CableCard OEM Restriction Lifted!!!

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by ghostlobster

The entire industry is still recovering from the knee-jerk reaction to the Napster free-for-all of the late 90s-early 00s which resulted in the pendulum swinging just to the right of the Gestapo from a content protection standpoint.

Maybe. I certainly agree a lot of the push for DRM is the result of the massive level of piracy of music. Maybe (probably?) it hasn't significantly hurt music companies' sales, but they certainly think it has (and I'm not convinced that's entirely unjustified). I think movies companies are concerned they'll be next, and we're seeing similar concerns with television, particularly now that there's an expectation that DVD sales will bring in quite a bit of profit.

I sort of wonder if Napster did more harm than good. If Napster never existed would media companies have sold digital music/video with less restrictive DRM because they weren't as scared of piracy? Or, would they have come up with extra restrictive DRM because people never experienced anything else?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

It is sort of messy though. It's perfectly possible to do, but there are issues with both digital cable and satellite systems that haven't been resolved perfectly. There's still the cost issue, which will never go away. There's the channel changing issue, of which there's a variety of decent current solutions.

It's complex behind the scenes true, but you never see that in day to day operation.

But, not everyone can do firewire or serial channel changing, and with FireSTB being half abandoned, there's no guarantee it will remain an option. IR blasting pretty much always works, but it slower and less reliable. Plus, there are lingering threats to reliability. The system updates issue is one example, although my understanding is that's mostly resolved by using 'Enter' as a prefix. I've noticed my STB has shut off by itself before, although I haven't missed any recordings as a result. There are probably other examples that have come up over the years, and there will almost certainly be more.

I'll just respond this way, I've found solutions to every issue I've encountered with IR tuning, and since that (all of which are documented) I don't think I've had any more problems with my IR/STB tuner than I ever had with cable.

In general, STB recording has been more pleasant and reliable than I thought it would, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather use a cable card.

Well yeah, direct tuning would be ideal. But if that were a primary concern, I'd have a Dish DVR. Which is the whole point. I'm using Sage because I was unhappy with closed, proprietary DVRs.

I have zero faith in DRM. Every DRM scheme turns out to be worse than advertised. DRM creators promise, advertise how it's "good" for you, and how it will be transparent. But it NEVER is. Content and service providers either through "malice" or negligence always find ways of turning the knobs that screw their customers.

The "new" DRM for CableCard may have potential to be better. But experience tells me to assume the worst.

I think that's a bit extreme. For starters, I have all kinds of SageTV-related equipment that I've already invested in, so I'm not inclined to spent $1-2k on a Moxi system. Beyond that, you don't have quite the same expansion capabilities in a Moxi system as in Sage, or the audio/video streaming abilities.

That's assuming you can use your current equipment. What if a CableCard tuner is $600, and you've got to buy a new Linux server and new extenders? It could easily get as expensive if not more expensive quickly.

I don't think cable card and DRM support are really things Sage could do, but in a sort of ideal world I think it could be done in a way that wouldn't significantly disrupt my usage.

Well yeah, DRM could be done in a way that's not intrusive, but nobody seems to want to do that. Content providers and service providers just see it as a tool to lock you in to their preconceived use model.

Just getting extender support is about 90% of it. I'm not entirely convinced placeshifting is out of the question, not that I do it much anymore anyway.

You can bet it would be.

Originally Posted by ghostlobster

Hilarious! Point made!
I just get bent out of shape when speculation is spouted as gospel. I don't doubt that there sill be some limiting DRM restrictions placed on the upcoming solution, and it very well might force me not even look at it, but I want to see it play out.

I've been burned enough to not even hope anymore. It's just safer to assume the worst. AACS on PCs was a disaster, I only got BD working on my compliant HTPC with AnyDVD. When it comes to DRM, I am firmly in the "Prove it" camp.

If it turns out that it's only on the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) than I can live with it as I don't even get those channels. But, if it spills over into SyFy, ESPNHD, Discovery, and other mid-tier channels, than that'll be an issue and will pretty much mean that absolutely nothing has changed, in my eyes.

And that's exactly what I expect to happen. They make the announcement that DRM will only be required on Copy Once shows, and everyone seems to assume that that will be everything but premiums, despite the fact that the same logic has existed for Firewire/DTCP and that did not work out.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by ghostlobster

Perhaps I'm naïve, but I'm not all that uptight about it. I don't believe that the MPAA is going to jump onto my system and delete any recording of Eureka that's older than 3 weeks old, and then stop me from streaming this week's Fringe premier to my laptop while I'm having a cigar on the deck.

Are we talking about the same MPAA here?

Who knows, though. The entire industry is still recovering from the knee-jerk reaction to the Napster free-for-all of the late 90s-early 00s which resulted in the pendulum swinging just to the right of the Gestapo from a content protection standpoint.

From where I stand, it looks like the video side of the industry is just getting wound up.
Comcast et all are getting waivers for DTAs.
MPAA is once again seeking permission for the Selectable Output Control.
Fox is insisting on BD+ on their Blu-ray's.

It's finally starting to come back to something that is more in line with the Fair Use act of the early-mid 80s which provides for individual convenience and rights as well content owner compensation.

I'll give you that the music industry has started to see the light, selling DRM free music. But they're still not all the way there as they only sell lossy compressed versions.

But I really don't see what you're talking about on the video/motion picture side.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stuckless

Actually I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that if a system requires DRM then it will "crippling", and i certainly don't think it's uninformed. If you can show me 1 drm scheme that isn't crippling, then maybe I can change my mind, but the the whole point of DRM is to prevent you from doing what you want with your media... i think that's crippling.

Crippling to you.. Me, personally, what I do with my media, is watch it. DRM does not prevent me from being able to watch my media, and watching it is really all I've paid for anyways. If it is something you genuinely intend to watch over and over again, and take different places with you, that is what purchasing the DVD and/or Blu-Ray is for.

My only worry about DRM is that is might NOT be implemented correctly (such as the previous situation with the MCE systems DRM'ing everything). However, if implemented correctly, I'm all for it, if it gets me top a quality viewing experience.

I curretly run an R-5000, because is IS the best quality option out there right now. However, if CableCard was an option (espeically the multi-tuner versions) I would jump at it, simply because it's a legit method.

Keep in mind though, that I'm in the camp of people that actually respect he hard work that goes into the content creators, and understand their concerns with piracy.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

DRM does not prevent me from being able to watch my media,

It's not supposed to, scratched that, it's not advertised to be, but all too often it does. ie all the HDCP debacle. AACS on PCs, etc, etc. And frankly IMO (based on what I've seen, not just speculation) the intended purpose of DRM is to take away all the "fair use" we've become accustomed to.

...and watching it is really all I've paid for anyways.

Now this I don't agree with. When I buy some media, be it on physical media or broadcast, there are certain things I expect to be able to do with it, based on decades of precident. I expect to be able to record TV and view it how and where I want. I expect to be able to space shift, time shift, make mixes, extract sections, and make backups, and any other non-infringing uses (basically everything but distributing copies to other people).

If it is something you genuinely intend to watch over and over again, and take different places with you, that is what purchasing the DVD and/or Blu-Ray is for.

Don't forget DRM is present on those too.

My only worry about DRM is that is might NOT be implemented correctly (such as the previous situation with the MCE systems DRM'ing everything). However, if implemented correctly, I'm all for it, if it gets me top a quality viewing experience.

Good luck finding your "implemented correctly" DRM.

I curretly run an R-5000, because is IS the best quality option out there right now. However, if CableCard was an option (espeically the multi-tuner versions) I would jump at it, simply because it's a legit method.

At this point, after years of waiting for "legit" to happen, it's overrated IMO. Unfortunately "grey-market" solutions consistently work better, with less issues, and with less restrictions than "legit" solutions.

Keep in mind though, that I'm in the camp of people that actually respect he hard work that goes into the content creators, and understand their concerns with piracy.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I respect the work of content creators. I admittedly purchased a few pirated import CDs, didn't realize it at the time. Since learing it, I've purchased the real thing, even though they're 2-3x the cost. I buy all my DVDs, and CDs.

That said, I've got zero respect for DRM and those who push it. One of the best writeups on the problem with the entire theory of DRM was written in the paper The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. It's a great read for everyone who has an interest in digital media in this day and age.

But the basic premise is the concept of DRM is fundamentally flawed, it can't possibly succeed in preventing piracy. Crypto works by using a key and a cypher to obscure the message/data from unwanted parties on the way to the recipient. It works because that unwanted party is a 3rd party who is not supposed to know the data, not the recipient, the key or the cypher is kept secret from the 3rd party.

The problem with DRM is the viewer is both the recipient and the unwanted party. What this means is that DRM designs must give the end viewer the key and they cypher, in order to un-obscure the message (view the movie). The problem is this means the unwanted party also has been given the key and the cypher. Nothing is kept secret.

To mitigate this DRM schemes seek to obscure the keys, but the fact remains that they're only obscured, not kept secret. So it's only a matter of time/effort/resources to defeat any DRM scheme. And there are far more people out there interested in defeating DRM (if only for research or fun) than those who are creating it. The complete and utter failure of Nagra 2, AACS and BD+ are prime examples of this.

But the real problem isn't in the folly of pursuing an impossible goal, it's in the collateral damage it causes along the way. On the road to stopping piracy by implementing DRM, the only ones who are really harmed/inconvenienced are those who try to work within the bounds of "legitimate" solutions. AACS hasn't slowed the torrent (pardon the pun ) of pirated movies on the internets, but it's made it incredibly hard for honest people to just play a Blu-ray on their computer.

But it goes beyond that, DRM utterly stifles innovation. The ability to freely rip CDs and convert them to mp3 format lead to a huge ecosystem of mp3 related devices. iPods, mp3 players, home network music streamers, music servers.... Contrast this with the pathetic situation for DVD where there's only one DVD jukebox, Kaleidescape. Were it not for DRM, I guarantee you we would see DVD servers, DVD jukeboxes just as common as MP3 players.

And what about TV. While access control is a necessity (moreso for satellite) the inability, or unwillingness to define a common standard and the ongoing quest for complete control has stifled the 3rd party DVR market. Look at us compared to Europe. In the EU, you can buy a DVB-S card with Conditional Access Module. This is a standard, and near anyone can make one, and they record without DRM. Anyone can go buy a DVB-S + CAM card and record their subscribed satellite to their PC using standard hardware, and any software that uses the standard APIs. Here we're stuck using satellite boxes and ir blasters. You may point to CableCard, but that's basically been an utter failure due to the lack of caring on the part of the industry.

The content owners/distributors have always thought any use beyond their narrow, unimaginative views (watch TV when it airs, view DVD from the disc in a player, listen to the CD from the CD) is wrong, piracy, and should be stopped at all costs. If they didn't think of it, and aren't charging you for it, it's wrong, and stealing. DRM is a way to do that, make no mistake. DRM is sold as a way to "gain access" to content, but in fact it's a way for the industry to restrict it even further and take even more control over it.

[limiter]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Nobody with cable seems to think about this, since they make using STBs out to being the end of the world, but everybody using Sage with DirecTV or Dish Network has been using STBs and the associated "mess" and cost for years.

Just because you've been forced to put up with boxes for sat doesn't mean the rest of us should not be able to complain about digital cable boxes.

Originally Posted by stanger89

And really, I think we may well see a complete replacement (or the ability to replace it) by the time we really need to worry about the "analog hole" being closed. Many people are dumping cable and Sat today in favor of OTA and internet VOD (Hulu, Netflix, etc). These services and those like them will only grow and expand over the next few years. It's entirely possible that by the time the analog hole is closed, we won't even need to record from a linear TV provider.

What's the point though. CableCard has seriously strict content protection requirements. So much so that IMO Sage could be neutered to such a point as to little functionally different than a Multi-room Moxi system.

I find it strange that you continue to say CableCard DRM is evil yet say the blocking of the analog hole problem will be solved with Hulu, an even more restrictive system than CableCard. Expiring content, forced commercials, no privacy, low quality HD, limited selection... I'll take CableCard over that any day.

