![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: The FCC has approved a request by the Motion Picture Association of America to allow the broadcast of first-run movies on cable/satellite TV even as they’re still playing in a theatre near you.
Why do Hollywood studios need the FCC’s permission to do this? Because the MPAA will only do it if they’re allowed to remotely activate the "Selective Output Control" (SOC) technology in set-top boxes and other home theatre appliances that, basically, would allow them to deactivate parts of your home theater depending on what you're watching and what you’re using to watch it.
A simple example would be this: you could watch Iron Man 2 at home right now, but you wouldn’t be able to time-shift it via a DVR or TiVo, or run it through a SlingBox, or watch it via any set-top/home theatre device that might enable you to do anything with that video other than what the studio wants you to be able to do with it.
Sound familar?
Interestingly, the MPAA has been pushing this idea since 2003, which was the first time the MPAA asked the FCC to let them use SOC. The FCC said no back then. They’ve said “yes” now because:
Unless you consider the ability of Sony Pictures to remotely disable your DVR to be harmful, that is. BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow certainly does. And while Doctorow tends to lay on the extreme hyperbole with issues like this, he’s right on several points:
1. This won’t stop at set-top boxes and home theatre systems. You’ll likely be seeing SOC implemented in any device capable of playing multimedia, to include yr laptop, iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, if it runs Adobe Flash, it'll have SOC in it.
2. This will force you to buy only MPAA-compliant home theatre equipment (and if you don’t have any yet, you’ll need to buy it if you ever want to watch movies at home).
3. SOC will do jack to stop piracy. (Q: How easy is it to set up a camcorder in front of yr HD flatscreen TV, compared to doing it in a movie theatre? A: Pretty damn easy. And it’s a good bet that the MPAA knows that and never intended to show first-run films on TV in the first place – which at least will be a relief to theatre owners.)
Admittedly, all of this is worst-case speculation that may not all come to pass. And I’ve made no secret in previous posts how I feel about DRM in general, as well as the whole “home piracy is killing music” routine. So I’m a little biased here in terms of assessing MPAA trustworthiness.
Still, I can’t see how giving any organization (movie studios, record labels, the FBI, the Mafia, the Cub Scouts, anyone) the ability to control a communications/media device in your home is a good idea on general principle, let alone benefits the public interest. And that to me is really the issue here – the FCC has basically established the de facto right of movie companies to remotely control multimedia devices. And now, the music labels could use the same logic to argue they have the right to remotely control yr iPod.
Thanks a lot, FCC.
Don’t touch that dial,
This is dF
Why do Hollywood studios need the FCC’s permission to do this? Because the MPAA will only do it if they’re allowed to remotely activate the "Selective Output Control" (SOC) technology in set-top boxes and other home theatre appliances that, basically, would allow them to deactivate parts of your home theater depending on what you're watching and what you’re using to watch it.
A simple example would be this: you could watch Iron Man 2 at home right now, but you wouldn’t be able to time-shift it via a DVR or TiVo, or run it through a SlingBox, or watch it via any set-top/home theatre device that might enable you to do anything with that video other than what the studio wants you to be able to do with it.
Sound familar?
Interestingly, the MPAA has been pushing this idea since 2003, which was the first time the MPAA asked the FCC to let them use SOC. The FCC said no back then. They’ve said “yes” now because:
“On balance, this limited waiver will provide public interest benefits – making movies widely available for home viewing far earlier than ever before – without imposing harm on any consumers.”
Unless you consider the ability of Sony Pictures to remotely disable your DVR to be harmful, that is. BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow certainly does. And while Doctorow tends to lay on the extreme hyperbole with issues like this, he’s right on several points:
1. This won’t stop at set-top boxes and home theatre systems. You’ll likely be seeing SOC implemented in any device capable of playing multimedia, to include yr laptop, iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, if it runs Adobe Flash, it'll have SOC in it.
2. This will force you to buy only MPAA-compliant home theatre equipment (and if you don’t have any yet, you’ll need to buy it if you ever want to watch movies at home).
3. SOC will do jack to stop piracy. (Q: How easy is it to set up a camcorder in front of yr HD flatscreen TV, compared to doing it in a movie theatre? A: Pretty damn easy. And it’s a good bet that the MPAA knows that and never intended to show first-run films on TV in the first place – which at least will be a relief to theatre owners.)
Admittedly, all of this is worst-case speculation that may not all come to pass. And I’ve made no secret in previous posts how I feel about DRM in general, as well as the whole “home piracy is killing music” routine. So I’m a little biased here in terms of assessing MPAA trustworthiness.
Still, I can’t see how giving any organization (movie studios, record labels, the FBI, the Mafia, the Cub Scouts, anyone) the ability to control a communications/media device in your home is a good idea on general principle, let alone benefits the public interest. And that to me is really the issue here – the FCC has basically established the de facto right of movie companies to remotely control multimedia devices. And now, the music labels could use the same logic to argue they have the right to remotely control yr iPod.
Thanks a lot, FCC.
Don’t touch that dial,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2010-05-12 05:50 am (UTC)Well, the truth is that this DRM stuff is going to work it's going to need to be an end-to-end solution: the hardware, the drivers, the OS and the software will all need to be compliant, otherwise it's easily hackable.
(Copying it off the analogued output--setting up an eternal camera and a mike, etc, doesn't count as hacking in my book.)
At present DRM solutions love almost entirely in the software, which is why they are so easy to hack. End-to-end is going to require a detailed technical standard and then a lot of work, a lot of cooperation, and a lot of dollars spent, so I wouldn't be expecting to see it on the shelves any time soon. Even then, I think you'll find that subverting DRM is as easy as replacing one of the drivers with a hacked version...
-- JF