What Critics of the Critics of the FCC Rule Miss 375
Asprin writes "Businessweek has an editorial up which argues that the FCC's HDTV broadcast flag rule is a good thing, and that everyone is just overreacting. What the author is overlooking is that this rule gives exclusive control over production to the studios that are in "the club", essentially denying private citizens the right to make their own HDTV format video. To wit: "The problem comes when a program taped on an old VCR can't be replayed on a next-generation VCR. So consumers may experience some compatibility problems between machines as they upgrade." Awww, she almost gets it. (...and she was sooo close, too!) The problem is the word "consumers", which doesn't describe us anymore. There's nothing like being locked out of your own old family videos when your current VCR dies, eh?"
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Lenin (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that corporate america does *get it,* and they are trying to avoid selling said rope. Failing, but trying.
Re:Lenin (Score:5, Interesting)
Ya think maybe it's time to change product lines or something? The ability to do so freely is one of the benefits of the capitalist system, free adaptation to the changing economic and trade enviroment.
When pet rocks are hot you sell 'em pet rocks. When people suddenly realize that rocks are free you sell 'em "Designer" clothing.
When a corporation mentally locks itself to a single product or business model it simply defines its own extinction (assuming free trade).
It's "Adapt or die," not "Extort and bludgeon your customers until they'd rather be dead than do business with you or die."
I think this is the part that they "don't get." They're too busy thinking "My God, we're going to die!"
Well, don't sell us the rope. Sell us something we can't hang your business model with instead.
At the very least sell us rocks packaged entertainingly at a low enough cost that we'd rather buy them from you than pick them up off the ground.
Maybe we won't even use them to stone you.
KFG
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
I find this question particularly funny given that you yourself have said:
i don't particularly care for finance
which is to say, you don't get corporate America.
What's more, you miss what most GNU advocates miss, which is the irony of their position: the GPL strongly depends on intellectual property protection! The BSD license is much less restrictive, yet it is much less popular than the GPL.
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
It's an intended bit of irony though. It leverages IP law to keep things as "free" as possible within that regime. In the absence of IP, everything would be in the public domain (although trade secret might still apply to some software?) and the viral nature of the GPL would become irrelevant.
Hmmmmmm.... in fact, the GPL doesn't depend on IP at all, n
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
But the "nothing else" clause is critical! In other words, the only way to share the software is to release it under GPL, and its descendents to the Nth generation.
A point anti-IP advocates miss is that there is nothing forcing anyone from sharing information. This is especially important in a field like programming, which includes two distinct pieces of IP: the source code, which contains the idea, and the binary, obtained from the s
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
Actually I think the greatest contribution of the GPL is to show how versatile and powerful copyright law really is.
In other words, it lets the corporations have their cake (my work, for free) and eat it too (I can't use their work, which is really my work, without paying). The GPL says they can have the cake, or they can eat it. One or the other- much more fair.
I agree. But how is this improved if IP laws are abolis
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
But yes, it wouldn't be as good as GPL for software. But I think copyright in general is such a detrimental thing to society that its better just to get rid of it entirely.
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
because it would become impossible to take someone else's code and use it in a proprietary product
can logically be followed by this sentence:
Whatever yohatever you coded and distributed could be freely distributed without your permission.
If you write code, there is nothing preventing me from using it in a proprietary product. This is important since I could, for example, use it in a proprietary hardware application and keep my source closed. So the application would be wo
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
Do you really believe that? When, right now, you can find copies of everything from Microsoft Office to Mathematica to AutoCAD on warez boards? A corporation which purchases a product might not care to distribute it, but is everyone who works there and has access to the product of a similar mind? After all, it didn't cost THEM anything.
And what's to stop me from forming a software club w
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
So it is only the small players who would have an incentive to release their schematic. Yet the competitive advantage of a small company is usually some new architecture or other idea, which are not quickly adopte
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:2)
GODDAMNIT! It is the government forcing this shit down our throats! THE GOVERNMENT!
Do you think this shit would sell left to the free market?!? DO YOU?
Re:Force change, not reform. (Score:5, Informative)
Which begs the question... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think will happen once they have the mandetory flag? Step 2: Flag not effective. Must provide mandetory encryption. And then they'll claim it's not something new, it's just enforcement of an already existing and accepted IP protection.