I've had CableCard in a TivoHD and it worked fine. 90% of the content could be copied off the device to my computer (HBO, ShowTime, premium movies were the exception). It was far from the doom and gloom you make CableCard out to be. SageTV could offer a solution that was more open than Multi-room Moxi (which fails to have even live-tv on an extender at this point). As I said in the original post Sage could offer plugins implemented like SageTV has now, expandable storage, a more open system and geek-friendly features (something Tivo continues to ignore), all of which would be a massive leap over Tivo and Moxi... that would be the point.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

But the basic premise is the concept of DRM is fundamentally flawed, it can't possibly succeed in preventing piracy.

Warning: There's a fair amount of speculation and anecdotal evidence here.

That depends. What type of piracy are you trying to prevent? You seem to be taking an all-or-nothing approach here. CDs are very easy to copy. Many people did copy them, or create mixes and distribute them to others, etc. I remember this happening quite a bit in the days before Napster. I think it would have happened a lot more had Napster not came along. Basically, there was already a fairly large amount of casual piracy going on with CDs.

You don't see the same level of casual piracy of DVDs and movies that we saw with CDs themselves. Certainly I've known people that have copied DVDs, but they tended to be my rather geeky friends. I don't have nearly as many friends with binders of copied DVDs as I had friends with binders of copied CDs years ago.

So, I think despite being horribly broken, CSS has been moderately successful at reducing casual piracy of movies. And really, I suspect that's a bigger threat to video companies' profits than for-profit piracy enterprises, or even (at least in the short term) P2P networks.

Of course, I'll let you discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of using DRM effectively for the purpose of forcing relatively honest people to be honest at the cost of prohibiting relatively benign, but useful, actions. But I guess my point is that DRM has a significantly lower threshold for success than crypto. It doesn't need to be perfect- it just needs to be hard enough to get around that most people won't bother to do it. This sort of breaks down if it becomes really easy to casually pirate stuff by downloading it online, but for a variety of reasons I don't think that's a very good option for the vast majority of people out there.

You may point to CableCard, but that's basically been an utter failure due to the lack of caring on the part of the industry.

I'd say a lack of caring by consumers is really to blame. People don't particularly want third-party DVRs. And practically no one wants a PC-based DVR.

The content owners/distributors have always thought any use beyond their narrow, unimaginative views (watch TV when it airs, view DVD from the disc in a player, listen to the CD from the CD) is wrong, piracy, and should be stopped at all costs. If they didn't think of it, and aren't charging you for it, it's wrong, and stealing.

True, I think it's a business model of the past. But, I'm not sure consumers are ready to move on either. Content creators basically expect to double, triple, or even quadruple dip on customers. Sure, you can imagine a business model where customers pay once for something, but can do whatever they want with it, but then customers are going to have to pay more.

DRM basically allows for a sort of market segmentation. If I just want to watch a particular movie at home on my TV, why should I pay as much as someone that also wants to be able to take that movie with on his laptop or mobile phone? He's getting more benefit out of it; it seems reasonable to charge him more for that ability.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by stanger89

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video



Like?

Thanks for the link.

The advances I spoke of are the VOD you spoke of.

DRM is a nice idea of protecting content creators from getting their content distributed without their consent, but all it has done is make it difficult for us to just watch a movie or TV.

I have a perfectly good dvd player that will not play any newer dvd's because it is too old to have the new css built in. Yes, I could do a firmware update, but I shouldn't have to. Same with blu-ray players. I remember when the first few players sony released came out. There was speculation that if you connected it to the internet sony would be able to remotely disable it if you violated any usage agreement. Thankfully that never came to pass, but could you imagine if it had?

I agree with stanger about blu-ray on the pc. Anydvd has been the savior of blu-ray playback on the pc. PDVD refuses to work even though I have complient hardware. What's up with that? If providers could come up with drm that worked the way it is supposed to and did not inhibit us from viewing our content then this whole argument would be moot. The smarter programmers/hackers whatever you want to call them don't program drm for a living, they find ways to break it. This reminds me of a quote from the movie 17 Again (yeah I know). One character is rich because "(He) invented the software that prevents people from stealing music. Although, (he) did invent the software that made it possible for people to steal music, but that's not the point." Hilarious...

