1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

921 To Include DVD Writer?

Discussion in 'Standard Definition Receiver Support Forum' started by Stosh, Mar 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stosh

    Stosh Godfather

    301
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    Pure conjecture on your part. Until or if what you say comes true, there is no point in ranting and raving, except to alienate "them" further. All indications to date are that the DVD writer will be a reality, and that the firewire port will be activated. If that doesn't happen, I'll be on the front lines with you fighting it. But until then, your statements are neither accurate nor useful.
     
  2. David_Levin

    David_Levin Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,227
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Much of the ranting here has already been proven false. Comcast has already activated the firewire port on the 6200 series HD boxes. People are recording digitally onto D-VHS. I see no reason E* can't do what is already being done.

    The boxes are 5C compliant. In the future, recording some material may be restricted. Encrypting on the hard drive is a different beast.

    If you could extract directly, you could bypass the 5C flags (that is not allowed). With the encryption, E* does not have as much of a reason to block hard drive upgrades.
     
  3. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    That's exactly my point. Once we're trapped into all-digital transfer, the studios can completly eviserate fair use by adding those filthy little broadcast "flags" and make time-shifting and archiving of tv programs impossible. Read my above rant about the subject. This type of ranting takes too much mental energy, as I get extremly angry over the subject.

    Let's hope someone develops a way to remove those so-called broadcast "flags". We need to stand up for our fair use rights. :mad:
     
  4. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Unfortuantely, that would involve "circumventing the serucity measures" and run afoul of the 1996 telecommunications law....

    Unfortunately the ONLY thing that will save us is if Congress comes to the rescue and gives us that right. Yeah, I'll wait up for that one (maybe we'll get lucky if someone from Arizona can convince McCain to take up the fight... otherwise it ain't gonna happen)
     
  5. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    You haven't read my posts about my feelings on the dispicable, commie, antiAmerican DMCA, have you? The piece of legislative diareah that has allowed studios to circumvent the fair use laws. I do hope McCain says something about that, but I'm not even sure if he voted against it. Go to www.eff.org. It has some real eye-opening articles about the so-called DMCA. :flaiming :soapbox:
     
  6. David_Levin

    David_Levin Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,227
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    The term "Fair Use" needs to be defined (or is it already).

    In any case, I'm not looking to circumvent it, but work legally within its guidelines.

    If they decide I can't time shift, then I will not watch. If they lose enough business, they'll change the rule.

    Now skipping commercials is a much more dicey subject. The studios must earn their money somehow. But no matter what, if they force me into commercials, I can choose not to watch.
     
  7. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    It's already defined. It was defined back in the early 80's. It allows (among other things) time-shifting and archiving of tv programs for personal use. The studios have been angry they lost that battle ever since, and have been activly searching for ways to get rid of it. Looks like the Commies that designed the DMCA have done it.
     
  8. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Fair Use runs counter to what Hollywood wants and they are trying to line the road with landmines as you try to use your fair use rights. If yo walk around the land mines, you are "circumventing the security measures", if you walk into them, the technology won't work, and thus no fair use for you......

    It's scary when moving to Canada is looking like your best option.....
     
  9. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Exactly. Things have definently gotten bad when Canada looks good. *shudder* They recently gave the studios and recording unions a good whack on the nose. I felt like celebrating when I heard that.
     
  10. kstevens

    kstevens Icon

    533
    1
    Mar 26, 2003
    I very seriously doubt it is an issue of E* not being able to doing it, but an issue of finding the time to do it. They still have severe problems with the software like it is. Until most of the current bugs are squashed, you probably won't see the firewire port activated.

    Ken
     
  11. David_Levin

    David_Levin Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,227
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Well, that's all I'm looking for. My understang is that 5C compliance (921, JVC DVHS, firewire, DVI/HDCP, HDMI) will allow these functions to work withing the law.

    Has anyone else herd something different?
     
  12. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Yes. I've heard that the studios are going to be very agressive with their broadcast "flags" on most programs. They want to turn them up all the way, meaning they use them to sabotoge the HD signal by turning it down to 480p for time shifting, or preventing it all together. Making that expensive 921 useless. And they want to disable archiving alltogether.
     
  13. Stosh

    Stosh Godfather

    301
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    Again, this is just hearsay. Attacking the studios for what they might do makes no sense. We can't logically bitch about something that hasn't happened yet. If and when it happens, then we have a right to complain. But I've "heard" that this downconversion was going to happen for well over a year now, and it hasn't yet.
     
