CableCard Alternative Article

[reggie14]

Ars Technica ran a story earlier today: CableCard could finally get a card-less replacement

Basically, it is the same old discussion regarding AllVid. The consumer electronics companies want it, since it would let them create value-added services and products on top of cable TV. The cable companies hate it, since it would 1) require infrastructure and end-user device changes, and 2) cede control over the interface to other companies (with obvious impacts to ad revenue and the ability to push VoD/PPV products).

So, no surprises. But, they referenced a meeting between the FCC and members of the "Consumer Video Choice Coalition" where the coalition provided a demo of a "competitive navigation device" that would fit into the AllVid ecosystem, as described in an FCC Working Group report.

The FCC filing had a list of attendees, which included a familiar name:

Consumer Video Choice Coalition Attendees
John Bergmayer, Public Knowledge
Kate Forsey, Public Knowledge
Adam Goldberg, AGP LLC for Public Knowledge
Alan Hill, INCOMPAS
John Howes, CCIA
George Ivanov, Google Inc.
Jeffrey Kardatzke, Google Inc.
Angie Kronenberg, INCOMPAS
Brad Love, Hauppauge
Milo Medin, Google Inc.
Daniel O’Connor, CCIA
Chip Pickering, INCOMPAS
Staci Pies, Google Inc.
Ken Plotkin, Hauppauge
Austin Schlick, Google Inc.
Robert Schwartz, Constantine Cannon LLP for Hauppauge
Jeff Sharp, Manitou Media for INCOMPAS
Johanna Shelton, Google Inc.
Linda Sherry, Consumer Action
Megan Anne Stull, Google Inc.

Way to fight the good fight, Jeff!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by reggie14

The FCC filing had a list of attendees, which included a familiar name:

Including a slightly more powerful company.

Interesting, about half those names are from Google

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Interesting, about half those names are from Google

Not surprising at all. A big company like Google tends to bring flocks of lawyers to meetings with government agencies. My guess is that Google brought one senior techie, a true subject matter expert (probably Jeff), a couple policy wonks, and a couple lawyers.

Google has a public policy team in DC, as well as corporate counsel. I'm sure that's not true of Hauppauge (although even they brought along a hired gun).

[Fuzzy]

that whole list, Jeff included, is not all that different from the list from many years ago the first time this AllVid thing was attempted.

[wayner]

It is good to see that Hauppauge is on the list and the hope is that they also will fight the good fight, assuming that they are still interested in the business of building video capture products. I would love to see them build a 4K version of the HD-PVR as 4K is coming fast to cable.

Last night's Raptors-Celtics game was apparently the first 4K sports broadcast in North America and this Saturday there will be a Leafs-Habs NHL game on in 4K.

If it wasn't for the Hauppauge HD-PVR I would have stopped using SageTV years ago since I have no CableCARD option, no QAM option and I want HD beyond what I can get via OTA.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

that whole list, Jeff included, is not all that different from the list from many years ago the first time this AllVid thing was attempted.

It's a bit different. This group is a bit different from the AllVid Tech Company Alliance, which I think was the group that Jeff was involved with that ultimately led to the SageTV sale. The AllVid alliance was a bit bigger than this one. At least, it had a few more CE companies. The new one, in part, appears to be the allies that were involved with the FCC's working group, combined with some advocacy groups.

Anyways, I was looking for signs of what they demoed. The only companies involved were Google and Hauppauge. I wonder if they demoed SageTV with some Hauppauge tuners.

Originally Posted by wayner

It is good to see that Hauppauge is on the list and the hope is that they also will fight the good fight, assuming that they are still interested in the business of building video capture products. I would love to see them build a 4K version of the HD-PVR as 4K is coming fast to cable.

I suspect 4K is going to catch on relatively slowly outside of major sporting events. But I understand the interest if you like to watch sports.

I think it would be tough to build a business around 4k video capture products designed for TV. Like the HD-PVR, if it happens it will be for gaming. HDCP is going to be a big problem, since cable companies will almost certainly be using HDCP on 4k cable boxes. There may be strippers, but that's just going to push the price up even more, creating an extremely niche market.

Google and Hauppauge are certainly looking for something better than CableCard, and certainly better than hacking together video capture devices. While the AllVid model sounds great in theory, the FCC working group's report seemed to concede that any such system would be heavily DRMed. I had hope (just a little) that cooler heads would prevail, and that they would emphasize DRM for transmission content protection aimed at access control, rather than end-to-end DRM for restricting consumers, I certainly wasn't optimistic from the report.