It's about making you swallow a camel (is that even an US expression? anyway), they were just so generous to cut it in two for you.
Kjella
Re:Which begs the question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the US expression is simular: It is "The camel has got his nose in the tent," which implies that if you don't do something about it, pretty soon the entire camel will be inside the tent!
Stripping out the Flag? Dongle? (Score:2)
Yea I know, I said dongle
Re:Stripping out the Flag? Dongle? (Score:2)
And it wouldn't be cheap, since it would have to contain both an ATSC demodulator and modulator.
You're wrong. (Score:2)
But even if it is found illegal, so what? It will be a very long time before there are no countries in the world willing to distribute something like this. And if it becomes a standard part of common Linux distributions (for ex
Only thieves would oppose this. (Score:4, Funny)
No problem. Every law-abiding citizen will simply pay the licensing costs to obtain a broadcast flag of their own. Obviously.
Re:Only thieves would oppose this. (Score:2)
No problem! All my old Home Videos are on BetaMAX!
Re:Only thieves would oppose this. (Score:5, Informative)
The tape is (typically) a single camera shoot with a fixed camera at a point where the entire event can be seen with miced sound pumped in.
This tape is available for sale immediately following the event.
This all seems wonderful, but the tapes almost always contain macrovision.
Now, there are good reasons for this, so that one parent doesn't buy the tape and make copies for all the rest (although I question that there are parents with this much free time), but there is a significant detremental effect, compliation tapes.
Now I can't use short clips of the tape in compliation tapes because the macrovision interferes with copying.
Re:Only thieves would oppose this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah the Macrovision is annoying. But a little competition would probably put this guy out of business.
Re:Only thieves would oppose this. (Score:2)
Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what is happening.
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, for the majority of uninformed consumers out there, it will work.
Here's waiting for a "Max Headroom" styled future with big networks that control your TV to the point where you can't even turn them off (or face fines/prison time for interfering with a broadcast).
Who knows, maybe the CRTC will make a good decision for once, and refuse to follow the lead of the FCC and will not mandate that Canadian sets will require the digital restrictions chips be implemented - or will allow them to be turned-off if desired.
It never ceases to amaze me how "suits don't get it". There is a HUGE trade on the net in old "classic" TV shows (depending on your point of view), everything from "Greatest American Hero", to "A-Team", to (as mentioned before) "Max Headroom". Regardless if you happen to like these particular series, people ARE downloading and watching them. If the companies involved were to make a subscription service available to watch old shows (complete with episode synopsis, cast/crew lists, etc), people would pay...
But of course it's a change from the "old fashioned way of doing things", and that scares the hell out of them.
N.
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2)
This is the same feelings I have to rom's and emulating old games. If the manufacturer doesn't want to put it out commercially for whatever reason, they shouldn't be allowed to limit its (free) distribution by others.
That said, I actively trade old MST3K episodes, and Best Brains, the company behind the show, has no problem with the trading. People appreciate this liberal stance to trading so much that when copies of the show are commercially released, people stop trading those episodes.
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2)
T
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2)
It's obviously not about detecting the heat. The thing that makes me and the frog jump out of boiling water no mater how slowly you heat it is our pain receptors. So no matter what, once it starts to hurt we're going to try to get out.
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2)
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2, Funny)
She turned me into a newt!
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
The agency's move to allow encryption-like protection for digital shows takes away one more excuse from the broadcasters to delay the rollout of high-definition TV
At what point did move from
"companies competing to win the business of their customers"
to
"you consumers better fall in line with the wishes of the companies or no goods for you"
?
Oh, that's right, when the government decided (as it has in the past) that competition isn't necisarry in capitalism and started looking out for the good of large (illegal) monopolies and trade groups, instead of the good of the market.
\begin{rant}
If this continues indefinately we will end up approaching a system simular to Soviet Russia but from the opposite direction. There the government and corporations were merged by the government taking control of the corporations. Here they are being merged by the corporations merging and then asserting control of the government. Either way there is no democracy, but rather all economic, political, and military power are centralized into a very small number of hands who have no reason to act in the interest of the population.
\end{rant}
Read Vonnegut's "Player Piano" (Score:4, Insightful)
In Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, published 50 years ago, he presented a future United States where Soviet-style centralized planning was adopted -- because it turned out to be more profitable for the capitalists.
Re:Is the frog boiling yet?.... boiling crabs (Score:2, Funny)
My friend's mom inadvertently tried this experiment with a crab. You're supposed to drop the crab in a pot of boiling water to cook it, but she put it in lukewarm water and set the stove to high heat. We left the kitchen, and came back to find an empty pot, and a crab hiding under the kitchen cabinets!
Re:Is the frog boiling yet? (Score:2)
I used to use this analogy until I realized that it is not true [snopes.com]...
eh? (Score:2, Redundant)
Yes but what about the critics of the critics of the critics? Three cheers for article titles that turn your brain inside out!
Re:eh? (Score:2)
Now is this a great time to live or what?!?
Thank You (Score:2)
Re:Thank You MOD Parent Up S+3 (Score:2)
I Doubt the Heads of the Studios will be Affected (Score:2)
This being something I sincerely doubt will ever happen. I'm am dead certain that they intend one set of rules for themselves, and a different one for the rest of us.
Re:I Doubt the Heads of the Studios will be Affect (Score:2)
That's why I'll make a killing. (Score:5, Insightful)
What part did I mess up? I must have missed something... This seriously is too good to be true... I'm gonna be rich!!!
Re:That's why I'll make a killing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's why I'll make a killing. (Score:2)
I would like to add that by doing so, illegal devices generate revenue from fines issued by law enforcement, and agencies tracking such illegal activity will be overwhelmed (which is another word for heavily funded by the taxpayers, the companies "in the club", and the fines).
Re:That's why I'll make a killing. (Score:2)
A very simple part: China is already busy place by producing the electronic stuff without any protection support. Other coutries doing that are: Russia, Latin America, some other Asian countries.
But you know what? The job market is also migrating to those countries from US/EU. So, you may consider just move there: a lot of nice girls, a lot of exotic food, a lot of job, no DRM - it's a heaven.
I am thinking to move there, instead of feeding by my taxes the goverment that is bom
Too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Malthus beat you to that line, and he's been waiting something like 150 years.
Any system that rewards the most innate human instinct (survival and greed) will always be the most efficient. If that ain't capitalism, I don't know what is.
Ecology in the third world (Score:2)
Admittedly the western world uses a ton of resources, but it also uses them as cleanly as possible on a per Joule basis. Check out coal fired plants in China sometime. The air pollution in cities like
Re:That's why I'll make a killing. (Score:2)
How is this possible? Capitalism is the self-feeding monster that doesn't die. I think you are worried about socialism, where there are a lot of people eating but no one is in the kitchen.
This Article is Garbage... (Score:2)
The moment I got as far as rampant copying in the beginning of the original article, I knew the whole thing was garbage. It is that (incorrect) attitude that needs to be fixed in the governmental mind.
It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So this is all that is stopping them now. HDTV will only happen when the Internet is locked down. Once upon a time producers wanted people to see their shows. It's not like these are pay-per-views that go out over our airwaves.
If consumers want their HDTV, they have to accept limits on the ability to redistribute TV shows on the Web.
You know, maybe I don't want my HDTV that badly. Present TV is good enough for the fare they serve up on it. Of course, regular TV is now also distributed on the Internet. Are they next going to threaten us with no TV at all?
One can only hope.
Re:It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:2)
Re:It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:2)
Re:It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing a few steps.
Producers want to make money. They do this by selling their shows to the networks (I mean that loosely, not just ABC/NBC/CBS/etc.). The networks buy the shows because they want to make money. They do this by selling advertising. The more people that they can say watch their advertising spots, the more money they can get for them. How do they get people to watch their advertising spots? By putting them in the middle of content. So this is why the networks buy the shows from the producers. The more people who watch the show, the more money the network can get for the advertising during the show, hence the more money the network is willing to pay to the producer for the show.
So if you follow that logic, the producers may want more people to watch their shows, but it only really matters if they're watching them on a network. A million people could watch the rips off the Internet, and the producers are not going to care at all, because they're not making any money from it, and it doesn't drive up the advertising revenues. But if a million people watching on the Internet means that even a fraction of them are now not watching it on a network, the producers will care, because it's taking money out of their pockets.
Now, the model is slightly different for premium networks, since they don't have advertising spots, but the same logic applies. The premium network makes money by people paying for a subscription. So the premium network pays the producer more money for shows that draw more viewers. If viewers are getting rips off the Internet instead of subscribing, the same problem exists.
This isn't to say that this is good for the TV watchers. It's merely how it is. Yes, I don't want to have to license TV shows for every TV that I want to watch them on. If I record on one TV in my house, I'd like to be able to watch a show on another. The ideal solution would be to "license" the show to a user. For example, I buy HBO, so I should be able to watch HBO shows whereever and whenever I want to. The problem is that there isn't presently a good way for the networks to do that. The only solution they have currently is to license shows to hardware devices. That's where most of the problems come from.
Maybe the solution is for someone to come up with some sort of universal key, like a USB storage device, that I could load with subscriptions for various networks, and would then connect to any device I wanted to view it on. It would have to be open enough to allow it to be adapted to any type of system (so, for example, we could view our media on Linux or any other free system), but secure enough where it couldn't be (easily) compromised. And of course you'd then have the hassle of having to keep track of this hardware key, and move it around with you. But perhaps something like that would satisfy the needs of both the networks/producers (who want to get paid for viewers) and TV watchers, who want to be able to watch the shows when they want to, and where they want to.
-Todd
Ok, everybody pony up... whoops... (Score:3, Funny)
Thing was, after I left, they coudn't watch it anyway because there were 24 people in the house but the host hadn't rented a TV-Party hub so he only had ten slots on the built in hub.
So like the pary went indoor/outdoor. They got the lead curtins out and hung them on the
Re:It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
What, it doens't work that way? But I paid for the subscription! Never take the card out? It can't be transferred at all? Then why bother making it removab
Re:It's All Our Fault!!! (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing. :P
Foot, just add gun (Score:2)
This time though it appears that the industry is too strong and has enough congress critters in its pocket to strangle the new technology. Hopefully t
Pirates? (Score:3, Funny)
Arrr, shiver me timbers. You won't find much shelter on da high sea. Shes a harsh mistres.
That's not the issue (Score:2)
" ... excuse .. likely ... " There was already a ruling that broadcasters were required to broadcast in HDTV. Their only real excuse, though you won't hear it discussed publicly from members of their little club, is that it's all about synd
Film (Score:2)
The American addiction to 'entertainment'... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The American addiction to 'entertainment'... (Score:2)
Re:The American addiction to 'entertainment'... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's really warped is that, at a time when really important freedoms like due process of law, attorney-client privilege, and the right to trial by jury are being threatened by the current regime, people have the time and energy left over to piss and moan about how their VCRs work.
Re:The American addiction to 'entertainment'... (Score:3, Insightful)
I aggree with this. The deal is they get the *privillage* of broadcasting in *my* air because I want them to, not because they have some god given right to.
They *give* me the signal. I should be able to do with it what I wish. If I choose to watch their content with no ads, bad luck.
So the deal is not "we make content in return for you wa
Phew! (Score:2)
I'm sure glad you spent an entire paragraph in the article submission to explain why the article you linked to was wrong! I wouldn't have known what to think without such massive amounts of editorializing.
Thanks again!
Typical business mindset (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling eliminates any kind of non-authorized content, weither that is indie films, home movies, pirate TV stations, or illegal downloads. It doesn't matter to the machine, it's all unplayable. The FCC has done its job here, with regulating commercial playback, but it has overstepped its bounds in forbidding non-commercial use of non-broadcast signals.
Shoot, there is no guarantee that I can record my local township's cable channel anymore with this. It will force these no-budget public access stations to pay who knows how much or else their programming is no longer viewable by their constituants.
so how does this work? (Score:2)
Re:so how does this work? (Score:2)
I think what people are concerned about is that future input devices (VCRs, DVD recorders, Camcorder) will be built with the assumption on the part of the manufacturer that any analog input (including that of the camcorder) will be considered an attempt to "pirate" their IP. So these input devices will just flag anyt
Can someone please provide background information? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why this will be everywhere (Score:2)
I'll use my wife as an example. When we realised that we were getting deeper into debt, she refused completely to ditch the TV and it's attendant 50+ dollar a month fees. She views TV as a neccessity, not as a luxury.
So does everyone else, and they don't care one little bit about anything other than when the next episode of Friends is on*.
* my wife doesn't actually watch Friends - she tivos Changing Rooms, Good Eats and Daily Show episodes.
