90 Minute TiVo
-
Better start pinging your Congressman on this one. It's been in a few places, but there's a new digital technology bill in the works. And this one has serious impact on how the digital world may change. This mostly deals with analog inputs on recorders, but there was one place that really caught my eye.
If you record something on a PVR/DVR from an analog output that is copy protected, which who knows how well that will work, it would be required to be deleted or destroyed after 90 minutes.
Huh? 90 minutes to watch something? That seems to defeat the entire purpose of the DVR. Now I'm not sure how many people will get analog inputs, or even if I do these days, but I suspect that my digital satellite receiver outputs analog streams. And I rarely watch something I've recorded on the same day, much less within 90 minutes.
I understand there is concern over copying, but hey, the guys copying things will grab it within 90 minutes. It's those of us that are wanting to time shift to a point in time when I have more time to spend the time to watch something that are affected. (I just wanted to see how many times I could get "time" in there, pun intended)
I don't think Hollywood will ever learn.
Steve Jones
-
I'm with you Steve. I use my DVR so that I can watch the very few programs that I do watch, when I can fit them into my schedule. I have very little time to spend in front of the TV, but there are a few select shows that I enjoy so I record them on my DVR and watch them late at night or even days or weeks later. Watching a show within 90 minutes is unrealistic and will negatively affect the DVR/PVR/TiVo market and ultimately reduce ratings on the programs and channels. If I cannot record it, I will not watch it Period...
-
Guys, in the UK it has been illegal to tape records (remember those) and CDs for as long as I can remember. It is an entirely toothless law because it is unenforceable.
Bear in mind the old analog tape recorders were sold PRECISELY to allow what was basically an illegal activity!
In the UK we have an organisation called BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board) that provide stats on who watches what. They achieve this by asking a representative sample of the population to have a set-top-box connected to a phone line that records what you watch and when. The figures for the entire country are then extrapolated. My point is that unless you have been chosen by BARB and have consented to have their set-top-box plugged in, short of sitting in your living room, the authorities have no idea what you are watching.
-
This is unworkable. Some numpty politician yet again interfering in an industry which he has no understanding.
Also the knock on effect, is that you then dont get to see what you want on TV, and as we're all expected to work every hour godsend you cancel your cable/satellite TV subscription cos you don't have time. Then the the cable companies suffer, stop licensing as many programs from hollywood, and of course, for the sake of 'perceived' profit loss (hands up all those people who would actually go out and buy the DVD because they couldnt watch it on TV? very few) hollywood shoots itself in the foot yet again!
And guess what theyre also moaning about? Song lyrics on web-sites. I remember when I was a kid, I used to spend hours figuring out lyrics to songs I liked, then Id sing it, and when I had enough pocket money Id go out and but it. For chrissake! Corporate numtpies if you ask me.
-
Hollywood's just doing what the rest of corporate America is doing - buying Congress to protect itself. The real villians are the arse-wipes in Washington who will grab their ankles anytime anyone writes a cheque...
-
This is on the same line as prosecuting 12 and 13 year olds for downloading music. The idea is that Hollywood, RIAA, or whomever else is in the driving seat is out of touch with how to make money in the 21st century with information. They aren't going to gain any money by doing this since (as steve pointed out) the vast majority of people using TIVO's are using it for the purpose of watching their favorite programs at a latter date. It is insane that they would do this. Most people that would actually be trying to digitally record analog TV would be doing so using a TV Input card on their computer. Those cards don't care how much video you record, nor do they care how long you keep the encoded content. I am not sure what (if any) positive economic effect that this will have on the Telivision industry. Perhaps they think that you will be more apt to buy the season on DVD to watch it ( which by the way is insane given the price of a DVD set, for instance Knight Rider is going for $40.00). Instead of attacking the reason people copy TV programs (namely they like to watch certain programs over and over and buying the DVD set is too expensive) they are trying to legislate it illegal. Even if they are able to make it so the recorders will only do 90 minutes, there are about a half a billion ways that you can build your OWN TIVO. They cant prevent you from doing that (MythTV comes to mind). So in conclusion, screw the fascist corporate scumbags that make our lives miserable and our spineless money grubbing politicians for listening to them!
