# 921 To Include DVD Writer?



## Stosh

I read that by mid-year Dish will make a DVD writer available for the open bay in the 921. Does anyone know if this is true?


----------



## Mark Lamutt

It's definitely a rumor, but I wouldn't expect to see it by mid-year. Maybe by this time next year...


----------



## Cyclone

When then translates to 2006. Considering that the 921 is purpose built Linux PC, it should be relatively easy to implement a DVD Burner.


----------



## buist

It may take some time for blue lasers to become reasonably priced (if they even settle on a single standard). If you connect a standard DVD recorder to the 921, it won't record any of the HDTV programming in HD. It looks like DVHS is the only way to accomplish that right now (when and if Dish enables the Firewire port).

Tim


----------



## BobMurdoch

Hmmm. Let's all hope those combination Replay/DVD Recorders take off in popularity. This would be a hugely useful addition to the 921's feature set.....


----------



## Mike D-CO5

Stosh said:


> I read that by mid-year Dish will make a DVD writer available for the open bay in the 921. Does anyone know if this is true?


 According to the May 2004 edition of "Stereophile Guide to Home Theater "which I just got yesterday, it is true.

The author of the article attended the Las Vegas CES show and they had a Dish press conference about the 921, where they revealed that the gray rectangular panel in the front of the 921 is a dockin slot for a dvd recorder that will downconvert HDTV programs to standard definition for recording. They also said it would be available in the middle of the year. In this same article they said they were glad that the 921 was finally shipping again , so you got to wonder about that part being true.

If they did do a dvd recorder add on through Dish I just wonder how much it would add to the already inflated price for the 921? This would truely give Dish an advantage over Directv since they don't have this capability with the Hd Directivo. This idea that Dish is using, is almost like the stand alone dvd recorder with Tivo except this will allow hd from the satellite to be used .


----------



## mindwarp

But downconverting to SD? :  :nono: :nono2:


----------



## Stosh

buist said:


> It may take some time for blue lasers to become reasonably priced (if they even settle on a single standard). If you connect a standard DVD recorder to the 921, it won't record any of the HDTV programming in HD. It looks like DVHS is the only way to accomplish that right now (when and if Dish enables the Firewire port).


The article (from SGHT, as noted above) indicates the writer will be the kind that is available now, not an HD recorder. HD will be downconverted to SD for recording.

That is OK by me, as long as the recording can retain the OAR.


----------



## buist

I guess downconverting is better than nothing.. But it is an HD PVR.. If I wanted to record SD programming, I would just buy an external DVD recorder right now.. I still hope that Dish enables the Firewire port. To me, this is the best long term solution..

Tim


----------



## GoFish

Has there ever been an occasion where E* or D* for that matter, have latter promoted an internal add-on/in for their existing receivers? Larger harddrive, removable media, expansion/USB port supported products?? I know there was at least one add-on card for one of the HD receivers.


----------



## DarrellP

I watch DVHS tapes made from the S-Video input from my Voom & Dish 6000 all the time and they look as good as a DVD. I would be quite happy with a recorder of this quality.


----------



## Tyralak

Stosh said:


> I read that by mid-year Dish will make a DVD writer available for the open bay in the 921. Does anyone know if this is true?


That would be great for us consumers. However, the sleezeball, bottom-feeding, anti-consumer, crap eating, MPAA and other studio execs woul have a hissy fit. They'll go whine to their bought and paid for Senators to keep it away from us.


----------



## Tyralak

mindwarp said:


> But downconverting to SD? :  :nono: :nono2:


There's not enough space on consumer availible DVDs to record in HD, unless you want 15-20 minute recording times.


----------



## ypsiguy

Tyralak said:


> That would be great for us consumers. However, the sleezeball, bottom-feeding, anti-consumer, crap eating, MPAA and other studio execs woul have a hissy fit. They'll go whine to their bought and paid for Senators to keep it away from us.


I like how this guy thinks


----------



## Stosh

Tyralak said:


> That would be great for us consumers. However, the sleezeball, bottom-feeding, anti-consumer, crap eating, MPAA and other studio execs woul have a hissy fit. They'll go whine to their bought and paid for Senators to keep it away from us.


I don't think the sleezeballs will prevent Dish from providing DVD-writers to us, as long as they are in the current DVD format. Once HD DVD writers come on the market, then the hissy fits will begin.

The best thing that could happen to consumers would be for Jack Valenti to retire. He has fought every technological innovation that has come along, and has been wrong each and ever time. Once the technology has come to market, Hollywood has gotten richer (VHS and DVD being prime examples). But still he fights every new format.


----------



## comet48

Stosh said:


> I read that by mid-year Dish will make a DVD writer available for the open bay in the 921. Does anyone know if this is true?


