If you ever want to do HDTV under Linux...

[link|http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000771.html|Here], (via a post on [link|http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/02/a_biased_headli.html|Dan Gillmor's blog]):

The [[link|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/technology/21flag.html?ex=1266642000&en=e286e1f936539c08&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland|NYTimes]] article starts by describing Mike Godwin downloading an episode of the Showtime series "Huff." After some scene-setting, we read this:

The M.P.A.A. has argued that without the broadcast flag rule, content creators would have no incentive to provide digital content over the airwaves, because people could simply pluck video streams out of the air and redistribute them to millions of viewers over the Internet.

"It's very simple," said Fritz Attaway, a vice president and Washington general counsel for the M.P.A.A. "Without the broadcast flag, high-value content would migrate to where it could be protected."

In practical terms, such "protected" places would be cable and satellite systems where digital content can be more easily scrambled, encrypted or otherwise controlled, leaving broadcast networks at a distinct disadvantage in the new digital marketplace.

The fallacy here should be pretty obvious. "Huff" is already distributed only in a "protected" place -- a premium cable channel -- and it's available for infringing downloaders. (Other cable and satellite offerings are similarly available on P2P.) This is not evidence that cable-like protection is needed for broadcast. To the contrary, it's evidence that the "protection" of cable-like DRM is illusory.

Similarly, the article repeats without comment the MPAA argument that they will be forced to withhold high-resolution broadcast service unless the Broadcast Flag is imposed. This argument couldn't be more wrong in its view of broadcasters' incentives.

In fact, P2P infringement gives broadcasters a powerful incentive to offer higher-quality, higher-resolution content. High-res content makes legitimate broadcast service more attractive to viewers. P2P versions can't match these increases in resolution because doing so would make P2P files much bigger, clogging P2P systems with enormous files and making downloads much slower. If broadcasters have to "compete against free" their best hope is to actually compete, by improving their product -- especially when the competitor can't match the improvement.

He's got a very good point. Newer technologies (e.g., optical fiber to every home) will mitigate some of the pain of trying to download everything (like the old geezer who went to a roadside motel with every movie and every TV show ever produced in the old Qwest commercials), but some pain will always exist. If the producers of shows were interested in competing on quality and convenience they would be in a very strong position for a long time even without the broadcast flag.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #189,919 by inthane-chan 1/12/05 11:31:38 AM Reply	If you ever want to do HDTV under Linux... ...get one of [link\|http://www.pchdtv.com/\|these] cards before June, if you live in the United States. After that, it's illegal to sell them here. "Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
Post #189,921 by Another Scott 1/12/05 11:52:12 AM Reply	Thanks for the heads-up. I wasn't aware of the [link\|http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/\|broadcast flag] issue. It's certainly something to think about over the next few months. Cheers, Scott.
Post #190,015 by folkert 1/12/05 11:02:51 PM Reply	My order from today... for this card shipped today. I should have it Friday or Monday/Tuesday -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Miltary Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]
Post #190,307 by Another Scott 1/15/05 6:03:55 PM Reply	Let us know how you like it. [link\|http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=128856&cid=10753869\|These] comments on /. make it sound a bit dodgey. The card only works with over-the-air HDTV. While that's understandable, there are only 8 or so HD local stations around here, and much of their stuff isn't worth watching. Please let us know whether you think the card and software are usable and worth the trouble. If not, as an AC there says, just sending the money directly to the EFF might make more sense. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #190,320 by folkert 1/15/05 9:43:53 PM Reply	Nope... that would be the only because they... Lack the skill. The card only works with over-the-air HDTV That would be the HD2000. The HDTV over cable onlyhas to get through the Line Filter at the Splice-in at the street. The HDTV is held back There. Now, if I were to "order" HDTV from the Cable CO, no problems. It'll still work with traditional signals. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Miltary Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]
Post #195,867 by Another Scott 2/21/05 11:47:07 PM Reply	Ed Felten on the Broadcast Flag. [link\|http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000771.html\|Here], (via a post on [link\|http://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/02/a_biased_headli.html\|Dan Gillmor's blog]): The [[link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/technology/21flag.html?ex=1266642000&en=e286e1f936539c08&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland\|NYTimes]] article starts by describing Mike Godwin downloading an episode of the Showtime series "Huff." After some scene-setting, we read this: The M.P.A.A. has argued that without the broadcast flag rule, content creators would have no incentive to provide digital content over the airwaves, because people could simply pluck video streams out of the air and redistribute them to millions of viewers over the Internet. "It's very simple," said Fritz Attaway, a vice president and Washington general counsel for the M.P.A.A. "Without the broadcast flag, high-value content would migrate to where it could be protected." In practical terms, such "protected" places would be cable and satellite systems where digital content can be more easily scrambled, encrypted or otherwise controlled, leaving broadcast networks at a distinct disadvantage in the new digital marketplace. The fallacy here should be pretty obvious. "Huff" is already distributed only in a "protected" place -- a premium cable channel -- and it's available for infringing downloaders. (Other cable and satellite offerings are similarly available on P2P.) This is not evidence that cable-like protection is needed for broadcast. To the contrary, it's evidence that the "protection" of cable-like DRM is illusory. Similarly, the article repeats without comment the MPAA argument that they will be forced to withhold high-resolution broadcast service unless the Broadcast Flag is imposed. This argument couldn't be more wrong in its view of broadcasters' incentives. In fact, P2P infringement gives broadcasters a powerful incentive to offer higher-quality, higher-resolution content. High-res content makes legitimate broadcast service more attractive to viewers. P2P versions can't match these increases in resolution because doing so would make P2P files much bigger, clogging P2P systems with enormous files and making downloads much slower. If broadcasters have to "compete against free" their best hope is to actually compete, by improving their product -- especially when the competitor can't match the improvement. He's got a very good point. Newer technologies (e.g., optical fiber to every home) will mitigate some of the pain of trying to download everything (like the old geezer who went to a roadside motel with every movie and every TV show ever produced in the old Qwest commercials), but some pain will always exist. If the producers of shows were interested in competing on quality and convenience they would be in a very strong position for a long time even without the broadcast flag. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!