Why not only on recording devices

[Mr_Bester]

This may be a stupid questions, but
Why don't they put the protection on the recording devices that aren't out yet rather than kill my current $2000 TV.

On the recording device the circuitry could allow the 1080i signal to pass through to the TV, but block or scramble or downconvert it on the recording. No new connectors, no obsolete HDTV Recievers.

This would allow full on pirates and tech freaks to eventually come up with a way to copy, but that will happen with the DVI and HDCP someday anyway. The difference is, I can watch full res HDTV on my set without having to be a pirate or tech freak myself.

I may be overlooking something extremely obvious (besides MPAA's idiocy) but in theory it seems to be a better choice.

Please poke holes in my theory, so I can at least see my mistake.

Thanks

[Harvey S]

The reason is that the MPAA cannot require manufacturers to restrict their products to DVI/HDCP inputs only. So if they allow an unencrypted signal, as is now provided by HDTV set top boxes, someone will build a recorder that can capture it, and there is nothing illegal about doing so. Therefore the MPAA wants to keep the signal encrypted all the way to the terminal device, usuually a display but possibly a recorder. Then the manufacturer of a HD terminal device has no alternative but to license the DVI/HDCP technology and sign the licensing agreement that prohibits them from outputting the unencrypted signal.