That's if it is shipping by then!


----------



## Tyralak

ypsiguy said:


> I like how this guy thinks


Thank you.


----------



## Tyralak

Stosh said:


> I don't think the sleezeballs will prevent Dish from providing DVD-writers to us, as long as they are in the current DVD format. Once HD DVD writers come on the market, then the hissy fits will begin.
> 
> The best thing that could happen to consumers would be for Jack Valenti to retire. He has fought every technological innovation that has come along, and has been wrong each and ever time. Once the technology has come to market, Hollywood has gotten richer (VHS and DVD being prime examples). But still he fights every new format.


True. HD DVD recording will make these execs apoleptic. I was thrilled when I heard that Valenti was retiring. This fella is a real piece of work. He was the pinhead who made the argument back when the studios were trying to ban VCRs that time-shifting was "stealing". Good riddence. Damn Luddite.


----------



## Guest

Stosh said:


> I don't think the sleezeballs will prevent Dish from providing DVD-writers to us, as long as they are in the current DVD format.


Oh yes they will. They already have. It is known that the 721 reencrypts the video data when storing it to the harddrive. This encryption is different from the encryption used for satellite transmission. The only purpose for this is to prevent people from copying shows directly off the hard drive (like you can do with the 50x and early dishplayers).

Look at the firewire port on the 921. Not activated and most likely never will be.

If they're going to go through that much trouble to stop a small number of customers from copying shows; there's no way they'll buildin the ability to burn DVDs.


----------



## Tyralak

EvilMan said:


> Oh yes they will. They already have. It is known that the 721 reencrypts the video data when storing it to the harddrive. This encryption is different from the encryption used for satellite transmission. The only purpose for this is to prevent people from copying shows directly off the hard drive (like you can do with the 50x and early dishplayers).
> 
> Look at the firewire port on the 921. Not activated and most likely never will be.
> 
> If they're going to go through that much trouble to stop a small number of customers from copying shows; there's no way they'll buildin the ability to burn DVDs.


:rant:Exactly. And the worst part of it is, archiving TV programs for personal use is covered under the fair use statutes. What they're doing is trying to stop something they've always hated: Fair Use. They float the red-herring of "piracy" so people don't see what they're up to. They know they can't stop fair use under conventioal means, so they just decided to find a back door.

They do this two ways. The reencrypting of shows on DVRs is one way. That stops the archiving part of the fair use laws. The other is them using their bought and paid for Senators to pass draconian laws like the dispicable, unAmerican DMCA. This piece of legislative diarreah solved their little time-shifting problem. They can insert these so-called "broadcast flags" that can prevent saving a program to a DVR. Right now all the're used for is sabotoging HD signals by downconverting them, but they have numerous uses, including preventing time-shifting. And under the DMCA, breaking the so-called copy "protection" in order to time-shift or archive the tv show, is a felony. Yep. They've got us by the short hairs now. All they have to do is pull. :flaiming :rant:


----------



## Stosh

EvilMan said:


> Oh yes they will. Look at the firewire port on the 921. Not activated and most likely never will be. there's no way they'll buildin the ability to burn DVDs.


Pure conjecture on your part. Until or if what you say comes true, there is no point in ranting and raving, except to alienate "them" further. All indications to date are that the DVD writer will be a reality, and that the firewire port will be activated. If that doesn't happen, I'll be on the front lines with you fighting it. But until then, your statements are neither accurate nor useful.


----------



## David_Levin

Much of the ranting here has already been proven false. Comcast has already activated the firewire port on the 6200 series HD boxes. People are recording digitally onto D-VHS. I see no reason E* can't do what is already being done.

The boxes are 5C compliant. In the future, recording some material may be restricted. Encrypting on the hard drive is a different beast.

If you could extract directly, you could bypass the 5C flags (that is not allowed). With the encryption, E* does not have as much of a reason to block hard drive upgrades.


----------



## Tyralak

David_Levin said:


> Much of the ranting here has already been proven false. Comcast has already activated the firewire port on the 6200 series HD boxes. People are recording digitally onto D-VHS. I see no reason E* can't do what is already being done.
> 
> The boxes are 5C compliant. In the future, recording some material may be restricted. Encrypting on the hard drive is a different beast.


That's exactly my point. Once we're trapped into all-digital transfer, the studios can completly eviserate fair use by adding those filthy little broadcast "flags" and make time-shifting and archiving of tv programs impossible. Read my above rant about the subject. This type of ranting takes too much mental energy, as I get extremly angry over the subject.



David_Levin said:


> If you could extract directly, you could bypass the 5C flags (that is not allowed). With the encryption, E* does not have as much of a reason to block hard drive upgrades.


