• FCC granting the Media Industry the ability to shut off parts of your TV as desired!
    58 replies, posted
Prepare to clench your fists in anger. [quote]How badly do you want to see new movies in your home close to the date they're released in theaters? Badly enough to let the movie industry reach through your front door and break your TV? Well, good news for you. The Federal Communications Commission decided on Friday that the movie industry can remotely disable analog video outputs on your home theater equipment to prevent you from recording certain programs--namely, first-run movies available on demand before DVDs are released or while they're still in theaters. The FCC ruled that it's [url=http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-795A1.pdf]"in the public interest" (PDF)[/url] to give the Motion Picture Association of America so-called selectable output controls, and that it will help enable the "new business model" of delivering on-demand movies closer to the theatrical release date. Previously, the FCC banned selectable output controls because of concerns that some people wouldn't be able to receive certain high-definition content (HD copy protection, built into HDMI cables, isn't available over analog connections like composite or component). In 2008, the movie industry asked for a waiver on that ban that would have prevented on-demand, early-release movies from being recorded on DVRs and viewed at all on older HDTVs that lacked digital connections. Happily, the FCC didn't give the MPAA [url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9965120-7.html]everything it wanted[/url]. It dryly notes in its [url=]order[/url](PDF) that "the breadth of the waiver requested by MPAA exceeds the protections necessary to guard against illegal copying of content." The limited waiver it did grant says the industry can only selectively block analog inputs, a waiver can last only 90 days, and the FCC will have to review all waivers before they're granted. The problem for consumers, of course, is that millions of HDTVs have no digital inputs, and owners of those televisions wouldn't be able to watch any of these early-release movies at all without buying all new TVs. Advocacy organization Public Knowledge noted that some people might actually buy the on-demand movies without realizing that they won't play, a charge to which Sony essentially responded, "call the FCC if that happens." Nice. There's also, of course, the slippery-slope argument that if you give the movie industry an inch, it will take a mile--granted, it already tried to take a mile and was only granted an inch, but the precedent of allowing the movie industry to literally remotely disable portions of your home entertainment equipment is seriously disturbing. As the Consumer Electronics Association said in a statement, "we are unsure when the FCC has ever before given private entities the right to disable consumers' products in their homes. The fact that the motion picture studios want to create a new business model does not mean that functioning products should be disabled by them. The decision is not in the public interest and harms the very consumers that the commission is in place to protect." And then, of course, there's the argument so very well articulated by my colleague, CNET Senior Editor John Falcone: "Nobody hooks a VCR or DVD recorder to a DVD player and hits 'record.' They just rip the DVD on their PC and upload via BitTorrent. Shutting off the composite video output solves nothing." Sadly, the FCC noted that it felt it had to approve the limited SOC (selectable output control) waiver because otherwise, the "service will not be offered at all." While I can appreciate that dilemma, I still wonder whether so much of the public is interested in early-release movies that they're willing to allow selective crippling of their TVs (or willing to buy new TVs just to accommodate these new-release windows), and whether this is the kind of thing that simply infuriates consumers while doing little to nothing to combat wide-scale piracy. In a statement, Bob Pisano, president and interim CEO of the MPAA, said the move would give consumers "far greater access to see recent high-definition movies in their homes" and would help the industry "respond to growing consumer demand" for early-release on-demand movies. If people want these movies so badly, isn't it possible that piracy of movies in the early days of their release could be diminished simply by making them available sooner? Isn't it possible that the very existence of artificial release windows--designed to keep DVD sales humming along nicely--is contributing to piracy way more than the analog hole ever has? Over and over, we've seen that if an industry makes a digital product available at a fair price, people buy it. Given all the ways pirates have to find and distribute movies illegally (like the actual DVDs), I find it hard to believe that releasing movies on demand earlier without technology-crippling restrictions could possibly result in a measurable increase in piracy. And even if it did, I think it would be more than matched by the on-demand rental revenue the industry would reap. Offer people more choices, when it comes to buying your product, and they'll pay for the product. Give them crippled, halfhearted stabs at meeting "consumer demand" by extracting devil's bargains and imposing invasive technologies, and they'll probably keep pirating. Just a guess. By the way, I encourage you all to read the FCC ruling (PDF) in its entirety so you can savor the breathtaking boldness of what the MPAA originally asked for--including waivers so broadly defined, they could "come to embrace the entire life of a movie or program" (meaning you could never record a movie, even once it had gone into permanent TBS rotation). You know, in case you had any doubts about whether they really have the interests of the consumer in mind. [/quote] Source: [url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-20004504-256.html[/url] Curious what this means? Read up on it a bit, here's what found to be the best explanation of it. [release] Introduction The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to engage in “selectable output control” (SOC). If the FCC agrees, the MPAA and the movie studios it represents (Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, Disney, and Warner Brothers) would be able to “turn off” any output plug they choose, like those on the back of consumer electronics devices of an entertainment system, during special video-on-demand movies on cable television. Public Knowledge opposes SOC and along with Consumer Federation of America, Digital Freedom Campaign, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and U.S. PIRG, has filed comments urging the FCC to deny the MPAA’s request. What does this mean for me? If you: * Use a TiVo, any Slingbox, or a TV manufactured before 2004 *Connect your TV to your cable box with analog cables (either component or composite) *Have a TV without a digital connection, such as HDMI you will likely have to replace much if not all of your existing entertainment system to watch these movies. Why would movie studios want to do that? Right now, the MPAA and movie studios let you rent a video-on-demand (VoD) movie on cable only after it has already come out on DVD. They won’t release the movies to VoD earlier, because they’re afraid that they won’t make any money from DVD sales if people can copy the movie at home. If you are making copies in order to watch them at a different time or place, like on a Tivo or Slingbox, this is a legal kind of copying. So is making short copies to educate, poke fun at, or criticize. You can make copies at home for personal use by using analog outputs because they don’t have copy protection on them. However, most digital plugs, like HDMI, do have copy protection. The MPAA wants to make sure that if they give you the “privilege” of watching the movie at home, you won’t copy it and replace a purchase the DVD. SOC turns off the analog outputs, and only lets you use plugs with copy protection. How will I know whether I am affected? The MPAA has made assurances that cable companies will warn its customers that certain cable channels can only be viewed if you have the correct equipment, but they have been very vague about how they will do this. That doesn’t sound so bad. I just watch movies, I don’t write reviews or make copies. The MPAA’s request is so vaguely written that it would allow them to turn off all the other plugs on your cable box. Then, you would have to buy a new TV with an “MPAA-approved” output plug if you want to watch on-demand movies before they come out on DVD. Although this sounds like an incredibly silly idea, Sony released a product last year that lets you watch internet movies on your TV. Last month, they announced that you can watch Hancock on VoD distributed over the Internet before it comes out on DVD. The only way to receive this content is through a Sony Internet device that connects to a special plug only available on a Sony TV. Sony is a studio and member of the MPAA. We think that when you pay for a movie, you should be able to watch it on any TV you want on your device of choice. It’s fundamentally wrong for someone else to tell you when, where, and how you watch it. [/release] Source #2: [url]http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/soc[/url] A video for the non-readers. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOGB96Hz_Dk[/media] tl;dr (You should at least watch the video before posting if you don't understand.) The FCC is going to allow the media industry to shut off functions on your TV remotely. Imagine you're gonna want to watch a show, and you want to record it on your tivo/VCR/etc. You can't, they get to disable it while you watch it. Where the fuck is my freedom America? You're seriously going to allow a corporation to control my television equipment? Anyone else a bit frustrated?
Someone payed someone else a lot of money to make this happen. This isn't "in the public interest" it's in the corporation's interest.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;21839258]Someone payed someone else a lot of money to make this happen. This isn't "in the public interest" it's in the corporation's interest.[/QUOTE] The government gives more a damn about getting a few extra $ than actually doing their job and providing security for the common man. Fucking lobbyists.
fcc can suck my dick
How are they going to turn off the shit. Plug the cable box into your TV, then TV out to the recorder. :downs:
I dont understand how they can do anything if the recording device is in no way interacting with the media provider (box).
is there any actual point to the FCC?
Federal Cannabis Corporation?
It will only be a matter of time before hardware modifications or custom firmwares to be created on these devices, allowing the bypass of these protections
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21839386]is there any actual point to the FCC?[/QUOTE] Regulating air traffic is all I can think of. And well, fuck, they do a shitty job at that too don't they. [editline]01:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=B1N4RY!;21839413]It will only be a matter of time before hardware modifications or custom firmwares to be created on these devices, allowing the bypass of these protections[/QUOTE] Yes, but in the meantime, and for the majority of the [uneducated] people in America it's going to really suck.
