rights issues relating to digital television broadcasts via satellite or digital terrestrial, already discussed in previous post , takes on even more importance when considering the provision of the FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) that , from July 1, 2005, each device can handle images from digital terrestrial broadcasting, and then TV, personal video recorders, video recorders and others, will mount a special chip that will determine, case by case, restrictions on the use of the transmissions received. This means that any TV series, drama, documentary, variety or steps on the small screen but it will not be burned or transferred to other media if the owners do not deem it appropriate, or shared over the Internet or within a home network.
All this talk these days Repubblica.it , citing the website of 'Electronic Frontier Foundation (association for the defense of freedom digital) that defends "the right of users to receive and manipulate images from the DTT with the technologies that they consider most appropriate. "
believe that the position taken by the FCC and by those who defend the rights of television programs is not entirely justified. Too many forget the rights of consumers to safeguard the property of a few . However, the agitation of the television networks is understandable.
Someone says, until some time ago you could easily record anything to pass on the small screen thanks to a VHS, why now all this should be illegal? The reasons are essentially two: a) the quality of the images in the era of digital revolution and b) the ease of sharing television programs broadcast by pay TV.
a) The old VHS guaranteed with reasonable effectiveness of the private use of images on them: the quality of these recordings, which is insufficient when compared to programs broadcast over the air, to film a video store and, of course, films projected in a cinema, worsened significantly when trying to duplicate those tapes. In more than a few years ago, when VCRs were still being sold at a price, it was difficult to find in the house that you can connect two devices together to make copies of VHS. For this reason the tapes were a solution of convenience "by the user: they were used simply not to miss the fundamental point of a fiction or, at best, to keep their favorite movie just aired.
b) The introduction of digital technology and the resulting compression techniques have made sure that the images transmitted via satellite (or digital terrestrial) could be stored without excessive loss of quality. Since these transmissions encoded in MPEG-2, that is the format used by DVD, it is understood that the final outcome of adjustments is equivalent to that of a movie that you rent from Blockbuster or an episode of a TV drama output with any magazine. So why pay for these products when possible, thanks to a modern VCR with built-in hard drive, reduce costs to a simple blank DVD on which transfer all individually? Above all, why pay a subscription fee to a pay TV as Sky when, ten minutes after the airing of an episode of a TV series, the latter is already available to a quality more than acceptable on the Internet?
It makes sense that content producers and networks that distribute them to pay to be terrified. More curious is the fact that this fear, common to the evidence for years that the music industry has found a law immediately ready to exorcise it through a measure to say the least "dictatorship." The RIAA however, that the days of Napster fighting a hopeless battle with the pirates that are moving online, it only succeeded in imposing ineffective anti-copying audio CDs, easily circumvented through various software. I wonder if, at this point, the "enlightened" of the music business are also thinking of their total block of the digital radio, stereo and CD burning ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment