Quote:
Originally Posted by grabbi
I mean, its pretty obvious that the HDCP idea is flawed,
|
Not sure it's flawed. Incoveniant, yes, but not flawed.
Quote:
|
and basically at the end before its really begun, but what about the possible 60%+ people who DONT have a HDCP compliant device! Even if they CAN technically recieve a HD Signal!
|
The way I see it, I don't think any action would succeed. Just because you have equipment that can recieve a signal, it does not follow that you should be able to view that signal. Where I work, we have a few satellite TV dishes. None are Sky dishes (in fact they are there to recieve foreign language TV for our Language labs). Should Sky be legally obliged to provide us decrypted signals just because we have equipment that can recieve them? Clearly, no. To do so would destroy their business model.
Similarly, my v+ technically has the ability to view every channel Virgin Media does. Should Virgin Media be required to supply all those channels to me?
Now, one major difference is those dishes were not sold to us so we could recieve Sky.
However, there's not as major a difference as may there may seem to be. Most people I know that were sold HD TV were sold it on the basis that they could watch TV in Hi definition. They can. Not all stuff is HDCP protected (AFAIK), so they can watch the non HDCP stuff.
The Sale of Goods act gives us rights in the event that the goods are not fit for the purpose they are sold for, but it doesn't (afaik) give us any rights in the case of HDTVs apart from ensuring the viewer can watch some channels on them. If it did, Virgin (wth their one HD channel and HD On Demand stuff) would be finished..