RandyG:

The old fashion "Video Stabilizer" for copying dvds and videos isn't what you need.  Specifically look for one that states "CGMS-A" on it.  I googled this one, it's guaranteed, and reasonably priced compared to most of them out there:

http://www.xdimax.com/grex/grex.html#TVG

This one was only $89 and looks heavily tested.  Somebody else was ordering one, I wonder if he got it yet?

Hi Epitaph911,

Yes I think it was RandyG that posted the link to the xdimax http://www.xdimax.com/grex/grex.html unit that I ended up ordering.

It ships from Isreal by registered mail. Took 15 calendar days total to arive from the time I ordered it. They give you a tracking number so that you can watch when it leaves Isreal (then goes dark for about 10+days) and then you can continue to track it once it lands in Canada or US with the local post office tracking service.

It was $89 US plus $9 US delivery. No duty, custom or tax hassles that I am aware of.

The whole unit is a little smaller than a hockey puck.

So far it seems to work well. However I will have to use it more to make sure that it consistently and reliably resolves all the issues before I can tell for sure.

I am glad that this seems to help with the problem, however I still think Microsoft should fix the problem from a software side as well.  Even though this one was more reasonable than some, it is still a fairly expensive little unit and if you have more than one tuner you would need more than one filter.

RandyG says he made his own... maybe he could post the parts list and simple instructions or a link to a how to somewhere? :-)

I did, and it's a $15 fix... but I wrote the code, and programmed it into the main part, an Atmel microcontroller.  So the only way to distribute it would be if I pre-programmed the chips and mailed them out.   Which I'm sure would bring some legal issues....  since I'm a programmer for a living, I'm not comfortable putting myself in Microsoft's crosshairs (and putting my family's income on the line) :-(

So since it's a custom chip, can't buy the parts,  no simple instructions to be had, sorry.   

Besides, that one's nicer than mine anyway ;-)

http://members.shaw.ca/RandyG/DRM/P2100005.JPG  
(Three chips on the white breadboard in the middle)

RandyG:

I did, and it's a $15 fix... but I wrote the code, and programmed it into the main part, an Atmel microcontroller.  So the only way to distribute it would be if I pre-programmed the chips and mailed them out.   Which I'm sure would bring some legal issues....  since I'm a programmer for a living, I'm not comfortable putting myself in Microsoft's crosshairs (and putting my family's income on the line) :-(

So since it's a custom chip, can't buy the parts,  no simple instructions to be had, sorry.   

Besides, that one's nicer than mine anyway ;-)

http://members.shaw.ca/RandyG/DRM/P2100005.JPG  
(Three chips on the white breadboard in the middle)

What Atmel chip? I have programmed chips before for other experiments I have done at home. Would you be willing to share the info you have? (Specifically the code you wrote?) A schematic would also be cool. Sounds like a neat little project.

Epitaph911:

Which filter did you go with MrSheep?
I've been looking at https://www.facetvideo.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=83

Been trying to get an alternate product called MediaPortal up and running for 3 days now but the IRblaster and channel guide is in alpha at best with sketchy documentation and full of crashes.  I may just suck it up and toss another $150 at my Media Centre :(

Is there anything cheaper, I have this same issue with content on Bell Satellite service in the Lower Mainland area of Vancouver BC channel 320 Movie central for a comedy series called Flight of the Concords, which I've scheduled to record but it never does! I bugs the hell out of me, it's on right now I have to watch it live, as it failed to record it.
it aired 6/17 , 1:00-1:30 pm

The only way to get out of spending a couple hundred bucks for a couple CGMS-A blockers is to convince MICROSOFT  that Canadians are entitled to record regular TV too, and wait for a patch.

How is that battle going, Jessica?   Last time I asked was over 20,000 views ago....

I've got nothing new to tell you...sorry. :-(

---

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

I hope this will not be a problem for long.  The audio and video recording industries are slowly starting to wake up to reality.  They cannot protect content.  DRM is doing nothing but hurting honest consumers.  There will always be a workaround for the people who want to steal content.  DVD was hacked.  HD-DVD and Blu-Ray AACS have already been hacked.  You can purchase numerous filters to strip content protection from Analog signal (as people have posted here) and several companies have filters that strip HDCP protection from HDMI/DVI and several more products are coming.

Anytime you take something out of the realm of the general consumer, you will have hackers and thieves.  It is the nature of business.  Companies just have to remember that the majority of users (by far) do not upload or download illegal movies and songs, used hacked copies of software, etc.

