I suspect they will do something like that.  Someday.

It's something to keep in mind if you are buying a Vista (or MCE edition version of XP) with the idea of using it for time-shifting.  Come to think of it, just why would you buy such a Windows box if you weren't interested in recording content from time to time?

Since I record entire transport streams all the time with my computer(s) and MyHD, this would lead me to consider at the time of buying a new box, not to consider Vista.  I guess I will have to borrow somebody's MCE/Vista box, and somebody else's 8-VSB modulator, and then send live and captured signals at the box to get to the bottom of the problem.

In addendum to my previous response to Adam, this is getting ink these days.  Note this posting from 2006 http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/thread/151402.aspx, this MS blog post from 2005 http://blogs.msdn.com/peterrosser/archive/2005/10/20/483294.aspx and this cited admission by NBC http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/20/nbc-admits-inadvertent-broadcast-flag-use-still-doesnt-expla/

A search for broadcast flag on NBC.com leads to this (?) http://www.nbc.com/app/search/?searchString=broadcast+flag

That something is "reasonable" doesn't mean that it's sensible, just that it's at least barely defensible.

Since MS said a few years ago that the rc_descriptor would be permitted as CGMS "CopyOnce", one wonders if 1) people were trying to make more than one copy or 2) MS changed this feature in the latest XP/MCE service pack.  I had two significant and one major update to Windows XP last week.

Caveat emptor!

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
Sent: May 23, 2008 3:08 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?

Isn't it as simple as Microsoft should allowing the initial recording with the flag bit on but not allow it to be distributed?

I know ... If only...

But if we can't put common sense into all this...never mind...I just remembered we lost the foundation in our society.

Dan

John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 05/23/2008 02:27 PM Please respond to opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

To opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?

really?  And, it's the lawyers that you assert have a problem?  Not engineers?  (Also, note that you ONCE again referred to an FCC Public Notice [no legal value, as it says in the heading of each one] to 'buttress' your 'case.'

Is storing media content redistribution

And, you miss the point of the "outside the scope" language.  It truly is outside the scope, and I doubt that ATSC's S8 will ever see the need to clarify this language.

NBC asserts the rc_descriptor.  Microsoft seems to recognize that capturing protected content is the first step to redistribution.  A reasonable position, and there are other reasonable positions in this matter, but I won't go so far as to say that yours is reasonable.

Here's the questions (there are no clear answers) that an ATTORNEY would (and, on my PSIP list, has) asked about this matter [as differentiated from an engineer who takes pot shots at lawyers.)

"1. What if a company designed a device that simply ignored the 16-bit
flag, i.e., didn't pass it on or react to it. There is no legal mandate
to react to the bits.

...

2. Are you stripping "Copyright Management Information" in violation of
Section 1202(b) of the Copyright Act?

a. Is the flag "terms and conditions for use of the work."
(1202(c)(6))

...

3. Is the flag an essential part of a "Technical Protection Mechanism,"
entitled to protection under Section 1201?" ...

So much more complicated than your analysis, and all based in the Copyright Act, not jaundiced views of attorneys.

Since the FCC lacks the jurisdiction -- absent action by Congress -- to mandate what receivers will do with the rc_descriptor, that part is MOOT, and nothing that the ATSC does will change that; indeed, if the ATSC changes their language to somehow open this up in the standard, the courts will prevent the FCC from asserting anything ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. The above questions, however, are pending and far from moot.

MS's position is reasonable.  The fact that NBC didn't know that it was asserting the rc_descriptor (at least at the stations that I can receive that NBC controls if not owns outright, and per the article citing an NBC spokesperson) is close to unreasonable.  

John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 23, 2008 1:42 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?
>
>Monty Solomon wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?
>> Posted by Danny O'Brien
>
>> While its customers are still puzzling over why Vista Media
>> Center is suddenly refusing to record over-the-air NBC digital
>> TV, ...
>
>http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/microsofts-masters-whose-rules-does
>-your-media-cen
>
>This is one of those many examples of the lawyers tying themselves up in
>knots.
>
>The original FCC intent was abundantly clear. Unfortunately, when the
>FCC's broadcast flag ruling was thrown out by the courts, they threw out
>the baby with the bathwater. Now the equipment manufactuers can
>interpret the words in any way they bloody well please, or so it seems.
>And yet somehow, the Betamax ruling should apply here too, so I hope the
>courts will step in again.
>
>The situation here is hardly ambiguous.
>
>From the ATSC's point of view, the exact function of this redistribution
>control flag is not specified. Section 6.9.12 of A/65 makes this plain:
>
>"It is out of the scope of this standard to assert how any receiving
>device reacts when the rc_descriptor is present."
>
>But the FCC (and the courts with the Betamax case) were not so
>ambiguous:
>
>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-240759A1.doc
>
>-----------------
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE       NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:
>November 4, 2003            Michelle Russo 202-418-2358
>                            David Fiske 202-418-0513
>
>FCC ADOPTS ANTI-PIRACY PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL TV
>
>Broadcast Flag Prevents Mass Internet Distribution; Consumer Copying Not
>Affected; No New Equipment Needed
>
>Washington, D.C. - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
>adopted an anti-piracy mechanism, also known as the "broadcast flag,"
>for digital broadcast television.  The goal of today's action is to
>foster the transition to digital TV and forestall potential harm to the
>viability of free, over-the-air broadcasting in the digital age. >>>The
>FCC said that consumers' ability to make digital copies will not be
>affected <<<; the broadcast flag seeks only to prevent mass distribution
>over the Internet. Finally, the FCC said implementation of the broadcast
>flag will not require consumers to purchase any new equipment.
>
>...
>------------------
>
>Until someone legally reiterates "that consumers' ability to make
>digital copies will not be affected," it's the wild west out there.
>
>Bert
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.