[PLUCKYHD]

I think Stranger is pretty closed on his views and that is that.

DRM with the new cablecard rules will allow what 90% ++ of consumers want as far as their tv watching end of story. You/We are of the minority and won't have an impact. As long as I can watch my shows throughout my house I am fine with DRM. I don't plan on burning them, or transfering them to anything and that is how most consumers are.

[limiter]

Originally Posted by paulbeers

That really depends though doesn't it? You are implying that only the CableCard recordings would have DRM, what if Sage is required to DRM everything (like WMC/VMC) in order be certified to even have CableCard? This is obviously purely speculation on my part as I don't know enough about the certification process nor do I honest care since I am a Dish Network Subscriber and will never go back!

Maybe there would be flexibility on SageTV's part to meet the needs of the entire SageTV community:

• If you want CableCards you have to accept whole-system DRM, but generally can do what you usually want: watch your shows in your house.
  
• If you hate DRM (or CableCards) then you get the DRM-Free SageTV software, but cannot use CableCards under any circumstances.

[Fonceur]

Seems like a third party might be able to make some kind of network encoder, which would allow full access to the DRM free part... While the DRM part would have no LiveTV, could only record (similar to my BTV-Externinator for BeyondTV) and would require play back through a PlayReady device.

Of course that is assuming that there is a way to start a recording/dispatch a recording job to the recording engine/scheduler, which might be a big assumption to make...

[3rob3]

I haven't seen this mentioned in this thread, but the "copy freely" flag is set my your local cable company. So it could vary by location. I'm fairly sure it will only be set on HBO and the like.

Also, I agree with PluckyHD. If I can record and watch it anywhere in my house, who cares even if it is DRM'd.

[Clift]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I think Stranger is pretty closed on his views and that is that.

DRM with the new cablecard rules will allow what 90% ++ of consumers want as far as their tv watching end of story. You/We are of the minority and won't have an impact. As long as I can watch my shows throughout my house I am fine with DRM. I don't plan on burning them, or transfering them to anything and that is how most consumers are.

I agree! The way I use my Media I am pretty sure CableCARD would work for me. And given an extender that supports h.264/MKV I would not hesitate for a second to get Windows 7 Media Center plus 2 tuner Ceton CableCARD tuner + the HDHomerun.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Now this I don't agree with. When I buy some media, be it on physical media or broadcast, there are certain things I expect to be able to do with it, based on decades of precident. I expect to be able to record TV and view it how and where I want. I expect to be able to space shift, time shift, make mixes, extract sections, and make backups, and any other non-infringing uses (basically everything but distributing copies to other people).

I think this statement forms the basis of your limited views. Your precident is based on a completely different market situation, where there really WAS no pay broadcast situation. This is why I feel the precident fails when trying to apply it to cable or satellite, or even online distribution. In those days, there was no option for single use media. There was free broadcast, with NO fees, revinue by advertising only, and there was full-rights purchase, with record/tape/etc. Personally, I prefer the lower viewing costs associated with the newer 'limited view' market. If DRM is a method to keep that cost down, and DOES still let me view it within the purchase agreement, then I'm good with it. By your narrow view, if you buy a movie ticket, you seem to expect to be able to go back to the theater over and over again, and view the movie as often as you want. This, obviously, is a flawed and unrealistic viewpoint.

[Clift]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think this statement forms the basis of your limited views. Your precident is based on a completely different market situation, where there really WAS no pay broadcast situation. This is why I feel the precident fails when trying to apply it to cable or satellite, or even online distribution. In those days, there was no option for single use media. There was free broadcast, with NO fees, revinue by advertising only, and there was full-rights purchase, with record/tape/etc. Personally, I prefer the lower viewing costs associated with the newer 'limited view' market. If DRM is a method to keep that cost down, and DOES still let me view it within the purchase agreement, then I'm good with it. By your narrow view, if you buy a movie ticket, you seem to expect to be able to go back to the theater over and over again, and view the movie as often as you want. This, obviously, is a flawed and unrealistic viewpoint.

