Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Your Rights Online

EFF And MPAA On Broadcast Flags 148

Posted by timothy from the little-markers-everywhere dept.
mpawlo writes: "Greplaw reports that a broadcast flag is a digital tagging technique used for television programs distributed through digital TV stations. The broadcast flag is used as information stating that the program may not be redistributed. It is not your everyday digital watermarking technique. The idea is to mandate a standard for a broadcast flag. The content providers, through The Motion Picture Association ('MPAA'), will most likely aim for the standard to be lobbied into a law through The Broadcast Protection Discussion Group. Hence, the law would require all hardware able to play the digital TV content to carry broadcast flag equipment (not playing unmarked content). The Electronic Frontier Foundation ('EFF') fears that a law stipulating the standard would threaten creativity. The MPAA has published a list of frequently asked questions ('FAQ') regarding broadcast flags. The EFF has commented the MPAA FAQ."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF And MPAA On Broadcast Flags More

EFF And MPAA On Broadcast Flags

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:VHS Recording... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:04PM (#3837989) Homepage
      I agree it does seem a bit pointless. It's already illegal to record something and make 50,000 copies of it for sale in Taiwan, so how does this flag help anything? They want to make recording to VCR illegal, just because the recording media happens to be hard disk rather than magnetic tape?

      Since it's digital it's also trivial to remove said flag, so it won't even slow the pirates down, let alone stop them.

      • Re:VHS Recording... (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        so it won't even slow the pirates down, let alone stop them.

        But it will most certainly stop your average cheapass parent from recording Sesame Street for their little brats!

        A lot of people will no longer have the option to be a casual pirate. It's either buy the damn stuff, break a harsher new law, or go without.

    • It is already legal to record anything shown on TV for personal use so I don't see how this extra 'bit flag' could become a reality...

      You think the MPAA cares about your legal rights? (Hint: they don't)

    • Re:VHS Recording... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ckd ( 72611 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @08:55PM (#3838803) Homepage
      It is already legal to record anything shown on TV for personal use so I don't see how this extra 'bit flag' could become a reality...

      You don't mean "already". You mean "currently (despite the efforts of the MPAA)".

      I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

      --Jack Valenti, testimony to Congress [cryptome.org], 1982.

      2001: US prerecorded videocassette sales are approximately $4 billion [videobusiness.com].

      • I think the government should take away all profits earned from VHS tapes. The MPAA wanted to take away VHS from us, lets take away their VHS profits from them and show them what it's like if VHS didn't exist.

  • NIH? (Score:1)

    by grahammm ( 9083 )
    Is this an example of "Not Invented Here" syndrome? Here in Europe we have had digital TV for some time, so why does the USA need to re-invent the "rules", why not just use the standards already in use in Europe, and which work well?

    • Re:NIH? (Score:1, Redundant)

      by oyenstikker ( 536040 )
      Because here in the United States, the big beauracracies bought too many politicians. They know they can get away with making ridiculous rules in their favor.
    • we in the US also have had digital tv for a while... the difference is that when it comes to gouging consumers to get money the MPAA has a "better late than never" attitude...
    • Because digital TV in the US is HD (thats the goal at least, not much actual HD content yet). Makes people nervous when the free content is MUCH higher quality than what they are trying to sell you in DVD form.
  • From EFF:

    What is a broadcast flag?

    The broadcast flag is a sequence of digital bits embedded in a television program that signals that the program must be protected from unauthorized redistribution. It does not distort the viewed picture in any way. Implementation of this broadcast flag will permit digital TV stations to obtain high value content and assure consumers a continued source of attractive, free, over-the-air programming without limiting the consumer's ability to make personal copies.
    • Thx for the clarification!

      So now ... why exactly do we care if they do this ? it explicitly says WITHOUT limiting the consumer to make personal copies.

      On the other hand, that just says what its NOT for, so ... what IS it for ? anyone ?

      • Ok ... i found the answer myself (Score:4, Informative)

        by Tensor ( 102132 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:28PM (#3838059)
        The last point of the EFF FAQ:

        Q: When the broadcast flag is implemented, can I record any TV program with my existing digital player/recorder and watch it later at more convenient time?

        MPAA answer: Yes. If you own an early model digital player/recorder, you will be able to record and playback time-shifted digital recordings of flagged broadcasts. These digital recordings will also play on legacy DVD players. However, when Broadcast Flag-compliant DTV receivers are introduced in the marketplace, their recordings will only play on other compliant players and not on older (legacy) devices. Of course, you can still record and playback digital programs with any existing analog videocassettes recorders/players. The broadcast flag does not affect what you have been able to do in the analog world.

        EFF comment: This answer confirms that "Compliant" devices produced under the BPDG-proposed rules are less capable than current-generation devices.

        i wonder if they also record device-specific information. like preventing me to watch a movie i recorded at my friend's house (digitally of course)

  • The problem isn't home recording (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mangu ( 126918 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @04:56PM (#3837953)
    People who do bulk pirating can get rid of that kind of protection easily. At the extreme, they would do one step of analog copying, then put it back into digital for an unlimited number of generations.

