CableCard OEM Restriction Lifted!!!

[evilpenguin]

Originally Posted by stanger89

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.

MS seems to be moving towards a much friendly internet ID model rather than a machine based one (Zune Pass/Xbox Live/LiveID). Who knows if we'll see the benefits of this in MC land cause they seem to be perpetually a few years behind the rest of the company, but I could certainly live with this kind of DRM.

[SWKerr]

DRM is the result of media companies not be able to break with the past. DRM is an attempt to keep the same revenue streams they have today. They want to control every aspect of the content so they can maximize their revenue stream. By controlling every aspect they belive they can add additional revenue without giving up much if any of the existing revenue sources.

Napster was a paradigm shift in the delivery of media but instead of embracing the technology they tried to stop it because it threatened the current business model. People wanted the content electronically and A-La-Cart but that would have affected the current revenue streams. Most people are basically honest and would have paid reasonable prices for electronic copies of their music if given the opportunity. By refusing to provide the service people wanted they created a illegal market for it. They confronted the problem with DRM but the implementation just created a poor user experience and the illicit market continued to thrive. The complexity and inconvenience of DRM solutions was a turn off to many of the digitally challenged who stayed with the old system of CDs but the technology literate simply went to the illicit sources of content. As the owner of a iPhone, ipod, Archos604 and two Zunes, I freely admit DRM was removed from all content. I love itunes but until it went DRM free I did not spend a penny there. Now they account for most of my music expenditures.

Music companies are now on the right path but they certainly did themselves some damage in waiting so long in getting there. I am not sure if this would have happened anyway but their revenue is down. I suspect that this is really from greater choice and variety people now have in music. The electronic delivery channels have greatly reduced the cost of entry for many bands and they can now market themselves on you tube and Facebook without needing expensive representation to get their product out. I believe that this is what is really driving down revenues.

You would think that this history would have given Media companies better insight into how to respond to electronic sources of video but this appears not to be the case. The fact you can't get Hulu on a dedicated device is because media companies don't want to make it easier to view content outside of their existing and profitable delivery mechanisms. There is always a focus on short-term profits and little thought to building a long-term survival strategy.

DRM on video does not prevent the illegal distribution of content and just makes the experience of legal use and adoption less desirable. I probably never would have ripped my first Blu-Ray had it actually played on my non HDCP video card over HDMI. Turns out AnyDVD was a cheaper and better solution than buying a new video card I didn't need. Now I rip them all because it is just a better option for Sage. If I miss recording a show I would probably go and spend a $1 on it if I could download it easily. Hulu has some but if it doesn't I can always find it somewhere for free. Rent a movie online? Why when Netflix mail rental is cheaper and more convenient.

I will never understand how media companies can't see that selling more of something at a lower price will eventually lead to greater revenue and make illegal distribution channels less desirable to common people. There will always be the fringe group that will go to the illicit route but you can't stop them today why make the problem worse by pushing people willing to pay a reasonable price to the illicit side.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

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.



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



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.



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.

These are all limitations of the horribly designed and implemented PlayReady system that MS has used to obtain CableCard certification, but these requirements are NOT in the CableCard specs. It was a quick and dirty solution that met the needs of the tiny percentage of the already tiny enthusiest market that was using MC and wanted cablecard. As stated, MS as a company has already moved away from such schemes, and there is no specific tie between CableCard and PlayReady other than that happened to be Msft's chosen DRM mechanism at the time. There is no reason Sage would have to keep the same system, as long as whatever system they DID use was complient with the opencable specs.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

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.

I don't think you understood what I meant. This is perhaps a bit on the extreme end, but you seem to be essentially advocating a sort of buy once, play anytime, anywhere paradigm. I'm saying that's not the current business model. Content providers expect to get revenue from multiple sources, knowing the same person is likely to pay (or at least provide some form of revenue, like from advertising) for the same content multiple times. A TV studio might get money from selling first-run broadcasting rights, syndication, DVD sales, internet video streaming advertising, mobile phone sales/advertising, portable video players, etc. The list can go on and on. There's a clear value to being able to play media on different sorts of devices (since its something that we want to do), even if its rather hard to put a price on it. But, not everyone cares about being able to load a show on their video iPod, or play an episode on their laptop. Why should those people have to pay for that?

If we moved to a buy once, play anywhere paradigm people would have to pay more. The marginal cost of doing selling videos on extra platforms is pretty small, so the studios will have to make up for lost revenue by raising prices. I don't know what it would be, but you certainly wouldn't expect TV shows to go for $1-2 an episode like they do now with DVD releases. And, since most potential customers right now aren't particularly interested in watching full-length videos on anything besides their TV they're not going to want to pay a premium.

Digital media really is quite destabilizing for the current business model. It makes sense that businesses would be moving slowly. You could argue that media companies aren't really making money off of sales for personal video devices right now, and that would be true. But, that doesn't mean its not a (potentially) a lucrative market in the future.

I agree some changes need to be made, but I don't think its just the content creators and providers that are scared of change. I don't think customers as a whole are prepared for it either. And honestly, it isn't clear to me that completely unrestricted playback on media files would be a good thing for most people.

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.

I basically agree that DRM, particularly how its been implemented, reduces innovation. To some extent, that's inherent to DRM. To some extent, that's just how content creators/providers wanted it to be. And, to some extent its just limitations in currently deployed technology.

But, I think innovation can co-exist relatively peacefully with DRM. You just need a decent way of implementing DRM on third party devices. Probably the best way for this to happen is to get MS to include DRM in PC operating systems in a way that is accessible to third-party software. They could also include it in the CE platform to make it easier for consumer electronics devices, like extenders, to include DRM.

Before you throw out cable card as a example of why that's bound to fail, let me say why I think that's a bad example. First of all, getting someone like MS to implement and make available DRM functionality should drop the cost. Second, I still think a lot of the reason for cable card's failure is a lack of consumer interest in third-party DVRs and STBs. Take a look at TiVo's shrinking customer base as some evidence of that.

But, no matter what, I agree DRM probably limits innovation to essentially things that are "imaginable" at the time the DRM scheme was created. There are some ways around that, but it's probably basically true. I think that just comes along with the territory. It's not clear a lack of DRM would be much better. A lack of DRM sometimes just means content creators/providers won't be willing to try certain things at all. Movies companies have been very reluctant to do any sort of Internet streaming, though they're starting to come around pertially because they think current DRM schemes might be able to provide enough protection.

How well has Firewire/DTCP been working for everybody?

It works for me. (mostly)

Yeah, I know I'm mostly the exception. I also bought an HD-PVR because I'm worried it won't keep working.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Yeah, I know I'm mostly the exception. I also bought an HD-PVR because I'm worried it won't keep working.

I would worry more about the hd-pvr becoming a paperweight because of analog hole being closed imho.

I don't agree with Stranger and I will leave it at that. I know I don't own the content I record from tv so if they want to restrict it within my house I am fine with that. I don't agree with encryption or anything on dvd's or blu rays that I buy and own, but I don't own anything aired on the networks and don't expect ownership rights. To me that is like saying I should be able to go into a movie and record it in high quality and watch it more at home.

[tmiranda]

I'm always amazed by these "DRM and the industry are evil" discussions. IMHO the studios have created the product, they own the product and they can sell the product any way they wish - even if it's a stupid way. If you do not like it, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. If we all get in the mindset that it's OK to steal something because we do not like the terms on which it is offered for sale, and we are able to steal it with little effort, the results will not be good for anybody.

I think Ferrari's are gorgeous but rediculously priced. That doesn't mean if somebody leaves the keys in one it' OK to drive off with it.

Now, if you want to have an "DRM and the industry are stupid" discussion, I'm all in for that!

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I know I don't own the content I record from tv so if they want to restrict it within my house I am fine with that. I don't agree with encryption or anything on dvd's or blu rays that I buy and own, but I don't own anything aired on the networks and don't expect ownership rights. To me that is like saying I should be able to go into a movie and record it in high quality and watch it more at home.

I don't understand this argument. You haven't bought a TV show/movie anymore with a DVD purchase than by paying the network through the cable company. You're not "buying" the TV show/movie when you buy a DVD, you're buying the right to play it in a DVD player. You might want to do more with it, but I don't any reason to believe your entitled to do whatever you want.

I understand stanger's argument (I just disagree with it), and I understand the arguments for DRM. But I don't get the argument for "DRM is OK sometimes".

