http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/ Engadget Comments for Selectable Output control is bad, but not worth lying about http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/Nov 20th 2009 11:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
The problem is that they are asking for SOC today, only for new content. Fine. However, what's to say they don't lock it down later on? Basically, it's the first step towards more control... just because they say they won't do it TODAY doesn't mean they won't do it forever.

A perfect example is QAM digital cable. Now that the cable industry has their waiver for little crappy DTA boxes, those of us in far-away areas who had watched OTA signals come over the cable line as ClearQAM are now being screwed out of that. Even though the Telecom act supposedly says they cannot degrade or encrypt the local channels, the waiver grants them this ability, and most carriers are doing it immediately. Sure, they give you a free DTA box (for now) but it spits out an RF-modulated analog signal that is certainly "degrading" the qualty from ClearQAM. And why are they doing this? "Theft"... how can you steal a local-channel's HD feed is beyond me, but that's what they are claiming.

Now, I have no problem with them locking down their paid channels, but the FCC and the cable industry have screwed this up nicely to have QAM die a horrible death. Fact is QAM could have been a great way to ensure consumers get good digital signal, while allowing the cablecos to remove analog... but no one thought of that, did they?

So, "today" it might be a "lie" but history has shown that this is just the start of the grab... if we don't stop it now, we won't be able to stop it later.

Besides which, the claim is that the analog outputs promote piracy. Who is pirating movies via analog these days? Most of the pirated content are digital rips from theaters or screener copies... so how does SOC solve that? It doesn't... so who's lying now?]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/The clear QAM situation is bad which is why I used it as an example of something the FCC screwed up. ]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
New Stuff: Granting this petition will set a precedent. The MPAA's argument for SOC is that it lets them offer something they couldn't do otherwise: stream pre-release movies. Maybe this is true, maybe it's not. We don't really know. But, the important thing is that as soon as this is on the table as a completely legitimate reason for using SOC, there's nothing stopping them from repeating this argument every time they want to do something new. There would be no way for anyone to know whether a certain use case really requires SOC. Is that a slippery slope argument? Sure it is. Is it a fallacious one? I guess it depends on how closely related you think SOC for pre-release movies is to other things that might come out in the future. I'm not going to labor over making the argument that they're very closely related.

Old Stuff: Some people, including Ars, argue that if SOC comes along, different organizations will start demanding its use on things that are currently available in HD over component outputs. I think it is much harder to make this argument, but I don't think it's clearly fallacious. As technology has advanced, we've moved in this direction. Some things, like 5C and encrypted basic/expanded basic cable, have happened. Others, like the broadcast flag and the ICT haven't happened yet, but haven't been killed off either. While I agree its very unlikely we'll see the season premiere of "Mad Men" using SOC, I don't think its hard to imagine the companies trying to use things like the broadcast flag now trying to use SOC. And I think its relatively likely they'd be allowed to use it.

Why do I think that? Because, despite the way the SOC argument has been portrayed by the MPAA, I don't think the "real" argument is that it lets them do something they couldn't do. That's what is used to sell it. I don't mean to imply the MPAA is being sneaky, it's just that there's a difference between the sort of argument you get for public support, and the more "legalistic" argument you use to get a government agency to agree to it. The real argument for SOC (and I'm not saying I agree with it, just that its the argument) is that piracy of movies through the analog hole is a major threat, and would hurt revenue/profits. Futhermore, content creators/providers should be able to protect against the harm by using whatever technology is available, like SOC. That's not an argument that is unique to pre-release movies.

In the interest of being fair, there is a flip side to that. The pre-release movies case is a bit different than, say, movies on HBO after DVD release. Before the movies are released, there really isn't a good way for pirates to get their hands on them. After release, SCO doesn't really help because the better way to pirate the movies is to copy them off a blu-ray disc. However, I think its interesting to point out that most first-run TV shows are in the same boat as pre-release movies. It's when they're broadcast OTA/cable/satellite that gives the people an opportunity to pirate it. The easy-to-pirate blu-rays and DVDs come out later. I think there's an argument there for extending a precedent on SOC for pre-release movies to first-run TV shows.

In the end, I think we'll lose the DRM war no matter what we do.]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
You make a great argument, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that the MPAA could accomplish the same thing by getting the cable co's to stop using boxes with component output and then disable the content any any older boxes.

I don't think we will lose the DRM battle because DRM is a bad idea, but it takes Hollywood longer to figure out that then the rest of us. So they'll waste all this money for nothing and piss off consumers and then eventually realize how big of a waste of time that it was. ]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
As to the issue itself, considering the course these things usually take, I imagine it would be years before this gets the green light (assuming it does at all), and by then it will be a non-issue because people will have moved to HDMI. It's 1 cable rather than 3, it can carry 1080p (I know it's technically possible on component, but virtually no devices support it other than the Xbox 360), and of course it's currently the only way to get lossless audio to your receiver in digital form, unless you want to use analog outputs which involves even more cables. I agree with Engadget, this isn't something worth getting excited over. The Image Constraint Token never went anywhere, and the longer it takes before any studio implements it (assuming any are ever brave enough to do so), the less of an issue it will be when it happens.

I'm personally more annoyed at Fox right now for stripping the special features out of the rental versions of their BDs. Just when BD-Live features were starting to get interesting, too!]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
Not at all. SOC is a very bad idea because it will just confuse and piss off legitimate customers who don't understand why they can't watch a movie.

But that doesn't mean it is ok to lie about the facts to garner support. Everyone will understand that it is a bad idea, there is no need to try to dumb it down and in the process over-sensationalize it and make your claim down right incorrect.]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
And if your home theatre is comprised of component connections, then - yes! - this *DOES* shut off your home theatre in as much as it prevents you frmo using it to watch whatever movie the MPAA has decided that you're not worthy to watch!]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
Two wrongs don't make a right, never have, never will. Those that are against the use of SOC are already on the higher ground, there is no reason to sink to the MPAAs level to succeed.

Those that are using component for their HT do not currently have access to movies via cable before they hit DVD, that isn't going to change. ]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
2 Wrongs may not make a right, but who gives a shit. You don't want someone calling you a bitch without you saying anything back. If this is the only way to get fairness, I'm all for it. Like others have said, who would pirate from these signals anyway?]]>Nov 21st 2009 10:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
the real problem would be if they start using the content restrictions on HBO, Showtime and others... i want the ability to use, store and enjoy all that i pay to subscribe to. no sharing, but no limits on what i can do in my own home.

but for this part. i wouldn't have a problem. say if the new release movie for home viewing would be $24.95 ... to many of us it is cheaper than going out to the movies.]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
I agree that once you pay to watch something once you should be able to watch it wherever and whenever you want. ]]>Nov 20th 2009 2:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/selectable-output-control-is-bad-but-not-worth-lying-about/
Or have you not tried to watch a premium channel w/o a set top box lately. ]]>Nov 21st 2009 1:32PM