Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by I.T.M.A, Mar 9, 2005.
See this thread.
Sorry in my enthusiasm I should have said "component" imputs........
so whats this Sky appoints Thomson press release about??? i had heard a rumour about component outputs, was only sensible things to do!!!Panny owners breath sign of relief Lumagen and DVDO share holders rush to cancel orders for that new boat???
My JVC HV32P37 is not redundant just yet. Glee!!!
have you checked if it accepts 720p @ 50Hz.......
Oh don't pleeeze!!!!
So are they saying that their HD STB's will be equipped with Videoguard and run the SKY OS or are they just spinning a story to make is sound better than their STB's can only handle FTA HD broadcasts?
I know which my money is on
Brilliant news - if you aren't bothered about Sport or Movies, because you can bet that they will be the HDCP encoded channels.
I wouldn't get too excited.
IF you want HD it is available right now!!!!!(with component outputs and no onthly sub)
Good point HD, but the article is referring to SKY in particular, as was I.
I own the Tosh DLP and have plenty of High Def trailers/WMV HD stuff so already see the benefit of what we have to come.....
I was talking of Euro1080/HD1....£500 job done (need dish etc) get HD till 2010 i think.. nice stuff but limited.....
I wouldn't read anything into this until Sky themselves confirm it through official channels - like a press release.
The reality (surely) is that has Sky have already implied that key content (that you would want to see in HD like movies and sport) will be HDCP protected, and that comes courtesy of HDMI only.
Yes, I am sure there will be some content that doesn't have HDCP switched on and hence can be viewed over component. But does anyone really want to invest in HD to only watch a limited range of unprotected programming when the stuff that really justifies HD is all protected?
Sky's dilema surely is do they disappoint a very small number of pre-HDCP HD users, or make sure from day one that everything is protected, and the vast majority of new HD users (who will all have new HDCP sets) are properly using copy protection. Sky have never been shy of making the market move to its goalposts.
Or wait until SKY launch since the EURO1080 channels are expected to be carried in mpeg4, no word on subscription status or HDCP though.
It's been obvious for a while that there were going to be component outputs on the STB. As I've said in the forums before, the way Sky's press releases have been worded implied that there would be a hi-def output other than HDMI or DVI-HDCP as detailed in this one, in particular the line saying
(my emphasis on the word primary)
Sony are just confirming that they know there will be component outputs.
The key question is still what content is going to be encrypted so that it will have to be viewed over HDMI or DVI-HDCP. From what Sony have apaprently said, one would assume they have information suggesting that at Sky's HD launch there will be quite a bit of content not requiring encrypted digital connection.
Why would sport be HDCP protected? I can understand movies, given Hollywood's paranoia about copying, and possibly imported TV material (in case the TV studios are scared that people won't buy the DVD's), but I wouldn't have thought sport has the repeat value that films have.
The only restriction I would have thought they'd put on sport would be making some events pay-per-view rather than showing it as part of the regular content of some hypothetical Sky Sports HD. I mean, are the Premiership really worried about people recording their games in SD, never mind HD?
Er, premium channel = money for Sky.
You'll buy a Sky HD box at £300 then they'll have to have something to be able to justify charging us £10 a month subscription for.
That'll most likely be sport and Movies.
I expect that you'll still get SD versions of all these channels without paying, but that to receive the HD versions you'll get shafted. Presumably they will drop off the charge at some point like the sky plus sub, then just charge for "special" events.
Just summising of course
Dunno, there's a reasonable market in football DVDs. Season highlights, the big matches, etc. e.g. Germany 1 England 5 world cup game was a good seller.
SD Premiership on Sky is relatively poor quality so isn't a good source for pirates, but copies of HD quality premiership (and other) matches could find a ready market.
Whilst the Premiership/FA/Football League/FIFA/EUFA might not mind you taping the match today, they are all nevertheless fiercely protective of their copyright and if the technology is available at the flick of a switch to help prevent piracy of HD materials why wouldn't they use it?
I think you're missing my point. Sky will make their money by requiring people to pay a subscription fee (or one off fee in the case of PPV) in order to access the HD content. You don't need HDCP in to order to do that, as that's controlled by the package of channels linked to your viewing card (or what PPV events you've paid for).
HDCP would only be applied where the rights owner (e.g. Hollywood) is paranoid about people pirating their films from broadcast.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if at launch none of Sky's HD content is HDCP protected, but that it get's introduced once HD-DVD and Blu-Ray recorders hit the market and start reaching the sub £1k price bracket. Then you'll probably see movies go HDCP.
But that's probably what the service will be. You'll probably find that if you don't subscribe to the Sky+ HD service (I'm assuming Sky won't have the cheek to charge you seperately for the HD channels and the Sky+ functionality, although I wouldn't put it past them), the box will probably just allow you to view the SD channels you subscribe to, just like the current Sky+ box is without the subscription, except with component and HDMI outputs.
Whilst the Premiership/FA/Football League/FIFA/EUFA might not mind you taping the match today, they are all nevertheless fiercely protective of their copyright and if the technology is available at the flick of a switch to help prevent piracy of HD materials why wouldn't they use it?[/QUOTE]
Probably because the EU are bent on breaking up Sky's monopoly on football, which would mean that other broadcasters (i.e. BBC and ITV) would be able to show matches. If they were to broadcast on a future terrestrial HD or Freesat HD service, these channels may well not employ encryption (I believe it was Sky's insistence on the use of encryption to show matches that meant the BBC didn't bid for the sub-licence to broadcast Premiership games last years, as they've stopped using encryption), which would defeat the object of Sky employing it, as people would be able to record from these other broadcasters.
No, I'm not missing your point at all, hence me mentioning a subscription fee of say £10
Or where sky feel they could make some extra money from you!!
