Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Broadcast Flag All But Approved

Posted by timothy on Wed Oct 22, 2003 06:51 AM
from the but-the-shoutin' dept.
Are We Afraid writes "The FCC is about to approve the broadcast flag for HDTV, according to Reuters. The EFF has been vocal in its disapproval, but the suits appear to be pushing ahead anyway. We may soon need an updated dystopian parable: The Right to Watch."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday October 22 2003, @06:54AM (#7279669) Homepage
    SPDIF (Sony Philips Digital InterFace) has a copyright bit which can be set for audio signals... has that been stopping people?

    Any wall a man can build can be torn down by another man... Is it really worth all the fuss?
    • by sl0ppy (454532) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:00AM (#7279693)
      i can tell you that as a musician, the copyright bit on the personal dat recorder i purchased did a pretty good job of stopping me.

      well, until i spent $1500 more on a professional dat recorder, that didn't contain it.

      it's ridiculous. i wasn't even allowed to copy my own recordings. it's not like dat is a hotbed of piracy, i only recall one riaa album *ever* released to dat.

      it's nice to see bogus legislature used to stop useful technology from taking hold, and the common man from being able to compete with those already in power.
      • by captaineo (87164) * on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:12AM (#7279742)
        The more I think about it the more I agree this is [i]exactly[/i] what the broadcast flag is about. It's not about stopping piracy*. It's about stopping low-budget Mac-wielding filmmakers from threatening Hollywood... Amazing consumer-level media tools do no good if they can't record anything. *I love how the article positions the broadcast flag as a "magic bullet" against internet piracy. As if one bit is going to stop anyone from doing anything...
          • AHRA-92 mandated that "consumer" DATs add copy protection to unprotected sources, but since the content is secured at the source, why would HDTV "recorders" be required to imprint it in original content?


            why wouldn't they? :)

            but seriously, to play devils advocate for a moment, let's think about a scenario:

            television station zzba invested heavily in an initial hdtv rollout. just like the theaters in the area, the station has been hit with economic woes. now, the content providers are mandating that
          • by 3terrabyte (693824) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:00AM (#7280022) Journal
            "But can you please explain to me what difference the broadcast flag will have on indie filmmakers?",

            "....but there is no mandate for any producer to use the broadcast flag in material they create. If you don't turn it on in your recording, then nothing should stop you from making copies."

            Sounds good for phase 1. Then what happens when someone starts to take out the 'bit', and re-transmit somehow, allowing everyone to watch and copy to their heart's content. I'll tell you what happens, they change the law so that EVERYTHING *MUST* have the bit. And all players must have the bit. And by then hopefully all computer hardware, bios, O/S, & software will have DRM also. And lo and behold it'll cost a minimum of $15,000 to get 'access' to licensing the 'bit'. That $15,000 will be what pushes out you, me & the indies.

            What I just described is a very small jump compared to the other things they're trying to push for now. The bit is going to be bad. If we allow them to do this, they can then close the smaller holes without any problem.

            • by aborchers (471342) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:57AM (#7280430) Homepage Journal
              So basically what you're telling me is not that I'm missing something about the broadcast flag but the slippery slope argument that it's a foot in the door for those evil thought control media corporations that own the Congress. I see.

              Dang, and I thought my tinfoil hat was tight... :-)

              How do you reconcile the fact that hardware/software vendors and consumer groups with an interest in innovating technologies are also large contributors to political campaigns? This is a big complicated issue, and the fact that it's taken this long to get this "mandate" tells me that it's a long way from over. There are just too many diverse interests in the mix.

              I'm very worried about technological mandates, and I don't like the broadcast flag because I think it puts unnecessary inhibitions in the path of users, but I think your conclusion here is a little tenuous and contrary to pretty much all of recent consumer, technological, legislative, and judicial history.

              For myself, if I can't get the use I want out of a device or content, then it's irrelevant because I just won't buy the shit. DVX comes to mind as a perfect example of how consumers voted with their wallets to give a big FU to an overly restrictive technology.


        • Thank you for your interesting comment.

          But, what exactly is a FPGA? Is it a Field-Programmable Grid Array? And how would this chip be related to the previous discussion?

          I'm not disputing your claim, I'm only trying to understand what you're referring to.

          On Slashdot, given the wide range of the audience, expanding acronyms and including a URL or two for some background info goes a long way.

          thank you,
  • Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Klerck (213193) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @06:56AM (#7279678) Homepage
    I think "Right to Watch" would be a bit of a misnomer. It's much more like the "Right to Record". Nothing is going to stop anyone from watching something when it's broadcast.
    • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:09AM (#7279733) Journal
      The last Slashdot article on this topic had a post that contained the various lengths of time within which you could view a HDTV recording. After "forever" the next longest length of time was "one week".

      One measly week.

      Well, one week might be fine if you record something becasue you know you're going out for the night, but what the hell do you do if you're going away on a two-week vacation? What choice do you have except to miss out?

      Can you imagine missing the last two weeks of 24, The West Wing, ER or whatever you're hooked on because some silly timestamped restriction is set to one week (or less)?

      How do you tell your young kids that the show that you promised they could watch when they got back home from a long car journey to visit the grandparents can't be watched anymore because you exceeded the time limit? Ever tried explaining silly things like that to a screaming three year old?

      Let's face it, for a lot of people, life is more hectic now than it was ten years ago. Ten years from now, it'll probably be more hectic still. What good is a timeshifting device like a VCR or a PVR if you can't timeshift with it?
  • by EinarH (583836) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:00AM (#7279694) Journal
    I think this will help the companies and boost demand for HDTV.

    HAHAHA.

  • by Hanashi (93356) * on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:02AM (#7279705) Homepage
    [This is the text of the letter I faxed to the FCC yesterday. Please feel free to copy it and send it yourself if you like, or visit the EFF's Action Center [eff.org] and use their spiffy online form. They haven't voted yet; it's not too late!]

    Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20554

    Dear Jonathan Adelstein,

    Commissioner Kevin J. Martin
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20554

    Dear Kevin Martin,

    Commissioner Michael J. Copps
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20554

    Dear Michael Copps,

    Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20554

    Dear Kathleen Abernathy,

    Chairman Michael K. Powell
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, NW
    Washington, D.C. 20554

    Dear Michael Powell,

    Please allow me to take a few moments of your time in order to express my opposition to the proposed adoption of the "broadcast flag" for digital televisions. I strongly believe that this misuse of technology will do little but stifle legitimate innovation (including slowing the adoption of digital television) and infringe on the consumer's fair-use rights.

    One of the most serious problems with the "broadcast flag" proposal is that it places control over marketplace innovation in the hands of the MPAA, an organization with no vested interest in innovation. In fact, the MPAA can be viewed as having more of an interest in the LACK of innovation, in that they are rooted firmly in the current technology and content distribution model. Allowing the MPAA to veto new features in digital television equipment is like giving organized crime the power to veto new wiretap laws. As a business organization, the MPAA will always act in the interest of it's members, and not the public. The result is that marketplace innovation will suffer, and consumers will have to make do with fewer features and no way to exercise their legally protected fair-use rights.

    In conclusion, I urge to you avoid "broadcast flag" technology at all costs. It is a system tailor-made to appeal to the Hollywood content providers, striving to protect their distribution-based business model in the face of new technologies. Rather than adapt to the realities of the current situation, they choose to adapt the current situation to that which they desire to be reality. This situation is unworkable, in that it places unreasonable restrictions on both consumer electronics manufacturers and the consumers themselves. Please do not adopt the "broadcast flag" technology. It benefits only the MPAA, and abridges the rights of consumers.

    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,
    YOUR SIG HERE

    • by jez9999 (618189) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:39AM (#7280279) Homepage Journal
      Dear Mr. Hanashi,

      We at the FCC are not interested in this 'innovation' that you speak of. My job description clearly states that I'm here to help businesses make more money! In fact, why you thought it purposeful to write this letter to me I don't quite know. Why would I go against my duties as chairman of the FCC, especially when this chip implant the MPAA gave me makes everything so much better. Yeesss... that's right... come to daddy, endorphins... ahhhh.

      Yours sincerely,
      Michael Powell
      • by Hanashi (93356) * on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:44AM (#7280326) Homepage
        Actually, I don't have the fax number. One of the nice things about the EFF Action Center [eff.org] is that there is a nice little "email, fax or print" selector at the end of the form. I sent this through that form, and asked it to fax my letter. I highly recommend this form, since faxes are regarded somewhat more highly than email.
      • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @10:45AM (#7281397) Homepage
        Sadly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

        Fair use is a very broad doctrine. It _might_ apply to literally any kind of infringement whatsoever. No one factor -- such as whether a use is a literal copy or transformative -- controls the entire analysis.

        Instead, each and every time that the fair use analysis is conducted, all four factors of the fair use test (see 17 USC 107) must be considered.

        The example that immediately springs to mind is if someone made a high-quality -- let's say exact copy -- of a work for noncommercial educational or research purposes.
  • by tds67 (670584) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:03AM (#7279706)
    "Why should anyone in the world buy if it's on the Internet," said Andrew Setos, president of engineering at News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment Group.

    Why should anyone in the world buy bottled water for $1.00 each if they can get water for pennies at home?

  • Next Up (Score:4, Interesting)

    by killmenow (184444) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:04AM (#7279710)
  • by t4b00 (715501) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:07AM (#7279726)
    What if Ford Motor company suddenly decided to include a clause in the contract that stipulates, something like: "if you purchase a Ford vehicle, you agree to purchase all accessory and or replacement parts from Ford Directly" ? I think you would see allot more Chevy's running arround town. let the FCC pass all the regulations they want. I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.
    • by jkovach (1036) <slashdot@jkovach.net> on Wednesday October 22 2003, @09:26AM (#7280672) Homepage
      I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.

      There are no plans in the works to make your NTSC TV and TiVo illegal per se, but there are plans to make it useless. The FCC's ultimate goal is to shift all broadcast TV stations over to digital and discontinue analog broadcasts by the end of 2006 (assuming enough people are able to receive the digital broadcasts.) Their motivation is that digital TV uses less spectrum than analog TV, so they will be able to repurpose the old analog TV spectrum for other uses and no doubt make a pretty penny by auctioning the licenses. Broadcasters have been rather slow to switch over, and it makes sense that the FCC would give them stuff like the broadcast flag to encourage them to switch over faster. So in a few years, if the FCC gets their way, you won't have a choice other than digital TV with the broadcast flag.

      Of course, this ignores some pretty tough facts: something like 98-99% of Americans have a television. More Americans have a TV than have telephone service at home. A sizable number of these folks probably don't have the money to just run out to Best Buy and buy a new television because the FCC says they have to. I expect to see a bunch of noise made in the news about this once the deadline approaches, followed by lots of Congressional campaigns running on the "The big bad federal government wants to take away your TV... over my dead body!" platform. This will likely lead to the analog/digital cutover deadline being pushed back significantly.
  • by e40 (448424) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:09AM (#7279734) Journal
    Look, we know Hollywood hates TiVo. OK, more like terrified of it. Seems like this will be one way to kill a TiVo (or other similar device) foray into HDTV.

    Since I have DirecTV, I'm not too worried, seeing as I got the TiVo from them... but things change...

    • I think it's more likely to kill HD. For me, at least. Neither HD nor TiVo has achieved anything like "broad market penetration" so it's tough to determine who will win that battle. Essentially, it's a decision between convenience vs. quality--but the TiVo works with things out now, whereas HD requires new gear.

      My bet's on TiVo.
  • pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by retards (320893) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:11AM (#7279740) Journal
    News like this will be very funny in 20 years. Incredible fuss over something as boring as simple push-entertainment.

    Wake up! TV is dead. Or will be quite soon. I don't give a damn if I can watch sit-coms in high definition in 5 years and not record. I want to kill people online in high-res. I want to walk on other planets and meet interesting people in high-res.

    Guess what? I already can! So good luck to broadcast technology (the name kinda says it all). A "don't copy" flag will not save you.

  • Here's my idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rhadamanthus (200665) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:15AM (#7279759)
    DON'T BUY AN HDTV!


    Heck, don't watch TV, movies, etc too. If you cannot get what you want out of it (i.e., fair use) don't buy it. Tell everyone in Hollywood to go f*ck themselves.

    --rhad, who is sick of this shit

    • Re:Here's my idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tuffy (10202) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:21AM (#7280172) Homepage Journal
      DON'T BUY AN HDTV!