Aleksei
-
If there is "57 Channels and Nothing On" then there really is no loss in not being able to record them.
Up here in canada they in the early mornings on channel 7 I think will be broadcasting a picture of a log burning from 4-7 am xmas day should anyone care for that sort of thing.
And another channel used to broadcast a car driving around the city to jazz music late at night. Very nice.
But I'll leave this off with the springsteen song quote to sum it all up.
"So I bought a .44 magnum it was solid steel cast
And in the blessed name of Elvis well I just let it blast
'Til my TV lay in pieces there at my feet
And they busted me for disturbin' the almighty peace
Judge said "What you got in your defense son?"
"Fifty-seven channels and nothin' on""
-
And now for something completely different...
Who OWNS the music or movie or tv show or other piece of "work"?
The creator or the buyer?
Why shouldn't the creator/owner have the right to profit from their effort? Why should anyone be able to copy for free someone else's work and perhaps then resell that?
Just wondering if anyone cares about the owner's rights...
Does anyone think that the owner should have any rights in this?
-
The "owner" is a hard question. Really the person who bought it owns it, but they have limited rights. In the US, they have "fair use", which includes copying for personal use, quoting small sections, etc.
The producer has copyright and retains the right to sell the work, grant licenses for others to sell, etc. And they definitely deserve to profit from the work. But there has to be a balance.
I agree with you, copying for your friends is illegal and immoral. How we got to this place isn't really relevant and there's blame on all sides, but moving forward, we need to strike a balance. I should be able to backup or copy my digital media if I choose. I could be able to "rip, mix, burn". But I should also be prosecuted if I'm copying for my friends.
-
To be honest, I don't really care who owns the movie or TV show. I set my DVR to record shows that I want to watch. I do not copy them. I just watch them and delete them. Hollywood would definitely be doing itself a disservice by creating a 90 minute time limit to watch a recorded show. If this bill passes, there would be many shows that I would never watch and definitely never buy!
Wendy Schuman -
I want a feature where I can get my hour and a half back after watching something stupid.
-
It occurs to me that this might just further marginalize traditional broadcast television. The traditional networks have been losing market share for decades. Their product is hardly compelling. Alternatives are increasing and generally better meet consumers' desires. Making it increasingly inconvenient and difficult to consume one's product is a poor long-term strategy (a lesson the airlines have yet to grasp.)
Once someone develops a viable online-Netflix model, Katie bar the doors.
-
Whichever congressrat came up with this idea needs to be told that his village is missing an idiot.
----------------
Jim P.A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
-
Looks like most of us have the same opinion. Personally I think this would really be a blow to the digital age, I would have to go back to analog equipment for personal home videos or risk having the digital conversion destroy it every time. Because it is digital there should be a way to remove the destructive VIRUS implanted but it would be a pain. Also so much for all of my old videos which are far out of copyright and can't be purchased anymore, I would have to have a completely separate system to play them and eventually they would be lost forever because they couldn't be converted.
Trying to impose restrictions on what can be done with one's own property is never a good idea. Maybe instead of trying to stop what people do Author's should start giving more, if they were to offer member only benefits to people who bought their products and received a code maybe more people would decide to buy it.
-
I lost the spreadsheet I had built which listed the the price of the movie (on DVD) vs the cost of the movie's soundtrack. But I remember the results. Take a guess on the difference. About $10 more for the DVD's -- and most DVD's were director cuts, etc vs the original soundtrack.
This is where for a long time I couldn't stand RIAA but could appreciate MPAA. The MPAA encouraged the dropping the prices on the movies on a reasonable basis. It seems that they have lost the concept of reasonable pricing.
I never saw a point to hijacking DVD's because if you waited 6 months on medium movies they were down to a reasonable price. (Beat the cost of going to a walk-in.) Now they are trying to turn as money hungry and greedy as RIAA. Not to mention the SONY rootkit outrage.
I'm all for providing money back to the original writer, actors, artists and directors for copyrighted works. The problem is that the money doesn't get there. It gets to the middle-man being the studio moguls.
Just my $0.02
----------------
Jim P.A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply