Welcome To Australia's No.1 Media Center Community!
You Are Currently Viewing As A Guest - you'll need to register in order to participate in our community and make this annoying message disappear!
By registering you'll be able to post & reply to questions, set up your own image gallery & blog, communicate privately with other members, create & respond to polls, access downloads and other "members only" features.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not join our community today - you'll be glad you did!
For any problems with the registration process or your account, please contact support.
Intel, Cisco Systems and other tech giants are staking out positions for a fierce battle about the next generation of home entertainment systems.
Intel, the world's No. 1 chipmaker, plans to announce partnerships Wednesday with more than 40 media companies, including Virgin, Napster and British Sky Broadcasting. It's part of a strategy to make the PC the center of the digital home.
Early next year, Intel will release a line of computer chips designed for Media Center PCs running special software from Microsoft. Computers with the chips, called Viiv, will make it easier to use digital content - to transfer a movie from a PC to a TV, for example, says Intel marketing director Gordon Dolfie.
But Intel is not the only company laying claim to the living room. Unlike traditional forms of media, such as records or videotapes, digital movies, music and photos are all written in the same computer language. That makes them no different than other computer files - blurring the line between computers and electronics.
The market is huge. This year alone, $125 billion worth of digital electronics will be sold in the USA, the Consumer Electronics Association says. "It will be the biggest area for consumer spending on electronics in the next decade," Dolfie says. That's prompted tech companies of all types to scramble for a piece:
• Cisco Systems last week announced plans to acquire Scientific-Atlanta, a maker of TV set-top boxes for Time Warner and other cable companies. The No. 1 network-gear maker predicts that the set-top box - not the PC - will be the hub of home entertainment.
• TiVo, a maker of digital video recorders, hopes that DVRs will be the center of the digital home. In the past two months, it has struck deals with Yahoo, Apple and Sony.
• Microsoft is hedging its bets by investing in both the Media Center PC and its video game system, the Xbox. The latest version of the Xbox, launched last week, can play movies, show photos and play tunes from Apple's iPod digital music player.
Other tech companies are vying for a smaller piece of the pie. Search giant Google is in talks with CBS about a video-on-demand service, CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves told Reuters news service.
Internet portal AOL plans to run old TV shows on its website through a partnership with Warner Bros. (Both AOL and Warner Bros. are owned by Time Warner.)
It's still too early to tell who the winners will be, says independent tech analyst Rob Enderle. PC companies were some of the first to embrace digital media, but their products haven't worked or sold well so far, he says. One reason: cumbersome anti-piracy protections implemented by entertainment companies, he says.
Set-top boxes have an advantage in that they're already used to bring entertainment into the home. Now that these incumbents have the backing of giant Cisco, they will be tough to beat, he says.
But there's still room for new ideas, such as a system designed by start-up Digeo that can record digital video as well as handle on-demand programming from cable companies, Enderle says.
The ownership of the digital living room "is still up in the air," he says.
Great article. Thanks for the great info on this website it is really adding to my Media Centre knowledge and I am starting to get hooked. Which companies do you think are poised to deliver these devices and digital entertainment media to the public maintream consumer market here in australia? Will it be a traditional PC company such as Dell or HP, a traditional Entertainment and Music supplier such as a JB HiFi or will it be a new company specialising in this stuff?
Will it be a traditional Bricks and Mortar or an online company, can these devices be ready straight out of the box or will they need technicians to install and set them up for consumers?
The ownership of the digital living room "is still up in the air," he says.
I love this comment....NOT!
I don't want any one company to "own" the living room, what I want is a set of open standards not governed by any one company or goverment and a standard that does not have DRM at its heart, I don't mind it intergrating DRM but not at the cost of interoperability.
Don't like the fact that interoperability may be affected but at least their are competing companies for a slice so this is one way they don't want to restrict their products, especially microsoft who I am sure want their MCE to be an All in one central hub.
It seems to be inevitable that competing standards will emerge, let's not forget Betamax & VHS in the mid 70's and as if we didn't learn from that we now have Blu-Ray & HD DVD. So it would appear that the impending divergence between embedded STBs and the (locked down) PC solution is unavoidable, however I'd guess Microsoft don't really care since it's likely that the many of the solutions will use some form of their Media Center platform.