  • Great!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by kavel ( 586777 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @04:57PM (#3837957)
    We will have to start getting mod chips for our cable boxes now :)
    • Too bad mod chip companies can't go public (without lawsuit lashings) cuz stuff like this always would mean spikes in stocks

  • EFF version has it all (Score:3, Informative)

    by peterdaly ( 123554 ) <{petedaly} {at} {ix.netcom.com}> on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:04PM (#3837986)
    The EFF version has (I believe, based on a quick scan) all of the content from both the MPAA version and the EFF version.

    You can skip MPAA document and go right to the EFF version without missing anything.

    -Pete
    • The point of viewing the FAQ seperatly from the EFF comments is that the EEF is, of course, biased, and trying to push an angle (so is the MPAA. And so is everyone else). The idea is that you first see the MPAA's standpoint, and then the EFF's. If you just view the EFF's version, you're viewing the biased comments right along with the original, so it's somewhat unfair.

      But then again, when it comes to the MPAA, "fair" doesn't really enter into anything.

      Note: I'm not bashing the EFF or the MPAA. Everyone has an angle they're trying to push. I'm just trying to help people get the most objective view they can.
    • <flamebait>See? This is exactly the sort of thing that the MPAA is trying to stop! Such shameless theft of the intellectual property of others is just further proof that the EFF is pro-piracy, not pro-consumer. </flamebait>

      Support the EFF. [eff.org]

  • From MPAA's FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:06PM (#3837999) Homepage Journal
    ...protecting content, broadcast or otherwise, will spur the availability of high definition content and thus spur innovation for the systems, devices and services needed to deliver and support them in a broadband environment.

    They sure love the word spur, which is derived from the term used to kick the shit out of a horse to get it going. A spur is a sharp instrument worn on the ankle of an abusive cowboy to beat a tired horse into submission.

    Is this what the MPAA has in store for consumers? Wouldn't you love to have the MPAA spur your living room technology?
    • They sure love the word spur, which is derived from the term used to kick the shit out of a horse to get it going. A spur is a sharp instrument worn on the ankle of an abusive cowboy to beat a tired horse into submission.

      Hm, I have a pair of 20mm rowel-less Stubben offset stainless steel spurs [thehorsere...estore.com] at home, and I don't remember their being sharp (actually, they're quite blunt), and I'm certainly no "abusive cowboy." On the other hand, I'm an accomplished English-style equestrienne who has had to deal with horses who are more fractious than tired (note: all the spurring in the world won't rouse an exhausted horse), and "kicking the shit" out of the kind of horse who needs spurs is liable to land you face-down in the dirt -- don't laugh, I've seen it happen. A nudge to the nag is usually sufficient...

      I will admit that this metaphor of the MPAA's is extremely clumsy. The sense, here, in this case, is more that they're guiding a bunch of testy technologists and cranky consumers into cooperating with them (they haven't quite got curb chains and Kimblewicks [magnolife.com] on us yet!).

      Now, mind you, coercion is still coercion, and I'm not happy about it one bit (chortle chortle). After all, we're not ponies, we're profit.

  • Guy Montag! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:08PM (#3838005) Homepage
    Where are you?

    Once they lock down electronic media, they will want to plug "the analog hole."

    We are in the middle of a slow descent back into illiteracy. It's no economics and lack of education driving it. It's the people in control. They want to control you, the information you can get, and how you can use that information.

    Broadcast news is insipid, but print is a little better, for now. This is largely because it's easier to spot stupidity in written form, when you're not distracted by boobies, animated graphics and short sound/video clips.

    Once you can't control your electronic entertainment anymore, because of DRM, broadcast tags, Fritz Hollings's legislation, Palladium, etc., what will you do?

    Newspapers and books? How long will those be allowed to exist in their current forms? Paper?!?! How insecure! There will be e-books and e-paper, as in Minority Report. And you won't have control over those either.

    In Minority Report, there was scene of a guy on a train reading an "E-USA Today." The front page, which he was reading, changed to the Official Story about the A-Large PreCriminal without the reader requesting it. The reader was told what to read.

    Who doubts that this will not be turned into reality?

    The problem with science fiction is that it's pretty depressing. So much of it depicts a totalitarian future of some sort. These stories capture and guide the imaginations and creative energy of the current and future generations of designers and engineers. How long have people been working on making things they've seen in Star Trek and Star Wars? And more depressing works, like Minority report?

    It's all very anti-freedom, anti-citizen, and stupid.
    • Newspapers and books? How long will those be allowed to exist in their current forms? Paper?!?! How insecure! There will be e-books and e-paper, as in Minority Report. And you won't have control over those either.

      Stallman's "Right to Read" [gnu.org]

      I guess, what doesn't kill us makes us stupid.

      • Re:Obligatory "Right to Read" Link (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @06:40PM (#3838326) Homepage

        From the notes at the end of "Right to Read":
        [...] the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers, and not let you have them, has not been proposed. This is an extrapolation from the Clipper chip and similar US government key-escrow proposals, together with a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentee operators control over the people actually using the computer system.


