Encryption

[spencer777]

So what's the endgame? Tv stations will disable DRM for people that pay?

Nope. The providers will NEVER give up DRM with ATSC 3.0, UNLESS the government FORCES them to do so. Don't be confused, That's the whole reason of them switching to 3.0.

So, you're saying they are putting on DRM, so nobody can watch their content and pay for cable or streaming?

[MikeBear]

So what's the endgame? Tv stations will disable DRM for people that pay?

Nope. The providers will NEVER give up DRM with ATSC 3.0, UNLESS the government FORCES them to do so. Don't be confused, That's the whole reason of them switching to 3.0.

So, you're saying they are putting on DRM, so nobody can watch their content and pay for cable or streaming?

They are putting on DRM/Encryption, so they don't have pirates setting up tuner farms and selling the signals cheap via IP tv, without them getting paid. IF it's all encrypted, AND pirates still steal the signals and sell them without the legal rights to do so, it's a whole different law to stop them, then the laws of now with no encryptiion.

[DrSmith]

They are putting on DRM/Encryption, so they don't have pirates setting up tuner farms and selling the signals cheap via IP tv, without them getting paid. IF it's all encrypted, AND pirates still steal the signals and sell them without the legal rights to do so, it's a whole different law to stop them, then the laws of now with no encryptiion.

Really? The industry was pretty successful at shutting down aereo and locast. Are there still lots of rogue black-market OTA providers on the internet? My guess is that they want to prevent FF through commercials. They can only get there through DRM and Copy Never flags.

[x-9er]

They are putting on DRM/Encryption, so they don't have pirates setting up tuner farms and selling the signals cheap via IP tv, without them getting paid. IF it's all encrypted, AND pirates still steal the signals and sell them without the legal rights to do so, it's a whole different law to stop them, then the laws of now with no encryptiion.

OK, none of this is true.

1. It's far, far easier for people redistributing local TV broadcast feeds to just use ones the networks themselves already provide through apps or via vMCOs. I don't even know that anyone is doing that now, other than media monitoring services which can do it via fair use, and I wouldn't exactly call putting up an 8x ATSC3 tuner and an antenna a "tuner farm."

2. The motivation for encrypting signals isn't about piracy anyway; networks themselves would prefer you view programming through channels they can control and monitor, but local stations are already beaming this stuff out for free. Is it illegal to resell it? Yes, but in what world is there a market for buying something that is already free?

3. Since there is not and cannot be any kind of individual authorization to decrypt OTA signals, it would all fall under copyright infringement anyway.

4. This is purely to prevent you from fast-forwarding through commercials and placing limits on how long you can keep recordings, in order to force you to watch programming on their terms, not yours. They are claiming they need encryption to prevent "piracy" which is how they get this ridiculous scheme past very dumb people, including (apparently) our federal government.

[hancox]

HDHomeRun 4k is now out of stock at Amazon. [removed by moderator - see forum rules]

https://www.amazon.com/SiliconDust-HDHo ... B092GCN9NL

[Cabal]

HDHomeRun 4k is now out of stock at Amazon. [removed by moderator - see forum rules]

https://www.amazon.com/SiliconDust-HDHo ... B092GCN9NL

viewtopic.php?p=402374#p402374

[hancox]

[removed by moderator - see forum rules]

[howardc1243]

They are putting on DRM/Encryption, so they don't have pirates setting up tuner farms and selling the signals cheap via IP tv, without them getting paid. IF it's all encrypted, AND pirates still steal the signals and sell them without the legal rights to do so, it's a whole different law to stop them, then the laws of now with no encryptiion.

Really? The industry was pretty successful at shutting down aereo and locast. Are there still lots of rogue black-market OTA providers on the internet? My guess is that they want to prevent FF through commercials. They can only get there through DRM and Copy Never flags.

[removed by user]

[jasonl]

2. The motivation for encrypting signals isn't about piracy anyway; networks themselves would prefer you view programming through channels they can control and monitor, but local stations are already beaming this stuff out for free. Is it illegal to resell it? Yes, but in what world is there a market for buying something that is already free?

The world that exists outside of the United States. There's a huge market for US TV shows and sports internationally, and as with anything, piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, what with not having to pay copyright holders. The concern there is very real. Whether ATSC 3.0 DRM will do anything to address that concern is a very different question.