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm always amazed by these "DRM and the industry are evil" discussions. IMHO the studios have created the product, they own the product and they can sell the product any way they wish - even if it's a stupid way.

I couldn't agree more.

If you do not like it, don't buy it, but don't steal it either. If we all get in the mindset that it's OK to steal something because we do not like the terms on which it is offered for sale, and we are able to steal it with little effort, the results will not be good for anybody.

This statement bothers me on so many levels.... but fundamentally, infringement does not equal stealing (but that's a whole other political debate that doesn't belong here ) The other thing is the nagging feeling that people seem to link DRM with piracy (or anti-piracy) and those people that "hate" drm must also "steal" the content... which i don't think is the case. The 3rd thing is that by definition of the studios... I doubt you'll find one person on this forum that doesn't "steal" (more correctly "infringe") on the copyright. According to Turner Broadcasting, skipping commercials is "threft". ("Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming") So, please, lets be done with the "stealing" non-sense part of the discussion, since everyone here is stealing something according to someone.

I think Ferrari's are gorgeous but rediculously priced. That doesn't mean if somebody leaves the keys in one it' OK to drive off with it.

This is flawed in so many ways... where to start... but honestly, read up on copyright infrigment, and then re-read your comment. I think most people don't fully understand what copyright infrigment is all about... it really is worth educating yourself. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're comming from, and the studios know the difference as well, but i think they realized that if their advertising slogan was... "You wouldn't copy a car" then it would really not make sense to people, certainly wouldn't strike the nerve that "steal" does.

Now, if you want to have an "DRM and the industry are stupid" discussion, I'm all in for that!

I agree, that's a totally different discussion

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't understand this argument. You haven't bought a TV show/movie anymore with a DVD purchase than by paying the network through the cable company. You're not "buying" the TV show/movie when you buy a DVD, you're buying the right to play it in a DVD player. You might want to do more with it, but I don't any reason to believe your entitled to do whatever you want.
.

By buying the dvd of the show you have purchased the right to watch it whenever wherever you want. By paying for cable you are purchasing the right to view the material when it is aired if they want to protect it beyond that that is their choice and you can choice not pay if you don't like the choice they make.

[samgreco]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

By buying the dvd of the show you have purchased the right to watch it whenever wherever you want.

Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. In theory, it is against the law for us to rip our DVDs and our CDs to our systems. Every time you rip a DVD you are bypassing their protection scheme. As for CDs, they've just given up.

So I guess we are all just arguing about what degree of rule/law breaking we are willing to accept.

As someone that is sometimes involved with the creating content side of things, I can tell you that I believe in the creators getting paid. But the system has gone completely haywire. And it's not because of the artists or writers. It's the big guys that actually own their work.

I wish I knew how to fix it.

[HelenWeathers]

Originally Posted by samgreco

In theory, it is against the law for us to rip our DVDs and our CDs to our systems. Every time you rip a DVD you are bypassing their protection scheme. As for CDs, they've just given up.

I know I disagree with the MPAA, but when I buy a movie I feel it's mine to put on my Hard Drive if I choose. The Blu-ray or DVD discs are just (to my way of thinking) their way of delivering the content I've purchased.

I would buy from electronic download if they could deliver the same quality as they deliver on disk. But they don't. So I pay for the quality I want, they deliver it on disk, and I put it on my computer.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by stuckless

This is flawed in so many ways... where to start... but honestly, read up on copyright infrigment, and then re-read your comment. I think most people don't fully understand what copyright infrigment is all about... it really is worth educating yourself. Don't get me wrong, I know where you're comming from, and the studios know the difference as well, but i think they realized that if their advertising slogan was... "You wouldn't copy a car" then it would really not make sense to people, certainly wouldn't strike the nerve that "steal" does.

Point taken, and agreed. I have no real "legal" understanding of copyright infringement.

[Clift]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

I would buy from electronic download if they could deliver the same quality as they deliver on disk. But they don't. So I pay for the quality I want, they deliver it on disk, and I put it on my computer.

Not I. I don't want to "own" anything in such a digital format. Some of the advantages of physical media is that I can let me friend borrow it, or re-sell it or take it with me in an easy way. Until someone comes up with a standard and easy way to take my downloaded media with me, I'm not interested.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

By buying the dvd of the show you have purchased the right to watch it whenever wherever you want.

I'm not sure where you're getting this. Either way, whether you're buying a DVD, Internet video stream, or a OTA/cable/satellite broadcast, you've paid for and received a bitstream. The difference is how its transmitted. You seem to accept playback restrictions for certain types of transmissions, but not others. I don't see what's so special about physical possession of media as opposed to logical possession.

There is one "intermediate" position that I go back and forth on. That's along the lines of when you purchase, say, a DVD, you're buying the ciphertext. You can do whatever you want with that ciphertext, knowing there might only be one "supported" way of using it (e.g., playing it in a DVD player). So, content creators/providers are free to do whatever they want to try to lock things down with DRM, but I'm free to try to bypass it (without it being considered a sort of theft). This position, of course, doesn't go well with the DMCA.

I go back and forth on that because I think in a lot of ways we've accepted that purchases can include fairly arbitrary and artificial restrictions. Software licenses for academic or non-commercial use is one example. I don't see why that can't extend to media. I may not like it, but I don't see why its fundamentally wrong or illegal.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm always amazed by these "DRM and the industry are evil" discussions. IMHO the studios have created the product, they own the product and they can sell the product any way they wish - even if it's a stupid way.

The problem I have w/ DRM is how it's used to make nonrivalrous goods rivalrous. That the content industry co-opted the legal system to enforce their business model in this case might be forgiven if they hadn't already done so before w/ the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

Instead of embracing the intrinsic nature of the good, content providers try to apply the wrong set of rules (i.e. physical) to something that we all intuitively know is not.

[dadof4]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I would worry more about the hd-pvr becoming a paperweight because of analog hole being closed imho.

Funny you mention that. I just left the Time Warner store to pick up a new modem. The guy in front of me was picking up a new HD cablebox. He asked the TW rep about the cable that came with it. It was a HDMI cable. The rep stated they are no longer supplying component cables. He also stated the reverse was true up to a couple of weeks ago....Hmmmm

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by dadof4

Funny you mention that. I just left the Time Warner store to pick up a new modem. The guy in front of me was picking up a new HD cablebox. He asked the TW rep about the cable that came with it. It was a HDMI cable. The rep stated they are no longer supplying component cables. He also stated the reverse was true up to a couple of weeks ago....Hmmmm

I wouldn't read allot into that because HDMI cables can be had cheaper than component is probably their reason behind that. That being said I still think the analog hole will be closed at that point people will be left with DRM or no premium HDTV.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by dadof4

Funny you mention that. I just left the Time Warner store to pick up a new modem. The guy in front of me was picking up a new HD cablebox. He asked the TW rep about the cable that came with it. It was a HDMI cable. The rep stated they are no longer supplying component cables. He also stated the reverse was true up to a couple of weeks ago....Hmmmm

FWIW, my STB has HDMI but Comcast recommends using component because it won't do HDCP through an AVR.

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

I wouldn't read allot into that because HDMI cables can be had cheaper than component is probably their reason behind that. That being said I still think the analog hole will be closed at that point people will be left with DRM or no premium HDTV.

1) HDFury
2) At some point the analog hole will close, but not for a long time. Look at how long it took to do the ATSC transition.

[PLUCKYHD]

Originally Posted by babgvant

FWIW, my STB has HDMI but Comcast recommends using component because it won't do HDCP through an AVR.



1) HDFury
2) At some point the analog hole will close, but not for a long time. Look at how long it took to do the ATSC transition.

1. Yes but that is expensive and I am shocked they can still keep their hdcp license. Not a option for me at that high of expense.

2. Yeah it is probably a couple years off but who knows.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

1. Yes but that is expensive and I am shocked they can still keep their hdcp license. Not a option for me at that high of expense.

closing the analog hole should drive volume, w/ volume prices can go down

not going to question it

Originally Posted by PLUCKYHD

2. Yeah it is probably a couple years off but who knows.

A couple? Even if SOC was OK'd today, it would be a long time before it could be implemented (unless it's already built in). Also, SOC is only aimed at PPV, it would take another round of lobbying to apply it to premiums, repeat for standard HD cable. Let's not get into how long it would take for cable cos to deploy new STB to everyone.