# Copy Protection is coming, but don't blame DIRECTV



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

All the Pay TV operators are contractually required to start using copy protection technologies in their set top boxes for premium content. I don't know the timeline of the requirements, I don't know which technologies are required in all the outputs, but I do know it is coming.

Don't blame DIRECTV, Dish, or cable. This is forced upon ALL of them.

DIRECTV is taking a proactive approach educating users and testing the technologies at install time.

This thread will be a discussion of those technologies, what they might mean, and I'll try to share what information DIRECTV will be using to educate us and customers.

The first trial right now is HDCP. There will be other tests coming soon.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

*Background* (notes from DIRECTV)
- _What is HDCP? _HDCP is a form of copy protection that protects digital video and audio content as it travels across either DVI or HDMI interconnect cables. (see http://www.hdmi.org/learningcenter/kb.aspx (choose Category "HDCP - Content Protection") for details.

- _Why is DIRECTV using it?_ Major movie studios have obligated ALL Pay-TV operators including DIRECTV to incorporate this content protection for PPV and VOD movies. We will see this on all cable and satellite set top boxes very soon.

- _How does it work on DIRECTV HD set-top boxes?_ If a DIRECTV HD STB is connected using an HDMI or DVI cable to an HDTV or HD monitor that doesn't support HDCP content protection, and the programming tuned requires that HDCP content protection be applied, then the STB will not output the programming and display an On Screen Display (OSD).

- _How does the HDCP OSD read?_ "This program includes content protection that restricts viewing on the television attached to your DIRECTV receiver's HDMI connector."

- _Which are the DIRECTV HDCP test channels?_ HDCP content protection is being applied currently to channels 100, 200, 488 and 500. These are being used by installers today to confirm HDMI/HDCP compatibility between the DIRECTV HD STB and the customer's HDTV.

- _Why is this test being done?_ DIRECTV wants to ensure that the HDCP implementation works for as many TV makes/models as possible. Information on the combinations that do not work will help minimize the number of customers whose HDMI viewing is disrupted when watching PPV and VOD movies.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Thread is opened for business.


----------



## viperlmw (Oct 20, 2007)

I have a Pioneer PDP-424MV, HDMI to DVI adapter out of an HR21-700. When I tune to ch 200 and 488, I get the message in the bottom right corner, over a grey screen.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> - _Why is DIRECTV using it?_ Major movie studios have obligated ALL Pay-TV operators including DIRECTV to incorporate this content protection for PPV and VOD movies. We will see this on all cable and satellite set top boxes very soon.


Tom, is this going to be limited to PPV and VOD?

This is unsurprising, but bad news to those who have older HD sets with only component connections.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Argg I hope they don't disable the component outputs on the unit. I already have to use HDMI for my DVD player so I can upscale dvds and I really don't want to have to get an hdmi switch to watch tv in HD.


----------



## Radio Enginerd (Oct 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Thread is opened for business.


Thanks for the information Tom.

This is going to be a rough road ahead for DirecTV, Dish and Cable companies. How does DirecTV start the process? They must receive a list of common TV's/monitors to start with.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

bwaldron said:


> Tom, is this going to be limited to PPV and VOD?
> 
> This is unsurprising, but bad news to those who have older HD sets with only component connections.


I believe it is only going to be for PPV and VOD.

Component video connections will work fine. It is only when using HDMI or DVI you could have a problem.


----------



## vertigo235 (Mar 18, 2007)

bwaldron said:


> Tom, is this going to be limited to PPV and VOD?
> 
> This is unsurprising, but bad news to those who have older HD sets with only component connections.


Sounds like component connections are unaffected, only those with old HDMI connections that dont support HDCP.


----------



## BLWedge09 (Jan 6, 2007)

Just tested out channel 100 for myself. I saw the message in the bottom right corner for about half a second before the programming appeared. As info, I have a HR20-100 connected via HDMI to a Philips 42PF7421D 42" LCD.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> Tom, is this going to be limited to PPV and VOD?
> 
> This is unsurprising, but bad news to those who have older HD sets with only component connections.


This will appear wherever the content providers require. PPV and some VOD certainly; some if not all premiums; then who knows who might institute it.

As far as component only, I hear you loud and clear! I'm entirely in the same situation on my big screen.

I hope/think there will be some copy protection scheme (like macrovision for S-video/composite) that won't require downrezzing. At least for a few more years so I can get 10 years out of my TV... 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Michael D'Angelo;1614108 said:


> Component video connections will work fine. It is only when using HDMI or DVI you could have a problem.


Well, that would be fine -- but it is very surprising. I assumed that component connections would get 480-only on protected HD content. I thought one of the main reasons for the protection was to close the analog hole.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

Michael D'Angelo;1614108 said:


> Component video connections will work fine. It is only when using HDMI or DVI you could have a problem.


But doesn't that pretty much defeat the purpose of implementing the copy protection (without downrezing)?


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

HDCP is used to protect copying DIGITAL content only so only HDMI and DVI outs are protected. Reason: one can make an infinite number of perfect copies using HDMI or DVI without HDCP. Component is analog so each serial copy degrades the quality of the original analog signal.



bwaldron said:


> Well, that would be fine -- but it is very surprising. I assumed that component connections would get 480-only on protected HD content. I thought one of the main reasons for the protection was to close the analog hole.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kokishin said:


> HDCP is used to protect copying DIGITAL content only so only HDMI and DVI outs are protected. Reason: one can make an infinite number of perfect copies using HDMI or DVI without HDCP. Component is analog so each serial copy degrades the quality of the original analog signal.


There will be component and composite copy protections as well. HDCP is built into the HDMI spec and is the first round of testing.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## stim (Nov 16, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> Well, that would be fine -- but it is very surprising. I assumed that component connections would get 480-only on protected HD content. I thought one of the main reasons for the protection was to close the analog hole.


I thought that the content providers didn't want you to be able to have a perfect digital copy of a program. Since component connections are analog I think they would be excluded... That is probably wishful thinking though and you are probably correct..


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

I don't get any message, but the programming on 100, 200, 488 and 500 is only SD. What does that mean?


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

Macrovision??? lord help us.



Tom Robertson said:


> There will be component and composite copy protections as well. HDCP is built into the HDMI spec and is the first round of testing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

kokishin said:


> HDCP is used to protect copying DIGITAL content only so only HDMI and DVI outs are protected. Reason: one can make an infinite number of perfect copies using HDMI or DVI without HDCP. Component is analog so each serial copy degrades the quality of the original analog signal.


I hope you are correct, but everything I have read about plans for HDCP specifies that protected HD content will be downrezzed via component connections -- at the option of the provider/studio. We're seeing this with some Blue-Ray discs.

Once I were to capture the analog signal via a component capture card, I could easily make multiple perfect digital copies from that, with very little quality difference from a completely digital capture path.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

gpg said:


> I don't get any message, but the programming on 100, 200, 488 and 500 is only SD. What does that mean?


You pass this round. 

This is not a downrezzing test, just a pop-up test.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I had anticipated this some time ago, but alas it will finally hit a head once the nation goes totally digital with video/audio combined signals. I hope it doesn't change my current veiwing habbits, but I suspect it will.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

stim said:


> I thought that the content providers didn't want you to be able to have a perfect digital copy of a program.


They don't want you to have an unprotected _HD_ copy of a program. A copy via component output definitely qualifies as HD...and they don't like that.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

To be clear, my point was that HDCP is used for protecting digital content. For component out, the analog out can be down rez'd and Macrovision or CGMS-A implemented for copy protection.



bwaldron said:


> I hope you are correct, but everything I have read about plans for HDCP specifies that protected HD content will be downrezzed via component connections -- at the option of the provider/studio. We're seeing this with some Blue-Ray discs.
> 
> Once I were to capture the analog signal via a component capture card, I could easily make multiple perfect digital copies from that, with very little quality difference from a completely digital capture path.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

kokishin said:


> Macrovision??? lord help us.


"it's in the box already"


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

kokishin said:


> To be clear, my point was that HDCP is used for protecting digital content. For component out, the analog out can be down rez'd and Macrovision or CGMS-A implemented for copy protection.


Gotcha. Understood.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

I haven't tested yet, but I also have the majority of my sets connected by component. My 2 most used setups do not have HDMI inputs, and, of the other 2, only one supports HDCP. I hate that I may now have to pay a price for being an enthusiastic early adopter, and already paying a premium price! And because of studio greed....(don't get me started...and I don't download music or movies).


----------



## bigboyman2 (May 6, 2008)

Lemme get this straight, this is going into effect due to the copyright protection on HDMI? To prevent people from streaming the content and recording it onto another device? (computer?) I'm a little confused as to why this is happening. Whose fault is it so I can blame them? (I keed, I keed)


----------



## Cable_X (Nov 12, 2007)

I don't know if this is off-topic or not, but it's coming to PC's as well. To be able to view a Blue-Ray HD in true 1080p, you will need a graphics card and monitor that has HDCP compability built in. Thank you, Hollywood!


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

Yep. From page 94 of the _DIRECTV Plus HD DVR User Guide_:
_
This product incorporates copyright protection technology that is protected by U.S. patents and other intellectual property rights. Use of this
copyright protection technology must be authorized by Macrovision Corporation, and is intended for home and other limited viewing uses
only unless otherwise authorized by Macrovision. Reverse engineering or disassembly is prohibited.
Due to restrictions imposed by copyright holders, certain programming may include content protection measures that may restrict viewing
in high defi nition and/or recording with certain consumer electronics equipment attached to the receiver. Please contact the manufacturer
of such equipment for additional information.
Rev. 1.0 - HR21.070731_



veryoldschool said:


> "it's in the box already"


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Michael D'Angelo;1614108 said:


> Component video connections will work fine. It is only when using HDMI or DVI you could have a problem.





vertigo235 said:


> Sounds like component connections are unaffected, only those with old HDMI connections that dont support HDCP.


I have one HR20 with a bad HDMI port so I have to use component on it. It sounds like that won't be a problem ... yet. If it becomes a problem, I'll have to use my protection plan to replace the HR20... that means I have a LOT of programming to clean off the hard drive!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I have a component only TV. So long as I can still record my programs and watch them as I do today and have been for 8 years then I don't care. But if that gets interrupted I will drop all pay TV, sell all equipment and just go OTA and be done with it. Screw 'em (the studios, not DirecTV).


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

All the networks are using it already. I record OTA with VMC and most of the programs are copy protected. :nono:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Bummer.

My main sets are connected via HDMI, so that's not a big deal. However, the signal from my DVR's is also sent to all the TV's (SDTV's) in my house via a modulator. I guess I won't be able to grab a DOD movie and finish watching it in my bedroom or office anymore


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

So what about all the people out there with component only inputs? Are they going to have to go out and buy new TV's? Or will the TV providers provide some sort of converter box, like the one they'll have out for analog to digital? 

If the studios expect people to be able to watch their productions on older HDTVs, then they better make some sort of compromise.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Bummer.
> 
> My main sets are connected via HDMI, so that's not a big deal. However, the signal from my DVR's is also sent to all the TV's (SDTV's) in my house via a modulator. I guess I won't be able to grab a DOD movie and finish watching it in my bedroom or office anymore


Shouldn't affect a modulator -- it is sending an SD signal anyway.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> So what about all the people out there with component only inputs? Are they going to have to go out and buy new TV's? Or will the TV providers provide some sort of converter box, like the one they'll have out for analog to digital?


Already happening w/ some BD discs. And my HD-DVD player (don't laugh!) will only upconvert DVDs via HDMI.


----------



## MrMojoJojo (May 23, 2008)

The only sad part is the stark cold truth:

As long as there are groups doing everything they can to protect the rights of artists, there will always be more people out there doing the best they can to undermine it.

Its kind of like the snake eating its own tail... just leading to a stalemate. And if this has already been brought up, then smack me with the "Haven't been paying attention" stick.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> Shouldn't affect a modulator -- it is sending an SD signal anyway.


But it does, because it's an HD signal it's trying to send (I'm assuming). I get the "program includes content protection" message on channel 100 on all my TV's going through the modulator (even though the main HDTV's via HDMI receive the programming at the same time)


----------



## MrMojoJojo (May 23, 2008)

bwaldron said:


> Already happening w/ some BD discs. And my HD-DVD player (don't laugh!) will only upconvert DVDs via HDMI.


Yeah but at the same time, component isn't really designed to be able to feed into a PC the digital information that an HDMI (or similar) type cable can, hence the new laws that help enforce Intellectual Property laws.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> But it does, because it's an HD signal it's trying to send (I'm assuming). I get the "program includes content protection" message on channel 100 on all my TV's going through the modulator (even though the main HDTV's via HDMI receive the programming at the same time)


Interesting. I'm not seeing that on channel 100 via component or composite connections. I would still expect that when implemented, there should be no problems with your setup...I use a similar modulated output on one of my HR20s.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

MrMojoJojo said:


> As long as there are groups doing everything they can to protect the rights of artists, there will always be more people out there doing the best they can to undermine it.


Not the time or place for this discussion -- but the rights and interests of the artists and the demands of the conglomerates purporting to speak/work on their behalf are not always congruent.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I have an HR20 hooked up to my TV using an HDMI cable.

Will I still be able to record a movie off a premium channel and watch it later? Sorry for the elementary question but I don't know about any of this HDCP bull****.


----------



## MrMojoJojo (May 23, 2008)

bwaldron said:


> Not the time or place for this discussion -- but the rights and interests of the artists and the demands of the conglomerates purporting to speak/work on their behalf are not always congruent.


By no means was I trying to start a debate. Hell, I may just as well be in the wrong because I support both sides of things. But I digress. My views on this is probably something for the OT forum... hmm...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I have one HR20 with a bad HDMI port so I have to use component on it. It sounds like that won't be a problem ... yet. If it becomes a problem, I'll have to use my protection plan to replace the HR20... that means I have a LOT of programming to clean off the hard drive!


Hopefully by then we will have a very workable MRV and you could view that content over another box.

My concern is my component distribution system. If MRV is here and works, then no problem as all my TV's have HDCP.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

I just tuned to channel 100 and I got an extremely brief message that flashed in a blue text box on the bottom right of the scree. It was on so fast I couldn't see what it said. Also, channel 100 appears to be SD.

