This is a developing area and I have not been paying close attention to the specifics, but I am an Intellectual Property and Digital Rights Management geek. So, let me put a couple of general things up for discussion:
The main thing that the content providers are concerned about is Distribution of their material without getting paid for it.
The secondary issue is that not all Distributers (like Dish, Cable, etc) have the same amount of compliance with DRM standards. So Distributor A (your local Cable provider) may be limited in how it can enforce IP rules in ways that Dish Network is not limited.
For example, All Dish Network ViP receivers are HDCP (High Definition Copy Protection) compliant. In practical terms, that means it is difficult for me as a Dish subscriber to transfer my recording of "John Adams" from my 622 to a Hard Drive that is attached to anything other than my 622, or to a DVD recorder, etc. It also means it is Hard (not impossible) for me to hook the HDMI port of my 622 to a recording device.
Also, HBO could, on its own, using tools that Dish provides them, prevent me from viewing John Adams in High-Definition through the component output of the 622. Why would they do that? Because there is nothing preventing me from attaching the Component HD output of the 622 to a recording device.
The combination of those two things makes it difficult for a Dish Network subscriber to copy something of HBO's to an easily-distributed media, such as a blue-ray disk that could be sent to my sister or a hard drive that could be hooked to someone's computer or someone else's 622.
THE FOLLOWING IS INFORMED SPECULATION: I would almost bet that the MPEG4 file on my 622 or VC1 file on the external drive connected to my 622 has embedded in it information that would allow HBO to trace an illicit copy I did manage to make back to me personally. And open me up to prosecution.
SO WHY ARE RECORDINGS BY D* users and others more limited?
Again, this is informed speculation, but my guess is that HBO does not view D* devices to be as secure as E* devices. Perhaps they don't properly support HDCP, or there are holes elsewhere. I am not sure, but I know Dish spent a lot of time on this.
Anyway, HBO deals with these limitations of other providers by imposing other limitations, like the automatic deletion. For some cable companies, there is an even shorter limit. I have heard of some Comcast DVRs being limited to two or three hours of "life" before a file is deleted. This would prevent the user from copying most programs at all. This is not all Comcast systems, by the way. So I am guessing that it is a reaction to the limitations of the individual systems to enforce copy-protection standards.
This does not mean that Dish will be immune from those Draconian limits. But my guess is that because Dish has not yet done it, but only warned that Dish users might not be able to use Component HD on some programs, that this is what is going on. That Dish Copy-protection technology may meet standards that other providers do not.
This would also explain why it took so long for External Disk Drive support to come out after it was announced. The technology itself is simple. Satisfying the content providers that the copy-protection worked was probably the hard part.
The main thing that the content providers are concerned about is Distribution of their material without getting paid for it.
The secondary issue is that not all Distributers (like Dish, Cable, etc) have the same amount of compliance with DRM standards. So Distributor A (your local Cable provider) may be limited in how it can enforce IP rules in ways that Dish Network is not limited.
For example, All Dish Network ViP receivers are HDCP (High Definition Copy Protection) compliant. In practical terms, that means it is difficult for me as a Dish subscriber to transfer my recording of "John Adams" from my 622 to a Hard Drive that is attached to anything other than my 622, or to a DVD recorder, etc. It also means it is Hard (not impossible) for me to hook the HDMI port of my 622 to a recording device.
Also, HBO could, on its own, using tools that Dish provides them, prevent me from viewing John Adams in High-Definition through the component output of the 622. Why would they do that? Because there is nothing preventing me from attaching the Component HD output of the 622 to a recording device.
The combination of those two things makes it difficult for a Dish Network subscriber to copy something of HBO's to an easily-distributed media, such as a blue-ray disk that could be sent to my sister or a hard drive that could be hooked to someone's computer or someone else's 622.
THE FOLLOWING IS INFORMED SPECULATION: I would almost bet that the MPEG4 file on my 622 or VC1 file on the external drive connected to my 622 has embedded in it information that would allow HBO to trace an illicit copy I did manage to make back to me personally. And open me up to prosecution.
SO WHY ARE RECORDINGS BY D* users and others more limited?
Again, this is informed speculation, but my guess is that HBO does not view D* devices to be as secure as E* devices. Perhaps they don't properly support HDCP, or there are holes elsewhere. I am not sure, but I know Dish spent a lot of time on this.
Anyway, HBO deals with these limitations of other providers by imposing other limitations, like the automatic deletion. For some cable companies, there is an even shorter limit. I have heard of some Comcast DVRs being limited to two or three hours of "life" before a file is deleted. This would prevent the user from copying most programs at all. This is not all Comcast systems, by the way. So I am guessing that it is a reaction to the limitations of the individual systems to enforce copy-protection standards.
This does not mean that Dish will be immune from those Draconian limits. But my guess is that because Dish has not yet done it, but only warned that Dish users might not be able to use Component HD on some programs, that this is what is going on. That Dish Copy-protection technology may meet standards that other providers do not.
This would also explain why it took so long for External Disk Drive support to come out after it was announced. The technology itself is simple. Satisfying the content providers that the copy-protection worked was probably the hard part.
