Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Philips Targets Wireless TV Retransmission At Home

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the make-sure-people-can't-use-it dept.

Privacy 367

cadfael links to this EE Times story, excerpting: "Philips is attempting to start yet another industry initiative to tackle digital rights management, this time focusing on the wirelessly networked home. 'At stake here,' said Leon Husson, executive vice president of consumer businesses at Philips Semiconductors, 'is the "free-floating" copyrighted content that will soon be "redistributed" or "rebroadcast" to different TV sets throughout a home by consumers using wireless networking technologies like IEEE802.11.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yay.. (-1, Troll)

SinisterAngel (464851) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837124)

Sounds like the mpaa is gonna get hot and bothered about this..

Re:Yay.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837267)

I expected you to shut the fuck up.

With Implied Oral Consent... (4, Funny)

bhsx (458600) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837126)

Not Expressed Written Consent :)

Re:With Implied Oral Consent... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837274)

I think the same thing happened when they rolled out the porta-potty

Wireless (5, Funny)

juggla (179339) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837129)

Imagine! Video beamed right to your TV through the air. What's this world coming to?

Re:Wireless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837237)

Yeah - incredible, all right. These people seem to think that RF bandwidth just grows on trees, too.
Interesting, but it appears that the one thing that was omitted from the discussion was the frequencies to be used. Hey, I've got an idea - why not just re-use the currently allocated TV broadcast spectrum? That way, we can just pile more garbage on top of the garbage already in use and no one else will have to be moved.

Think this isn't a serious issue? Look at all the horseshit the FCC (and the US Government) went through to cough up space for 3G Wireless. Imagine all of the RF pollution that will result from this proposal?

WTF can't people just run coax to their TV sets??

Re:Wireless (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837304)

Didn't the exact same thing happen when the porta-potty was unveiled?

I fail to see the issue... (3, Insightful)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837138)

After all, I could just run coax to all the TVs in a house. Is this somehow different because it's wireless???

I mean, whenever I buy a special package, i.e., a pay-per-view, I can watch it on all the TVs in the house...

Re:I fail to see the issue... (2)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837205)

Well yes...duh. You don't have to pay per use fees to run coax.

You gotta admit it's getting better...It's getting better all the time!

-Pete

Re:I fail to see the issue... (2, Funny)

jdunlevy (187745) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837279)

" After all, I could just run coax to all the TVs in a house."

Don't tell them that! Otherwise they might come after me for redistributing copyrighted material from my antenna to my VCR and television.

Re:I fail to see the issue... (3, Insightful)

sam@caveman.org (13833) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837305)

Is this somehow different because it's wireless???

well, with coax, more than likely there isn't enough stray radiation from the coax to allow your neighbor to access your cable (of course we are all doing this anyway with splitters, etc, but that is beside the point).

with wireless, you are rebroadcasting your cable signal to your TV. the rebroadcast will probably be available to your neighbors, at least in apartment complexes.

ah, finally, free cable, without having even to drill a hole from closet to closet for the coax.

-sam

In fact... (2)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837330)

You can pick up a neat little device at Radioshack which will allow you to broadcast video on any cable channel you specify. So if you've only got one Satellite receiver, you can watch the content from it on multiple TV's without needing another receiver. This is all with wires...

This is soooo getting out of hand. I think it's important to remember that copyright law was written at a time when they had no means to control much other than whether you got a copy of the media or not. Now they think they can tell you everything you do with it anytime you want.

Re:I fail to see the issue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837374)

Actually, in Canada, this is ILLEGAL.

Why? The CATV industry (unlike the phone industry) controls the "inside wiring" in your house. Since every additional device adds noise and drains signal on the shared medium, they claim that this is why customers shouldn't be allowed to add extra TVs (and avoid the $8/outlet monthly charge.) Of course, these additional outlets are hooked up *before* descramblers.

Arrest (1, Interesting)

zhar (533174) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837143)

Didn't someone in Canada get arrested for rebroadcasting someone else's signal? I mean if it is running in the 802.11 spectrum, and someone in the apartment below you tunes into your cable signal, couldn't they be arrested for cable piracy?

Why I think this will work (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837144)

I didn't used to think that people would pay for cable on a per-tv basis. Then along came digital cable and satellite programming which required installation of a decoder for each tv (or at least each tv that didn't want to watch what everyone else was watching at that moment).

This tech will make its way into the market and content providers will quickly glom onto the idea. Customers will upgrade or face having 4 broadcast channels.

FIRST PRETZEL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837145)


US President George W Bush said he felt "great" on Monday, despite having fainted and fallen from a couch after choking on a pretzel over the weekend.

I didn't realise what happened until I looked in the mirror.

Sporting an angry red bruise on his cheek, the president joked with reporters about the incident as he left the White House on a two-day tour of the Mid-West.

"My mother always said when you're eating pretzels, chew before you swallow," he said before boarding a helicopter to Illinois.