Let's hope someone develops a way to remove those so-called broadcast "flags". We need to stand up for our fair use rights.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Unfortuantely, that would involve "circumventing the serucity measures" and run afoul of the 1996 telecommunications law....

Unfortunately the ONLY thing that will save us is if Congress comes to the rescue and gives us that right. Yeah, I'll wait up for that one (maybe we'll get lucky if someone from Arizona can convince McCain to take up the fight... otherwise it ain't gonna happen)


----------



## Tyralak

BobMurdoch said:


> Unfortuantely, that would involve "circumventing the serucity measures" and run afoul of the 1996 telecommunications law....
> 
> Unfortunately the ONLY thing that will save us is if Congress comes to the rescue and gives us that right. Yeah, I'll wait up for that one (maybe we'll get lucky if someone from Arizona can convince McCain to take up the fight... otherwise it ain't gonna happen)


You haven't read my posts about my feelings on the dispicable, commie, antiAmerican DMCA, have you? The piece of legislative diareah that has allowed studios to circumvent the fair use laws. I do hope McCain says something about that, but I'm not even sure if he voted against it. Go to www.eff.org. It has some real eye-opening articles about the so-called DMCA. :flaiming :soapbox:


----------



## David_Levin

The term "Fair Use" needs to be defined (or is it already).

In any case, I'm not looking to circumvent it, but work legally within its guidelines.

If they decide I can't time shift, then I will not watch. If they lose enough business, they'll change the rule.

Now skipping commercials is a much more dicey subject. The studios must earn their money somehow. But no matter what, if they force me into commercials, I can choose not to watch.


----------



## Tyralak

David_Levin said:


> The term "Fair Use" needs to be defined (or is it already).
> 
> In any case, I'm not looking to circumvent it, but work legally within its guidelines.
> 
> If they decide I can't time shift, then I will not watch. If they lose enough business, they'll change the rule.
> 
> Now skipping commercials is a much more dicey subject. The studios must earn their money somehow. But no matter what, if they force me into commercials, I can choose not to watch.


It's already defined. It was defined back in the early 80's. It allows (among other things) time-shifting and archiving of tv programs for personal use. The studios have been angry they lost that battle ever since, and have been activly searching for ways to get rid of it. Looks like the Commies that designed the DMCA have done it.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Fair Use runs counter to what Hollywood wants and they are trying to line the road with landmines as you try to use your fair use rights. If yo walk around the land mines, you are "circumventing the security measures", if you walk into them, the technology won't work, and thus no fair use for you......

It's scary when moving to Canada is looking like your best option.....


----------



## Tyralak

BobMurdoch said:


> Fair Use runs counter to what Hollywood wants and they are trying to line the road with landmines as you try to use your fair use rights. If yo walk around the land mines, you are "circumventing the security measures", if you walk into them, the technology won't work, and thus no fair use for you......
> 
> It's scary when moving to Canada is looking like your best option.....


Exactly. Things have definently gotten bad when Canada looks good. *shudder* They recently gave the studios and recording unions a good whack on the nose. I felt like celebrating when I heard that.


----------



## kstevens

David_Levin said:


> Much of the ranting here has already been proven false. Comcast has already activated the firewire port on the 6200 series HD boxes. People are recording digitally onto D-VHS. I see no reason E* can't do what is already being done.
> 
> The boxes are 5C compliant. In the future, recording some material may be restricted. Encrypting on the hard drive is a different beast.
> 
> If you could extract directly, you could bypass the 5C flags (that is not allowed). With the encryption, E* does not have as much of a reason to block hard drive upgrades.


I very seriously doubt it is an issue of E* not being able to doing it, but an issue of finding the time to do it. They still have severe problems with the software like it is. Until most of the current bugs are squashed, you probably won't see the firewire port activated.

Ken


----------



## David_Levin

Tyralak said:


> It's already defined. It was defined back in the early 80's. It allows (among other things) time-shifting and archiving of tv programs for personal use. The studios have been angry they lost that battle ever since, and have been activly searching for ways to get rid of it. Looks like the Commies that designed the DMCA have done it.


Well, that's all I'm looking for. My understang is that 5C compliance (921, JVC DVHS, firewire, DVI/HDCP, HDMI) will allow these functions to work withing the law.

Has anyone else herd something different?


----------



## Tyralak

David_Levin said:


> Well, that's all I'm looking for. My understang is that 5C compliance (921, JVC DVHS, firewire, DVI/HDCP, HDMI) will allow these functions to work withing the law.
> 
> Has anyone else herd something different?


Yes. I've heard that the studios are going to be very agressive with their broadcast "flags" on most programs. They want to turn them up all the way, meaning they use them to sabotoge the HD signal by turning it down to 480p for time shifting, or preventing it all together. Making that expensive 921 useless. And they want to disable archiving alltogether.


