So ATI's new cablecard tuner is about to hit the shelves...

[glugglug]

and the restrictions on its use are the stupidest thing I've seen in awhile.

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11564

Basically, the only PCs that will support the new tuner are from tier 1 OEMs like Dell and Sony, which have a security code in the BIOS to verify they are "OpenCable certified" PCs.

It won't stop anything from ending up on bittorrent. All someone with the card would need to do is go get a virtual webcam app like Splitcam that lets you use your screen as a "webcam" device.

The idea that making it "external" to the PC by making it USB instead of PCI somehow makes it more "secure" is also a load of crap. All it really does is make it slower, and prevent the card from being useful as a compression accelerator due to too low bandwidth.

Yet another way in which the MPAA and the like ensure that legal viewing and managing of content is far less convenient than piracy.

 

[tw1164]

I agree, I'm really disapointed.

 

[Matthias99]

It won't stop anything from ending up on bittorrent. All someone with the card would need to do is go get a virtual webcam app like Splitcam that lets you use your screen as a "webcam" device.

This won't work in Vista if they're using the secured video paths. At least it shouldn't work.

Yet another way in which the MPAA and the like ensure that legal viewing and managing of content is far less convenient than piracy.

They wouldn't feel like they had to do this if everything they produced wasn't immediately pirated all over the net.

In any case, it's their content, and if you want to watch it you sort of have to play by their rules.

I agree that making it a USB device doesn't net you much in terms of security. I suspect this is so it's easier for a consumer to add it in externally more than anything else.

 

[SunnyD]

I wonder how long till it's hacked.

On a side note, it specifically says it supports digital cable, though it won't decompress anything. What this does make me wonder though, does it have a QAM tuner then? If so, then does it support Clear QAM? If it does, and the OCUR restrictions only apply to true digital cable, it MAY still be a worthy product - ATSC + Clear QAM + Digital Cable Support would make for a decent product.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I'm kind of enjoying this whole HDCP debacle in a morbid sort of way ... I'll be able to look back and tell my children about how you used to be free to make backup copies of your DVDs in case they got scratched, how you never had to call in for approval before having a movie night with your buddies, and when you could create your own personal music CDs so that you only got the songs you liked.

- M4H

 

[GTaudiophile]

This is totally not the product I had in mind from ATI...but I think they were hamstrung by M$ and the Industry.

 

[Banzai042]

Screw those restrictions, when can I get a happauge cablecard tuner that i can use in my mythbox?

 

[Fistandantilis]

ya those restrictions are over the top, not what I would expect from ATI or AMD.
I am in the market for a good TV tuner for my computer, any pointers from you guys would be greatly appreciated... in other words I dont know much about TV tuners, so I dont know where the quality is, what are you guys using?

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Screw those restrictions, when can I get a happauge cablecard tuner that i can use in my mythbox?

...nowhere. CableLabs won't give CableCard licenses to companies that don't have adequate content protection.

Complain to the content providers if you don't like it, and vote with your wallet.

 

[xtknight]

I've been thoroughly disappointed with ATI's multimedia solutions lately. The MMC software really turned into garbage (used to be a pretty good program).

Probably not their fault that it has to have all these restrictions, though.

I don't understand why they are being so anal about CableCard licenses. What's the difference between being able to record analog cable and digital cable, anyway? Being digital is a great thing, but they seem to destroy every advantage of it whenever they get the opportunity. Now "digital" means riddled with draconian and anti-consumer DRM methods (that are cracked and useless in a month's time).

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Probably not their fault that it has to have all these restrictions, though.

No, it isn't ATI's fault. The manufacturers will not let anybody sell/build CableCard tuners for PCs unless there is content protection involved.

I don't understand why they are being so anal about CableCard licenses. What's the difference between being able to record analog cable and digital cable, anyway?

This tuner can capture encrypted HD cable video streams. With no quality degradation -- you get the exact digital HD feed that the cable box would have gotten. There are tuners available for over-the-air HD, but that doesn't get you stuff like ESPN and other cable/pay channels.

If they gave unrestricted access to this, I figure every HD movie shown on HBO/Showtime/INHD will be torrented within a few hours of broadcast, tops. That's why they won't allow unrestricted access to the hardware.

 

[tw1164]

To be truthful it feels like HDTV is a step backwards. I haven't moved to HDTV because there are too many limits on how/when I can watch TV. I currently own 2 replay TV and rarely watch live TV. Ugh, I just want a HDTV solution that will allow me to record a show on the bedroom TV, and watch it on the living room TV (and vise versa). I would be ok if they were to limit it to only the PCs on my local network. I don't want a Xbox360/media extender solution.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: tw1164
To be truthful it feels like HDTV is a step backwards. I haven't moved to HDTV because there are too many limits on how/when I can watch TV. I currently own 2 replay TV and rarely watch live TV. Ugh, I just want a HDTV solution that will allow me to record a show on the bedroom TV, and watch it on the living room TV (and vise versa). I would be ok if they were to limit it to only the PCs on my local network. I don't want a Xbox360/media extender solution.

