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.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah... right (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pointless? (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? The movie industry raping its own distribution partners, movies and rentals? Duh, thought they'd only do it with their customers?
Re:Good luck with that (Score:1, Interesting)
On my cable DVR system, some Movies already do not have a record option available so obviously If I can watch it I may not be able to record it !
Frankly the DVR Firmware is in Control and can be placed in control at the option of the cable provider , it can do anything they want !
Already mine can limit the time you can keep a recording , or limt the number of times it's played and prevents you from
zipping fast foreword past Commercials this is already being done on my Cable TV DVR system
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it (Score:2, Interesting)
Comcast already does this... (Score:5, Interesting)
My DVR will buffer these programs, allowing rewind, pause, etc. If I try to record it to the hard drive it refuses to, giving a message of 'protected'. I'm not sure exactly how they do it - I always thought they may be broadcasting Macrovision codes with the signal.
I suppose it could be hacked by a hardware hack like removing the hard drive and collecting the movie from the buffer, but nothing that is being broadcast is worth the effort! It's bad enough that I waste time sitting in front of the tube viewing this 'high value content'. I'm sure as hell not wasting more time trying to copy it. It is nearly summer here - there are much better things to do most days.
Re:How about not broadcasting it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately under this kind of economic regime, 'consumer' means less 'one who eats' and much more 'one who must be force-fed'.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2, Interesting)
. . . um, does your "Provider" address you as "Thrall", and does He seem to have a gambling problem with "Quatloos"? . . . I have a sneaky suspicion . . .
Brilliant! (Score:1, Interesting)
Seems MPAA wants their cake and eat it too, except you get tummy ache from too much cake!
Re:If you can watch it on a computer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
Muzak (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reading the Article ftw (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a fishing expedition for retroactive immunity from the massive civil liability damages the cable companies will be accumulating, if not disabling sold DVRECORDERS isn't considered criminal fraud. If it does end up being considered criminal fraud, remember to confiscate the personal assets of the executive management under Sarbanes-Oxley.
What's next? Comcast can eliminate all competition in the television hardware market by changing the digital signal so that all content is scrambled unless you purchase a proprietary Comcast digital television with built in DRM chips?
Re:Comcast already does this... (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess I should have been more clear in my post - by 'save to the hard drive' I meant copy the movie from the buffer to the library area of the drive as a selectable title (which could subsequently be burned to a DVD).
I actually chose the Philips because the hard drive can be replaced, although you won't find it in the owner's manual! I was thinking about extending the DVR's life beyond a drive failure, though, not hacking copy protection.
My Solution (Score:1, Interesting)
If I find something of interest now.. it's 5$ or you can keep it.
And you know something - the last 'GREAT Movie' that my wife loved, I bought for her for Xmas for 14$ one year after it was released and BAM - it's still not opened. The psychology of NEW is the buy and I'm not buying anymore.
Likewise not and not (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, in the RIAA's analysis of the situation, I must almost certainly be accounted as someone who's stopped buying CD's because of illegal downloading, when in fact it is directly due to the actions of the recording industry itself.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If you can watch it on a computer (Score:4, Interesting)
The cable companies do not encrypt the digital stream unless the channel is on a pay tier, or the content provider mandates it. My employer had been carrying ESPN HD, Discovery HD, History HD, and a few other national channels in the clear for almost a year. Contract renegotiations have come up, and those channels now must be encrypted for us to retain the rights to carry them. As a result, the cable co looks like the bad guy when we must tell our subs that they now must lease a converter box or CableCard to decrypt the channels we previously could send in the clear.
In regards to being forced into using the company's cable box, the FCC has mandated this to be illegal. Simply go down to your local electronics store and pickup a CableCard enabled converter...which according to the FCC, should be available nationwide. Oh wait...no manufacturer has started making them in the last 3 years. Go FCC! There's always TiVo, I suppose...
Re:Pointless? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all about market segmentation. When selling a product, it's always desirable to get the customers who are willing to pay more to actually pay more money. This is hard, though, because you generally advertise the same price to everyone. So companies come up with various tactics to avoid this, such as multiple editions of a product with different prices, or charging a premium early and then lowering the price later on.
With movies, people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to see that movie will see it in the theater, where they're forking over $10 for the ticket and probably a bunch of money for food. Then the next tier down is people who are only moderately willing to pay money, they'll pay the $5 to rent the DVD some months later. And lastly you have people who don't care very much, and they'll watch it on the TV for free with advertisements.
Note that I'm not saying that any of the above is evil. Quite the opposite, it's simply good business sense. Most businesses, from hotels to airlines to even the individual movie theaters themselves (think matinee pricing) do this kind of thing. The trouble, of course, is that in an age where digital media can be copied effortlessly, market segmentation based around restricting who gets to see some bits no longer works very well.