# AT&T, DirecTV back MPAA's DVR-blocking initiative. DTLA & Tivo want conditions set fi



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Thanks, Ken S for the submission:



Ken S said:


> Hollywood's controversial request for a waiver on Selectable Output Control (SOC) has finished the first phase of its cycle. Monday was the last day for comments on the big studio's petition for a lift of the Federal Communications Commission's ban on SOC. About 20 prominent parties have filed on the issue. Not surprisingly, TV content streamers AT&T and DIRECTV stand out among supporters of the plan, but there are nay-sayers and skeptics too.
> 
> Here's the article...http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080722-att-directv-back-mpaas-dvr-blocking-initiative.html


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

The first time I can't time-shift a premium channel program (not PPV) or regular network show is the day I cancel my paid TV service, permanently. :nono:


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Interesting...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I fully expect a good number of you to disagree with me.




I think this falls in the same category as Movies Now. Even though it impacts absolutely zero of the content currently offered, people will argue that it limits their usage. People will complain about not having the ability to record a show that otherwise would not be available for viewing.

If the studios want to be able to release movies for distribution on DirecTV in a timeline similar to theatrical release, would it not make sense that they limit the usage to that of a theatrical release. It is illegal to record a movie when you watch it in a theater. If the timeline is limited to this period, it will have zero impact on current content.

The studios own the content. They can certainly write the rules regarding the use of said content within the bounds of the law. They always have the option of not showing the content if the legal requirements (like SOC) are not favorable.

In short, you have to accept these rules if you want to see these movies in your home in that time period. Otherwise, they will stick to the status quo and you will only see those movies at that time in theaters (with very similar restrictions and possibly higher price tag).

Now, as consumers we have some leverage as well. The studios have to make this attractive to us. Obviously, recording it seems to be off the table from their perspective. So the price should be attractive compared to theater or it will not sell.


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

this doesnt look good. I noticed the article stated that it could give the option to downscale HD. WHY!!!!!?? what in gods name is the purpose of that! If anyone implements this it shows no respect towards their customer base that pays for HD service!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> The first time I can't time-shift a premium channel program (not PPV) or regular network show is the day I cancel my paid TV service, permanently. :nono:


Every real document I have read concerning this (not a third-hand opinion piece) has stated that this relates to PPV-type movies before they would ever be released on PPV. This means paying to see a movie while (or just after) it is available in theaters and well before it was release in a traditional PPV model or on a premium channel. It would appear to have no impact whatsoever on the status quo for normal PPV (on a normal timeframe) or on premium channels.

This is an alternative to going to a theater, not a change to PPV or the premium channels.


----------



## skyboysea (Nov 1, 2002)

The way it is now, new releases get on DVD way before they get on PPV making, in my opinion, PPV useless (why pay $5 for PPV when I can rent the same movie for less). 
If this option will give Directv the opportunity to offer more new releases I have no problem with it.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Toe in the water, Camels nose under the tent flap, Door to door salesman's foot in the door.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

well at least it's only for pre release stuff.. but you have to wonder if more would come after.. If I can't record my regular stuff I guess I just quit watching..


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

houskamp said:


> well at least it's only for pre release stuff.. but you have to wonder if more would come after.. If I can't record my regular stuff I guess I just quit watching..


And you wouldn't be alone. If they tamper with the status quo on previously available material, they would be opening themselves to fairly harsh review for fair use.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

gregjones said:


> This is an alternative to going to a theater, not a change to PPV or the premium channels.


The thing is, I already have viable alternatives, and I can time-shift, pause, or record them to a DVD burner for later viewing if I want to. That's what "fair use" under the U.S. Supreme Court _Betamax_ decision says I can do.

All this will do is encourage people to stay out of theaters (already not the most profitable of businesses) and watch in the same limited ways, albeit without the bad popcorn and gum under the seats. Not much of an improvement, given the loss of the rest of the good parts of the theater experience.

No thanks - I will wait for the HBO/Showtime premier, or watch it on DVD or Blu-Ray later.

And again, if this is extended to regular network programming or the premiums, I'm canceling my service. Period. I will find plenty of other things to do with my time - which, basically, is why I have 5 DVRs in my house in the first place: to watch things AROUND my schedule and at my convenience.