Further, the cable industry's response to the Consumer Video Choice Coalition's filing pretty much confirmed that DRM isn't about piracy. They want DRM to restrict access to only in-home viewing. Quoting from their filing:

Originally Posted by NCTA

[AllVid] would allow tech companies like Google to take content, slice and dice and re-purpose it in any way it wants, collect and monetize customer viewing data without Title VI privacy safeguards, and create an entirely new
video service without negotiating or paying for it

The cable companies are going to fight tooth and nail over anything that could turn them into more of a utility than a service provider. I very strongly suspect the FCC will be highly sympathetic to this concern, particularly given there is more competition and plausible alternatives in the video programming space. The FCC staff is driven by lawyers who will be concerned about overstepping their authority (particularly given the lack of a Congressional mandate, like existed for CableCard), and the FCC Commissioners tend to have close ties to the industry they regulate (which is fair, but means they tend to see things from those companies' perspectives).

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wayner

It is good to see that Hauppauge is on the list and the hope is that they also will fight the good fight, assuming that they are still interested in the business of building video capture products. I would love to see them build a 4K version of the HD-PVR as 4K is coming fast to cable.

Last night's Raptors-Celtics game was apparently the first 4K sports broadcast in North America and this Saturday there will be a Leafs-Habs NHL game on in 4K.

If it wasn't for the Hauppauge HD-PVR I would have stopped using SageTV years ago since I have no CableCARD option, no QAM option and I want HD beyond what I can get via OTA.

I don't think this has any tie to an actual video capture device - they are, here, trying to work on a system that doesn't need an analog hole to capture, but instead standardizes access in a way that isn't per-device certified like the cablecard standard is.

Even the cablecard standard, as written, would allow a non-DRM transfer or protected content from it if it included a resolution drop - it's just no-one has created a protected path filter that would provide this unprotected output. My hopes would be that any future action would include this provision, to allow open streaming of recorded content outside the protected environment, even at lower quality.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Even the cablecard standard, as written, would allow a non-DRM transfer or protected content from it if it included a resolution drop - it's just no-one has created a protected path filter that would provide this unprotected output. My hopes would be that any future action would include this provision, to allow open streaming of recorded content outside the protected environment, even at lower quality.

Whether you can copy it without DRM depends on the copy protection flags. That's exactly how the CableCard tuners work.

As for downgraded resolutions, I think that only applied to analog output. I remember looking at that stuff a while back. The copy protection requirements were surprisingly complicated, but my recollection was that if digital copy protection was required, then digital output from an OCUR device needed copy protection.

If AllVid (or something like it) comes along, wouldn't expect a better outcome than that. They might leave some sort of analog hole for backward compatibility, but the definitely seem to be going down a DRMed path. And again, the cable companies aren't even claiming DRM is intended to fight piracy. They explicitly want to restrict access to in-home viewing based on licensing requirements/agreements.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Whether you can copy it without DRM depends on the copy protection flags. That's exactly how the CableCard tuners work.

As for downgraded resolutions, I think that only applied to analog output. I remember looking at that stuff a while back. The copy protection requirements were surprisingly complicated, but my recollection was that if digital copy protection was required, then digital output from an OCUR device needed copy protection.

If AllVid (or something like it) comes along, wouldn't expect a better outcome than that. They might leave some sort of analog hole for backward compatibility, but the definitely seem to be going down a DRMed path. And again, the cable companies aren't even claiming DRM is intended to fight piracy. They explicitly want to restrict access to in-home viewing based on licensing requirements/agreements.

There is actually nothing in the CableCard spec that states the degraded output HAS to be sent to an analog output - it simply states the max resolutions the degraded output can be.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

There is actually nothing in the CableCard spec that states the degraded output HAS to be sent to an analog output - it simply states the max resolutions the degraded output can be.

Sure. I think we were talking past each other. There's certainly no requirement that certified devices MUST provided a degraded output when the CIT bit is set. It just says if the CIT bit is set, then the analog resolution must be limited to 520k pixels. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're hoping that support for degraded analog output will be mandatory in some future specification.

My point is that that seems highly unlikely. I strongly suspect they'll kill off that idea entirely if they moved to a CableCard alternative. Inertia, and a desire to use existing copy protection specs, might mean they'll keep things as-is, but I highly doubt they'd do anything to make analog output more available. To do so would create a natural way to bypass the rights restrictions that they're so interested in enforcing.