As for DRM, anybody who has $$ invested in content will always want to protect their interests and as the content owner, they'll always (reasonably) want a voice in how that content is distributed and protected. What's funny is that the deciding factor on an individual's view on DRM appears to be which side of the fence they're on. A few years ago my two eldest sons were happily learning from me (without concience) how to use (early) Napster or edonkey /Shareaza to grab music or rip their friends' CD's etc., but then their band decided to go with an Indy label and fund their own recordings for about year or so.
Well did things change in our household !! - I had to continue my nefarious activities in secret when they weren't around or else face the lecture on being part of "the dark side" , stealing income from struggling musicians who never make any money until the record companies have recovered their 14 lbs of flesh etc. etc!
They went from pirates to puritans overnight and have stayed there even though they no longer play in a band - so I guess DRM is a good or a bad thing dependent on whether it protects your interests or simply gets in the way of someone who has nothing to protect.
It seems to be inevitable that competing standards will emerge, let's not forget Betamax & VHS in the mid 70's and as if we didn't learn from that we now have Blu-Ray & HD DVD. So it would appear that the impending divergence between embedded STBs and the (locked down) PC solution is unavoidable, however I'd guess Microsoft don't really care since it's likely that the many of the solutions will use some form of their Media Center platform.
I don't think you quite grasp what a standard is, the battle between Beta and VHS was never between competing standards. Beta was and is a closed propriatary format owned exclusively by Sony, Sony's intend was never to release or license the specifications for Betamax and produce 100% of the worlds VCR's. VHS on the other hand was an open ratified standard that any manufacturer could license.
I have no problem with competing standards either, Blue-Ray or HD DVD
are completely licensable and may the best standard win. I do however have a problem with the holywood studio's agreeing with each other to purposely distribute different films on different standards exclusively, so as to boslter sales of the Blue-Ray or HD DVD players not through inovation and value adding but through coercion. The two camps behind the standards have taken the luicrous position and already made it clear to manufacturers that they do not want to see a "combo" player that can play both formats.
Getting back on topic I have no problem with a living room device being capable of playing multiple standards, but I do take offence at a company that makes a product that while capable of playing multiple standards also incorporates active "protection" against those standards or formats not its own or does not like, and then has the hide to say its a "complete home theatre expirience". Obviously its within the companies rights to do so but they're not getting my dollar on principal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
As for DRM, anybody who has $$ invested in content will always want to protect their interests and as the content owner, they'll always (reasonably) want a voice in how that content is distributed and protected. What's funny is that the deciding factor on an individual's view on DRM appears to be which side of the fence they're on. A few years ago my two eldest sons were happily learning from me (without concience) how to use (early) Napster or edonkey /Shareaza to grab music or rip their friends' CD's etc., but then their band decided to go with an Indy label and fund their own recordings for about year or so.
Well did things change in our household !! - I had to continue my nefarious activities in secret when they weren't around or else face the lecture on being part of "the dark side" , stealing income from struggling musicians who never make any money until the record companies have recovered their 14 lbs of flesh etc. etc!
As i said I don't mind DRM so long as it does not interfere with interoperability, my point being when you legitimately buy a piece of music the record industry is telling you that what you have bought is the right to play that piece of music on the medium it came on and only on the medium it came on. When you bought a piece of music online and downloaded it you only have the right to play it on the music system you downloaded it onto (this extends to ipods because they are a part of Apple 's iTunes music system)
Well the record industry can go and kiss my A S S, I want the right to Make 10 copies of the music and load it into every CD player and music library in MY house and MY car, Thats the in between category that no one seems to be talking about. its totally different to sharing or pirating music online but its also what DRM is designed to stop.
The way I see it when I buy music, I have bought the right to listen to that music in any format I like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
They went from pirates to puritans overnight and have stayed there even though they no longer play in a band - so I guess DRM is a good or a bad thing dependent on whether it protects your interests or simply gets in the way of someone who has nothing to protect.
Yes agreed, but again what is it that is being protected / violated, the music itself or the right to listen to it on a different medium. I'm sure the record companies would love to sell you another copy of the "White Album" every time a new format is released. Did anyone get that bit of propaganda in MIB.
I don't think you quite grasp what a standard is, the battle between Beta and VHS was never between competing standards.