QFT x10

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Screw those restrictions, when can I get a happauge cablecard tuner that i can use in my mythbox?

...nowhere. CableLabs won't give CableCard licenses to companies that don't have adequate content protection.

Complain to the content providers if you don't like it, and vote with your wallet.

I think you're ever so slightly missing the point here.

Society likes pirated media. Many people buy DVDs overseas at prices so low they've got to be priated (or a stolen shipment, which is so much less likely given how easy the encryption is to break). Many people download movies, shows, and games on the Internet. These people think they're getting something for nothing, and that may be true at the time, but ultimately they're collectively creating a perceived need for HDCP and other technologically-unnecessary anti-piracy measures.

Target anyone else but the large mass of ordinary, dishonest people with your protests, and you might as well be screaming into a hurricane.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
Society likes pirated media.

Everybody wants something for nothing; the content providers are not inclined to give it to you. Or at least they'll try not to give it to you easily. Unfortunately, the only reasonable ways of trying to limit casual piracy also limit things like making backup copies of your DVDs or ripping them to your PC (which should be allowed under fair use).

If you aren't happy with the DRM solutions being offered, don't buy the products and complain to the manufacturers/content providers. They're the only ones who could possibly affect a change here, and if nobody buys it -- guess what, they'll have to change their policy or go out of business.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
Society likes pirated media.

Everybody wants something for nothing; the content providers are not inclined to give it to you. Or at least they'll try not to give it to you easily. Unfortunately, the only reasonable ways of trying to limit casual piracy also limit things like making backup copies of your DVDs or ripping them to your PC (which should be allowed under fair use).

If you aren't happy with the DRM solutions being offered, don't buy the products and complain to the manufacturers/content providers. They're the only ones who could possibly affect a change here, and if nobody buys it -- guess what, they'll have to change their policy or go out of business.

ATI will change their policy or go out of business if OCUR fails?

Guess what, companies go where the money is. If OCUR fails, ATI will simply reassign the product's developers into more profitable venues of other markets. I doubt ATI or nVidia would have the resources to affect legal/policy change with the content providers, and I'm not sure they'd see a profit in the long run anyway. Why should they care?

Hauppauge et al., which actually do depend directly on their TV products, are too tiny to effect any kind of change and would likely be bought out by the people making rentable DVRs for cable co. if for no other reason than to eliminate competitors. There's no point in making PVR-enthusiast PC CableCard products that cannot be licensed, and cable co. will not give out their QAM encryption codes because the rentable DVR is a cash cow.

You won't get the CableCard licensing company to change its stance because the CableCard license fees are so ridiculously more profitable compared to potential fees paid by PVR enthusiasts. I reiterate, this company has already abandoned the enthusiast market. Why? The CableCard licensor apparently sees that it's more profitable to abandon a tiny market than to face DRM litigation by the entertainment industry.

Going after local cable co. seems more feasible, mostly because for many people it's the smart thing to do anyway. OTA HD is so incredibly cheap compared to the cable HD fees that unless you are out of range and/or really value certain HD content that's only available encrypted from a cable company, you're already paying a huge premium. But there's not much room here for those who simply want to make an economic statement with their spending. Who, exactly, are you encouraging?

What about Satellite TV content providers? The satellite companies are so large while PVR enthusiasts are relatively so few. Set-top boxes are still a cash cow for satellite providers, so there's basically no economic incentive for them to change.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
You won't get the CableCard licensing company to change its stance because the CableCard license fees are so ridiculously more profitable compared to potential fees paid by PVR enthusiasts. I reiterate, this company has already abandoned the enthusiast market. Why? The CableCard licensor apparently sees that it's more profitable to abandon a tiny market than to face DRM litigation by the entertainment industry.

They didn't 'abandon' the enthusiast market. They get their cut whether the card is plugged into a TV, a STB, or a PC. Complain to the content providers who back CableLabs and are the ones who, ultimately, are so insistent on having DRM protection.

The cable companies would love to keep you locked into their STBs -- but that's why the FCC mandated at least semi-open specs like Cablecard. The reason you can't get an 'open' cablecard tuner for your PC is that all the movie studios and networks are scared to death of putting one out there.

The satellite providers are in the same boat. If they gave you unrestricted access to their digital HD feeds, they'd have their pants sued off.

 

[Golgatha]

My favorite quote from the original website's discussion.

Ok then...who buys this? It's like a mouse buying a maze for his cheese.

I think the analogy fits very well.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
You won't get the CableCard licensing company to change its stance because the CableCard license fees are so ridiculously more profitable compared to potential fees paid by PVR enthusiasts. I reiterate, this company has already abandoned the enthusiast market. Why? The CableCard licensor apparently sees that it's more profitable to abandon a tiny market than to face DRM litigation by the entertainment industry.

They didn't 'abandon' the enthusiast market. They get their cut whether the card is plugged into a TV, a STB, or a PC.

You're changing the meaning of my words after the fact. I was referring to the PVR enthusiast market: the people who build their own PVRs and who are complaining about being unable to use OCUR in this process. Remember the original topic? Fact is, CableLabs has already abandoned these people by refusing to license the products in a way that would allow them to collect license fees from PVR enthusiasts.

Complain to the content providers who back CableLabs and are the ones who, ultimately, are so insistent on having DRM protection.

That's pointless. CableLabs has excluded me from providing it with license fees. The backers of CableLabs have economic reason -- namely, not being sued -- for insisting on having DRM protection. And so you want me, someone who cannot even be a customer, to complain in the vain hope that voicing my already-economically-irrelevant opinion will somehow cause the backers to change their ways?

The cable companies would love to keep you locked into their STBs -- but that's why the FCC mandated at least semi-open specs like Cablecard. The reason you can't get an 'open' cablecard tuner for your PC is that all the movie studios and networks are scared to death of putting one out there.

The satellite providers are in the same boat. If they gave you unrestricted access to their digital HD feeds, they'd have their pants sued off.

Here you're just rephrasing what I previously told you...not sure why, though.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
You're changing the meaning of my words after the fact. I was referring to the PVR enthusiast market: the people who build their own PVRs and who are complaining about being unable to use OCUR in this process. Remember the original topic? Fact is, CableLabs has already abandoned these people by refusing to license the products in a way that would allow them to collect license fees from PVR enthusiasts.

They can't license the product in the way you want; content providers would sue them.

Complain to the content providers who back CableLabs and are the ones who, ultimately, are so insistent on having DRM protection.

That's pointless. CableLabs has excluded me from providing it with license fees.

...because the movie studios et al won't let them. Don't bitch out CableLabs; complain to the companies that won't let you have free (or free enough) access to their content.

The satellite providers are in the same boat. If they gave you unrestricted access to their digital HD feeds, they'd have their pants sued off.

Here you're just rephrasing what I previously told you...not sure why, though.

You said the opposite of what I said.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
You're changing the meaning of my words after the fact. I was referring to the PVR enthusiast market: the people who build their own PVRs and who are complaining about being unable to use OCUR in this process. Remember the original topic? Fact is, CableLabs has already abandoned these people by refusing to license the products in a way that would allow them to collect license fees from PVR enthusiasts.

They can't license the product in the way you want; content providers would sue them.

Maybe, but that's beside the point. Regardless of CableLabs's intention, it's still a fact that CableLabs does not license to such people. This fact means that your "speak with your dollars" advice is irrelevant to this particular situation. I'll ask you one more time: as a PVR enthusiast looking at ATI's OCUR, who am I supposed to "not buy" from?

Complain to the content providers who back CableLabs and are the ones who, ultimately, are so insistent on having DRM protection.

That's pointless. CableLabs has excluded me from providing it with license fees.

...because the movie studios et al won't let them. Don't bitch out CableLabs; complain to the companies that won't let you have free (or free enough) access to their content.

Apparently, you do not understand the difference between "bitching" and stating a fact. Your dysphemism does allow you to totally sidestep my argument, which is: why should the CableLabs's backers listen to me when they have no economic motivation to do so, and a definite economic motivation (i.e. avoiding pirating of non-DRM'd media) to ignore me? Hello? Your original argument was that companies listen to sales figures, and I think a corollary of this is that companies don't listen to the complaints of people already written off as non-customers. So I ask you again: why should they care about my complaints?

The satellite providers are in the same boat. If they gave you unrestricted access to their digital HD feeds, they'd have their pants sued off.

Here you're just rephrasing what I previously told you...not sure why, though.

You said the opposite of what I said.

First, set-top boxes as a cash cow and economic worries in the form of being sued are not mutually exclusive ideas, so you are exaggerating by calling them "opposite." (For example, as I've already said elsewhere, companies look at lawsuits as an economic problem.) Second, you cut off half of what I originally quoted in my response, and now you're confused about my response. Let's take a look at what I was responding to (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by Matthias99

The cable companies would love to keep you locked into their STBs -- but that's why the FCC mandated at least semi-open specs like Cablecard. The reason you can't get an 'open' cablecard tuner for your PC is that all the movie studios and networks are scared to death of putting one out there.

