MPAA Asks Again For Control Of TV Analog Ports 466
suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from the Consumerist:
"The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets. This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow 'service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs' such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
As Pogo said,
We have met the enemy, and he is us."
They've totally lost the plot (Score:5, Insightful)
It's now easier to click-and-leech digital copies than it is to fiddle around with cables to make your own crappy analog copy. Hell, you can download a digital copy while you're watching the DVD/cable movie that they ostensibly think you're planning to analog rip.
I can't think why they'd even care about the analog hole any more, other than that it's a pure power ploy. They push for something crazy like this, then reluctantly accept a "compromise" position like adding another hojillion dollars to the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Or, and this may be a real possibility, they are simply batshit cuckoo-bananas insane and just can't stop fighting a battle that they lost a decade ago.
Delusional? Let's hope so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would any sane person consent to having their TV outputs shut off just so they could watch a movie a few weeks before the DVD release? I didn't think so.
Also, HDMI's protection has been cracked for years now anyway...it's not like they're preventing piracy. I don't understand this obsession with "the analog hole." You're only going to hurt Mom & Pop who are still connecting their cable box on channel 3 with the RF connector. Everyone else is using HDMI anyway.
Every time... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I think I can't hate the **AA any more than I already do, they pull crap like this. "The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers." Really? REALLY?!?!?
Mistaking "could" and "would" (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
The ability to turn those plugs on and off would not affect their ability ("could offer") to offer more goods to consumers, it might affect their willingness ("would offer") to offer more goods to consumers. However, I think the reason they used the words they did is because they don't necessarily want to offer more goods to the consumer, they just want more control over the consumer.
The MAFIAA has this idea that since they can't control what you do with the product once they let you have it (and thus possibly allow someone to gain access to it without paying them), they should do without the money they would make by selling it to you in the first place.
Further, as they tighten their control over the products they sell, they can't understand why they are selling less and less of that product.
MPAA control (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot story in 2012: MPAA asks again for control of bank accounts
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly control consumers' bank accounts, they could offer more goods to consumers.
Unbelievable! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers."
Fuck you, you fucking fucks!
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
The old fashioned way (Score:5, Insightful)
If the mpaa want's people to use TV's (or other devices) that have such restrictions they they should set up factories and SELL them. If the market wants them then tally-ho.
Re:Every time... (Score:2, Insightful)
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could charge for more goods to consumers."
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its more a case of 'we want you to copy things but only if we can control it so we can force you pay us every time you open a media file'
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorta maybe. Its a total sidestep of the issue. The problem is that neither the content providers nor the device makers have really ANY incentive to educate consumers as to the difference. Rather than a balanced idea of what you are giving up vs what you may gain, they will be told "This device supports the new Recording Industry Advanced Feature HD format for the latest in crisp video and sound quality". What they wont know, unless they happen to be of the small percentage that cares to investigate, is that the "feature" they are buying into is actually a loss of feature and a relinquishing of control over their own equipment.
So long as it is legal to woefully misrepresent as long as you make vague and indefinite claims, reliance on consumers to know what they are buying and choose intelligently doesn't really work. I don't see a really good workaround for this. However, we have a rule now that blanket says they can't do it.
I think the current scheme is working, we should stick with it until the larger problem can be solved.
-Steve
Re:Delusional? Let's hope so. (Score:5, Insightful)
When have consumers ever given consent for any of these restriction technologies? Did you consent to only be able to play DVDs on special MPAA approved devices? These are forced upon the public by organizations that get propped up by the government with DMCA type laws.
Re:Pirates (Score:3, Insightful)
I am already willing to wait for these "blockbusters" to hit the $5 movie bin.
I really couldn't give 2 hoots if it is on PPV a few weeks earlier.
Although I do object to not being able to record the cable I paid for in all of it's HD gory.
Re:Mistaking "could" and "would" (Score:5, Insightful)
as they tighten their control over the products they sell
They're trying to tighten control over products they *don't* sell!
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They've totally lost the plot (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if all the digital data is encrypted. The hardware/software will unencrypted the data right before it goes to the components that displays the information. A little tap from the chip and you have a TV that will make digital copies of your movies. Once one person has the digital copy within 24 hours anyone who wants it can get it.
Re:Much Ado About MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
you are assuming the media companies are trying to stop the pirates.
The pirates, are a straw man for the media consortium to be able to give the users less (i.e. less work on the media companies part), while still ensuring payment of the same price.
