Remote HD TV reception quality

[Jim S.]

Since when did your rights trump copyright?

The concept of copyright has been around and in force for a very long time and I can't imagine how you could simply sweep it under the carpet to develop your own little scheme where the protections no longer apply if they don't suit you.

Are you arguing that the law shouldn't apply equally to everyone? Because I don't see any law preventing me from taking an analog video signal and retransmitting it on a closed system for my own use, or recording it for my own use at whatever level of fidelity I wish, all with cheap, readily-available, consumer-grade equipment.

 

[SaltiDawg]

The signal from the satellite covering the entire country isn't broadcasting?

Read your own post.... " ... broadcasting is supposed to be regulated for the public good." That describes the FCC's role in regulating OTA broadcasts.

 

[Jim S.]

But they're still requiring licenses for the satellites, it's not like you can just put one up and use it, even if you design it for non-interference.

 

[harshness]

It certainly does. They can not be encrypted within the ATSC standard.

Check this out (if you dare):

A/70A: Conditional Access System For Terrestrial Broadcast, Revision A, With Amendment No. 1

The ATSC standards cover a lot of ground.

 

[harshness]

Because I don't see any law preventing me from taking an analog video signal and retransmitting it on a closed system for my own use, or recording it for my own use at whatever level of fidelity I wish, all with cheap, readily-available, consumer-grade equipment.

We're not talking about what the law allows. We're talking about what the content providers allow in their carriage agreements. Providers can most certainly strike carriage agreements that prevent end customers from exploiting the "analog hole".

The hardware and software is in place and some have already seen the impact.

 

[SaltiDawg]

Are you arguing that the law shouldn't apply equally to everyone? Because I don't see any law preventing me from taking an analog video signal and retransmitting it on a closed system for my own use, or recording it for my own use at whatever level of fidelity I wish, all with cheap, readily-available, consumer-grade equipment.

You obviously still don't get it.

There is no law that prevents you from taking a digital video signal and recording it for your own use at whatever level of fidelity you wish, all with cheap, readily available, consumer-grade equipment. As far as re-transmitting OTA, the same prohibition exists for digital that exists for analog.

In the case of digital, it is the demodulated video that has restrictions and controls on its distribution in full resolution.

 

[Jim S.]

harshness and SaltiDawg are both missing the point.

It should not be incumbent upon the programming carriers to enforce copyright protection.

It should not in fact be necessary to encrypt the signal at all to enforce the concept of copyright.

If you copy it for anything other than your own use, you've broken the law whether it's encrypted or not.

If you want to copy it for your own use only, you should be able to just as you can with anything else.

Books, magazines, newspapers, photographs, speech, music, all are copyrightable, yet there are no physical barriers to copying them.

So, my original argument, that the programming carriers should've withstood demands for encryption other than what is necessary to restrict access to subscribed channels, still stands.

 

[SaltiDawg]

...
If you want to copy it for your own use only, you should be able to just as you can with anything else. ...

You can do this right now. What you can not do is make additional copies or allow another device to make a copy. This is you distributing copies that the originator does not get paid for. No different from Macrovision on VHS tapes and various other copy protection schemes such as with DVDs and BDs.

You're just trolling now. I'm done being hooked.