Everybody will just use a shitty video camera or torrent it anyways.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;21839386]is there any actual point to the FCC?[/QUOTE] keeping the US safe from terrorism by censoring words soccer moms don't like
Oh wow, unlucky America.
And they're going to get away with it, too, because despite how much America values 'freedom' and 'democracy', the public won't do anything about it and the government won't care if they do. [editline]07:32PM[/editline] [QUOTE=B1N4RY!;21839413]It will only be a matter of time before hardware modifications or custom firmwares to be created on these devices, allowing the bypass of these protections[/QUOTE] Sure, but that doesn't help the poor people who don't know anything about that
[QUOTE=DarkSpider;21839339]How are they going to turn off the shit. Plug the cable box into your TV, then TV out to the recorder. :downs:[/QUOTE] I'd imagine that if it doesn't work as they expected right away, they'll lobby to have the FCC require that they make it so that for all newly manufactured TV's you'll have to have a compatible box to work with their DRM. Next iteration of TV quality should be here in a few years, with UHDTV's. [editline]01:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperorconor;21839470]Everybody will just use a shitty video camera or torrent it anyways.[/QUOTE] That's why DRM never work, theres always a way around it. Make the people acting legally suffer, while leaving everything the same for the pirates. Oh boy, 2222 posts already.
heil buy your swastikas now, you'll need them for later
[QUOTE=Killerjc;21839634]heil buy your swastikas now, you'll need them for later[/QUOTE] They make awesome throwing stars.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;21839210]You're seriously going to allow a corporation to control my television equipment?[/QUOTE] Wrong. The government is allowing them to do this, so by extension, the [I]government[/I] is technically remotely shutting off your stuff. Yell at them first, because they had to approve this first.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;21839554]And they're going to get away with it, too, because despite how much America values 'freedom' and 'democracy', the public won't do anything about it and the government won't care if they do. [editline]07:32PM[/editline] Sure, but that doesn't help the poor people who don't know anything about that[/QUOTE] Freedom is not only your own freedom. This basically just prevents you from recording stuff early when you're not supposed to. It's their freedom to allow recording of the stuff they own and produced. At least that's their view.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;21839420]Regulating air traffic is all I can think of. And well, fuck, they do a shitty job at that too don't they. [/QUOTE] That's the FAA you silly sausage.
[QUOTE=Killuah;21839789]Freedom is not only your own freedom. This basically just prevents you from recording stuff early when you're not supposed to. It's their freedom to allow recording of the stuff they own and produced. At least that's their view.[/QUOTE] I don't think they give a fuck about freedom, they just want more money.
Nice to see games aren't the only ones getting hit by drm
Doesn't this break human rights?
who watchs tv anymore anyway?
[QUOTE=flippy645;21840260]who watchs tv anymore anyway?[/QUOTE] Who does stuff without getting supervised by private corporations anyway Who file shares without fear of ruthless, senseless retribution and punishment anyway Who expresses their opinion freely without getting monitored anyway Who live their life without fear of the corporate police anyway
[QUOTE=radioactive;21840194]Doesn't this break human rights?[/QUOTE] no it's a pissy move but no.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;21840498]Who does stuff without getting supervised by private corporations anyway Who file shares without fear of ruthless, senseless retribution and punishment anyway Who expresses their opinion freely without getting monitored anyway Who live their life without fear of the corporate police anyway[/QUOTE] file shares?
MPAA's lobbying budget >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FCC's entire budget. Money buys government. Not that it matters, this will take about five minutes for the pirates to find a way around.
federal commies corporation
Didn't they already go through this decades ago? I can go on HBO and record a movie with my TV Tuner if I want, I can even record a show and edit out the commercials. But I'd rather go out and buy it because A. DVDs come out long before the first showing on HBO, and on demand movies cost money anyway. B. The audio and visual quality on a DVD is far better than what I can get out of my composite cables that are sending a satellite signal. C. It takes up a massive chunk of my disk space, something I'd rather fill with games, blueprints and armour patterns. and D. If it's a show, I have to edit out the commercials by hand, then re-encode them, which takes a long time. Maybe the MPAA should go back to sending angry emails to The Pirate Bay instead of doing something useless like this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.