      An HDTV is a fine DVD viewing platform. Heck, that's about all it's good for. Considering the cost of an HDTV receiver and the dearth of programming for it, I doubt I'll be getting one - ever. This obnoxious flag can't make them any less enticing than they are now.

  • Just say no. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:20AM (#7279783) Journal
    These broadcast flags may be a Bad Thing. But, if we all watch less TV, the world may be a better place.

    More time to learn, to play, to volunteer, to socialise.

    Maybe, parents will actually raise their children, take care of their households, and improve the lives of their loved-ones.

    People will have the time to learn about the things their government is doing, how the politicians who represent them are acting, what the issues really are, and how to change things for the better.

    Or not. I could just be dreaming.

  • by Masem (1171) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:34AM (#7279854)
    HDTV is NOT the same as digital television. HDTV is High Definition TV, which is where your ultra-large plasma TV will display in all it's beauty and can be recieved with standard over-the-air signals without the need of digital TV, as it's already there now (While I think the FCC is interesting in promoting HDTV, it's not a mandate yet). DTV is digital TV, and that's the transferring of everything, including the mandated shutdown of analog-out from broadcast towers, by 2006, though most likely this will go even later. And if you read carefully, and look at older issues, you will be able to make at least one copy for personal use of any non-premium/PPV show on the network, at least, with unlimited duplication of standard over-the-air broadcasts. This has been voted by the FCC back in July/August at some point.
  • by Effugas (2378) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:44AM (#7279905) Homepage
    Analog transmission stops in 2006.

    Anything that lets VCRs work will have to respect the broadcast flag (i.e. will have to fail).

    Nothing will air with the broadcast flag disabled. This includes news.

    Ergo, it seems perfectly reasonable to claim VCR's are being effectively banned between the next two presidential elections.

    --Dan

    • Analog transmission stops in 2006.

      Analog over the airwaves transmission stops in 2006 - as of right now. Your cable company is free to send as much analog signal into your home as they like; it's their cable, after all. And if you get satellite, they can do the same. So unless your cable company sees some compelling reason to switch to all digital, your VCR will be safe with them.

    • "Analog transmission stops in 2006."

      No. Analog transmission is scheduled to stop in 2006, but with such a heavy level of investment in analog technology--both at the transmitter (content provider) and receiver (content consumer) ends, I highly doubt the cut-over to all digital will occur on schedule.

      I mean, seriously, when it the last time you saw a technical conversion of this size and scope actually occur on schedule?

      I also expect that when Joe Six-Packs T.V. stops working, the general populace
      • by pommiekiwifruit (570416) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @09:16AM (#7280586)
        In Sweden, when they recently changed from driving on the left to driving on the right (a sort of delayed reaction to germany being invaded by napoleon), they converted over all on the same day!

        No doubt in the UK or USA it would have taken years for everyone to change over to the new side.

        After all, the US tax department starts its year in April, thinking that that Julius Caesar bloke's reforms to the calender would never catch on.

        • No doubt in the UK or USA it would have taken years for everyone to change over to the new side.

          No: I'm pretty sure that once the change started, attrition would leave all the survivors driving on the same side of the road within days.
        • I must disagree with you here. There are many households that will not be ABLE (read afford) to just purchase a new TV because the FCC wants to stop analog broadcasts. And what about those people who are more fortunate who have 5 TVs in their house? Think they'll run out and buy 5 new TVs? No. They might buy one, but they'll sure as hell be very unhappy about it. Analog broadcasts won't stop anytime soon, despite the FCC's mandate. Think anyone is going to buy a $200 receiver for their 10+ year old T

    • by CyberGarp (242942) <Shawn@G[ ]ett.org ['arb' in gap]> on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:37AM (#7280266) Homepage

      Analog transmission stops in 2006.

      The US's metric conversion act of 1975 stated that the US would be fully converted to metric by 1992. Right.

