From the article:
When we went to our seats, the wait staff let us know that despite the fact that the previews were playing, we wouldn’t know until the movie actually started whether we could see the film or not. If it didn’t work, the screen would just turn black. Luckily, the film went through without a hitch.
Pay attention boys and girls, this is also what they want to do with over the air broadcasts with the ATSC 3.0 format.
DRM but over the air, consumers hate it, investors love it, it’ll make everything worse, it’s the future!
Do investors really love it? Is there anyone as stupid as the group-think whole that believes that will stop even one act of piracy?
All these idiotic measures have clearly driven more people to piracy…
So broadcast TV currently broadcasts on ATSC 1.0. You get an antenna and a box or TV that has a digital tuner and you’re good. Industry is pushing for ATSC 3.0, which allows for DRM. So even though they are broadcasting on the public airwaves, they can decide you can’t watch. It sets up the local broadcasters to be the new cable with ever increasing prices AND play king maker on devices by choosing which can and cannot produce tuners. In my area, 5 channels have ATSC 3.0, and 1 of them turned on DRM. Meaning I can’t watch it because HDHomeRun devices aren’t approved, likely because it has the ability to record. Luckily, that channel still broadcasts in ATSC 1.0, so I can still watch it for now. 3.0 isn’t a fully adopted yet, but that can change in the future (2027?).
So at some point, it’ll be impossible to get emergency broadcast alerts without a subscription to something, right? Like who’s gonna turn on a TV or radio that they can’t use in anticipation of some emergency they can’t predict?
Remember that time when they’ve added rootkits to over 20 millions of audio cd’s? You’ve guessed it, the installation was automatic, hidden and their software had vulnerabilities.
One of the programs would install and “phone home” with reports on the user’s private listening habits, even if the user refused its end-user license agreement (EULA), while the other was not mentioned in the EULA at all. Both programs contained code from several pieces of copylefted free software in an apparent infringement of copyright.