I see both as the enemy - the pirates for giving the media companies this tool, the only tool in their belt, as well as being so inundated with a sense of entitlement that they can't consider doing without... And the media companies for just being greedy bastards.
Re:Much Ado About MPAA (Score:1, Insightful)
Just to ask . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if Hollyweird's streamed content breaks my TV, I'll just (A) Sue, (B) Vote with my wallet, and (C) Sue. Even if (A) and (C) are eliminated from the list, I'm pretty sure a lot of the cash-spending public will employ option (B).
Which reminds me - do they really have anything to offer which makes this kind of tradeoff worth it? I'll admit that occasionally something really worthwhile comes out of Tinseltown, but not that often IMHO; and even then I think I'll be okay waiting a few extra weeks and buying physical media rather than letting some nameless, faceless entity screw with the firmware in my home electronics.
Re:Pirates (Score:3, Insightful)
The Motion Picture Association of American wants to rent movies to TV viewers earlier in the release window, but they don't want anyone potentially streaming that video out to other appliances. That's why last week they went back to the FCC to once again ask for the power to disable analog ports on consumer television sets.
I reckon that it is rather pointless to imagine that such a policy will affect people's ability to download/watch pirated content. If people want to watch a movie/series for free then there is very little stopping them as it is. At least if something like this offer existed those that wouldn't mind paying would be able to do so.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
You want less BS like this, expand that "small percentage". Bite the bullet and decide that maybe doing some legwork and investigating the truth of a claim before accepting it at face value is how human beings should be. Consider that doing otherwise is a defective practice as evidenced by the deception it leaves one open to. Accept that illiteracy or pure inexcusable laziness would be the only reasons for failure to do so, ever since the advent of Google.
Then imagine what would happen if everyone came to accept these few simple things. Most or all of the control exerted over us by various political and corporate entities comes from their power to deceive, misrepresent, and outright bullshit. That's why the MPAA doesn't say "we want dictatorial control over hardware we don't own" and instead says "this will help us deliver more content." Of course the MPAA is the least of what this mechanism has brought us. I'd like to see what would happen to governments if the general population learned to have high-quality bullshit detectors. Right now, the majority who can't (or won't) handle basic research and argumentation are accepting faulty policies, endorsing flawed ideas, and generally creating a terribly gloomy and cynical world for the minority who can.
Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers (Score:5, Insightful)
For the person who chooses not to consume pirated content, the ideal is a world where producers are maximized
However, the way to maximize producers isn't necessarily a broader scope of copyright. Without a meaningful right and ability to make fair use and other unregulated uses of a copyrighted work, a lot of producers can't produce due to copyright restrictions on derivative works.
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said. Mod up. This isn't about piracy, this is about controlling what we can do with the content, so they can charge us at every transaction point. Put it on an ipod? $.50, transfer to a new computer, $5, stream this to your kitchen, $1.25.
Re:Pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
this has nothing to do with anything, really. what is your point?
"Piracy" (and the gross misnomer of the term) exists because the companies seek to restrict any and all control of their products to allow them to be established into new markets. Piracy and content are phrases made to dilute the argument and attempt to put it on a physical level.
How many attempts to legally offer solutions to what the MPAA/RIAA have refused haven't been sued out of existence or taken control of and made useless? I can't point to a single one that is still around like that.
The short answer is, everyone can make "content", and so everyone is a "content producer", thus there is no reason the MPAA is an exclusive "content producer" anymore than I am myself.
I want DRM! (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome such an advancement. (Yea, I'm trolling with the subject, but I do want to make a point)
I have a satellite decoder/PVR on my TV that lets me record HD movies (true, I can't get them off the box), and lets me rent movies for 24 hour periods (VOD). I do not pirate, as I'm happy to pay for my content. But, guess what, I haven't rented a VOD movie yet. Why? Because the deal sucks. I'm sure the idiots who invented it will figure out what's wrong sooner or later (price).
I say: Let the MPAA have their DRM and let's see how much more they sell. If they get the kind of control they want, then we'll have the freedom not to buy their produce. I'll be more than happy to stop paying if they give me a worse product.
It's not like i need to see 2012 on my TV before it comes out on BD; hell, I don't have to go see it on my TV at all (I already paid to see it at the theatre).
Why give these idiots arguments to sponsor projects, like "pirate taxes"? I'd much rather have DRM in my TV and PVR than have to pay a pirate tax or some other stupid blanket scheme.
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
These extremes are misleading. Piracy exists because the content producers and consumers do not agree on acceptable terms for the content. At one extreme, you have content producers wanting to be paid every time anyone watches their film. At the other extreme, you have consumers not wanting to pay at all. Some of these consumers are not able to pay anything, so they can be discounted from the discussion: No matter how you set the price or what conditions you impose, they will not pay. Some consumers are willing to pay, but not pay as much as the producers want. Some are willing to pay, but the format that they want (e.g. DRM-free downloads) is not available, or the available formats are not available in their area (e.g. TV shows that air in the US but are not legally available outside the USA for several months).
If you want to reduce piracy then these three groups can all be targeted: make your product cheaper, more convenient, and more available. The studios, in making this request, are trying to make their product less convenient and less available. Maybe they are also planning on making it cheaper, but there's no reason to expect that. I am still amazed at the business model of companies that have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.
Re:Pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
The only place where amount of content produced would be genuinely affected by a complete shutdown of payment for media is film and television.
Ok, give me a list (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
Ok, I want a list of goods that it is impossible for you to offer now, but would be possible by turning off the analog ports.
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.
"Do what we demand, or suffer."
This reminds me of the insurance companies. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if a Federal speed limit of 55 miles per hour were established. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if seatbelt laws were passed. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if strict "drunk" driving laws were passed. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if car manufacturers were required to put three-point seatbelts in cars. They promised car insurance premiums would go down if car manufacturers would make airbags standard equipment.
Anyone want to guess whether the insurance companies made good on their promises?
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
So, they're just like Apple?
Re:MPAA control (Score:1, Insightful)
In 2014 they'll be asking Congress to close the "cash hole"
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
You asked if passive consumption of entertainment is really any good; I would venture to say that is serves some purposes. Everyone needs an escape, the human mind simply cannot deal with everything that happens in the world. This content merely provides a simple and safe avenue to reach that. Other people might work out, drink, smoke, go clubbing, waste time on the internets, or what have you.
The main issue we face today is not who produces the content, but how it is owned and handled. Right now, the only way to get something is to pay a pre-defined price for it. This has been a workable system before, since most products required you to pay a static cost for material, large scale manufacturing, delivery, sales, the wages to support all this, as well as a more fluid cost criteria for profits and R&D. With much of the content we want getting digitized, though, there are less and less static costs associated with the process. A system where the majority of the revenue goes to recoup R&D cost, and then moving to nearly pure profit, is a system that can truly support the idea of patronage.
In fact, patronage, or paying what you believe the content is worth to encourage the creation of new content, has been around for a very long time. I believe the idea needs to be updated for modern usage, for instance, by making it really simple to donate, by suggesting pre-set donations, and by adding incentives or benefits for those that do donate, while not penalizing those that do not, but that's getting into details. The fact is, you can have both corporate and individual content generators, because they would target different markets.
A common argument is that patronage would not stop piracy, but I prefer to instead see it as *nothing* will stop piracy. As long as you are selling a product that people will actually, physically have, it will be pirated, end of story. Also, when you try keeping the products out of consumers hands, or otherwise close it down, many people will simply not buy your product because it will quickly grow stale and boring. So, why fight piracy then? Instead, your business model needs to be updated to account for it, and take advantage of the human mindset behind it.
Further, a lot of pirates are actually pretty reasonable people. They will download the game, song, or movie, and if they really like it, they will buy it. The issue then becomes a matter of price. If I get a game that provided me with $30 worth of entertainment, I would be happy to pay $30 for it, but I simply will not pay $60. Some may say that I should not have downloaded the game if I was not prepared to pay for it, but that is simply not how human nature works. We are creatures of curiocity; we like to try and to explore new things, and we always want the latest and greatest. I would even venture say that trying to change this would stifle innovation, and hurt your long term profits more than anything else. The simple fact that the content is out there means that a lot of people will be interested in it. Telling people they cannot have it is like telling the oceans to part, and let you through: When you can do something like that, you get your own religion.
Re:Pirates (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers.
While I usually just laught at pirates stupid reasonings to pirate content (stupid record labels, support the artists directly, blabla), this is even more fun.
"Do what we demand, or suffer."
Ain't it great? They're basically saying that if we let them hold our electronics hostage, they'll stop holding their content hostage.