Oh really? - LOL - well unlike you, I was a consumer back then and was part of the ongoing debate/decision making between which type of video recorder to buy and I can assure that's exactly what it felt like at the time. Now 30 years later it's - STB (your clear preference ) or PC? - in a few years it won't matter - both will be locked down and the ability to get around the controls will become another part of the "underground" just like mod chipping was at the start.
I understand your passion for this subject but again I say, if you were the content originator (music/movie/software) - you would not be so quick to say yes to allowing ExtremePC to copy your copyrighted material to EVERY playing device in his home - because once he can do that - well how do you prevent him from going to the next step? And if some bright spark invented a method of somehow "registering" every device you own to let you do exactly what you say you want, play your new purchase anywhere - why do I find it hard to accept that that wouldn't be enough for you ?
I think we can huff & puff about DRM as much as we like, but in the end I reckon it's more about no longer being able to "obtain" playable material than it is about having the freedom to use it the way we want. I don't like the idea of having my machines locked down any more than you do - but I would feel differently if I personally stood to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from something I created that everybody wanted.
So whilst I might find it a damn nuisance and will miss what will become "the good old days" - I just can't bring myself to see the concept as evil or controlling or denying me my rights like you do - and we all know that rights are funny things - you only have them as long as you don't take away somebody else's in the process of exercising yours - so I guess that in the end we're all going to have to pay for everything or go without.
MikeJ
You said VHS could be licensed to anyone. True. But who did you pay the license to.
Beta could also be licenced to anyone and it was.
So where is the difference - Answer - No difference at all.
Both were competing standards. Remember Sony invented the M Wrap used in VHS and they sold it to JVC because it was crapp . Beta was far superior.
The facts are that the technically superior format died because of a marketting blunder. Sony thought that superior picture quality etc would win the battle. In Japan they would have been right but they didn't realise the rest of the world was stupid.
And that's why the XBox with all it's lock downs as you mentioned in another thread will do so well. The public are and always will be - "Stupid"
Oh really? - LOL - well unlike you, I was a consumer back then and was part of the ongoing debate/decision making between which type of video recorder to buy and I can assure that's exactly what it felt like at the time. Now 30 years later it's - STB (your clear preference ) or PC? - in a few years it won't matter - both will be locked down and the ability to get around the controls will become another part of the "underground" just like mod chipping was at the start.
30 years nothing, Betamax is still alive and kicking and being debated over in every major video production house today. Extremely high quality analog recordings still trounce digital formats.
The view that everything will be locked down is an extremely myopic view of the digital entertainment industry (myopic towards MS and Sony). I guess we as Australians go hand in hand with current US trends, but if you look to asia and europe (Canada too!) there is already a huge movement away from MS and US policy regarding digital entertainment. Most european countires even have real "Fair Use" laws regarding copyright. Several western european governments have actually banned MS products inside their own infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I understand your passion for this subject but again I say, if you were the content originator (music/movie/software) - you would not be so quick to say yes to allowing ExtremePC to copy your copyrighted material to EVERY playing device in his home - because once he can do that - well how do you prevent him from going to the next step?
You can't, just like you can't really stop people from stealing anything unless you violate their rights to the point that its impossible. Thats the crux, what the record industry want to do is violate our rights coercively, and it will only happen through blind tollerence to the errosion of those rights.
To apply the same principals the record industry wants to use, how would you like to be asked to strip naked when you go into a shop just so you won't have the oppertunity to steal something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
And if some bright spark invented a method of somehow "registering" every device you own to let you do exactly what you say you want, play your new purchase anywhere - why do I find it hard to accept that that wouldn't be enough for you ?
Your kidding right? Its none of anyones business to know how many devices I have at my disposal, let alone "registering" them. What an absolutely ridiculous invasson of privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I think we can huff & puff about DRM as much as we like, but in the end I reckon it's more about no longer being able to "obtain" playable material than it is about having the freedom to use it the way we want. I don't like the idea of having my machines locked down any more than you do - but I would feel differently if I personally stood to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from something I created that everybody wanted.
Yes it would be your right to worry about protecting content you create and it would be your right to act on it,.....right up to the point that your actions infringes my rights, but no further.
For almost every other crime in our society we have laws that act as deterents and protect rights, why then should we accept these active errosions of our rights in the name of DRM.
Incidentally restricting changing formats using DRM technology goes against current US law, which does have a "Fair Use" policy that allows making duplicate copies of material for personal use, same as europe and asia, not so for Australia.