  • Over the air only? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bert33 (655799) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:00AM (#7280024)
    When the first article about this was posted it mentionned that the flag would be used for over the air broadcasts only because "people already paid for cable" or something. I don't see this in the current article. If this affects only HD over-the-air broadcasts I doubt many people will notice the difference. However, if it affects all cable, dish and OtA digital broadcasts it will definitely hurt HD adoption. Finally, my HDTV accepts only DVI and component inputs and uses an external decoder. If the info has to be sent to my TV unencoded how hard can it be to intercept that signal?
  • by Halo- (175936) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:13AM (#7280117)
    What I don't understand is why the industry thinks it can "broadcast" a signal through the public airwaves and maintain this level of control. If I get a permit and hold a parade down a residential street, don't the people in the houses along the route have the right to record the sights and sounds which can be seen and heard from their own property? Certainly they don't have the right to sell sheet music derivied from listening to the performance, but by the virtue of the performance being "public" some rights should be lost.

    I don't have an issue with a "flag" on a signal sent over a privately owned and funded cable, but the airwaves are different. If they won't let me do what I wish with a signal with enters my property, why can't I tell them not to trespass? (I sound like a militia member here....)

    The broadcasting industry wants the right to send a signal into people's property without consent and then they want to place restrictions on what can be done with it?

  • So? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sebby (238625) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:15AM (#7280128)
    I mean, really, TV has become such crap that I barely watch 3hrs of it per week, usually mostly news.

    They didn't need to stuff this down my throat to get me to stop watching it, but it certainly won't make me take a second lood at it either now.

    So I say let them piss off their own customers; in the end they'll just become irrelevant that much faster.

    • by dpilot (134227) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @09:25AM (#7280660) Homepage Journal
      We keep talking about Joe SixPak and what HE cares about, and the fact that he DOESN'T care about geek issues.

      Guess what? Right now DRM, broadcast flags, and the like are geek issues. Pretty soon they're going to become Joe SixPak issues, about the time he finds out that he can't do the things he used to be able to do.

      Our challenge is to be prepared, and guide Joe into pushing for the Right Things as he gets incensed at his legislators. No doubt the Dark Side will also have some proposals to attempt to placate Joe and maintain Profit. If we're thoughtful and lucky, we can guide the course of events, soon.
  • Easy Way to Comment (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:19AM (#7280154) Homepage Journal
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Action Center has a very easy to use form [eff.org] for sending a letter to the appropriate folks.

    Please take a minute to fill out the form and submit. If you're a member, you need only enter your e-mail address, another great reason to join [eff.org] the EFF.
  • by Brad Lucier (547713) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:39AM (#7280280)

    This is what I sent the FCC last January.

    The proposed Broadcast Flag Mandate would allocate to a few corporations a valuable government monopoly to produce and manipulate digital media. This is a vast theft from the American people and I strongly oppose its adoption.

    I already see the affects of similar government mandates in the area of book publishing. I own a small company that produces electronic texts distributed over the internet. The Bowker company has a government-granted monopoly to sell and distribute ISBN numbers. Bowker in turn has developed policies that greatly favor large companies over small startups; for example, they sell 10,000 ISBN numbers for $3,000 ($.30 per ISBN), while requiring $800 for 100 ISBN numbers ($8.00 per ISBN).

    Similarly, the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, which has a government monopoly on copyright registration and assignment of catalog information for the Library of Congress, has a list of priorities for books that it will catalog for its collections. At the top of the list are books published by large publishers, which get their books cataloged through the Catalog in Publication program even before the books are published. Officially, as a small publisher, books I send to the copyright office have the lowest priority for cataloging.

    This is relevant because I can compete with large publishers with a computer and free software for designing, typesetting, and distributing digital media in the form of electronic books. If the Broadcast Flag Mandate goes into effect, I will be legally prevented from acquiring or developing hardware and free software to compete with large corporations in other areas of digital media. This would encourage anti-competitive activities and monopolies, while discouraging innovation and free development of new products.

  • by cs668 (89484) <.cservin. .at. .cromagnon.com.> on Wednesday October 22 2003, @09:54AM (#7280919)
    Because most of the HDTV televisions out there do not have their own tunners they use an external tunner.

    This can be connected in multiple ways.

    Many of the current TV/Monitors use component input to display 1080I. Since that can not be protected, but DVI can expect the component outputs of your HDTV reciever to start only sending a downconverted 480I signal for any content with the Broadcast flag set.

    This will make a large protion of the current HTDV displays, that you paid good $$$ for, incapable of displaying 1080I.

    My question is what liability do the manufactureres have that sold us those HDTV displays that no longer display any HDTV content?
    • by Davak (526912) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:11AM (#7279741) Homepage
      Or, you could just attack this the American way... and bitch about it!

      Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
      Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
      Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
      Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
      Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

      General information, inquiries & complaints: fccinfo@fcc.gov
      Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov
      Comments on FCC Internet services: webmaster@fcc.gov
      Elections & political candidate matters: campaignlaw@fcc.gov

      1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) Voice: toll-free
      1-888-835-5322 (1-888-TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free
      (202) 418-2555 TTY: toll
      (202) 418-0710 FAX
      (202) 418-2830 FAX on Demand
      (202) 418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters
        • by 4of12 (97621) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:06AM (#7280065) Homepage Journal

          IIRC, different kinds of communication provide differents levels of effect.

          An email from 733th4Xor@hotmail.com to one of the FCC commissioners will receive a weight close to zero.

          A phone call is better.

          A postcard is better still.

          A well-written letter on good stationary and signed is even better.

          If you want really impressive effects, then you need to go the next $PARTY fundraising dinner, provide a large contribution. Then, using the telephone, you can call the boss of the FCC head and tell him you think that a particular point of view is very important to you.

    • Azghoul wrote:

      There has, and always will be, alternatives.

      True, but how accessible will the alternatives be?

      What if the law mandated that you needed a government license to publish books? How much choice would you have for your hammock reading material? (this is exactly how it worked in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries) Obviously a bit more extreme than the broadcast flag, but not unrelated.

      Personally, I don't care that much about TV, nevermind "HDTV". I think we need to really care whe

    • by 3terrabyte (693824) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:04AM (#7280047) Journal
      And what kind of education and job would you need to be able to spend your saturdays in a hammock in a yard & house that you bought?

      The story works well because it described the hoops you have to live with to make it through college to get the job you desire.

      I'm sure if on a different day someone told you that the Chinese shouldn't bitch about the propaganda the government puts on the radio, TV, and newspapers. Afterall, there are other alternatives, like farming some rice outside. Come on, use your imagination.

    • You have to keep the barrier to entry for small/indie startups in almost any industry as low as possible. For instance let us say you start an online video or audio site (inet radio for instance) that only uses truely independent non-signed talent and content, you should be able to operate such a biz without being constantly hasseled and legaly threatend by the current large incumbents in the field. This is very important if you want true capitalism with creative destruction and all that good stuff. So y
    • no (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ender Ryan (79406) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:24AM (#7280189) Journal
      I mean, we COULD actually just go outside, sit in a hammock and read a book, couldn't we?

      Not when all books are electronic, and you're only allowed one reading of a book.

      So, perhaps, you COULD go outside with your e-reader, if the wireless authentication mechanism works, and read an e-book in your hammock.

      Of course, we (the people) could create all our own entertainment, if all the tools for doing so aren't considered "copyright circumvention devices." Want to write a book? You'll need an e-reader writing license, and all the authorship slots are currently full. Paper is illegal, because it allows easy recording of potentially infringing information.

      That may sound insane, but my point is that our rights are being eroded on multiple fronts, specifically, corporate control and legislation.

      Honestly, I don't think it will be as bad as some people think, but I imagine it will get Pretty Bad(TM).

      • by gfxguy (98788) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @08:54AM (#7280410)
        One could argue that the public use of the airwaves, granted to broadcasters on our behalf, gives us the "right to watch".

        If not, then I should have the right to broadcast whatever I want at the same frequency, no?
    • by Davak (526912) on Wednesday October 22 2003, @07:18AM (#7279774) Homepage
      Broadcast flag... FCC Sucks!

      Do Not Call List... FCC Rocks!

      Okay... they are one for one now. Honestly, if they just give us free porn, they'll win the series and we'll all be happy.
      • Examples (Score:3, Informative)

        Try posting instructions on how to make explosives. Try discussing something 'racial', you will be charged with a hate crime. Discuss the overthrow of your government. ( which should be allowed under free speech, remember its how the US got here in the first place ) and you will be jailed for terrorism.

        For independent verification, talk to paladin press ( a book company ) about having to pull books off their catalog due to harassment by the government.

        Yes, I agree I was able to say something here, but I
    • They'll really hate it, though, when they discover they've pissed off their audience so much that the only people still watching are dead or on welfare; people with money to spend on their products are precisely the people who don't want to watch stupid ads.