Does anyone really know how the flag works? (Score:2)
Why would home videos be incompatible with new VCRs? Is the author saying that all recordings must have a flag or
I laugh (Score:2)
Copy protection schemes either don't work (Region coding) or they kill the technology (DAT) -- sometimes both (DAT). I'm not "1337" enough to crack these things myself, but I know others are -- and will.
Media companies in general are still working from an outdated business model. Their day has passed, and they're looking for laws to preserve themselves. What they should be doing is producing products that obviate internet distribution. Provide something that is desirable but
And... (Score:2)
Macrovision problems today (Score:5, Interesting)
In the mid nineties, the beta tape player could no longer play this tape. I paid a fair amount of money for someone to copy this tape over to VHS for me. Maybe they did it because they thought my work was so professional (yeah, right) Maybe they did it just out of the habit on all of their transfers (more likely) Maybe they just thought better safe than sorry. Whatever the reason I believe that in this transfer they added an undesired Macrovision syncing protection to my transferred tape. Of course I didn't discover this addition until 2001 well after my original beta tape is gone as well as the company that did the transfer.
It's not like I can go to Best Buy and get the Athens Georgia 1983 spring production on DVD, but if I try to go to Best Buy to get something to copy my tape for my sister or preserve it for later years I'm treated like a criminal. "No Sir. It's illegal to sell Macrovision breaking products in this country." I know that's bullcrud but what should I expect from Best Buy.
Based on my experiences with trying to circumvent copy protection most people consider "trivial" I don't look forward to higher end crap like these flags.
Btw, if anyone knows of a good product to use to circumvent Macrovision that even an idiot like me could use, I'd very much appreciate a recommendation.
Re:Macrovision problems today (Score:5, Informative)
Another possibility is to run it through a consumer SEG which has framesynchronizers or TBCs onboard (ie, Panasonic WJ-MX series, Videonics MX-series)
Digitizing it into a PC via videocapture or editing card should also work.
Re:Macrovision problems today (Score:2)
You don't even have to capture it, if your video card has TV-out. Most capture cards come with TV viewing apps, just run that full screen and turn on the TV-out. The output will be a nice clean signal, without all that macrovision sillyness. You don't need lodsa disk space or even a fast computer. I've done this on a Pentium 433.
That kind of setup can also be used as a really cheap NTSC<>PAL convertor
One bit of advice
Re:Macrovision problems today (Score:2)
worse than the phone companies, sell protection to companies for 'piracy', sell anti-macrovision products to consumers for 'fair use'.
so i only get fair use if i pay for it? something is seriously wrong with this.
Re:Macrovision problems today (Score:2)
Maybe you should forget about making VHS copies and go straight to digital, then burn it on DVD or something? Have you tried digitizing your video with a video capture board? Unfortunately, I have no idea how capture cards handle Macrovision. My research indicated that most
Re:Macrovision problems today (Score:2)
Hint2: Its not sold as a macrovision breaking software."
A radio-controlled car? A 200 ohm resistor? A watch battery? An HPaq? A 200-in-1 electronics lab kit?
Business Week's real take on the broadcast flag (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems to be the frame of mind of the people who came up with this incipient CF - an arrogant assumption that people will accept what the networks give them, and will forget anything that they want people to forget. The problem is, people have th
Hello?! (Score:2)
That out of the way, the commentary in the header is completely untrue. The flag is not required in order for a tape to be read. It is required that it can be read by the player, not that it HAS to exist. Old VCR tapes will work fine. New VCR tapes will work fine, as long as you don't try to play something that has a flag that says "don't play". That's it. Any questions?
So NBC, offer up files for download already! (Score:2)
Seriously, low key product placement to replace commercials would satisify the costs. And if they could estimate
Anyone else remember software copy protection (Score:2)
My big problem is that we have to go through
Awww, he's got a superiority complex! (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution is simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they use 10% of the FCC's collective brain power (which is approximately at the level of Homer Simpson at this point), they'll figure out that the easiest way to get this done is to allow new VCR's/DVD's/DVR's/PVR's to play non-flagged content as well as flagged.
RULE 1: If there's a flag, do what it says.
RULE 2: If there's no flag, play the damn thing.
That makes everyone happy. The FCC and MPAA can mandate their stupid flags as much as they want to and it will do what it's supposed to, but I can still play my home videos and all the pirated videos I'll be able to get once someone cracks the flag (and you know it's inevitable).