Yes it would be your right to worry about protecting content you create and it would be your right to act on it,.....right up to the point that your actions infringes my rights
I'm amazed!
If I create an original work and decide to sell it as my sole source of income, the only rights you have are those which I provide to you either under the terms of sale or if I choose to be non specific, under copyright law which is designed to protect me..
To attempt to argue that my terms of sale or my rights under copyright in any way violate your rights as a consumer is an astonishing position to take. If my terms of sale state that you are not allowed to make one single copy and that if you want to use my work in multiple instances you have to purchase multiple copies, from that point on the only rights you have is to either comply, not use my work or break the law.
And you think that I have a myopic view of the issue
If I create an original work and decide to sell it as my sole source of income, the only rights you have are those which I provide to you either under the terms of sale or if I choose to be non specific, under copyright law which is designed to protect me..
To attempt to argue that my terms of sale or my rights under copyright in any way violate your rights as a consumer is an astonishing position to take. If my terms of sale state that you are not allowed to make one single copy and that if you want to use my work in multiple instances you have to purchase multiple copies, from that point on the only rights you have is to either comply, not use my work or break the law.
And you think that I have a myopic view of the issue
Using the painting analogy, I can take as many photos, paint as many duplicates, make as many photocopies as I like, I could even tear it up and use it as dunny paper, you have no legal say whatsover, regarless of the terms of sale because your not the person who makes the laws in this country.
Where I would infringe on your rights is if I tried to then sell or give away the copies. It is at that moment and only that momnet that I have infringed on your rights.
Any terms you care to place on the sale of the painting over and above that of copyright are not worth anything once I bought and paid for it. For example if you stipulated that the painting must face north all the times, there is no law that says I have to comply with that.
If I wanted to remove the paint from the canvass and stick it onto a bedsheet (yeah it would be bloody hard!) you have no right to say i can't do it.
If I wanted to get a duplicate painted and store the original away, there is nothing legal you can do to stop me.
Why should this be any different to music and videos, just because its much easier to do?
The painting analogy is completely flawed and irrelevant. If I were to paint something that everybody wanted which became worth millions overnight, of course you can make as many copies of my original work as you wished, because it has no effect on the value of the original. My masterpiece isn't worth any less simply because you make 100,000 copies of it - why? - because mine is the original and whilst it can be imitated - it can't be duplicated, and those copies are worth 50c each down at Parklea markets and my original still increases in value every year.
And if you did buy it, of course you can do whatever you wanted with it - face it north or south, burn it or give it away, because I already have my payment in full, so I have no ability or expectation of being able to generate further income from the creation of that work.
But we're discussing Digital Rights Management, and as you know, a copy of an original digital work is not an imitation or an approximation - it's a duplicate - an identical copy of the original in every way, to the point where there is no difference between the two - and please don't start about original cover art etc.
And whilst I "don't make the law" (of course), as far as allowing you to duplicate my digital work and sell or give away copies thereby giving all the recipients of those copies something which is identical to my original and as a result denying me ongoing income, then I do have the right to say no to that.
If you buy my original digital work (which is already an authorised copy) , you can use it or not, you can sell it, or you can give it away or burn it - but if you sell it or give it away, you only have the ability do that once, which has minimal effect on me. But if you duplicate it and upload it to a website or distribute 100,000 copies as CDs or DVDs, well now you have denied me the ability to derive income from all those copies, and as a result you've broken the law.
But we're not talking about you doing that are we? - We're talking about you being able to make fair use of the product you paid for, and even I, as the tyrannical original author could hardly object to you protecting your investment by allowing you to make one or two or three backup copies could I? Well if I were being reasonable of course not - that wouldn't infringe on my rights because I know you wouldn't buy more than one anyhow. But sadly I can't believe that's all you would do, (not you personally btw ) because history has demonstrated, and continues to prove that the technology that allows you to make a single backup also allows you to make 100,000 more to distribute as you wish - and then you start to infringe on my rights.
So until original authors are provided a mechanism that will protect their ability to generate ongoing income from their creations, we as consumers cannot expect to have the right to obtain copies without paying for them or to make copies and distribute them at will, because each one of those copies is worth as much as the one first purchased and prevents it being sold again - not at all like that oil painting you bought.
