Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Television News Politics

Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo 317

Posted by Zonk from the hilarity-ensues dept.
blamanj wrote to mention that, a week after we reported on the court rejection of the broadcast flag, the MPAA is working on new legislation to broaden the FCC's power. From the article: "The draft bill says, simply, that the FCC will 'have authority to adopt regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks.' The DC Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up." Update: 05/13 19:20 GMT by Z : Title amended with apologies to the Bugaloos.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo More

Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo

Comments Filter:
  • I think this will be harder to get passed than the DMCS was.
    • Or as some know it the DMCA.

      Cory Doctorow has some comments on this at http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/13/broadcast_fla g_back_.html/ [boingboing.net]
    • You are wrong. DMCA was passed BECAUSE courts refused to extend copyright.

      This is another attempt to bypass courts and surreptitously impose a law that tramples upon a citizen's rights.

      If the courts strike down a law passed by Congress, then MPAA may realize its futile. But with many of our beloved congressmen being stooges of big business... they may as well replace the judges.

      • This is another attempt to bypass courts and surreptitously impose a law that tramples upon a citizen's rights.

        Let's not lose sight of how the U.S. Government works here...

        Congress *makes the rule*, and the courts *enforce* them. So, the media, having been told by the courts, "this is not what Congress intended", are going to the source of the rules and requesting a change -- as any group of citizens in the country have a right to do. You may not agree with the request, and it is your right to oppose and

      • No.

        First, the DMCA doesn't extend copyright terms. You're thinking of the Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Sonny Bono Act. They're different things.

        Second, the DMCA was passed in 1998. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled -- just as the lower courts that had heard the issue had -- that Congress could retroactively extend copyrights. (No one has AFAIK challenged prospective extensions) That case, Eldred, hadn't been a factor leading up to the DMCA or the CTEA.

        So you might want to know what the

    • Follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sterno ( 16320 )
      This won't be difficult to get passed at all. It's giving the FCC a very specific mandate to regulate something. So there should be minimal concern about broader implications. Furthermore, all the media companies will be pumping the election funds full of cash to get it passed.

      It'll pass with ease.
      • Thats what I'm afraid of.

        OTOH, I wonder what took them so long. This campaign should have been ready to roll out the instant the SCOTUS made the ruleing (in their view that is, in mine they can bend over, its time the people had some fun.)

        In any event, my congress critter is in town today, so I'm going to stop by the senior center and lay a few words on him.

        --
        Cheers, Gene

      • It'll pass with ease.

        I was going to say exactly the opposite thing. Once there's some testimony -- and the computer companies are certainly going to insist that they get a chance to air their views in public -- that the only ways the FCC can handle this is to either (a) outlaw copying outright, which takes away constituents' ability to continue time-shifting, or (b) micromanage all kinds of different technologies like hard disks and software decoders in order to ensure that the flags are honored, I

    • Like a supplemental spending bill for Bush's Iraqi adventure. After all, who would not want to support the troops?

  • Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)

    by Tx ( 96709 )
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

    How appropriate.

  • Legislative body (Score:5, Funny)

    by zoward ( 188110 ) * <email.me.at.zoward.at.gmail.com> on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:16PM (#12522148) Homepage
    "... the MPAA is working on new legislation to broaden the FCC's power"

    I didn't know the MPAA was a legislative body ...

    • Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Insightful)

      by emc ( 19333 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:17PM (#12522171)
      They are not, but Orrin Hatch is.

      He is also the lapdog of the entertainment industry.
    • Welcome to Corporatized America. If you can afford it, you're a legislative body.

      • Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Welcome to Corporatized America"

        Otherwise known, by that definition actually, as facism.

      • This is all possible because of the people who do not vote. The few of us who do vote mean so much, that legislators need as much money as possible to woo us. Campaign contributions buy influence. The best way to counter this is for people to get out and vote.

        LK

      • Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mjh ( 57755 )
        I don't think this is a problem with corporate america. The problem is with the elected legislative bodies: congress and the president. They *allow* this kind of manipulation. The problem with government, as opposed to a capitalist corporation, is that for the entire period of election, the elected are no longer servant to those who elected them. This is not true with a corporation whose customers can leave them at any time.

        The problem here isn't with corporate america. It's with the corruption that f

    • Re:Legislative body (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Look up the phrase "iron triangle".

    • Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MagicDude ( 727944 )
      Anybody with enough money to sponsor a politican's campaign for office becomes an indirect legislative body. It goes something like...

      Politician - "I don't like this bill"

      Evil Corp. - "Do it or find your own money for re-election next year"

      Politician - "Of course Master. Please forgive my vile tounge"

      (Thunder and Lightning)
      Evil Corp. - Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA HA HA
      (Organ Music)

      • Yeah, that's it exactly.

        "Oh no, the RIAA isn't going to give me their maximum donation of $3,000 (or whatever the hell it is now)! I might lose my re-election!"

        • Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Interesting)

          by eddiegee ( 236525 )
          Its $2000 actually....to the individual congressperson. The limits are $25000 a year to the national party, $10000 a year to the state party and $5000 to a PAC. And it will not just be the RIAA but the MPAA, Sony, Universal/Vivendi, Viacom, AOL/TW, plus the individual executives who go to the $1000 a plate dinners. Soon it adds up to real money.

          But our high holy Courts have decided that money equals speech, so don't you dare trample on the rights of massive conglomerates to brib....I mean "contribute" t
        • You forget, this is the MPAA -- they own television stations. They can show the polition in a negative light on news programs, give cheap air time to his opponent, etc. The dollars are only a small part of it.
        • Yeah, that's it exactly. "Oh no, the RIAA isn't going to give me their maximum donation of $3,000 (or whatever the hell it is now)! I might lose my re-election!"

          The RIAA is an association of companies (the second A). Each member company can give individually to whatever the max limit is. That is a lot of cash my friend.

        • Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) * on Friday May 13, 2005 @03:40PM (#12523130)
          So you get Sony, Universal, AOL, as "companies" giving their bribes. Then you can have all the big execs giving bribes at the expenisve "dinner" parties.

          Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org]? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert [opensecrets.org] and Nancy Pelosi [opensecrets.org]. Go take a look at the Politicians [opensecrets.org] page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry [opensecrets.org] page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry [opensecrets.org] gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

          Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

    • Re:Legislative body (Score:5, Informative)

      by eln ( 21727 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:22PM (#12522237)
      You would be surprised at how much legislation is actually written by corporations, and given to "friendly" Congressmen who sponsor it as their own. Many large businesses and businesses organizations have lobbying groups whose job it is to craft legislation friendly to them, and sell it to members of Congress.

    • Re:Legislative body (Score:3, Interesting)

      by erroneus ( 253617 )
      Wasn't the DMCA evidence enough of this? But there are plenty of other examples.

      No, they aren't a legislative body, but they do seem to own several members of the legislative branch such as Orin Hatch, for example, who seems to do the bidding if his dark lord and master, "MPAA" frequently and regularly.

      I don't have a high opinion of him at all.

      If someone came to me and said, "For several million dollars, would you be willing to sell out the constitutional ideals of our nation?" I'd have to say absolutel

  • Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dillinger (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:16PM (#12522159)
    the official sequel joke is now "The Secret of Curley's Gold"

    As you were

  • Just because they're out to get you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WillAffleck ( 42386 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:16PM (#12522160)
    doesn't mean you're paranoid.

    Sigh.

    The only flag I want is the one sewn on my old uniform.

  • Buy your own laws, here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:18PM (#12522174) Homepage
    Get yer laws, here! Nice fresh laws for sale!

    Whatsa matter, sport? Courts got you down? They say you have no legal leg to stand on? Don't listen to them! Get your own laws! You write 'em. You pay for 'em. You benefit from 'em.

  • Hell, if all Congress is good for is to write laws to restrict your competition and use the might of the US Government as your own private police force, we might as well act preemtively and ban the MPAA. Turnabout is fair play, in my opinion.
    • That is the most refreshing idea I've seen on here in a long time. The MPAA is a group of businesses that works together to protect their right to the business. Know who else does that? The mafia. RICO, anyone?