        But we are coming steadily closer to that point. In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the SSSCA that would require every new computer to have mandatory copy-restriction facilities that the user cannot bypass.
        Well, it's been proposed now. It's called "Palladium." What's a good non-computer career that pays well?
        • What's a good non-computer career that pays well?

          Apparantly the position of "Senator" fits the bill.
          • What's a good non-computer career that pays well?

          IP Lawyer. Lots of work for them coming up.

          I hear you though. I am seriously considering downsizing my life and finding a job where I can actually do something worthwhile (park ranger?). The only problem is that at the moment, making $40K before tax, I can barely afford a small 2 bedroom suburban house in a quiet kid-friendly residential area, a car that starts reliably, worthwhile healthcare, pension provision and a college fund for my (single) kid. I can cut back on a lot of things, but I don't want to (quite literally) gamble my family's life and future on an HMO, community college and ultimately social security.

          Something for angry young men to to bear in mind is that a mortgage, a college fund and dental bills put a real crimp on high ideals.

        • [...] the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers, and not let you have them, has not been proposed.
          Well, it's been proposed now. It's called "Palladium."
          I don't recall anything about Microsoft holding the keys. I remember stuff about inhibiting innovation and destroying Linux, but not key escrow.
    • Well, maybe the wave of the future won't be "GPL" but "FDL" [gnu.org]

      We somehow opened the world of information to us with the internet but now it's going to be closed to a pin-hole size.

    • This is largely because it's easier to spot stupidity in written form, when you're not distracted by boobies, animated graphics and short sound/video clips.

      Have you ever seen Playboy? It's probably full of stupid (written) articles, but I would never know because the boobies distract me to the point that I can't even read them.

      :)
    • Put your money where your fingers are, uh, so to speak.

      How many RIAA movies have you bought or rented this year? Now that you've contributed to them, it's time to offset that by joining the EFF. [eff.org]

      There's a bargain membership for $25.

      $65 gets you membership and a T-Shirt that says, "Online Freedom Doesn't Just Happen."

      $100 also gets you a cap.

      Use your employer's matching gifts program, if there is one.

    • Re:Guy Montag! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nathanh ( 1214 )
      In Minority Report, there was scene of a guy on a train reading an "E-USA Today." The front page, which he was reading, changed to the Official Story about the A-Large PreCriminal without the reader requesting it. The reader was told what to read.

      Or perhaps the reader had set his E-USA Today Preferences to automatically switch to #1 priority news as it was released. The E-USA Today provider was simply giving the consumer what he asked for. There's no reason for you to assume the worst.

  • It is pretty clear that the MPAA doesn't want piracy of any kind. Even if they have to spend (or give to the right government official) millions to save a few pennies and piss off generation of people to come.
  • Q : Even if the motion picture and other industries come up with a system to protect this content with a broadcast flag, the security technology will just be broken into and made worthless in a very short time. Given that, what's the point?

    MPAA Answer : It is unfortunate that some people may attempt to illegally hack or break into this security system. However, even if a few are successful, the flag will not be worthless. Most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag.

    What they really mean : Ofcourse they are going to crack this half assed security system. But we would go on pretending that its unbreakable. And we would hunt down and sue any half intelligent intellectual out there who attempt to crack it even for academic purposes. And yes we understand that even if someone cracks it, the majority of the dumb ass public wouldnt care, or wouldnt know, and hence most of our investment is still secure. i.e. until some one else figures out a way to get this crack to the masses. Then we would just put out another FAQ.
    • It seems they want to dismiss the crack pretty fast because they don't want people to know that every so often they might have to buy a new device to play their old content.

      I (am starting to) think this whole thing has nothing to do with piracy, it only is going to exist to sell more hardware devices - making old systems no good, and your recordings also no good.

  • Where is this from? (Score:2, Informative)

    by hackwrench ( 573697 )
    not playing unmarked content

    Where did the poster get this bit of info? I see nothing about this in the FAQ, which seems to indicate the opposite, and the FAQ appears to be the only deep link in the article.

    The only purpose this seems to serve is to allow the Broadcast providers know when someone stupid is redistibuting their stuff.
    • It's derived from the following:
      • ...when Broadcast Flag-compliant DTV receivers are introduced in the marketplace, their recordings will only play on other compliant players...
      • ...The broadcasters that transmit the programming will set the broadcast flag as "on or off" based on private contractual agreements with content providers...

      So, if you do not have a (presumably expensive) private contractual agreement with "content providers" but still create your own unmarked content, that content will not be playable in a non-compliant player.

      • Just make your content the same way you've always been that's allowed you to play in a non-compliant player.

        • But... (Score:1)

          by MO! ( 13886 )
          If the compliant players won't play media that doesn't include the necessary copy protection bits, then once all the non-compliant players are gone you won't be able to play it.

          • nowhere was it said that the compliant player wouldn't play media that doesn't include the necessary copy protection bits...no way am I buying all my DVD's again.

  • One small obstacle (Score:3, Redundant)

    by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:20PM (#3838038)
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    This, along with the M$ stuff, is drifting towards "only approved content will play on your [TV/Rio/PC/PDA]" Who approves the content? Whoops! First amendment!

    GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY!!!

    • Right to peaceably assemble? Erm, how about when the cops tell me and my buddies to "move along"? How exactly does that play?
      • peaceably assemble somewhere else ;-)
      • the constitution doesn't say you can gather/hang out where ever/ whenever you want. it merely says you have the right to "peaceably assemble", meaning they can't lock you up or charge you with a crime merely for gathering together. in most places, you have to apply for a permit to hold an assembly.

        i'd say the cops are telling you to move along because you're in, or will be in someone elses way.
      • Right to peaceably assemble? Erm, how about when the cops tell me and my buddies to "move along"? How exactly does that play?

        I assume you haven't heard of the "First Amendment Zone". These are specially designated "free speech" areas that are placed at least several miles away from wherever anyone is looking during major political events (like Bush visiting a city).

        You still have all your First Amendment rights, but only as long as you stay inside your "zone".

    • Only terorists need 1st amendment!

      Every honest citizen of the United States (which I am not) have to know that and thus have to support 'R1AFOCSHPWHFHMCAHPFCPATITUIJ Act' a.k.a. 'Remove 1st Amendment From Our Constitution So Honest Politiacians With Help From Honest Media Coprorations And Honest Police Forces Can Put All Terorist In The Universe Into Jail . Act'.

      Disclaimer: This is irony.

  • This would affect any player prorgam (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:21PM (#3838040) Homepage Journal
    So basically they are saying that every video playback software on computers would have to support this? Would this kill open-source video playback software?

    On the other hand, like most copy protection measures, it will surely be cracked within a day or two.
    • it would kill open-source video playback software (ie: GNUradio) only in the sense that it will not have the keys to initially decode content encoded with a broadcast flag.

      likely, it will spur open-source video playback software as a more convenient method for consumers to use in receiving video.

      in my mind, these industries are shooting themselves in the foot. here they are, charting new technological territory with DTV and they are making it so unnatractive and confusing for consumers that they aren't buying into this new industry. open-source video playback software could become more convenient then DTV.
  • What happened to DVD players will happen to this. Remember when all DVD players had region encoding and forced everybody to watch movies only in their region in which nobody liked. Then electronic companies started to produce alternative region free and multi region DVD players that allowed people to watch whatever they want. Now, just about all stores cary alternative players since they sell better than the *crippled* less functional players

    That is what will happen with this. Some electronic companies are going to release recorders that will bypass the compliance requirement once they relize that the compliant recorders are not selling well(who is going to buy a recorder that can't record anything?).

    • That is what will happen with this. Some electronic companies are going to release recorders that will bypass the compliance requirement once they relize that the compliant recorders are not selling well(who is going to buy a recorder that can't record anything?).

      But if the MPAA get their legislation through, won't it be illegal to own a non-compliant device?

      • But if the MPAA get their legislation through, won't it be illegal to own a non-compliant device?

        The "best Congress money can buy" may make it illegal to _sell_ non-compliant devices, but I very much doubt that the public would stand for the cops coming into people's houses to check their DVD players. As for manufacturing non-compliant devices, they haven't bought the legislatures in other countries yet - for instance, it's easy to get all-region DVD players in Australia and Europe. So at most, they might create another bootlegging business.

        I almost hope that the **AA idiots do get some horribly intrusive laws passed - fscking up people's video players is about the only thing I can thing of that would wake up the American public and get all those corrupt, halfwitted, permanent Congressmen kicked out at last. They'll be replaced by other corrupt halfwits, but most of the new ones will see bigger opportunities in bashing the media than in taking their b^r^i^b^ campaign contributions - there are lots of other corporations handing out the payola. The new Congress would repeal that law ASAP (on the general grounds that if they broke that election promise, they might not _live_ until the next election), then when the next election approaches they'd need to do something further to garner the votes. Maybe rolling back copyright terms to a reasonable length, or even taking a look at EULA's, and at software & business method patents too...

  • Distribution Channels (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corby ( 56462 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:38PM (#3838084)
    Broadcast flags will do absolutely nothing to deter the Internet trading of copyrighted broadcast video. Anybody interested in publishing recorded video will just use known hacks to extract video from their Tivo or other recording device.The flags may deter Joe Sixpack from copying a recorded video, but Joe is not the person who publishes original videostreams to filesharing networks anyway.

    As with the RIAA, the MPAA is using filesharing as a pretense to make a big powergrab over their potential competitors.

    They want to be recognized as the only legitimate video content publishers, thus locking out potential upstart competitors that may be empowered by new video distribution networks.

    And they want to dictate all terms to consumer electronics manufacturers, who in many cases are their direct competitors. It becomes much easier to shut out electronics manufacturers that are not part of the MPAA when you are drafting the legislation that governs their rules of business.
  • I currently use a hauppage bt848 card and NVrec to use my home system as a PVR. The card I have was cheap, but only records analog. The HD capable capture cards started at around $400 or so when I last looked!

    Help me out, does this mean I aught to buy one of those before this passes, so as to be able to capture HD content in the future... or is the HD format as yet insufficiently negotiated/agreed upon by the players, such that if i were to drop $400 on this HD tuner and capture card, that it will be useless in a year when they come out with an new encrypted HD standard.

    Basically, what I want to know, is how -standard- and commited is the current HD protocal?
    • Basically, what I want to know, is how -standard- and commited is the current HD protocal?

      Nobody really knows, but it looks like Congress/FCC isn't willing to change the spec and screw all the people who already bought HD equipment. So I'd say the time to buy that HD capture card is now.
  • This stupid scheme will not work for several reasons firstly it will not be implemented in europe and asia , so? , you may ask well the main point to this is to stop pirates , these programs will be spread on the net from europe to america . Also they are repeting a mistake they made before

    This restriction (which is not part of current-generation digital TV tuner cards) creates significant "collateral damage" to home recording rights and innovation. For example, it effectively means that digital TV content can only be viewed with "approved" software, instead of the literally hundreds of video recording, editing, and playing applications available today. It also means that open source software will not be able to record or play back "marked" digital TV broadcasts.

    UMM can we all say deCSS?? ohh ye Linux will not be supporteted there crappy flag will be easily ( and the admit it themselfs in the last ansrew ) craked and 2600 will probably be in court again ...foolish they could try and waste there time on making better films , ohh well the "pirates" will have no problem with this.

  • Most people are honest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SashaM ( 520334 ) <msasha@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:43PM (#3838100) Homepage

    Q: Even if the motion picture and other industries come up with a system to protect this content with a broadcast flag, the security technology will just be broken into and made worthless in a very short time. Given that, whats the point?

    MPAA answer: It is unfortunate that some people may attempt to illegally hack or break into this security system. However, even if a few are successful, the flag will not be worthless. Most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag.

    So if most people are honest and will not attempt to circumvent the flag, why not just trust the people not to do the horrible, dishonest deeds this measure wants to prevent?

    • Because they don't really believe most people are honest - they're just saying that. They think most people are basically bad, just like them.

      If it's their goal to squeeze maximum profit out of the masses via the threat of government backed coercion, then it's obviously our dishonest goal to not want to be squeezed so hard for the privelage of accessing the copyright cartel's content.

      --

    • Exactly. Apparently "honesty" here is defined as technical inability to break the copy protection AND lack of any friends or contacts who are able to break the copy protection.

      Hey MPAA, DVDs already have copy protection, and that doesn't stop them from being swapped on P2P file sharing systems, IRC, FTP servers, and person to person via burner (just like floppies in the old days). Do you really think that this will be better than DVD/CSS security?

      BTW I was in Fry's Electronics yesterday and was astonished to see how cheap the various CD-RW and DVD-R/RW/whatever drives are (hadn't bothered to look at prices for a while). Remember the days (late 80s) when the main mode of copying software was floppy swap meets? One person cracked the copy protection, then folks physically went over to someone else's house where they made a copy for each person who then went home and did the same thing. CD-R[W] drives and media are in a similar price range now, and I see the same thing happening with CDs that I saw with floppies years ago. It's totally feasible to go over to your friend's house, bring a PC or two with you, and sit there and burn 100 or more CDs at a time.

      This is just a historical reminder about why copy protection is a foolish endeavor. The only difference between nobody being able to copy something and everybody being able to copy something is that one guy who cracks it. If you know anybody who has acquired a cracked copy, then everybody you know can get one.

      It's kinda like buying illegal drugs - if you want them, and you know somebody you trust who has them, you can get them. I bet that for every person who is sure they couldn't get them (and thus that the drug war is being won) there is a friend who can get them whom they just haven't bothered to ask yet. Hello, entertainment industry, welcome to your own private drug war. I can't wait to pay taxes for cops to put DVD copiers in jail right next to potheads.

  • What the heck (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The only intent of the broadcast flag is to restrict the unauthorized redistribution of broadcast content in order to insure that high value content will be made available to consumers over free TV

    If the flagged content is going to be free, why are they so concerned about "unauthorized redistribution" of it?
    • <sarcasm>

      Because, consumer, you might try to distribute it without the commercials, thus depriving the broadcasters of their rightful income.

      </sarcasm>.

  • Does anyone else see this trend? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seekerofknowledge ( 134616 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @05:58PM (#3838148)
    The trend I am talking about is the recent trend of organizations who supply services and/or content are no longer thinking about what the recipients of that service want? The MPAA and RIAA are continuously aiming for more restrictive controls, legislation, and whatnot. This just does not make sense to me. How can it be possible that an organization whose sole purpose is to make money by supplying consumers with what they want no longer be paying attention to what the consumers want? It baffles me, that they are now attempting to lock-in the recipient of their services, rather than adapt and give the recipient what they want.

    Why is it that organizations so huge can become so blatantly selfish? Without consumers, they cannot make money -- their ultimate goal. Yes this is also selfish, but not in the same sense that they are no longer paying attention to what is wanted of them. They have been forced with a situation where consumers wants have changed, and they can no longer continue to make money doing what they currently do. They have to options, keep giving the consumers what they are getting now -- but what they no longer want. Or, give them what they want.

    The choice they chose is obvious.

    It is just disturbing how organizations like this have lost so much respect for the buying public.
    • Look at the cost of a CD or DVD. This is set at the price just below the level that will reduce the popularity of the media. Other industries have competition to allow people to choose, and to force the market to give the consumers what they want at a price that has been negotiated. They have adapted to this, and have realised that determining what the customers want requires listening to the customers, or the they will be able to go to a competitor that does.

      The media companies are used to giving the customer something, and if they don't accept it then they will go without. This has always applied to films, they want to make it apply to video equipment as well. They just aren't really aware of a competition based market.

      If they were used to this sort of market, and if they really believed the costs of piracy were as great as they say, they would have designed this equipment, and subsidised the cost of electronic eqipment that uses it. I think a lot of people would choose a cheaper model if the more expensive one only allowed them to do extra stuff that they don't want to do.

  • Yeah, right... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Q: Are all TV programs going to be flagged?

    MPAA answer: No. The broadcasters that transmit the programming will set the broadcast flag as "on or off" based on private contractual agreements with content providers. Content providers can choose, on a program-by-program basis, whether the flag will be turned on.

    Translation: Excluding infomercials and ads, yes. It is illegal to record anything else, since you, the consumer, are thieves, murderers, pirating pices of shit and can not be trusted. Only big business can be trusted and knows what is good for us^H^Hyou.
    • Translation: Excluding infomercials and ads, yes. It is illegal to record anything else, since you, the consumer, are thieves, murderers, pirating pices of shit and can not be trusted. Only big business can be trusted and knows what is good for us^H^Hyou.

      Gee, you're optimistic. Since when have advertisers allowed people to copy their ads? If they shut off the broadcast flag, it would be trivial to skip everything until the broadcast flag comes back on. Why would the television networks allow people to skip over commercials like that? Besides, the networks want to be the sole distributers of advertisements. Why would they allow viewers to compete with them?

      Many advertisements actually include a copyright notice. If someone were to intentionally shut off the broadcast flag, that would imply that they have surrendered the copyright on their content (just wait for the television networks to lobby for this). Pepsi would not be real happy to find their now public domain advertisement chopped up and used in KKK propoganda.

  • A Few Choice Quotes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShoeHead ( 40158 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @06:14PM (#3838215) Homepage
    from the FAQ:
    Implementation of this broadcast flag will permit digital TV stations to obtain high value content and assure consumers a continued source of attractive, free, over-the-air programming without limiting the consumer's ability to make personal copies
    Sounds good. But, do we trust them?
    ...of some 70 organizations that participated in the BPDG, only some 14 submitted dissenting comments on one or more issues. Of these 14 dissenters, six were self-styled "consumer" groups that appear to be opposed in principle to any restraints whatsoever on the reproduction and redistribution of content.
    I like how they cast a little doubt on whether or not these guys are actually representing consumers. Who else would they be for? Who else might there be but the artists/actors?

    They go on to say what seems like... aw who cares. There's so much in that FAQ that just makes me want to grab one of their execs, throw em in a chair, and grill them about what they actually believe. Crazy stuff.

    The whole thing smells like (is) propaganda, but that's the age we live in.
  • protecting content, broadcast or otherwise, will spur the availability of high definition content

    oh goody... we'll have high definition CRAP on TV now...

  • What about independent content providers? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chris-Moose ( 559425 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @06:29PM (#3838281)
    Will the new players be able to play unmarked video content? If not, I cannot view my own library of home videos I have created of my family. I will also be unable to electronically distribute my videos, even if I should desire to do so. Given the popularity of the "Reality TV" shows these days that depend on home video and security camera footage, this could be a problem for the TV networks looking for shows to broadcast.

    Will I be able to mark my content in the same manner as the big studios do? If I cannot, then this "broadcast flag" becomes a means for the current content providers to effectively ban any new competition.

    Will I be able to obtain technical details of the new flag in order that I may create my own recording/playback equipment that is compliant with this? If not, then it becomes a means of creating a monopoly in the consumer electronics market. If I can get the technical information, it becomes a joke as that same information would make it trivially easy to defeat the broadcast flag at will.

  • Bundling up restrictions is a *bad* idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 07, 2002 @06:36PM (#3838305)
    Now that it's virtually dead, I went to buy a Playstation recently, in order to play lots of old Square games.

    I'm a Brit, and I have friends in the states, so I was planning on having them ship me some games (Chrono Trigger, etc, stuff you can't get here *at all*).

    Now, I had a choice. I could not be able to play any import games, even ones that I purchased, or were purchased for me, or I could get my Playstation modded. I chose the latter.

    Now, temptation wise, if somebody offers me a copied game, I probably won't say no. If they hadn't put stupid region locks on, I would probably never have bothered - it's nice to be honest sometimes, but since they force me to mod it in the first place, then it means odds are I will end up pirating something.

    Everyone of these protections can be circumvented in the end - and if it's pushed too far (as with DVDs) you will turn a substantial proportion of your customers into criminals (or at the very least, people who are happy to change the way your system works)....

  • Commercial blocker (Score:3, Funny)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @06:57PM (#3838383) Journal

    The broadcast flag is used as information stating that the program may not be redistributed.