The consumer electronics industry gets this principle; the content providers just don't.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

gregjones said:


> If the studios want to be able to release movies for distribution on DirecTV in a timeline similar to theatrical release, would it not make sense that they limit the usage to that of a theatrical release. It is illegal to record a movie when you watch it in a theater. If the timeline is limited to this period, it will have zero impact on current content.





gregjones said:


> This is an alternative to going to a theater, not a change to PPV or the premium channels.


This sums it up vey well:



TBoneit said:


> Toe in the water, Camels nose under the tent flap, Door to door salesman's foot in the door.


It is the first step in incrementalism. DirecTV supports it now because it will allow them to provide more PPV content, ergo more profits for them. But how long until it is applied to premium movie channels and then regular cable programs and then network TV?

I would rather wait a few months for it to hit regular PPV or a premium than go down this slippery slope.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

gregjones said:


> I fully expect a good number of you to disagree with me.
> 
> I think this falls in the same category as Movies Now. Even though it impacts absolutely zero of the content currently offered, people will argue that it limits their usage. People will complain about not having the ability to record a show that otherwise would not be available for viewing.
> 
> ...


I agree in general this is a lot like Movies Now. And the idea sounds good for providers like DirecTV - gives them a competitive edge if they can offer movies prior to general release. And as a premium services allows a higher price point. Bravo!

What I am uncomfortable with is the potential precedent this could create. This sure smells a whole lot like "well lets get our foot in the door with something attractive". Then we immediately proceed to can't record Ghostbusters from TNT since you could record it to DVD later.

I am somewhat surprised that providers like DirecTV and ATT are willing to hand over control of their equipment to the studios in this manner with no conditions. I 100% agree with DTLA "First, the waiver must be limited to early-delivery high-definition movies, and for a limited time." - and I would add - only first run . There should be conditions and these two look naive.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Here are some related threads from last month about this topic:

Does DIRECTV favor MPAA proposal to lift DVR Control Ban?

FCC may make DVR design harder, and limit functionality with SOC


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> The thing is, I already have viable alternatives, and I can time-shift, pause, or record them to a DVD burner for later viewing if I want to. That's what "fair use" under the U.S. Supreme Court _Betamax_ decision says I can do.
> 
> All this will do is encourage people to stay out of theaters (already not the most profitable of businesses) and watch in the same limited ways, albeit without the bad popcorn and gum under the seats. Not much of an improvement, given the loss of the rest of the good parts of the theater experience.
> 
> ...


To a lot of people the theater experience amounts to watching a DLP projection of a movie with overpriced food. The home theater quality is starting to rival that of the theater but with a better price (maybe) and much better food.

It is not the consumer's place to support theaters if they don't feel the value is there. It is the theaters' responsibility to represent a value to the consumer.

Fair use does not extend to material not available. It is hard to record a show that is not offered.

Obviously, if they limited recording of premium channels or basic channels in any way, many of us would send in our DVRs and cancel services immediately. Since the DVR and HD DVR crowd represents DirecTV's best customer base (highest spend per account) it would be foolish for them to support that notion in any way. But this isn't about movies you get now through PPV, premium or basic channels. This is about material released on a different timeline.

If you want to push for the same interpretation of fair use on all new offerings, you will have fewer new offerings. The theaters would gladly thank you for supporting their business model. Supporting the continued enforcement of fair use on currently available content is a different discussion entirely.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Interesting that DirecTV is lobbying in favor of the limits.

I wonder if this is approved, and customers start complaining that they can't pause a movie on their DVR, whether DirecTV will claim "it's not our fault, the studios insisted on it," just like they do with 24-hour PPV.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Interesting that DirecTV is lobbying in favor of the limits.
> 
> I wonder if this is approved, and customers start complaining that they can't pause a movie on their DVR, whether DirecTV will claim "it's not our fault, the studios insisted on it," just like they do with 24-hour PPV.


DirecTV is in favor of a different product offering as a new source of revenue.