Mike - I'm sympathetic to the rights of the creators here, but I figure like Extreme that there's something seriously wrong if I spend $30 to purchase an album this month and then can't play it on the new computer I buy next month. Or if I play it on my study computer and then can't play it in the loungeroom. I refuse to purchase albums online for this reason. I can read a book wherever I like (so far) and that's what I expect of my music. For that matter, I can move my paintings around the house a lot more easily than I can rewire an audio setup.
So from my point of view a better solution needs to be found to protecting creators interests. I don't have the answer, but one thought that strikes me is that having a lot more of your music circulating must push up your popularity and pricing power as a performing musician/band.
from my point of view a better solution needs to be found to protecting creators interests.
I couldn't agree more - and let me say that just like many/most of you guys here, I suffer the same issues across a broad spectrum of media and certainly do not look forward to the day when my ability to extract maximum useability from my purchase is denied me.
Let's face it, the only reason this debate exists at all is because for years now, authors have been ripped off big time by piracy, and now that tighter controls are being planned, as a by-product we're seeing our freedoms will likely be affected with legitimately purchased media.
But who do we blame? - the pirates? - no never - because they're cool and they've been feeding us with elicit material for years and saving us money and we implictly approve of what they've done by using their stuff. No, instead we get stuck into the authors and distributors or the hardware manufacturers or even Microsoft and say it's all their fault for being so tight and mean spirited - but is it really their fault? - I don't think it is
and publishers, RIAA, (insert greedy corporate body here) .
It's only a problem now because the internet has provided information on "how to" and to some extent "why" to the majority of the general public.
I've said it 1000 times, nothing will change until the dinosaurs that are those "corporations" wake up and smell the roses. Change their business practises and move into the 21st century. The time of profiteering in a closed and tightly controlled market is over yet they are happy to spend billions on trying to achieve the exact same closed and tighly controlled market. They just don't get it.
Piracy will always be rife in any industry where the value of a product (detemined by the market), is less than the cost of the product.
It's simple economics. How many times have you heard the saying that it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay? Well. I've never been prepared to pay $30 for a CD with 1 good track on it and 16 that I don't like.
i.e. If that 1 song is work $1.95 then I'll buy it, but I won't be forced into buying 17 songs at $1.95 each.
The only way it will ever work is when:
A) Their business model changes and they offer a better service than they have before and can therefore justify their pricing or
B) Let the market decide what a product is worth and only products worth buying will sell (and the must be sold individually).
No amount of DRM, this protection/that protection is going to protect them. All it will do is cost them billions to develop and it will end up eating them. The harder something is to break the more likely it will be. Not forgetting that it costs a company millions to implement anti-piracy measures. It costs the hacker community nothing (in fact it's considered sport).
Let them spend the money. Laugh when it gets cracked within 24 hours. And if you can't legally play an album you purchased in your bedroom because it only works in the lounge, are you going to pirate it? or just listen to it in the lounge?
This is the same discussion we're having in the xbox thread. If the device is limited, cripled and you are restricted in how/when you can use your media then people will just move away from the technology.
Business will always allow this to happen. If vendor A is selling something restrcted (and is the only seller), it's a monopoly and that's deemed illegal. Therefore there is nothing to stop vendor B offering the same thing without the limitations (in fact vendor B has the advantage, a product that people DO want).
I'm sick of being dictated too by the people that supposedly own this media. I think the internet is the best thing to ever happen to them and they are really only getting just what they deserve. Years of retail abuse is catching up with them and even better still is that the original copyright owner is now free to distibute their own works without needing a label or a studio to back it and advertise it. In the very near future we will be able to see and hear what we want, when we want based on our own opinions, not some marketing campaign put together because executive Team A in company B decided that this month Artist xyz will make them more profit.
They're bleeding from both ends. Artists don't need them, neither do the consumer. Sooner or later they will cease to exists and the world will be a better place for all.
If anything they're killing themselves quicker. The more they push the "I must protect the content and my profits" barrow, the more they condition their market to accept and make use of piracy. It's a self fullfiling demise.
Artists will always create, consumers will always consume. The next person to make a lot of money from it all will be the one who can put honesty back into the process.
Intel, Cisco Systems and other tech giants are staking out positions for a fierce battle about the next generation of home entertainment systems.
Re: Intel Deals Strengthen ViiV Media Centers
) or PC? - in a few years it won't matter - both will be locked down and the ability to get around the controls will become another part of the "underground" just like mod chipping was at the start.
