Comments on: Is HBO Aksing for Their Programming to be Off-Limits for DVRs?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:49:00 +0000

Your ads are screwing the page so badly that I can not read it, as it is blocking and overlaping text

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:07:00 +0000

This is the same story we see over and over again. IP owners will continue to aggressively attack fair use until it no longer exists, unless we stop them cold.
IP owners have and should have ZERO say in how we use content in our home. Should they have recourse against those who profit from redistributing content and making a profit from others labors? Of course. But they will argue that that is what DVR is doing when it's not, it's fair use on our property and no new law or tech is needed. No 24 hour expirations. No limits on how or where or how many or how often I can shuffle content around my devices. None of this sops piracy, all of this invades are homes and undermines are fundamental right to secure and protect our property and our rights to have fair use on content that we (i many cases such as with cable) paid for.
Sadly of course DRM is about control not about piracy, and this companies can not and shall not have control over any device that I own and house in my home and what I with the items I store on it.

Sadly the masses won't understand what they have lost until it's long gone they way things are going today.
PK has a great blog article on how the vob version on the super bowl was edited and critical moments where removed to "reflect the official version of the game calls", if that is not a cold hard slap of Orwellian foreshadowing I don't know what is...
We must draw the line at our property boundaries and defend it from these incursions against our devices.

By: BigFrank

BigFrank — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:01:00 +0000

Wow. I’d read about this elsewhere and I was completely incensed. The blogger failed to mention that HBO was seeking this behavior for SVOD.

I *all* about fair use, and sometimes unfair use , but SVOD is one case where I can kind of understand a seller wanting to absolutely control DRM.

I guess I don’t feel very strongly about SVOD because I never use it. I’ll have to analyze how I feel about that…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:16:00 +0000

Yes, it is worth emphasizing this *particular* request is specific to SVOD… I linked to the NCTA’s definition to help folks understand what is being requested.

I also wrote that it’s odd that some types of programming would be treated differently than others – that’s probably the bigger story in all of this. -DZ

By: Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:02:00 +0000

Yes, they have been a proponent and I understand the slippery slope argument. But I just think we need to be careful to remind people that what they are asking for specifically here has to do with SVOD. I’m still opposed to their request and like you want all my VOD copy unrestricted, but people are jumping to conclusions that they are trying to shut down all DVR copying of their content and while that may be what they truely do want, it is not what they are specifically asking for with this petition. Perhaps a moot distinction but a distinction nonetheless.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:59:00 +0000

Oh yeah, I love that word lathered. Sex sells. -DaveZ

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:58:00 +0000

HBO has been a proponent of the broadcast flag and has pushed for expiration dates and copy limits for DVR content in the past. It’s a slippery slope and I reserve the right to record anything entering my home for later playback, especially something covered by a subscription fee. -DZ