you didn't know that.



MichaelLAX said:


> On the contrary, your assertion (which contains no "citation") would give the content owner unlimited monopoly power of their content.


Bull. Don't lie about what I've said. I never said "unlimited" with regard to time. Never. If you want to argue with something I've said then argue with *what I said*, not something you make up and shove into my mouth, because it is easier to argue against.



MichaelLAX said:


> "...the fair use of a copyrighted work..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement of copyright*." US Copyright Act, Section 107.


That is *exactly* what I said... those things are "not an infringement". Fair Use is a defense, not a right. Thanks for posting the proof of what I said. Now if you would just read what you posted, for understanding, I believe this conflict would be resolved.


----------



## MichaelLAX (Oct 5, 2003)

Like I said before:



MichaelLAX said:


> Your statement [are] incapable of intelligent rebuttal.




In the "Life is too short" category: This will be my last post in reply to you...


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Your inability to intelligently rebut them is not surprising: You cannot intelligently rebut things that are true, and actual.

But I have to love how you keep dodging and weaving to try to avoid admitting that you were wrong.


----------