    As long as they only turn on the flag during the commercials, sounds like a great idea!

  • It's more apparent when you've got your default font size set high, as I did, but even at a "normal" font the EFF FAQ hass almost no leading. (The space between one text line and the next, pronounced like the metal lead, as that's what was used in the earliest printing presses to produce said spacing.) Christ, these cascading style sheets are more pain than they're worth.
    • I don't see the problem, but based on your description, it sounds like they have defined the line height in pixels.

      Web producers should be aware this can easily be resolved by specifying your font sizes and leading values in points rather than pixels. The effect will be the same, except that your reader will have more control over the font size.

      Sometimes (clueless...) people don't like to do this, since it can break their pixel-perfect layout. But for considerate authors, the options to do it "right" are there in CSS.

  • I'm totally opposed to any form of content tagging, whether it be a flag (gee, I wonder how I turn that off? Toggle it?), a digital watermark, or anything else.

    The reason is simple: the studios and TV stations will always flip the flag to "not allowed to record". And then sue the pants off anyone who wants to tape the show for later.

    Why bother having a tagging system if it is always going to be set to the same value, and that value is incompatible with common sense uses of the work?

    I just hope that the EFF can get their FAQ seen by a sufficient number of politicians that lawmakers begin to see the futility and stupidity of access control tagging. A flag that is set to a constant value is no better than no flag at all.
    • The reason is simple: the studios and TV stations will always flip the flag to "not allowed to record".

      It's interesting that Tom7, who posted a utility to turn off the "do not embed" bit on fonts (and got a DMCA letter for his troubles), did so because his font maker always made fonts with the "do not embed" bit and had no option not to set it.
    • well... I see a good side. becauyse the one thing that will not be flagged is.. Ads! so we have lots of flagged content, and we have unflagged ads. so we just turn it round, record what's flagged, skip what's not, TADA! thank you for a wonderful spamfilter.. //rdj

  • Where we can go from here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Insanity ( 26758 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @07:11PM (#3838439)
    The holy grail of copy protection is to keep everything off the internet, and thus, off the personal computer. General purpose computing devices are the biggest threat, and everything possible is being done to cripple them.

    For now, we can get HD signals over component analog outputs, which when done right, are of excellent quality. And capture cards with component inputs will come around soon enough. Macrovision in these cards is often implemented or enabled through the drivers, which can and will be hacked. So if we're using an external tuner and a capture card, the video can end up on a computer, just as long as macrovision over component is defeated.

    The enemy of this approach is the external tuner that refuses to output anything greater than 480p over component. We'll see about this - all TVs currently on the market will only accept HD signals over component, so this would be breaking compatibility with the entire installed base today. Mod chipping is a possibility here, or APEX-style hidden menus.

    Some day, we'll have HD transferred digitally over 1394. It's a certainty that your 1394 tv will accept a signal only from an approved 1394 tuner and will output only to an approved 1394 recording device that implements DRM. But interestingly enough, I have a 1394 port on my computer right now.

    I can transfer DV over 1394 from my camara to my computer. What's to stop me from transferring MPEG2 over it from my future tv? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing stopping me is a lack of driver support, and the DRM layer in firewire. The latter is the challenge: cracking DRM at the hardware level. All the EE geeks of the world have their jobs cut out for them.

    So the question is this: how hard is it to build a black box that takes an mpeg2 video stream over 1394 and strips it of its copy protection? We usually can't fab our own ASICs, but what about FPGA? Can/will it reach high enough speeds to process firewire signals in realtime?

    Ah well, I'm skeptical. It seems to be taking an increasing amount of sophistication to defeat DRM, and the one thing the underground community doesn't do too well is coordinate its efforts. It would need the cooperation of the EE geeks for the hardware level DRM, the CS geeks for making mpeg2 over firewire work on the PC, etc.
    • So the question is this: how hard is it to build a black box that takes an mpeg2 video stream over 1394 and strips it of its copy protection?

      Pretty hard, since your black box won't have a certificate issued by the DTCP certificate authority. You can read more about DTCP [dtcp.com] at the official site.

      However, it looks like the manufacturers are turning from 1394/DTCP to DVI/HDCP [digital-cp.com] (and later, HDMI [hdmi.org]/DTCP). Theoretically, HDCP has been cracked [nunce.org], but it looks like it would take a lot of resources to actually execute the crack.
  • The worst part about this is that they are actually thinking about phasing out RGB outputs on STBs. That would render most of the current HDTV sets obsolete.

    The worst part is that they were all advertised as being HDTV ready and because they can not protect the RGB outputs/inputs they must go.

    Class action anyone?
  • Appeared in the current issue (#62) of Widescreen review. It was with HDNet's Mark Cuban, of the Dallas Mavericks fame. A short synopsis is here. [widescreenreview.com] Check your local bookstore for the issue and checkout the whole interview. He's quite against all this crap, and prefers the existing system and chasing down people who records and then sells recordings without licensing first. He actually said in the interview that he wants people to record and give tapes to their friends. Note "give". Anyway, go read it on the newstand and be surprised.
  • The technology for the watermark will probably be propietary. All content providers will have tp pay a licensing fee to incluse this watermark. Let me guess, Microsoft owns the rights?