What does all of this mean for those of us just wanting to record our premium movies on our DVR's and watch them when it's convenient?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I just tuned to channel 100 and I got an extremely brief message that flashed in a blue text box on the bottom right of the scree. It was on so fast I couldn't see what it said. Also, channel 100 appears to be SD.


That's what your supposed to see.



SPACEMAKER said:


> What does all of this mean for those of us just wanting to record our premium movies on our DVR's and watch them when it's convenient?





Michael D'Angelo;1614108 said:


> I believe it is only going to be for PPV and VOD.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

MrMojoJojo said:


> By no means was I trying to start a debate.


No problem. It's a very interesting topic, and related to the technical issues in this thread, but best for discussion elsewhere. Way too easy to get off track


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Thanks, Stew.

It sounds like I have nothing to worry about since I don't order PPV or use VOD.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

SPACEMAKER said:


> Will I still be able to record a movie off a premium channel and watch it later? Sorry for the elementary question but I don't know about any of this HDCP bull****.


Should be no issue there. For those using HDMI, there _should_ be no apparent differences at all in their use of their receiver/DVR.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

The capability to force downrezzing on the component is already in the box, I remember a test channel a couple years ago that on my H20-600 set for 720P if I tuned to it I got a message telling me to change my resolution to 480 to view the channel


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

My HR20 is connected to my SDTV via component, at 480i. I assume this probably wouldn't affect me (Just normal recording and playback)?


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I don't care, as long as they don't start doing this with Network and Cable channels then we will have major problems!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

bwaldron said:


> I hope you are correct, but everything I have read about plans for HDCP specifies that protected HD content will be downrezzed via component connections -- at the option of the provider/studio. *We're seeing this with some Blue-Ray discs.*
> 
> Once I were to capture the analog signal via a component capture card, I could easily make multiple perfect digital copies from that, with very little quality difference from a completely digital capture path.


According to the Blu-ray license, there should be no discs with the "downrezz" flag turned on yet. That shouldn't happen until 2012, if I recall correctly. BTW, by 2012 ALL component can be turned off on blu-ray.  

Then again, I might be confusing my flags this late at nite. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I just tuned to channel 100 and I got an extremely brief message that flashed in a blue text box on the bottom right of the scree. It was on so fast I couldn't see what it said. Also, channel 100 appears to be SD.
> 
> What does all of this mean for those of us just wanting to record our premium movies on our DVR's and watch them when it's convenient?


Recording to your DVR and then watching will continue--if your TV supports the copy protection for your connection. HDCP for HDMI, who knows what for component.

Cheers,
Tom

BTW, Michael is incorrect. This protection will also be on Premium channels very soon. And could eventually be on any HD cable channel.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

So can I record a PPV movie, but, I can not make you a copy from my copy?


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ok, maybe I am bieng dense this morning, to early and to much Captain Morgans and coke last night.

I turn to 100, see a SD screen and some lady talking, set it connected via component to the HR20 - is this what is supposed to happen or what?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Here's where I seen an advantage of NOT using HDMI.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Tom,

Please clarify something...

This is only in place to stop recording off the receivers outputs to say a DVD burner. This should have no effect on normal operation of the DVR as we use it today, correct?


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> All the Pay TV operators are contractually required to start using copy protection technologies in their set top boxes for premium content. I don't know the timeline of the requirements, I don't know which technologies are required in all the outputs, but I do know it is coming.
> 
> Don't blame DIRECTV, Dish, or cable. This is forced upon ALL of them.
> 
> ...


Tom, is there any sort of link to the underlying information for this? You just put a big skid in my planned purchases.

Thanks.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richall01 said:


> So can I record a PPV movie, but, I can not make you a copy from my copy?


That's the "big picture" intent.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I just tuned to channel 100 and I got an extremely brief message that flashed in a blue text box on the bottom right of the scree. It was on so fast I couldn't see what it said. Also, channel 100 appears to be SD.
> 
> What does all of this mean for those of us just wanting to record our premium movies on our DVR's and watch them when it's convenient?





Tom Robertson said:


> Recording to your DVR and then watching will continue--if your TV supports the copy protection for your connection. HDCP for HDMI, who knows what for component.


So this is a good outcome? This is what I saw, too.

I join the ranks of the confused.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> So this is a good outcome? This is what I saw, too.
> 
> I join the ranks of the confused.


I think there is a pretty big divide in the people who know a ton about this stuff and those of us who just want to record and watch HD movies on our DVRs and are a bit confused about how exactly this will effect us.

I guess I'm asking the people who are up on all this to provide a "dumbed down" version of what's going to happen.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

I'll try.

This test is the first step - if you are using the HDMI output, does the entire signal chain from the DVR to your TV properly deal with the HDCP copy protection protocol? When HDMI first came out, implementations were often flaky, and some combinations of devices would not work. Especially problematic were devices such as A/V receivers that 'relayed" the HDMI signal, with the result often being that you'd get an error message, or a blank or corrupted display. (The first copy of my current TV I had did not properly deal with relayed HDMI, but Sony replaced it and the new one did.)

DirecTV wants to see what combinations of real-world devices work and don't work with HDMI and HDCP.

At this point, all that is being protected against is whether or not the digital HDMI signal can stay "protected" all the way to the TV - this has nothing to do with normal operation of your DVR.

What is evidently coming is that the content providers can turn on various levels of copy protection which the DVR would then enforce. At the extreme case, you might be forced to watch a program live and not record it for later viewing at all, or perhaps for no more than 90 minutes. Or you mighty be able to record it but not play it back at full resolution through unprotected channels (that is, anything but HDMI or DVI+HDCP).


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Basicaly if you get regular programing on 100 you don't have to worry..


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I think there is a pretty big divide in the people who know a ton about this stuff and those of us who just want to record and watch HD movies on our DVRs and are a bit confused about how exactly this will effect us.
> 
> I guess I'm asking the people who are up on all this to provide a "dumbed down" version of what's going to happen.


Basically, the companies that own the content want to have complete control over how their content is viewed. They have exerted their influence over the FCC (among others) and have had it mandated that every device capable of viewing/recording HD content (DVD, computers, TVs, DVRs, etc.) respond to certain flags (commands). So, they have the ability to tell a DVR not to record a show, not to allow trick-play commands, time limits on watching the program.

DirecTV as well as many of the others are seemingly fully complying with these rules...but that shouldn't come as a shock as they most of the manufacturers and distributors also are content producers.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

OK. I get it now.

Thanks for your patience in explaining this.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

WERA689 said:


> I haven't tested yet, but I also have the majority of my sets connected by component. My 2 most used setups do not have HDMI inputs, and, of the other 2, only one supports HDCP. I hate that I may now have to pay a price for being an enthusiastic early adopter, and already paying a premium price! And because of studio greed....(don't get me started...and I don't download music or movies).


Agreed. Its going to be rough for early adopters.


----------



## Rankor (Jun 3, 2006)

I wonder if they will be able to set a flag with this that will tell the dvr that it is not allowed to skip the commercials.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

Rankor said:


> I wonder if they will be able to set a flag with this that will tell the dvr that it is not allowed to skip the commercials.


I will be irate if they do that!!


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Rankor said:


> I wonder if they will be able to set a flag with this that will tell the dvr that it is not allowed to skip the commercials.


The day that happens is probably the day I give up paid TV service.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Rankor said:


> I wonder if they will be able to set a flag with this that will tell the dvr that it is not allowed to skip the commercials.


They definitly have the ability to disable trickplay or portions of trickplay, whether or not that disabling can be limited to commercials I don't know.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> OK. I get it now.
> 
> Thanks for your patience in explaining this.


Not a problem.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

longrider said:


> They definitly have the ability to disable trickplay or portions of trickplay, whether or not that disabling can be limited to commercials I don't know.


But what of open source DVR software like MythTV - will they eventually have to start honoring the 'do not copy' flags? Is this an FCC mandate or broadcaster?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

sbl said:


> At the extreme case, you might be forced to watch a program live and not record it for later viewing at all, or perhaps for no more than 90 minutes.


that kind of defeats a main purpose of having a dvr then.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sbl and Ken S, excellent job. 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Rankor (Jun 3, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> that kind of defeats a main purpose of having a dvr then.


Yes it does, but we have a choice of watching those shows. If all the shows that do this have low ratings they won't be able to afford this restriction. Viewership = advertising revenue


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Tom,
> 
> Please clarify something...
> 
> This is only in place to stop recording off the receivers outputs to say a DVD burner. This should have no effect on normal operation of the DVR as we use it today, correct?


That is my expectation, at least of this test.

As we know from the XM channels, DIRECTV can turn off recording and buffering at the channel level, perhaps at the program level? I'm pretty sure this a completely different set of technologies and flags.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MichaelP (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread. 

I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*? 

Regards,
Michael


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

MichaelP said:


> I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread.
> 
> I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*?
> 
> ...


hazarding a guess, at this point, it probably means nearly nothing. at this time it seems to be just on HDMI and only on PPV and VOD.

Can anyone else shed more light?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

MichaelP said:


> I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread.
> 
> I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*?
> 
> ...


i have a question too....what is the reason you dont use the hdmi ?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> i have a question too....what is the reason you dont use the hdmi ?


maybe he has an old HD that has no HDMI connection??


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

Also, there are some who, for their particular equipment, prefer the component video. A lot depends on the devices and cabling used.

HDMI is a full-bandwidth digital signal, and while there aren't consumer devices that can record from HDMI at top resolution (as far as I know), that is not to say that there won't be down the road. That Hauppauge device that has HD component video inputs must be giving the networks bellyaches, which is why "downrezzing" has been implemented as a capability.

HDMI includes a copy protection method called HDCP (all HDMI devices are capable of understanding HDCP, but it doesn't have to be turned on at the source.) The signal is encrypted and there is a repeated "handshake" of the whole signal chain every few seconds to verify that all devices are honoring the protection. If any device doesn't so respond, then you get the error message (or worse.)

The sad part of all of this is that none of this stops those who pirate the content for commercial gain. It just causes headaches for the law-abiding consumer. However, there is a benefit to some level of DRM in that it encourages the content providers to offer additional ways of viewing or storing the programs without losing control entirely. The May and June issues of Widescreen Review have articles by a guy from Microsoft who does a good job of explaining both sides of the issues.

I know that in my own work, as a commercial software developer, when we added a license enforcement mechanism, it allowed us to sell the product in ways we couldn't before (trial licenses, network floating licenses, etc., that benefited our customers. We didn't go crazy - our philosophy was that the protection was there to keep honest people honest (many companies require some form of license enforcement as it's a way for them to demonstrate that they are complying with the license terms!) Our software was being pirated (I once saw a CD that came from Russia with ours and several other companies' products on them), but it wasn't worth it to us to go to the levels that, say, Microsoft does.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

dcowboy7 said:


> i have a question too....what is the reason you dont use the hdmi ?


Can't speak for that poster, but I use component on my main system because:

(a) I actually like the picture ever-so-slightly better (no matter how non-intuitive that might seem to some)

(c) I use native on so that I can easily use the TV's aspect modes with SD material -- and with native mode on, channel changes are faster w/o the HDMI negotiation process.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

sbl said:


> HDMI is a full-bandwidth digital signal, and while there aren't consumer devices that can record from HDMI at top resolution (as far as I know), that is not to say that there won't be down the road. That Hauppauge device that has HD component video inputs must be giving the networks bellyaches, which is why "downrezzing" has been implemented as a capability.


And why I'd be surprised if HDCP were implemented on our DirecTV boxes without downrezzing over the component outputs. But I'd love to be wrong!



> The sad part of all of this is that none of this stops those who pirate the content for commercial gain. It just causes headaches for the law-abiding consumer.


Absolutely.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

MichaelP said:


> I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread.
> 
> I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*?
> 
> ...


From this test, it means nothing. Component tests will be a future set of tests and education.

I'd like to point out that any premium content, PPV, VOD, sports packages, and premium channels are likely to be the first candidates to be flagged by the copyright holders.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

MichaelP said:


> I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread.
> 
> I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*?
> 
> ...


Michael,

You're using what the content owners called the "Analog Hole". They are trying to require that HD over component either be shut down or downrezzed to SD. My guess is they'll get their way...remember most of the big device manufacturers are also content owners.


----------



## WB3FFV (Mar 2, 2007)

bwaldron said:


> I hope you are correct, but everything I have read about plans for HDCP specifies that protected HD content will be downrezzed via component connections -- at the option of the provider/studio. We're seeing this with some Blue-Ray discs.


What Blu Ray disks are you seeing downrezing being done on currently??

I am curious, as I have an older set that is component only, have both BluRay and HD-DVD players, but it doesn't appear to me so far I have ever come across a disk that played in SD quality. I know one thing, I sure wouldn't buy it if it did, as why pay HD prices for a disk I can only watch in SD..


----------



## cbeckner80 (Apr 19, 2006)

Rankor said:


> I wonder if they will be able to set a flag with this that will tell the dvr that it is not allowed to skip the commercials.


That will probably be the next thing coming to us.:grin: :nono2:


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Currently, upscaling DVD players will only upscale via HDCP-enabled connections (HDMI or HDMI-to-DVI, both requiring HDCP support). Component outputs are down-rezzed to 480p max.

In 2012, Blu-Ray players will work the same way. The dates are already encoded on the discs, and the players are already set to work that way.

At some point, it is extremely likely that component outputs on the current HD satellite receivers will be set to down-rez to 480 just like DVD and Blu-Ray. No date has been set.

The content owners are very worried about the "analog hole" (the previously-mentioned Happauge device that does HD component analog capture is one good reason), and want it closed as soon as possible, with only HDCP-encrypted connections being able to carry HD content.

At some point, it's going to happen, and folks using component connections will either have their content down-rezzed or shut off completely. This isn't new information; it's been talked about for at least 5 years, and has been designed into virtually all HD equipment, because content providers require it.

3rd party applications and devices that don't conform will simply not be able to receive digital HD content.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

IIP said:


> At some point, it's going to happen, and folks using component connections will either have their content down-rezzed or shut off completely. This isn't new information; it's been talked about for at least 5 years, and has been designed into virtually all HD equipment, because content providers require it.


I bought my HD TV "5 years ago" when HDMI wasn't even available on most, only DVI - so I dispute that "it isn't new information" and that it's "designed into most". They may have been thinking about it, but it didn't stop them from selling equipment that wasn't quite ready.