Re:The solution is simple. (Score:2)
Exactly, and so intuitivley obvious that I can't imagine it being done any other way. Anything else would be a broken implementation.
'consumer' VCR tapes not working??? (Score:2)
The only problem I see is when your son is shown on the local news winning the state chess match, you won't be able to make extra copies, as that might be broadcast with the bit on.
What critics of the critics of the critics miss (Score:5, Informative)
You say that the FCC order will put HDTV production in the hands of the studios. That's not true! There is nothing in the order that says anything about that.
All it says is that video equipment, if it sees a Broadcast Flag, must restrict how it outputs the data. Video without the BF can be handled any way it ways. It is expected that broadcasters will probably choose to make at least some content unprotected, like public affairs programs, so video equipment must be able to handle both BF and non-BF video.
Nothing in the FCC order says anything about who can and can't put a BF into their video. All it talks about is how the video players have to respond to the BF. The order has no effect whatsoever on the ability of consumers to create HDTV video.
AH, but here's the crux (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't that the point -- judging by sales, consumers don't want their HDTV. Why is this allegedly pro-capitalism administration, usually so gung-ho to invoke the market to address societal needs, apparently so willing to overlook the overwhelming verdict of the market: People just aren't itching to get HDTV.
Why is government intervention and the "picking of winners" OK here but not, say, in national health insurance?
Two problems with these arguments. (Score:4, Interesting)
The argument that the digital age alters this is simply nonsensical. What it boils down to is that the content providers have decided that it's quicker and easier to legislate change in their favor rather than adjusting their business plan to fit a changing market. Had the RIAA legitimately embraced the potential of Napster-style P2P products, as any halfway smart business-person would've, then we wouldn't have the whole music piracy war going on. Instead they ignored the next logical step in musical distribution, until it had gotten so corrupted that it was beyond their ability to really capitalize on.
Same goes for movie producers. They all stuck their heads in the ground and hoped the digital revolution would go away if they pretended it was going on. That is pretty much the definition of a business model which deserves to fail. Adjust your plan to suit the times, or die. They allowed themselves to fall disasterously behind the curve, I see no reason our government should bail them out.
And, number two, how long has HDTV been around? How long has it NOT made many inroads into the consumer market? Sad to say, people have spoken very clearly with their wallets and made it abundantly clear they don't care about HDTV *that* much. But then the government got this idea into their head that they should force everyone to upgrade. It's the FCC mandate for HDTV transition itself we should be debating, not silly moves like this whole "flagging" business.
So, let's see... Consumers don't want the products because they're so expensive. The studios can't really afford to convert all of their archives to the new format. The stockholders don't want to gamble their investment dollars on a technology that's been around for about a decade now and no one has really bought into.
So the government steps in and mandates that everyone must upgrade whether they like it or not.
Does this not make sense to anyone else? I'm far from a pure laissez-faire Capitalist, but if everyone involved (besides the hardware OEMs) has pretty clearly said they don't want to mess with it, why in the world is the government forcing it on us?
So, in short, this whole broadcast flag nonsense is a red herring. It's a symptom of a couple far larger wounds - ones that will just keep festering as long as we think we can get away with slapping band-aids on them.
Re:Two problems with these arguments. (Score:3, Informative)
Now we're looking at having to purchase large amounts of hardware to really keep up which, when we do so, will suddenly render us unable to watch old videotapes and whatnot. Not to men
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:What the Broadcast Flag means... (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder how far this goes - if it extends past home recordings and the like. Does this mean that i'm going to have to buy new HDTV enabled DVD's if I ever get one of these heinous devices? If this is tru
Re:What the Broadcast Flag means... (Score:2)
That's a nice conspiracy theory, but where's the proof? What devices are we talking about? DVD players? DVHS decks? Blu-Ray players? TiVos?
Reply from RIAA/MPAA/ClearChannel/Broadcast TV (Score:2)
Thanks for your interesting letter. Unfortunately, we view you in a somewhat different light than you view yourself. You think that you are a consumer, and that your opinions matter.
Allow me to be blunt -- you are meat.
We buy you and sell you by the pound. We create "content" to engage your brain, but only in the way we want it to be engaged. We do this so that you'll do two things:
Re:Not quite right, i don't think (Score:2)
what happens when your TV/VCR does not allow the "000" flag?