What would be the point of that? The data is encrypted on the external HD, just like on the internal DVR HD. I would assume the encryption scheme is identical, but of course don't know that for sure.
Bad news regarding Dish and "DRM"
- Thread starter Tyralak
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 246
- Views 38K
You can get DVI to HDMI cables for like $5.
Guess I need to invest in a HDMI -> DVI
connector for my downstairs TV.kinda sucks.
But it can go no further than there, so what's the harm ? Are they concerned with down-rezzed to DVD recorder copies ?
I laugh everytime someone brings up "Ohh the HDD is encrypted so it's useless to try to do anything". Look at their encryption issues now, they made dealers stop selling FTA equipment, if they are unwilling to fix that and we know how easy it is to circumvent that. How 'encrypted' do you really think the stuff on the drive is??
And if it doesn't ?
What providers are making the biggest push for this ? Is it typically the movie channels ?
By the way, DVI should be included. HDMI is simply DVI + audio.
That wasn't my point at all. So go ahead and laugh. I said nothing about the solidity of their encryption or whether it could be circumvented or not.
I was just saying, "What's the difference between encrypted on the DVR HD vs. encrypted on an external drive?" Nothing was mentioned about the quality of said encryption.
And now that BluRay and HD-DVD burners are making it to the market, content providers want to prevent you from burning that HD content to high quality BluRay or HD-DVD discs.
This should not be a issue due to most burners will have HDMI inputs just like most new models of HDTV's..
It's not as simple as a HDMI-DVI adapter. DRM implies the use of HDCP over HDMI which means that HD content won't go out to your adapter since it can't provide an HDCP handshake. Same thing for the HD burners with HDMI inputs. Unless they're cracked, they'll ID themselves as a recording device and the DRM won't allow output to them.
However like almost all DRM, it's just stupid. Average Joe consumer is just going to get mad that he can't watch what he legally purchased, and the large-scale content stealers are going to keep burning HD disks on whatever hacked equipment they have.
However like almost all DRM, it's just stupid. Average Joe consumer is just going to get mad that he can't watch what he legally purchased, and the large-scale content stealers are going to keep burning HD disks on whatever hacked equipment they have.
I'm referring to people recording the feed to a PC then distributing it over the internet. The DRM issues are not for people recording on the DVR, it is due to people taking the output from the 622/722, recording the high quality video to a PC, then distributing it over the internet.
TV2 output isn't "HD". You can watch the HD channels, but they're down-converted to 480i resolution.
This is exactly what I was saying. Do you think that BluRay and HD-DVD burners will get a HDCP license? Hell no. This is what the HDCP and DRM is all about. Preventing you, the consumer, from making high quality copies of HD content.
Yes they are. You aren't aware of the whole issue here. So-called "DRM" is just another step in the content provider's jihad against fair use. They don't like people time-shifting programs or recording anything for any use. They never have. They tried to get VCRs banned in the 80's, they tried to ban DVRs when they were first developed, and Jack Valenti (Thank God he's dead, and may he rot in hell) said he concidered time-shifting and use of VCRs as "theft". The DMCA was a way for them to get around much of the fair use laws, and this so called "DRM" bullsh*t, is a way for them to cripple DVRs and other legal content use. Watch for more and more channels and shows to have "no-record" flags, and even "no commercial skip" flags. Go to EFF.org and read up on this whole "broadcast flag" issue. It will open your eyes to what really going on, not the spin the content providers give you.
Not to start another debate, but I find the original memo misleading in another way: some people (yeah, me think that component looks *better* than HDMI or DVI; even though I can use DVI on my CRT HDTV, component looks better so that's what I use for my 622. So to have installers going HDMI just because there's a port means some people aren't going to get as good of a picture as they can.
think that component looks *better* than HDMI or DVI; even though I can use DVI on my CRT HDTV, component looks better so that's what I use for my 622. So to have installers going HDMI just because there's a port means some people aren't going to get as good of a picture as they can.
Not to start another debate, but I find the original memo misleading in another way: some people (yeah, me
This is true. Plus, HDMI is a cranky, unstable standard. We were using component whenever we could to prevent trouble calls. Far too many trouble calls because the customer's picture would just black out, and wouldn't come back on with certain TVs. This of course had to do with the tiniest glitch with the so-called "HDCP" bullsh*t. One hiccup, and the HDMI link would stop functioning.
Not to mention the poorly designed HDMI connector. HDMI requires an absolutely solid, constant stable connection and the connector is so flakey that merely pushing your DVR back into a cabinet can push the cable askew and mess up the connection. Also, the connector is so long that it makes some cabinets unusable. Of course, that doesn't address the TV manufacturers who insist on putting the DVI connector on the bottom of the TV where the slightest jiggle can cause it to fall out of the plug. HDMI should have been designed with a plug that had some sort of "keeper" on it to make sure it would always maintain a connection.
Sorry for the rant - can you tell I have HDMI issues with cords and connections? I've been considering going back to component, but I guess not now.
Sorry for the rant - can you tell I have HDMI issues with cords and connections? I've been considering going back to component, but I guess not now.