You actually think that people will be prepared to pay £10 per month only to have something eventually taken off them when they start HDCP-ing the movies? If they do it I would imagine it'll be all up front or there will be uproar!
They don't charge for Sky+ funtionality now, so that is unlikely to be reintroduced. As for HD content, that remains to be seen.....come on Sky, you must have some idea
1. Some people seem to be confusing Sky's encryption that forces viewers to pay subscription fees if they want to watch certain programmes, with HDCP which prevents viewers from then copying those programmes.
Sky will still charge a £10 (say) a month subscription to watch their encrypted HD channels, regardless of whether they use HDCP or not. HDCP isnt about charging people more.
2. If other broadcasters such as BBC deside to broadcast HD via the Sky platform, then one assumes they would still be FTA/FTV.
Whether these broadcasters use HDCP or not isn't clear (to me at least). HDCP is about preventing piracy, not stopping people from watching. So BBC could still broadcast FTA HD programmes so that anyone is free to watch them, but at the same time use HDCP - they want to prevent piracy of their materials as much as anyone else, they sell lots of DVDs.
3. I don't see a problem with Sky insisting on HDCP from day 1 and not providing any alternative. There is a very, very small minority of people today who have HD capable, but non-HDCP sets. The much bigger majority that Sky will be targetting at the end of the year will have the opportunity to buy HDCP sets from the outset. Sky have never had any problem making the market move to its goalposts. Sky are in this for the long term, not to pander to a few early adoptors.
4. On the other hand I don't see a problem either with Sky saying we will support component HD for a set period, after which it will be HDCP enabled connections only, so start planning your display upgrade... They might realise that the very small minority in 3 is actually useful to them to kick start the market. However, presumably this depends on the willingness of the studios to let them broadcast non-HDCP material, but this doesnt seem to be a problem in the USA. Also it increases the cost of their hardware if it must support both connections, but only to serve a small minority of customers.
5. Finally, it might be that HDCP never really takes hold. If it doesn't take off in the US, then its pointless anyone trying to insist on it in the UK or elsewhere. If the US authorities cannot enforce HDCP usage, then the whole deals off, and it will become a mute point because even if it is used, there will be a plentiful supply of bypass/conversion devices (because the authorities will not be able to stop them if HDCP isnt law)
But they won't be making any extra money from you by using HDCP. Do you not understand the difference between content access encryption (which they will use to control access to particular content, such as they do with PPV events or channel packages now) and copy protection encryption which is aimed to try and stop people copying broadcasts that their subscription permits them to view?
Yes they do if you don't subscribe to at least 2 premium channel packages.
One thing is for sure - Sky will be doing a lot of market research to see how much they can charge for HDTV boxes and subscription. I suspect that the initial prices will be quite high, so that Sky can claw back the money that they have invested in launching HDTV. Later, when demand decreases, the price will drop. Like all new technology, the initial buyers will pay the highest price.
But if that were the case they'd be applying encryption now to their broadcasts over Sky's platform and there would probably have been encryption built into Freeview to restrict this (or maybe there is and they're not using it?)
It would depend on how big that "very, very small minority of people" is. Given that that is Sky's current market, and that there's still a dearth of HD screens with HDMI or DVI-HDCP connections right now (and companies like Sony aren't releasing compatibe sets until June/July this year), that minority is still going to represent the majority of Sky's target market when they launch.
I can't see how they can not do this, as otherwise the target market will be far too small. Don't forget, just becuase someone has a HDMI/DVI-HDCP screen, doesn't necessarily mean they're aware of, or even interested in, HDTV - they more than likely just bought it because they/their partner thought it would look good on the living room wall...
Well HDCP is part of the HDMI spec, and I think it's a given that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players will support it, so it's here to stay. (Although I'm sure there'll be plenty of no-brand players around a few years after the platforms launch that will either omit the digital connections or allow you to disable anything stopping the HD signal being routed via the analogue outputs).
For broadcast, Hollywood can always play the trump card of refusing to sell the rights to screen their movies in HD to channels that won't show them with HDCP only. After all, would that really hurt their profits that much at the end of the day, compared to what they make from global cinematic release and DVD sales?
On Sky's corporate website they say "Any TV set that carries the “HD Ready” label will work with Sky's HDTV service".
HD Ready is analogue component as well as DVI/HDMI. By 'work' they could mean that only one channel needs to work under component!! but there'll be a few miffed people who will have gone out buying HD Ready tv's (no HDMI/DVI) only to find they don't get all the sky HD channels.
Of course I understand the difference between HDCP and content encryption.
What I'm saying to you is I believe there is the possibility there'll be a selection of channels that will be "Free to air" HD, and a selection that will be "pay per view" HD.
Sky one, BBC whatever, we will all get down the same pipe and component only watchers rejoice. Movies and Sport will still be available through standard def, but the Hi Def versions of these channels will be BOTH CHARGEABLE AND HDCP ENCRYPTED at a cost of say £10 per month.
Does anyone really pay £10 per month for sky+ and not have the full package?
Well I don't have the full package of channels - I just do the 2 premium channels on top of the family pack and that's only because it's a no brainer to pay about £10 extra over the main channel package to get 2 premium channel packages that I might occasionally watch, instead of paying the £10 fee and get bugger all else for it.
Sorry, but that wasn't coming across in the way you were wording your posts, espcially as the main part of the discussion was on the issues around copy protection, not access control
I'd consider that highly unlikely - Sky aren't going to recoup their investment in the HD platform by not charging people to watch HD content (although I wouldn't be surprised if they do a rolling HD demo channel showing clips from films, programmes, sport etc...)
I didn't say they weren't going to charge........I said I thought SOME would be free.
I give up
Separate names with a comma.