It would be nice to see someone as big as Microsoft fighting to end DRM, like Steve Jobs and Apple are doing for the audio side of things.  Patch Vista to ignore content protection flags and then when the industry comes whining, tell them to fix it so that your users are not blocked from recording or viewing media they have legally paid.  Tell them you want your users to have parity with closed devices, like cable PVRs.  Once they figure out a way they works, patch Vista again.  As long as none of the big guys stand up and fight, things won't change.

My biggest hope is that having Apple in the mix with AppleTV will help us.

Shan

I've just found this thread and the answer to all my issues. I might be simplifying here, but has anyone thought about actually starting legal proceedings against the cable companies. Basically they are abusing their status to force consumers to purchase their PVRs and I'm sure this would be illegal under our Monopoly laws (or is that anti-trust and unfair competition).

Hey Jessia - Why don't Microsoft sue them under Canada's anti-trust laws ?

If Microsoft don't do something soon, they're going to lose a lot of Canadian customers.

FYI - I have purchased 4 MCE computers over the last 3 years and think its the greatest thing, but its almost useless now that I can't record the majority of shows I want to watch.

ScareDcrow:

I've just found this thread and the answer to all my issues. I might be simplifying here, but has anyone thought about actually starting legal proceedings against the cable companies. Basically they are abusing their status to force consumers to purchase their PVRs and I'm sure this would be illegal under our Monopoly laws (or is that anti-trust and unfair competition).

That's one way of handling things but it could take years and cost you hundreds of thousands if you lose.  The cable companies can use the defence that they are protecting the content by onlying allowing a copy-once protection scheme.  They can enforce that on their PVRs since it is, as far as I know, impossible to get a digital copy from a cable PVR such as a SA8300HD.  But it is much easier to make multiple copies from an HTPC.

I did send an email to the CRTC and they said that it had nothing to do with them.

Another solution is to buy the CGMS-A blocker that was mentioned in another thread.  It costs about $100 but is seems guaranteed to make the problem go away.

Hi, I just read this whole thread / threat in one go, and I am deeply worried about this.
However, let me ask some questions :

1) Is this copy protection limited to NTSC or is Europe going to suffer from these cable company mob-like tactics as well (this is like a digital version of poisoning the food in a competitor's restaurant, isn't it ?) ?
2) If not, are there similar restrictions cable companies could abuse in PAL territory ?
3) Am I right in believing that these restrictions can only be set when you have connected a settop box to an analog tuner in your PC ?
I mean, my PC has two analogue tuners, which are directly connected to cable.
I should be safe from these schemes, shouldn't I ?

Now, if I were Microsoft (but I 'm not, and I 'm not a lawyer), I think I would do things in the following way :

1° Send an angry letter to the cable companies involved, and ask them to play ball nicely.
Give them an ultimatum (but rephrase it so it sounds more friendly).
2° If they fail to comply, start suing a bunch of them.
Surely, what they are using are anti-competitive practices, and that is illegal.
The fact that their own PVR's play and record shows which they tag as copy protected for other systems, proves that it has nothing to do with the original content providers adding this to the original content.
I am sure, with the money MS has, that being sued by them could make those companies comply very easily.
3° If after some time (I would not wait for the trial to start) these providers still do not comply, I would  blacklist those cable companies, and bring out a patch that disables the protection for all blacklisted companies involved.
I believe that if MS were to get countersued by those companies, it would find it easy to prove it did everything it could to avoid that situation (steps 1-2), but that it was forced to do so, in order to protect its own business.
By blacklisting them on an individual basis, it also allows for reenabling the protection if they mend their ways.

As for the regular users, why not arrange petitions and demonstrations, contact the newspapers ?
Let everyone know what these bullies are doing.
I am sure they like to avoid bad publicity just like any other company.

Think about it, if the cable companies have it their way they will abuse these flags until they have pestered away everyone from any alternative systems, like Media Center.
Next, to be absolutely sure you are compliant to Big Bother, they will switch off analogue (if they have not already done so).
And now that everyone is using their boxes, they might start "poisoning the food" again.
Think of it this way, once everyone is using their box, they can prevent you from recording anything they like, then sell it as VOD.
I might be a bit pesssimistic, but I feel like if this goes on for a bit more, us consumers will have lost any freedom we once thought of as self-evident.

---

PAL territory, using analogue cable Hauppauge PVR-350 and Hauppauge PVR-250, living in Belgium, Europe
http://www.extrabuttons.net

My reply from Shaw:

We can confirm that Shaw Cable does not alter or curtail any of the programming that we receive and distribute from programmers with respect to any copy protection flags.  The content is passed through seamlessly to any device as it is received.  Any copy protection flag that is in the content has been placed there by the rights holders, or by the programming service in accordance with their contractual arrangements with the rights holders.  As the Commission is aware, right holders do this to protect their rights and to prevent unauthorized duplication and transmission of the content, particularly with respect to digital content.

Shaw’s network controlled HD PVRs allow content to be recorded for personal use, in accordance with the terms of agreements with the rights holders for this type of equipment.  However, the playback of the content to a digital recording device (eg. A PC or DVD-R) will have Copy Control Information (CCI) and Copy Generation Management System for Analog (CGMS-A) flags in place (if present in the content) to prevent unauthorized digital duplication and transmission of the content.  With respect to customers who are having problems trying to record content on their PCs, this has nothing to do with Shaw. We suspect it is a compatibility issue, or a rights management issue.

Let's assume for a minute that they are not lying.  They get a signal, don't alter it in any way, and pass it on to customers.  As it is so random how what is flagged as "do not copy" and not this makes a bit more sense.  The cable companies don't want to bother editing signals and they can sell their own PVR boxes that do that anyhow.  So who is adding the do not copy flags?
All the channels that do this are American owned.  In their own country they get fines for copywriting stuff.  Send it to Canada and they can flag whatever they want.  Canadians cannot go after the American signal providers as there is no law against this here as Canadians wouldn't have thought that someone would go around doing this to TV feeds until now. 

I think this was said elsewhere, but to me it makes a lot more sense than cable companies are going around pissing off customers to protect content that they don't have a stake in or care about.  Why would shaw flag "Friends" and not "Sinefeld"?  It makes a lot more sense that it's the origional rights holders flagging anything they can get away with. 

My two cents. 

I am still looking into alternatives besides CGMS-A filters/blockers.  Going to try some Linux solutions next.

Not all of the channels with CGMS-A issues are American owned.  I am having this issue with occasional shows on Treehouse TV and TMN on Rogers Cable.  Both of these are Canadian owned - Treehouse is owned by Corus and TMN by Astral - both of these companies trade on the TSX.

In the USA, the FCC has definate rules about "copy never", and what it can be applied to, specifically VideoOnDemand and PayPerView.
If your find the flag on other content, you can fill out a form online to complain, and the FCC hands out fines to non-compliant broadcasters.

In Canada, CGMS-A does not exist legally.  No laws, no rules, no FCC. 
It is not recognised as DRM, it is not recognized at all.

Therefore, it is not illegal.  Further, the application of this flag by the Canadian providers does not make any PVR they distribute non-functional.  The set top PVRs ignore all the flags... they don't have to recognize CGMS-A, since no law compels them to.

Shaw / Bell / Rogers DID turn this "feature" on recently.    Whether they are adding the flag themselves, or whether they have just added/turned on the option to the box to "pass" the flag makes no difference whatsoever.

The fact is, it's not illegal to add it, or to pass it, since it doesn't legally exist at all...
You can't apply an "anti-trust" or "unfair competition" laws because it's Microsoft causing their own problem here.

Media center is the ONLY PVR in Canada that won't record anything because of these flags all over everything.  Flags that are neither legal, nor illegal.  

So complaining to Shaw, Rogers, Bell will get you nowhere.  They've done what they've done, and there is NO legal recourse.  Their response is, and will continue to be "WE don't support Media Center.  Our PVRs work.  If yours doesn't, complain to Microsoft."

Complaining to CRTC will get you nowhere, since they don't recognise, thus do not regulate CGMS-A.

Really, it's such a pathetic thing anyway.   Shut Media center services off, fire up the TV application that came WITH your PVR card (Hauppage or ATI or whatever) and record whatever you want.  Or any one of at least a dozen other (less featured) PVR software applications that don't give 2 cents about CGMS-A.  What is to be gained by slamming loyal Media Center users???   It certainly isn't going to curtail any actual pirates, they are bright enough to simply not use Media Center to record stuff...

The blame really must fall to Microsoft, who is implementing a flag in Canada which does not legally exist, in a country with no legislation to keep it from being abused this way.

 

And by the way, for Microsoft to simply change the functionality of "Copy Never" back to the way it was Pre-RU2 MCE would take all of a couple clicks of the mouse.  (MCE2005 works that way until RU2 took the ability to timeshift "copy never" away. )

Copy Never = Record with encryption / do not allow export to other media / rights to play ONLY on the machine that recorded it.

That's the way it used to be.  That's the way it SHOULD be.  The current implementation only hurts honest viewers who just want to record their shows and does nothing to curtail piracy at all.