The president's doctor said Mr Bush had been feeling unwell for a couple of days, and he lost consciousness for a short time when his heart rate slowed after he choked on the salty snack.

He slightly cut his face and bruised his lip when he fell to the floor.

From BBC News [bbc.co.uk]

Re:FIRST PRETZEL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837235)



Gerry: Hi! Pleased to meet you, I just moved in. My name is Gerry Ford.

Homer: [gasps] Former President Gerald Ford? Put her there! I'm Homer Simpson!

Gerry: Say, Homer, do you like football?

Homer: Do I ever!

Gerry: Do you like nachos?

Homer: Yes, Mr. Ford.

Gerry: Well, why don't you come over and watch the game, and we'll have nachos? And then, some beer.

Homer: Ooh!
[they walk across the street]
Gerry, I think you and I are going to get along just --
[they both trip]

Both: D'oh!

Aww, How SWEET! (0, Offtopic)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837146)

What he really saying is this:


"I'm tired of everybody disappearing into their own rooms to watch the same damn program. From now on we will sit together like a REAL FAMILY."

Big Problem, I hear (5, Interesting)

merlin_jim (302773) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837147)

This is a huge problem. You know, I have friends who are all the time buying 802.11 gear ($200+), and content encoders/decoders ($100/each and requires a PC to run) just so they can broadcast cable from the living room to the bedroom.

Oh wait, no that was a dream world. Sorry, I'm just not seeing how wireless piracy is a big problem, especially since, by focusing on wireless piracy WITHIN the home, there's an implicit assumption that the transmitter of the content has the rights to view it in the first place... otherwise, the focus wouldn't be in-home transmission, but rather how the content got to the home in the first place...

it's not really explained, is it? (5, Interesting)

mblase (200735) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837394)

I was puzzled by this concept, myself -- surely I have the right to broadcast my cable TV signal to as many televisions or computers in my own house as I see fit?

But if we're talking about Wi-Fi, then the problem isn't just inside my house. I'm essentially empowering any Wi-Fi receiver within my broadcast range to see what I'm watching on my own system -- whether it's television, cable TV, pay-per-view, or pre-recorded home video.

Think of the potential problems. A student in a dorm room could broadcast a rented DVD to every other student in their building, a clear violation of the big "at-home use" FBI warning you see at the start of the movie. A pay-per-view sports broadcast could be sent to everyone in my apartment building. My next-door neighbor could pirate my cable TV feed just by tuning into/cracking my Wi-Fi frequency. It's not a problem if we're talking about broadcast television signals, but anything else is a major violation of copyright, essentially turning my home system into a small pirate broadcast station.

So now philips is a bad guy again? (5, Insightful)

kilgore_47 (262118) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837148)

Just when we were starting to like them for that whole red-book thing...

Oh well (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837285)

And I was about to buy a dvd player from them. Delete that from the shopping cart!

Slashdot psyche.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837413)

You forgot that Philips is the good guy only on odd days as opposed to the MPAA which releases Star Trek DVDs on even days....

Is this the same philips?..... (3, Interesting)

stretch_jc (243794) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837153)

What is going on here? Didn't Philips just try to prevent 'digital rights management? [slashdot.org]

Re:Is this the same philips?..... (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837241)

No, they were just upset someone wasnt obeying one of their rules: that time it was their labelling standards. Now its something else. Then, it just happened that their objection happened to coincide with ours. This time it doesnt.

But should DRM always exist? (3, Interesting)

thesolo (131008) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837156)

Say I have a DVD player in my computer, which is in my bedroom. But my TV is in my living room. What's the difference between buying a DVD player and putting it in my living room, or streaming the content to a wireless receiver at my TV??

Unless doing that is somehow illegal (which is unbeknowst to me), I don't see a problem with it at all. I own the media, so why does it matter if I stream it to a different TV in my own house?

This seems like an attempt to get people to pay if they want to stream the content which they purchased to another location in their own home.

Re:But should DRM always exist? (5, Insightful)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837246)

What's the difference between buying a DVD player and putting it in my living room, or streaming the content to a wireless receiver at my TV??

That depends. Am I the company that won't get to sell you the additional DVD player, or am I the company that won't get to sell you the wireless receiver?

Re:But should DRM always exist? (3, Interesting)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837294)

"This seems like an attempt to get people to pay if they want to stream the content which they purchased to another location in their own home."

Smart guy. In fact, this is exactly why they want this technology. From the article:

-----quote-----
"we can help content owners create a new business revenue model." Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them.
-----end quote-----

Re:But should DRM always exist? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837366)

This is all about HIGH DEFINITION content, not existing content like today's DVD's which are:

- standard resolution
- digital content delivered via analog signals (for all consumer level DVD players at least)

Until you have an HD set and HD dish/cable/OTA, this won't affect you.

All future HD devices will have Intel's HDCP (the HD version of DRM) embedded, complete with certificate revocation lists so that devices which are hacked can be retroactively disabled. Believe me, this won't be a trivial hack.