[CHOXUWU]

Any news on SiliconDust obtaining compatibility for A3SA? My local Fox station just turned on DRM right before the SuperBowl. (KRIV)

[MikeBear]

Any news on SiliconDust obtaining compatibility for A3SA? My local Fox station just turned on DRM right before the SuperBowl. (KRIV)

Don't hold your breath. It's not likely to happen anytime soon.

[nblair5]

The world that exists outside of the United States. There's a huge market for US TV shows and sports outside internationally, and as with anything, piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, what with not having to pay copyright holders. The concern there is very real. Whether ATSC 3.0 DRM will do anything to address that concern is a very different question.

Not intending to pick on you, but why should we believe people who say the concern is very real when they exhibit an aversion to critical thinking about the concern or ways to manage it?

Your point about international interest in content is a perfect example. They assume that the problem is that piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, despite abundant evidence that the problem is that piracy provides an easier way to access it. It is no coincidence that the most obvious examples of piracy capturing significant market share occur where there is no reasonable legitimate way to access the content. The anti-piracy playbook is out there:
https://www.bayes.city.ac.uk/faculties- ... tal-piracy

If they aren't taking any of the proven paths to addressing the problem and can't provide any evidence (or even a plausible scenario) that the problem exists where they are applying the restriction, it is reasonable to conclude that they are lying (to us and likely themselves) about the concern.

[howardc1243]

The world that exists outside of the United States. There's a huge market for US TV shows and sports outside internationally, and as with anything, piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, what with not having to pay copyright holders. The concern there is very real. Whether ATSC 3.0 DRM will do anything to address that concern is a very different question.

Not intending to pick on you, but why should we believe people who say the concern is very real when they exhibit an aversion to critical thinking about the concern or ways to manage it?

Your point about international interest in content is a perfect example. They assume that the problem is that piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, despite abundant evidence that the problem is that piracy provides an easier way to access it. It is no coincidence that the most obvious examples of piracy capturing significant market share occur where there is no reasonable legitimate way to access the content. The anti-piracy playbook is out there:
https://www.bayes.city.ac.uk/faculties- ... tal-piracy

If they aren't taking any of the proven paths to addressing the problem and can't provide any evidence (or even a plausible scenario) that the problem exists where they are applying the restriction, it is reasonable to conclude that they are lying (to us and likely themselves) about the concern.

that my friend is called DRM-blackmailing, a practice being used by the networks and broadcasters alike to force those who have cut-the-cord back to cable and that has to stop.
it is not just about piracy; it is about honest citizens using means to record programs and viewing them at a time that is comfortable for them and the networks and broadcasters know this and they are pulling out all the stops to ensure the viewing public is hog-tied to paying encumbering costs with no-end in sight with regards to the cost of cable and satellite, and those so-called streaming services like hulu, paramount+ disney+ and fubo; those are just bait to get you hooked and if you are not aware of the ploy, you will.

[gore]

[/quote]
So, you're saying they are putting on DRM, so nobody can watch their content and pay for cable or streaming?
[/quote]

That's exactly what's going on. This press for encryption and mandatory payment in some form or another began when the FCC allowed TV stations to start charging cable systems for receiving their signals via towers that could provide completely reliable reception to their customers, something they could not do with an antenna at their home. The TV stations claimed that cable was "modifying" their signals when in reality all they were doing was providing a reliable signal. Those signals were not being modifyed at all, but Retransmission Consent came into being anyway, and it has been a huge moneymaker for the TV station ownership groups ever since. The revenue from cable, satellite, and streaming providers is a golden cow for the TV stations and they will NEVER give that up just so we can watch a free over-the-air signal like has been available and required by law ever since television broadcasting began.

[jasonl]

Your point about international interest in content is a perfect example. They assume that the problem is that piracy provides a cheaper way to access it, despite abundant evidence that the problem is that piracy provides an easier way to access it. It is no coincidence that the most obvious examples of piracy capturing significant market share occur where there is no reasonable legitimate way to access the content. The anti-piracy playbook is out there:
https://www.bayes.city.ac.uk/faculties- ... tal-piracy

Not buying this. International access to sports is pretty easy. If I am outside of the US and Canada and want to watch the NFL, I can go sign up for NFL Game Pass on DAZN and get all the games. If I want to watch the NHL, it's not as unified, as Disney+ has the package in some regions, a couple different regional providers have specific countries, and the league's own service covers everywhere else, but still, one provider in any particular country. The ease of access thing is much more of a domestic concern where the leagues have intentionally fragmented things to make more money.