Broadcast flag for EU? Please stop copying US!

[BoyOfDestiny]

"This project is called Content Protection and Copy Management (CPCM), and the DVB has put it centre-stage in its plans for DVB 3.0, the forthcoming version of the DVB standard. The scope of the U.S. broadcast flag regulation was relatively narrow -- the redistribution control flag could only be present or absent. DVB CPCM, by contrast, is specifying remarkably fine-grained and elaborate means by which broadcasters can control the detailed functionality of receiving devices. In effect, CPCM and its constituent specifications amount to a complicated, lengthy, and, at present, secret body of private law that describes rules and restrictions potentially applicable to all manufacturers of DTV devices."

http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_critique.php

Luckily the FCC couldn't push the broadcast flag through, but lobbyists here might... but for now the U.S is broadcast flag free (and hdtv adoption will be super slow since it's the FCC "at work")

[skoal]

In the US, this problem has severely delayed the analogue switch-off. The focus there is the attempt to lure Americans to DTV with high-definition broadcasts that provide some qualitative improvement over the old standard-definition transmissions.

I have an HDTV and antenna. I thought by next year it's mandatory here in the states that all TV sets will be DTV, and the ensuing broadcasts to them. I know Japan already has that. This "delay" is news to me...

WRT the CPCM, even in older analog sets many competing interests have mandated such integration. V-chip anyone? The CPCM over DVB just seems like a natural response to current technology concerns, since it's inception in 1993(?). Basically, my understanding is that it parallels DRM but in HDTVs. I see nothing wrong with that. Protection of Industry is _good_ for future Industry.

It's pretty damn easy to intercept digital or analog reception already, and use it illegally. Any countermeasures by CPCM over DVB is just fine by me. I only watch "Survivor" and Football, so you can throw little green goblins in my HDTV box for all I care. I'll just douse 'em with a can of beer if they start yanking on some wires...

\\//_

[BoyOfDestiny]

In the US, this problem has severely delayed the analogue switch-off. The focus there is the attempt to lure Americans to DTV with high-definition broadcasts that provide some qualitative improvement over the old standard-definition transmissions.

I have an HDTV and antenna. I thought by next year it's mandatory here in the states that all TV sets will be DTV, and the ensuing broadcasts to them. I know Japan already has that. This "delay" is news to me...

WRT the CPCM, even in older analog sets many competing interests have mandated such integration. V-chip anyone? The CPCM over DVB just seems like a natural response to current technology concerns, since it's inception in 1993(?). Basically, my understanding is that it parallels DRM but in HDTVs. I see nothing wrong with that. Protection of Industry is _good_ for future Industry.

It's pretty damn easy to intercept digital or analog reception already, and use it illegally. Any countermeasures by CPCM over DVB is just fine by me. I only watch "Survivor" and Football, so you can throw little green goblins in my HDTV box for all I care. I'll just douse 'em with a can of beer if they start yanking on some wires...

\\//_

LOL. Well the only problem I have with it is that besides impeding use of open solutions (i.e a tvtime or mythtv box) it deals with recording of shows. You may not be able to record certain shows, no time-shifting. Or certain things you record may "dissapear" before you get a chance to watch it.

Yes yes protection, but I'm fairly certain some people will pirate the streams anyway, and you may get a better viewing experience by downloading these things...

And yes some people may just wait for the tv show on dvd and buy that (done that myself)

I'm just not a fan of all these restrictions when it treats folks like criminals, prevents a lot of what many consider fair use. I would like them to focus on bootleggers and people who make cash by stealing the works (at least downloading from the internet steals from them I guess...)

[mstlyevil]

The only thing that has been slowing down adoption of digital tv in the US is how expensive it has been up till now. There is one other thing that I just thought of. Most tv's are HDTV ready but do not have the tuner built in. That is also starting to change now. I saw a CRT HDTV with a tuner included at Wal-Mart for 500 bucks the other day. Now that they are coming down in price and have everything included but the antena, you will se the very rapid adoption of digital TV by most people.

[skoal]

You may not be able to record certain shows, no time-shifting. Or certain things you record may "dissapear" before you get a chance to watch it.
I've never heard about "time-shifting" before. I'll check it out, but isn't that where you watch one thing while recording on another channel? If so, you're saying there are current hardware infrastructures intact in most recording devices which will erase that recording, if not viewed within a specified time? If so, why can't you just burn it on a DVD-R/W disc attached to your PVR? Or just that future implementations will not allow time shifting at all?

I guess such a thing was rationed into implementation since some broadcasters were complaining about lost revenue from people not viewing some commercials while watching and stripping them later for just the content? I remember some such argument a while back. What other reason would there be? Seems kind of stupid if just for that. Even on any modern VCR, you still have a TV/VCR button which allows you to "time shift" while you watch other broadcasts, and hit the FF button later to speed past "Crazy Ray's Discount Automotive" tirades.

\\//_

[BoyOfDestiny]

I've never heard about "time-shifting" before. I'll check it out, but isn't that where you watch one thing while recording on another channel? If so, you're saying there are current hardware infrastructures intact in most recording devices which will erase that recording, if not viewed within a specified time? If so, why can't you just burn it on a DVD-R/W disc attached to your PVR? Or just that future implementations will not allow time shifting at all?

I guess such a thing was rationed into implementation since some broadcasters were complaining about lost revenue from people not viewing some commercials while watching and stripping them later for just the content? I remember some such argument a while back. What other reason would there be? Seems kind of stupid if just for that. Even on any modern VCR, you still have a TV/VCR button which allows you to "time shift" while you watch other broadcasts, and hit the FF button later to speed past "Crazy Ray's Discount Automotive" tirades.

\\//_

Yeah time shifting is basically recording live tv, but you watch it slightly delayed (let's say the show is 10 minutes in, still recording, but you can watch from the start. The point is to let you fast forward or pause "live tv").

As for fast forwarding or automatic commercial skipping, I've heard rumours of pop-ups but that's not related...

You mentioned a VCR, a feature is that you can record what ever you want. A "broadcast flag" would require the hardware to receive "permission" to record at all (or place other similar restrictions). Also keep in mind they were very against the VCR. The head of the MPAA Jack Valenti compared it to the Boston Strangler. Now look how much cash they get out of the VCR...

EDIT: You might enjoy reading about the broadcast flag that was pushed in the usa. http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/ Here you will also find why you "can't just burn it to dvd" etc...

[Cirkus]

The ideas of freedom of speech, privacy against invasive government searches/taps and fair use are all dead.

They no longer exist, there is no where where they exist.

This has been the case for years now, and it will not change.

That being the case; do lets' move on.

[BoyOfDestiny]

The ideas of freedom of speech, privacy against invasive government searches/taps and fair use are all dead.

They no longer exist, there is no where where they exist.

This has been the case for years now, and it will not change.

That being the case; do lets' move on.

Nonsense. Many people still care. For shame... that is why your post count is 0 ;)

Stay on topic please! No more of these abandon ye all hope who enter here posts!

[skoal]

[...]Also keep in mind they were very against the VCR. The head of the MPAA Jack Valenti compared it to the Boston Strangler. Now look how much cash they get out of the VCR...
Actually, I remember Sony way back when in the 70s winning a lawsuit against the big wig movie dudes over betamax, so you could actually record broadcasts.

...and, by the way, thanks again for some more linkage. I'm kind of liking these EFF guys, so far. I haven't heard of them before. That broadcast flag is really dumb anyways. Unless all future HD broadcasts are encrypted (which is stupid since bandwidth is severly limited as is), it's a simple matter of a new technology sector popping up to strip that flag from the carrier stream. To circumvent that, it would be necessary to encrypt the entire stream. They already compress the hell outta that digital transmission to fit into current FCC frequency limitations. The ATSC signal ~6MHz is consumed primarily with 5.1 audio I think, since the video gets chomped up pretty good already.

