'helping the DTV transition" seems like a stretch -- hunting for a 'news peg.'

But, exactly what "right" would this infringe on? 

And, was this right granted by God or Satan (arguably both create human rights) or is it one granted by government (a civil right).  And, could you point me to the definitive link where this right is specified?

I think you might find that you have a limited right to view content through a MVPD, and sometimes, you have the right to store that content, although in many cases this is actually more rights than granted by the distributor to the MVPD.

Want to hear a fun one?  A nieghbor of mine without any IT experience, using only an Internet connection, has replaced WindowsXP on his laptop, first with obutu, then SUSE Linux.  He saw the new Indiana Jones movie (I didn't ask if it was a camcorder version) less than 10 days after release.  And, he hasn't paid for anything except his share of my 1.8 mb/sec Internet connection.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Jun 25, 2008 8:43 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies

"MPAA says these studios want to release their movies to multichannel
video programming distributors (MVPDs) "significantly earlier and prior
to DVD release"-although the trade groups' filing won't say exactly how
much sooner.
...

"MPAA argues that, in addition to getting first-run movies to the public
sooner, giving movie studios a break on this issue could also aid the
DTV transition. The enhanced service "will encourage the purchase of
HDTV sets by consumers, and thereby ensure that a greater number of
citizens have the necessary equipment to receive broadcast digital
programming by February 17, 2009.""

--------------------

I fail to see how it will help the DTV transition when the release is to MVPDs.  Someone care to explain?  If it does anything, it seems it would only draw people away from OTA to MVPD.

The problem I see is that MPAA wants consumers to give up their rights so that the associates can enhance their business.  Isn't the government (FCC in this case) supposed to protect the rights of the citizen?

Dan