[reggie14]

Just a quick update: The WSJ ran an article today reporting that the FCC chairman is planning to update the rules on set top boxes.

It's behind the WSJ paywall, but that's easy to bypass by just doing a Google search for "FCC to Propose Overhauling Rules on Set-Top Boxes.."

The article talks about the tension to between TiVo/Google and the cable companies. The article also talks about some debate between whether encouraging Internet-provided programming would decrease or increase minority-oriented programming. Apparently the Congressional Black Caucus has come out opposed to AllVid, although I suspect the Congressmen are simply in the pockets of cable companies.

Also, the WSJ article implies that Chairman Wheeler is inclined to go with something closer to the original AllVid proposal, that maps fairly well to what Google and TiVo are looking for. Perhaps that's true, but I think they're jumping the gun on that one. I could easily see the FCC supporting the cable companies' counterproposal, which basically to let them call their crappy web apps sufficient (making at least some degree of effort to open these apps to more devices).

[gdippel]

New York Time Article: http://nyti.ms/1OPNSup

[reggie14]

Thanks, gdippel. I see the FCC also issued a press release.

It's clear that Chairman Wheeler's proposal will largely support the "competitive navigation" concept that Google, TiVo and other consumer electronics companies have supported.

From the release:

Originally Posted by FCC Release

For example, consumers should be able to have the choice of accessing programming through the MVPD-provided interface on a pay-TV set-top box or app, or through devices such as a tablet or smart TV using a competitive app or software. MVPDs and competitors should be able to differentiate themselves and compete based on the experience they offer users, including the quality of the user interface and additional features like suggested content, integration with home entertainment systems, caller ID and future innovations.

So, that's good.

But, of course there's a downside. The release definitely goes out of its way to support not only DRM as a copyright protection mechanism, but the broader concept of restricting what consumers can do with content based on licensing terms.

The release specifically calls out the ability to record content as an entitlement from the MVPD. You can be sure the ability to placeshift outside the home would similarly be an entitlement (if not entirely prohibited), based on how concerned the cable companies seem about that particular issue.

[sdsean]

What a bunch of freaking garbage. . .

I mean. . we are all (mainly) paying for said content in the 1st place. . .what gives anyone the right to tell me what I do with said content after it's in my possession?

If you didn't want me to have that content, then don't make it available via whatever service. . . but at the point where you do, and I pay you for it. . there's no way in freaking hell that you should be able to tell me what I do with it after that (or where I watch or on what device or whatever).

Next thing you know Kindle readers won't work b/c the location chip says I'm in the bathroom. . . i mean wtf?

If you are worried about piracy, then the only thing you can do is balance the price of your distribution points, and watermark said content so that you can catch bad actors. . .

I've never pirated a freaking movie or tv show in my life. . . ever. . . I have paid for say, a pay-per-view movie. . .and then yes recorded that via Sage, and kept it for myself. . .but so what. . ? I paid them for it, and i'm not broadcasting it all over hell and giving it away. . .that's called freedom. . . it's no different than a VCR, or taking a picture. . .or writing something down someone else said/thought.

but at some point the content has to be analog, otherwise i cant' watch it with my eyes. . .

i'm really really pissed right now with TW DRM'ing all channels (even locals for christ sake). . .and all DRM does is get in the way and doesn't do anyone any good. . .

"pick the devices that can be used" what a load of crap. . . all that will do is benefit huge companies, and stifle innovation. Last time I check this is still america. . .

man i'm so freaking angry (sorry for the rant)

[sdsean]

So I just cancelled my TW cable tv since a cable card is basically useless at this point.

What I find really infuriating. . . is that you can look at the "leasing" of a given set-top box as paying for con-current streams of bytes into your home.

The problem is the providers take advantage of that by using proprietary hardware so that you actually have way less choice and freedom then you think.

At the same time though, as a subscriber to their service, I can just go online to basically any website for a given channel, and watch an internet stream of most all the same programming, (and of course can use play on or whatever to keep that for later).
And I can do that on 10 devices at a time from anywhere. . .

My point is. . . I don't mind paying a fee, but to then turn around and try to control how I view/use whatever content, is just flat out wrong. . .AND at the same time you don't even enforce the same restrictions on the internet as you do at my house. In other words, you're basically making it LESS convenient in own home in an effort to "protect your content business model" yet as a provider you turn around and still make it available over the web.

In other words, once you choose your distribution, whatever model that is. . .you don't get (or shouldn't get) to control what happens after the fact, and you are already agreeing to that now whether you realize it or not (you being a provider).

Bottom line is. . i could care less how you encrypt something up until the point where it comes into my possession as a consumer. . . but once it's in my possession. . that's the end of it. . . If you want to do watermarking or something passive to make sure I behave then that's fine reasonably speaking. . .but forcing me to only use your hardware all the time just means that I'm always limited by what you're own opinions are as the provider which is crazy talk. . .

And what's worse is. . .we are all going to pay for it in the interim. . b/c the Cable companies for example have no choice but to keep raising prices to survive since they can't attract customers who are tired of the shenanigans. Which is also why the price of just plain old broadband internet still keeps getting higher as well. . (mines $65 now).

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by sdsean

I mean. . we are all (mainly) paying for said content in the 1st place. . .what gives anyone the right to tell me what I do with said content after it's in my possession?

I hate DRM too, but mostly because of certain practical impacts, not because I find the whole concept of licensing and DRM unethnical. Are you basically trying to say that we shouldn't accept the concept of renting (rather than buying) media?

Putting aside the issue of enforcement, to me, cable TV feels a lot more like a rental agreement than a purchase agreement. I don't think I'm really "buying" every show that ever airs while I have my subscription. I think I'm buying the right to watch it while it airs. I'm certainly happy that we have DVRs to extend the window in which we can watch (and re-watch) shows, but I don't think the mere existence of DVRs fundamentally changes the nature of the agreement. It's still closer to a rental agreement.

If I buy a DVD, I expect to be able to later sell that DVD under the first sale doctrine. I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to sell my TV recordings.

Originally Posted by sdsean

If you are worried about piracy, then the only thing you can do is balance the price of your distribution points, and watermark said content so that you can catch bad actors. . .

I've never pirated a freaking movie or tv show in my life. . . ever. . . I have paid for say, a pay-per-view movie. . .and then yes recorded that via Sage, and kept it for myself. . .but so what. . ?

The cable companies are not worried about piracy. At least, they're not talking about DRM to reduce piracy. The NCTA didn't say a word about "piracy" of "theft" in their FCC filing. They did, however, stress the need to enforce licensing and distribution agreements, which might break out cable TV distribution from Internet streaming, mobile device distribution, etc.

Also, how is copying a PPV movie not a form of piracy? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, big deal, but copying a PPV movie indefinite viewing is basically the same thing as copying a rental. The difference in price between a DVD rental and a DVD purchase isn't based on the cost of the disc itself- it is based on the limited nature of the rental.

I'm not saying you should feel bad about doing that. I'm just saying it isn't ridiculous for the media companies to want to stop that.

I paid them for it, and i'm not broadcasting it all over hell and giving it away. . .that's called freedom. . . it's no different than a VCR, or taking a picture. . .or writing something down someone else said/thought.

but at some point the content has to be analog, otherwise i cant' watch it with my eyes. . .

That line of thinking is preposterous. Just because you're in a position to copy something doesn't mean you're allowed to. I understand the argument that the "analog hole" invalidates DRM as a useful piracy measure. But I don't see how it invalidates the whole concept of DRM as a licensing measure. Just because you can see something doesn't mean you can copy it. There's pretty fundamental to copyright law, and really intellectual property in general.

Edit to add:
I'm not a big fan of this sort of licensing. I think it is mostly silly to distinguish watching a show on a TV at home, versus watching it on a tablet in a hotel room across the country. I would much prefer a subscription model similar to Netflix, where you can pretty much watch it on anything, everywhere, but only while your subscription stays active. I hope that's where we end up, where the cable companies just becoming and Internet pipe, and we buy and stream everything either from the source, or from Netflix-like companies. But I still think we need to expect DRM in that case, as you'd want to prevent copying.

[sdsean]

That line of thinking is preposterous. Just because you're in a position to copy something doesn't mean you're allowed to. I understand the argument that the "analog hole" invalidates DRM as a useful piracy measure. But I don't see how it invalidates the whole concept of DRM as a licensing measure. Just because you can see something doesn't mean you can copy it. There's pretty fundamental to copyright law, and really intellectual property in general.

See I completely disagree.

First of all I'm not "renting" content. You're right I don't see it that way at all. I'm paying for a service to get access to xyz content. At a certain point you paid xyz amount to see that in a theatre, later you pay xyz to get it over ppv or dvd, or internet. either way I'm still paying, but i'm not paying for a "license" . . I'm paying for the content. I'm not paying for someone to tell me what to do with that content. . .

Once that content is in my possession, it's 100% within my rights to do whatever I want with said content. Just like going to the library and checking out a book, or back in the day going to blockbuster and renting a video. I certainly can turn around and copy that DVD. . .yes a movie studio would try to claim that's piracy and that I can't do that. . but that's utter BS.
It's like saying I'm not allowed to remember what I just watched. . . that's just insane.


Copyright law does not apply to personal use. . . and even if it did there's absolutely no way to enforce that anyway. And that's where DRM has come in and made things a mess. . .

The reason copyright law exists is so that if I were to turn around and re-distribute whatever given content as if it were my own, thereby making money for myself, or making it so widely available that no one pays the guy who made the content, then yeah that's a problem.
And of course I completely agree/understand that.

But that's not what's happening here. . copying is NOT piracy

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by sdsean

Once that content is in my possession, it's 100% within my rights to do whatever I want with said content. Just like going to the library and checking out a book, or back in the day going to blockbuster and renting a video. I certainly can turn around and copy that DVD. . .yes a movie studio would try to claim that's piracy and that I can't do that. . but that's utter BS.

So, here's the source of our disagreement. As long as you hold that position, we'll never see eye-to-eye.

And I sort of expected that. To the extent I understand you, you're basically saying rental agreements for intangible assets shouldn't exist. Once you have a piece of media in your possession, you should be able to do anything you want with it.

I'm not sure why you hold that position, as it seems like its useful to be able to provide lower rates for limited-time access, but I'm sure I'd never be able to talk you out of that.

Originally Posted by sdsean

Copyright law does not apply to personal use. . . and even if it did there's absolutely no way to enforce that anyway. And that's where DRM has come in and made things a mess. . .

Huh? Where did you hear copyright law doesn't apply to personal use? Since you're talking about CableCard, I assume you're in the US, where copyright law certainly does apply to personal use. The concept of fair use grants personal use more leeway, although: 1) it certainly doesn't throw copyright law out, and 2) courts have consistently interpreted fair use more narrowly than techies would like.

I don't really understand the next statement. It seems circular to me. Rights restrictions shouldn't exist, because there's no way to enforce them, except through DRM, which shouldn't exist...

In order to argue that rights restrictions shouldn't exist you need to start with the premise that DRM is inherently bad. But DRM is just a means to an end, which is to enforce rights restrictions.

The reason copyright law exists is so that if I were to turn around and re-distribute whatever given content as if it were my own, thereby making money for myself, or making it so widely available that no one pays the guy who made the content, then yeah that's a problem.
And of course I completely agree/understand that.

It's less about ensuring that someone else doesn't get paid as much as its about ensuring that the copyright holder does get compensated.

Just as you get greater utility from greater/longer use of, say, a rental car, I think it is fair to say you get greater utility from greater/longer access to a piece of media. I think it is fair to price accordingly. While I would generally prefer to pay a bit more for relatively open access, I wouldn't want to prevent copyright holders from entering into legally-enforceable agreements that provide limited access to to their works.

Originally Posted by sdsean

But that's not what's happening here. . copying is NOT piracy

Piracy: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright (Merriam-Webster)

[sdsean]

Huh? Where did you hear copyright law doesn't apply to personal use? Since you're talking about CableCard, I assume you're in the US, where copyright law certainly does apply to personal use. The concept of fair use grants personal use more leeway, although: 1) it certainly doesn't throw copyright law out, and 2) courts have consistently interpreted fair use more narrowly than techies would like.

Yes I'm in the U.S., and yes I'm aware that there seems to be an intention in the law to apply copyright law to personal/fair use. But that's impossible to enforce on just about anything whether said goods / services are tangible or not.

But not being able to enforce it is not really the point. . .the point is WHY those laws are made.

And they are made to protect the producer of said good/service's rights. To protect his ability to make money from said good/service if desired.

Anyone purchasing that content, and taking it in their own possession (especially in their own home), is not infringing on said producer's rights at that point. So that purchaser making a copy or watching content or moving a painting around the room is always free to do that and should be. . .

It's only when that purchaser then tries to play it off has his/her own, and/or make money from it, and/or infringe on said producers rights in some way. . .

Piracy: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright (Merriam-Webster)

Right. . .copying content itself is NOT unauthorized use. . .even if some crazy cable company or TV channel or whatever tries to say that it is. . . . If that was the case then they wouldn't sell it to you in the first place, and quite frankly they don't really care so long as I don't harm there ability to keep selling. . .

So copying something so I can transfer it to a,b,c devices in my own home is not harming them, b/c I wouldn't have gone out and bought 3 copies to satisfy that, and I'm not sharing those copies with 1000s of people. The producer gets paid for exactly what I'm willing to pay for and trying to extend those rights beyond the transaction for said content is insanse


And beyond that, the laws were not created to prevent such use. The laws are there to protect the interest of the producer of that good/service. Anyone taking some piece of content and copying that, does not violate that paradigm in any way.

There's no harm or misdeed there. . .

Just as you get greater utility from greater/longer use of, say, a rental car, I think it is fair to say you get greater utility from greater/longer access to a piece of media. I think it is fair to price accordingly. While I would generally prefer to pay a bit more for relatively open access, I wouldn't want to prevent copyright holders from entering into legally-enforceable agreements that provide limited access to to their works.

Actually I agree with you, but the thing is the copywright holders have a way to do that. Movies theaters, physical dvds, already do that. That's already limited access b/c they control when / how it gets distriibuted. But if you turn that distribution into being over the internet or via a television channel. . .then the games up at that point. . . you have already handed off. . .

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by sdsean

Actually I agree with you, but the thing is the copywright holders have a way to do that. Movies theaters, physical dvds, already do that. That's already limited access b/c they control when / how it gets distriibuted. But if you turn that distribution into being over the internet or via a television channel. . .then the games up at that point. . . you have already handed off. . .

I'm not sure I'm following you...

Your argument against DRM on cable TV seems to be that copyright holders cede the ability to restrict digital usage rights when they allow their work to be distributed in a relatively open, unrestricted form.

So far I'm mostly with you, to a certain extent. I mean, they shouldn't get upset if someone records that work, or streams it to their phone over the Internet. I still don't think the end user really owns the work in any way, but that may be beside the point if we both agree they really can't expect any restrictions to be enforced.

(I have some reservations about that. Just because the owner doesn't take [technical] steps to protect their work doesn't mean it shouldn't be [legally] protected. You should't be able to get away with car theft just because the keys were in it. There's some notion of reasonableness here, and I'm not exactly sure where the line is.)

What I don't get is how that turns into a broad condemnation of DRM in general and in perpetuity. DRM is basically intended to provide meaningful enforcement of usage restrictions without requiring the viewer to come to some physically-protected environment.

Yes, analog cable was basically wide open. Even digital cable is pretty open once you get it out of the QAM/CableCard tuner. Once you start applying DRM, though, it is certainly more restricted. In that case, I think the copyright holder can expect that, in general, the rights will be restricted. Sure, there's the final analog hole that you'll never close- a camera pointed at the screen- but that's pretty complicated. Plus you have it with everything- even the things that you said could be considered restricted (movie theaters, DVDs, etc.).

Would you say its reasonable for someone to go into a movie theater and record the screen with an HD camcorder and a tripod, or would you concede that what you're buying with a movie theater ticket is a one-time viewing of the movie?

Also, I think it is a fallacy to focus on the exceptional cases. Enforcement doesn't need to be perfect for it to be an effective from a business perspective. If I want to license a work for in-home viewing on, I don't care if 5% of the people will find a way to bypass that restriction. More than that would probably pirate it out right anyway. But I still have the potential for secondary revenue from the other 95%.

Anyways, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though. The first part of your post seemed to stick to the position that copyright holders shouldn't be able provide works with usage/access restrictions. Your past paragraph seemed to flip positions rather suddenly, seeming to concede that they do get to control how shows in movie theaters or physical discs are accessed. I'm not sure why the same argument allowing restrictions in those cases wouldn't apply to cable TV. I was also really surprised to see DVDs on your list, as I'm far more inclined to think of buying a DVD as "buying" a show than I am to think of subscribing to cable TV as "buying" a a bunch of shows. In general, I would expect/hope to have greater rights on how I watch/use the show on the DVD than the shows I access through cable TV.

Or are you merely saying that the only acceptable access restriction is "the time when the media becomes available"?