Well i think another part of that is the distribution model and analog versus digital. With physical media of yesteryear if you made a copy it was inferior to the original. And it cost money to buy a video tape and make bootleg copies for your friends. In the digital age, a copy is 100% of the original. And if you make a copy, distributing it online, especially in peer to peer networks is essentially "free". Not only that, but one copy is all it takes to distribute to the world. The accountability may not even be there. Now compare with trying to distribute video tape copies across the world. not only would this be cost-prohibitive, but it would also be very easy to find out who is doing it and bust them.

Thsi post has nothing pro or con with regards to DRM, just pointing out the differences in the way "fair use" can work with old media and new media.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

You don't see the same level of casual piracy of DVDs and movies that we saw with CDs themselves. Certainly I've known people that have copied DVDs, but they tended to be my rather geeky friends. I don't have nearly as many friends with binders of copied DVDs as I had friends with binders of copied CDs years ago.

But you don't see the same level of innovation either. Where are the DVD servers to stream DVDs around your house. Portable video players with good software to allow you to make portable copies. How big of an industry got prevented by having DRM on DVD?

So, I think despite being horribly broken, CSS has been moderately successful at reducing casual piracy of movies.

But how much harm has it done by stifling innovation? Many of the greatest products and technologies we enjoy today come from people who found "unintended" used for another product.

The iPod, the "Kleenex" of modern digital media technology, would likely not exist, or at least would not be anywhere near as huge as it is.

225 Million iPods have been sold (plus countless other MP3 players), imagine how different the world would be if CDs had come out with robust copy protection, were "unrippable", and thus no major company would dare make a product to utilize ripped music.

True, I think it's a business model of the past. But, I'm not sure consumers are ready to move on either. Content creators basically expect to double, triple, or even quadruple dip on customers. Sure, you can imagine a business model where customers pay once for something, but can do whatever they want with it, but then customers are going to have to pay more.

That's not even what I mean. If they want to sell me a copy of a CD or DVD, then a year later sell me a new one with new cool features that's fine. I don't expect to be "entitled" to the upgrade. What I mean is go back and look at CD. When CD was being conceived, I'm sure nobody thought it would be used for anything but being put in a player and played.

Yet clever people realized they could read the data off the CD, compress it into a more portable (but still "good" sounding format) and put it on compact devices to take with them. When CD was conceived the iPod wasn't even a gleam in anyones eye, yet the fact that CD is an open format has allowed lots of valuable, unplanned uses to arise, the iPod, the Squeezebox, mp3s in cars.

If the content owners had their way, CD would be locked down so the only way to use them would be sticking the disc in the player, and we'd still be stuck carrying hundreds of CDs around with us in order to take our collection with us.

Again, compare how pathetic the innovation around DVD has been compared to CD. Were it not for CSS, I'm certain Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, Microsoft, and all the other big players would have DVD servers out there, and we'd have good, commercial software pulling DVD metadata from servers, just like we do with CD.

Becasue of CSS we're limited to using DVDs in only the very narrow way the developers intended, nobody has been able (except Kaleidescape) to go out and develop new, innovative uses/systems for DVD because of CSS.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I think Stranger is pretty closed on his views and that is that.

DRM with the new cablecard rules will allow what 90% ++ of consumers want as far as their tv watching end of story.

How can you be so sure? DTCP on firewire should allow what 90% ++ of customers want as far as their TV watching too. End of story.

How well has Firewire/DTCP been working for everybody?

You/We are of the minority and won't have an impact. As long as I can watch my shows throughout my house I am fine with DRM. I don't plan on burning them, or transfering them to anything and that is how most consumers are.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I think this statement forms the basis of your limited views. Your precident is based on a completely different market situation, where there really WAS no pay broadcast situation.

My precident is based on analog cable, and CDs, (and to a degree VHS). With analog cable I could buy a cheap tuner card and record anything my TV could show. With CDs, I can convert them to another format and build a library for my own personal use.

Any change from that sort of functionality is a reduction in value to the product the industry is trying to sell me, and they want to sell it to me at a higher cost. In a day when the industry is crying over reduced sales and lost revenue, they should be seeking ways to make their product more useful, easier to use, and provide more value, not trying to lock down and remove functionality, in the hope it will force me to buy multiple copies.

Personally, I prefer the lower viewing costs associated with the newer 'limited view' market. If DRM is a method to keep that cost down, and DOES still let me view it within the purchase agreement, then I'm good with it.

You hit on a key point here. DRM's media is less useful, more limited than non-DRM'd media, thus it it worth less. I didn't buy a single HD disc until I could rip it to my server, why? Because if I can't put a copy on my server, there's really no point "owning" it IMO.

By your narrow view, if you buy a movie ticket, you seem to expect to be able to go back to the theater over and over again, and view the movie as often as you want. This, obviously, is a flawed and unrealistic viewpoint.

I never said anything like that. It's expected, it's precident that when you buy a movie ticket, you're paying for access to one showing of that film, always has been.

The same is not true of physical media. Since the beginning of physical media (records, tapes, CDs, Laserdiscs, etc) we've owned the disc and been able to do whatever we want with it (short of Copyright Infringement). If I buy a work on a physical, optical disc, I expect to be able to rip that content and build a digital library with it.

Since the 80s, I've been able to record anything on cable (either directly or via a cable box) and do whatever I want to with it (short of Copyright Infringement). In europe you can record things directly off satellite by providing your access card.

Anything short of either of those drastically reduces the value of those products/services.

Content protection and DRM have a place, but that place is in new innovative distribution systems, like VOD, Netflix, Hulu, etc, not in trying to undo decades of precident on existing business/distribution models.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by 3rob3

Also, I agree with PluckyHD. If I can record and watch it anywhere in my house, who cares even if it is DRM'd.

In many ways, I totally agree, but I think the passion that surrounds wanting DRM to be able to easily watch tv anywhere, totally blinds people to the logic behind why people like myself think it's a bad idea.

HDCP is a form of DRM. It's a form of DRM that i'm not happy with, but i'm willing to live with it, if it allows me to watch my blurays on the TV. HDCP, while a DRM technoloy, has a very well defined scope, and it will either work, or it will not. If my tv supports HDCP, then there's a contract with the manufacturer that HDCP compliant devices will communicate with my TV. I'm ok with that. I don't like that it's there, but I can live with it.

Compare HDCP with something like the CableCard solution. The CableCard solution is basically saying that they'll deliver some content to you without DRM, but they reserve the right to add DRM to any content at any time, even after you've purchased the solution and have been happily using it for some time. With CableCard, there isn't a contract that protects you as the user from being ripped off, simply because the content provider decided to enable flags that were not previously enabled.

I know you want to hope that this will never happen, and we can all agree the MPAA, recording industry, networks and cable providers, will not simply change their mind about what has DRM and what doesn't.... but look at what has happened so far... We were told that componet video was great for HD (and it is), and many STBs provided component video out as a means to get HD to a TV. Now groups are lobbying for SOC to turn off the "Analog Hole". This happened as adoption for component video rised to a point where it was common place for most people.

I don't use OTAHD, but is still fully open, or is it gradually becomming encrypted? I've heard rumours... but just rumours.

So my point about CableCard, is that you can expect that as adoption rises, the amount of channels that you get without DRM will probably decrease, and you will have no control over which channels they are, and you are at the mercy of the provider. So even though things may look good today, that's not a guarantee for the future.

I don't "hate" drm because i'm some "pirate" or because I don't want the content creators to get their fair share (as Fuzzy seemed to indicate), but rather I don't like the CableCard solution because it's DRM model is severely flawed and totally one sided with no attempt to give consumers any sort of protections for their investments.

People get excited about "loosened DRM", but all "loosened drm" is a carrot that blinds people to reality of what they are buying. Forget about DRM for a moment. If you can honestly say that you'll be totally happy if you can use CableCard for 1 month and watch some shows freely and then turn it on again the next night and you have only half the channels, then by all means invest into cablecard... if you think that you'll be pissed as you start to lose channels... then i'd stay away from it. My point is that there are no guarantees that this won't happen. It may never happen, but you don't know, and you can't control it.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by stuckless

In many ways, I totally agree, but I think the passion that surrounds wanting DRM to be able to easily watch tv anywhere, totally blinds people to the logic behind why people like myself think it's a bad idea.

HDCP is a form of DRM. It's a form of DRM that i'm not happy with, but i'm willing to live with it, if it allows me to watch my blurays on the TV. HDCP, while a DRM technoloy, has a very well defined scope, and it will either work, or it will not. If my tv supports HDCP, then there's a contract with the manufacturer that HDCP compliant devices will communicate with my TV. I'm ok with that. I don't like that it's there, but I can live with it.

Of course HDCP is utterly pointless when you can just rip BDs

Compare HDCP with something like the CableCard solution. The CableCard solution is basically saying that they'll deliver some content to you without DRM, but they reserve the right to add DRM to any content at any time, even after you've purchased the solution and have been happily using it for some time. With CableCard, there isn't a contract that protects you as the user from being ripped off, simply because the content provider decided to enable flags that were not previously enabled.

But it goes beyond that. DRM on recordings is not allowing access to new things, it's taking away functionality that we've enjoyed for years. I mean it's like "Hey, we're glad you like your service, and because you've been such a great customer, we're going to take away your ability to save shows you've recorded."

I don't use OTAHD, but is still fully open, or is it gradually becomming encrypted? I've heard rumours... but just rumours.

It's still open, but despite the Broadcast Flag being killed by the Supreme Court, it still exists and will prevent recording in programs that support it.

So my point about CableCard, is that you can expect that as adoption rises, the amount of channels that you get without DRM will probably decrease, and you will have no control over which channels they are, and you are at the mercy of the provider. So even though things may look good today, that's not a guarantee for the future.

Exactly, just a clear QAM channels and "Copy Freely" DTCP-less firewire have dried up.

I don't "hate" drm because i'm some "pirate" or because I don't want the content creators to get their fair share (as Fuzzy seemed to indicate),

Yeah, that really chaps my hide (and frankly is a more general problem these days) if you're not "accepting" of DRM, then you must be a criminal, because you couldn't possibly have a legitimate, principaled, logical reason for opposing it.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by stanger89

But it goes beyond that. DRM on recordings is not allowing access to new things, it's taking away functionality that we've enjoyed for years. I mean it's like "Hey, we're glad you like your service, and because you've been such a great customer, we're going to take away your ability to save shows you've recorded."



.

How in the world are they taking away your ability to save shows?? DRM is in place to make sure it doesn't leave the closed enviroment being sharing from one computer to clients/extenders or sharing tivo to tivo or moxi to moxi. They want it staying in that closed enviroment it has not limitations on saving recordings. I can save them burn them to dvd if I want but still I am limited to playback withint the original closed loop.

Like I said given what comes at time of release if it allows playback to other computers and extenders on my network I am fine and I think it will do that just fine.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

How in the world are they taking away your ability to save shows?? DRM is in place to make sure it doesn't leave the closed enviroment being sharing from one computer to clients/extenders or sharing tivo to tivo or moxi to moxi.

If that were all it did, make sure it doesn't leave my private network, that would be fine, but it's worse than that. You can't burn it to a DVD to save indefinitely (can't convert to regular DVD format MPEG-2).

But worse, it's only valid for the computer it was recorded on. Your computer dies, you're SOL, won't work on the new one. You upgrade computers (ie replace with a new, better one), a big "screw you" for doing that too.

Don't run Windows 7, screw you, don't use a Playready device, screw you, and on and on.

They want it staying in that closed enviroment it has not limitations on saving recordings.

But the way they do it by definition puts limits on saving recordings.

I can save them burn them to dvd if I want but still I am limited to playback withint the original closed loop.

But you're SOL if you get a new computer. Or if you want to watch it on your laptop while you're on vacation.

Like I said given what comes at time of release if it allows playback to other computers and extenders on my network I am fine and I think it will do that just fine.

Yeah, I just come from the other side, I've learned it's safer to assume the worst with DRM, and take the "I'll believe it when I see it"/"Prove it to me" attitude. If you hope for the best with DRM you almost invariably end up disappointed.

Take Managed Copy, I was rather optimistic in the early days of the format war when there was talk of how AACS was including provision for making legal copies. What three years later and we're only just seeing the first demos of Managed copy and we know it won't be free, and have no idea if it will be reasonably priced.