  14. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    It has already on VOOM, from what I understand. Once they've done it, it's already too late. Letting them know NOW that we won't stand for it, will keep them from doing it in the first place.
     
  15. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    You might want to get yourself informed.

    As per the broadcast flag mandate, no limitations can be placed on copying broadcast content. The consumer can make as many copies as they want so long as it is with an approved device; approved devices include PVRs (so long as not PC connected), D-VHS VCRs, and other products with DTCP. Moreover, downconversion over component signals is prohibited; STB products are required to pass full resolution for HDTV over component.

    As per the cable DTV "plug and play" agreement, cable companies are only permitted to use the "no copy" flag on PPV and VOD content. "Do not copy" is prohibited for content shown on cable channels. The maximum limitation allowed on cable content (exception to PPV and VOD) is one copy. Note these requirements apply to cable providers, but not satellite providers.
     
  16. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    If this is true, it would be great. At least it's a start. Where is this mandate located? And is it binding? Or is it just a nice idea, and they can ditch it whenever they feel like it? I've heard different about the component video issue. I've heard that they want to close the so-called "analog hole" so they will sabotoge the HD signal if it goes over component. If this is not the case, that will be great. Also, not allowing it to be transferred to a PC would make PC based PVRs useless, and would make it awefully hard to archive to a DVD.

    How long do you think it will be before they strong arm the DBS companies into doing it too? Also, the so-called "do not copy" flag on PPV content would make it damn inconvienent for people who want to send a PPV to their DVR and watch it when they get home. The whole broadcast "flag" idea doesn't pass the smell test. It smells like incramentalism.
     
  17. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    The mandate is available on the FCC web site, I'll give you a link later. It takes effect July 2005.

    In their initial broadcast flag proposal (wish list), the broadcasters and studios wanted to close the "analog hole." The FCC didn't buy into that, and their final decision (mandate) prohibits it. The decision was a compromise; broadcasters and studios got some of they wanted, but certainly not everything.

    The main intent of the broadcast flag mandate is to limit future, unauthorized distribution of broadcast content over the Internet. Thus, as you'd expect, most of the restrictions apply to PC products or products that can interact with the PC. The BF mandate won't have much of an impact on standalone boxes, but it places stringent requirements on PC DTV/HDTV products. PC DTV cards sold after July 2005 will, at the very least, be required to encrypt their recordings.

    Note the BF does not apply to any products produced or sold before July 2005.
     
  18. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Thanks. That's good that the FCC didn't completly cave in to them.

    I forsee some court challenges coming by PC component manufacturers. I'm hopeful that they can get this part of it reversed, or at least made more friendly toward consumers.
     
  19. EvilMan

    EvilMan Guest

    Then we'll have a repeat of the DVD industry. Mainstream american products will be crippled, which low cost chinese imports will have some backdoor menu (or hacked drivers) to disable it. AND of course there's GNU Radio, which renders all this obsolete:

    http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/images/hdtv-samples.html
     
  20. fruit2k

    fruit2k Guest

    KenF;

    Good job explaining the BF mandate, but I feel that you are downplaying some of the issues somewhat. Right now, the BF is in what they call a "comment and review" period, where the FCC solicits comments from stakeholders regarding their "mandate". I put mandate in quotes for the reason that (and this is important to understand) the mandate is not really a mandate - it is a proposed mandate until they isue a final ruling. The final ruling will not occur until the end of the comment period. In other words, it is very likely that what the FCC floated as the BF mandate WILL be changed before the final ruling, and one can almsot guarantee that it WILL be "stricter". To repeat, the BF "mandate" has not been finalized and the FCC has not decided how they are going to enforce the provisions that they have proposed.For one thing, what one prior poster wrote is exactly correct - Hollywood IS still fighting for the FCC to close the "analog hole" (through the Analog ReConversion Working Group) and they are attempting to have the FCC codify this formally in the BF ruling, as well as a host of other issues that will kick fair use in the ass. This also holds true for your comment about the FCC already "prohibiting component output downrezzing" (I'm paraphrasing here) - they have not prohibited jacksh*t; they have just floated the IDEA of prohibiting it. As I stated above, once Hollywood is finished paying them off...ERRR, I mean, lobbying them, one can almost be assured that the final ruling will include this little tidbit as well as anything else that Michael Powell feels he can force through that will help protect the broadcast/content industry more $$$$. Long story short,I think you do a disservice to the less-informed posters on this thread to blithely say that "everythings OK, the FCC has already said they won't do that" when that is not the case.

    Brian
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page