magnulus ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Considering that an hour of HDTV encoded material can be around 9 GB, and
considering current bandwith limitations of broadband aren't likely to
change (it takes me around half an hour to download a 200-300MB file on my
DSL), I'd say the piracy issue is academic at this point.

At this point, somebody invariably points out that soon we will all have
10Mbps (or faster) connections to the Internet in our homes. This is not
true, of course, but let's pretend it is for a moment.

That would allow a one-hour HDTV program to be downloaded in two hours,
which is *way* too long to be considered a problem.

So, let's pretend we all have 100Mbps download available...that makes it
possible to get one hour of HDTV in 12 minutes...not too bad.

Except that even if we all had download speeds that fast, not one of us
would have *upload* speeds anywhere near that fast. Current users with
10Mbps cable modem download speeds usually have less than 512Kbps upload.
Since somebody has to provide these files for sharing on a P2P network,
the upload speed is just as important as the download speed, and it's going
to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert...dCoWorkers.gif
|
|
|

Jeff, I agree with most of what you have said, except for
"it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD".
If a person can sit and let their cable modem crank bits over night and
then when they come home the next evening they have Lord of the Rings:
Return of the King in HD format. I would bet many people would go for
that. Speeds are a slow down to piracy, easy access is an incentive.

Jeff Rife wrote in
:

magnulus ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Considering that an hour of HDTV encoded material can be around 9
GB, and
considering current bandwith limitations of broadband aren't likely
to change (it takes me around half an hour to download a 200-300MB
file on my DSL), I'd say the piracy issue is academic at this point.

At this point, somebody invariably points out that soon we will all
have 10Mbps (or faster) connections to the Internet in our homes.
This is not true, of course, but let's pretend it is for a moment.

That would allow a one-hour HDTV program to be downloaded in two
hours, which is *way* too long to be considered a problem.

So, let's pretend we all have 100Mbps download available...that makes
it possible to get one hour of HDTV in 12 minutes...not too bad.

Except that even if we all had download speeds that fast, not one of
us would have *upload* speeds anywhere near that fast. Current users
with 10Mbps cable modem download speeds usually have less than 512Kbps
upload. Since somebody has to provide these files for sharing on a P2P
network, the upload speed is just as important as the download speed,
and it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD.

Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Jeff, I agree with most of what you have said, except for
"it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD".
If a person can sit and let their cable modem crank bits over night and
then when they come home the next evening they have Lord of the Rings:
Return of the King in HD format. I would bet many people would go for
that.

At 256Kbps upload maximum, it takes 78 *hours* (that's over 3 days) to send
one hour of HD. Even with P2P, most times you will have more than one person
trying to download from one source. Thus, we get a minimum of 6 days and
a more likely time of 8 to 10 days to download RotK in HD.

Last, this will be *after* the show is already available on OTA TV (that's
ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) because that's all the broadcast flag applies to.

So, how many people do you think would wait 10 days (if their connection even
stays up for that long) to download a movie that they could have recorded
off of ABC (or wherever) themselves?

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | (insert funny signature here)
|
|
|

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:39:14 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

At 256Kbps upload maximum, it takes 78 *hours* (that's over 3 days) to send
one hour of HD.

The same argument could have been made for not worrying about file sharing
of audio when uplink speeds of 20kbps were rare. Network speeds will
likely continue to increase as time goes by, and the MPAA is not so daft
as to not be unaware of that.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
"It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars" - Garrison Keillor

Jeff Rife wrote in message ...
....
So, how many people do you think would wait 10 days (if their connection even
stays up for that long) to download a movie that they could have recorded
off of ABC (or wherever) themselves?

So let's say hypothetically that someone usually watches Enterprise
but due to an error it was not recorded properly for later viewing.
Further let's say hypothetically that a 788 megabyte encoded version
from an HD recording of the episode was available as a bit torrent (20
Mbps reduced to 2.5 Mbps). That takes just about 24 hours running in
the background for the transfer to complete over a modest DSL
connection. I've seen that file played fullscreen on a Mac and it was
better than any episode seen in this market because our UPN affiliate
does not provide the HD version. I'm surprised to admit that it is
already easy to get a TV episode by file transfer that is better than
what is available over the air. Once the local UPN affiliate handles
HDTV that will no longer be the case. Having said all that, I don't
see how the proposed broadcast flag will affect the described case.

BB ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The same argument could have been made for not worrying about file sharing
of audio when uplink speeds of 20kbps were rare.

Although you could make that argument, it's not really the same. At 20Kbps,
a typical music CD encoded as MP3 takes about 4 hours to download.

Even so, this slower rate *did* keep audio file sharing down to very small
levels.

Network speeds will
likely continue to increase as time goes by

Upload speeds will always lag *far* behind download speeds because most
customers don't need the speed. Note that with DSL at about 512Kbps down,
upload speeds were 128Kbps or so. As download speeds have increased by 20
times (to 10Mbps), upload speeds have only doubled.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Sherman.../LoanedDVD.gif
|
|
|

Steve Bryan ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
So let's say hypothetically that someone usually watches Enterprise
but due to an error it was not recorded properly for later viewing.
Further let's say hypothetically that a 788 megabyte encoded version
from an HD recording of the episode was available as a bit torrent (20
Mbps reduced to 2.5 Mbps).

Who cares? This is already going on right now, and although the MPAA
cares about it, they know they can't do anything to stop it.

If you want to make an HD source "not HD" by reducing the resolution and
dropping the bitrate to less than that of DBS systems, that's fine, but
it really isn't what the broadcast flag for HD is trying to stop.

I've seen that file played fullscreen on a Mac and it was
better than any episode seen in this market because our UPN affiliate
does not provide the HD version.

At that bit-rate, it's not even as good as the SD version I get from
DirecTV. It also would be far worse than an SD version sourced from
a 480i ATSC broadcast.

Anybody can create a downloadable file like this right now, from non-HD
sources, and, once again, although the MPAA doesn't like it, they have
realized they can't do anything about it via technilogical means.

Having said all that, I don't
see how the proposed broadcast flag will affect the described case.

Because any device that records HD and respects the broadcast flag *and*
has some way to get the data off the device (removable media, network
connection, etc.) will have to encrypt the recording to make it specific
to that device.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Pickles/Adoration.gif
|
|
|

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:03:24 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

Upload speeds will always lag *far* behind download speeds because most
customers don't need the speed. Note that with DSL at about 512Kbps down,
upload speeds were 128Kbps or so. As download speeds have increased by 20
times (to 10Mbps), upload speeds have only doubled.

Maybe YOU think its sensible to think that upload speed will ALWAYS make
file sharing of HD material non-issue, but I really don't think content
owners would be wise to be so unworried.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
"It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars" - Garrison Keillor

BB ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Maybe YOU think its sensible to think that upload speed will ALWAYS make
file sharing of HD material non-issue, but I really don't think content
owners would be wise to be so unworried.

By the time upload speeds are to the point that sharing HD becomes
possible, HD will be considered "old technology", and the problem won't
be from OTA broadcasts, but rather sharing of pre-recorded HD material
(like HD-DVD).

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesW.../Recycling.jpg
|
|
|

Jeff Rife wrote in
:

Bulk Daddy ) wrote in
alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Jeff, I agree with most of what you have said, except for
"it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD".
If a person can sit and let their cable modem crank bits over night
and then when they come home the next evening they have Lord of the
Rings: Return of the King in HD format. I would bet many people would
go for that.

At 256Kbps upload maximum, it takes 78 *hours* (that's over 3 days) to
send one hour of HD. Even with P2P, most times you will have more
than one person trying to download from one source. Thus, we get a
minimum of 6 days and a more likely time of 8 to 10 days to download
RotK in HD.

Last, this will be *after* the show is already available on OTA TV
(that's ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) because that's all the broadcast flag
applies to.

So, how many people do you think would wait 10 days (if their
connection even stays up for that long) to download a movie that they
could have recorded off of ABC (or wherever) themselves?


By looking at other news groups, the answer might be quite a few.
Then again, each one of my friends could download a segment, then share
them with rewritable media or DVD-R.
Some people just don't care how long it takes to download some content.

I just talked with someone who has friends in another country with lower
bandwidth Internet access. They are watching the LOTR: Return of the King
on DVD copies. Folks are in slobber mode to do the same with HDTV
content.

HD wide spread copy right infringment any time soon? Nope.
At a constant growth rate? Yep.

The big question, how many people would use their computer/Internet
connection to download HD porn?