This seems counterintuitve on the FCC's part. I can only infer that they are having to juggle many competing interests from Industy here, and that flag probably would have never seen the light of day despite that lawsuit, IMO.

\\//_

[qiezi!]

Actually, I remember Sony way back when in the 70s winning a lawsuit against the big wig movie dudes over betamax, so you could actually record broadcasts.
Actually I think the ruling only protected Sony from further lawsuits and legal actions. ie they can't be held responsible for how people use their technology.
I took this straight from the EFF website, if you'd like to see

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/

I can't speak for the US, but in Australia, copying broadcasts is against copyright (unless in small portions for education or similar uses)
http://www.copyright.org.au/information/specialinterest.

Everyone does though, so what are ya gonna do :)
(Ed: actually there probably are parallels in the two countries copyright laws due to the new Free-Trade Agreement)

[BoyOfDestiny]

Actually, I remember Sony way back when in the 70s winning a lawsuit against the big wig movie dudes over betamax, so you could actually record broadcasts.

...and, by the way, thanks again for some more linkage. I'm kind of liking these EFF guys, so far. I haven't heard of them before. That broadcast flag is really dumb anyways. Unless all future HD broadcasts are encrypted (which is stupid since bandwidth is severly limited as is), it's a simple matter of a new technology sector popping up to strip that flag from the carrier stream. To circumvent that, it would be necessary to encrypt the entire stream. They already compress the hell outta that digital transmission to fit into current FCC frequency limitations. The ATSC signal ~6MHz is consumed primarily with 5.1 audio I think, since the video gets chomped up pretty good already.

This seems counterintuitve on the FCC's part. I can only infer that they are having to juggle many competing interests from Industy here, and that flag probably would have never seen the light of day despite that lawsuit, IMO.

\\//_


Yep, sony is now on the other side of the fence. As for alternatives, if this is made legal, circumventing it would be illegal... I know that doesn't seem likely, but it was attempted.

http://www.savebetamax.org/

Anyway in regards to "dumb ideas" about encrypting it... I had posted this link a while back (the hollywood wishlist for windows vista) http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=882
So they are indeed thinking about it...

Anyway glad you are enjoying the links.
If this somehow gets mandated... I would rather keep the computer a general purpose device...
If for some reason I must have tv, I'll buy one and a stand alone player.
I just don't want something like a PC becoming a purely consumer device... Goes against all the amazing progress in software and ideals that people can accomplish with them.

[skoal]

Actually I think the ruling only protected Sony from further lawsuits and legal actions. ie they can't be held responsible for how people use their technology.
I took this straight from the EFF website, if you'd like to see http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
Man, what doesn't that EFF website have. Sweet. However, the Sony case I remember actually occurred during Carter's presidency, so something doesn't quite add up in that link (1984?). Either I'm losing more memory brain cells (quite possible) or the initial case took some 5-10 years to eventually be settled (which is also quite possible). My neighbour back then had a betamax, which looked something like a foreign Martian rock sitting on top his vintage turn dial Zenith cabinet. I do remember some of those discussions we had at the time over his betamax. He also worked for TI and somehow rigged a "coffee can" antenna atop his roof, intercepting satellite. Which also reminds me of some court case back then about who actually owns the airspace above your house and the legality of having such a device. That guy was definitely a, um, pioneer?

BOD, I read parts of that blog link, and one thing which struck me in that process was that the market is probably the greatest asset we have against such hardware integration, since the costs are too prohibitive in the majority of the cases on a consumer level. Of course, I blindly trust the market implicitly moreso than most I would imagine.

\\//_

[qiezi!]

Man, what doesn't that EFF website have. Sweet. However, the Sony case I remember actually occurred during Carter's presidency, so something doesn't quite add up in that link (1984?). Either I'm losing more memory brain cells (quite possible) or the initial case took some 5-10 years to eventually be settled (which is also quite possible).

No, you're right, it started in like 1976, but the ruling was in 1984, some case!