20 Lawmakers Want to Kill Your Television 633
Macki writes "As previously mentioned, the Broadcast Flag is back before congress. There are 20 law makers currently supporting the bill. The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding. Danny O'Brien at the EFF has done a spectacular job deconstructingthe MPAA/RIAA's efforts to ramrod this through, and more importantly, the motivations of the members of congress who are helping them."
This Just In... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:3, Insightful)
Our side? What the fuck is "our side"?!?!? Did Slashdot just become a Democrats-only club while I was away?
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why Buffet and Soros are both Democrats, and why small business men and farmers tend to vote Republican.
Your statement is simplistic. The parties are coalitions of pressure groups. The "platforms" are just plans to benefit the groups in the coalitions at the expense of those outside. Some industries support the Republicans some support the Democrats. Some consumer groups support one, other groups support the other. The pressure groups vote for whoever promises to give them the most stuff.
Democracy (where the government represents the interest of the people) is essentially dead in this country. All we have now is pressure group warfare.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the greek roots of "democracy" mean "people" and "power" while the greek roots of "monarchy" mean "one" and "rule". The implication seems to be that while the people have "power" in a democracy they do not "rule". An interesting observation...
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:5, Interesting)
Nationalizing the healthcare (like in Canda) isn't going to fix the problem: that a pressure group has gotten special powers from the government and is using them to benefit it's supporters at the expense of the public. If we take away the special power, the problem would largely resolve itself.
Before someone mentions "tort reform":
While it is true that in SOME states, the loose tort laws have driven the cost of insurance so high that doctors can't get insurance (decreasing the supply further). This is neither a national problem, nor in and of itself can account for the high cost of health care. Real tort reform is a good idea, but GWB style tort reform is a waste of everyone's time.
Re:Fox Just In the Henhouse (Score:3, Insightful)
The salaries of Doctors in the US are about 3.5x what they would be if the supply was not restricted. That's the single biggest source of cost reduction. That's why many poorer Americans see a nurse practitioner first and only go to a doctor when they must.
The cost of prescription drugs is the second biggest source of problems, but again the FDA has policies designed to raise the cost of drugs. Get ri
Re:It's dead Jim. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Well, the internet at my house ends at the end of the cat5 cable. When I turn my wireless router on, it ends just outside the walls of my house, and even then doesn't cover some rooms inside very well at all.
While content may be available on the internet from every country, that content is not available at every end-point that is now served by broadcast television.
TV is dead,...
Let me guess, you live in an area where high-bandwidth (said jokingly, since DS
Re:Boxer (Dem hypocrite) loves the Broadcast Flag (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, but it isn't even in the same ballpark as the Republicans who are the slaves of the oil and weapons industries who see their best way to increase profits as murdering a bunch of people despite their idiotic lies of being "moral" people. Complete oxymoron that. A Republican wit
so quick??? use a desensitizer (Score:3, Informative)
subverting democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, now with this issue there might be an exception here, but there is a reason we don't have a true democracy in the United States: people are stupid. That's why we pick representatives to do the voting for us. It's not because it would be inconvenient to have a popular vote on every issue, it's because the framers were smart enough not to trust the public with such power.
Think of all the things that the majority of people in the U.S. hold as being a "good thing" for the country that would probably end up being disasterous. If slavery and civil rights were held to a popular vote, there's a good chance the laws never would have passed.
So please, before you trash Congress for against "the will of the people," bear in mind that is exactly why Congress exists; so that when the time is appropriate, Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.
I make no claim as to the application of my statements to this particular article. Just a general remark about the issue raised by the article summary.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for when its a real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except for when its a real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:5, Funny)
In this case the will of the unprotected minority (RIAA, MPIAA, *IAA, Disney, Sony, Exon, name other deep-pocket industry here) is being bravely defended by those braves congressmen and congresswomen. Going against every single individual interest and battling those evil, terrorist backed, so called "fair uses". They must be heroes , risking their career to fight for such noble and unjust-iced minority.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a nit pick, it isn't Congress's role to go against the will of the majority. They are supposed to represent this will. Protecting of minority from the majority is the job of the judicial branch... such action is currenly refered to as "judicial activisim" by the people making the laws, even though it is exactly what they are supposed to do.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no law requiring a congressman to represent the will of his/her constituency. The definition of what would constitute adequate representation would be too subjective to capture in law. Instead, what motivates politicians to be in tune with the people's will is mostly their desire to be re-elected.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Great examples of some of the better laws in the country
So please, before you trash Congress for against "the will of the people," bear in mind that is exactly why Congress exists; so that when the time is appropriate, Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.
So, these poor rich people get protected and everybody else gets punished. I think that this is the subverting that the gp was talking about.
OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Insightful)
You see I live in a country that has true democracy and it is called Switzerland. In fact true democracy works well because believe it or not there are "STUPID" swiss! People who say, "it's because the framers were smart
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, the Swiss Germans make up the majority of Switzerland; so in any direct vote they would get to decide what is best for everyone. When I lived there one of the complaints I heard from my Italian and French Swiss friends was that if the German Swiss decided something was good it became law at the national level.
While direct democracy can work well it starts to break down as people become less homogeneous and have varying views of what is good based on their cultural norms. Even a country as small as Switzerland is not a country of only cows, Heidis, and chocolate or watch makers.
Speaking of Heide, Switzerland was the last European country to give women suffrage; and unless it has changed they still can't vote in some local (largely ceremonial) elections.
It's wonderful and interesting country to live in, but the reality is very different than the popular image (in the US at least) most people have of Switzerland.
The US has true democracy on a local level to a limited extent - we vote on laws directly, as well as many revenue issues. Some states allow citizens to overturn or create laws via popular referendum as well (CA falls to mind). We just don't do it on a national level; as a republic with limited federal powers that's probably not a bad idea considering it would concentrate power in a few very populous parts of the country.
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Nor should we. We are a federation of sovereign States here, not one big centralized republic. Basically a bunch of little countries that work together as one big country on certain matters. If we were a direct democracy....we simply wouldn't
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, when people in the rest of the country need an argument against direct democracy they simply say "California" and everyone on the other side shuts up. Pity, they're missing out on the fun of figuring out what all the school funding formulas and bond measures and criminal statute amendments and auto insurance regulation schemes mean.
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a nice thought, but it isn't even slightly true for the USA.
You do not understand how spoiled we are here.
In just a couple of years, our country would be in ruins. We'd have new laws that cap gas prices, lower taxes, public lynchings, zero unemployment laws, no s
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Informative)
Going your way, you end up without States rights, with a watered down local level, and a massive Federal government. This is exactly what happened after the 17th amendment passed, which called for the direct
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:5, Informative)
I wish people who make such accusations take the time to find out what Swiss politics are all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy [wikipedia.org] Yes there are elected politicians who iron out the details of what the people decided. After all true democracy needs to be efficient and smooth. Politicians do what politicians were originally meant to do, namely carry out the details of running the country based on the desires of the people. Yes people can carry out "initiatives" but these "initiatives" are every three to four months.
Re:OT: I get SOOOO tired of this argument (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad the Framers distrusted the common man as much as any other embodiment of power. Everyone - king, common loser, wealthy intellectual elite - gets it wrong eventually. T
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, even if you had a nation of 300 million geniuses, it is impossible for them to make informed decisions on every subject of national interest. There's simply not enough hours of the day with the current load, imagine if 300 million people were to submit their own suggestions. You need some kind of system to both reduce the caseload and the number of manhours per case spent in total. Feel free to suggest a better system. I don't want half my day answering votes, and at the end of the day still have "You have 143,242 unanswered votes", 99% of which will be highjacked by some rally. And most of those polls should be modded to "-1, Troll".
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it is a matter of stupidity (the writer is excluded, right?) as much as a matter of not caring or being unaware. People in general don't react to things until they become a crisis, i.e. ignoring their diet until they get heart disease, building in 100 year flood plains, slowly trashing the environment, watching their freedoms get whittled away, etc. It is hard to think for the long term (look at most US companies) and the people who may be aware of this bill will not sto
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the neologism? Is this system substantially different from Mussolini's Corporatism [banned-books.com] aka Economic Fascism? To me this describes any political system that disconnects economic 'national interests' from the private interests of the majority of citizens that make up the national economy.
Communism nationalizes big industry, and Fascism jumps into bed with big industry. Corporations run the state, or the state runs the corporations. Both are faces of the same coin: the same kind of people are in charge. You don't make a free market by letting industrial policy be dictated by captains of industry.
Re:subverting democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
When 55% of Americans believe in creationism [cbsnews.com], I think it's safe to question the value this country places on intellectualism. Sometimes I have to double-check my calendar just to make sure it's really the year 2005. Aren't we supposed to be past all this tripe about mythical snakes subverting humans with poisonous fruit by now?
Already dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, 20-25 minutes of commercials in an hour is just insane. I'd be more than happy to pay an extra fee to the cable company or to the owners of the 2-3 channels I would actually watch to have them eliminated.
Re:Already dead (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Already dead (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also nice for watching football games, where you can watch a full game in an hour, since you can just skip the between-plays waiting times.
So no need to watch any more commercials and no need to be tied to a broadcast schedule.
Library card (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdotted Link (Score:5, Informative)
Charles Pickering
Edolphus Towns
John Shimkus
George Radnovich
Mike Ferguson
Marsha Blackburn
Mary Bono
Bart Gordon
Joe Terry
Ed Whitfield
Bobby Rush
Vito Fossella
Elliot L. Engel
John B. Shadegg
Albert Russell Wynn
Michael F. Doyle
Charles A. Gonzalez
Charles F. Bass
John Sullivan
Frank Pallone, Jr.
You can look up what disctricts they're from at www.house.gov, and contact them any way you see fit. Let 'em have it!
Just to Clarify (Score:5, Informative)
This article, however, was about a new push to get the Brodcast flag added to the DTV bill in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce [house.gov], in particular in the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee [house.gov]. The way that legislation works now-a-days is that there is rarely an opportunity to get a bill ammended when it goes before congress. All the formulation and ammending of bills happens in committee, and then the house and senate usually just give it an up or down vote without any modifications (but after a great deal of grand-standing). So these are the people who have the most influence on the final wording of the House version of the DTV bill. If you have representatives from your state in this committee you should definiately write them. Even if you don't it won't hurt to pick someone from the subcommittee and write them anyway.
The representatives listed by Mad Rain, above, is the correct list of supporting representatives - 20 of the 57 members of the House Commerce Committee. If they are in you district, they are the people you should writing letters of disgust, and let them know you will be voting against them in the next election.
In addition if your Senator is on the Senate Commerce Committee [senate.gov] and you haven't written them yet on the broadcast flag, then you should, as they will be dealing with this issue as well.
Lastly if your senators and representatives are not on any of these committees you should write them anyway in case the bill makes it out of committee. Since we dont know an exact number for this bill yet, it helps if you know in what capacity they will be working with the bill, to help them identify what bill you are talking about. Keywords - Digital Television Bill, Broadcast Flag, Commerce Committee.
too much opinion not enough report... (Score:2, Interesting)
The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a c
Re:too much opinion not enough report... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yup. I work for the software industry, and quite honestly, I want them to stop adding the ineffective over priced copy protection mechanisms, region lockouts on consoles, and irritating licence agreements. I presume a lot of people who work fo
time to fire up a memo to the big guy? (Score:2, Informative)
I may agree with some of your points but if I put this The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. into a memo and sent it to my boss I'd be let go quicker than you can say EULA.
Re:too much opinion not enough report... (Score:2, Insightful)
In an idealistic world people would not work for a company whose ideals conflict with personal interests.
In the real world people will do almost anything to get paid.
It's easy to walk out on a job when you live in your Mom's basement.
It's not so easy when you work in a tight job market and have a family to support.
Re:too much opinion not enough report... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they have copyrights, and those should be respected. But if the movie companies don't feel that current distribution methods allow their copyrights to be respected, then they don't have to distribute them. Of course, they'll lose a lot of money if they refuse to distribute. But rather than doing the hard work of researching alternate models, and compromising with technology companies and consumers, they want to be able to dictate to everyone else. Why should they be allowed to have this power?
Good point (Score:2)
Neither is commercial television. Nor televisions. Neither is the right to make a profit from television.
I'm not sure what your point is... that unless something is in the bill of rights, we have no rights to it?
Look, I get what you're saying, that its "their" material, they can broadcast it anyway they like. And it might surprise you to know that I agree with you. But at the same time, I'm not sure why the government is spending time and effort to
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
They're like a 4 year old threatening to hold their breath until they die if they don't get the candy bar they want. They cannot do it, period. Sorry kid, no candy bar for you.
Somebody please explain this to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Kill TV's?? (Score:2, Funny)
bad argument in the article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of people who support a piece of legislation is irrelivant in terms of whether a law is right or wrong. At some point in our nation's history it was only a handful of people who wanted to:
There are plenty of reasons not to vote for this law, but that line of reasoning isn't one of them.
(fyi, do not mistake this comment as support for the law)
Re:bad argument in the article summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume you are not counting all the actual slaves....
only a handful of people wanted to allow women to vote?
if you dont count all the women......
And there is a big difference between a handful of *people* supporting an idea and a handful of *companies* supporting an idea.
People generally have peoples best interests at heart.
Companies generally have companies best interests at heart, frequently at the expensive of people.
Re:bad argument in the article summary (Score:4, Informative)
if you dont count all the women......
Many women were opponents of universal sufferage. [pbs.org] Tarbell's attitude was not at all uncommon, to the extent that there was an active anti-sufferage women's movement. [boondocksnet.com] Google on "women opposed sufferage" to find out more.
Sadly, it probably needs to be said that I am fully in favour of women's sufferage, although blackly amused by the claims that it would usher in an era of peaceful prosperity, rather than the bloodiest century in human history. And if anyone thinks women were generally opposed to war in the 20th century, google "women white feather britain" before you post... [fgcu.edu]
A brilliant person once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A brilliant person once said... (Score:5, Interesting)
I predict that if the broadcast flag gets passed, it'll be far enough in the future before it really takes effect, that the broadcasters will have a fair chance of claiming, "but it was always there, we just didn't turn it on"...
We all know how this will work out. (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't be until Bubba goes out and buys one of those nice new Sony DVD writing PVR's and he tries to save his lastest [Nascar race | Jerry Springer | Reality TV show] to DVD that the broadcast flag will hit him in the face.
Then suddenly the shit will hit the fan and it'll be too late.
Hang on, let's stop lying. (Score:5, Insightful)
What this breaks is your PVR, by making it unlawful for Best Buy (or whoever) to sell you one that will record something they don't want you to. That doesn't stop you watching TV.
So they're not killing your home entertainment centre per se, just transporting it back to those lovely 1970s, where video recorders don't exist and the only way to watch something is to do so when they want to broadcast it. Which is pretty rubbish, admittedly.
Re:Hang on, let's stop lying. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hang on, let's stop lying. (Score:4, Informative)
One of the implications of the original broadcast flag in conjunction with digital TV was that all devices used to view the signal were affected. For new TVs, that meant they had to incorporate technology that would not allow the signal to re-record as well as accept digital reception. Had the broadcast flag not been struck down, it would mean that you could not buy a new TV without the flag. As for old TVs, they would not be a problem.
Kill Television ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Today's TV is just a nuisance. It makes people dumb, fearful and lethargic.
20% of US-Americans are functional illiterates - it wouldn't hurt if they switched off the TV-set and took a book in their hand.
Rainer
Too true (Score:5, Insightful)
At one point the Internet looked like providing a fix, at least for the literate, in terms of supplying information. But even there the good stuff is increasingly subject to Gresham's Law - it's being buried under the piles of shit. And now that Rupert Murdoch has suddenly discovered the interthingy, and is moving the centre of his empire to the US, it won't get better any time soon. But cheer up! The Roman Empire ran on panem et circenses; it's just a social cycle and eventually it will collapse. Probably when the barbarian hordes from China invade, steal all the electronic goods, and put the population of the US to work building giant terracotta statues.
Re:Too true (Score:3)
Don't tell me that you think 80% of "fine art" and "serious music" isn't CRAP, also.
And despite your opinion that the television industry is spewing out nothing but crap, I somehow manage to keep my DVR's somewhat large hard drive full of interesting programming from week to week.
We'll All Be Criminals Soon (Score:3, Insightful)
The way you fix this (Score:5, Insightful)
You send three letters, at a minimum: one to each Senator from your state, and one to the Congressman who represents you.
You get all your friends to do the same thing.
E-mail WON'T CUT IT. They KNOW that e-mail takes no effort, compared to sending an actual physical letter.
If any of the Congresscritters sponsoring this travesty are from your state, whether they represent you or not, you also send them letters.
The letters should be short, polite, to-the-point. They should not use profanity, they should not use 1337-speak, they should not make any kind of threat, not even the threat to vote against them in the next election if they support this. (That last threat is implicit in the fact that you sent the letter.)
The vast majority of Congresscritters *NEVER* hear from "The Folks Back Home". The corollary is that every actual physical letter they receive indicates at least 100 voters who feel the same way, but didn't bother to write a letter. (Every phone call is assumed to indicate 10 voters.)
You almost certainly will receive a reply to your letter. It may or may not indicate that anyone actually read it. If you do not receive a reply, you send more letters, to the State party headquarters, complaining about that clown in Washington who can't be bothered to answer mail from constituents. Those letters also get read, and said clown will hear about it from the guys who made his election happen.
And anyone who thinks that these things can't be fixed should re-read the results of the 1994 mid-term elections.
Re:The way you fix this (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say to be most effective, you should call, fax, and email in that order.
Re:The way you fix this (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I for one am relieved (Score:2, Funny)
Obviously I need a shot of coffee...
my question? (Score:2)
the motion picture industry has just come to the conclusion that their paying customers are tired of junk. the tv industry is suffering also, largely due to junk. people are walking away from movies and tvs to computer (and other) entertainment. and these industries are so entrenched that rather than adapt to what people want, they are alienating their customers.
it's not just money. it's power also. many years ago (before vcrs
Did'nt work with DVD's.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if the broadcast flag is made legal, it won't be worldwide so manufacturers outside the US(i.e.99% of them) will have to support both modes and therefore there will be a loophole and a way of turning it off.
Unless the RiAA and MPAA are going to go around raiding houses to find these illegal devices I cannot see this working
Think: Civil War Era (Score:5, Interesting)
Back then it was about controlling the labor market (slavery) in the industrial era, today it is about controlling information in the information age. Back then they screamed bloody murder that people were stealing their property rights as industrialists wanted to use available labor without giving a damn about who alledgedly "owned it". Today many industires and individuals want to just be able to use information at their disposal to provide effective services, without being microregulated with a zillion tons of content restrictions. (like google's guntenberg project, apple's ipod, to name a few out of thousands)
The speculative advances of the industrial revolution also caused a period of growth followed by a deflationary adjustment. Today, the housing and every other market is way over saturated in debt - and the writing is on the wall. (watch out for a major economic "adjustment")
There were even people who desperately tried to get the slave states to get along with the free states who naievely didn't understand the nature of slavery or that the forces that would drive the industries apart were far greater than the ones that bound them together. Today there are all these people who are desperately trying to cling to the copyright system, even though any sincere thought will show it's pretty much DOA, and should be DOA.
So yes, the way congress is acting shouldn't be any supprise. Renember how they extended slavery to last forever for all colored people, renember how they punished people for simply teaching others how to read. Funny how copyrights have effectively been made to last forever, and copyright violations can be punished worse than rape.
There are some important differeces though. First you can't controll information with physical violence, but you can attempt to controll it with BS, threats, lawsuits, brow-beating, etc
Follow the money trail! (Score:5, Informative)
More analysis and complete listings can be found at this entry [wagstrom.net] in my weblog.
Anyway, so in response, I called my congressman, Mike Doyle (PA-14), and asked to speak to the tech person to understand his position on the broadcast flag. It's important to note that not all legislators who signed the letter support the flag on the same level. I was informed that Doyle supported it to keep copy protected content off the internet, but still wanted to allow time shifting and burning to DVD, copying to PSP etc. Good, but misguided. If your legislator takes this stance, I highly suggest referencing the Darkent Paper [stanford.edu] from Microsoft Research. Basically, it says that DRM will fail in these endeavors. Also, when you call, try not to sound like a loony. Being able to cite specific examples of how it will hurt you is good (e.g. I travel a lot and this will prevent me from watching shows on my PSP or are you willing to explain to grandma why she can't tape Monday night football to watch it the next morning because she can't stay up past 10pm).
The U.S. government is for sale... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not just the broadcast flag.
nothing new about their tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
There's nothing new about this kind of subversion. Lawmakers are already ignoring their constituents on issues such as the Iraq war, immigration and the economy. They have been bought off by corporate interests. The United States is being cannibalized to generate profits for big corporations.
You can take away my freedom... (Score:3, Funny)
this is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, that means that we should, under no circumstances, deliver a Broadcast Flag; we really need the bandwidth for more useful purposes. For example, if we use those channels for WiFi or WiMax, then Internet access becomes easier and people can choose what to watch, as opposed to having ABC and NBC show them bad television with worse advertising mixed in.
Details... (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, what about the mantra that if you don't want people to record things, then don't send it on the radio spectrum? Cable companies can ask you to sign terms of agreements for viewing their broadcasts. They could put broadcast flags in their transmissions if they so choose --and there isn't much that anyone can do about it except not subscribe.
Ultimately I don't think producers and broadcast networks realize that it is their very own throats they are cutting. Those people who have a life do not schedule them around television broadcasts any more. That's what VCRs and TiVO are for. If too many programs have this flag, those who sell advertising will notice that the circulation isn't as wide as it used to be. And then guess what: It will not get used.
Television shows aren't free. If the distributors choose to stop airing this stuff because they can't get the broadcast flag, that's their business. Are we so far gone that we're back to bread and circuses to keep us passified? I say let Congress pass this bill. It will be an interesting experiment. I can't wait to see how much illiterate hate mail the congress critters get because kids can't watch their cartoons on TiVO, housewives can watch their soaps, and those with little imagination can't watch their gussied up game shows we call "reality television"...
I think this is a lot of hooey over nothing. Nobody's got the guts to use a broadcast flag. I dare these guys to do this to this to a program for one year. It'll never survive.
Vote Them Out To Their Faces (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans:
Conrad Burns - Montana 202-224-2644
Trent Lott - Mississippi 202-224-6253
Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas 202-224-5922
John Ensign - Nevada 202-224-6244
Olympia Snowe - Maine 202-224-5344
George Allen - Virginia 202-224-4024
Democrats:
Bill Nelson - Florida 202-224-5274
Maria Cantwell - Washington 202-224-3441
Senator John McCain - Arizona 202-224-2235 is running for president in 2008. Call his office, too, and tell him whether you and all your Internetted friends nationwide will be voting for him.
Senator David Vitter - Louisiana 202-224-4623 just stood up for his partymate Bush's failure to protect his state before, during and after Hurricane Katrina. He's not running, but he's so vulnerable that he doesn't need to hear that rich, smart people are against him, along with the poor evacuees and victims.
Senator John Sununu - New Hampshire 202-224-2841 is the most powerful telecom senator. Call his office and tell them what his "tech constituency" thinks of his votes to protect us from being regulated into media vassals.
Go ahead and call any of the rest of them, if they represent you. That means they represent you, not the interests of some out-of-state media cartel that's just ripping you off:
Republicans:
Chairman Ted Stevens - Alaska 202-224-3004
Senator Gordon Smith - Oregon 202-224-3753
Senator Jim DeMint - South Carolina 202-224-6121
Democrats:
Ranking Member Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii 202-224-3934
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia 202-224-6472
Senator John F. Kerry - Massachussetts 202-224-2742
Senator Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota 202-224-2551
Senator Barbara Boxer - California 202-224-3553
Senator Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey 202-224-3224
Senator E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska 202-224-6551
Senator Mark Pryor - Arkansas 202-224-2353
Subverting democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy has been subverted for ages and will continue to be. The only thing that keeps it rolling along is the electorate eventually gets pissed off enough and kicks the scoundrels out and installs new scoundrels. Rotating the bastards out is something akin to hitting the reset button - things work well for awhile until it's time to reset again.
These 20 congress folk [boingboing.net] who signed the letter need to be reminded who voted them into office. The bribes the MPAA and RIAA are paying had better be enough for them to live on once they're kicked out.
Send your letters now! (Score:3, Informative)
Dear Congressman Radanovich,
I understand that you are supporting a Bill set forth to require the use of the Digital TV Broadcast Flag. While this has no direct benefit to the users of digital tv, it comes as a worriesome revelation to those of us who use and enjoy analog tv, and have no intention of soon switching over and purchasing digital tv sets.
I know that this bill is an effort to force people to purchase digital tv sets, and I know that Congress can't shut down analog television until 85 percent of American households buy digital sets. I feel that it is being done under a great amount of subterfuge in order to appease the MPAA in it's digital and IP copyright wars against those who choose to share digital media over the internet and other distribution channels. I feel that you've been fooled into thinking that this Bill will successfully regulate such use. In fact, it will have no effect on it seeing as how all pirated works of digital media are captured using analog computer capture cards and the analog out ports on their digital tv's and receivers. It also stifles the rights of Fair Use that some people choose to use in order to archive television shows for their own private home viewing, like the generations before us have done with no harm to the Film Industry.
I emplore you to look deeper than the surface on this issue. While it may seem to protect big business, and clears up analog airways to be sold to cell companies, it clearly violates Fair Use, incorporates unfair DRM (Digital Rights Management), and forces the public to switch to digital tv sets prematurely when there is no good reason to. Even if it were harmful to grandfather such things as analog tv, removing it's potential for the good of the public is like banning classic cars who don't meet California Emission standards. This is akin to forcing classic car owners to sell or buy new cars simply so car manufactures can make more money and consequentially incorporates technology that inhibits the normal person from being able to service their own vehicles without extremely pricey computer equipment and toolsets.
I do hope you rethink your stance on this issue, and look at it from all perspectives, not just that of the MPAA and big business, and what they have to gain from it. Always put the consumers demands and needs first, because it is us who keep your big business and supporters in operation. Businesses are here to provide service, not to ramrod us into litigations that deny our basic rights as customers, and those given to us under law. Big Business should be in servitude to the public, not the public in servitude to Big Business.
Misleading article (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the 20 people are not the people being linked to by the link. Those are senators. Yes, getting them to be opposed to broadcast flags is a good idea. But there's not point in flaming them, yet. (Even Trent Lott...)
As linked to elsewhere, here are the jerks who have sold their souls to media:
Find out who your representative is, and make sure these people get nailed.
Who's lying? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The broadcast flag protects free, over-the-air digital television programming from unauthorized redistribution over the Internet without restricting the consumer's ability to copy programming or enjoy it anywhere within a personal at-home network."
From wikipedia:
"Possible restrictions include inability to save a digital program to a hard disk or other non-volatile storage, inability to make secondary copies of recorded content (in order to share or archive), forceful reduction of quality when recording (such as reducing high-definition video to the resolution of standard TVs), and inability to skip over commercials."
So is the open letter lying outright? There seems to be a conflict here... what am I missing?
Re:At last count (Score:4, Insightful)
aaaah the irony... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't care if Linux *is* more difficult to get going at the moment, its built with dedication and a desire for openness..
It is ironic that with it's pervasive
openness Linux is too painful for the average user to understand yet with all it's closedness (if that's a word) so many (advanced users) claim to hate Windows and so many commoners love it.
Not sure it's Windows that commoners love (Score:3, Insightful)
To justify your statement you'd need to test two groups of people with Linux and Windows respectively, neither group having touched a computer in their life. I don't believe such a test has ever been done on a suitably large scale.
Well, you WOULD be right, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You people are worrying over nothing (Score:5, Funny)
You know, if you guys would put down the Mother Jones, Village Voice, and Covert Action Quarterly you MIGHT learn a little something about conservatism.
lol, if you really think that's what the current administration is doing please read me sig.
Re:You people are worrying over nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I doubt that's only true here in the US - watching European governments deal with countries like China has given me the same sour taste in my mouth.
Re:You people are worrying over nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. And all the "State's Rights" stuff is BS also. Only when it suits their agenda. Take a few issues recently:
- Medicinal Marijuana. The State of California enacted laws to allow it. The feds went in and arrested folks growing it. Had the feds followed their mantra of "states know better" this would have never gone to the Supreme Court.
- Right to die. The State of Oregon passed laws to allow it. John Asscroft made a unilateral decision to bar doctors from prescribing drugs for this purpose, effectively squashing it. Even though Asscroft is gone, there has been no attempt to reverse that decision.
- Gay marriage. A few states have passed laws to allow it. The feds are doing whatever they can to circumvent them or at least ignore them. No federal tax advantages of marriage, no ability to get a same-sex spouse citizenship, etc. No attempt to enforce the constitutional requirement that states recognize the public acts of other states.
If a state passed a law to do something in their agenda (read: Christian Fundamentalist or their fellow rich guy's view) that conflicted with Federal law I am sure we would see a very different reaction from this administration.
Pretty sad state of affairs.
Re:How about a list? (Score:5, Informative)
Posted as AC to promote non-karma-whoring
Backbenchers, no threat here. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about a list? (Score:5, Informative)
Shadegg R-AZ
Bono R-CA
Radanovich R-CA
Whitfield R-KY
Rush D-IL
Shimkus R-IL
Wynn D-MD
Pickering R-MS
Terry R-NE
Ferguson R-NJ
Pallone D-NJ
Bass R-NH
Engel D-NY
Fossella R-NY
Towns D-NY
Sullivan R-OK
Doyle D-PA
Blackburn R-TN
Gordon D-TN
Gonzalez D-TX
Also, Upton, R-MI, is also known to be strongly in favor of the flag. On the other hand, Upton is only a subcommittee chair, while Barton, R-TX, is the chair of the entire Energy and Commerce Committee. According to the EFF post linked in the OP, Barton may be willing to trade the broadcast flag for certain concessions from the ??AA (why Barton feels he has to bargain with the ??AA is beyond me - the entertainment industry is not the end-all, be-all of campaign finance).
Note that the people who signed the letter are lost causes. It's still important to deluge them with phone calls, but don't expect them to change their minds. The only true recourse is to vote against them next year. What's more important is the opinions of the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee [house.gov]; they couldn't be convinced to sign the letter right away, and that must mean they're either opposed or on the fence.
Re:How about a list? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why politicians on both sides love the abortion issue, especially when raising funding for their campaigns. Nothing can be done about it one way or the other, because Roe v. Wade is established constitutional law, and not enough people want to change things for an Amendment, which is what it would take. However, Republicans know they can count on the "pro-life" vote, so long as they keep pretending they have the capacity to outlaw abortions. Democrats know they can count on the "pro-choice" vote, so long as they keep pretending that the Republicans have the capacity to outlaw abortions.
Every once in a while an honest politician like Tim Penny comes along and openly admits that the whole debate is completely irrelevant, and we should be voting on issues that matter, like the budget, but nobody wants to hear it, so it all just gets drowned out in the din of partisan screaming.
Re:How about a list? (Score:3)
Golias, meet President Bush. Mr. President, Golias.
Re:How about a list? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Bush is a radical "pro-lifer," and gets a lot of his support from people who want abortions outlawed.
If Roe v. Wade can survive two terms of Reagan plus one-and-a-half terms of Bush The Younger, then it's clearly bulletproof enough that the debate is completely redundant at this point.
The same goes for all the screaming and yelling over Iraq. Whether you think going in was the right call or not, you can't "un-invade" a country any more than you can unscramble an egg. Th
WTFW (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the law and decades of court decisions explicitly give them that right.
So as software developers, we can tack on licenses such as the GPL to determine how our works are used... but networks cannot tack on restrictions to how their media is used.
There is nothing in the GPL that attempts to restrict your standard fair use rights, such as making a backup copy or loading the program into RAM. The GPL only deals with redistribution rights. The GPL gives you broad redistribution rights with some conditions attached. It is well understood that for a TV show, the producers give you zero redistribution rights. But redistribution has nothing to do with you taping a show.
This proposed law is about revoking rights that you already explicitly have, such as timeshifting shows, and transferring them to the content producers. These particular rights are not addressed by the GPL; the GPL simply assumes that you retain the standard rights that you already have under the law.
You're confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it *does* mean we can copy it FOR PERSONAL USE. That's what the "Betamax decision" was all about. It doesn't mean we can turn around and sell copies on the corner (distribution), though. Most premium-channel shows (HBO) have the 'for personal use' disclaimer upfront.
I'll leave as an exercise to the reader the question of P2P downloads of
Re:Out of curiosity... (Score:4, Interesting)
--jeff++