Welcome to the brave new world.

wrong field? (1)

trefoil (153310) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837161)

Sounds like an FCC problem to me, not Phillips.

Re:wrong field? (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837289)

Sounds like an FCC problem to me, not Phillips.

No, but that's exactly the rub.

802.11 is not regulated by the FCC. That's why everyone who wants to innovate in the Video Content delivery segment proposes sending throughout their home as some sort of 802.11b wireless signal. If the VHF or HDTV spectrum were unregulated, you'd see a whole slew of personal VHF or HDTV broadcast devices, so you wouldn't have to retrofit your television set, or build a seperate 802.11 to video translators.

Enough Already!! (3, Informative)

MantridDronemaker (541253) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837162)

Enough already! This is getting ridiculous, soon we're going to get fined or executed or something if you're watching your TV and someone who does not have a valid MSNBC license to see that programming walks in the room and happens to look at your screen.

Re:Enough Already!! (1, Troll)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837229)

Or quoting shows with friends. Or thinking about an episode in your head. Or ... the joke is that all these companies seem to think there's a line in the sand. If anyone could please tell me where that line is, I could start my crusade ...

Buy more phillips (1)

Odinson (4523) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837165)

light bulbs and pdas and cdburners and dvd changers and cell phones and universal remotes and blank cds.

What type of cdrom should I get? Why Philips of course. ATAPI is good, but philips is better.

Or am I getting carried away?

Remember, geeks recommend ALOT. Great products start with us.

Yes.. and true Geeks recommend A LOT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837344)

It's two words.. *sigh*

Why is it so difficult?

Btw... you can LOOSE the hounds on someone....
but there's no garuntee they'll LOSE the race.

Be kind... use proper grammar :(

Re:Buy more phillips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837381)

dude, that was last week. [slashdot.org] this week philips is evil. get with it!

ROI (4, Insightful)

corbettw (214229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837170)

Here's something I'd like Hollywood and their friends to think about: at some point protecting one's IP becomes more expensive than stopping possible pirating. And while the cost will be passed on to consumers, that just makes entertainment devices that much more expensive, meaning fewer of them will be sold with a lower profit margin.

The Problem with... (5, Insightful)

iGawyn (164113) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837173)

The problem with this digital rights management solution, just like all of the others, is that they cannot force people to upgrade. Although there is a certain segment of the populace that will desire to own the latest and greatest everything multimedia, and therefore trip himself into owning devices embedded with DRM, the average American won't want to spend the extra money to upgrade.

Therefore, unless you give them a major incentive, the RIAA/MPAA is foiled again. No upgrades means that all of the time they spent plotting up yet another scheme to control what we can and can't watch is ruined by consumer apathy.

If they really wanted people to upgrade, they would (a) develop a new, proprietary format, (b) stop release of all current and future products on CD/VHS/DVD, (c) release ONLY on aforementioned proprietary format. Eventually, enough people would switch to make it worth their while.

Even with this, though, people will find a way around the Digital Rights Management schemes, as they also do.

To use a famous quote, "Where there's a will, there's a way." And when it comes to copying CDs, VHS tapes, or DVDs, there is most certainly a will.

Gawyn

Re:The Problem with... (2)

bricriu (184334) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837256)

Your post kinda reads like it comes from 1997... because that new "latest and greatest multimedia" you mention is DVD. And it was the CD format in 1980-whatever.

And just as you say, we have found ways around it. But I'm still not buying a DVD player. It's not that what I want to do is "illegal" under the DMCA, it's not that it's too much trouble to get around region encoding, I just don't want to put money into the hands of DRM schmucks. So until I get a free player and know of a reliable source of pirated DVDs, I'll stick with tape.

The American public will swallow the "This is the same thing... but BETTER!" pitch over and over and over again. And don't you -- or anyone else -- forget it.

Re:The Problem with... (1)

Y B MCSE (469234) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837265)

If they really wanted people to upgrade, they would (a) develop a new, proprietary format, (b) stop release of all current and future products on CD/VHS/DVD, (c) release ONLY on aforementioned proprietary format. Eventually, enough people would switch to make it worth their while.

If they really want people to upgrade then they should have equipped their device with Windows embedded then it wouldn't work with new media and they would have legislation that protects them from making it work.

Re:The Problem with... (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837347)

shh, they'll hear you!

Next on the plate... (5, Funny)

Xenopax (238094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837174)

Keeping aliens from infringing on copyrights. Engineers will have to figure out a way to track down all the radio signals that have left Earth in the last 100 years and block them as to prevent alien beings from enjoying content they have not payed for.

This is related to the article too because phase 2 of the plan is to prevent all wireless transmissions of anything so aliens that have reached earth cannot use thier moon-transglobifiers to enjoy content they haven't paid for. The aliens will just have to rent a house and order cable like everyone else.

got DIVX (the Circuit City variety) (1)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837176)

"Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them."

This sounds so similar to articles about Circuit City's DIVX technology it's scary. However, since that failed miserably, one can only hope that this will too. :)

Surrounded by idiots.... (3, Insightful)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837180)

At what point will some create an analogy quick reference card for these people. This is so stupid I may have a stroke. How is this ANY different from sneaker netting a VHS tape? I know its technically a broadcast, but from a REALISTIC standpoint? Big deal, my neighbor just MIGHT be able to pick it up, or he could just ask to borrow a videotape.

Apoplexy now!

This will eventually have to be regulated... (3, Insightful)

tommck (69750) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837181)

Does anyone else remember when AT&T (in the old monopoly days) used to charge people for each telephone in the house??

This certainly seems analogous to me. How can they justify this. It is effectively telling me what I'm allowed to do inside my own house!

That's crap.

T

Re:This will eventually have to be regulated... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837193)

Does anyone else remember when AT&T (in the old monopoly days) used to charge people for each telephone in the house??

Not all of us are that old, geezer.

Re:This will eventually have to be regulated... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837284)

You still pay per TV, right? Same idea- multiple hand/tv sets are more valuable to you, so you should pay more. I guess the cable folk have better lobbyists.

It is effectively telling me what I'm allowed to do inside my own house!
My gripe exactly! I've got three women tied up in the basement, and now someones going to tell me I can't use them as sex slaves anymore? That's crap.

LOL. Yeah. (0, Offtopic)

Unknown Poltroon (31628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837299)

My mom bought the company phone from them, with the .10 cent a month complete repair pacakge back in 1960 something. She had it for 30 years or so, it was really funny seeing the phone guy come out to change the phone cable when the dog ate it. It got to the point after this had happended for the 3-4th time, where he just gave us 2-3 cables for the phone. We wouldnt have bothered, except well, since we weren't allowed to have those other 6 phones plugged in, well then, they can dam well come out here and fix this one. The phone finaly died when the house caught fire.

*moment of silence for the death of a noble communications device*

Re:This will eventually have to be regulated... (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837370)

How can they justify this. It is effectively telling me what I'm allowed to do inside my own house!

Why do they need to justify this? They're putting a product on the market, and you can choose to buy or not buy it.

Re:This will eventually have to be regulated... (1, Offtopic)

theCoder (23772) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837416)

I don't remember (too young), but we used to have a phone with no ringer. Apparently, the phone company used to call their customers and test the voltage used by the phones for ringing (or something like that) to tell how many phones were in use. The phone still worked, it just didn't ring. Gotta love that circumvention technology!

I don't remember what happened to the phone. Either it finally broke and we got rid of it, or it's sitting somewhere unused since we don't have any phone jacks that support it (it's cord looks like a power cord except it has 4 prongs).

gosh (1)

waspleg (316038) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837191)

and i thought they were supposed to be the good guys after that bit about evil copy protected cds ;/

why though? (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837192)

I can see the point of a wireless computer network, especially if you are using handheld devices or laptops. What I really don't see the need for is basically stationary devices needing wireless connections. Even most apartments have cable connections already accessable from any point in the room or allow you to make the changes to do that. If you are super neat and tidy and you had seeing any sort of cabling running around, I am sorry for you.

I just don't see the justification for all the work (as far as rights go on "redistributing" this) and I really don't see the necessity of investing large amounts of money into something that is ridiculous.

Use the cable line. It isn't that big of a deal. Unless you have a room that you want to put the TV in the middle of the room I don't see the feasability of this.

Here we go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837195)

Now the MPAA and Philips can get pissed again when somebody breaks this feble encryption scheme they're trying to cook up. DeCSS for TV? I wouldn't be surprised.

Pretty fucking idiotic. (1, Troll)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837196)

Basically, what Philips wants to do is prevent you from watching something you've recorded on one device in your home in another room (presumably on another device) in your home. In the analog world, this is tantamount to shooting you if you're caught carrying a VHS tape from one VCR to another.

Once Hollywood creates something worth stealing, they should start worrying about copy protection.

- A.P.

Re:Pretty fucking idiotic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837217)

No, in the analog world, all VCRs would have different-sized tape slots from each other and you could only use tapes that matched your particular VCR. If you recorded something on one VCR, it could only be watched on that VCR because the tape wouldn't work anywhere else.

Talking about shooting people is just dumb.

Note.. (2)

AnalogBoy (51094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837201)

This is the same phillips, I believe, that just a few short days ago was championed for saying that copy-proofing CD's was against the logo rules.. I love how fast this community can change its mind about someone, based soley on them attempting to protect their interests.

If you want to see a place where other peoples intellectual products belong to the community, move to a communist country. (Not that there are/were ever any truly successful communist countries, in the true sense of the word communist..). I still prefer capitalism.

Re:Note.. (3, Informative)

arkanes (521690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837262)

Well, there aren't any successfull capitalist countries, either, in the true sense of the word capitalist. So get off your high horse.

You may now finish patting yourself on the back for pointing out a non-existent hypocracy amongst slashdot readership.

Re:Note.. (2)

curunir (98273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837411)

This is the same phillips, I believe, that just a few short days ago was championed for saying that copy-proofing CD's was against the logo rules.. I love how fast this community can change its mind about someone, based soley on them attempting to protect their interests.

When your kid makes the honor role, you support them. When they plow the family station wagon into a telephone pole, you get mad. Same kid, but it's the actions that we react to. If you want to point out a double standard, point out that we never give MS credit on the rare occasions when they do something good.

If you want to see a place where other peoples intellectual products belong to the community, move to a communist country. (Not that there are/were ever any truly successful communist countries, in the true sense of the word communist..). I still prefer capitalism.

Hmmm...I'll take Democracy over Capitalism. Remember, Communism was a fusion of a type of government and an economic system. In America, we have a type of government which (theoretically) keeps checks on our economic system, but is a seperate entity. DRM is the perfect example of where the checking should occur (by affirming fair use, etc). The idea that We have rights is pretty fundamental to the principles of our democracy, but seems laughable to your average corporation/content syndicate.

Is this the same Philips? (1)

owlmeat (197799) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837212)

That banned the use of the CD trademark on CDs that were copy-protected? Makes you wonder...

Oops.. (-1, Offtopic)

jdrogers (93806) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837214)

Awe.. Did somebody miss a tag when posting?

DRM == defect (4, Insightful)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837218)

One existing specification, called Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP), defines a cryptographic protocol for safeguarding audio/video entertainment content against illegal copying, intercepting and tampering as it traverses high-performance digital buses, such as the IEEE1394 standard.

Once again, we are shown that digital rights management hardware is by definition defective. They seem to think their only protection from profit stealing pirates (gasp! seeing stuff on another TV?) is to make broken equipment.

I, for one, will be voting with my wallet. F*** phillips, and anyone who follows them. I thought the hardware guys where on the side of logic and fair use...

Maybe I'll write to them and tell them that I won't buy crippled equipment from them that purposely interferes with radio transmissions- and I think the FCC would also take issue with this.

Buy Now or Pay Later... (5, Interesting)

Iguanaphobic (31670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837224)

Is it just me or is now a really good time to start buying uncrippled hardware? I've noticed that the current generation of devices (PVR, MP3 Players, DVD+RW, CD-RW, Hard Drives etc.) do not have DRM technology included. I've also noticed that the next generation of hardware will have this technology included, possibly at gunpoint by the content providers. I will be buying lot's of tech soon to avoid the DRM cripples that are due in all our hardware. I will also be closely monitoring the computer situation to buy my next machine just before they encrypt the BIOS and only allow DRM enabled operating systems to run on these systems. If you don't think this will happen, you have learned nothing from 100 years of corporate behaviour. If they can, they will. Usually just because they can.

Re:Buy Now or Pay Later... (2)

Refrag (145266) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837397)

Most MP3 players are SDMI compliant which means they have DRM built-in. The iPod does not.

greedy bastards! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837230)

Copy once/copy never? Charge for every viewing? Charge for every node in your home? Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em till they bleed and die. Sheesh! My old VCR looks better all the time- tape a program, then watch it as many times as I want for free. Sheeesh.

When did phillips become a friend of Open? (1)

actappan (144541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837231)

This is the second pro-open standard, seemingly anti copyright "thing" that phillips has come up with in the past couple weeks. Wow.

Another victory for geeks' rights (1, Insightful)

uncle isaac (542895) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837234)

The responses from many members of our community to this sort of development is as predictable as it is passionate: "how can they dare to take away our rights to the content we pay for?" Well, the truth of the matter is a little bit more complicated. Let's take a look at what Phillips and the IP holders are trying to do here before we jump to any conclusions.

Basically, the large media companies want control over their content because they want to "keep the honest people honest." Though this sounds very Big Brotherish in nature, keep in mind the fact that if 80%, 90%, or 100% of the population could make unlimited, perfect copies of digital media to share with their friends, it would likely put the entire industry out of business.

The part of DRM that many people here miss is that it is always breakable. And we geeks are the ones who will always have access to the knowledge, technology, and software that allows us to circumvent these schemes. And you may be surprised to hear it, but the media companies really don't care whether or not a few of us slashdot geeks, living in our parents' basements, can copy a DVD or decrypt a wireless feed from our satellite system. They care about tools, like DeCSS, that could potentially be used by millions of Windows-using lusers to rip them off, and that is the only reason why they cared enough to sue 2600 into oblivion.

So, this is yet another area in which we can enjoy our superiority to average non-geeks. While they "pay per play" on their new HDTV sets and are forced to pay for content, we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labor. We've worked hard for this right, and there's nothing "they" can do to take it away from us. We deserve it.

-Isaac

Re:Another victory for geeks' rights (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837271)

>it would likely put the entire industry out of business

You talk about it like it's a bad thing. I was wondering if content producers have entirely different economies in their heads. Ie, when push comes to shove, and we have to pay for as much as we're consuming, is Hollywood truely a viable business given the percieved amount of revenue-generating touchpoints the future holds for entertainment consumers?

Re:Another victory for geeks' rights (3, Insightful)

Iguanaphobic (31670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837308)

So, this is yet another area in which we can enjoy our superiority to average non-geeks. While they "pay per play" on their new HDTV sets and are forced to pay for content, we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labor. We've worked hard for this right, and there's nothing "they" can do to take it away from us. We deserve it.

Until they start to cripple the computer hardware that your tools run on. Encrypt the BIOS, only allow DRM enabled OS's to access hardware, legislate open and free alternatives away as "enabling" devices that cost producers their IP. Forget fair use, that is already history. Welcome to the future, where you either work for a corporation or you're part of the problem. Get used to it!

Re:Another victory for geeks' rights (3, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837332)

it would likely put the entire industry out of business.

You mean just like Libraries put the publishing industry out of business? (If millions of people can borrow books *for free*, why would they ever pay for them?)

Or the radio station will put live performers out of business? (Why would *ANYONE* pay to see a live performance, when they can listen to it for free over the airwaves?)

Or the home VCR put the movie industry out of business? (Why would anyone pay $5.00 at a movie theatre when they can watch it at home?)

This argument has been used for decades, (every time a new technology comes out, IIRC) and so far it's proven false every time. Stop crying wolf, nobody's buying it.

Wireless video (2, Insightful)

peel (242881) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837250)

I, as have many others, have been doing this for years. Back in the day when most households only had one VCR, there was a little gizmo called the rabbit that allowed you to watch the VCR on multiple TV's. More recently I picked up a little device from SmartHome that allows me to send audio visual signals through walls using a 2.4 Ghz signal. VIOLA! Wireless rebroadcasting of recorded shows. I have been watching taped recordings of shows as well as dvds on more than one tv in my house for some time now, I guess because there is no computer involved it's all ok. 2.4Ghz is so 1990s. -peel

Computers never mkae mestooks. - Atari 800

Who really wants to pay? (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837252)

The question is really going to become .. are Titus and Rugrats and Roswell really worth it once we're /forced/ to actually not bend the rules? Does anyone else wonder if consumers and content creators have entirely different economies in their heads?

the make-sure-people-can't-use-it dept. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837263)

You mean not closing your tags?

Imagine (2)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837264)

Image a world where you can channelsurf what your neighbors are watching, live or recorded. Maybe have a "private" setting for what you don't want others to see. That would be a hell of a P2P type network.

Makes one think...

-Pete

Re:Imagine (2)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837288)

>Image a world where you can channelsurf what your neighbors are watching

"Honey, they're watching the history channel again, those sick perverts! That's it, I'm getting my hedge trimmer back from them first thing tommorow .... "

49th post (-1, Offtopic)

First_In_Hell (549585) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837283)

49th post i will be el numero uno someday. i just have to squeeze harder............ bowels hurt...

Re:49th post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837321)

El mensaje . . . primero!

This is the work of the devil... (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837286)

Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them.

Every time their content is redistributed within the home? So, to compare with the present, they want to charge me to not only buy or rent the video, but also each time I play it? This is just pure evil.

One thing's for sure: if this isn't extremely cheap, ie $0.05 for each replay or something like that, it will never work, because "content" just isn't that important. I'll just go outside and play fetch with the dog, or have people over for a BBQ. I'm sure most other sane people feel the same way.

Imagine! (2)

Refrag (145266) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837290)

Imagine being able to watch the same show on multiple TVs inside your house without paying extra for each additional TV. People that do that should be shot! Do they have no ethics?

Moot....all moot.... (3, Insightful)

CDWert (450988) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837291)

This is mostly a moot point, until a TV can be so integrted as not to need an external source in this is all moot. The industry will not for 100 years agree on a standard for that. The signal leaves whatever device you are playing from AND MUST be understood by your common average dumb TV set, NTSC, PAL what have you.

NOW that said that is the weak link and an Ideal place to transmit from or encode to an alternative Digital Medium, I just got Mplayer encoding right, and guess what was horking all kinds of signals off line, my 300 gig box is just about ready to start filling up with TV shows, movies, races,etc. I want, as soon as I can get the damm remote working with this box.

Because of the above set up I dug out an OLD (15 year plus TV transmitter, I had , you hook it up and Channel 3 gets vid audio. Im too lazy to wire the upstairs and may be moving soon, so my 32" tv in the bedroom gets REBROADCASTED signaal. They sell these things on ebay for 30 bucks, they work like a charm, you could make your own with 1/3 of that in parts, no IC , all coils trimmers and pots.

My computer has a tuner card as well, and antenna and I can catch anything I want off my "TIVO KILLER" EITHER via the network, or antenna, I would LOVE to put a box in my trunk and pump over 802.1b so my kids can watch flciks on drives, upload a playlist the night before from my computer in the house to my car in the drive. (I do plan on doing this with my MP3's)

Sooooooo.....
As long as a TV can understand the signal there is NO possible way (at present) to keep that signal from being rebroadcasted. With TONS of MONEY being pouredinto this sort of DRM research its amazing our TV sets dont cost $3000 !

Why is 802.11 different from the Rabbit? (5, Insightful)

og_sh0x (520297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837297)

Back in the 80s it was perfectly legal to use the wireless Rabbit (remember those?) to transmit TV signals from the living room to the bedroom. This went for broadcast, rented movies, etc. Heck, you can even legally transmit on the FM 88-108 MHz band as long as it follows FCC Part 15 (no external antenna, and under a certain wattage... 100mw I think). Considering that these allowances were made for home-based Fair Use usage, I would consider this a clear-cut violation of Fair Use rights just like copy protected CDs. If you want to make *public* broadcast over 802.11 illegal... Well it already is. Just like it would have been illegal to use the Rabbit back in the 80s to re-transmit cable for the whole neighborhood.

Fools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837314)

And now the idiots are waisting time and money trying to develop networks that will
allow for "safeguarding audio/video entertainment content against illegal copying, intercepting and tampering" - don't they understand that people will just find some other way to do this?

Occam's (Ockham) razor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837317)

Is this simply a coincidence?

"For its part, Cisco released last fall Open Conditional Content Access Management (Occam), an end-to-end content encryption and access control technology specification, designed for implementation in hardware for interactive television and portable network devices."

Occams razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" or "Pluralities should not be posited without necessity." Source: Occam's razor [wikipedia.com]

- GoatBeard

Hopefully the Moxie will be DRM free (1)

joeflies (529536) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837323)

This device shown at CES promises to be a PVR (with 1394 support), Internet Gateway, DVD player, Sat/Cable box, MP3/CD jukebox AND a wireless multi-room transmission unit. It doesn't mention DRM but does state that DVD's won't play wirelessly.

If that's the only catch, I have no problem with it. It's a lot easier to buy an extra $99 dvd player than it is to wire coax/s-vid/RCA cables to the rest of my house.

Moxi [moxi.com]

Re:Hopefully the Moxie will be DRM free (1)

UUronl (415903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837352)

Yeah, I was scanning this to see if anyone had brought up Moxi. Let's hope this thing doesn't get mired in DRM issues - it looks really nice. I also saw that the new Escient systems are making use of 802.11a for inhome distribution of content.

Retransmitting my cable shows to my PDA (1)

Drog (114101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837334)

I wonder what the laws will say in the future, once we have 3G, about streaming our home cable shows wirelessly to our PDA's? If you're paying for the cable, and you're not sharing it with anyone, hopefully this would be legal. Imagine being able to watch PayTV on your PocketPC while waiting for your flight at the airport.

Drog

Not Copyright protection... Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837336)

This is to protect you from having other people see all the p0rn you watch using a wireless connection... or even worse your own home movies of amateur p0rn... peeping tom via wireless eavesdropping... that's funny!!!

I've got to admit... (0, Offtopic)

greenfly (40953) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837338)

it's getting better all the time.

Not a thief - but might become one (3, Interesting)

medcalf (68293) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837340)

The thing that strikes me about all of the attempts that I have seen to implement DRM, is that they all work on the principle that the consumer is a thief. If the content owners keep making this argument, and implementing it in hardware, it will actually spawn rampant thievery. After all, today I buy CDs (and rip them to MP3s immediately) and DVDs. If I cannot play a CD in my computer, I'll get it from a pirate online so that I can listen to it. How long, then, until I decide to skip the step of buying the CD in the first place? And it will be the same with movies at some point, I'm certain.

-jeff

Whatever (1)

kawlyn (154590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837342)

I guess I'll just have to buy my cheap wireless gear in Chinatown. Along with my region free DVD player and VCD movies.

And if all the manufacturers get together with the DRM hard drives, and chips etc... I'll be buying knock-off chips and low capacity hard drives.

AAARRRGGHH! You CAN'T WIN! (2)

revscat (35618) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837346)

Dear executive bigwig,

This letter is a plea for you to give up your insane obsession with rights management. YOU. JUST. CAIN'T. DO. IT. As the daily march of new technologies makes it easier and easier to transmit and transport data in various forms, it becomes obvious that attempts to stop this from happening are doomed to failure. Despite the successful destruction of the free-wheeling Napster, the trading of "illegal" materials continues, largely unabated.

The only way this will be stopped is with the propogation of police powers not seen out side of "1984" by George Orwell. There are simply too many channels available -- both on and off the Internet -- for transmitting this data. Stopping it will require buy-in from the community in toto, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Plus you guys have really come across as assholes recently, y'know?

- Rev.

It's coming, folks, it's coming. (2)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837348)

One day, you will be able to buy a DVD that forces you to sit through 15 minutes of previews and advertisements before you get to your movie. And it will be illegal to own a DVD player that will simply skip that crap and let you view the flick. It's coming, folks, it's coming.

Useless protocol, RF contradictions (3, Interesting)

letxa2000 (215841) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837349)

If I read this correctly they now want to somehow implement copyright protection mesaures at the protocol level? So now not only will companies and courts have control over what I transmit, the protocol will decide whether or not I can transmit? A protocol that prevents use is a protocol that won't be used.

It also seems to be a contradiction. DirectTV can transmit from their satellite to almost every square foot of North America, but if someone grabs that signal on their private property and decodes it then the person who received it is legally responsible, not DirectTV. But here, for some reason, they believe it is necessary for the sender to have some kind of permission to transmit with a range of a few hundred feet?

Who even cares? I suspect DirectTV provides a lot more free content to pirates than neighbors transmitting via RF do or will.

Everyone thought that Internet was great, that the new economy was great, and that all this communication and information would enlighten and unite the world. That was until companies started realizing exactly what that meant...

Inside? (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837354)

So I can't transmit a TV signal from my bedroom, down the hall, and to my kitchen? Oh well, I'll just put an antana outside my bedroom window, transmit it outside, to my kitchen window, they didn't say anything bout that. Then again, I could just run coax like everyone else suggested, but thats just too simple.

buyer beware (1)

nege (263655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837380)

My first impression (because IAAG "I am a geek") is, "hey, if you dont want people to rebroadcast it, dont broadcast it in the first place".

Shooting Themselves in the Foot (3, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837382)

Scenario 1: Ubiquitous wireless home networking. I can get up from the football game and there is a networked screen in the bathroom, etc... In fact, I think somebody did a commercial that illustrated that vision.

Scenario 2: I can't network anything without paying twice for content I've already bought, and the devices that do it cost more because they have to support real-time encryption. Because of this, I choose not to buy the devices and simply do the "bathroom and snack rush" during commercials.

This just makes no sense. Once the content is in the home, why should they care how many outlets it comes out of? This is like the electric company charging me more for installing a new socket, even though I'm using the same number of kilowatt-hours.

Ordinarily I dismiss some of the things I see on /. as AIP/paranoia, but I have to concede to the /. crowd that controls like this for intrahome networking violate fair use, and probably a number of other things.

Holy paranoia, Batman! (2)

mystery_bowler (472698) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837386)

Are people like Phillips automatically assuming that the majority of the public is going to rip them off?

It doesn't take a genius to steal cable but, really, what is the percentage of people who legitimately pay for cable rather than steal it? I'd be willing to better the overwhelming majority pay for it.

And it's not as if the customer hasn't paid for the content here. So what if Joe Consumer broadcasts the Superbowl via wireless to the TV in his bathroom? If Joe Consumer is a paying customer, it shouldn't matter.

The vast majority still pay for their content. Each time I hear a story like this, I get the feeling that many large companies are simply fighting against imaginary enemies.

Just know... (-1)

LOTR Troll (544929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837396)

I hate the whole lot of yeh.

Cost (2)

Detritus (11846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837408)

This scheme appears to add a lot of hardware and complexity to any consumer electronics equipment that supports it. What is the benefit for the end user? Nothing that I can see. In fact, the end user is saddled with new and annoying restrictions on how content can be viewed. When will these idiots realize that their content is not that valuable? We aren't talking about a video conference of the National Security Council.

Funny Story, may or may not be true (1)

DrMaurer (64120) | more than 12 years ago | (#2837414)

This may or may not be true, so . . .

When the first pre-recorded format was shown to Disney executives (60s?), they were worried that it would be able to be played over and over and over again.

Some engineers worked that out. It could be played once and would have to be "unlocked". They then showed it to executives, but then they had yet another problem.

How could they be sure that only one person was watching the film?

The idea was canned, until, of course, later . . . now we've got this same stuff worried about.

Oh well.

Like I said, possibly not true, I can find no corroboration on the 'net, but I didn't really look hard.

Nightmares! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2837417)

[Color Scheme]
Name=Xp2
activeBackground=0,86,228
activeBlend=2,107,254
activeForeground=255,255,255
activeTitleBtnBg=229,87,44
alternateBackground=240,240,240
background=248,246,230
buttonBackground=242,242,237
buttonForeground=0,0,0
contrast=7
foreground=0,0,0
inactiveBackground=72,110,176
inactiveBlend=78,125,194
inactiveForeground=195,195,195
inactiveTitleBtnBg=106,114,160
linkColor=0,0,192
selectBackground=49,106,197
selectForeground=255,255,255
visitedLinkColor=128,0,128
windowBackground=255,255,255
windowForeground=0,0,0
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?