UPDATE: The good news is my HDMI-to-DVI seems to be OK with the test channels. But I have only one DVI input on the TV which - ironically - is used by the TiVo I had to buy because the HR20 can't record local channels (the gray screen problem). I guess I have to find a DVI switcher if such an animal exists...or back to cable!


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

HDMI switches exist - then use an HDMI to DVI converter at the TV.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Redlinetire said:


> I bought my HD TV "5 years ago" when HDMI wasn't even available on most, only DVI - so I dispute that "it isn't new information" and that it's "designed into most". They may have been thinking about it, but it didn't stop them from selling equipment that wasn't quite ready.
> 
> UPDATE: The good news is my HDMI-to-DVI seems to be OK with the test channels. But I have only one DVI input on the TV which - ironically - is used by the TiVo I had to buy because the HR20 can't record local channels (the gray screen problem). I guess I have to find a DVI switcher if such an animal exists...or back to cable!


My 52" TV is about 8 years old & has NO HDMI. It does not have a built in HD tuner either. It does have a great picture. If I can't get HD from DTV I will have no choice but to go to cable.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> My 52" TV is about 8 years old & has NO HDMI. It does not have a built in HD tuner either. It does have a great picture. If I can't get HD from DTV I will have no choice but to go to cable.


Going to cable won't solve the problem, as they will be equally mandated to down-rez component signals. Switching providers won't solve the problem.

Carl


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> My 52" TV is about 8 years old & has NO HDMI. It does not have a built in HD tuner either. It does have a great picture. If I can't get HD from DTV I will have no choice but to go to cable.


I have the exact same problem and as Carl says, I know switching providers won't help 

Thankfully... I'm hoping there will be another alternative to downrezzing everything.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Don't blame DIRECTV, Dish, or cable. This is forced upon ALL of them.


Why shouldn't I blame them? They're "contractually obligated" because they signed the contracts. That was a volitional act. They did it to make money. Because they're making money, does that make them guiltless?


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

GregLee said:


> Why shouldn't I blame them? They're "contractually obligated" because they signed the contracts. That was a volitional act. They did it to make money. Because they're making money, does that make them guiltless?


but it was sign contract or do not get the programming


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

GregLee said:


> Why shouldn't I blame them? They're "contractually obligated" because they signed the contracts. That was a volitional act. They did it to make money. Because they're making money, does that make them guiltless?


OK, you can try to choose that approach; you are certainly welcome. Doesn't buy me anything--seems like most people will go to the provider that has the content cuz they signed the contract; not the one that doesn't have the content.

And if the copy protection is "normally" transparent but might not be because the TV manufacturer can't be bothered to honor the specification, do you blame DIRECTV, copyright holders, or TV manufacturers?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## MichaelP (Dec 5, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> i have a question too....what is the reason you dont use the hdmi ?


Not to thread-jack the thread off into yet another Component vs. HDMI discussion....

I don't use HDMI because I've found that I get a clearer picture on 720p sports (NFL Football) over Component than I do over HDMI. Once the NFL season starts and the NFLST broadcasts are in MPEG4 I plan to give HDMI a chance again.

Regards,
Michael


----------



## MichaelP (Dec 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Michael,
> 
> You're using what the content owners called the "Analog Hole". They are trying to require that HD over component either be shut down or downrezzed to SD. My guess is they'll get their way...remember most of the big device manufacturers are also content owners.


Thanks, that helps clarify the situation. I also read a little earlier in the thread that sports packages like NFLST will start using this flag which I'm guessing means I will have to use HDMI just to get my games in Hi Def.

Damn these content providers for treating me like a criminal.

Regards,
Michael


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> I have the exact same problem and as Carl says, I know switching providers won't help
> 
> Thankfully... I'm hoping there will be another alternative to downrezzing everything.
> 
> ...


I quess the only choice would be to buy a HD tuner. and watch TV for free. I could have bought one at Radio Shack on sale for about $40 a few years ago. I didn't because my HD TIVO had OTA. I could kick myself in the rear now for not buying it.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

what a royal PITA

i hate Hollywood


----------



## Mightyram (Jan 9, 2007)

I hope DirecTV gets a cookie in return and provides more newer PPV's.


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

HR20-700 connected to Sharp Aquos LC37-GD6U.

See notice very briefly on ch 100 or 200 only after new power up.
After notice given once will not come up again on either channel until power down and renewed HDMI handshake.

Notice is very fleeting and if you miss it the first time and try to check later on any of the listed channels you don't see anything and therefore think it fails!

Doctor j


----------



## syphix (Jun 23, 2004)

All four channels come up just fine. The pop-up came up VERY briefly when first accessing the first channel, but never again when flipping between them and non-"protected" channels.

Oh...and this sucks. 

TV: Samsung LN-T4665F


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Slingbox uses my HR21-200's component lines and all three channels, 100, 200, and 500 say that it is protected, no video, just a message.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Here is something that I think helps fill in this story.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/05/1...hd-vod-releases-in-exchange-for-closing-that/

"The MPAA petitioned the FCC earlier this month to lift the existing ban preventing cable and satellite providers from remotely disabling analog outputs on their set-top boxes via selectable output controls (SOC). In a bit of ICT redux, the movie studios haven't said definitively that they will use the technology, but insist on having the ability to force anyone wanting to view high definition movies to only see them through an HDCP-protected HDMI output to a compatible TV"

So will the FCC protect the consumers or their pocket books????


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> Bummer.
> 
> My main sets are connected via HDMI, so that's not a big deal. However, the signal from my DVR's is also sent to all the TV's (SDTV's) in my house via a modulator. I guess I won't be able to grab a DOD movie and finish watching it in my bedroom or office anymore


I have the same set up as you in my house. I just checked out channel 100 on my TV in the office and got the message.

So will someone come out with some sort of adapter box for older TVs, or will everything just be downrezed? I don't see coupons being given to people to buy new TV's.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> I have the same set up as you in my house. I just checked out channel 100 on my TV in the office and got the message.
> 
> So will someone come out with some sort of adapter box for older TVs, or will everything just be downrezed? I don't see coupons being given to people to buy new TV's.


If your TV is not compliant, my expectation (cuz they've done it in the past) is DIRECTV will work with the manufacturer. Usually the best case is the manufacturer releases a firmware update. Sometimes DIRECTV has to make an update to the receiver firmware.

Did you report the findings in the HDCP compatibility test: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=129331

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> If your TV is not compliant, my expectation (cuz they've done it in the past) is DIRECTV will work with the manufacturer. Usually the best case is the manufacturer releases a firmware update. Sometimes DIRECTV has to make an update to the receiver firmware.
> 
> Did you report the findings in the HDCP compatibility test: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=129331
> 
> ...


Tom,

The compatibility test is for HDMI and HDTV's.

The issue you quoted is for those of us that have our HRXX's hooked up via composite to multiple SDTV's. The only thing the test page shows is the message. Is that the way it's supposed to work? Does this mean, SD sets (or even HD sets hooked up this way) won't be able to view PPV or DOD (and whatever else gets implemented next)?

Incidentally, I did mention it in the test thread, but I didn't list my TV's, because it happens on all 6 of them.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

smiddy said:


> Slingbox uses my HR21-200's component lines and all three channels, 100, 200, and 500 say that it is protected, no video, just a message.


I have a Slingbox Solo hooked up to my HR20-700s component  lines and all three channels are coming in without a problem.
However on my ADS DVDXpress/DX2 video capture device which is connected to S-Video out I am getting the message.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

i tested all 4 channels and apparently my HDMI switcher and TV passed. But a few questions

1. will i still be able to use composite to my panny dvd harddrive burner or will a flag prevent even that now (PPV/HBO/OTA etc)

2. are there any component inputs on dvd recorders even??? or are they worried about our boxes being hooked up to computers (who has a tv near a dtv box anyway...sounds like PITA)

3. will whatever happens here affect HDtivos the same as the hr20?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

newsposter said:


> 3. will whatever happens here affect HDtivos the same as the hr20?


Only if/when copy protection is added to local channels if you are using OTA tuners because soon the HD TiVo's will not be receiving any HD channels from DIRECTV anyway.


----------



## Mightyram (Jan 9, 2007)

I believe this is a first for the industry has any one heard of any HDCP trials for the cable industry?


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

This should have no effect at all on composite video output in normal use. I don't know if the test channel is special in that regard.

Similarly, component video output would not be affected unless "downrezzing" was applied.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

It's really neat that an extremely small number of people are causing this hassle for the overwhelming majority of us who just want to watch our television in HD. 

This whole HDCP thing just seems very invasive and I fear it's just a guise that will eventually lead into more and more restrictions.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

SPACEMAKER said:


> It's really neat that an extremely small number of people are causing this hassle for the overwhelming majority of us who just want to watch our television in HD.
> 
> This whole HDCP thing just seems very invasive and I fear it's just a guise that will eventually lead into more and more restrictions.


That's why many people have hated DVI and HDMI from the start. Lets be clear this isn't "a few bad apples" causing this to happened. Hollywood sued over the betamax (think HDDVD of VHS) ability to record and time shift TV. They lost and for the past 25 or so years have been planning something like this. They want control of everything!!!! That's why IMHO the analog hole is so important until a reasonable copy protection scheme is made for the consumer.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

generalpatton78 said:


> Here is something that I think helps fill in this story.
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/05/1...hd-vod-releases-in-exchange-for-closing-that/
> 
> ...


This seems to deal with HD movies .... not broadbased flags to prevent recording of content. If that's the case the only losers will be cable companies and content distributors and that's fine.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Bushwacr said:


> This seems to deal with HD movies .... not broadbased flags to prevent recording of content. If that's the case the only losers will be cable companies and content distributors and that's fine.


Plus anybody who wants to use HD VOD and possibly HBO ect with component cables. Heck even TVs that have HDMI or DVI but aren't HDCP compatiable. Not to mention the TVs that are HDCP compatiable but for what ever reason HDCP doesn't work right. We should all hope the FCC denies the petition and the analog hole is there as a back up for consumers.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

generalpatton78 said:


> Plus anybody who wants to use HD VOD and possibly HBO ect with component cables. Heck even TVs that have HDMI or DVI but aren't HDCP compatiable. Not to mention the TVs that are HDCP compatiable but for what ever reason HDCP doesn't work right. We should all hope the FCC denies the petition and the analog hole is there as a back up for consumers.


The HBO site has the best discussion of this I've seen. If I read their response to customers correctly it is only intended to be applied to VOD services. It's in their corporate info FAQ. Perhaps the sky is not really falling; just the clouds.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> If your TV is not compliant, my expectation (cuz they've done it in the past) is DIRECTV will work with the manufacturer. Usually the best case is the manufacturer releases a firmware update. Sometimes DIRECTV has to make an update to the receiver firmware.
> 
> Did you report the findings in the HDCP compatibility test: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=129331
> 
> ...


Sorry Tom. My TV is fine. I guess I'm more worried about my 70 year old fathers 2001 Mitsubishi 65" component only input TV (and everyone elses). The next time I'm out there I'll take a look at the test channels.


----------



## MrMars (Apr 10, 2007)

I am getting the error message on channel 100 using component outputs to my TV.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> Sorry Tom. My TV is fine. I guess I'm more worried about my 70 year old fathers 2001 Mitsubishi 65" component only input TV (and everyone elses). The next time I'm out there I'll take a look at the test channels.


I very likely have a very similar or identical TV. With the same Mitsubishi broken promise.  (Nope, I'm never going to buy anything from any Mits division again.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sylvanir (Sep 14, 2007)

Playback of recordings _on a DVR_ is a secondary issue, addressed by the primary concern of the content owners. Recording an HD program onto a DVD or onto a computer, which could then be sent out to any number of people that pirate such things is where the big concern is.

I'm not trying to start a big debute over piracy, but that is the issue that program providers are looking to address with the HDCP regulations. The reason the content owners are concerned by the analog hole is that if a single HD recording can be made on a DVD or computer, even if being transmitted via an analog source temporarily, would still be HD quality, and could then be pirated. Hence they want to force component cables to be limited to 480 resolution, or turned off completely.

If you are using HDMI, it could be even worse for them since HDMI (or DVI) carries an actual digital signal. However, this is easier to control through software - hence the inception of HDCP. All HDCP does (for now) is say either, "Everything is hooked up right and your equipment is compliant," or, "Something in your installation is NOT HDCP compliant, and you can't watch this, so neener neener."

Eventually, for example, the movie channels could make it to where you can only watch the new release of the week in HD if you have HDCP compliant equipment. Or a big boxing match, or some such other. I don't see a big need to enforce this (for example) on movies that have already been upscaled to HD.

Eventually, it could very well be all HD programming, but I don't think it will come to that point in the near future.

So, if you can't use HDMI or DVI with HDCP capability in all of your equipment, you _may_ be SOL in regards to getting to watch HD. Eventually.

If you can use this setup, you'll be okay - unless the content owners pitch a fit and say you can't watch this, dvr it, whatever. More limitations, more control, keep the blindfold on citizen x28409tq.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Personally, I find this game of cat and mouse to be a ridiculous waste. Instead of spending all this money and time trying to keep the casual person from making pristine copies of motion pictures, why not put it into alternative energy research? After all, how long do you think it will be before we see a device that circumvents HCDP? Of course it will violate all sorts of laws, but that has never stopped anyone. Highly illegal DVD copying software and fake Rolexes are a mouse click away. HDMI copying soon will be, too.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> I very likely have a very similar or identical TV. With the same Mitsubishi broken promise.  (Nope, I'm never going to buy anything from any Mits division again.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Mine is a Mitsubishi as well. Could you fill me in on the broken promise?


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

I agree.. This is a total waste of time. I have the feeling it is going to make something inconvenient for normal or power users. 

The pirates will still find a way to rip content. Total waste of time. Not even going to waste time going to the channels to check if anything is working.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Does anyone know if TIVO has a box with an OTA HD tuner? If I can't get HD from DTV this might be an option for me. I spend about $150/mo with DTV but can't stand watching their SD, so if I can't get HD from them I would be happier with OTA HD only than the CRAP DTV sends out as SD. I checked out TIVO's website. They have an HD unit for $299 that will record OTA, funny thing is it isn't compatible with Sat. Nice to know I have an option if DTV stops giving me service.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

The TiVoHD has no video inputs, which is why it is not compatible with satellite. Digital cable (with CableCARD) and OTA only.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

sbl said:


> The TiVoHD has no video inputs, which is why it is not compatible with satellite. Digital cable (with CableCARD) and OTA only.


