Filed under: PVR / DVR, Industry, Media — Dave Zatz @ 10:16 am
HBO continues their quest to specify what you can and cannot record to your DVR. They’ve been at the forefront of limiting our recording rights and are at it again, this time petitioning that subscription video-on-demand should be off-limits. It’s interesting that they attempt to segregate content… why should one show or network be treated differently than any other? If your piping media into my house that I’ve paid for I intend to retain the right to copy whatever I want, whenever I want for my personal use — broadcast flag and similar legislation be damned.
READ ARTICLE
I believed, HBO is owned by Time Warner! I stopped subscribing to HBO long time ago.
HBO? Oh please, I have cable and I don't even bother to pay anything extra for HBO or any of those others so called "Movie Channels"
Also, Yeah my PC has a PVR card in it and I pay more that it's worth for Cable so I don't think that anyone should beable to tell me what I can and cannot record for my own personal viewing.
What A Twist!
All i have is basic cable with cable modem, if i want a movie thats what emule is for, i have seen more then a few movies and if i went and paid $8 plus gas and extras i would be so pissed cause most of them arent worth renting a blockbuster for $1 let alone paying top dollar to see.
They're probably thinking since it's a pay channel, it's like renting a movie from Blockbuster, and it's illegal to copy Blockbuster flicks so why not HBO?
This is not an S&T subject
Sounds more like a P2P Politics topic to me. Moved
Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be.
First of all.. They play the same shit months at a time at two different times of the day. The only thing they really dont want you tapeing is the original series in which they will release on DVD-R.. Oh wait, then they fight the people who download those DVD-R and crap.
Movie Piracy Doesn't Decrease Legitimate Purchasing?
Contributed by Carlo on Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 12:53PM
from the set-pr-machine-to-spin dept.
The head of the British Video Association says it's conducted research that found people who download movies watch just as many "legitimate films" as non-downloaders (via Boing Boing). So there's the industry's own evidence that downloading doesn't necessarily have a negative effect on their media buying habits. Well, if only they saw it that way -- the stat's only being used to justify putting anti-piracy trailers at the beginning of DVDs. The statement came as an answer to a series of questions the BBC put to people in the film industry, and their descriptions of copy-protection technology are pretty hilarious. MPAA head Dan Glickman says DRM provides consumers "guidelines for using and consuming content", and that without it, they "might eventually come to totally disregard copyright". Wow, who knew copy-protection was so helpful when all this time, it just appeared to be hampering fair use and keeping people from playing back content they'd bought in the manner they want and on the devices they want. The BVA head's answer is even more full of spin, calling DRM "a means of enabling consumers to access and use audiovisual content in a wider variety of ways that suit their tastes and habits". So copy-protection enables people to do things? Isn't that counter to its entire purpose?
A Great Way To Discourage Legal Music Downloads
Contributed by Mike on Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 01:55PM
from the make-things-worse dept.
Right below this story, we show how the movie industry is misinterpreting results of a new study concerning the (lack of) impact of downloading on movie watching, and now mmrtnt writes in with an example of the recording industry similarly misunderstanding the consequences of their own actions. It's an article the latest music compression format from The Fraunhofer Institute -- which has some features designed to cut down on unauthorized file sharing, but which also have the unintended consequence of making legal music downloads a lot less appealing: "If, for instance, you purchase and download a CD, burn a copy and give it to a friend and that person puts it on a file-sharing network, our system will trace that music back to you and, depending on the legal system of the country you're in, you could be [hit] with an expensive fine." In other words, simply sharing some music with a friend (how an awful lot of music gets promoted these days) could get you into a lot of trouble. So, if you actually want to help promote a musical act to your friends, you're better off getting an unauthorized file that won't get you fined or thrown in jail. How hard is it for the industry to understand the basic equation that charging more for something that is less valuable doesn't encourage anyone to buy anything?
.
If i pay for a service I feel that I am entitled to record the programs on that channel.
Most of the time, the shows come on a bad time or when PRIMETIME is on, or you may want to watch a movie and record it for later to view. But im pretty sure there pissed to see some TV torrents of their shows up, as well as custom dvd's out of the first few aired shows. As well as releasing a dvd after the season and it not selling as many copies. They will have mixed results in any poll. . They ask a different group of people the same questions only to find out some support their claim, and some dont.
It's the same story, they see only what they want to see! Since they got away selling craps in the past, they expect it would last forever.
Me too. I just download their shows now ;pOriginally Posted by digitaljunkie
So, they make DVR recording of some shows/movies illegal. How are they going to actually prevent it? Send the signal in some scrambled way? We all know how easy it is to overcome copy protection. They'll be selling some kind of signal filter at Radio Shack that will take care of it. DVD's are easily copied, so this will be too. If you can see and hear it, it can be copied, plain and simple. It's ironic: the movie and music industries are probably wasting more money on copy protectoin and legal fees than they are actually losing on so-called "illegal" copying. Give it up boys!
Easier than that, all they have to do is talk to Motorola and Scientific Atlanta etc (insert STB maker here) and make it forbidden from the hardware level not to record a set of certain channels.
But you're right, at that point, you could just a/d the analog signal to your TV. You won't be able to transfer it from the DVR (because it's not there in the 1st place) but you'll still be able to rip the analog stream.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks