Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo 317
blamanj wrote to mention that, a week after we reported on the court rejection of the broadcast flag, the MPAA is working on new legislation to broaden the FCC's power. From the article: "The draft bill says, simply, that the FCC will 'have authority to adopt regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks.' The DC Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up." Update: 05/13 19:20 GMT by Z : Title amended with apologies to the Bugaloos.
harder this time (Score:2)
Re:harder this time (Score:3)
Cory Doctorow has some comments on this at http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/13/broadcast_fl
Audio Interview (Score:2)
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/05/make
Basically, he explains what's happened so far, and makes the observation that legislation of this type will be difficult to pass because no one wants to be the one to break American's television sets.
Re:harder this time (Score:2, Insightful)
This is another attempt to bypass courts and surreptitously impose a law that tramples upon a citizen's rights.
If the courts strike down a law passed by Congress, then MPAA may realize its futile. But with many of our beloved congressmen being stooges of big business... they may as well replace the judges.
Re:harder this time Huh??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not lose sight of how the U.S. Government works here...
Congress *makes the rule*, and the courts *enforce* them. So, the media, having been told by the courts, "this is not what Congress intended", are going to the source of the rules and requesting a change -- as any group of citizens in the country have a right to do. You may not agree with the request, and it is your right to oppose and
Re:harder this time (Score:2)
First, the DMCA doesn't extend copyright terms. You're thinking of the Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Sonny Bono Act. They're different things.
Second, the DMCA was passed in 1998. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled -- just as the lower courts that had heard the issue had -- that Congress could retroactively extend copyrights. (No one has AFAIK challenged prospective extensions) That case, Eldred, hadn't been a factor leading up to the DMCA or the CTEA.
So you might want to know what the
Re:harder this time (Score:3, Informative)
1201 et seq only apply to works protected under Title 17. Once a work hits the public domain, it's okay to circumvent with regards to it.
However, when this argument was tried with regards to DeCSS in conjunction with CSS-encrypted public domain movies on DVD, it flopped, since the courts that looked at the issue didn't think that this was a real impediment to getting those works generally, and that it would make these provisions pretty useless if that arg
Re:harder this time (Score:2)
No, I don't remember that.
I remember how the courts said "Yes, you can have an extension this time, and possibly more extensions after that, so long as copyright EVENTUALLY expires."
Sure, that exiration date may not come until after the end of the universe, but as long as it's technically not PERPETUAL the courts said it's OK.
Re:harder this time (Score:3, Insightful)
Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll pass with ease.
Re:Follow the money (Score:2)
OTOH, I wonder what took them so long. This campaign should have been ready to roll out the instant the SCOTUS made the ruleing (in their view that is, in mine they can bend over, its time the people had some fun.)
In any event, my congress critter is in town today, so I'm going to stop by the senior center and lay a few words on him.
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:Follow the money (Score:2)
Re:Follow the money (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to say exactly the opposite thing. Once there's some testimony -- and the computer companies are certainly going to insist that they get a chance to air their views in public -- that the only ways the FCC can handle this is to either (a) outlaw copying outright, which takes away constituents' ability to continue time-shifting, or (b) micromanage all kinds of different technologies like hard disks and software decoders in order to ensure that the flags are honored, I
Nah, they'll just tack it on another bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
How appropriate.
Bare with me... (Score:5, Funny)
My mom washed the broadcast flag, and it BLEW UP!
Wait, Wait! (Score:2)
My mom washed my Electic Bugaloo, and it BLEW UP!
That'll do pig, that'll do.
Legislative body (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know the MPAA was a legislative body
Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Insightful)
He is also the lapdog of the entertainment industry.
Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
word is, this champion of the poor artist wants to be your next Justice on the Supreme Court.
Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)
Otherwise known, by that definition actually, as facism.
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation
* engages in corporatism
* implements totalitarianism
Latly though the term has some to simply mean corporatism. Though this may be a stretch as we might have a good bit of corporatism w
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Funny)
(gets cut off by female companion)
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
LK
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here isn't with corporate america. It's with the corruption that f
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
I don't understand why people are against "special interests" asking for legislation. After all, isn't the Slashdot crowd a special interest asking for change? Isn't the FOSS community a special interest asking for change?
If congress doesn't listen to "special interests" then who exa
Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)
Special Interests provide a necessary service, namely they distil information and give their point of view. Take two opposing points of view and, idealy, you'll be able to make an informed decision.
Money buys access in Washington because there's only so man
Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Insightful)
Politician - "I don't like this bill"
Evil Corp. - "Do it or find your own money for re-election next year"
Politician - "Of course Master. Please forgive my vile tounge"
(Thunder and Lightning)
Evil Corp. - Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA HA HA
(Organ Music)
Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's it exactly.
"Oh no, the RIAA isn't going to give me their maximum donation of $3,000 (or whatever the hell it is now)! I might lose my re-election!"
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Interesting)
But our high holy Courts have decided that money equals speech, so don't you dare trample on the rights of massive conglomerates to brib....I mean "contribute" t
Re:Legislative body (Score:2)
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA is an association of companies (the second A). Each member company can give individually to whatever the max limit is. That is a lot of cash my friend.
Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org]? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert [opensecrets.org] and Nancy Pelosi [opensecrets.org]. Go take a look at the Politicians [opensecrets.org] page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry [opensecrets.org] page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry [opensecrets.org] gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.
Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.
Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Informative)
with apologies to Mel Brooks... (Score:5, Funny)
[in unison] "F**k the poor!"
"Good!"
Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they aren't a legislative body, but they do seem to own several members of the legislative branch such as Orin Hatch, for example, who seems to do the bidding if his dark lord and master, "MPAA" frequently and regularly.
I don't have a high opinion of him at all.
If someone came to me and said, "For several million dollars, would you be willing to sell out the constitutional ideals of our nation?" I'd have to say absolutel
Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dillinger (Score:3, Funny)
As you were
Just because they're out to get you (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh.
The only flag I want is the one sewn on my old uniform.
Re:Just because they're out to get you (Score:4, Funny)
Buy your own laws, here (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatsa matter, sport? Courts got you down? They say you have no legal leg to stand on? Don't listen to them! Get your own laws! You write 'em. You pay for 'em. You benefit from 'em.
Re:Buy your own laws, here (Score:2)
Re:Buy your own laws, here (Score:5, Informative)
What about legislation to ban the MPAA? (Score:2)
Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA? (Score:2)
Now I await the inevitable "No, suave" post...
Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA? (Score:2)
For instance the CSS encryption on DVD's is "approved" by the MPAA and adopted for use by it's members. How is that not collusion? While it may seem that having many different "standards" would be bad for consu
Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA? (Score:2)
I considered writing to my local tax office saying "I had no idea tax was negotiable. I find the sums difficult, may I suggest I pay you £100 in full and final settlement for all my taxes this year?".
Perhaps you folks in the US shoul
Routers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Routers (Score:2, Insightful)
A black market for running tapes will not arise because people are too busy working 50 hours a week to put food on their tables.
Corporatization of this country is complete.
Re:Routers (Score:3, Interesting)
And yet... people still watch TV, movies, selecting new ringtones and backgrounds for their phone, finding music for their iPod, burning DvDs of their wedding. They're working 50 hour weeks to put food on the table. And they're also buying nifty gadgets that had been cool little projects only available to tech-heads a few years back.
This country has been run on consumerism
Re:Routers (Score:2)
Re:Routers (Score:2, Insightful)
Technologically, imnsho, this legislation isn't going to stop anything. Zip, zilch, nada. This is just muscle flexing. This is to stop general idiotic consumers from recording their shows on their own so that they have to buy the Season 1 DVD when it comes out. H
Government Logic (Score:5, Funny)
1. Anything not nailed down is mine.
2. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
3. If the only tool you have is a crowbar, every problem looks like hours and hours of fun!
Of course we can get along just fine with the software industry. TCPA, DRM, Steam, Valve, Half-Life, Crowbar. It all makes sense now!
Please note the difference: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Please note the difference: (Score:2)
Re:Please note the difference: (Score:2)
Re:Please note the difference: (Score:2)
Land of the Free (except where prohibited) (Score:5, Insightful)
Scott Adams: If the capitalists don't like capitalism, they shouldn't have named it after themselves.
Wow, didn't see THAT coming (Score:3, Funny)
I still think they would rather hold off until fall of '08 to blame Clinton and the Democrats for requiring a new TV in every trailer.
Electric Boogaloo? (Score:2)
What's an 80's break-dancing craze got to do with
Down witha FCCee
Re:Electric Boogaloo? (Score:2)
Re:Electric Boogaloo? (Score:2)
Eliminate the middleman! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eliminate the middleman! (Score:2)
MPAA was elected? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MPAA was elected? (Score:2)
Re:MPAA was elected? (Score:2)
Our elected representatives can't be bothered with the details of reading & writing the legislation their party has decided to pass - they've got to focus on campaign funding for the next election and slamming the other, evil party!
Re:MPAA was elected? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MPAA was elected? (Score:2)
The trick is to write a counter legislation and convince Congress that yours is better.
Better copyright provisions: (Score:5, Insightful)
This would solve a variety of problems: Fair use would not be destroyed. And because information broadcast is, to all practical extents, available for consumption by "the public", then there should be no restriction on time- or format-shifting of the same. This law would be much more fair to both sides of the issue, as the bottom line is that our country is meant to be free, not governed by the will of corporations, though corporations should still have a fair chance at profits, even big profits, because corporations are the ones that pay us, feed us, drive our economy, and give us a better standard of living through the channeling of funds and efforts that would otherwise not take place.
Re:Better copyright provisions: (Score:5, Interesting)
To them, it won't be a fair setup until everything we watch is
a) produced by a MPAA member
b) paid for* by every watcher, every time they view it. Yes, that means you pay twice as much if two people watch one show simultaneously.
c) even better, paid for by potential viewers, whether you watch it or not.
d) uncopyable, unless they're doing the copying
e) Chargable like b) every time you change format or viewer, in addition to the per-viewing fee.
f) only viewable when the MPAA producer wants you to watch it, especially if you're in a different country
g) eternal copyright, so that all of the above applies to all content, forever.
h) all fair use of any kind is eliminated.
* paid for to include a flat rate fee, per-viewing fee, or unskippable commercials. Ideally, they'd like all three at once.
"[Skipping ads with a PVR or VCR] is theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."
This beautiful piece of logic was bruited about as part of the Big Media blitz against ReplayTV's model 4000 personal video recorder.
This is what we're dealing with.
No such thing as "digital" (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital phone network? Nope, it's still an analog wave carrying all of the information. No matter how anything goes or is transmitted, there's no true such thing as digital.
Re:No such thing as "digital" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No such thing as "digital" (Score:2)
\\// Live long and prosper.
\../ Wicked.
plus sign language.
but anyway, a 'digital' signal is one that has a fixed number of reproducable states; such that the states can be reconstructed, relayed, and retransmitted with all the intented data intact by a predefined system.
that is, a 1.1 is a 1, and a -0.05 is a 0.
Interesting Implication (Score:5, Insightful)
Laying groundwork for easier actions in the future, perhaps
Well... (Score:2)
I understand that it doesn't mean it gets passed, but I don't think coporations should be drafting legislation that would extend the power of a Org. like the FCC that will benefit themselves.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because voters do no research beyond attack advertisements and puff pieces on news channels, reelect lousy incumbents because they're afraid of the other party getting in, and care only about one or two issues rather than integrity.
As it is, a congressman is more likely to get raked over the coals for voting with integrity because this stuff always gets attached to patriotic or must-pass legislation (
Problem with it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC regulations were politically convenient, since the elected officals could distance themselves from it, claim to support or oppose it depending on the direction of the political winds.
Republicans would probably find it hard to increase the amount of regulation on high-tech industries. Not saying it's impossible, but it's hardly going to zip right on through. Unlike the DMCA which was generally pro-business this bill pits several intrests against one another. If the bill directly attacked consumers it would pass in a hearbeat
Re:Problem with it is... (Score:2)
"My lobby group can beat up your lobby group."
Whichever special interest group with the deeper pockets will win this one. Plain as that.
Re:Problem with it is... (Score:2)
The good news is that the electronics industry is MUCH bigger than the entertainment industry.
Whether they will want to fight this is another question.
Re:Problem with it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope not... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope this gets crushed. I hate the idea of the Fed's in my home dictating whe I can do with my stuff by means of Technology that I will simply have to work around which will probobly make me a criminal at that point.
How depressing.
Re:I hope not... (Score:2)
The result of a Litigous Society (Score:2)
err, indescriminate *and* broadcast flag? can't be (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they being ironic or what?
Discriminate (Score:2)
So if I promise to be discriminating in the way I redistribute things, that would be OK? Would releasing a Mac-only client count?
Good for Congresspeople! (Score:2)
I think this is great. In fact, Congress should delegate ALL rule-making authority to independent agencies. That way, they can play more golf and spend more time shopping for nice suits.
These people REPRESENT us. Let's make sure that they look good, feel good, and don't have to do any work at all.
This project explained in 11 words. (Score:2)
Anyone else up for a shopping trip to pick out bandanas, gunbelts and spurs?
Short term bad, long term good? (Score:2)
If passed, the broadcast flag will likely slow down piracy just as much as Compact Discs that won't work in CD-ROMs. While solution, ahem work-around, might not be as simple as a magic marker, rest assured that people will continue to make up their own free use policies so long as
Loss of respect for the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is more harmful to the rule of law than measures such as these. Blatantly obvious purchase of legislation, the ever-expanding scope of "criminal" behavior, and plainly selective enforcement of the law is combining to create an entire generation of people who will simply ignore the increasingly broad and self-contradictory stack of rules.
People truly follow the small subset of the law that they understand, and nothing more.
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
This "broadcast flag" rule is not just "technically illegal". Content policing is the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress' Copyright Office. That office is already complicated (and often contradictory) enough, with its own overreaches (eg. copyright perpetuation). This rule is not so much the FCC filling a gap, or even augmenting LoC oversight. It is really a recognition by a bureaucracy that its main source of power, administering the airwaves, is becoming a tiny area of activity. As other media dwarf the airwaves in traffic, and tech like phased arrays undermine even the necessity for segregation of channels by frequency, the FCC is becoming merely a 20th Century office, as obsolete as the 19th Century offices governing horsedrawn carriages. But its ability to influence Congress, while it still controls the still popular airwaves (which carry most news broadcasts), offers a way to change its mission to one with more power than it ever had. If it jumps beyond the airwaves domain, to define its mission as censor (rather than guarantor of signal integrity), it will not only have power over otherwise free American activities, but need never again be threatened with obsolescence.
The FCC's creeping power grabs are completely predictable, given the increasing irrelevance of the underlying problem it is chartered to solve. But Congress should see this as a chance to phase out a dangerous and unnecessary bureaucracy. Preserving only its technically necessary functions, while they still exist. Then let it die, not reanimate it as a monster censor we'll never banish.
Re:And the really sad thing is. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
It's almost, but not quite, as blatant as the current Nominee for UN Delegate's [cnn.com] contempt for the UN, and we all see how quickly that was struck down...
Never underestimate the power of:
(a) Money
(b) Ignorance
(c) Stupid people in large groups
(d) All of the above.
Re:haha (Score:2)
The Supreme Court's decisions have the weight of the Constitution. If Congress doesn't like something the Supreme Court decides, the Constitution has to be amended, or wait and hope the Court reverses direction in a future case.
Now in the Grokster case, if the court were to decide to extend Fair Use in a certain manner, any proposed legislation of the broadcast flag would be unconstitutional. If the court w
Re:The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA... (Score:2)
Re:I have serious questions (Score:2)
You may do all of the things you wrote without it being illegal. The only time it starts becoming illegal is when you start making copies of those tapes and supplying them to people or rebroadcasting them without the permission of the copyright owners and the original broadcasting channel.
So if your neighbor gave you a tape, you are ok. If your neighbor sells you a tape, you're not. If neighbor records a tape, and you make a copy of it, then I think tha