----------



## Stosh

Tyralak said:


> Yes. I've heard that the studios are going to be very agressive with their broadcast "flags" on most programs. They want to turn them up all the way, meaning they use them to sabotoge the HD signal by turning it down to 480p for time shifting, or preventing it all together. Making that expensive 921 useless. And they want to disable archiving alltogether.


Again, this is just hearsay. Attacking the studios for what they might do makes no sense. We can't logically ***** about something that hasn't happened yet. If and when it happens, then we have a right to complain. But I've "heard" that this downconversion was going to happen for well over a year now, and it hasn't yet.


----------



## Tyralak

Stosh said:


> Again, this is just hearsay. Attacking the studios for what they might do makes no sense. We can't logically ***** about something that hasn't happened yet. If and when it happens, then we have a right to complain. But I've "heard" that this downconversion was going to happen for well over a year now, and it hasn't yet.


It has already on VOOM, from what I understand. Once they've done it, it's already too late. Letting them know NOW that we won't stand for it, will keep them from doing it in the first place.


----------



## Ken_F

> Yes. I've heard that the studios are going to be very agressive with their broadcast "flags" on most programs. They want to turn them up all the way, meaning they use them to sabotoge the HD signal by turning it down to 480p for time shifting, or preventing it all together. Making that expensive 921 useless. And they want to disable archiving alltogether.


You might want to get yourself informed.

As per the broadcast flag mandate, no limitations can be placed on copying broadcast content. The consumer can make as many copies as they want so long as it is with an approved device; approved devices include PVRs (so long as not PC connected), D-VHS VCRs, and other products with DTCP. Moreover, downconversion over component signals is prohibited; STB products are required to pass full resolution for HDTV over component.

As per the cable DTV "plug and play" agreement, cable companies are only permitted to use the "no copy" flag on PPV and VOD content. "Do not copy" is prohibited for content shown on cable channels. The maximum limitation allowed on cable content (exception to PPV and VOD) is one copy. Note these requirements apply to cable providers, but not satellite providers.


----------



## Tyralak

Ken_F said:


> You might want to get yourself informed.
> 
> As per the broadcast flag mandate, no limitations can be placed on copying broadcast content. The consumer can make as many copies as they want so long as it is with an approved device; approved devices include PVRs (so long as not PC connected), D-VHS VCRs, and other products with DTCP. Moreover, downconversion over component signals is prohibited; STB products are required to pass full resolution for HDTV over component.


If this is true, it would be great. At least it's a start. Where is this mandate located? And is it binding? Or is it just a nice idea, and they can ditch it whenever they feel like it? I've heard different about the component video issue. I've heard that they want to close the so-called "analog hole" so they will sabotoge the HD signal if it goes over component. If this is not the case, that will be great. Also, not allowing it to be transferred to a PC would make PC based PVRs useless, and would make it awefully hard to archive to a DVD.



Ken_F said:


> As per the cable DTV "plug and play" agreement, cable companies are only permitted to use the "no copy" flag on PPV and VOD content. "Do not copy" is prohibited for content shown on cable channels. The maximum limitation allowed on cable content (exception to PPV and VOD) is one copy. Note these requirements apply to cable providers, but not satellite providers.


How long do you think it will be before they strong arm the DBS companies into doing it too? Also, the so-called "do not copy" flag on PPV content would make it damn inconvienent for people who want to send a PPV to their DVR and watch it when they get home. The whole broadcast "flag" idea doesn't pass the smell test. It smells like incramentalism.


----------



## Ken_F

> If this is true, it would be great. At least it's a start. Where is this mandate located? And is it binding? Or is it just a nice idea, and they can ditch it whenever they feel like it? I've heard different about the component video issue. I've heard that they want to close the so-called "analog hole" so they will sabotoge the HD signal if it goes over component.


The mandate is available on the FCC web site, I'll give you a link later. It takes effect July 2005.

In their initial broadcast flag proposal (wish list), the broadcasters and studios wanted to close the "analog hole." The FCC didn't buy into that, and their final decision (mandate) prohibits it. The decision was a compromise; broadcasters and studios got some of they wanted, but certainly not everything.



> Also, not allowing it to be transferred to a PC would make PC based PVRs useless, and would make it awefully hard to archive to a DVD.


The main intent of the broadcast flag mandate is to limit future, unauthorized distribution of broadcast content over the Internet. Thus, as you'd expect, most of the restrictions apply to PC products or products that can interact with the PC. The BF mandate won't have much of an impact on standalone boxes, but it places stringent requirements on PC DTV/HDTV products. PC DTV cards sold after July 2005 will, at the very least, be required to encrypt their recordings.

