[opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center Play By?
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:50:08 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Sure, it's reasonable.
It's also -- as I pointed out in my first posting on this on my PSIP list --
helpful to keep in mind when buying a PC with Vista, or MCE on Windows XP.
Lacking MCE on my XP boxes, and with little interest in upgrading to Vista, I
haven't been able to check the behavior myself. However, I did try Windows
Server 2008 -- which repeatedly crashed, in no small part minimized when I
removed Nero/DVD burner software. It seems that XP won't permit drivers that
would permit one to rip a DVD to hard drive. (Something I've done exactly
twice, and never when I was in the U.S.) I'm sure there's a work-around that
doesn't involve me upgrading to the "newer, less useful" DVD burning software,
but I was better off just reformatting the drive with 2k8.
I'd be particulary interested in seeing how MCE/Vista box responds when the
rc_descriptor is present in the PMT and absent in the EIT for the current
event, or vice-versa.
Technically, Adam, I said that the rc_descriptor is transmitted by early-model
Harris encoders (I know not of the latter models) and I have looked for the
instructions to remove it, and I cannot find them.
Although not referenced in the article, there are several reasons why this
might have come up recently and not in the past:
1) a new service pack for Vista was recently released
2) stations are upgrading their ATSC encoders
3) incentives to ping MS
Need I point out that MS has to be more careful than, say Apple, because MS has
been adjudged to be a monopolist?
Unfortunately, I'm too close to KNSD's transmitters right now to capture a
transport stream, but I will be in position to do so in a few days, and perhaps
KNBC as well. It would have been more helpful if the article listed the
callsigns of the station(s). They actually might be affiliates, and this might
be a very limited situation writ large by the Internet.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Goldberg <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: May 23, 2008 3:03 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: Microsoft's Masters: Whose Rules Does Your Media Center
>Play By?
>
>We don't know whether it was the BF that caused the recording problem, though
>it's certainly true that news reports have concluded such. If it was the BF,
>and if what John has said about certain PSIP generators, then why haven't we
>seen this before?
>
>In any case, I do not believe it matters whether it was the BF, some CGMS-A,
>or other settings which caused this (incorrect) behavior.
>
>There is no law, regulation or otherwise which requires or obligates MSFT to
>obey "do not record" commands in over-the-air broadcast content. Indeed,
>there are significant pressures on broadcasters to not even attempt any such
>control. There may even be law or regulation prohibiting (one of the
>tradeoffs for using 'our' public property to convey the commercial service).
>
>Furthermore, there is no 1201 violation in stripping whatever caused this
>behavior, as it is in no sense an '/effective/ technological protection'. Nor
>is CGMS-A information Copyright Management Information viz 17 USC 1202(c), as
>any 'do not copy' information is null due to the public right to record (at
>least analog, at least for time shifting) see Sony v. Universal.
>
>Finally, the Broadcast Flag was -->>> NEVER INTENDED TO PREVENT RECORDING
><<<<----. Please don’t dispute me here, as to do so, you must have been in
>the room. What MSFT products do is either a bug or an intentional behavior,
>but in no case is it a reasonable interpretation of the Broadcast Flag.
>
>Adam
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of John Willkie
>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:27 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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.
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.
Other related posts:
