Broadcast Flag in Trouble 418
pdqlamb writes "USA Today reports an appeals court was not amused at the FCC's broadcast flag rule. Sounds like the judge bought into the argument that the FCC does not have the authority to dictate device design. The broadcast flag isn't quite dead yet, but at least it's in trouble."
Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave... (Score:5, Interesting)
PS: First(ish) post!
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course this is only one circuit, others could hold differently if multiple challenges were filed around the country.
So judicially, this could play out for a long time.
And of course, Congress could just pass a bill mandating the broadcast flag or expanding the FCC's authority so that they can readopt this rule.
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sooner or later, this flag will no longer wave. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh.. this aint over. (Score:5, Insightful)
The broadcast flag isn't quite dead yet, but at least it's in trouble
This is by no means dead. When the entertainment industry can't foist something on you by the backdoor they use plan B: Ask the senate for a nice bit of special interest legislation.
You can tell the quality of your opponent by the cunning of their plan B, in this case their plan B is just as good as their plan A. In a way, I kinda admire the cunts.. :)
Simon.
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:2, Funny)
I always admire cunts.
Err... umm... I mean. Umm...
Gotta go!
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:2)
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this was the back door.
Congress told them to fuck off when they went looking for legislation.
Then, they went to the FCC, and Michael Powell was more than willing to bend over for big business. But, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the current administration. They talk "free markets", but in practice there are way too many gifts to big business. (letting polluters out of environmental enforcements, letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements, etc.) Locking the little guys out of the market and perpetuating the market for the big guys.
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:4, Insightful)
A clean environment, has NO MARKET VALUE. (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when did abstract concepts have opinions?
People don't value clean air, water, soil, etc. enough for their purchasing decisions to force polluters out of business, or to even change their production methods.
A clean environment, has NO MARKET VALUE. That does not mean it has no value whatsoever.
It is a myth spread by polluters that that EVERYTHING can be (and would by some magical process, automatically be) reduced to a monetary value. This myth is c
Re:A clean environment, has NO MARKET VALUE. (Score:3, Interesting)
If consumers valued clean air (not necessarily moneta
Re:But all you can do is breathe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Businesses will sell anything that someone will buy. The more people are willing to buy a certain product (cigarettes, guns, pornography, drugs etc.) the more businesses there will be trying to sell such items. Even if the Governemt outlaws certain products, (drugs, porn, certain weapons) there will still be some business that will sell these, if people exist who will buy such stuff. All that outlawing an item does in dramatically raise its price making
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as my "freedom" does not extend to me being allowed to kill you, actors in a free market should not be permitted to unduly restrict access to that market.
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:4, Insightful)
The antitrust legislation which is supposed to re move Microsofts ability to restrict access to the market from some good or service is what removes freedom from the market, not Microsoft leveraging products against each other to strengthen their market position. A free market provides the right for anyone to produce widgetX for windows, it does not provide that everyone have equal access to windows in order to do so.
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:3, Insightful)
The attributes of a free market include:
Anyone is free to enter or leave the market
No one person, or group of people, is big enough to control the market price
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's something I rarely see free-marketers mention.
Re:Oh.. this aint over. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plan B (Plan C?) isn't to ask Congress to legislate the Broadcast Flag. It's to ask Congress to expand the domain of the FCC to include protecting copyrights over broadcast media.
The FCC currently overstepped its bounds. The backup plan is to extend those bounds, so that the FCC can regulate the broadcast flag, nice and legally. Congress won't have done anything, themselves, to make the broadcast flag legal, they'll just have "strengthened the FCC in the face of increasing piracy."
Immune to (Further) Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
Satan.
-kgj
Nooooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nooooo (Score:5, Funny)
What's the difference?
Re:Nooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nooooo (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nooooo (Score:5, Funny)
But, wait! WAIT! I thought that Social Security was supposed to be my money that the federal government conveinently has been saving up for me, right? I mean, they've taken good care of my money, right? I mean, surely the federal government can take better care of my money than I can.
Re:Nooooo (Score:2, Informative)
Social security was never setup (or even advertised to be) like that. It's always been you pay for the current crop of retirees. And the next crop of worker bees will pay for you when you retire. Works fine unless there are sudden spikes in retirees (damn baby boomers).
Re:Nooooo (Score:2, Insightful)
A spike in a generation (baby boomers) means a bigger spike (geometric growth, everyone has at least 2.5 kids, right?) in following generations.
That means there are more workers NOW (children of baby boomers) than there are baby boomers. So where's the problem?
The only problem I can see is if a generation was SMALLER than its parent generation.
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is, you cannot avoid the "SS monster." At some point you have to take the money out of your corporation if you want to enjoy it and there's really only two ways to do that:
1) Dividends - taxed at Self Employment rate (which is the FICA tax, doubled)
2) Employee Compensation
Re:Nooooo (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, you just keep believing that...
Maybe you should try reading a book like "Running on Empty", then maybe you will learn how BOTH parties put us in this mess.
Re:Nooooo (Score:4, Informative)
Stays pretty decent until *shock* 1983! Then it gets better in *shock* the mid 90's! It drops off a cliff again in *shock* 2002!
No, no pattern at all there. Nope. [AHEM...Tax Cuts, Iraq Wars, Arms Race...AHEM]
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Informative)
The increase in payments caused by the retirement of the Baby Boom generation was predicted in the 70s. The Reagan administration got a payroll tax increase enacted, to build up the trust fund and make sure that we could cover the costs.
We have been paying this tax since 1983. We have collectively paid $1.7 TRILLION dollars in extra taxes, to build up the system so that the Boomers can retire. Mostly, these taxes have been paid by the Boomers thems
Re:Nooooo (Score:2)
Re:Nooooo (Score:3, Informative)
I know you were being funny (i thought you were going another route with the joke though), but just in case some people actually thought on it for a moment and wondered "what does happen to all of the tv's without this technology?"
Re:Nooooo (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, although they claim
So what is the broadcast flag for? If a certain owner wishes to use a VirtualDVHS program, instead of a rather expensive DVHS deck, what guarantee do the content mafia have that those streams won't be passed around like candy?
I feel as though the consumer electronics people have somehow been encourage to lie, cheat, and cajole their customers into compliance...
easy to solve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:easy to solve (Score:3, Funny)
I'll just try that now...
*FLASH*
Bill Gates appears as large light cylindar and booms:
"You will all run Windows and make macaroni pictures to honor my name."
Yow!
A glitch in the matrix (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A glitch in the matrix (Score:5, Funny)
Offensive foul!
Overused refrence to played out movie!
5 karma point penalty!
First down!
Re:A glitch in the matrix (Score:2, Funny)
"Slashdot: yesterday's news, stuff that mattered"
Is definitely an appropriate signature... I do not remember seeing such a steady stream of reruns in the past.
Re:A glitch in the matrix (Score:2)
You apparantly are not running a WB "Fresh Episode"
Trash Talking At Its Finest (Score:2, Informative)
Followed by: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world." (Sentelle)
Tag team attack! Now if only we could get one of them to hear the lokitorrent.com [lokitorrent.com] case or, better yet, outlaw the RIAA...
The broadcast flag may be dead... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The broadcast flag may be dead... (Score:4, Informative)
Also as noted by previous posters, even if FCC gets the full smackdown, they seem confident they can go to congress and get them to pass the mandate they didn't have to begin with =(
I posted a bunch of Broadcast Flag related links here [byopvr.com]
e.
Doesn't the FCC NEED explicit authority? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't the FCC NEED explicit authority? (Score:4, Informative)
Congress is usually pretty specific on the powers it grants to the FCC. There have been several occasions when the FCC has found a loophole, and Congress has closed it rapidly. If they don't have legal authority here, Congress will have to explicitly give them such authority, which will probably get bogged down in debate. Many members of Congress are not particularly keen on these kinds of powers.
Re:Doesn't the FCC NEED explicit authority? (Score:2)
Another thing to note - although the appelate courts slammed the FCC, that does not mean congress cannot bring this law into effect - and if they do, the
USA Today Confirms It! (Score:5, Funny)
It is official; USA Today now confirms: Broadcast flag is dying. One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered FCC when USA Today confirmed that broadcast flag market share has fallen yet again, now down to less than 50 percent of federal judges. Coming on the heels of a recent ruling which plainly states that the FCC has "crossed the line", this judgement serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The broadcast flag is sending the DRM industry into complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by bottoming out in the recent ruling from Judge Edwards.
You don't need to be Michael Powell to predict the broadcast flag's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the broadcast faces a long and tortuous future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the broadcast flag because the content industry is shrinking. Things are looking very bad for the content industry. As many of us are already aware, the content industry continues to lose market share. Red ink flows from Hollywood like a river of blood.
The broadcast flag is the most hated of them all, having been ruled against by at least one circuit court judge. The sudden and pleasant release of the long developed arguments in court only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: the broadcast flag is dying.
Let's look at the numbe[BROADCAST FLAG INFRINGMENT DETECTED - REDISTRIBUTION OF A DERIVATIVE WORK OF NETCRAFT, INC - POSTER NEUTRALIZED]
dupes are good for us all... (Score:3, Funny)
All you people bitching about dupes got it all wrong, we need these duplicated stories on slashdot for a few good reasons.
1) without dupes there would maybe be one story per day on the front page.
2) without dupes people would have to resort to actually being insightful on their own instead of just copying some other comment from the previous story.
3) ????
4) Profit!
a few things to note (Score:5, Interesting)
This new chipset might very-well prevent people from recording shows on VCRs - which is allowed per the beta-max ruling that happend over twenty years ago.
IIRC the beta-max ruling applies to recording shows onto dvd (just another medium...hell some people don't even have VCRs anymore - just DVRs and the like).
I hope the judge lays the smack down.
I also find it disconcerting that it has been mentioned that advocate groups cannot contest FCC rules...since when can't the public contest a law/rule by a gov't agency...last I heard gov't agencies (i.e. FCC) work for us.
not dead yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:not dead yet? (Score:2)
That would make him a liberal activist judge. Horrors.
You've a point about the manufacturers. Damn. It takes months to set up a manufacuring line with or without the flag. They're screwed -- they might have to flog cards or PVR's crippled with the control mechanism for months until they get rid of the inventory, or else have to eat a season's worth of profit if they are
Re:not dead yet? (Score:2)
Finally when it is ready people will have long given up television in favour of their computer screen.
If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:5, Funny)
I know they are not experts, but the least they could do is not confuse apples and oranges.
If Slashdot Ruled The World, these judges would have been (-1, Offtopic)
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:2)
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:2)
The only place you'll see DC motors outside of toys and electric shavers is light rail/trolleys/subways/etc.
Household electricity is AC, and those machines use AC motors.
What about RFC1149? (Score:2)
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:3, Funny)
That's a pity... I could see great things coming from the implementation of the hand-wash only flag...
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the broad nature of the FCC's attempted power grab, mentioning washing machines is entirely appropriate.
Re:If Slashdot Ruled The World... (Score:2)
But this is Slashdot, where "no sense of sarcasm" is "+1, Insightful".
A scary argument (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not saying the libraries aren't affected, just that they aren't affected more than anyone else. Ie., nobody can bring a lawsuit saying the government exceeded its bounds, as long as we're all getting screwed equally....if they throw the case out on that grounds, I'm gonna be really worried.
what's next? (Score:2, Troll)
*ROTFL*
Whose watching the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the appeals panel decides that the consumers groups can't contest the FCC requirements, it would dismiss the case regardless of any concerns about the anti-piracy technology
This may be a naive question, but if not the people affected by the FCC cannot challenge them, who the hell can?
Re:Whose watching the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can send a petition to Congress. People write or call or fax or email their Congressmen all the time. So what?
You're just talking about bitching about the law. Suing in federal court to prevent a law from becoming effective brings in the requirements of Article III. And Art. III sec. 2 states that the federal courts can only hear cases and contraversies. They cannot constitutionally hear mere bitching about stuff.
As this works out, unless you have been, or certainly will be, harmed by a law in a way that makes you stand out from the rest of the public, you have no standing to challenge it. Instead you should write to your Congressman.
It's not dead... (Score:3, Funny)
Time for a hangin' (Score:5, Insightful)
"The FCC's lawyer, Jacob Lewis, acknowledged the agency never had exercised such ancillary power but maintained it was permitted by Congress since lawmakers didn't explicitly outlaw it."
Especially since the 10th amendment to the US Constitution says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Got that, FCC boy? If you're not explicitly given the power, you can't exercise it.
Lawyers! Damn their oily hides!
Re:Time for a hangin' (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Time for a hangin' (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time for a hangin' (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not 200+ years. That goes back to the New Deal, when the Supreme Court tossed out the rest of the Constitution over interstate commerce.
However, in the past few years, the pendulum has been swinging back, as courts have found the commerce power to not extend to carjacking
The 10th isn't relevant (Score:4, Informative)
The 10th would only affect whether or not Congress had the power, not whether or not htey delegated it.
Even assuming that Congress *does* have it, it would have to explicitly grant authority for this function to the FCC (or any other administrative agency). OTOH, if Congress doesn't have it, there is no way, whether it granted it or not, that the FCC could excercise it.
hawk
It is too late (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet that the flag will be repealed but manufacturers will continue to see the crippled hardware. Consumers will whine and complain but that will change nothing. The best we can hope is that it will become an excuse to sell you new hardware that is identical to what you just bought, except with a solder connection removed somewhere. The manufacturers then stand to double their money. Still, the consumer loses.
Re:It is too late (Score:4, Informative)
How ironic... (Score:3, Funny)
Am I the only one who's amused at the footer? :-)
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
/* Steinar */
Ummm... Bill of Rights anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm... according to the Tenth Ratified Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. -- The FCC should not be able to impose sanctions on anything, yet alone private trade (the devices).
Re:Ummm... Bill of Rights anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
USA Today reports the wrong problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the problem: The broadcast flag can prevent normal people from recording any of their favourite TV shows. People care about that because they record shows all the time so they can view them later. People need to understand that what the FCC wants to do will give them less rights to watch TV how they want.
Sacrificial lamb (Score:5, Interesting)
If precedent is set that the FCC can't regulate HDTV hardware implementations then they can legitimize their plans to enforce restricted access to media through the HDMI interface. Once the OTA signal is demodulated the FCC can't prevent the transmission of the video over an encrypted link. HDMI implementors are prohibited from providing unencumbered access to the full-res HD signal. Existing HD monitors and tuners will not matter since any new hardware with HDMI will not work with these legacy devices.
My guess is that the proponents of the broadcast flag are willing to lose it because it only serves to strengthen the fortifications for their next attempt at plugging the HDTV hole.
Re:Sacrificial lamb (Score:3, Insightful)
why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If consumers have to abide by FCC rulings and can be taken to court if they don't follow them then why would consumers not be allowed to take their rulings to court?
What's next? (Score:3, Funny)
What amazes me is the Media Spin Title... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's being dubbed 'AntiPiracy' . Not Digital Rights Management or any other Politically Correct term. It's being shock valued, to bias the interpretation by the regular Consumers, and Average Mom & Pops. Mom & Pop VCR User doesn't want to consider themselves in the same light as the wiley Video Pirate. Seems to me an attempt to make it a little more palatable to the masses, and smooth the adoption via other means.
Re:What amazes me is the Media Spin Title... (Score:3, Insightful)
It must be that (Score:5, Interesting)
It's so f'in ludicrous that the FCC thinks it can dictate what you watch, and when, but then still expect vendors to be able to charge us full price for a monthly subscription.
In fact, if something like this passed, I would propose a series of class action suits which would limit our monthly cable/sattelite bill to only that which we've watched! If we can't record shows, and watch them at a later time, then we shouldn't be charged for that which we're unable to watch, due to scheduling, conflicts, or personal choice!
Think about it... How fast will the cable providers be pounding on the FCC's door if they realize that they can only charge us for what we watch, on a per show basis! And if a bill like this passes, than that same logic applies to this: If I can't record and watch my TV at my leisure, then I shouldn't have to pay for something which I'm unable to watch due to federal legislation (and/or scheduling conflicts).
A country of television providers would be calling for the FCC's ass on a stake if this happened, and I don't think it'd be too hard to bring such a suite to court and win, if the FCC gets their way with the proposed limitations.
Re:It must be that (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, this is highly misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly people seem to be looking at what one of the judges said. This is a big mistake.
Judges routinely will adopt a position opposite to that of what the lawyer before them has. By challenging the lawyer, they force him to make good arguments on behalf of his side, and to answer tough questions that he'd otherwise prefer to avoid. It doesn't mean anything as to the judge's opinion, or how he will rule. It's just a technique for getting information.
It's entirely normal to go in front of a judge, arguing on behalf of A. The judge will be very harsh, point out the flaws of A, and ask why B isn't better. When the other side has their turn, the judge immediately starts praising A and making the other side defend B. The constant is that he's putting whoever is in front of him on the defensive, making him explain his argument and admit to its weaknesses as well as the strengths that would be extolled anyway.
This sort of questioning doesn't mean anything about the eventual outcome.
Play By Play of the Oral Argument. (Score:5, Informative)
It was just oral arguments... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Taco, READ YOUR OWN DAMN SITE (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdot rigerously enforces the Dupecast flag, and makes sure stories are only posted if the flag is not set.
Or does that not count until after July?
Re:Why not dupe my post? (Score:2, Funny)
I'll tell you why!! (Score:2)
Re:Why not dupe my post? (Score:3, Funny)
One of the finest anti-editor rants this reviewer has seen in years. -- Ohreally_factor
Why don't we dupe his post? Why, will it get us more page hits? -- Commander Taco
A master work flawed only by it's lack of misspellings and typos. -- Timothy
Az ve zay in Fronce, "Viva les dupes!" -- Zonk
I'm totally drooling in anticipation of the sequel. No, check that. I'm just totally drooling. Anyone seen my bib? -- Samzenpus
Re:Why not dupe my post? (Score:2)
Re:Why not dupe my post? (Score:2)