And PPV limits are obviously the fault of DirecTV, Dish and every other provider out there adhering to the same limitation. They all conspired to irritate their customers as part of a massive conspiracy. They all flew to the meeting in their black helicopters.

If you want to find a villain for the 24-hour limit, look to the studios that put the limits there.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

If it is supported by anyone, it should have specific limitations regarding the time after initial theatrical release when said restrictions could be in place.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

In this day of higher and higher gas prices and costs at the theaters themselves, I think it would be great to see, for example, the new Batman movie at home in the first few weeks or month of it's release. At least there would be a chance of me seeing it then as I've taken a pass on going to theaters for a couple of years now unless it's something I REALLY want to see.

If that means I can't record it, and would have to deal with the 10 minutes of commercials at the beginning as we seem to be doomed to now in the theaters anyway, so be it. Run a new release this way for a couple of weeks, then it drops out of circulation until the time it comes out on DVD.

I can certainly see a purpose for that and would be fine with what restrictions they are imposing.

Beyond that point - keep your dirty, filthy, grubby hands off of my ability to record and watch what I want, when I want!!!


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Toe in the water, Camels nose under the tent flap, Door to door salesman's foot in the door.


Yep. I don't like this at all -- not because it would immediately affect me, but just one more little slide down the slope.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

So the movie studios want me to remember when the movie I want to see is on, and sit down and watch it right then, instead of doing something else? they want me to choose between what I'm currently doing and enjoying, or sitting down to a movie on Live Tv? I will choose all right-Choose to turn all Premiums off. And if i extends to regular programming, I'll turn everything off-contract or no.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

bwaldron said:


> Yep. I don't like this at all -- not because it would immediately affect me, but just one more little slide down the slope.


Exactly.

One of the most infuriating things to me is that the size of the entertainment industry content providers is not really all that huge a part of the national economy and they a HUGELY disparate say in Congress and the enactment of federal regulations, things that effect everyone. They are remarkably well-adapted to out-lobby and out-campaign-contribute nearly every other industry group (with the possible exception of the medical/insurance lobby, which is at least a bigger and more important part of the economy).


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

drx792 said:


> this doesnt look good. I noticed the article stated that it could give the option to downscale HD. WHY!!!!!??


It would downscale non-HDCP-compliant connections to 480p. That means no capturing the movie in HD out of the component outputs and uploading it on the 'net, which is what they're trying to prevent. Of course, that also means no viewing in HD unless you have an HDMI or HDCP-compliant DVI connection from your receiver to your TV.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

IIP said:


> It would downscale non-HDCP-compliant connections to 480p. That means no capturing the movie in HD out of the component outputs and uploading it on the 'net, which is what they're trying to prevent. Of course, that also means no viewing in HD unless you have an HDMI or HDCP-compliant DVI connection from your receiver to your TV.


Good. They want to change the rules in the middle of the game? Let them buy everybody that has an HDTV with an HDMI input a new Tv with an HDMI input.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> Fair use does not extend to material not available. It is hard to record a show that is not offered.


The concern is, that once this becomes acceptable for these PPV releases, it will be easier to slowly push this to other phases. You can very easily turn that statement around and say that fair use won't extend to content that is being pulled from avenues that don't use SOC. If this were to pass, and studios could release their product in PPV with SOC and 24hr limits, it might become less and less attractive for them to release them via more customer friendly avenues. Paramount and Showtime couldn't come to an agreement, and now Showtime doesn't have any really attractive studios, while Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate prepare to launch their own movie network.

Just like the comment made earlier about the camel-toed salesmen getting their foot in the door.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

DarinC said:


> The concern is, that once this becomes acceptable for these PPV releases, it will be easier to slowly push this to other phases. You can very easily turn that statement around and say that fair use won't extend to content that is being pulled from avenues that don't use SOC. If this were to pass, and studios could release their product in PPV with SOC and 24hr limits, it might become less and less attractive for them to release them via more customer friendly avenues. Paramount and Showtime couldn't come to an agreement, and now Showtime doesn't have any really attractive studios, while Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate prepare to launch their own movie network.
> 
> Just like the comment made earlier about the camel-toed salesmen getting their foot in the door.