Thats what (s)he said!:lol:

FlBillsfan don't jump the gun just yet. We really don't know what's going to happend with all of this.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> Mine is a Mitsubishi as well. Could you fill me in on the broken promise?


For a few model years, Mitsubishi promised they would have an "economical" digital module to attach to the component only TVs once the standards were finalized. This promised module would enable the TV to remain useful in the future.

The module was not economical: My understanding is it was $1,500 for some TVs and was definitely $1,000 for my TV. After already spending more than $6k (I think was actually $6.5k) on the unit. I did not consider this economical.

And Mits bet that Firewire would be the standard from STB to TV, not DVI/HDMI, so the unit only had one Firewire input, no DVI.

Broken promise. I won't buy Mits again.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> Does anyone know if TIVO has a box with an OTA HD tuner? If I can't get HD from DTV this might be an option for me. I spend about $150/mo with DTV but can't stand watching their SD, so if I can't get HD from them I would be happier with OTA HD only than the CRAP DTV sends out as SD. I checked out TIVO's website. They have an HD unit for $299 that will record OTA, funny thing is it isn't compatible with Sat. Nice to know I have an option if DTV stops giving me service.





generalpatton78 said:


> Thats what (s)he said!:lol:
> 
> FlBillsfan don't jump the gun just yet. We really don't know what's going to happend with all of this.


I concur. While the TV normal lifespan should be 15 years or longer, we might be able to get a good 10 before component is really shutdown or limited to 480p. (If I use this as a very expensive PIP for the 147" in the home theatre...)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> For a few model years, Mitsubishi promised they would have an "economical" digital module to attach to the component only TVs once the standards were finalized. This promised module would enable the TV to remain useful in the future.
> 
> The module was not economical: My understanding is it was $1,500 for some TVs and was definitely $1,000 for my TV. After already spending more than $6k (I think was actually $6.5k) on the unit. I did not consider this economical.
> 
> ...


Thanks Tom. I guess mine is a little older than yours. I have component only, but as I said the picture still looks great. I had a choice at the time to go with the 4:3 screen or the 16:9, I chose the 16:9 & am glad I did, I just hope I can take advantage of it until it dies. My brother in-law just bought a Vizeo plasma. Nice picture for the money, probably what I'll get next, I just hope not too soon.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

sbl said:


> The TiVoHD has no video inputs, which is why it is not compatible with satellite. Digital cable (with CableCARD) and OTA only.


Thanks, I wonder if you use the cable card if that will down res the component out when this all goes down.


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

FlBillsfan said:


> Thanks, I wonder if you use the cable card if that will down res the component out when this all goes down.


Yes, if the "Image Constraint Token" is present. TiVo is required to honor it by the terms of the CableCARD license - same as a cable box.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

evan_s said:


> Argg I hope they don't disable the component outputs on the unit. I already have to use HDMI for my DVD player so I can upscale dvds and I really don't want to have to get an hdmi switch to watch tv in HD.


Many new sets won't work even with HDMI, If they mess with component output it's gonna be a real mess. :nono2:


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

so why doesnt anyone worrry about 480 copying? I'm not complaining since that's all i'm interested in doing but doesnt anyone but me put movies on dvd today like i do?


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

480i copying is handled by Macrovision signal corruption. Most DVD recorders honor it and the DVRs reproduce it if present in the incoming signal. The studios are more worried nowadays about "perfect digital copies", though as camcorder copies of movies seem to be extremely popular, I have to wonder why...


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

sbl said:


> 480i copying is handled by Macrovision signal corruption. Most DVD recorders honor it and the DVRs reproduce it if present in the incoming signal. The studios are more worried nowadays about "perfect digital copies", though as camcorder copies of movies seem to be extremely popular, I have to wonder why...


I like them for the Chinese subtitles and the occasional head that walks across the screen.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tfederov said:


> I like them for the Chinese subtitles and the occasional head that walks across the screen.


Oy vay! :lol:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> All the Pay TV operators are contractually required to start using copy protection technologies in their set top boxes for premium content. I don't know the timeline of the requirements, I don't know which technologies are required in all the outputs, but I do know it is coming.
> 
> Don't blame DIRECTV, Dish, or cable. This is forced upon ALL of them.
> 
> ...


If I can't blame DirecTV, well then, I blame....YOU! :lol:

On the serious side, I've been kinda hoping that HDCP would just die. I didn't think it would happen but hoped it would go away.

I guess it's time to learn as much as I can and work with it. I'm going to get an A/V receiver that will take all my imputs and have only one HDMI into my TV so I can no longer ignore it (currently use HDMI and a couple of component).

I'm hoping it will be transparent like it's supposed to be.

Mike


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

mogulman said:


> The pirates will still find a way to rip content.


While products with Component inputs are not common for consumer use, they are available so the priates have them.

My question is what is stoping the pirates from taking an HDCP device and modifying it so that the source thinks its compliant, but in reality is hooked to a BR burner. The pirates have smart people too and I would think that in a short period of time, they would figure out a way to get around the copy protection leaving honest consumers holding the bag.

It would not have been so bad if HD had never been allowed over component and all we ever knew was HDMI.


----------



## deltafowler (Aug 28, 2007)

Every copy protection measure that's been invented to date has been hacked, cracked, worked around and thus negated.
I expect no less for this one.
Some talented people simply love challenges such as these.
Build it and they will come.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

somewhat OT, but in reality how much protection bypass is done between a dvr and tv?
blue ray has already been cracked, not going to get into that on this board, how many will choose to copy a show from dvr (with no extras) when they can rent a disc and get the whole thing?

another knee jerk political over reaction designed to create a feel good but useless solution.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> While products with Component inputs are not common for consumer use, they are available so the priates have them.
> 
> My question is what is stoping the pirates from taking an HDCP device and modifying it so that the source thinks its compliant, but in reality is hooked to a BR burner. The pirates have smart people too and I would think that in a short period of time, they would figure out a way to get around the copy protection leaving honest consumers holding the bag.
> 
> It would not have been so bad if HD had never been allowed over component and all we ever knew was HDMI.


Component has been around for a long time and it can deliver a great picture (even 1080p). Now there is a new box about to ship that will allow consumers to legally record HD over component and store it on PCs or even standard DVDs. We have been able to do this with SD for a very long time and you can be sure the MPAA wants to stop this with HD. This stuff about to happened with HDCP is there to stop you from making a legal copy for you own archival of content onto DVD, blu ray ect over HDMI. Right now Tom is saying this is only for PPV and on demand. I honesty don't have a problem with that but it's a slippery slope. How long until they try to put HDCP on normal cable channels?

They have also petitioned the FCC to be allowed to turn off component when they want (currently they are not allowed to) to help enforce what they view as their legal right. The consumers right to fair use has been walked on over and over again and if they are allowed to do this it would be BAD. People can talk about pirates but this IMHO isn't about pirates as much as it is about trying to force consumers to buy their WS HDTV content from Hollywood on a packaged disk. When I'd rather record BSG or any other cable show in HDTV and then put that show on a disk for personal use. IMHO DVI and then HDMI was made for the simple purpose of control of content and to prevent consumers from doing what we have done for years with VHS and yes DVRs. I know many people here hate Stand Alone DVRs but that's what started the DVR business. Now the technology has gotten to the point that if the analog hole if left we can have HDTV Tivo's and other SA devices that we can use with any provider and not be forced to have to use any one providers DVR. We can record any TV show and put that show on a disk like we did with VHS over componet and the MPAA HATES that. So now they want to turn on HDCP over HDMI and now they are trying to be able to turn off component. CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL!!!!!!!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> While products with Component inputs are not common for consumer use, they are available so the priates have them.


Everyone acknowledges that you probably won't ever stop the high-end pirate.

What they DO want to prevent is the types of things that are going on today. For example: even Grandma can fire up DVDXCopy, drop a Hollywood DVD into the drive, click "Copy", put in a blank DVD when prompted, and the computer spits out a copy. And, even little 11 year old Suzie can put in a DVD, rip it to disc, and upload it somewhere (using dad's fast connection) that tens of thousands of people can copy it.

In other words, they're trying to prevent *casual* and even "talented ametuer" users from effortlessly making copies, which they saw happen with music/MP3s and is happening now with DVDs.

Sure, there will be "1%ers" who can figure it out, but by eliminating the casual users, they save most of their revenue stream, AND have a much smaller group of pirates (the 1%ers) to focus their litigation on.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

IIP said:


> In other words, they're trying to prevent *casual* and even "talented ametuer" users from effortlessly making copies, which they saw happen with music/MP3s and is happening now with DVDs.


The trend now with mp3 sales is DRM-free (Amazon's store, some of iTunes -- heck, even Walmart). For good reasons.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Put more simply....Hollywood and the Music folks are both trying to make sure every bit of video and sound they produce earns them revenue, without any pirating or "free" access to the contents.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

This isn't just about stopping pirated duplication. The content owners want complete control over their property. I'm not arguing that they don't have those "rights" either.

That means, among other things, they want the ability to charge different prices for different rights. 

PPV SD - 3.99
PPV HD - 4.99
PPV HD w/DVR copy 5.99 

and so on.

Does Fox start to market American Idol to advertisers with the guarantee that they won't allow trickplay?

Does DirecTV start to tier DVR rights
DVR - Basic $4.99
DVR - Premium Channels $9.99

With internet connections on the boxes the distributors and thus the content folks can now get instant feedback on what is being viewed and how their boxes are being used.

Now, is all of this going to happen tomorrow? No...but if there is a control capability out there that can potentially generate revenue you can bet someone will do it.

By the way, what major distributor isn't also a content producer? Dish?
DirecTV, TimeWarner, Comcast and Cox all are either directly or with their related companies.

The only force that has ever stopped copy protection is consumers. Stop buying things when the copy protection/medium of sale get in the way and they have little choice.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

IIP said:


> Currently, upscaling DVD players will only upscale via HDCP-enabled connections (HDMI or HDMI-to-DVI, both requiring HDCP support). Component outputs are down-rezzed to 480p max.


FYI, there are some DVD players that will up-convert all the way to 1080i via component. I know as I have one that does it.  But it's really not the same thing since you can't magically turn a low-rez picture into a hi-rez one.



MichaelP said:


> I'm al little confused after reading most of this thread.
> 
> I have my HR20-700 connected to my TV via Component. At this time I have no plans to use the HDMI connection. What does this mean for someone like me, in the long run, if I don't generally purchase or download PPV or VOD from D*?


In the long run, what it means is that if the content provider turns on one of the flags, your HD signal will be down-rezzed to something lower if using component. The big question is just what the time frame is for this. The bottom line is it's time to start looking into only buying HDMI based equipment.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

IIP said:


> What they DO want to prevent is the types of things that are going on today. For example: even Grandma can fire up DVDXCopy, drop a Hollywood DVD into the drive, click "Copy", put in a blank DVD when prompted, and the computer spits out a copy. And, even little 11 year old Suzie can put in a DVD, rip it to disc, and upload it somewhere (using dad's fast connection) that tens of thousands of people can copy it.


Yeah, but it is only a matter of time until we replace DVD with BluRayXCopy and start the process over again. The only hold up will be the upload speed of current connections which would be the same whether I copied it from a sat connection or a BR.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Is this issue discussed anywhere on the DirecTv site or literature? Given their "proactive" stance that Tom referred to wouldn't they be providing info to potential customers so as to not disappoint them in the future?

I'd really like to see their stance and plans rather than the guesswork of the OP.

I can see all of the csr calls "Oops did we not tell you your component TV wasn't supported when you signed the two year contract? Our bad. Oh, btw, there is an early termination fee if you go to someone that does."


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Bushwacr said:


> I'd really like to see their stance and plans rather than the guesswork of the OP.


It's not guesswork. Tom and others on here have contacts with certain Directv folks (check out his thread on when he got to visit some of their Sat launch equipment). He's posted this thread letting us no a little birdy(ie?) told him something.



poppo said:


> In the long run, what it means is that if the content provider turns on one of the flags, your HD signal will be down-rezzed to something lower if using component. The big question is just what the time frame is for this. The bottom line is it's time to start looking into only buying HDMI based equipment.


I disagree..... I certainly would make sure it has HDMI because that's just a obvouis feature to have now. While at the same time they can't just turn on a flag for component to be turned off or down rezzed. They are asking the FCC to let them do this but lets hope the FCC finally stands up and tells them to stick it!!!!


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

generalpatton78 said:


> I disagree..... I certainly would make sure it has HDMI because that's just a obvouis feature to have now. While at the same time they can't just turn on a flag for component to be turned off or down rezzed. They are asking the FCC to let them do this but lets hope the FCC finally stands up and tells them to stick it!!!!


That's why I said 'in the long run' because we don't know what the time frame actually will be. The 2012 date someone gave earlier in the thread for BR is not that far down the road. Personally, I give it 5 years before HDMI will be mandatory for true HD for just about everything.

Since all new HD sets have HDMI (as far as I've seen) and since those folks who will be using digital to analog TV converts soon probably don't have HD sets anyway, I see no compelling reason for the FCC or anyone else to shoot this down.

Now, I'm not saying I like it, but I don't see it as a big deal (for the average viewer).


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

poppo said:


> That's why I said 'in the long run' because we don't know what the time frame actually will be. The 2012 date someone gave earlier in the thread for BR is not that far down the road. Personally, I give it 5 years before HDMI will be mandatory for true HD for just about everything.
> 
> Since all new HD sets have HDMI (as far as I've seen) and since those folks who will be using digital to analog TV converts soon probably don't have HD sets anyway, I see no compelling reason for the FCC or anyone else to shoot this down.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying I like it, but I don't see it as a big deal (for the average viewer).