Note the BF does not apply to any products produced or sold before July 2005.


----------



## Tyralak

Ken_F said:


> The mandate is available on the FCC web site, I'll give you a link later. It takes effect July 2005.
> 
> In their initial broadcast flag proposal (wish list), the broadcasters and studios wanted to close the "analog hole." The FCC didn't buy into that, and their final decision (mandate) prohibits it. The decision was a compromise; broadcasters and studios got some of they wanted, but certainly not everything.


Thanks. That's good that the FCC didn't completly cave in to them.



Ken_F said:


> The main intent of the broadcast flag mandate is to limit future, unauthorized distribution of broadcast content over the Internet. Thus, as you'd expect, most of the restrictions apply to PC products or products that can interact with the PC. The BF mandate won't have much of an impact on standalone boxes, but it places stringent requirements on PC DTV/HDTV products. PC DTV cards sold after July 2005 will, at the very least, be required to encrypt their recordings.
> 
> Note the BF does not apply to any products produced or sold before July 2005.


I forsee some court challenges coming by PC component manufacturers. I'm hopeful that they can get this part of it reversed, or at least made more friendly toward consumers.


----------



## Guest

Ken_F said:


> The main intent of the broadcast flag mandate is to limit future, unauthorized distribution of broadcast content over the Internet. Thus, as you'd expect, most of the restrictions apply to PC products or products that can interact with the PC. The BF mandate won't have much of an impact on standalone boxes, but it places stringent requirements on PC DTV/HDTV products. PC DTV cards sold after July 2005 will, at the very least, be required to encrypt their recordings.


Then we'll have a repeat of the DVD industry. Mainstream american products will be crippled, which low cost chinese imports will have some backdoor menu (or hacked drivers) to disable it. AND of course there's GNU Radio, which renders all this obsolete:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/images/hdtv-samples.html


----------



## Guest

Ken_F said:


> The mandate is available on the FCC web site, I'll give you a link later. It takes effect July 2005.
> 
> In their initial broadcast flag proposal (wish list), the broadcasters and studios wanted to close the "analog hole." The FCC didn't buy into that, and their final decision (mandate) prohibits it. The decision was a compromise; broadcasters and studios got some of they wanted, but certainly not everything.
> 
> The main intent of the broadcast flag mandate is to limit future, unauthorized distribution of broadcast content over the Internet. Thus, as you'd expect, most of the restrictions apply to PC products or products that can interact with the PC. The BF mandate won't have much of an impact on standalone boxes, but it places stringent requirements on PC DTV/HDTV products. PC DTV cards sold after July 2005 will, at the very least, be required to encrypt their recordings.
> 
> Note the BF does not apply to any products produced or sold before July 2005.


KenF;

Good job explaining the BF mandate, but I feel that you are downplaying some of the issues somewhat. Right now, the BF is in what they call a "comment and review" period, where the FCC solicits comments from stakeholders regarding their "mandate". I put mandate in quotes for the reason that (and this is important to understand) the mandate is not really a mandate - it is a proposed mandate until they isue a final ruling. The final ruling will not occur until the end of the comment period. In other words, it is very likely that what the FCC floated as the BF mandate WILL be changed before the final ruling, and one can almsot guarantee that it WILL be "stricter". To repeat, the BF "mandate" has not been finalized and the FCC has not decided how they are going to enforce the provisions that they have proposed.For one thing, what one prior poster wrote is exactly correct - Hollywood IS still fighting for the FCC to close the "analog hole" (through the Analog ReConversion Working Group) and they are attempting to have the FCC codify this formally in the BF ruling, as well as a host of other issues that will kick fair use in the ass. This also holds true for your comment about the FCC already "prohibiting component output downrezzing" (I'm paraphrasing here) - they have not prohibited jacksh*t; they have just floated the IDEA of prohibiting it. As I stated above, once Hollywood is finished paying them off...ERRR, I mean, lobbying them, one can almost be assured that the final ruling will include this little tidbit as well as anything else that Michael Powell feels he can force through that will help protect the broadcast/content industry more $$$$. Long story short,I think you do a disservice to the less-informed posters on this thread to blithely say that "everythings OK, the FCC has already said they won't do that" when that is not the case.

Brian


----------



## Ken_F

Brian,

You don't give the FCC enough credit. There are certain things consumers just won't accept, and the FCC is not oblivious to that fact.


----------



## David_Levin

I'm with you Ken.

Even if the FCC closes the "Analog Hole" and/or requires Component to be Down Rezzed, this doesn't stop us from recording with a proper 5C compliant device and playing back full hi-res on a 5C (or HDCP/HDMI) compliant monitor. Current fair use give us the right, and 5C gives us the hardware.