The satellite providers are in the same boat. If they gave you unrestricted access to their digital HD feeds, they'd have their pants sued off.

Hey, look at that! I believe the wording of the first bolded section implies that set-top boxes are cash cows for the cable companies, and the second bolded section extends that observation (among other things) to satellite companies.

As for both the economic and legal aspects of your statement, I said as much in a previous post (emphasis mine):

You won't get the CableCard licensing company to change its stance because the CableCard license fees are so ridiculously more profitable compared to potential fees paid by PVR enthusiasts. I reiterate, this company has already abandoned the enthusiast market. Why? The CableCard licensor apparently sees that it's more profitable to abandon a tiny market than to face DRM litigation by the entertainment industry.

It's all right there -- even the dovetailing of companies' potential lawsuits and companies' economic interests. While this quote does not specifically cover cable and satellite companies, I think it's quite obvious that all three have the same legal responsibility.

 

[HannibalX]

I don't pay for TV of any kind at the moment. I was planning on getting digital cable when these devices were made available but it looks like now that I won't be. The only PC I have ever purchased from a retail brand was my very first PC in 1987 - a Tandy 1000 SX. Since then I have always built my own and will continue to build my own. If that means I can't watch digital cable on my PC then so be it - the cable industry is missing out on my money - and many others I imagine.

 

[Matthias99]

Alright, look. I think we got off on the wrong foot here. We're (mostly) talking about different issues.

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

Originally posted by: Matthias99
They can't license the product in the way you want; content providers would sue them.

Maybe, but that's beside the point. Regardless of CableLabs's intention, it's still a fact that CableLabs does not license to such people. This fact means that your "speak with your dollars" advice is irrelevant to this particular situation. I'll ask you one more time: as a PVR enthusiast looking at ATI's OCUR, who am I supposed to "not buy" from?

Obviously, you cannot exert direct monetary influence on a company by "not buying" a product they will not sell to you. But you can exert influence on them by not buying the things they're trying to sell you instead. IE, don't buy the OEM-built HTPC or cable company HD-DVR, and explicitly tell them that you won't buy it unless it doesn't come with draconian DRM. Tell CableLabs and the content providers that you want open hardware standards so that people can use the content the way they want, and that you won't be buying HD anything until they provide that.

The only way that you'll be able to get open tuners for your PC is if the content providers lighten up. The only way the content providers will change their stance is if they become convinced that they will lose more money from lost sales due to DRM than they will to piracy without DRM.

Apparently, you do not understand the difference between "bitching" and stating a fact. Your dysphemism does allow you to totally sidestep my argument, which is: why should the CableLabs's backers listen to me when they have no economic motivation to do so, and a definite economic motivation (i.e. avoiding pirating of non-DRM'd media) to ignore me? Hello? Your original argument was that companies listen to sales figures, and I think a corollary of this is that companies don't listen to the complaints of people already written off as non-customers. So I ask you again: why should they care about my complaints?

They should care about your complaints because you (well, a whole lot of "you"s) are their only source of income. If their customers are not happy with the solutions being offered, everyone in that whole supply chain should be concerned. The only way to effect a change here is to convince them that the model they are trying to push is flawed and that consumers will not accept it.

First, set-top boxes as a cash cow and economic worries in the form of being sued are not mutually exclusive ideas, so you are exaggerating by calling them "opposite."

You seemed focused on the idea of cable companies being behind this solely because they want to sell/rent your their own STB. At least that's how I was reading your earlier post.

You won't get the CableCard licensing company to change its stance because the CableCard license fees are so ridiculously more profitable compared to potential fees paid by PVR enthusiasts. I reiterate, this company has already abandoned the enthusiast market. Why? The CableCard licensor apparently sees that it's more profitable to abandon a tiny market than to face DRM litigation by the entertainment industry.

It's all right there -- even the dovetailing of companies' potential lawsuits and companies' economic interests. While this quote does not specifically cover cable and satellite companies, I think it's quite obvious that all three have the same legal responsibility.

When I read that originally, it seemed like you were referring only to CableLabs in your fee discussion (and I still don't think it's very clear.) My point is just that, from a pure licensing fee perspective, CableLabs gets the same fee no matter what the CableCard is plugged into. The reason they are not selling you that product is due to the fear of being sued. The cable/satellite companies have an additional benefit in that they can charge you for STBs.

 

[HannibalX]

Lets fight about it!