I hope & think my 52" Mitsubishi will last more than 5 more years. I have babied it since I bought it (only watch movies & sports on it not everyday crap) My hope is that people with the power to deny the corp. mentality DO see it as a BIG DEAL unlike you.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Well, I'm not sure what they've done now to the firmware on their DVRs (mine is an HR21-200), but I can't record ANYTHING now from the DVR on my DVD-R recorder. I'm using s-video cable from the DVR to the DVD recorder. Things recorded before- but not now. Really a bummer.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Bushwacr said:


> Is this issue discussed anywhere on the DirecTv site or literature? Given their "proactive" stance that Tom referred to wouldn't they be providing info to potential customers so as to not disappoint them in the future?
> 
> I'd really like to see their stance and plans rather than the guesswork of the OP.
> 
> I can see all of the csr calls "Oops did we not tell you your component TV wasn't supported when you signed the two year contract? Our bad. Oh, btw, there is an early termination fee if you go to someone that does."


Their stance is they are required to make certain changes and support certain features or lose access to materials. By educating people ahead of time, they can prepare people. And by testing ahead, they can limit the amount of times incompatibility "wrongfully" blocks content.

The other part of this is that every US Pay TV provider is governed by the same clauses in their contracts (or will be in the next negotiation.) (and I gotta believe most pay tv providers outside the US will be as well, but I don't know that part.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Their stance is they are required to make certain changes and support certain features or lose access to materials. By educating people ahead of time, they can prepare people. And by testing ahead, they can limit the amount of times incompatibility "wrongfully" blocks content.
> 
> The other part of this is that every US Pay TV provider is governed by the same clauses in their contracts (or will be in the next negotiation.) (and I gotta believe most pay tv providers outside the US will be as well, but I don't know that part.)
> 
> ...


I don't know about that Tom. How about the fact my cable co. provides both Tampa & Ft Myers stations but DTV can only provide the Tampa channels ( I live MUCH closer to Ft Myers & can pick up the Ft Myers channels OTA thank God)


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> Well, I'm not sure what they've done now to the firmware on their DVRs (mine is an HR21-200), but I can't record ANYTHING now from the DVR on my DVD-R recorder. I'm using s-video cable from the DVR to the DVD recorder. Things recorded before- but not now. Really a bummer.


I used to archive a fair number of movies from my DTivo R10. It has the "Save to VCR" option on the page where you begin to play a show. I hadn't done it with my HR20-700 and decided to try one yesterday. I realized there is no option to save to VCR (or DVD-R). I haven't tried simply outputing S-Video to my recorder but it doesn't sound good.

I guess I'll have to stick with Blockbuster and RipIt4Me. Much better copies anyway and a chimp could learn to rip in 5 minutes with that program.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2008)

bonscott87 said:


> I have a component only TV. So long as I can still record my programs and watch them as I do today and have been for 8 years then I don't care. But if that gets interrupted I will drop all pay TV, sell all equipment and just go OTA and be done with it. Screw 'em (the studios, not DirecTV).


I wouldn't be too concerned about it. There are FCC rules in place that prohibit the use of selectable output control. That means they can't legally offer content over encrypted outputs while shutting off non-encrypted analog outputs. And as you've pointed out, the majority of what most people watch is available OTA anywhere, which means it's available for free, in HD, and unencrypted.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> I don't know about that Tom. How about the fact my cable co. provides both Tampa & Ft Myers stations but DTV can only provide the Tampa channels ( I live MUCH closer to Ft Myers & can pick up the Ft Myers channels OTA thank God)


That is an unfortunate difference between the FCC rules for cable and Satellite. Cable is basically allowed to rebroadcast any channel they can receive from the headend (more or less, as I understand things). Satellite rules are a bit different at the FCC.

The copy protection stuff is allowed by the FCC (for all pay TV providers) but the teeth is in the contracts with the copyright holders.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> As we know from the XM channels, DIRECTV can turn off recording and buffering at the channel level, perhaps at the program level? I'm pretty sure this a completely different set of technologies and flags.


Turning off buffering can be done for music, but it isn't permitted for video under FCC regulations, even for VOD or PPV.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> The copy protection stuff is allowed by the FCC (for all pay TV providers) but the teeth is in the contracts with the copyright holders.


There can't be any more teeth in the contracts than FCC rules permit. That means:

1) Broadcast TV cannot be copy-protected. Since that represents a majority of what most people watch, any copy protection would have only a limited effect.

2) Pay channels (aka premium channels) and non-premium subscription channels can only be protected with "copy once" restrictions. That means they can't prevent you from recording the content, only from making more than one generation of copies (how hard do you think it is to remove that type of copy protection once the content is off the set-top box?).

3) Use of "selectable output control" (i.e., blocking output over analog connections while allowing it over encrypted digital connections) is prohibited.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Rcoleman, got some chapter and verse showing that?

I am becoming more open to the notion the ICT flag isn't permitted, but the others?

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2008)

Here's a link to the document on the FCC site:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf

There's a section on "Encoding Rules".


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

I've now tested about 20 channels - including the local channels - and none of them can be recorded over S-video connection to my DVD recorder. I'm a bit miffed at this. I can understand protecting premium channels and content - but not stuff that over an antenna can be recorded just fine. It looks like - right now- DirecTV is blocking recording on ALL content.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> I've now tested about 20 channels - including the local channels - and none of them can be recorded over S-video connection to my DVD recorder. I'm a bit miffed at this. I can understand protecting premium channels and content - but not stuff that over an antenna can be recorded just fine. It looks like - right now- DirecTV is blocking recording on ALL content.


Normally it is not DIRECTV. It is the content copyright holders.

But with 20 channels, I suspect there is another problem happening. I've only seen this crop up on a few premium chnanels and certainly not locals.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2008)

kentuck1163 said:


> Well, I'm not sure what they've done now to the firmware on their DVRs (mine is an HR21-200), but I can't record ANYTHING now from the DVR on my DVD-R recorder. I'm using s-video cable from the DVR to the DVD recorder. Things recorded before- but not now. Really a bummer.


I recorded some shows from Showtime to my DVD recorder yesterday and I didn't have any problems. What model is your recorder?


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Normally it is not DIRECTV. It is the content copyright holders.
> 
> But with 20 channels, I suspect there is another problem happening. I've only seen this crop up on a few premium chnanels and certainly not locals.
> 
> ...


No changes on my end - either with the equipment or the connections. Couple of weeks ago I recorded content just fine. Today nothing will record. The best I've done was to get about 1 second of content recorded before the "You cannot record copy protected movie" message flashes on the screen. And, now I've tested about 40 channels.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Here's a link to the document on the FCC site:
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-225A1.pdf
> 
> There's a section on "Encoding Rules".


Thanks, got some more light FCC reading to do. 

(Not too bad, only 86 pages.)


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Thanks, got some more light FCC reading to do.
> 
> (Not too bad, only 86 pages.)


Read paragraph 65 first.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Can someone who has those "contacts" at DirecTV ask them if they are initiating Macrovision on ALL channels (not just passing through received Macrovision signals from the broadcasters)? If they are - I believe they are in violation of FCC regulations.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> Can someone who has those "contacts" at DirecTV ask them if they are initiating Macrovision on ALL channels (not just passing through received Macrovision signals from the broadcasters)? If they are - I believe they are in violation of FCC regulations.


From the second post in this thread:



Tom Robertson said:


> - _Why is DIRECTV using it?_ Major movie studios have obligated ALL Pay-TV operators including DIRECTV to incorporate this content protection for PPV and VOD movies. We will see this on all cable and satellite set top boxes very soon.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> From the second post in this thread:


Respectfully, I would suggest you read my post again. That does not come close to answering my question. Regular (non-premium) channels, such as the local network TV stations, should not have Macrovision protection. I understand that DirecTV is obligated to pass through any Macrovision signals they receive from providers - but those stations should not have any such signals.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> No changes on my end - either with the equipment or the connections. Couple of weeks ago I recorded content just fine. Today nothing will record.


Have you tried a reset? I've seen a few posts from people who have had the problem, and a reset corrected it.

Carl


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

This is for those who have VCRs or DVD-RWs. People have been stealing company-owned shows, movies, cartoons, game shows, music videos and live sports. They illegally upload them on video sharing sites like YouTube, Veoh, and DailyMotion.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> There can't be any more teeth in the contracts than FCC rules permit. That means:
> 
> 3) Use of "selectable output control" (i.e., blocking output over analog connections while allowing it over encrypted digital connections) is prohibited.


But they can downrez the content of anything but the OTA-like content to 480i for anyone not using an HDCP compliant connection by giving 30-day notice to the FCC.

On another note, I don't see anywhere is the rule that requires DirecTV to make available a DVR that will allow recording of all channels, or even some of the channels.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2008)

Ken S said:


> But they can downrez the content of anything but the OTA-like content to 480i for anyone not using an HDCP compliant connection by giving 30-day notice to the FCC.
> 
> On another note, I don't see anywhere is the rule that requires DirecTV to make available a DVR that will allow recording of all channels, or even some of the channels.


It's true the rules don't explicitly prohibit them from offering content in HD over HDMI while downrezzing the analog outputs, but there are reasons it hasn't happened. It would cause an uproar if millions of people started getting SD content that they were accustomed to watching (and paying for) in HD. Lots of people like myself who pay a lot of money to watch TV might decide they could do without FX and USA Network and stick to the free OTA stuff the major TV networks provide (read Bonscott's post if you don't believe it). The FCC rules could also be changed if there were a lot of complaints. It wasn't as much of an issue back in 2003 as it would be today, when a lot more people have HDTVs.

You are also correct in noting that there isn't any rule that requires DirecTV to make DVRs available. But neither is there any rule that prevents anyone from using a standalone DVR if DirecTV doesn't provide one that does what they want. And if I decide to stick to the free OTA HD content and use my own DVR, why would I need DirecTV at all?


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

i've recorded SHO and hgtv hd stuff recently on my panny E80..no issues.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

rcoleman111 said:


> It's true the rules don't explicitly prohibit them from offering content in HD over HDMI while downrezzing the analog outputs, but there are reasons it hasn't happened. It would cause an uproar if millions of people started getting SD content that they were accustomed to watching (and paying for) in HD. Lots of people like myself who pay a lot of money to watch TV might decide they could do without FX and USA Network and stick to the free OTA stuff the major TV networks provide (read Bonscott's post if you don't believe it). The FCC rules could also be changed if there were a lot of complaints. It wasn't as much of an issue back in 2003 as it would be today, when a lot more people have HDTVs.
> 
> You are also correct in noting that there isn't any rule that requires DirecTV to make DVRs available. But neither is there any rule that prevents anyone from using a standalone DVR if DirecTV doesn't provide one that does what they want. And if I decide to stick to the free OTA HD content and use my own DVR, why would I need DirecTV at all?


If DTV downreses the component out I will be going to a HD TIVO & save about $150/mo. that I pay DTV.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

FlBillsfan said:


> If DTV downreses the component out I will be going to a HD TIVO & save about $150/mo. that I pay DTV.


Don't be surprised if Tivo has to do the same thing.


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

Do anyone use a Monoprice HDX-402 Switch? It's causing my system to fail on channel 10. On their website they list it as being HDCP compatible (HDCP version: 1.2). 
http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...011002&p_id=3728&seq=1&format=3#specification


----------



## dduitsman (Dec 8, 2007)

spoonman said:


> Do anyone use a Monoprice HDX-402 Switch? It's causing my system to fail on channel 10. On their website they list it as being HDCP compatible (HDCP version: 1.2).
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...011002&p_id=3728&seq=1&format=3#specification


I have read a few posts in other forums that some HDMI switches (including those in A/V receivers) can introduce handshake issues that can be resolved by changing the order the units are powered on (and initiate the HDMI handshake). Perhaps this will help in your case - try a few different combinations.

In the long term, I suspect we all might be forced to upgrade some of our A/V equipment. It's already been said: this will cause headaches and hassles for millions - and won't stop the pirates at all. We've got to get the government to enforce *our* rights.

Regards,
dd


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

spoonman said:


> Do anyone use a Monoprice HDX-402 Switch? It's causing my system to fail on channel 10. On their website they list it as being HDCP compatible (HDCP version: 1.2).
> http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...011002&p_id=3728&seq=1&format=3#specification


I have the manual version of their switch http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...=10110&cs_id=1011001&p_id=2786&seq=1&format=2 It works fine for me on Channel 100.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

I have a sony 50" LCD rear projection kdf50e2000 that the DirecTV HR21 says "Unsupported Audio" after watching for a day or two. A poweroff/on or RBR would reset it but very frustrating and so I use component now on the advice of Earl (no, there is no firmware update the for the TV) there are/were tons of issues with HDMI compliance and I'm just one of many that were told to go to Component.

Anyway, I can't use the HDMI on my TV with D* HRXX (I can with my DVD and other boxes). I singed up for a 2 year contract and am already nearly 20% into it. I am liking the HD D* but if I end up unable to watch TV due to using component as I near the end of the contract (or move into the post contract period), I'll just go back to the home-built SageTV and use the internet/Netflix for movies.

All in all, I'm not blaming D* or angry. Just saying what I will do, I'm not that different... I predict that D* and the studios will end up with less revenue because of this.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> Don't be surprised if Tivo has to do the same thing.


Why would they??? They don't have contracts like Directv does with content distributors (HBO,Showtime,ect) that would try to force them to output over component in SD. Tivo is a company that would stand to gain allot by not filling the analog hole. They could go back to selling SA tivo's now for HD to anybody no matter the service provider of the consumer. I'd buy one!!! I'd use MRV to PC and archive my TV shows. Heck in 2-3 years we could see Blu Ray burning Tivo's!!!!

This will probably be a race here soon. Hollywood will try to get the analog hole filled before manufacturers flood the market with devices that can record HD over component. The more consumers move back to component and enjoy being able to save their HD content. The harder the MPAA and others will find it to shut it down.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

generalpatton78 said:


> Why would they??? They don't have contracts like Directv does with content distributors (HBO,Showtime,ect) that would try to force them to output over component in SD.


Copyright protection laws inpact all content providers, as well as presentation channels.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Copyright protection laws inpact all content providers, as well as presentation channels.


We aren't talking about laws in this instance but contracts. The content holders are making contracts with Directv and they are saying HDCP must be turned on. They are also petitioning the FCC to be able to turn off component on some content with cable and sat boxes. I'm saying Tivo is under no contract with disturbers to turn on HDCP and turn off component. While that being said they have passed on copyright encryption for some time now on prem and PPV channels. I just don't see them standing by and letting a big potential revenue source go down the drain with down rezing component or turning it off. They are under no contract or legal restraint to turn off component or down rez the video. There is also no legal reason for them not to build a SA tivo that can record HD from component sources in the near future.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

generalpatton78 said:


> We aren't talking about laws in this instance but contracts. The content holders are making contracts with Directv and they are saying HDCP must be turned on. They are also petitioning the FCC to be able to turn off component on some content with cable and sat boxes. I'm saying Tivo is under no contract with disturbers to turn on HDCP and turn off component. While that being said they have passed on copyright encryption for some time now on prem and PPV channels. I just don't see them standing by and letting a big potential revenue source go down the drain with down rezing component or turning it off. They are under no contract or legal restraint to turn off component or down rez the video. There is also no legal reason for them not to build a SA tivo that can record HD from component sources in the near future.


But where will it get the content from? seems like it will be limited to OTA only as any service to bring premium content will be under the same restrictions..


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

generalpatton78 said:


> Why would they??? They don't have contracts like Directv does with content distributors (HBO,Showtime,ect) that would try to force them to output over component in SD. Tivo is a company that would stand to gain allot by not filling the analog hole. They could go back to selling SA tivo's now for HD to anybody no matter the service provider of the consumer. I'd buy one!!! I'd use MRV to PC and archive my TV shows. Heck in 2-3 years we could see Blu Ray burning Tivo's!!!!
> 
> This will probably be a race here soon. Hollywood will try to get the analog hole filled before manufacturers flood the market with devices that can record HD over component. The more consumers move back to component and enjoy being able to save their HD content. The harder the MPAA and others will find it to shut it down.


TiVo does, however, have contracts with cable companies and DIRECTV, and TiVo supports cable card devices used by cable companies. In that light, TiVo hardware has to support HDCP if TiVo wants to continue to supply hardware to the cable content distributors.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

FlBillsfan said:


> If DTV downreses the component out I will be going to a HD TIVO & save about $150/mo. that I pay DTV.


My questions is what will that get you? DIRECTV is not doing this, they and all the pay tv companies are being forced to. Do you think any pay-tv company wants to go thru all this effort that doesn't generate one dome of revenue? They'd rather be supporting cool features.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

content "owners" are getting scared. their own artists are actively pursuing non-drm methods to sell their work without the backing of the major labels.
so they're pushing to lock down everything they can wherever the consumer allows them.
if every distributor stopped accepting this fallacy as true for a short time the story would change.
yeah it would suck for a short time, but after what we've dealt with on the recent strikes we know they would HAVE to capitulate sooner rather than later.
but as long as we act like sheep and keep accepting things like this its our own fault.
btw-I'm a sheep right now


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

theratpatrol said:


> Don't be surprised if Tivo has to do the same thing.


I will be using it for OTA only so there should be no problem. My understanding is this only affects pay providers.


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> My questions is what will that get you? DIRECTV is not doing this, they and all the pay tv companies are being forced to. Do you think any pay-tv company wants to go thru all this effort that doesn't generate one dome of revenue? They'd rather be supporting cool features.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I love DTV, but I see no point in paying for it if I can no longer get HD.


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Have you tried a reset? I've seen a few posts from people who have had the problem, and a reset corrected it.
> 
> Carl


Carl,

MANY thanks! Yes, a red-button-reset (RBR) did indeed fix my problem. I am very embarrassed I didn't try this on my own - but nothing else on the receiver was causing any problems whatsoever.

Thanks again.

-Mark


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

kentuck1163 said:


> Carl,
> 
> MANY thanks! Yes, a red-button-reset (RBR) did indeed fix my problem. I am very embarrassed I didn't try this on my own - but nothing else on the receiver was causing any problems whatsoever.
> 
> ...


Whew! and woohoo! Glad you're back in operation.


----------



## wavemaster (Sep 15, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Personally, I find this game of cat and mouse to be a ridiculous waste... ..After all, how long do you think it will be before we see a device that circumvents HCDP? Of course it will violate all sorts of laws, but that has never stopped anyone. Highly illegal DVD copying software and fake Rolexes are a mouse click away. HDMI copying soon will be, too.


There already are. Emulation is your friend.

I have several Gefen switches and a couple years ago one of them had an issue with HDCP on a new sony (never buy a sony) they sold me a box that I could plug into any of my "working" HDCP devices until a green light turned on, from that point on I can plug any display in after their emulator and the emulator handles the handshake.

Gefen no longer lists the product that I could find, but a quick search shows there are already other solutions out there.

So once again it appears that Hollywood will beat up the honest and the pirates will have better content than ever before.

To me this is all about the money. If the studios focused on MASS sales at low costs, A. You sell tons of it and B. there is very little incentive to pirate it to begin with.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2008)

FlBillsfan said:


> If DTV downreses the component out I will be going to a HD TIVO & save about $150/mo. that I pay DTV.


That's probably one of the main reasons it hasn't happened. It would cause a lot people like you and me to re-evaluate what we're paying these satellite and cable companies for content and how much of that same content we could get at little or no cost.

I pay $125 a month to DirecTV for a ton of channels, but there are only a few of them that I ever watch and the majority of the content is stuff I could get without paying a penny. As I scroll through the listings on my DVR, most of the TV shows are from the major networks, which means I can get them OTA, for free, in better-quality HD than what DirecTV offers, and unencumbered by any copy-protection or down-rezzing. I also have a few movies recorded from premium channels and an occasional cable show like "Battlestar Galactica", but I could just as easily get all of that content from Netflix for about $20 a month.

I pay DirecTV mainly for the convenience it offers in being able to time-shift programs, watch them on my own schedule, and transfer them to other devices as I see fit. If if ceases to be convenient for me, then I will cease to pay DirecTV. I can get the same stuff in ways that will put very little money into the hands of DirecTV and the "content providers".


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2008)

FlBillsfan said:


> I will be using it for OTA only so there should be no problem. My understanding is this only affects pay providers.


That is correct, there is no copy-protection permitted on OTA content, which means the most widely-viewed programming (probably a majority of all TV viewing) is completely unaffected.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> I pay $125 a month to DirecTV for a ton of channels, but there are only a few of them that I ever watch and the majority of the content is stuff I could get without paying a penny. As I scroll through the listings on my DVR, most of the TV shows are from the major networks, which means I can get them OTA, for free, in better-quality HD than what DirecTV offers, and unencumbered by any copy-protection or down-rezzing. I also have a few movies recorded from premium channels and an occasional cable show like "Battlestar Galactica", but I could just as easily get all of that content from Netflix for about $20 a month.
> 
> I pay DirecTV mainly for the convenience it offers in being able to time-shift programs, watch them on my own schedule, and transfer them to other devices as I see fit. If if ceases to be convenient for me, then I will cease to pay DirecTV. I can get the same stuff in ways that will put very little money into the hands of DirecTV and the "content providers".


I appreciate the idea but you're still screwed if you want HD, and I do. The Netflix discs are going to be SD, except for the few BluRay they carry. BluRay players have to abide by HDCP and the rumour is they will also be downrezzing component. Even upconverting players (99% of them) have to use HDMI to get higher than 480p. If you want live HD sports you're hardly going to be able to get that via Netflix.

We're all screwed.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2008)

Bob Coxner said:


> I appreciate the idea but you're still screwed if you want HD, and I do. The Netflix discs are going to be SD, except for the few BluRay they carry. BluRay players have to abide by HDCP and the rumour is they will also be downrezzing component. Even upconverting players (99% of them) have to use HDMI to get higher than 480p. If you want live HD sports you're hardly going to be able to get that via Netflix.
> 
> We're all screwed.


Not really. Keep in mind what I said before - _it doesn't affect anything that is available OTA. _The majority of what I watch (and what most people watch) comes from the major TV networks, which means it is OTA. That includes a ton of live OTA sports events. I can turn on the TV on any Saturday or Sunday during the football season and find any number of games on the local stations in HD.

As to Netflix, almost all of the new releases are coming out in Blu-ray, along with lots of older titles. I know that's the case, because I've been ordering Blu-ray discs almost exclusively since I reactivated my account a couple of months ago. I'm using HDMI for Blu-ray, but component would work, too. If you have HDMI, there isn't much reason for using component for Blu-ray.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Not really. Keep in mind what I said before - _it doesn't affect anything that is available OTA. _The majority of what I watch (and what most people watch) comes from the major TV networks, which means it is OTA. That includes a ton of live OTA sports events. I can turn on the TV on any Saturday or Sunday during the football season and find any number of games on the local stations in HD.
> 
> As to Netflix, almost all of the new releases are coming out in Blu-ray, along with lots of older titles. I know that's the case, because I've been ordering Blu-ray discs almost exclusively since I reactivated my account a couple of months ago. I'm using HDMI for Blu-ray, but component would work, too. If you have HDMI, there isn't much reason for using component for Blu-ray.


Along the same lines as what rcoleman111 is saying, since my big TV doesn't do HDMI, I unfortunately have to watch my favorite movies in Blu-ray to see them in full rez since the upconvertor won't upconvert protected content. Ah darn, my heart is broken... 

Oops new sale at Amazon... I'll be back later. 

Cheers,
tom


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's probably one of the main reasons it hasn't happened. It would cause a lot people like you and me to re-evaluate what we're paying these satellite and cable companies for content and how much of that same content we could get at little or no cost.
> 
> I pay $125 a month to DirecTV for a ton of channels, but there are only a few of them that I ever watch and the majority of the content is stuff I could get without paying a penny. As I scroll through the listings on my DVR, most of the TV shows are from the major networks, which means I can get them OTA, for free, in better-quality HD than what DirecTV offers, and unencumbered by any copy-protection or down-rezzing. I also have a few movies recorded from premium channels and an occasional cable show like "Battlestar Galactica", but I could just as easily get all of that content from Netflix for about $20 a month.
> 
> I pay DirecTV mainly for the convenience it offers in being able to time-shift programs, watch them on my own schedule, and transfer them to other devices as I see fit. If if ceases to be convenient for me, then I will cease to pay DirecTV. I can get the same stuff in ways that will put very little money into the hands of DirecTV and the "content providers".


I hope they really think this through, before implementing this scheme. I love DTV, The movies & sports in HD. As I said however, if I can no longer get it in HD what am I paying for? I have had NFL ticket for years & have debated if I will keep it or not next season. The cost keeps going up like gas & they want to charge extra for games in HD when they are in HD OTA.


----------



## Bronco70 (May 14, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> This is exactly why DIRECTV is running this test before the content providers require it. So they can talk to the manufacturers to see who is out of compliance. (BTW, I have heard from multiple DIRECTV and non-DIRECTV sources that almost always it is the TV/monitor that is out of compliance. Not 100% of course, but very often.)
> 
> So I'm not sure how you are calling this DIRECTV's screw up, this is their proactive testing so screw ups don't occur with real content.
> 
> ...


Hi Tom,

The idea that HDCP issues are "almost always " display related, is ludicrous, HDCP problems are random and the biggest pain for users these days.

I must point out that at no time did I lose an HDMI lock or not have the handshake required during this "test".

As I took this up a level with D*, they are aware. The response is that this testing is designed to break things. An ill advised plan in my opinion. What about the noobs? Both users and CSR's, and don't let me go there after recent contacts with D*.

And FWIW my 7700 has FW 0.48, You an expert?

D* "Proactive" ? That would be unique. After 13 years I'm not changing.... I guess.

A few more things to check. Will report back. Intend to help.

Regards,

Joe


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Oops new sale at Amazon... I'll be back later.


You weren't kidding about the Blu-ray sale. There are some pretty good titles in that list. I see one of my favorites - "The Usual Suspects".


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Not really. Keep in mind what I said before - _it doesn't affect anything that is available OTA. _The majority of what I watch (and what most people watch) comes from the major TV networks, which means it is OTA. That includes a ton of live OTA sports events. I can turn on the TV on any Saturday or Sunday during the football season and find any number of games on the local stations in HD.
> 
> As to Netflix, almost all of the new releases are coming out in Blu-ray, along with lots of older titles. I know that's the case, because I've been ordering Blu-ray discs almost exclusively since I reactivated my account a couple of months ago. I'm using HDMI for Blu-ray, but component would work, too. If you have HDMI, there isn't much reason for using component for Blu-ray.


For most of us, "sports" means the NFL. If you're limited to OTA then you miss the ESPN Monday Night games and the increasing number of games on the NFL Network. I'm a Texas Rangers fan but I'm 100 miles from Dallas - no Dallas OTA for me unless I have a gigantic tower antenna. Not to mention that 90% of Rangers games are on Fox Sports Southwest, rather than local Dallas. The same is mostly true for me watching the Dallas Mavericks. If you're a NASCAR fan then you lose a large chunk of races when they switch to TNT and ESPN in June and July. The Univ of Arizona is my college sports choice but I have 0% chance of ever seeing them OTA here in Texas.

OTA is nice but it's not even close to what a true sports junkie would settle for.

For movies, Netflix is going to start charging more for BluRay rentals. http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/042908netflix/


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> If you're a NASCAR fan then you lose a large chunk of races when they switch to TNT and ESPN in June and July.


True, but all you really have to do is record one race and then just watch it every weekend. They're all the same anyway.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> For most of us, "sports" means the NFL.


Don't get me wrong, I like the NFL...but I guess I'm not included in "most."


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

wavemaster said:


> There already are. Emulation is your friend.
> 
> I have several Gefen switches and a couple years ago one of them had an issue with HDCP on a new sony (never buy a sony) they sold me a box that I could plug into any of my "working" HDCP devices until a green light turned on, from that point on I can plug any display in after their emulator and the emulator handles the handshake.


It looks like this may do what you're talking about.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Lets throw a little more in here. Lets say that Uncle Sam will hand out some more coupons for the non-HDMI sets to be replaced. NO not gonna happen.


----------



## Crow159 (May 23, 2007)

Quick question, if i don't have any problems now does that mean I won't have problems when this officially starts?

I ask because I have no problems viewing the content. I'm using a HDMI to DVI adapter to the DVI input on my TV. I thought that if HDCP ever came that this method would not work. My TV is an 52" RCA R52WH76 rear projection that is a few years old. I have a HR21-700.


----------



## Crow159 (May 23, 2007)

Quick question, if i don't have any problems now does that mean I won't have problems when this officially starts?