This possibility has been bantered around for years. I waited an extra year to purchase Hi-Def until DVI/HDCP was available. Yes, the early adaptors could get hurt, and that sucks (especially since some had no idea that this is going on).


----------



## Guest

David_Levin said:


> I'm with you Ken.
> 
> Even if the FCC closes the "Analog Hole" and/or requires Component to be Down Rezzed, this doesn't stop us from recording with a proper 5C compliant device and playing back full hi-res on a 5C (or HDCP/HDMI) compliant monitor. Current fair use give us the right, and 5C gives us the hardware.
> 
> This possibility has been bantered around for years. I waited an extra year to purchase Hi-Def until DVI/HDCP was available. Yes, the early adaptors could get hurt, and that sucks (especially since some had no idea that this is going on).


Ken_F/David;

Don't misunderstand me, gentlemen; I sincerely hope that you are both right about this and that the FCC does not go any further than they already have w/ the BF. I just don't hold out much hope - the pressure from Hollywood is constant and tremendous and the present tenor of government bureacracy in this country seem to conspire against the citizenry at every turn (and not just about the BF, I might add, but almost everything that is even vaguely tech related). I guess I am getting crusty and cynical in my old age .

Brian


----------



## Tyralak

David_Levin said:


> I'm with you Ken.
> 
> Even if the FCC closes the "Analog Hole" and/or requires Component to be Down Rezzed, this doesn't stop us from recording with a proper 5C compliant device and playing back full hi-res on a 5C (or HDCP/HDMI) compliant monitor. Current fair use give us the right, and 5C gives us the hardware.
> 
> This possibility has been bantered around for years. I waited an extra year to purchase Hi-Def until DVI/HDCP was available. Yes, the early adaptors could get hurt, and that sucks (especially since some had no idea that this is going on).


This is kind of along the lines of "Why should you care if the government wants to put a camera in every room in your house, including your toilet? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." (Note: An obvious exxageration to illistrate a common logical fallicy) The problem with this, is they say "Oh, if you follow the rules, you have nothing to worry about" until they decide to move the goalposts. Until they manage to get the fair use laws changed to remove archiving, put time limits on recordings, etc. Then you're screwed. They've already done severe damage to fair use with that dispicable, commie, DMCA bulls**t. I don't trust Hollywood, and I don't trust their bought and paid for Senators either. They find a way to screw the honest consumer every time.

Think about it. What's their excuse for "downrezzing" over component? Because they say they don't want people sharing HD copies of the recordings over the internet, right? Let's dissect this red herring, shall we? Remeber that "piracy" is the excuse they use every time they want to limit the consumer's choices. Does anyone here know how large a 1 hour TV program recorded at 1080i would be? Several GIGABYTES. Who is going to spend days downloading 4-5 GIGABYTE tv shows? "Downrezzing" would still yeild perfect copies, but at 480p. A decent capture of a 1 hour TV show at VCD resolution (352x240) is almot 500 megabytes. It's hard enough for people to download those. NOBODY is going to download a 5+ GB tv show. And if they did, what would they do with it? HD DVD recorders aren't availible yet, and won't be for some time. The best you could do is if you're one of the few people who have a DVHS recorder, you could transfer it that way. It's an enormous amount of trouble that only a very few would actually do. So if the real issue isn't "piracy" what is it? Simply what I've been saying all along. The studios want to control what you watch and when you watch it.


----------



## Guest

Tyralak said:


> Think about it. What's their excuse for "downrezzing" over component? Because they say they don't want people sharing HD copies of the recordings over the internet, right? Let's dissect this red herring, shall we? Remeber that "piracy" is the excuse they use every time they want to limit the consumer's choices. Does anyone here know how large a 1 hour TV program recorded at 1080i would be? Several GIGABYTES. Who is going to spend days downloading 4-5 GIGABYTE tv shows? "Downrezzing" would still yeild perfect copies, but at 480p. A decent capture of a 1 hour TV show at VCD resolution (352x240) is almot 500 megabytes. It's hard enough for people to download those. NOBODY is going to download a 5+ GB tv show. And if they did, what would they do with it? HD DVD recorders aren't availible yet, and won't be for some time. The best you could do is if you're one of the few people who have a DVHS recorder, you could transfer it that way. It's an enormous amount of trouble that only a very few would actually do. So if the real issue isn't "piracy" what is it? Simply what I've been saying all along. The studios want to control what you watch and when you watch it.


To be fair, people are already trading 4+GB dvds online, and Home Theatre PCs aren't that uncommon among HDTV users. IT's more common in certain asian countries where badwidth is much cheaper (and faster) than here in the US.

The main purpose of "Downrezzing" is to ensure high quality analog recorders (1080i capable) are never mass produced. Content providers have no choice about 480p since there is still a large market of analog TVs out there that must be supported. Actually, I'm rather surprised it's 480p and not 480i.

To address the original point, does anyone think it's a good idea to implement a technology that technically allows content providers to stop any and all recording of their content? Once the hardware is in place, there is noting stopping a FUTURE FCC body from ruling it's ok to restrict everything.

What the FCC says today doesn't matter. If hardware support for the broadcast flag is universally implemented, then we've lost (until gnuradio becames practical and cheap).

BTW, a similar battle is brewing in the personal computer world. The same forces are trying to get "Trusted Computing" implemented. This would basically lock down your PC and prevent unauthorized programs from accessing content or doing much of anything else.


----------



## David_Levin

Tyralak said:


> Who is going to spend days downloading 4-5 GIGABYTE tv shows? "Downrezzing" would still yeild perfect copies, but at 480p. A decent capture of a 1 hour TV show at VCD resolution (352x240) is almot 500 megabytes. It's hard enough for people to download those. NOBODY is going to download a 5+ GB tv show. And if they did, what would they do with it? HD DVD recorders aren't availible yet, and won't be for some time.


MP3's are still flowing freely on othe internet. CSS is cracked and Dual Layer recordable DVDs are due to hit this year (let the DVD sharing begin....). It would be extremely short sighted of the MPAA not so assume the technology will get there during the life of the HD format. Have you herd of Internet 2 now being wired up on college campuses? It could move this amount of data -> no problem.



EvilMan said:


> Once the hardware is in place, there is noting stopping a FUTURE FCC body from ruling it's ok to restrict everything.


Yes there is, remember, the FCC works for us. That's why fair use already allows for time-shifting and personal backups. The proliferation of MP3s provides an indication that the need for 5C supporting hardware is an unfortunate reality.

With that, I'm probably done with this thread.


----------



## Guest

David_Levin said:


> Yes there is, remember, the FCC works for us.


Are you really this naive? The FCC works for the government, and they stopped working for us a long time ago. But you completly missied my point: There's nothing to stop a FUTURE FCC commission from changing the rules. What will guarntee that a corrupt chairman won't be appointed in the future. Oh thats right, they wouldn't do that because they're the good guys. :lol:



David_Levin said:


> That's why fair use already allows for time-shifting and personal backups.


No. A supreme court decision gives us the legal right to time-shift. The FCC has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't trust the current court to make the same ruling.



David_Levin said:


> The proliferation of MP3s provides an indication that the need for 5C supporting hardware is an unfortunate reality.


No, the proliferation of MP3 shows that the concept of information as a scare resource is dead.


----------



## Orcatek

Limitations on copies could be a great benefit to independent film makers (many who shoot directly to HD today). Imagine Indies allowing free copying for time shifting and corporate filmdom saying no time shift. Who's movies do you think will get watched?


----------



## Tyralak

David_Levin said:


> MP3's are still flowing freely on othe internet. CSS is cracked and Dual Layer recordable DVDs are due to hit this year (let the DVD sharing begin....). It would be extremely short sighted of the MPAA not so assume the technology will get there during the life of the HD format. Have you herd of Internet 2 now being wired up on college campuses? It could move this amount of data -> no problem.


MP3s are also 1-4 megabytes in size. That's a far cry from several GIGAbytes. Not to mention the slow transfer rate of most P2P. This "Internet 2" won't be availible to consumers for a long time, just look at how long broadband took to catch on. Also, MP3s are really a godsend to the record industry. They make a fantastic scapegoat for outdated business models, and lack of musical talent. Even though the research proves it false, the gullible (See: Legislators) will still swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994831


----------



## Stosh

Tyralak said:


> Also, MP3s are really a godsend to the record industry. They make a fantastic scapegoat for outdated business models,


Wow, we almost agree on something! 

Yes, their business model is outdated, and their prices were too high (anyone notice CDs are much cheaper now?), but another very powerful reason for the decline in CDs sales is the huge increase in DVD sales. Look at the charts - DVD sales rose at about the same rate as CD sales dropped. I know I now buy far fewer CDs, but my DVD collection is getting out of hand. :grin:

The music industry has conveniently ignored the impact DVD sales has had on them. They'd rather blame 12-year-old girls for their problems.

Personally, I can't stand MP3's. Here we are in a world of high-resolution formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio, and people are downloading crappy sounding MP3's??? 



Tyralak said:
 

> and lack of musical talent.


That I totally disagree with. There is as much or more great talent out there as there ever was. You just have to know where to look. It is harder to find the talent, though, because commercial radio has become too homogenized, as the evil Clear Channel Entertainment and it's clones dominate most markets with their monotonous crap. But look for public radio or independent stations, and you will find a wealth of great music out there.


