Copy protection

Discussion in 'TiVo Series3 HDTV DVRs' started by jilter, Jul 12, 2009.

  1. Jul 31, 2009 #61 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida

    Advertisements

    Those issues were (and readily can be) remedied separately. For example, the separable security regulation opened cable networks up to devices like the TiVo S3/HD.

    That was not the case in 1985. However, again, if you want more competition, then the best way to achieve that is to incentivize competition, not scuttle a business.
     
  2. Jul 31, 2009 #62 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    That's utterly ridiculous. Fair Use has nothing to do with anything we're discussing. Fair Use pertains to inclusion of a limited portion of a copyrighted work in another larger work, for purposes of education, criticism, commentary or review.

    Beyond that, there is no "right" to defeat copy protection. A content owner has an absolute right to obstruct copying any way they wish, except for very specific exclusions, such as for OTA television transmissions. And beyond that, there are laws about breaking through such copy protections -- NOT laws precluding such copy protections.

    So basically, you have things completely backwards.
     
  3. Jul 31, 2009 #63 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    When you have a monopoly, there are rules that have to be followed. Those rules are there because lack of competition makes it possible to charge whatever you want without the restraint of the possibility of loosing customers to the competition. I think I've said it before but if not I'll say it now, monopolies (or companies that by virtue of their market share are virtual monopolies) can't do legally some of the things that a smaller company can do. For example the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft got a slap on the wrist for using its 95% market share in the OS market to get an unfair advantage in the web browser market. They were getting exclusivity deals from OEM's for example that if they wanted a sweet price on the OS they had to ONLY ship with ie installed. This was in fact determined to be anti competitive and they got a penalty that was probably about right for what was done. It could have been worse but it could have been better for Microsoft. If they hadn't tied the exclusivity deal on ie to a sweet discount on their OS they probably wouldn't have gotten into trouble because at the time netscape was the 800 lb gorilla in the room and couldn't get exclusivity because of their market share.
     
  4. Jul 31, 2009 #64 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Which is non-sequitur, since they don't have a monopoly.

    If you don't agree, ask a judge.
     
  5. Jul 31, 2009 #65 of 146
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,161
    836
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH

    Advertisements

    This is true, thanks to SATV. I can't imagine how bad and how expensive cable would be in the majority of areas that have only one CATV system, if SATV wasn't there.

    At the moment CATV effectively is a monopoly for anyone wanting to TiVo but DirectTivo should take care of that "real soon now". :rolleyes:
     
  6. Jul 31, 2009 #66 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    And I think this is where a lot of people get confused about this issue. There is no such thing as a monopoly "for" one person. Monopoly is essentially a market concept. It doesn't describe a single person's experience.
     
  7. Jul 31, 2009 #67 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    They may not have a monopoly but it doesn't necessarily have to be a monopoly for anti trust laws to apply they just have to have a large enough market share (See wiki - second bullet).
    Microsoft does not have a monopoly in the OS market, they have Apple and Linux competing, Microsoft just has a large enough market share to make it seem like one. The cable companies did not have a problem with unlimited data until people actually started to use it and cable TV like services became possible via the internet. Then they decided to do something about it. They want to impose bandwidth caps with fees for going over. Those fees IMO are predatory pricing. The pricing is a disincentive to using high bandwidth video download sites which they view as competition, effectively tends to help them maintain their position.
     
  8. Jul 31, 2009 #68 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Y'know, for the purpose of this thread, that's all I'm saying. I don't think we need to get into the other issue you raised here. As long as we agree that they're not a monopoly, I'm willing to let the issue drop.
     
  9. Jul 31, 2009 #69 of 146
    Onibroc42

    Onibroc42 Oh, him again...

    1,503
    0
    Feb 4, 2003
    Middle of...

    Problem - TWC is not the content owner, they are merely a content distributor.

    TWC technically does not have the right to impose stronger copy protection on content than the provider demands.

    If TWC were the subject of an FCC investigation, I suspect they'd lose.

    It comes down to either sloth, anti-competitive practices, or indifference to customers.

    No matter how you slice it, they should be passing through the copy control flags as they are set by the content producers. To do anything else is to assert a level of control to which TWC is not legally entitled.

    Oh, and as far as the bandwidth restrictions go, it's nice to think that there's some grand conspiracy to protect their TV offerings, and that might be a part of it. But the real problem is that they have, like the airlines, overbooked their capacity. They can't provide unlimited internet to everyone at the speeds they sell, so they have to start slapping down the people who are trying to hold them to the agreement they made.

    Kinda like why AT&T killed SlingPlayer for iPhone, but not other 3G phones. If all the iPhone users started using it, their network would fold up and die.
     
  10. Jul 31, 2009 #70 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    I'll tell ya what, I'll grant NATIONALLY no one cable company is a monopoly. If you agree that the the industry as a whole acts like a cartel to serve common interests. Then the issue is, "is what they are doing predatory pricing?" which is a legal issue we can both have differing opinions on and until a court decides otherwise, they are doing nothing illegal.

    Fair enough?
     
  11. Jul 31, 2009 #71 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    If they lit up some of the dark fiber that was overbuilt in the 80's and early 90's capacity probably wouldn't be an issue. but like any finite commodity the less of something there is the more valuable it is. If I owned the fiber backbones I wouldn't play with capacity to control pricing. But that is another debate for another day.
     
  12. Jul 31, 2009 #72 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Actually they do. They explicitly do. It says in the law that they do have the right, unequivocally.

    Your suspicion would therefore be wrong.

    Or .... it comes down to the fact that TWC respects their owners and the judgment of their managers, over your consumer-biased opinion about what would be best for them.
     
  13. Jul 31, 2009 #73 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    The law defines monopoly on a market basis, not a national basis. They are not a monopoly in any municipality in the country; i.e., not a monopoly at all.

    I agree.
     
  14. Jul 31, 2009 #74 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    I was refering to the notion of having an unlimited bandwidth tier. The rest of a long post was cut.
    Just trying to get ideas not arguing about monopolies or some such. A Couple of thoughts on this:

    I am not some much interested in a specific additional cost, more along the lines of the concept of how high such an overage fee should be. If the ISP establishes a specific amount of data for a specific amount of money they are saying that the value of our data is so much money per unit of data. If the charge is $125 for 250 GB (I think the $125 is a bit high but that actually minimizes the cost per unit) that is $.50 per GB. Not having a restriction on the amount an overage fee can be they could decide that they will charge $.50 per MB (which is $500 per GB) or 1000 times more than the rate they established as the cost per unit. Is that fair? Why would 1.5x the rate of the next highest rate be unfair. Thats a 50% premium over what they established as the value of the data? how about 5x,or 10x or 2x. I'm not against pay a fair amount for what is consumed, but what is a fair amount?

    So the question is what is a fair rate to charge for an overage fee?
     
  15. Jul 31, 2009 #75 of 146
    JWThiers

    JWThiers Smartypants

    2,611
    0
    Apr 12, 2005
    Cocoa, Florida
    Well I tried,

    First, please do not twist what I said to mean something that I did not. My opinion is that the cable industry wants to engage illegally in predatory pricing. what was said is until a court decides that legal question they have done nothing wrong, that is a far step from they have done nothing wrong. You know that whole legal innocent until proven guilty thing.

    Second, never say never or always

    You are incorrect, in my town, the local market in my area, for example the only option I have for cable tv service is BHN. Verizon is not here, Uverse is not here. They are the ONLY cable TV service available in my town, thus a monopoly. My town isn't tiny, there are much smaller in the country, and I am positive that my town isn't the exception to the rule.

    In fact you would be surprised at how many legal monopolies there are in the cable TV industry I would guess most but certainly a good number of them are. They are done that way so that the cable company that installed all the cable had a guaranteed market for their product. also that way there wouldn't be separate cable from Comcast, Verizon, Uverse, BHN, etc, that all had to be paid for before a company could turn a profit. It served a public good to get cable service into the communities, but would have been too costly if it were done the other way.

    Just because it is a legal monopoly doesn't mean they won't/aren't doing something illegal.
     
  16. Jul 31, 2009 #76 of 146
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    your speculation seems awfully simplistic and unimaginative and i was attempting to show that.

    if you want my speculation as to why they dont do it- it's that they cant get cablelabs to approve their encryption. ANd they dont feel that figthing with cable over that is worth the ill will they would get with cable since they want so much to be friends.
     
  17. Jul 31, 2009 #77 of 146
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    I dont know why you like to argue everything- i guess it's just the name.

    there was not a single channel that the DTA"s are goign to receive that already existed digitally- so their was no encryption to "remove". They could have easily just added the 70 or so new digital channels leaving encryption off.

    Rather then do that they ALSO took the extra effort to go back and undo what they had previously done in encrypting scores and scores of channels.

    you can beleive whatever you want but in this case I actually happened to speak to the VP of operations of the indenpendat company that comcast bought up and THE head end engineer prior and after the move to comcast.

    and no idea why you think it's "capricious" - if you bother to read there have been many reports for many many months that the comcast corporate policy is no flags unless requested. So just because you dont think it's warrented doesn't mean it wasn't a well thought out choice that comcast made to have as their policy.
     
  18. Jul 31, 2009 #78 of 146
    MichaelK

    MichaelK Active Member

    7,308
    1
    Jan 10, 2002
    NJ
    can we jsut get a sticky that says "bicker says cable is not legal monopoly" and be done with it?

    ;-)
     
  19. Jul 31, 2009 #79 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    How much is the extra usage worth?
     
  20. Jul 31, 2009 #80 of 146
    bicker

    bicker bUU

    10,671
    90
    Nov 9, 2003
    Florida
    Ditto. :rolleyes:

    There is a difference between suggesting saying, "You seem to be speculating that..." and saying that you actually said something. So effectively, you twisted what I said into something I did not, while I didn't do anything of the sort.

    You're using legal words making legal accusations without the law to back up what you're saying. You're essentially engaging in an invariably losing proposition. If you really believe it, and strongly, then file a complaint, prosecute your perspective in the courts, and prevail, and then you can make such assertions without having to worry about someone pointing out that they don't have merit.

    Again, every single municipality in the country has effective competition. I'm not making this up. The definition of a market monopoly is not subject to your personal decision about what technologies you're willing to accept, or where in a town you personally chose to live. Those decisions are all on you; don't blame providers for the ramifications of your personal decisions.

    They aren't a monopoly. You're just using a word that has emotional impact to make your criticism of them sound more important than it is.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements