Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Your Rights Online

HBO/Cinemax Cut Off Recording of On-Demand Programs 38

Posted by michael from the value-added-service dept.
Control Group writes "Arstechnica has an article up explaining that HBO and Cinemax are poised to prevent recording of on-demand programming, even via analog outputs, on 'compliant digital recording devices' (specifically, digital recorders meeting the Content Generation Management System for Analog, or CGMS-A, specification). HBO claims that since you can get the programming on demand, you don't need to time shift, so don't need to make even one personal copy. And, since the FCC has so far decided not to regulate subscription video-on-demand (SVOD), this is legal: while normal, linear cable comes with the right to time-shift, SVOD does not. Of course, there's nothing preventing a sufficiently determined person from using a non-CGMS-A-compliant device, so odds seem good that this will only inconvenience otherwise-legitimate customers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HBO/Cinemax Cut Off Recording of On-Demand Programs More

HBO/Cinemax Cut Off Recording of On-Demand Programs

Comments Filter:
  • That's too bad. The programming HBO puts out is of such high quality it would've been nice to think that their attitude towards their audience was similarly above the others in the industry. Apparently not.

    • Re:HBO just like everyone else (Score:4, Informative)

      by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @06:07PM (#10569977) Homepage
      That's too bad. The programming HBO puts out is of such high quality it would've been nice to think that their attitude towards their
      audience was similarly above the others in the industry. Apparently not.
      Emphasis added
      I think you misunderstand your role in the food chain.
      You are not audience, nor consumer, nor customer. You are product.
      The consumer is the corporation that buys advertising. The vendor is the television network (HBO in this case) and the thing that the vendor is selling to the customer is advertisement views.
      Personally, I don't think there's anything morally right or wrong about this arrangement, as long as everyone understands the terms of the deal. Where I think it turns deceptive is when the product gets named things like "consumer" or "audience." At least when you're called a "viewer" there's ambiguity about your role (are you viewing the program or the ads? I don't know how you think of your role, but I can tell you how the networks describe you to their customers, viewer.)

      Oh, and just to anticipate the obvious reply:
      But it's (Cable/DBS/Pay-Per-View/VOD) programming, it's not advertiser-supported!
      Bunk. Are there commercials before or after the show? Is there product-placement within the show? Are there tie-in promotions between the show and products, either in the show's own ads or in the products' ads?
      Did you really think that your couple of dollars is enough that they'd produce a show just for your benefit?
      • It's HBO, it really isn't advertiser-supported.

        Bunk. Are there commercials before or after the show?

        Only for other HBO shows. They don't sell ads.

        Is there product-placement within the show? Are there tie-in promotions between the show and products, either in the show's own ads or in the products' ads?

        I'd be surprised if there was, but I don't watch enough HBO to be sure.
      • I was going to waste a mod point, but then i thought i'd respond personally. I think you are totally correct with most television stations, except for HBO and the like. In this case, you really are the consumer, or partially the consumer.

        I think you have brought up a good point, that with the current state of advertising invading all forms of entertainment, that we can no longer see ourselves as the only consumer in the equation, or that that is our only role in this economic transaction.

      • Umm...no there are no commercials at all on HBO and Cinemax...except those for upcoming features.
    • Vote with your wallet. If they want to use DRM crap, teach them a lesson by buying movies elsewhere. My attitude is simple: treat me as a valued customer, or I'm on down the road to patronize your competition.

  • Or ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zangdesign ( 462534 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:01PM (#10569286) Journal
    you could just drop the service, ya know. If enough people did it, they might change their minds.

    Nothing speaks louder to a corporation than the sucking sound of revenues being lost.

    • Re:Or ... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To get the package that comes with HBO and all the other big networks on digital cable around here, it ends up costing about $110/mo.

      There is NOTHING on cable worth paying almost $1,400 per year for.

      I disconnectd my cable a year ago and will never go back.

  • Copyright Lessons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Krieger ( 7750 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:14PM (#10569413) Homepage
    When are they going to learn? A truly dedicated person can always make a copy of it.

    I agree that VOD does make a compelling case for not needing to time shift. Unless you consider that many people time-shift and then watch things again and again if they like them. Typically VOD services have movies or shows available for a proscribed period of time and then remove them, thus making them no longer available. If, once a program was added to a VOD lineup, it never left they would have an ultimately compelling case. If I could *always* access a movie or show as long as I was subscribed to VOD, I would have no need to time-shift.

    Having had both a DVR and VOD, I find convienance in both. They're both great tools. But DVRs are nice that if you really want to you can archive a show, broadcast, or movie and watch it again later.

    I think they miss the point that people are willing to pay for something if it is useful, aka VOD over having to tape and timeshift. But people are not willing to be held hostage for these things, we don't want to pay the exorbitant rates of PPV movies. Witness that you can have Netflix for $20 a month, VOD for cable + Premium channel costs.

    Most people only have so much money to spend. And it gets spent on those items that are price appropriately. I am still astounded that DVDs seem to be reasonably priced, especially when compared to CDs. A movie that took $100 million to produce for $19.99 or a CD that couldn't have cost more then $500,000 to produce (if you don't count artist salaries, etc... since you know... they're actually supposed to get royalties from CDs.

    • Re:Copyright Lessons (Score:4, Interesting)

      by orangesquid ( 79734 ) <orangesquid@nOspaM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:39PM (#10569659) Homepage Journal
      If I am able to do the following:
      1: Tape a program and watch it later
      2: Watch it multiple times with no additional charge
      3: Pull out and process frames and streams to use
      4: View program at any time
      5: Compare two parts of the same program to see how they differ, by viewing them side-by-side
      6: Compare parts of different programs in the same manner

      Then I might consider that the change is OK. But, I want my simultaneously-aired programs, re-runs, screen captures, late-night viewing, and side-by-side comparison... and, in some professions (yes, I know this deviates from the consumer world, which is the focus here), these types of tasks are a necessity.
      • 2: Watch it multiple times with no additional charge

        I think that's the part they're really worried about. You're already (so I hear, haven't seen the legal documentation) expected to only watch a show once if you time-, media-, or location-shift it. However, I do remember reading the ruling about having the right to do the above (shift) and I didn't see any mention of "unless it's provided to you conveniently enough that this doesn't matter" anywhere in the text. Besides, there are other reasons for allow

        • by archiving, we're protecting our side of the deal (they get exclusive control for N years, we get the content free after that period.)

          This relationship blows up when N is made a function of the current year.

          it's been argued that if [Hollywood studios] were to get exactly what they wanted, they'd suddenly find that they couldn't make derivative works of anything (consider how often derivative works have been made from classic stories, particularly by Disney) -- when they run out of original material

          • Agreed. Copyright extensions should never have been allowed (obvious to most of the crowd here) -- it's a form of copyright violation, effectively asserting a copyright when you have no right to (pretty much on the same scale as me going around deciding to be given copyright over random works in the public domain, or under someone else's control) -- they were only given the copyright in the first place because, as part of the deal, it ended. That's a contract we shouldn't have revised in their favor, it ste
    • I think you've touched on what the megacorps don't get: their whole marketing/sales paradigm is rapidly becoming outmoded.

      If you own a mall and play music from the speakers in the mall, you have to pay ASCAP and/or BMI blanket fees to cover royalties for the publishers and artists. It's not a ton of money -- not so much that management is tempted to cheat. It's just not worth the hassle. The same kind of thing is going to have to happen in this digital age, or the whole media economy is going to choke

    • Re:Copyright Lessons (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:21PM (#10570529) Homepage
      I agree that VOD does make a compelling case for not needing to time shift.

      You have it all backwards. No one need make ANY case for time sjifting, much less a "compelling" one. Time shifting falls within fair use. It is not an infringment of copyright. Therefore no one has any right to do squat when you proceed to make that copy regardless of their wishes.

      This whole issue is over dumb-ass CGMS-A compliant devices that deactivate their own recording capability. You simply need to aviod CGMS-A compliant devices, or plug in a second recorder, and tape it all you like.

      -
      • I don't disagree with you. Fair use, which is a judicially granted right not a legislatively granted one, allows time shifting. I'm all for it. Unfortunately other laws and unelected commisions are able to pass bureaucratic restrictions on things relating to copyright that are bypassing fair use. Specifically everyone's favorite the DMCA, Broadcast flag, etc.

        We should be more worried about fighting those and ensuring that they are repealed, removed, etc, or have very healthy and clearly defined fair use pr

  • What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @05:26PM (#10569525) Journal
    If someone really wants to get the material for free, it's still not that hard to do.

    This won't stop people from borrowing DVDs from friends and burning copies. Copy protection can be foiled.

    This won't stop you from using a TV tuner card, VCR, or TiVo to record the new episodes - or any repeats - on their first runs.

    Hell, if you've got Bittorrent, you could download the entire runs of "The Sopranos," "Sex and the City," "Six Feet Under," and any other HBO show that tickles your fancy in a few days or weeks.

    This blocks one way to pirate, yes. It won't do much in the scheme of things, though.

    • This won't stop you from using a TV tuner card, VCR, or TiVo to record the new episodes - or any repeats - on their first runs.

      Yes it will. Any VCR sold in the United States less than 6 years ago is required by law to respect Macrovision brand fair use denial methods. TiVo brand DVRs also respect Macrovision brand fair use denial methods.

  • Is the regarding PPV shows? I'm not aware of any HBO or showtime "on demand" unless they are the ones who acutally run the PPV services?

    • Re:Define on demand. (Score:2, Informative)

      by maxume ( 22995 )
      Some cable operators are offering literal 'on demand' programming, where you pay the monthly fee, and then you can select a movie, show, etc to watch using the remote for your digital cable box. It is way beyond ppv. The ones that I have seen allow something like three shows to be selected, pause, fast forward, rewind. Pretty slick. The video quality isn't everything it could be though. BUD 4 eva.

  • I just cancelled (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've been a subscriber to HBO for more than 10 years and to HBO on-demand since it became available a year or two ago. I've also been a long-term Showtime subscriber. They have gotten plenty of cash from me and I've gotten plenty of value from their _original_ shows and sports.

    I use mythtv to record both HBO and HBO on-demand content. I've never shared a show with anybody.

    I just cancelled HBO and HBO on-demand and sent feedback to HBO and my local cable company to let them know why.

    HBO can do whatever
    • I don't have HBO (or cable for that matter) but I'd like to thank you for taking a stand against them for this kind of idiotic behavior.
    • In this case they don't even need to crack it because there is legal pre-CGMS-A equipment readily available

      Unfortunately they will be using Macrovision on the composite outputs, so your point isn't quite accurate.

      And there are damn few component recorders available.

      (I just implemented CGMS/A on a not to be named hardware platform, so I have some personal knowledge in this field) :)
      • Lame replying to my own message, but I thought I'd share another tidbit.

        VOD (on Comcast at least, and for now) is not encrypted, so if you have the equipment and a clue, you can pull the sream and do whatever you want with it, including transcoding and writing to DVD in HD. You just use your cable box to select and run the program you want recorded, find the chanel/PID, restart and record away. Screw those copy protection touting twits!

        If you don't want to pay for VOD, you can watch what your neighbors ar
      • If "they" can look at our CRTs remotely, then "we" have an even better chance of snagging video from our CRT based TVs just as easily.

        or...

        We can just reverse engineer an LCD display and tap the digital signal that is UNENCODED to save it to a file which can be converted to whatever format we want.

        or...

        There are these old things called camcorders. If we're desperate enough to have a copy, there is always the analog hole that they can't close; camcorder in front of TV.

        There are tons of ways around this

  • Oh, okay then (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 )
    Are they legally required to continue providing any on-demand programming they ever release, forever, even after my subscription ends, since I may have "time shifted" some video otherwise? I mean hey, if I get a free unlimited library of movies, even one that I can only watch each item once from, I'm fine with that. That's exactly what they're saying they'll do, right?
  • I think 'OnDemand' is a huge rip-off anyway. Nothing to see here..move on.
  • I am going to boycott Colgate until they pull thier heads outta thier arses and realize people want to copy tubes of toothpaste for moroe than one use. This brushing on demand one-use policy is rediculous. I am switching to baking soda until they realize they can't do this. C'mon slashdotters, ARE YA WITH ME? Together we can take down the virtual monopoly Colgate has on the personal hygiene market.
    You are either with me or against me. If you harbor Colgate in your homes, you are as guilty as Colgate themsel

  • Not too concerned personally (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dnight ( 153296 ) <dnight@lakkaCHEETAHdoo.com minus cat> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @07:46PM (#10570740)

    I dropped all my movie channels, get the movies sooner through Netflix and wait a year for the HBO specific shows I like to watch to come out on DVD.

    The fact it reduces their profits is just a side benefit. ;)

    • Usually you want to support those who make content that you enjoy, not make it harder for them to make it.

      You have a very confused relationship with HBO, you seem to hate them but want their content. If everyone hates them too much then they don't make the content and then you miss out.

      However, it is your right tovote with your money.. If VOD is not valuable enough to you then waiting and getting it through Netflix (who recently lowered their price to 17.99 for 3) then VOD will have to adjust its price to

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close