And then they'll wonder why they're losing so muck money every month.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Fair Use has been fighting a rear guard action for years. The collaborators are just just as guilty as the thugs who would remove any and all laws/rulings on the consumer side.

I've been a D* subscriber since their 2nd or 3rd month on the air. I've also been a geek online since 1983.

Whether I use my Apple TV as an alternative for IPTV content or any other hardware - to replace my HD-DVR's will depend on what D* does in practice. Not what their flacks put out in print. Still, I'm perfectly willing and ready to walk away over an issue of principle.


----------



## Bushwacr (Oct 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Here are some related threads from last month about this topic:
> 
> Does DIRECTV favor MPAA proposal to lift DVR Control Ban?
> 
> FCC may make DVR design harder, and limit functionality with SOC


You forgot the famous: "Copy Protection is coming, but don't blame DIRECTV" thread by TR at:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=129334

Can we at least cast a nonbelieving eye at the claim D* has had this forced on them?


----------



## MatthewTheRaven (Feb 21, 2008)

I consider this a backdoor to totally controlling where and how you watch content. It will start with stuff that's currently in theatrical release, but content owners like the MPAA and RIAA have never shown themselves to be the model of restraint. Make no mistake, every time they get an inch, they will reach for a mile.

I predict within two to three years, they will be trying to prevent you from time-shifting standard television based on their whim. And they will try to prevent you from fast-forwarding through commercials. You will watch TV their way, or not at all.

Of course, the good thing is that there will be a workaround. These days, the workaround is usually released before the initial DRM


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

I have a really nice home theater setup, but I still enjoy watching movies in commercial movie theaters.

My concern is this will be yet another erosion against the commercial movie theater market. Movie theaters already have minimal profit margins as it is. They get next to nothing from the ticket sales at the box office. Nearly all of that goes to the movie studios. Theaters get nearly all of their operating revenue from those high concessions prices.

I strongly feel any "day and date" release of movies in theaters and in home viewing environments is a very bad idea. Given the choice, most people will choose to save a lot of money and just stay home. They may also do the same thing if a movie is released on PPV a couple weeks or a month after the movie appears in theaters -even if the DVR is disabled by SOC methods.

Some people are going to keep going to theaters regardless of the price or even the low quality of a certain movie theater. No one goes to see every movie at the theater. Changes in PPV time tables versus theatrical release would erode a good bit of that dedicated theater customer base.

Lots of movie theater chains have been going in and out of bankruptcy. With the biggest chains now spending huge sums of money on digital cinema upgrades it wouldn't take very much at all to put any major theater chain out of business.

The ultimate point is this: *the movie industry needs movie theaters in order to make big budget movies.* Without the theaters there will be no unique venue to showcase these big budget films. It ends up hurting the movie studios just as bad as the movie theater chains.

If all movies are released straight to video then it will be much more difficult for film distributors to make their big budget products stand out against the huge tide of straight to video garbage released week after week. Big budget productions would become far more risky to finance. The studios would end up just producing low budget fare. Their stature would be reduced to mere independent production companies in the shadow of major TV networks. Those of us who enjoy watching big epic movies on our HDTV screens would then be doing without. A good NFL game would then be about the biggest thing on TV.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Well if movie studios fail or if DRM takes away my DVR functionality to the point that it's not usable, well . . . I have a nice stable of guitars, and all the latest videogame consoles - I WILL find things to occupy my time just fine, thanks. Hollywood can kiss my happy butt.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

Thank god for Blockbuster and dvdfab!


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Interesting issue. It sounds like the proposal applies only to movies that air on TV before they are released to DVD and I imagine this is to avoid copying the movies to a DVD for illegal sale. I do not imagine this will affect viewing the movie on a DVR on your TV. It makes sense for DirecTV to get behind it because it will encourage the movie distributors to distribute movies earlier in the time cycle and DirecTV can air those. 

My concern about this is it puts a crack in the door on the FCC's postion that the viewer should be in total control of how things appear on their TVs rather than the content providers. The concern is that this, if passed, could be a slippery slope and eventually lead to content providers being able to encode their programs to prevent a DVR from fast forwarding through commercials. I know that is a big leap from what they want now but a long time strategy for changing government mandates is to slowly chip away at them rather than trying to make a big sweeping change. Our governement does not like big changes at once.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

kturcotte said:


> Good. They want to change the rules in the middle of the game? Let them buy everybody that has an HDTV with an HDMI input a new Tv with an HDMI input.


The "rules" have been in place a while already. Upscaling DVD players won't upscale encrypted DVDs (meaning: movies) via analog outputs. Blu-Ray players will have their analog outputs locked at 480p as of 2012. Cable boxes and Dish receivers all face the same restrictions. The requirements are part of the licenses with the movie and TV studios. The "analog hole" is *going* to be closed sooner or later, and the studios are pushing for "sooner."

Folks with TVs that lack HDMI outputs are going to be SOL, just like people who bought HD-DVD instead of Blu-Ray, or the ones who bought Beta instead of VHS. Being an early adopter always carries the risk of early obsolesence. No one is going to be buying anyone a replacement TV.


----------



## LarryW (May 29, 2007)

This situation is exactly what the NRA and gun owners have been fighting for years and years. Give the content providers an inch and they will eventually want to take a mile. The will be no comprimise, just submission of our "Fair Use" rights that we now enjoy.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I have read and reread the article and I am not sure I get it. Does this really mean that the film industry does not like the way the "piracy cops" are doing their jobs, so now they are getting approval to be vigilantes?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

OK, as long as nobody complains what tickets at theaters cost (or the food, or the noisy loser sitting behind you, etc.). If you want movies earlier, strings are attached.

I disagree completely regarding the likelihood of this moving to premium channels. Those channels have to get subscribers. Making them angry will erode their market. Timing is everything in these concerns. As long as there is a reasonably priced alternative (blu-ray, netflix, etc.), there is no reason to believe they would commit share-price suicide.

But feel free to disagree with me. I only hope people see that neither extreme is likely. They are not likely to keep you from recording everything on any source. They are not likely to let you get access to movies earlier if you can record them (killing their DVD market before it exists). Why am i so confident that neither of these will happen? Companies tend to operate in their own self-interest. New restrictions make no sense if they alienate a large percentage of the customers.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

LarryW said:


> This situation is exactly what the NRA and gun owners have been fighting for years and years. Give the content providers an inch and they will eventually want to take a mile. The will be no comprimise, just submission of our "Fair Use" rights that we now enjoy.


I didnt know the government passed the 28th Amendment that gave Americans the right to use a DVR.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LarryW said:


> This situation is exactly what the NRA and gun owners have been fighting for years and years. Give the content providers an inch and they will eventually want to take a mile. The will be no comprimise, just submission of our "Fair Use" rights that we now enjoy.


I am all for gun rights but this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. One is a constitutional right, the other concerns an established precedent in entertainment licensing.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Marvin said:


> I didnt know the government passed the 28th Amendment that gave Americans the right to use a DVR.


Neither is there a Constitutional amendment giving the MPAA the right to control how I use my lawful audio-visual equipment to enjoy my lawfully-purchased programming.
Every stupid, overreaching provision of U.S. copyright law stems from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Now go read the Copyright Act and see how so much can come of so little.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Neither is there a Constitutional amendment giving the MPAA the right to control how I use my lawful audio-visual equipment to enjoy my lawfully-purchased programming.


If only each of those purchases were not a contract, it would be so much simpler.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

gregjones said:


> If only each of those purchases were not a contract, it would be so much simpler.


Don't lecture a lawyer about contracts. I'll have to start bringing up phrases like "frustration of the contract," "adhesion," "anticipatory breach," and the ultimate trump, "unconscionable."


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Don't lecture a lawyer about contracts. I'll have to start bringing up phrases like "frustration of the contract," "adhesion," "anticipatory breach," and the ultimate trump, "unconscionable."


You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the content owners have control of how their assets are offered for sale. They don't have to have any changes to keep doing as they are doing.

And people second-guess me all the time telling me how easy it would be for a programmer to change their software in this way or that. Why should lawyers get some privilege that honest professionals (like software developers) don't?

Yes, that was sarcasm. *EDIT: Can people really not take a joke at all anymore? People in every profession often take themselves far too seriously.*


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

I'm finished with this thread. My previous comments say it all.

Enjoy the discussion.


----------



## uscboy (Sep 5, 2006)

That's it - just keep giving people more reason to download movies for free on 
the Internet instead of actually buying it via things like PPV.... genius!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

DIRECTV supports "live-viewing" only for "pre-release" content ... but how will DIRECTV denote that the content must be watched live, that is not allowed to be time-shifted in the live buffer, that it is not allowed to be recorded? What "symbol" will they introduce in the Guide or in the Program Info to convey the rights the DVR-user has when it comes to these programs? 

If DIRECTV doesn't come up with a way to convey this, they will confuse or tick off a lot of people ...


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> DIRECTV supports "live-viewing" only for "pre-release" content ... but how will DIRECTV denote that the content must be watched live, that is not allowed to be time-shifted in the live buffer, that it is not allowed to be recorded? What "symbol" will they introduce in the Guide or in the Program Info to convey the rights the DVR-user has when it comes to these programs?
> 
> If DIRECTV doesn't come up with a way to convey this, they will confuse or tick off a lot of people ...


The pre-release movies will be in there own channel block, like PPVs.
Over a short amount of time, people understand how PPVs work, and where the are, pre-release movies will be the same.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

CJTE said:


> The pre-release movies will be in there own channel block, like PPVs.
> Over a short amount of time, people understand how PPVs work, and where the are, pre-release movies will be the same.


I am consistently amazed at how well people adapt to some concepts and not others. I know a lot of people that immediately understood PPV, All Day Ticket and how to fast-forward through commercials on their DVR, but never learned to set the clock on their VCR.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

CJTE said:


> The pre-release movies will be in there own channel block, like PPVs.
> Over a short amount of time, people understand how PPVs work, and where the are, pre-release movies will be the same.


Where did you hear they will have their own channel block? How do we know the provider, HBO, for example, wouldn't just put a "pre-release" movie in the 8 PM "Premiere Movie" slot on a Saturday or Sunday night, and that this showing will be one that can't be recorded or time-shifted?

Whether it's in its own channel block or on the regular channel, DIRECTV still needs a symbol to indicate it can't be recorded or time-shifted. Sure we have PPV now, and they have symbols to indicate they have a cost ($) or are available for 24 hour rental [>24>], but what will DIRECTV to distinguish the programs that are DVR-blocked from normal movies?


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Drew2k said:


> ... but what will DIRECTV to distinguish the programs that are DVR-blocked from normal movies?


What about "☹"?


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Where did you hear they will have their own channel block? How do we know the provider, HBO, for example, wouldn't just put a "pre-release" movie in the 8 PM "Premiere Movie" slot on a Saturday or Sunday night, and that this showing will be one that can't be recorded or time-shifted?
> 
> Whether it's in its own channel block or on the regular channel, DIRECTV still needs a symbol to indicate it can't be recorded or time-shifted. Sure we have PPV now, and they have symbols to indicate they have a cost ($) or are available for 24 hour rental [>24>], but what will DIRECTV to distinguish the programs that are DVR-blocked from normal movies?


An alternate interpretation could be - they are taking HBO,etc out of the picture completely. This sounds like a distribution deal between the movie houses and the providers. Direct marketing - fewer people taking a slice of the pie. I am just speculating it would be marked just like the PPV with some sort of expiration and some sort of "Record Never" flag.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Generally movies follow a specific timeline:

Theater -> DVD -> PPV -> Premiums -> Basic Cable

This would seem to be an attempt to insert another phase in the timeline:

Theater -> **NEW** -> PPV -> Premiums -> Basic Cable



PPV did not impact the restrictions on premiums. The 24-hour limit has not restricted the premiums. I do not see a reason to believe that this would have more impact than the 24-hour limit had on premiums. As long as this offering has a limited time after theatrical release, it should have zero impact on the premiums.

I cannot see the premiums being impacted by these movies at that time because they would not spend the money to get them. A movie is more expensive to license the closer it is to its original theatrical release. If the premiums were that interested (or able) to get movies more in the PPV timeframe, they would already be doing it.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

gregjones said:


> OK, as long as nobody complains what tickets at theaters cost (or the food, or the noisy loser sitting behind you, etc.). If you want movies earlier, strings are attached.
> 
> I disagree completely regarding the likelihood of this moving to premium channels. Those channels have to get subscribers. Making them angry will erode their market. Timing is everything in these concerns. As long as there is a reasonably priced alternative (blu-ray, netflix, etc.), there is no reason to believe they would commit share-price suicide.
> 
> But feel free to disagree with me. I only hope people see that neither extreme is likely. They are not likely to keep you from recording everything on any source. They are not likely to let you get access to movies earlier if you can record them (killing their DVD market before it exists). Why am i so confident that neither of these will happen? Companies tend to operate in their own self-interest. New restrictions make no sense if they alienate a large percentage of the customers.


I'll disagree, If I want to go to the movie theater for a larger screen and better sound than I get in the house I have the right to complain about what tickets or food cost or the noisy person sitting behind me. If no one complains how is the cinema supposed to know that they have a problem that needs fixing. I am sure that cinema owners monitor the internet and read their emails.

Not to mention that anyone thinks these concurrent with cinema release titles will be cheaper than 1 or more likely 2 tickets is likely to be surprised. Since the studio gets most of the ticket price paid at the cinema why should they lose revenue by making your convenience a lower return to their bank account?

Think about it this way, You can usually buy something on the internet cheaper from anyone except the company that makes it. They have to sell at full retail or lose their distributors.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Generally movies follow a specific timeline:
> 
> Theater -> DVD -> PPV -> Premiums -> Basic Cable
> 
> ...


I think this **NEW** step is already in place - have you ever ordered movies at a hotel? (no not that kind of movie  ) They have many many titles that are out of theatres but not out on DVD yet.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> I think this **NEW** step is already in place - have you ever ordered movies at a hotel? (no not that kind of movie  ) They have many many titles that are out of theatres but not out on DVD yet.


Yes, and they are not available for recording and not available via DirecTV now. They seem to have avoided fair use altogether.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> I'll disagree, If I want to go to the movie theater for a larger screen and better sound than I get in the house I have the right to complain about what tickets or food cost or the noisy person sitting behind me. If no one complains how is the cinema supposed to know that they have a problem that needs fixing. I am sure that cinema owners monitor the internet and read their emails.
> 
> Not to mention that anyone thinks these concurrent with cinema release titles will be cheaper than 1 or more likely 2 tickets is likely to be surprised. Since the studio gets most of the ticket price paid at the cinema why should they lose revenue by making your convenience a lower return to their bank account?
> 
> Think about it this way, You can usually buy something on the internet cheaper from anyone except the company that makes it. They have to sell at full retail or lose their distributors.


I should have said "don't complain when a theater is your only option." Of course we can always complain about the price.

As far as price, I would be happy if it were in the less than the cost of two tickets + the cost of gas to get there. I don't want to encourage DirecTV to push a higher price point but I think they would find others comfortable with that range.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Generally movies follow a specific timeline:
> 
> Theater -> DVD -> PPV -> Premiums -> Basic Cable
> 
> ...


I guess I just read the articles a different way, thinking that it would be up to each content provider (ex: HBO, Showtime, etc.) to specify it they wanted the DVR-block indicator on programs so that THEY could provide them early.

Your interpretation is they won't do this, but it would be cable companies and DIRECTV and DISH that specify in dedicated channels that certain programs are DVR-blocked. If that's the way this shakes-out, I'm fine with it - it's just a different form of PPV. However, DIRECTV still needs that symbol or description to state it's not a program that can be recorded or time-shifted! Maybe a (R) symbol with an X through it?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I guess I just read the articles a different way, thinking that it would be up to each content provider (ex: HBO, Showtime, etc.) to specify it they wanted the DVR-block indicator on programs so that THEY could provide them early.
> 
> Your interpretation is they won't do this, but it would be cable companies and DIRECTV and DISH that specify in dedicated channels that certain programs are DVR-blocked. If that's the way this shakes-out, I'm fine with it - it's just a different form of PPV. However, DIRECTV still needs that symbol or description to state it's not a program that can be recorded or time-shifted! Maybe a (R) symbol with an X through it?


I agree with the need for the indicator. The only situation that I have seen with any detailed information was in regards to this special early case of PPV. There has been a lot of conjecture on other possible "sliding slope" uses of the same ability but none of it has been more than hypothesis.

DirecTV does have the ability to do this now, though. This is, in essence, what they do to the music channels. They just need a way to convey that to the user.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> Toe in the water, Camels nose under the tent flap, Door to door salesman's foot in the door.


Amen brother!


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

What really gets me is that every time I watch a news program or read the paper I am informed about how this actor or that actor just earned another $xx million (or even $xxx million) per year or how some big producer/director just bought his own island. The entire entertainment industry has a ridiculously skewed concept of money. How can anyone really take seriously the idea that our time shifting of their content is going to devalue it in some way. It’s so crazy, it’s beyond even being humorous.


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> However, DIRECTV still needs that symbol or description to state it's not a program that can be recorded or time-shifted! Maybe a (R) symbol with an X through it?


Well, my Hughes DirecTV box that I got in 2000 had an icon that said "can't tape" which indicated that the Macrovision was being employed on that program. (Even though it was seldom used). I'm sure the big brains at DirecTV can come up with a new icon that says "can't record" for their DVR's...


----------



## ThomasM (Jul 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> DirecTV does have the ability to do this now, though. This is, in essence, what they do to the music channels.


You can record the XM channels on an R15. Nyahhh! :icon_band


----------



## turls (Jul 8, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> Toe in the water, Camels nose under the tent flap, Door to door salesman's foot in the door.


Actually this happened years ago when the first DirecTivo would not let you record Music Choice channels. So even on release you could do less with an integrated DVR than you could with an audio tape recorder from the 60s.

Its just been progressing from there. And since DVRs don't let you refuse software upgrades indefinitely unless you want to miss out on new features and bug fixes. . .:nono:


----------



## WB3FFV (Mar 2, 2007)

GregLee said:


> What about "☹"?


Actually they would probably use an icon that was giving you the bird! So you knew you were getting, regardless of if you liked it or not! 

I have to admit, I am one that still owns an HD set that uses component or VGA input for it's video. If they don't wanna offer the content, so be it, but I'd be quite pissed if I either paid to see something, or worse yet went to watch shows on channels like HBO or Showtime which I pay for, only to find out I was limited for a 480 res image. That will be the day I say the hell with commercial movie services, and just get the DVD or wait for it to come on TV. I see no need to buy a NEW set because they decided they had to implement such crap, as people that can afford HD sets, are not the pirates, we are willing to pay for content. Ever see a copied and downloaded movie, the quality on that stuff is crap, but the people interested in such stuff don't care..

:nono2:


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2008)

IIP said:


> The "rules" have been in place a while already. Upscaling DVD players won't upscale encrypted DVDs (meaning: movies) via analog outputs. Blu-Ray players will have their analog outputs locked at 480p as of 2012. Cable boxes and Dish receivers all face the same restrictions. The requirements are part of the licenses with the movie and TV studios. The "analog hole" is *going* to be closed sooner or later, and the studios are pushing for "sooner."


Upscaling of encrypted DVDs depends on the model. While there are models that won't upscale over analog outputs, there are other models that will allow DVD-to-DVD recordings of copy-protected material.

As to restrictions resulting from licenses with the studios, they can only incorporate what is allowed under federal regulations. That means:

1) Broadcast content, which represents a large percentage of all TV viewing, cannot be copy-protected or downrezzed, period.

2) "Selectable output control" (blocking output over analog connections while allowing it over encrypted digital connections) is strictly prohibited. (The waiver that is being sought would allow an exception to this rule for VOD offerings, but only up to the date of a movie's release on physical media).

3) Encrypted digital connections (i.e., HDMI/HDCP) must allow at least one generation of copies. The most stringent copy protection that can be used over HDMI is "copy-once". (Which do you think the studios would prefer - second-generation recordings over analog outputs or exact digital copies over HDMI?)

Bottom line: the analog hole isn't going away.


----------

