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

FCC approves studio control of outputs on your satellite/cable box

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by phrelin, May 7, 2010.

  1. May 12, 2010 #81 of 110
    ShapeShifter

    ShapeShifter Godfather

    359
    0
    Apr 21, 2008
    It is clear that we have reached the point of diminishing returns, especially when you say things such as this:

    How much more direct and non-confusing can I be by saying "True" in direct confirmation of your statement about neighbors stealing content? If you can't understand simple words like "True" then there is no point in this discussion.

    Don't call me a liar. There is no need for direct attacks. I've not lied about anything. I've expressed my feelings, and I've stated my interpretations about what you've written. You may not agree with my feelings, and you may not agree with my interpretations of your statements, but they are far from lies. Rather than making a direct attack, if you don't like the way I've interpreted your words, just say so, or better yet go back and re-read what you've written with an objective eye, and try and see what you've said that appears to be prejudiced and judgmental.

    You were making some good points up until now, but youv'e lost all credibility in my eye by making personal attacks. You've crossed the line, and I'm done. Have a nice day. :wave:
     
  2. May 12, 2010 #82 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    You lied about the position I put forward in this thread, ascribing inferences to me that have no relation to what I actually said. Sorry, but you did. That's a direct attack, on me... calling you out on it is a reasonable response.

    I haven't taken you to task for your feelings. I've taken you to task for overtly misstating what my position is. No, you don't get a pass on that. Unlike your vague statements, what I said I said very clearly.

    From where I'm sitting, you got frustrated because you were not able to defend your consumerist perspectives, so changed your tactic from debating me reasonably to trying to argue against things I haven't said, to try to make it look like you're making a point.

    Beyond that, you've drawn yourself into a corner with what you've said. If you claim that "You may not agree with my feelings, and you may not agree with my interpretations of your statements, but they are far from lies" then the same would apply to my comments. I never called you anything; never said you were "a liar". I labeled comments you made as they are: Lies. Those are, in your parlance, my "feelings" and my "interpretations of your statements". However, true to form for someone grasping at straws, as I see you now doing, you clearly feel comfortable asserting a double-standard, excusing your comments away but at the same time condemning me for doing something far less objectionable.

    You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, surely, but don't ever try to defend your arguments by lying about what I'm saying. I cannot overlook that kind of dishonesty.
     
  3. May 12, 2010 #83 of 110
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Please cease the personal attacks. If the conversation cannot be kept civil, the thread will most likely be closed and infractions could be issued.

    Back to topic.
     
  4. May 12, 2010 #84 of 110
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    "For the record", I never equated the two... My post referenced an opinion that this will not prevent illicit recording. I don't believe it will.

    As for your question regarding only lawyers being fair; argumentative ;)
     
  5. May 13, 2010 #85 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    And it isn't intended to. Rather, it is intended to ...
    - discourage (not "prevent")
    - casual (not wholesale)
    ... piracy.

    Hehe.... but my point was a bit more than that: Much of what you've read in this thread, that I suspect you wouldn't label as "lawyer talk", was essentially presentation of personal preference as God's law, folks asserting rights over things that they actually have no rights over. Look: I'm pretty adaptable. You put me in a society which is more pink or one that is more blue or one that is lorded over by a fairy princess and I suppose I can adjust. What I see happening, a lot, though, is folks accepting the benefits of our society, but refusing to accept all that that entails, especially with regard to the fact that other folks also deserve to realize the benefits of our society. I see this conflict as similar to local conflicts, where people storm City Hall on Wednesday to demand more teachers in our schools, and then storm City Hall on Thursday to demand lower taxes. :nono2:
     
  6. May 13, 2010 #86 of 110
    Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,506
    99
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Just MHO, but "casual" piracy involves copying DVD's and BR's that have been rented from BB or Netflix. It does not include component capture devices.

    My reasoning is that most people have computers with burners. All they need from that point a free program. (I use a commericial program, but I like it). To use a component capture card, they need to go buy one and although the prices have come down, they aren't free. Then they need to take the time to play the content through the capture card. No way to speed that up.

    I completely understand the idea of restricting output of day/date releases and that is not my concern. My concern is that once we head down this path, it won't stop until they have full control of all content and fair use goes out the window.
     
  7. May 13, 2010 #87 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Anything that doesn't involve material gain is "casual" piracy. Wholesale piracy can be taken to mean selling copies for profit.

    Again: Fair Use never legitimately applied to this situation, but even if you go with the idea that does, as set forth in the (flawed) rationalization set forth in the Betamax decision, then you have to accept all of what that decision entails, specifically that Fair Use is only a defense. It is not a right. The right of the content owner to copy protect what they offer is absolutely and unequivocally inviolate. They legally and morally have that "full control" now, and always have -- they simply haven't have a technical means to enforce it.
     
  8. May 13, 2010 #88 of 110
    MichaelLAX

    MichaelLAX Cool Member

    22
    0
    Oct 5, 2003
    Actually that is not accurate: courts have held that the First Amendment's effect on the copyright laws requires the "fair use" exception.
     
  9. May 13, 2010 #89 of 110
    MichaelLAX

    MichaelLAX Cool Member

    22
    0
    Oct 5, 2003
    overstated.
     
  10. May 13, 2010 #90 of 110
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,103
    329
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Like bicker1, I don't have a quarrel with the content producers right to distribute their content in a way that protects their copyright. They can easily sell limited use of the content. Put it on a DVD/BD that erases itself or will only play once, or something. Clearly label the packaging, and I can then choose to not buy it.

    Just don't meddle with my A/V equipment or computer as that is my property which has associated property rights. Sony meddled with my (well, my wife's, but I had to deal with it) computer once without sufficient warning by putting DRM software on a CD. That's crossing a line.

    Had we been given a warning that clearly said "should you choose to use this CD or other Sony media products on your computer, Sony Inc., will from that point on have all rights and privileges to screw with your computer and your home network, at will, at any time, because protecting Sony's copyright is more important to us than any customer's property rights" then we wouldn't have bought the CD. It's that simple.

    Dish Network does a fine job of limiting use of PPV movies to 24 hours. The DRM function on the HDMI plug works although some customers can't watch the movie they paid for, ironically on some Sony TV's because they screwed up the HDMI, which they subsequently fixed with a firmware update months after they were aware of the problem. I don't watch these movies. I won't buy Sony products, hardware or content, and that's my choice.

    Again, without my full understanding and approval, altering the functionality of my A/V system - my property - violates my property rights.

    The studios could release "first run movies" on a cleverly designed play-once BD for sale in stores. Instead, they are choosing to introduce the ability to block my A/V system component plugs through my cable or satellite or ISP company, something they couldn't do without FCC approval. Here we have that pesky camel getting his nose under the tent. I believe I have reason to fear this encroachment.
     
  11. May 13, 2010 #91 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Sorry, but that's not accurate: Despite the connection you allude to, Fair Use is a defense. It is not a right. But let's not quibble about words. The crux of the issue is this: No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.
     
  12. May 13, 2010 #92 of 110
    bidger

    bidger Hall Of Fame

    2,014
    18
    Nov 19, 2005
    You've just described DIVX, short-lived (deservedly) competitor to DVD. Not eco-friendly either.
     
  13. May 13, 2010 #93 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Indeed, and the resource efficiency of broadcasting, as compared to either narrow-casting or physical media distribution, really underscores the need for supporting a means via broadcasting of securely distributing content in a way that best protects the copyright against casual piracy.
     
  14. May 13, 2010 #94 of 110
    MichaelLAX

    MichaelLAX Cool Member

    22
    0
    Oct 5, 2003
    You are entitled to your opinion, not your facts...

    Your statement ("No content creator is obligated to facilitate or leave unobstructed your Fair Use of their content.") is again so overstated, as to be incapable of intelligent rebuttal.
     
  15. May 13, 2010 #95 of 110
    MichaelLAX

    MichaelLAX Cool Member

    22
    0
    Oct 5, 2003
    This plan does not do anything to your AV equipment that you would not agree to in advance by purchasing a license to watch the day and date movie...

    If you do not like the restrictions, you do not have to utiliize it.

    This is NOT the SONY CD DRM boondoggle, and there is no point to discuss that matter here...

    i understand that the major studios considered your proposal for DiVX BR's but they have informed me that they rejected it in favor of their current proposal. They did say, however, to thank you for your well thought out proposal...
     
  16. May 13, 2010 #96 of 110
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,103
    329
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Just keep in mind that it was Sony execs who lobbied the new FCC chairman and other members.

    And when they turn off our component outputs on new episodes of cable TV series shows in a few years, remember I predicted it. Hopefully, it will be after either my seven year old Pany Plasma dies or I die.;)
     
  17. May 13, 2010 #97 of 110
    dsw2112

    dsw2112 Always Searching

    1,938
    0
    Jun 12, 2009
    I'm not sure what the petition wording entailed, but "prevent" came from the LA Times article.

    I'll search in a bit to try and find the petition itself, does anyone have a link by chance?
     
  18. May 14, 2010 #98 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Bull. If you have a citation showing that a content creator has been compelled to facilitate or leave unobstructed their content to facilitate Fair Use, then present it.

    Your cute/cheap little rhetorical tactic of calling things "overstated" and trying to make it sound like you know something thinking that you don't have to stand behind your insinuations is inane.
     
  19. May 14, 2010 #99 of 110
    bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Just remember that it was I who relayed to the thread that it was legal. :D
     
  20. bicker1

    bicker1 Hall Of Fame

    1,040
    0
    Oct 21, 2007
    Newspapers are notorious for dumbing things down, and often in the process losing nuances that are necessary to understand the reality of what they're trying to inform people about. :nono2:

    Rest assured, no one believes that any copy protection, anywhere, with regard to anything, ever would "prevent" anything. Door locks and alarm systems don't "prevent" home theft -- they discourage it. Passwords and secure transactions don't "prevent" identity theft -- they discourage it.

    Why, though, would you think that a petition against something would necessarily accurately present the details of what they're opposing? Figure that they have a vested interest in making what they oppose sound worse than it really is.

    Beyond that, you also have to factor in that you're taking a sentence out of context. A door lock does "prevent" most casual thieves from breaking into your home, and so as a matter of common parlance, that word might be used.
     

Share This Page