  • New Pledge (Score:5, Funny)

    by fnurb ( 310028 ) on Sunday July 07, 2002 @09:04PM (#3838842)
    I Pledge allegiance to the broadcast flag of the Motion Picture Association of America, and to the restrictions for which it stands; one copyright, restricted, with freedom of access for none.
  • The USA is an empire in decline. It started with rapid growth and high ideals, but has reached a plateau where it seeks to protect what it has instead of working to garner new rewards. History has shown that empires that protect the current large commercial enterprises at the expense of up and coming enterprise are soon eclisped by others without a domestic monopoly to protect.

    Spain plundered the new world, but did little to invest in its own growth. Spain was overtaken by a more vibrant English entrepeneurship. The English in turn were overtaken by the Americans. The USA is slowly shifting from invovation and competition to protecting its current "turf". The symptons are numerous and not confined to the high-tech sector: steel tarrifs, soft-wood lumber tarrifs, encryption restrictions, computer export restriction, copyright extension, patent extension into software and process, and of course the DMCA and its bretheren.

    I believe that I will see the USA lose its place of dominance within my lifetime as it stifles its own inovators in favour of the monied and stagnat corporate giants who hold sway over short-sighted and venal politicians.

    From a Canadian point of view, this is a good thing.

  • But daddy why can't i watch Barney now? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Because Mickey Mouse says so. Be a good girl and go play with your Jack Valenti voodoo doll.
  • How about this for a local TV money maker =>

    You child gets on TV for winning a spelling contest, or the TV visits the day care or whatever. You can record, You can make backup copies. Sounds good right?

    They will probably have a simple flag to tell you machine to encript the data deeply oin the tape. Using its own specific, nonportable key

    Now you can not send grandma a tape, when your tape deck dies, you also discover that you can not read these tapes on anything other than the machine which recorded them first.

    How much good does it do you to backup something if the drive is dead?

    Now if you want something you will have to a$k the local station for a copy that is open. I am sure that will be free as in beer :-(

  • King Solomon Solution (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's simple. Any station utilizing this station gets limited in their duration of use - say, 2 hours of flag usage per week. Hollywood gets theirs, consumers don't get horrifically inconvenienced. It would be absolutely prohibited to use the flag on any news broadcasts or children's programming. Should they overuse their quota of flag time, they get tagged with a $20k (increasing by $5k/month/month (exponentially) if a broadcaster chronically does this, to prevent them working lawbreaking into their cost of business) fine per 15 minutes of misusage of the public airwaves, rounded up in 15-minute blocks.

    This idea forces them to use their quota in the wisest way possible. New X-files episode? Sunday night movie? They get free reign of what to do with their 2-hour lock-out block (in 30-minute increments, again, so as to keep them from trying to spread their block across all of their shows). After that, they're toast until next week, and whatever they don't use they can carry over at a 25% deduction per week of stale usage.

    Also, the flag would not permit them to block PVR (Tivo/Replay) usage in any way - the PVR would have to pass the do-not-copy flag to prevent archiving or moving online.

    All of this is because of the simple problem that RealNetworks caused by providing this "flag" concept for RealPlayer streams. It was abused. RealPlayer Plusses could NOT EVER record streams because there was no incentive offered to a broadcast without the damn flag. Regulatory limits are cumbersome but should be their only door for this kind of confounded idea.
  • What I haven't seen brought up is the fact that just about all MPAA broadcasts are already degraded.

    In order to broadcast over the public airwaves in the US, you need to adhere to certain broadcast standards, so certain words, body parts, reproductive activity and bodily functions are not allowed to be on boradcast TV.

    This pretty much degrades most films by simple "editing for TV".

    The pirate does not get a "perfect copy" of an MPAA broadcast, but can of various made-for-TV type programs.

    The pirate can get heavily edited, time-compressed, censored versions. Those that want flawless "perfect" copies of MPAA material can go to the DVD counter at the local store.

  • EFF (Score:2, Informative)

    by Grasshopper ( 153602 )
    This may be a very naive question, but I am still curious.

    Why do organizations which are obviously selfish (ignoring specifics), such as the MPAA, have better luck at lobbying for legislation than organizations which are obviously sincere and looking out for the people, such as the EFF?

    Yes, I'm sure that money exchanges hands and that there is a little corruption involved. However, I cannot see how there is *that* much corruption to justify things like the DeCSS outcome and the undeserved resilience of the DMCA. Do most legislators really buy what the MPAA says?

    I know the EFF is too honest to slip any money under the table, but I (perhaps naively) don't believe that the MPAA benefits too much from those tactics, so it seems like there has to be something else.

    I have also spoken to a few politicians (Senators), and they always seem to be at least moderately intelligent and concerned. Yes, I know most of that is an act, but I can't see how a group of people of average (or better than average) intelligence can come to the conclusions that the US government has in recent times.

    I fear that things like this are going to go MPAA's way, and I don't even understand how that's possible...

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close