FCC Broadcast Flag Struck Down 416
An anonymous reader writes "CNet is reporting that the courts have struck down the FCC's broadcast flag requirement! 'In a stunning victory for hardware makers and television buffs, a federal appeals court has tossed out government rules that would have outlawed many digital TV receivers and tuner cards starting July 1.'" The EFF has details on the flag, the official ruling is online for examination, and commentary is available from BoingBoing and Ars Technica.
These Activist Judges (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the problem I have with the FCC. They have no constitutional authority, but the executive branch has usurped legislational authority through agencies like the FCC, EPA, and other cabinet-level authorities.
The courts are right in saying that the FCC has no right to enforce the broadcast flag. But, IMHO, the FCC has overstepped it's bounds imposing a lot of authority over private industry, and consumer choice.
At some point
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:4, Informative)
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:5, Insightful)
You could just as easily say that the powers of the United States Treasury are delegated to it by the Treasury Act. That doesn't mean the Secret Service is a Congressional authority.
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:3)
Hahahahahaha!
What country do you live in?
Who appoints the head of the FCC?
The Executive Branch.
So who really has influence over the appointee?
Big Medi..um, uh, the Executive Branch.
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the FDA is an independent agency. The last time I checked, it was the Executive Branch that selected appointees to the management positions. And considering the current "rubber stamp" state of the Congress, the only truly "independent" division of government is the Judicial Branch, and that is quickly eroding into yet another "political plum" for the current regime in power.
At the current rate of Executive Branch dominance over all branches of the US government, by the time 200
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that the courts can only affect issues that are brought to their attention. If you think the FCC has overstepped its authority in other areas, file more lawsuits.
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you would send one delegate from each state to the ITU.
Or better yet, let each individual decide on what frequencies and how much power they will transmit.
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:3, Interesting)
How? In order to force through a law you need a 2/3 majority. No matter how future elections swing, no Senator or Representative is going to commit career suicide by hamstringing his party.
Lets look at the two situtions where it's most likely to even make it to the floor for a vote.
One, Democrat president with a Republican Congr
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These Activist Judges (Score:4, Funny)
Especially babies!
But seriously folks (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to the broadcast flag, politicians would like to avoid responsibility for voting for or against abortion or gay marriage, so they hide in the weeds and let unelected judges or bureaucrats take the heat.
Laws are often written in a vague enough way that responsibility for unpopular consequences can be dumped onto the bureaucrasy and sorted out by the judiciary.
If elected officials abdicate their responsibility, a tyranny of the
They didn't strike it down! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts didn't say that the broadcast flag was illegal because it interfered with fair use rights. While the effects of this ruling are to encourage consumer rights, that hardly seems to be the intent of the judgement. The fact is, the FCC was never supposed to make these kinds of rules--and someone finally called their bluff.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is important because what the court in essence did was throw the issue back to Congress - where copyright issues constitutionally belong. If you think the broadcast flag is dead, think again - all the court said was "this is unenforceable as an FCC rule - only Congress can make such a rule."
So you can bet the MPAA is on the horn right about now to every senator and representative they've ever donated money to trying to call in a favor. And you can bet they'll get that favor, probably sooner rather than later. There are still almost two months before that July 1 deadline - it is not just possible, but probable that the broadcast flag will still take effect on that date, this time enacted by congress and signed into law by Bush himself.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly we should continue to be vigilant, but FCC commissioners don't have to explain to voters why they made it illegal to record Survivor.
Re:Yes and No. (Score:3, Interesting)
This Congress and this adminstration are so firmly in the pockets of large corporations that I am having a hard time comprehending it. Review every decision made, every law passed in the last five years, and you'll see that it's been tipped in favor of large corporations. The Bankruptcy Bill? Authored by Visa. The war on the crazy man blocking our oil? Halliburton, Exxon et al. The Social Security plan? Wall Street. Copyright extension?
Re:Yes and No. (Score:3, Insightful)
The larger problem is that most people don't *care* about the broadcast flag. So it is up to Congress to do what they think is best. This is the way it is with most issues in Congress. Therefore if
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
The onus is on the industry to find a solution within technology and capitalism, not within politics and law.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly believe the FCC stopped fighting for the broadcast flag because of all the negative publicity it would have caused. Anybody who knew what it is would just buy a tuner card early and not be affected by it. Everybody else would find out when they tried to record things and couldn't... making them furious. Overall this was a PR nightmare, and was only going to get worse.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
But hasn't that always been the issue with such nonsense laws?
One bad apple spoils the bunch.
Either that, or the people passing these laws desperately need to give their heads a shake.
At last, a win for you poor Americans.
Won this battle but not the war (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won this battle but not the war (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC has been extending its power significantly, with the broadcast flag being just a small piece of that. The courts telling the FCC that they do not have this power is huge. It eliminates the possibility of the FCC taking away citizen's rights without the democratic process being involved. At least Congress persons are answerable to their constituents. The FCC is not. (This is the whole problem with Congress creating agencies. It's a way to extend government power without making it answerable to the other branches.)
Now is the time to start sending positive letters to justices and congress persons to prevent Congress from trying to enact the broadcast flag themselves.
Corporations can't vote (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be unhappy with the way your fellow citizens vote, but corporations aren't electing these people into Congress. Other people in your community are. If you don't like that, don't sit on your beanbag and complain about how corporations are destroying the country. Go out and tell people why they should vote the way that you want them to. Money is just a megaphone. If you're spouting garbage, it will just make the garbage stinkier.
It's funny how the things that are beyond our control are the things that we'd otherwise have to get off our buns and do something about.
Depends on how you look at it (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a variety of factors in place, but if you posit that the average voter is intellectually curious and able to form opinions not based on sound bites I'd tend to agree with you.
However, this simply isn't the case. Congressional elections are viewed with much less interest than the Presidential election (which is ironic in itself) and voters as a whole don't tend to be intellectually curious OR well informed. So it truly does become a matter of money, which is where the corporations CAN influence policy.
Voter apathy (Score:3, Interesting)
but corporations aren't electing these people into Congress. Other people in your community are.
Yes they are. Other people in my community are so apathetic that they'll vote for whomever they recognize from TV, and all major TV outlets are owned by corporations.
If you don't like that ... Go out and tell people why they should vote the way that you want them to.
Both major U.S. political parties support expansion of the scope of copyright. The problem here is the first-past-the-post system, which re
Re:Corporations can't vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Hope that works out for you.
Maybe not (Score:3, Interesting)
When there weren't anything but non-BF devices on the market, the MPAA couldn't use the DMCA against the manufacturers. Now that everything is BF-compliant any device that isn't can easily be painted as a circumvention device under the DMCA and the manufacturer sued out of existence.
Re:Maybe not (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe not (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe not (Score:4, Interesting)
This will merely require a firmware update to the existing PSIP generator systems to remove the feature.
The BF itself is embedded in the data that originates from the broadcaster. So, even if the PSIP generator contains the ability to pass along the broadcast flag, content providers need not simply provide the setting. (Which in this case, apparently makes it unlawful to do so.. though I haven't yet read the article)
Lawyer: a bit more on the type of ruling (Score:5, Informative)
This is the stronger of the two main ways that the court could have struck down the ruling. Often, it's the *form* of the rule, in paraticular the way the administrative agency chose to make the rule, that gets struck down. This leaves the agency free to pass the same rule through the proper process. (Similar to the way the appellate court struck down the judge's behavior in the microsoft case--the governmet could have sought another order splitting microsoft.)
In this case, it's the *substance* of the rule that was stricken. The FCC *cannot* regulate in this area, and cannot try again.
However, this didn't adress the question of whether or not Congress could grant the power to regulate in such an area, nor whether Congress could pass such a law itself.
hawk, esq.
Re:Won this battle but not the war (Score:3, Informative)
Second, you're right that industry will try to get Congress to change the law.
But this is still a great decision, because it means we still have enforceable limitations on the authority of agencies. It means that the courts are not going to allow them to overstep their authority as delegated by Congress.
This was not so clear in the past (until the 70's or so). Under Chevron, courts give deference in most cases to agencies' interpretations of their o
Temporary until Congress acts (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd hope that the consumer electronics lobby is stronger than the MPAA, but I fear it isn't so.
jh
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly what has caused me to abandon the Republican party. The Republicans used to be the party of small business and the Democrats were the party of big business. That's not the case and it's getting to be less and less the case. The Republicans are firmly in the pockets of big business and the Democrats are ... just insane.
I'd hope that the consumer electronics lobby is stronger than the MPAA, but I fear it isn't so.
Part of the consumer electronics industry is also part of the content management industry. Sony's subsidiaries are both members of the RIAA and other subsidiaries produce consumer electronics. O, the tangled we weave!
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in. A party that *actually* stands for limited government and individual freedom and is less insane than the LP could do quite well.
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a liberal, and I find the Dems insane (Score:3, Insightful)
* They're as owned by special interests as the Republicans. The bankruptacy bill? Everyone voted for it, even very liberal, Hero Of The People Democrats. I mean, SCHUMER voted for that turd, and dude really wants to be a liberal working-class savior. That's insane behavior.
* They are becoming Republican Lite. Look at Hillary. She's starting to get awful cozy with the right-to-lifers. The goal of the Dems is to actually become ok with the Fundies. And that is totally insane, because it can never happen
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Interesting)
We shall see though.
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why they'll call it the Protection of Open and Free Television Act or some other Orwellian name and attach it to some other feel-good or must-pass legislation.
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Interesting)
Close. But as noted by another poster, it has to be a (supposedly) clever acronym (and/or terrorism-related name), too. Maybe they'll call it the:
Beneficial
Reuse
Of
Airwaves/
Defending
Content to
Assure
Secure
Television
Act.
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that this might piss off the handful of voters who actually pay attention probably doesn't even enter into the equasion for most of them, sad to say.
I just watched my own state legislature give away the farm to SBC under a similar model. He who paid the most won, only 3 votes against. It's not like the bribes aren't mostly out in the open, it's just no one pays enough attention for it to matter to them.
Re:Temporary until Congress acts (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't care. Now that they've spent the money to implement it, it's all the same to them. Regardless of what we'd like to think, their sales are going to be the same either way.
Since large corperate interest do not want it (Score:3, Funny)
Well when you stop taking the mushrooms for a little while, try reading the article where it talks abotu how the whole COMPUTER INDUSTRY and CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY does not want it!
Is THAT a big enough corperate interest for you?
Loss for words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Loss for words (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me sum this up in four easy, complete, steps:
1) Buy low
2) Congress passes law
3) Sell high
4) Profit!
Re:Loss for words (Score:3, Funny)
first? (Score:3, Funny)
A collection of highlights from the case (Score:5, Informative)
It's not over yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not over yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be a little bit realistic about this. The movie industry brings in ~$9 billion a year in revenue. The consumer electronics industry brings in over $100 billion in revenue a year. For now, the consumer electronics industry has been like a sleeping giant. I think what happened here
What about the TV distribution pipeline (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if there will be a way to disable BF circuitry in sets which get sold that already have it built in? Or will the makers even tell people that they are buying sets that are BF enabled? Maybe some people will buy them without even knowing it.
Re:What about the TV distribution pipeline (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily, because a lot of HDTV's aren't even really TV's at all - they're monitors. It's up to you to decide what tuner to use, be it a PC tuner or a set-top box.
No PC tuner in existence right now respects the broadcast flag, and the way the flag is implemented, it is not something that can just be "turned on" in new drivers or firmware. It requires another chip on the board. So if you buy a piece of hardware that does not respect the BF, it will never respect the BF, and because tuners are relatively cheap to make and ship, tuner manufacturers were all sitting on the sidelines waiting this out and producing non-BF hardware in the meantime. (No doubt they had updated designs in the wings, but there was no reason to produce them yet.)
It's also worth noting that, AFAIK, equipment couldn't be made after July 1 without respecting the broadcast flag. So manufacturers could have, if they wanted, made sets and tuners right up to June 31 that did not respect it, and then switched over on July 1.
Re:What about the TV distribution pipeline (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see them try to manufacture a tuner on the 31st of June. I'd pay big bucks for that.
This is really great (Score:4, Interesting)
Death to Television (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Death to Television (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Death to Television (Score:3, Insightful)
So make sure everyone who wants high speed internet access can get it. This will not only allow us to free up spectrum, but will have many other ancillary benefits. While it smacks of media hype, the "digital divide" is a real problem, and maybe we need a good public works program.
Makes no difference (Score:2, Insightful)
What's more, they won't take the risk. Now that the BC has become a "standard" feature, building anything without it is almost certain to be attacked by the MPAA under the DMCA.
If you have a BC-free tuner card, treasure it. They ain't making no more, ever again.
Re:Makes no difference (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Makes no difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Next ... (Score:3, Interesting)
FCC had no right to assist the content creators, pushing them on to the HD realm. The market and the millions of tv viewers should instead spearhead that, and creators who turn a deaf ear will find out finicky eyeballs prefer HD over SD as HD compatible TV's get ever cheaper and between equally bad scripted shows, they pick the better looking one.
Wonder what the Southpark creators would do with HD
Unfortunately, this will not stand (Score:4, Insightful)
So long as the following tweaks to the system are not implemented Congress will be able to ignore the wishes of the people and grant any and all favors to their lobbyists.
No representative or senator should ever be allowed to vote on any piece of legislation which they personally have not read
Any vote on anything that involves de facto laws, rules, regulations or monetary impact of any kind must be by roll call vote
The name of the legislator who introduced or modified each line of text in each and every bill must be fully disclosed
The 17th amendment must be repealed
Re:Unfortunately, this will not stand (Score:3, Informative)
Its not what we're hoping for, but it is a start.
I favor a broadcast flag (Score:3, Funny)
It's the End Times! (Score:4, Funny)
Fools! (Score:2)
Activist Judges (Score:2)
Some remarks. (Score:5, Informative)
As an aside the American Library Association (ALA) has been very active [ala.org] in working to protect our fair-use rights and trying to make copyright law more balanced, even though they might not be as well known here as the EFF and ACLU are. I would highly encourage anyone who cares about these things to help support them
QOTD, best taken out of context (Score:2, Funny)
-Judge David Sentelle
Joe Sixpack ... (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously, no congressman in his right mind is going to touch legislation that impinges on the general public's right to an unencumbered TV-experience.
DMCA and PATRIOT are no problem, but take away an American's freedom to watch, record and illegally sell for profit and there's going to be trouble. We're talking mobs in the streets here, complete with lynchings and excessive-firing-of-rifles-in-the-air.
Re:Joe Sixpack ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Many, many people still use VCRs (gasp!) to record their favorite shows. If you take away their right to record these shows , they may very well start rioting in the streets.
w00t (Score:2)
Though, knowing our luck, it's probably just a really late April Fool's prank.
It's Deal Making Time! (Score:4, Interesting)
So far the entertainment industry has strongly opposed anything that looks like censorship. But they are also so vigorously pursuing stronger copyright restrictions that they may be willing to deal. If they believe they can make more money by giving up creative freedom in exchange for stronger copyright laws, I believe they'll do it in a heartbeat. To get the broadcast flag now, they'll have to deal with Congress.
Dammit! (Score:2)
1 - Buy as many non-compliant tuner cards as possible before June 30.
2 - Start selling said cards on ebay on July 2.
3 - Profit!!!
Guess it's back to "natural enhancement" spamming for me. (kidding - please don't firebomb my house!)
Public Knowledge coverage (Score:2)
Public Knowledge [publicknowledge.org] has coverage of the case here [publicknowledge.org] , as well.
Sliding my donation over to the EFF (Score:5, Interesting)
No more donating to the ACLU for me - it's all EFF from now on.
The ACLU was needed in the age of McCarthy, but the work of the EFF seems more beneficial to me right now - in the short as well as the long term.
Re:Sliding my donation over to the EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose the ACLU had its place back in the day, but I much prefer the Unix-style "each tool does one thing" approach of the EFF and NRA.
Absolutley, I donate every year (Score:3, Informative)
New definiton for AC (Score:3, Informative)
I guess AC must stand for Arrogant & Clueless. Because the Apple thing was about getting the NAME of the guy who leaked info. They didn't want any money from the guy at all.
The EFF is a great organization who deserves all the money they can get.
Appeals Court (Score:2, Informative)
Go GNU Radio! (Score:5, Informative)
As open source, it fails the robustness rules. Heck, as open source, it even encourages "user tampering." With today's victory the project has some hope, and we can see some future innovations exploiting it.
To all those "activist judges" out there (Score:2)
Re:To all those "activist judges" out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Ain't nothin' "activist" about this.
What's the big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
If your expecting a public outcry, don't. The content providers will just wait to start flagging their shows until flagged hardware is everwhere and everything. People won't know/care until it's too late.
Get your facts straight, already (Score:5, Informative)
We have stories about the Federal legal decisions almost every day. Yet Slashdotters (and worse, the Slashdot editors) manage to read all these stories without learning anything about how the courts work. Pretty pathetic.
What about the firewire port on cable boxs? (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the ruling "FCC Eases Digital TV Transition for Consumers."(PDF) [fcc.gov] it states that all digital cable boxes must have a firewire port. This port is used to control the box and record from it. Now this has been in effect for a while now, although it takes alot of effort and showing your cable company this [fcc.gov] pdf article to get them to give you a box that has a firewire port and that port is enabled. My concern is the ruling seems to also removes the FCC's power in this area as well.
And the worst part is MythTV [mythtv.org] just started supporting recording over firewire...
Re:What about the firewire port on cable boxs? (Score:3, Informative)
this gives us more opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
AS always write, fax, email. Maintaining freedom takes regular work, few hours per week.
warm and fuzzy ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how I feel after donating to the EEF last year and this happening now. Looks like I'll be sending them another cheque this year
Good work folks! Now, let's make sure this never sees the light of day in any of the law-making branches of the legislature!
Hiding the goose that lays the golden egg (Score:4, Insightful)
They are essentially trying to rewind the calendar to before they xxAAs lost the 'fair use' trials against those pesky player pianos. (And radio and TV and restaurant juke boxes and sheet music.)
They are against anything that makes a noise and they aren't getting paid. And fair use doesn't enter into their vocabulaty.
Joe Wal-mart (Score:4, Insightful)
HDTV equipment couldn't be made in the US for export, because no other country would want broadcast flag equipped products, ensuring the ongoing death of manufacturing in America.
It would raise the cost of, and decrease the desirability of better HDTV, increasing the time until we can turn off the old signals.
The airwaves belong to the Public, and private interests should not be allowed to run rampant over the limited useful spectrum, all of the FCC's decisions should have a statement explaining exactly how it is expected to benifit the public, with respect to the spectrum used; just as with the EPA and Environmental Impact statements.
private encrypted tranmissions have a place (cell phones, military, wireless networking), and it other areas a balance can be struck (TV networks using satillites to send shows to affiliates should be protected) but government angencies should not profit from, or pander to business interests. (except from taxing their profits)
Re:Turn Off the Idiot-Box! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Turn Off the Idiot-Box! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Turn Off the Idiot-Box! (Score:3)
Believe me, there are far more crappy books then good ones, so maybe we should stop reading?
I don't have TV, but I hate people who get on there damn high horse because they think they know whats best for everyone.