I ask because I have no problems viewing the content. I'm using a HDMI to DVI adapter to the DVI input on my TV. I thought that if HDCP ever came that this method would not work. My TV is an 52" RCA R52WH76 rear projection that is a few years old. I have a HR21-700.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

If you tune to channels 100, 200, 488, and 500 and they look good now (you might see a brief warning flash on screen as the HDMI handshake completes) you are good.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

This program requires (poof)

Im using an HDMI to DVI adapter to. Glad that it works


----------



## FlBillsfan (Apr 23, 2008)

Bob Coxner said:


> For most of us, "sports" means the NFL. If you're limited to OTA then you miss the ESPN Monday Night games and the increasing number of games on the NFL Network. I'm a Texas Rangers fan but I'm 100 miles from Dallas - no Dallas OTA for me unless I have a gigantic tower antenna. Not to mention that 90% of Rangers games are on Fox Sports Southwest, rather than local Dallas. The same is mostly true for me watching the Dallas Mavericks. If you're a NASCAR fan then you lose a large chunk of races when they switch to TNT and ESPN in June and July. The Univ of Arizona is my college sports choice but I have 0% chance of ever seeing them OTA here in Texas.
> 
> OTA is nice but it's not even close to what a true sports junkie would settle for.
> 
> For movies, Netflix is going to start charging more for BluRay rentals. http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/042908netflix/


I'm a Buffalo Bills fan, but having moved down to Fla in 84 I also became a fan of the Tampa Bay Bucs. All the Bucs games are blacked out on Sunday ticket anyway, I can watch them OTA in HD & the 2 Bills games against the Fins. Any other compelling games or sports I will have to go to the neighborhood sports bar to watch. My hope is it doesn't come to this, & I will continue to receive HD through component.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Bronco70 said:


> Hi Tom,
> 
> The idea that HDCP issues are "almost always " display related, is ludicrous, HDCP problems are random and the biggest pain for users these days.
> 
> ...


Please understand, I pulled this information from talking to people who know both from DIRECTV and the general Consumer Electronics Industry. This was not just from DIRECTV nor intended to be a defense of DIRECTV--I've experienced it from other set top boxes as well.

HDCP issues aren't really "random" as you suggest; they are typically incompatibilities between equipment caused by incomplete testing and ambiguous standards. Sometimes by poor cables--that is more random.

Set top box manufacturers are forced to "fix" their designs to work with TVs--sometimes going way outside the specifications as a workaround.

And yes, this test is to find broken things. So they can be fixed ahead of time.

As for your 7700, nope. I'm not.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sbl (Jul 21, 2007)

Widescreen Review has been publishing a lot of articles on HDMI woes and incompatibilities by experts in the field. There's more technical data in some of these than I ever dreamed of. It was especially interesting reading about how Denon (I think) receivers implement resolution reports different from most every other receiver manufacturer, causing issues for some devices.

What can get especially interesting is articles by manufacturers, who often don't pull punches when explaining their view of what's wrong. For a few years, I thought WR was getting to be largely fluff and press releases, but it has found a new niche and it's one I enjoy reading.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

This is a copy/paste from the test thread of an issue that I just encountered with the test.

-----------

Udate to my previous test that worked (HDMI straight to TV).

I just got a Monoprice HDX-401E HDMI switch (spec 1.3). I connected both HR20-700s to it and all was well (going to Samsung DLP TV). I can switch back and forth between units with the HDMI switch and change channels without problem.

However, after going to channel 100 (which works fine after the brief message), switching HDMI inputs and then going back, results in loss of signal (green screen and or snow) on all channels The only way to get the picture back is to either cycle the HR20's resolutions or first go back to channel 100 again which resyncs it. However, going back to 100 only puts it back in sync on other channels until the HDMI inputs are switched again. But cycling resolutions fixes it for good unless I go back to channel 100.

So, it seems that as long as the flag is not triggered (i.e never going to channel 100) everything works ok. But going to 100 and then switching inputs with the monoprice screws things up. This happens on both HR20-700s.

BTW, both units are back on the NR due to audio dropout issues with the last CE, so I don't know if there would be a difference with a CE release. Also, native on/off makes no difference.

So here is the sequence that others with the Monoprice switch might try if they have 2 HR20s (or maybe another device). This is repeatable for both units. I don't know if it's a TV issue, monoprice issue or HR20 issue. <sigh>

1. HR20 # 1 - go to channel 100 - should come in. Go to another channel. It should still be ok.
2. Switch HDMI to HR20 #2 (or other device).
3. Switch HDMI back to HR20 # 1 and see if you lose picture.

<update> It doesn't matter if I switch the monoprice to another active input or an unused one, just braking the 'sync' by switching off the original HDMI port after I've gone to channel 100 causes it to loose sync when going back to that port.

<update #2> It appears that I can force a re-sync also by turning the HR20 off and back on. Not an elegant solution, but easier than getting up to manually cycle resolutions. I think they could fix this in software by forcing a re-sync if it sees the HDMI has dropped.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2008)

Bob Coxner said:


> For most of us, "sports" means the NFL. If you're limited to OTA then you miss the ESPN Monday Night games and the increasing number of games on the NFL Network. I'm a Texas Rangers fan but I'm 100 miles from Dallas - no Dallas OTA for me unless I have a gigantic tower antenna. Not to mention that 90% of Rangers games are on Fox Sports Southwest, rather than local Dallas. The same is mostly true for me watching the Dallas Mavericks. If you're a NASCAR fan then you lose a large chunk of races when they switch to TNT and ESPN in June and July. The Univ of Arizona is my college sports choice but I have 0% chance of ever seeing them OTA here in Texas.
> 
> OTA is nice but it's not even close to what a true sports junkie would settle for.


Bob, I'm a big football fan too, but there are always other options besides buying a new TV or settling for watching the HD telecasts in SD. OTA is just one of them.

But let's be realistic about it - how likely is it that sports channels like ESPN are going to be downrezzed over component connections? ESPN reported today (http://www.tvpredictions.com/espn051908.htm) that its ratings were 43% higher in homes with HD than in SD-only homes. Do you really they are going to lower their ratings by limiting millions of viewers who have component-only HDTVs to watching the games in SD? Not likely. And what would they gain by it? Even with HDMI, they still have to follow FCC rules. That means the most stringent copy-protection they are allowed to use is "copy-once", which really isn't any big deal. It's designed to discourage mass distribution, not to prevent people from recording programs to begin with.



Bob Coxner said:


> For movies, Netflix is going to start charging more for BluRay rentals. http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/042908netflix/


My understanding is that they are planning to charge a small premium for Blu-ray. An unlimited 3-at-a-time Netflix subscription currently costs only $16.99 a month. Even if they raised it to $20, it would still be a bargain compared to the $40 or so a month I pay for DirecTV's premium channel package. The comparison is even more lopsided when you consider that Netflix also has all the TV shows DVDs (many are starting to come out in Blu-ray) that aren't even available on the premium channels.


----------



## Robert Simandl (Jan 31, 2004)

My HR20 feeds an old CRT HDTV via component and an SDTV in another room via S-video.

All four test channels play fine on the HDTV.

Channels 100, 200, and 500 play fine on the SDTV. Channel 488, however, has abrupt flashes from bright to dark to bright... apparently MacroVision running amok?


----------



## trekologer (Jun 30, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> It looks like this may do what you're talking about.


You can also bet that someone will go a step further and build a box that doesn't even need an HDCP device to connect to handshake with. I think that a company in Europe already makes one...


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> True, but all you really have to do is record one race and then just watch it every weekend. They're all the same anyway.


I hate it when otherwise intelligent Spartans make stupid posts.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

poppo said:


> This is a copy/paste from the test thread of an issue that I just encountered with the test.
> 
> -----------
> 
> ...


I have the Monoprice manual 2x1 HDMI switch - HDS201. http://www.monoprice.com/products/p...011001&p_id=2786&seq=1&format=3#specification

I went through your sequence and I do have picture when I switch back to the HR20.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> But let's be realistic about it - how likely is it that sports channels like ESPN are going to be downrezzed over component connections? ESPN reported today (http://www.tvpredictions.com/espn051908.htm) that its ratings were 43% higher in homes with HD than in SD-only homes. Do you really they are going to lower their ratings by limiting millions of viewers who have component-only HDTVs to watching the games in SD? Not likely. And what would they gain by it? Even with HDMI, they still have to follow FCC rules. That means the most stringent copy-protection they are allowed to use is "copy-once", which really isn't any big deal. It's designed to discourage mass distribution, not to prevent people from recording programs to begin with.


As I read the discussion it's the content providers in control of downrezzing, not the distributors. The NFL (or other home sports team) is the ultimate provider, not ESPN. I do agree that sports providers aren't likely to want HDCP protection in the same way that movie studios want it.

Those are the *current* FCC rules. As noted earlier, the movie studios are trying to get the FCC to change the rules related to component and allow them to demand downrezzing.

In my case, I do have HDMI on my tv but only one input. I use component input for HD when I want the sound to go through the stereo. I have a manual 2x1 HDMI switch for when I watch upconverted DVDs. So, I could live with component downrezzing but it would definitely affect my viewing choices. I would have to buy at least a 3x1 HDMI switch and would then want a remote switch (much more expensive) rather than my seldom used cheap manual switch.


----------



## seltech (Feb 5, 2008)

Wow im pretty suprised that alot of people dont' understand HDCP and why its only affecting HDMI vs both HDMI and component. Since HDMI includes both audio and video data its obviously so much easier to rip, with component you need to somehow get the audio stream in the rip, which makes things a little harder (usually requires extra software and time), ripping from HDMI is cake. thus HDCP not to mention components will eventually be phased out.

if you are using a HDMI to DVI cable and you know your Display is not a HDCP compliant on the DVI port (not many are) then you need to do 1 of a couple things

Get yourself a HDCP scrubber / stripper, a couple guys here have talked about some DVI boxes that do the trick. I personally use a device called HD Fury and it works flawlessly.

or Buy a new TV.

Well there are your options. Don't think because you happen to have passed these test channels even though your TV is NOT a HDCP compliant that you will be in the clear. HDCP requires the 2 devices to handshake and pass an algorithm between the 2, and they constantly talk to each other. If you pass the test now and know your display isn't a HDCP compliant then don't count on it working when this copyright protection goes live. Your TV isn't magically passing the HDCP handshake.

Owning a DLP projector I know the woes of not having a HDMI port and not having a HDCP compliant display device, I went with the HD Fury device, but this device converts DVI to RGB and comply's to HDCP, so for some of you it won't be a good solution, it its the cheaper of the HDCP "strippers" on the market so if you have an old set or projector with a RGB port i recommend HD fury, hell they even have BNC pigtails you can purchase for it so you can run HD content to an old Barco type projector with BNC inputs.

www.hdfury.com is the website for those particular devices.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Even with HDMI, they still have to follow FCC rules. That means the most stringent copy-protection they are allowed to use is "copy-once", which really isn't any big deal. It's designed to discourage mass distribution, not to prevent people from recording programs to begin with.


Where does 'copy once' start?

Copying once to the DVR. Then what happens to archiving (copy twice) from the DVR to a DVD recorder?


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

Bob Coxner said:


> Those are the *current* FCC rules. As noted earlier, the movie studios are trying to get the FCC to change the rules related to component and allow them to demand downrezzing.


If you bothered to actually read some of that material that has been "noted earlier", you might have a little better luck in getting the facts straight in your posts.

The waiver the studios are seeking applies to VOD, not regular TV. And it applies to _blocking_ output over component connections, not downrezzing it. They are trying to get a waiver from the "selectable output control" rules in order to release movies on VOD ahead of their DVD release dates. They want to try releasing movies on VOD either during their theatrical releases or shortly thereafter, but they don't want to cannibalize the DVD market, which is an extremely lucrative market. They are allowed to prevent any copying over HDMI connections for VOD (which they can't do for regular TV), but that doesn't work with analog connections.

And yes, those are the "current" rules, which are the only rules that matter.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

Bob Coxner said:


> As I read the discussion it's the content providers in control of downrezzing, not the distributors. The NFL (or other home sports team) is the ultimate provider, not ESPN. I do agree that sports providers aren't likely to want HDCP protection in the same way that movie studios want it.


If you want to split hairs, it's ESPN that contracts with satellite and cable companies to carry their programming, not the NFL. And while I suppose it's possible the NFL could insert language in their contract with ESPN that would require ESPN to negotiate similar language in _their _contracts with carriers, it just doesn't seem likely. There isn't the same kind of aftermarket for sports and news programming as there is for movies and TV shows, and I doubt the NFL is concerned that fans are sitting around making recordings of their games.

All that would be accomplished by downrezzing NFL games over component connections is to lower the ratings and enrage millions of fans. And all that would accomplish is make the contracts for NFL games worth less money.


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

dduitsman said:


> I have read a few posts in other forums that some HDMI switches (including those in A/V receivers) can introduce handshake issues that can be resolved by changing the order the units are powered on (and initiate the HDMI handshake).


before your post i had never thought of anyone turning off an hdmi switcher...how bizarre. Maybe it's because i have the 1/2/3 programmed on my universal that i dont mind it being on 24/7.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

newsposter said:


> before your post i had never thought of anyone turning off an hdmi switcher...how bizarre. Maybe it's because i have the 1/2/3 programmed on my universal that i dont mind it being on 24/7.


I never really understood anyone turning off the DVR either since all it does is turn off the A/V outputs and the two little blue LEDs (assuming the ring is off). All of my stuff stays on 24/7 except for the A/V receiver and the TV.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

Another anomaly I just found. If I have both the HDMI and component connections going to the TV, I get the protection OSD on the component outputs when I go to channel 100 (HDMI output is fine). But what is strange is I will continue to get the protection message on every channel via component after that (as long as HDMI is still connected to TV). I have to either cycle resolutions or turn the HR20 off/on to get programing back on the component output on regular channels.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

The 241 CE (I had reverted to NR before the HDMI test) seems to have broken the HDMI 'test' at least with the Monoprice HDX-401E (spec 1.3) HDMI switch. Now if I go to channel 100 via HDMI, I get the protection OSD and it does not go away even if I change channels. It takes a resolution cycle or turning the unit off/on to get rid of the protection OSD on other channels. While a bit flakey if changing HDMI ports before, at least it worked. Now it fails on both of my HR20-700s with this CE.


