Vista blocking recordings

  • Thread starter Thread starter John
  • Start date Start date
J

John

Hi all:

I decided to install Vista Ultimate as a test on the PC we use to run our
plasma TV where we have had MCE for at least the last 2 years. We have
always been pretty happy with the setup, a few performance hiccups here and
there but nothing worse than I have seen with any PVR. So now that Vista is
on there, a movie just came on the kids channel that I wanted to record, and
I got a message:

"Vista cannot record this program due to restrictions imposed by the
provider" and Vista won't record it!!!

Pardon my French but this is bloody F&*king ridiculous!! Isn't the whole
point of PVR functionality so that we are not slaved to schedules and can
record and watch shows, broadcast over cable that we pay for, at a more
convenient time?

That's the end of Vista for that box, going back to MCE and I might look
into the PVR provided by my cable company and dump all Microsoft
entertainment OSes.

I am usually a huge fan of Microsoft products, but this "feature" is just
plain stupid and doesn't think about the end user...

John.
 
Don't blame MS for this, blame the MPAA/RIAA etc .... even with a pvr from
your cable co, it won't allow you to record blocked content. Welcome to the
wonderful world of DRM.
 
I do blame MS for this for bending and putting that functionality in the OS

--
This message sent from Windows Vista Ultimate
http://mscrmguy.blogspot.com/

Peter M said:
Don't blame MS for this, blame the MPAA/RIAA etc .... even with a pvr from
your cable co, it won't allow you to record blocked content. Welcome to
the wonderful world of DRM.
Click to expand...
 
They had no choice, it was not a question of bending. Had they not included
DRM with any media content player/recording device, they would have been
sued by every record label and network for allowing unprotected copying.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

John said:
I do blame MS for this for bending and putting that functionality in the OS
Click to expand...
 
Hi Rick:

I disagree. This "feature" wasn't a part of MCE and no one tried to sue.
This DRM BS is a very gray area, but the letter of the law, which I had to
know when I was a MCE product TS at MSFT for 2 years, is that recording and
watching shows in your home is fine, as long as you don't record the shows
and then try to sell them in any way. Now I am sure teams of lawyers are
having fun creating all kinds of new laws around this and making huge fees,
but common sense should prevail here.

Essentially by blocking PVRs we are being told (it's ok for you to watch
this show at 6 PM, but not at 7 PM"...

Ridiculous.

John.
 
While I don't disagree with you in practice, things have changed rapidly
with regards to DRM. Keep in mind that only a few years ago it was
completely uncontrolled, songs, shows, and movies being swapped freely and
openly. With the advent of lawsuit-happy, greedy recording companies and
studios, any commercial entity needs to protect itself from these suit-happy
idiots that cry foul for singing happy birthday in a restaurant. They'd see
MS as a huge target with deep pockets to ravage, and it's this sort of
mentality that forces MS and other companies to hedge on the side of
precaution and implement DRM across the board. In order to allow copying of
protected media for personal use, they'd also have to prove that it could
not be later redistributed. It's obscene, but it's what it has come to.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Rather than Microsoft bending to the content providers will out of fear
might it not have been because they wanted access to content to sell to Zune
customers?
 
I'm sure it had a hand in it as well, and there were probably a few other
factors. If DRM wasn't included, I'm sure they'd have never gotten
permission for the content. My main point is that MS had no choice but to
implement DRM. The days of "personal use" are gone, it's just way too easy
to share media and though many can restrain themselves, many more cannot.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
I mostly agree. I'm sure there were many factors involved in the DRM
implementation in Vista. I don't like DRM, especially as it's currently
implemented but in the end there has to be some way to ensure copyright
holders get paid or there will be no incentive to produce new material. We
are no where close to solution that is equitable to all parties yet.
Currently DRM is skewed towards the content providers to the detriment of
the consumers. Hopefully some time in the near future a compromise will be
worked out.
 
Once the provider of the TV show discovers that nobody is watching the shows
that can't be recorded, they might change their minds.
Or when their customers start complaining and canceling their subscriptions.
 
Kerry Brown said:
I don't like DRM, especially as it's currently implemented but in the end
there has to be some way to ensure copyright holders get paid or there will
be no incentive to produce new material.
Click to expand...

That's just so much corporate BS. You write a song and copyright it. You,
and your estate own the rights until 56 years after your death. You write a
song for Sony, and they own the rights until 125 years after your death?

It's a damned good thing Shakespeare, and a whole lot of other creative
people, weren't too concerned about copyrights. Copyright is the providence
of Corporate greed, period. They don't give a damn about the creative mind
behind the work.
 
So you're saying that someone who creates something shouldn't have any
rights, including the right to sell their rights to someone else? The notion
of copyright predates Shakespeare by about 100 years.
 
Actually, Shakespeare and his contemporaries were very concerned about
"copyrights," at least as they existed then. Scripts were for individual's
parts and not as we see plays printed today. Scripts were carefully guarded
to prevent someone collating them and copying.
 
Not to fuss unduly, but I thought that copyright is a seventeenth cenury
notion first implemented sometime around 1660?

formerprof
 
Kerry Brown said:
So you're saying that someone who creates something shouldn't have any
rights, including the right to sell their rights to someone else? The
notion of copyright predates Shakespeare by about 100 years.
Click to expand...

Creative people create. They don't do it for the money, they do it because
they have to do it. It is their nature. If they can make a living along
the way, more power to them, but do they have to support the Sony's,
Disney's, etal. also?

Make the length of the copyright no longer than patent rights. Invent a
better mouse trap, and it's yours for only 20 years. Write the description
of it, and nobody can copy the papers for more than a hundred years. There
seems to be a lack of logic involved there.
 
I'm guessing you've never tried to make a living by creating something. I
agree that the current copyright laws and DRM do not serve the creator of a
work very well but to say someone who creates something does it just for the
joy of doing it is ludicrous. Yes, for many that is the prime motivation.
They enjoy their work. That doesn't mean they don't want to benefit from it
as well.
 
Kerry Brown said:
I'm guessing you've never tried to make a living by creating something. I
agree that the current copyright laws and DRM do not serve the creator of
a work very well but to say someone who creates something does it just for
the joy of doing it is ludicrous. Yes, for many that is the prime
motivation. They enjoy their work. That doesn't mean they don't want to
benefit from it as well.
Click to expand...

I never said they don't want to, or shouldn't, benefit, but there is a
difference between providing content, and raping the consumer.


You're right, I am not a creative person. I'm an industrial electrician. I
solve problems, and I will not pay for a copy of a song that's more than 20
years old. So, let the Chiffons, the Dixie Cups and Buddy Holly sue me.
 
Back
Top