Problem with that (threats aside) is that they can't keep their stuff forever. Eventually they'll release it no matter what - after all, if they stop selling movies, they stop making money.
So shorter release waits? If someone is so desperate to see a movie that they have to see it NOW, then they probably saw it in theaters. People who rent are used to some wait.
So more content will be released? <sarcasm>Oh my goodness, it'll be so nice when we can actually rent Hollywood blockbusters that the MPAA normally plays in theaters and then burns the masters of because they NEVER release it anywhere else.</sarcasm> WHAT more content? Insanely popular movies sometimes come in normal, widescreen, director's cut, complete, ultimate, and home premium variations already. What else could they possibly add? More sequels?
My favorite part of this is the following quote: But the MPAA said Nov. 4 that granting its waiver request would be "an incredibly pro-consumer development." Isn't that just perfect doublethink? "Breaking consumer electronics is an incredibly pro-consumer development." I guess legalizing bank robbery would be an incredibly pro-bank development too.
Besides that, if the (dys)functionality they want is built into electronics, there's nothing requiring them to hold up their end of the bargain. So what's more likely is that we would hamstring our hardware and they'd say "Yeah, thanks for that. So, we'll move up the release date for The Complete Rob Schneider DVD box set by a week in return. Enjoy!"
Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers (Score:3, Insightful)
Without the theatrics, I'm way ahead of you. I haven't been in a theatre in ages, and I don't buy the crap that Hollywood produces. I've voluntarily watched 3 movies in about 18 months. (as opposed to listening to the crud the wife rents, and blares out of the living room) I grabbed all three movies from the internet. Support the "celebrities"? Support RIAA, MPAA, or any of the other mafiaa? Me? No way in hell.
I'm not the martyr type, really. If I felt that strongly, I'd take other routes - which we won't discuss while I'm logged in and traceable LOL
TV "Hood" Analog Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
I kid you not, if they turn off analog component video I GAURANTEE you that somebody will engineer something that fits over the front of 1080p display and acurately captures every last bit. You may not be able to buy it for your home, but stuff will continue to get onto the internet.
Re:Pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget, they want to kill Used Movies sales as well. One purchase, no resale. DRM has always been about killing resale, in games, movies and music the biggest threat the associations see is the resale of used product because they see it as depriving them of a sale. Piracy is a minor issue when compared to resale of used products, but they are beating on the drum of piracy because the politicians are listening and the studio's and producers know they can use it to kill resale.
Re:Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
World without content pirates gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
World without content producers gives you access to X life enriching pieces of content.
Choose the world where X is greater.
The problem with your experiment is the party you leave out: the content distributors.
Remember, when you're dealing with MPAA, RIAA, Sony, even Disney these days, you are not dealing with content producers. You are dealing with distributors.
These companies are not interested in ensuring the future production of creative works. They certainly do not care about the quality of the works produced. They only care about distribution, and specifically about reducing your options to get content.
The MPAA does not want a world where more movies are produced. They want a world where you can only get movies from the MPAA and its members.
Re:Pirates (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to add that patronage not only has a long history, but that it's also still being practiced right now, in nearly every community: every high school and college band is being paid for by some combination of the community, the students, and the students' parents.
I bring it up because it shows that we're already comfortable with the basics, and because I don't think purely anonymous internet patronage would work well enough on its own. But community patronage for rehearsal space and local performances, combined with internet patronage? That just might work. The college students in particular are already plenty talented and capable of playing gigs for cash, and internet donations, however sporadic and unreliable, might be just enough to bump a hobby-that-sometimes-breaks-even up to the level of an actual stable career for a LOT more musicians than are currently able to make a living from it.
For the music-loving public, compare the current model (most musicians 'starving', and a few make mega and get rich) to one where we have a LOT more musicians making music and getting merely 'normal' pay from it. The latter model works out better for both the public and the musicians - the public gets more and cheaper music, and the musicians get to pursue their calling full time.
Could this concept be pushed into other media? Certainly, though perhaps not as quickly as music could be right away. Theatre, movies, and even software could benefit from the hybrid model. Software's already touching on it with open source projects being sponsored by companies (they get the use of the software for themselves, and then a bunch of prestige for releasing it). TV shows once followed this model, too, Back In The Day.
Re:Maximizing copyright != maximizing producers (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should I, the consumer, have to agree to a fscking EULA every time I want to watch a stupid movie?