----------



## frossie

buist said:


> I guess downconverting is better than nothing.. But it is an HD PVR.. If I wanted to record SD programming, I would just buy an external DVD recorder right now.. I still hope that Dish enables the Firewire port. To me, this is the best long term solution..
> 
> Tim


That's not the point - I have an external DVD writer right now. The problem is that with an external recorder, you have to "flush" your PVR recording onto the DVD in real time - i.e. if you have recorded a one-hour program on your PVR and decide you would like to save it for posterity, it takes an hour to record it (as you have to play it back for your outboard DVD recorder). If there is a built-in DVD recorder and the software is written right, you should be able to say "dump this PVR entry onto DVD-R" and it would only take minutes for a direct file transfer (no playback).

Of course the HD recording has to be downconverted (there is no HD DVD standard) but I presume it would be 480p, so better quality than what you would get from a SD signal.

I also read the original sentence in Stereophile and I hope it is true. Of all the features I would like to see in the PVR, this is the one that would make the biggest difference to me (yes, even above keyword-based recording, and that's saying something).


----------



## kmcnamara

frossie said:


> Of course the HD recording has to be downconverted (there is no HD DVD standard) but I presume it would be 480p, so better quality than what you would get from a SD signal.


I may be misunderstanding what you're saying. However, 480p is not a DVD-compliant standard. All DVD's are 480i or they are not DVD-Video disks.


----------



## frossie

kmcnamara said:


> I may be misunderstanding what you're saying. However, 480p is not a DVD-compliant standard. All DVD's are 480i or they are not DVD-Video disks.


You are entirely correct that DVDs are 480i, however it is my understanding that if the source material is 480p, this information can be encoded onto the DVD so that, on playback, the deinterlacer of a progressive-scan DVD player can recover the original source by simply re-inteleaving, rather than interpolating and so on. That's how I read the information at 
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#1.40 
- sorry if I am talking complete bollocks.

Either way, presumably you will get a much better quality signal by downcoverting an HD recording rather than simply recording the SD signal.


----------



## BobMurdoch

The content providers will threaten to withhold content, but will quickly cave once they realize they are losing money by not supporting the format.

Disney was one of the last stragglers to embrace DVD and now they make ads touting "Disney DVD" like they invented the format. 

You need a studio like Sony to champion the new formats and get the ball rolling. Once enough cmpanies get onboard the rest will follow.


----------



## garypen

Sony is no angel, either. Their DVD players were among the last to be able to play CD-R/RW and DVD-R/RW. They are also among the most difficult to copnvert to region-free.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Oh I agree..... They have been holding up HiDef Audio by refusing to support DVD-Audio while they push SACD. Ditto for the next HiDef DVD spec where they are pushing BluRay over HD DVD. 

While they bicker over who gets the biggest royalty checks, all their R & D goes poof as consumers stay away in droves until a clear winner is seen. DVD took off as far and as fast as it did because consumers rejected Divx and Warner made buckets of cash by heavily subsidizing the format in its early days (anyone remember getting 4 free movies from Warner when they got their first unit?)

They all try to push their own pet formats and ignore the competitions formats. This works until sales start to crater when they don't offer a feature the other guys do. (Most notably your CD-R reference)


----------



## sroach

I assume that this DVD burner would also be able to play DVD's. By using the scaler and the DVI output from the 921, I should not have to have a separate DVD player like the Bravo D2 (upconverting, DVI output) or a second DVI input on my HDTV.

Is this correct thinking? If so, then I would be for this even if I never "burned" a DVD.
Of course, I would have to get my 921 first.


----------



## Big Bob

garypen said:


> Sony is no angel, either. Their DVD players were among the last to be able to play CD-R/RW and DVD-R/RW. They are also among the most difficult to copnvert to region-free.


But they were among the first, or maybe the first to support +-r/rw dvd recorders

They just announced a 12x dvd recorder. first to do that too


----------



## garypen

BTW, the new Digeo Moxi box has a built-in DVD player. I'm not sure if it's a DVD recorder, too, though.
In either case, I sure wish Dish followed up on that investment.


----------



## knealy

sroach said:


> I assume that this DVD burner would also be able to play DVD's. By using the scaler and the DVI output from the 921, I should not have to have a separate DVD player like the Bravo D2 (upconverting, DVI output) or a second DVI input on my HDTV.
> 
> Is this correct thinking? If so, then I would be for this even if I never "burned" a DVD.
> Of course, I would have to get my 921 first.


Samsung currently makes a DVD recorder that outputs progressive component and DVI. Not HD though of course.


----------

