MPAA Wants To Prevent Recording Movies On DVRs 225
I_am_Rambi writes "At the request of theatrical film makers, the Federal Communications Commission on Friday quietly launched a proceeding on whether to let video program distributors remotely block consumers from recording recently released movies on their DVRs. The technology that does this is called Selectable Output Control (SOC), but the FCC restricts its use. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) wants a waiver on that restriction in the case of high-definition movies broadcast prior to their release as DVDs."
The FCC is soliciting comments until June 25th.
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
(well, not grown up but they have them now)
G
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and they also want to make people into criminals for exercising Fair Use rights so they can continue to reap huge margins on plastic discs.
draconian bulloni! (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote with your wallet!
How about not broadcasting it? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that the MPAA is trying to maximize their profit, at the expense of the public in general. We are stuck with technical hassle just because the MPAA wants to use government regulation instead of logical market forces to prevent unauthorized copying.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I realise that that, from now on in, it can only impede my access to artists, and their access to my cash.
Re:If you can watch it on a computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly the FCC needs to get some balls and FORCE cable companies to have all the channels available UNENCRYPTED. but it will never happen.
Digital TV is a step backwards. Quality sucks because they compress it hard. plus they remove your ability to record it or use anything advanced to watch it. you have to use that piece of crap cable box of theirs.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
*aa wants to prevent content consumption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reading the Article ftw (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, wait, I've heard this strategy before... (Score:5, Insightful)
In every other kind of industry, I associate "pirates" either with counterfeits or cheap look-a-likes that are vastly inferior to the real product, the kind that street salesmen will sell tourists at a few bucks a piece. Since a digital copy is a perfect copy, I guess digital piracy will be equal. But when pirated goods start looking better and better, so you pay for the privilidge of using and inferior product and the feelgood of being legal, then there's something very, very wrong.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned that the studios are only interested in playing underhanded so Im not giving them the money to file lawsuits.
http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
One person... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
As in all other cases where copy protection of movies or music fails, only one person in the world needs to own the equipment or software necessary for circumventing the copy protection. He can then release it to the public in an unprotected format.
Re:Good luck with that - the foot in the door (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a strategy to eliminate DVR recording as fair use. First they get the right to block the recording of recently released HD movies, then they blur the definition of HD, and pretty soon they are claiming that they should be able to block pretty much any DVR recording...
Just say no. Personal use is fair use.
Re:comment system not working @ FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
I also didn't say it would be cost effective or that it wouldn't be time consuming. I just said that where there is a will there is a way.
I'm not the naive one here.
Lotta "if's" (Score:5, Insightful)
IF this technology is used to restrict recording for a LIMITED period of time, until the initial theatrical release has run its course and they have milked the initial profits off the DVD release, THEN I would not have a serious problem with it. After all, unless you are one of those folks that MUST see a new movie as soon as it comes out, you can wait a little while. And even with the restriction, you could still WATCH the flick and even pause/rewind/etc. the thing -- you just wouldn't be able to dump it to a permanent source (disk, hard drive) right away. And hell, most movies will show up on non-PPV TV eventually anyway. By restricting the recording disability to the initial "surge" of the movie's release, the "can't wait" crowd are going to rush to the theater or buy the DVD the first day it's on sale and send the cartel its dough anyway, and the rest of us can just wait until it trickles down to a non-premium source from which we can record and save it if we want.
That's all very speculative, though. Knowing the methods of the MPAA as we do, it's more likely that this is just a way to get a foot in the door to eventually restrict or prevent ALL recording of its releases. That's an old tactic -- you know you can't get EVERYTHING you want right now, so you ask for just a limited option that most people would agree on, then slowly expand the parameters over time. Like the ban on "partial birth abortion." Or just like all the Bush era "anti-terrorist" legislation -- most people accepted it as necessary within the limited scope of "fighting terrorism," but we have already seen these laws starting to be used for things that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism. (Unless you then expand the definition of "terrorism," which is also happening.) The MPAA probably is playing the same game. (As we have often seen, the worlds of business and government are pretty much interchangeable in their more underhanded tactics...)
Re:If you can watch it on a computer (Score:3, Insightful)
It is also why today I still don't have digital TV. I have the old style analog. In fact, the only reason I have cable TV is for the internet. They have sent me tons of offers, but I do not intend to change. Even to the point when analog is dead, I figure Internet TV will bloom and I can skip digital TV all together.... or in a least for cable.
I might retire sometime in the next few years to my country home, if I do, I need satellite Internet more than TV. My favorite show is on the Internet, I can watch it when I want. TV as we know it is legacy. But I agree with you, Digital TV is a giant step backwards.
Re:Reading the Article ftw (Score:1, Insightful)
The only way this would actually be fair is if the companies selling these services CLEARLY mark the "non-recordable" programs long before they are actually shown (e.g., in guides and such - "This will be a non-recordable program"). Otherwise it borders on false advertising because people expect to be able to record and watch the stuff at their leisure, but they (surprise) won't be able to do so. If you do shift work or are regularly away from home when programs of interest are on then you won't be getting much of a deal, especially if it is consistently the "high value" stuff that is non-recordable.
You don't know what you are actually buying if they can abitrarily and without notification block your regular service.
Re:draconian bulloni! (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA dosn't have a column in their spreadsheet for people like you.
They just put you in the "stopped buying due to piracy" column, to show losses to the lawmakers.
That's the same column they use for people who buy less 'content' because their paycheck shrank.
Re:Good luck with that - the foot in the door (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
I Wonder... (Score:1, Insightful)
back to basics (Score:2, Insightful)
copyrights are not about maximizing the media companies' revenue - just about preventing _commercial_ rip-offs.
Re:draconian bulloni! (Score:3, Insightful)
The *AA is just going to pick the reason as they see fit. And so far they only think that illegal downloads is the cause of their lack of revenue. Which brings up the point that CD sales actually increased, and continue to do so... they just don't do it by the percentage that they thought they should have.
I'd have no problems buying CD's/DVD's if I knew that the money would go toward the artists and not the *AA's agenda. So I sit here not buying them, choosing both "I hate the *AA" AND "this music/movie sucks" and they automatically lump me in the "illegal downloads" category. Because from their POV, EVERYONE AUTOMATICALLY buys CD's/DVD's. So if you don't buy it, you're obviously getting it somewhere else.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that our televisions and our cable/satellite service and our movie rentals have all evolved to high-definition, you say that we're expected to move backwards and accept the hands of the media companies to control what we can timeshift and when?
There's nothing revolutionary about HD-PVRs. It's just a basic step up from non-HD PVRs from the customer's point of view. Getting the new flavor of something we've always had. I understand that it messes up the companies strategies of getting customers to pay for VOD, buying DVD/Blu-Ray movies, etc., but I think it's their ethical responsibility to find new revenue streams that don't hurt paying customers, rather than create/buy legislation that imposes artificial restrictions against rights customers have always enjoyed.