I can now confirm that the Monoprice switch has nothing to do with the problem. Connecting the HR20's HDMI directly to the TV also displays the protection OSD on channel 100 and remains after that no matter what channel I go to. This is with a Samsung HLP 5063 DLP that passed the HDMI test on the last NR.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

poppo said:


> Another anomaly I just found. If I have both the HDMI and component connections going to the TV, I get the protection OSD on the component outputs when I go to channel 100 (HDMI output is fine). But what is strange is I will continue to get the protection message on every channel via component after that (as long as HDMI is still connected to TV). I have to either cycle resolutions or turn the HR20 off/on to get programing back on the component output on regular channels.


I also have both component and HDMI feeding the same tv, fed from an HR20-700 NR. They both work fine for me on the test.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2008)

highheater said:


> Where does 'copy once' start?
> 
> Copying once to the DVR. Then what happens to archiving (copy twice) from the DVR to a DVD recorder?


"Copy once" means copying from the set-top box. That's where the outputs (HDMI and component) are.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Speaking of that. The House of Representatives have passed HR 4279: The PRO-IP Act. This bill will allow the RIAA and the MPAA take away your computer or anything that involves pirating movies, music, games, etc. The Senate will soon introduce and vote on their version of the bill.

I don't think this would help. Lots of People will end up being homeless even if they don't own computer, never downloaded MP3s, or even recorded shows without written permission from any media companies. There was one article about the RIAA suing a deceased person for illegal MP3 downloading.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

How do you get from



Jtaylor1 said:


> This bill will allow the RIAA and the MPAA take away your computer or anything *that involves pirating* movies, music, games, etc.


to



Jtaylor1 said:


> Lots of People will end up being homeless even if they don't own computer, never downloaded MP3s, or even recorded shows .....


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I believe the theory is if you use any portion of your neighborhood to house the equipment, the whole neighborhood can be surrendered, leaving everyone there homeless...


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> I believe the theory is if you use any portion of your neighborhood to house the equipment, the whole neighborhood can be surrendered, leaving everyone there homeless...


:lol:

You guys are cracking me up.


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> I believe the theory is if you use any portion of your neighborhood to house the equipment, the whole neighborhood can be surrendered, leaving everyone there homeless...


Yes. It's the new "War on Drugs". Better yet, it's the "War on Copyright".


----------



## Drewg5 (Dec 15, 2006)

I know this is OT, but I wonder about the negative effects this will have on the studios. I for one stopped buying CD's because the studios went sue happy. I used to make a copy for the car in case I destroyed the original, but the music studios did not like me being thrifty and wanted me to buy 2 CDs filled with the same songs  

Now with the 24 hour PPV limits I no longer get movies or shows on PPV. I don't think I am alone in this. I do realise this is not D* fault but the studios and their greed. 

Staying on this thought path and with the amount of confusion that will happen when people start getting messages on there TVs that the show they have paid good money for cannot display said content they are only going to get mad, after that they will keep their hard earned money in their pockets. I guess I fail to see where this is going to be beneficial to the studios or content providers as a whole.


----------



## Greyshadow2007 (Aug 23, 2006)

*bump*


----------



## apexmi (Jul 8, 2006)

MrMojoJojo said:


> The only sad part is the stark cold truth:
> 
> As long as there are groups doing everything they can to protect the rights of artists, there will always be more people out there doing the best they can to undermine it.
> 
> Its kind of like the snake eating its own tail... just leading to a stalemate. And if this has already been brought up, then smack me with the "Haven't been paying attention" stick.


You nailed it, the loons running the hollywood asylum for sure,

The honest consumer is the only one hurt by Copy protection & DRM the true pirates get around it like it's not even there.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

RIAA sues dead person dates back to 2005 but still humorous: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/

Here's a more recent one where RIAA sues a homeless person:http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/18/1233227&from=rss



Jtaylor1 said:


> <snip> There was one article about the RIAA suing a deceased person for illegal MP3 downloading.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

FWIW there is a quality discussion of the filing by the MPAA to the FCC on Ars Technica regarding the scope of the "copy protection" as well as links to the original motion and comments to the FCC.

It appears the sky is not yet falling, just getting a bit cloudy.

Link (which I hope is allowable):

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-to-stop-dvrs-from-recording-some-movies.html


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks bushwacr! Good news sources are important additions to our discussions.

Thanks again,
Tom


----------



## EricRobins (Feb 9, 2005)

I had my house wired last year and the installers didn't want to have to deal w/ flakey HDMI. Therefore, they used component from my two HR20's to the close-by plasma and the plasma upstairs.

Once HDCP "goes live", am I going to lose my HD? 

I am thinking about running HDMI to the downstairs set (for BlueRay), but really can't for the upstairs. I have two extra cat5's which can be used, but at $300 a piece for the HDMI-Cat5 balun's, thats a lot of $$$ and only gives me one feed.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

A big thanks to Tom and all you other posters for this thread :sunsmile: If I hadn't read this on the Forum, I would not have had any idea of what was going on! I get all my information here :goodjob:


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

Drewg5; said:


> I do realise this is not D* fault but the studios and their greed.


It's easy to call something greed when it's not taking revenue out of *your* pocket. Had a large part of the population not run amok with illegal file sharing, most of these rules would not have been needed. So instead of putting the blame on the studios for trying to protect their interests (just as I think anyone would do to protect theirs), perhaps the blame should go to those who started it. Which IMO is probably just about everyone. I don't think I know anyone who has not downloaded/copied something that was copyright protected and used it outside of the 'fair use' laws. Heck, even some super religious folks I know, were talking about making copies of some religious DVDs someone bought, to pass around so everyone could learn to be more moral. 

Anyway, while I don't like some of the laws either, I can understand the need for them as long as people refuse to play by the rules. So the next time anyone complains, think about how you would feel if you spent a lot of time and/or money developing software, music or whatever and the next day it was 'free' on the Internet and you didn't get to see a dime.


----------



## poppo (Oct 10, 2006)

EricRobins said:


> I I have two extra cat5's which can be used, but at $300 a piece for the HDMI-Cat5 balun's, thats a lot of $$$ and only gives me one feed.


A little Googling found some cheaper ones. $99 for the TX and RX unit. I'm sure others could be found for much less than $300.

http://www.uniqueproductsonline.com/hdovcat5ecae.html


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

May be I've been doing too much reading in this thread and have gotten myself confused. When I first saw the thread we didn't have HDMI set up. So we got that taken care of. But on Channel 100 I still see very, very briefly that message. Should I still be seeing that message?


----------



## dduitsman (Dec 8, 2007)

Dolly said:


> May be I've been doing too much reading in this thread and have gotten myself confused. When I first saw the thread we didn't have HDMI set up. So we got that taken care of. But on Channel 100 I still see very, very briefly that message. Should I still be seeing that message?


Dolly,

Your setup is fine. Most people see the message for 1/4 to 1/2 second when they first tune to the copy protected channels.

You only have an issue if the message stays.

dd


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

dduitsman said:


> Dolly,
> 
> Your setup is fine. Most people see the message for 1/4 to 1/2 second when they first tune to the copy protected channels.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for answering my question  That's one of things I like so much about this Forum everyone is so nice and will help people with their questions :sunsmile:


----------



## ZaphodJoe (Jan 13, 2007)

I have an HR20-700 and just got an HR20-100 to replace an old HR10-250 that finally died. The new HR20-100 has had the snow issue twice today since I installed it. Turning it off and on does fix it but it is very annoying. I didn't go to chanel 100 just was going back and forth getting settings and season pass info to copy some of the stuff to the new receiver.

I also have a Monoprice 5 port HDMI switch. I did do a forced software upgrade right out of the box becasue I wanted to make sure I had the newest software release, its not a CE day though so it would of upgraded to the latest national release.

This has never happened to my origonal HR20-700 that I have had since it came out a year or two ago though. Only now on the new HR20-100.

Just another thing to mention that really ticked me off. First replacement they sent me last week was dead, it sat at just a few seconds more forever. They had me try a million things. So they sent out a replacement for the replacement. Then the next day they called to check that I wasn't stupid and causing the problem because it was the same issue with the HR10-250 (Stuck on powering up). After convincing them it wasn't me they said ok we will send it. Well today I get home and 2 HR20-100's are here. I install the first one and no lights at all work. Luckily the second one works fine. So I am sending 2 bad ones back.

Oh and I don't get HD channels because they didn't include B band converters with any of the 3 HR20-100's they sent so I had to switch the ones from my HR20-700 just to make sure the new one works on all the channels. They are sending me the B Band converters now though.

Anyways, sorry to ramble on about a different topic.

-Joe


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ZaphodJoe said:


> Anyways, sorry to ramble on about a different topic.


In a thread that's been dead for six months.


----------



## ZaphodJoe (Jan 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> In a thread that's been dead for six months.


Err, yah I just noticed that. I did a search for Snowy Screen and found a few threads and one big post about it saying if you have the problem go here and post so I went to his link and did reply. I didn't notice that it was 6 months old though. So 6 months later and this is still an issue? Was there a way to fix it? (The snow on HDMI input).

-Joe


----------



## jpitlick (Apr 19, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> All the Pay TV operators are contractually required to start using copy protection technologies in their set top boxes for premium content. I don't know the timeline of the requirements, I don't know which technologies are required in all the outputs, but I do know it is coming.
> 
> Don't blame DIRECTV, Dish, or cable. This is forced upon ALL of them.
> 
> ...


Does this explain why recordings from my adult premium channel do not show up in my DirecTV2PC?


----------



## Jtaylor1 (Jan 27, 2008)

They probably doing this because of copyright infringement. People were pirating DVDs and VHS tapes by recording movies off premium channels using VCRs and DVD
writables and sell them off the black market, which is illegal. The MPAA and the film companies were getting tired of it. It's Intellectual Property.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jpitlick said:


> Does this explain why recordings from my adult premium channel do not show up in my DirecTV2PC?


That should be a setting in the parental controls of your DIRECTV2PC.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2008)

Jtaylor1 said:


> They probably doing this because of copyright infringement. People were pirating DVDs and VHS tapes by recording movies off premium channels using VCRs and DVD
> writables and sell them off the black market, which is illegal. The MPAA and the film companies were getting tired of it. It's Intellectual Property.


Recording movies from premium channels for personal use does not constitute piracy under any legal interpretation.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

So true.

And my belief is that pirates rarely have to copy via the HDMI or component connections anyway. The cheap ones film in the theatres (and sometimes actually make a good copy), the better ones get access thru other means, long, long before the normal consumer gets a real DVD.

Soldiers in service report they can buy every movie they want for a buck or two; just days after (sometimes before) a movie opens anywhere in the world. Obviously this ain't someone breakin' dvd DRM...

Peace,
Tom


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

It's just like gun control. The bad guys have no problem getting the material to pirate, and the good guys like us are the only ones who are inconvenienced (or dead in the case of gun control).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rcoleman111 said:


> Recording movies from premium channels for personal use does not constitute piracy under any legal interpretation.


That's been upheld in some court cases as well.


----------



## jpitlick (Apr 19, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> That should be a setting in the parental controls of your DIRECTV2PC.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I did not see any parental controls in DirecTV2PC, but last I checked the "missing" recordings show up now. Thanks.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

jpitlick said:


> I did not see any parental controls in DirecTV2PC, but last I checked the "missing" recordings show up now. Thanks.


If you need to find them in the future, they are under menu/parental.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I hooked my laptop to my TV with VGA cable. When I run Directv2PC I get the copy protected prompt on the TV and laptop. If I disconnect the VGA cable it works ok on the laptop. Is this an HDCP issue. I have the latest Nvidia drivers installed.

I wonder if i will have the same problem streaming Netflix movies from the internet.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> I hooked my laptop to my TV with VGA cable. When I run Directv2PC I get the copy protected prompt on the TV and laptop. If I disconnect the VGA cable it works ok on the laptop. Is this an HDCP issue. I have the latest Nvidia drivers installed.
> 
> I wonder if i will have the same problem streaming Netflix movies from the internet.


When you did this, did you disable the latop's built-in screen? DIRECTV2PC does not work in multiple monitor setups.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> And my belief is that pirates rarely have to copy via the HDMI or component connections anyway.


Of course not; copying via HDMI has been made more difficult than other means, so other means are used instead. But if there was no copy protection on HDMI, it might well be the primary method.

Most of the foreign pirated movies are made just as you suggested: bringing a camcorder into a movie theater and taping it off the screen. Sometimes this is done by employees of the movie theater, who can run their own "overnight screening".

Another source for some pirates is screeners. A screener is a copy of the movie from a studio that is designed for internal use by folks like Blockbuster/Hollywood Video managers (to view the movie and thus decide how many copies to order for the store) or sometimes for folks who will be voting for the Oscars. I even read a story about an airline employee who was copying the tapes used for in-flight movies, which are usually available before PPV or DVD release dates.

I hate DRM more than most people, but I can also see the point of the content providers, who have seen that "grandma" can be taught to drop in a DVD into a computer, click 2 icons, and make a "take home" copy for herself in a few minutes, and in most cases DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE IT'S ILLEGAL.

Movie studios understand that hardcore pirates will always exist, and that it isn't cost-effective to prevent them. Plus, these pirates don't tend to be the "buyers" anyway; that's usually their parents. What they worry about is Average Joe and Jane being able to effortlessly pirate their content with ease. If "mom and dad," the big money spenders, can do it without being an "1337 h4x0r", then the studios have a HUGE, REAL problem.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

rudeney said:


> When you did this, did you disable the latop's built-in screen? DIRECTV2PC does not work in multiple monitor setups.


:sure: I new that. :lol: Thanks rudeney. By the way, Netflix looks pretty good on my 46" TV. A lot better then expected. And it does support multiple displays.


----------



## mitchelljd (Aug 16, 2006)

Jtaylor1 said:


> They probably doing this because of copyright infringement. People were pirating DVDs and VHS tapes by recording movies off premium channels using VCRs and DVD
> writables and sell them off the black market, which is illegal. The MPAA and the film companies were getting tired of it. It's Intellectual Property.


you may call it that, but as a paying customer, i believe you have a right to record to your DVR movies and other content you paid for on your Directv.

It is well established legas case law that you can record to tape your tv programming, shouldn't you be allowed to backup to disc movies you taped on HBO?
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm

I say yes, and any limitations on that will be fought!

But i do agree that there needs to be protections for networks from having their content put on p2p networks and illegally "shared" but for paying customers, we need protections from our abilities being stripped by the people bringing us content!!!


----------