      Now I await the inevitable "No, suave" post...
    • I have always thought that this type of thing isn't as far fetched as it seems. While you may have been trying to be a bit facetious if you consider that the MPAA and RIAA act in ways that in other contexts may be called "collusion" I don't see how it is they get away with some of the things they do.

      For instance the CSS encryption on DVD's is "approved" by the MPAA and adopted for use by it's members. How is that not collusion? While it may seem that having many different "standards" would be bad for consu
    • A few years back Mohammed al Fayed (Egyptian millionaire, owns Harrods) was mad because the UK government had stopped a previous agreement that he would be allowed to pay a fixed sum every year regardless of how much he made as it was "too difficult" to do all the sums.

      I considered writing to my local tax office saying "I had no idea tax was negotiable. I find the sums difficult, may I suggest I pay you £100 in full and final settlement for all my taxes this year?".

      Perhaps you folks in the US shoul

  • Routers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KrackHouse ( 628313 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:18PM (#12522189) Homepage
    I get the feeling that a gigantic black market will emerge if this passes. If the internet routes around censorship as if it's damage then technological progress will route around hardware restrictions as if it's censorship.

    • Re:Routers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by freedom_india ( 780002 )
      The internet routes around censorship because it was specification that was speifically MEANT to overcome blockages. Technological progress here is limited to camera phones and car GPS.

      A black market for running tapes will not arise because people are too busy working 50 hours a week to put food on their tables.

      Corporatization of this country is complete.

      • Re:Routers (Score:3, Interesting)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )

        A black market for running tapes will not arise because people are too busy working 50 hours a week to put food on their tables.

        And yet... people still watch TV, movies, selecting new ringtones and backgrounds for their phone, finding music for their iPod, burning DvDs of their wedding. They're working 50 hour weeks to put food on the table. And they're also buying nifty gadgets that had been cool little projects only available to tech-heads a few years back.

        This country has been run on consumerism

    • right... and drug smuggling routes around government bans- that doesn't mean there aren't serious (and seriously unjust) consequences for getting caught

    • Re:Routers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The impact of this legislation has limited technological impact (see why below). It is, however, going to have a market impact (economic) as well as a regulatory/policy impact (future restrictions easier to put in place without due oversight).

      Technologically, imnsho, this legislation isn't going to stop anything. Zip, zilch, nada. This is just muscle flexing. This is to stop general idiotic consumers from recording their shows on their own so that they have to buy the Season 1 DVD when it comes out. H

  • Government Logic (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:19PM (#12522194)
    > The DC Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up.

    1. Anything not nailed down is mine.
    2. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
    3. If the only tool you have is a crowbar, every problem looks like hours and hours of fun!

    Of course we can get along just fine with the software industry. TCPA, DRM, Steam, Valve, Half-Life, Crowbar. It all makes sense now!

  • Please note the difference: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:19PM (#12522200) Homepage
    A bugaloo [wikipedia.org] is not the same thing as a boogaloo [wikipedia.org].

  • Land of the Free (except where prohibited) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:20PM (#12522208) Homepage Journal
    It's a path of self destruction - there's a price people are willing to pay for entertainment. Cross the line and they'll become pirates. The real challenge of capitalism is to make sure that it works out fine for EVERYONE. For socialism the challenge is induvidual incentive. Neither works, if they don't try to address these challenges.

    Scott Adams: If the capitalists don't like capitalism, they shouldn't have named it after themselves.

  • Wow, didn't see THAT coming (Score:3, Funny)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:20PM (#12522212)

    I still think they would rather hold off until fall of '08 to blame Clinton and the Democrats for requiring a new TV in every trailer.
  • Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Bugaloo

    What's an 80's break-dancing craze got to do with ... oh I geddit.

    Down witha FCCee ... in DCeee. Rock down to electric avenue ... we's goin' digitaaal.

  • Eliminate the middleman! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:29PM (#12522334)
    My don't we just put the MPAA directly in charge of broadcast television technical standards?

  • MPAA was elected? (Score:5, Informative)

    by twl1973 ( 877541 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:30PM (#12522345) Journal
    I love it how the MPAA can draft legislation for the Congress now. I thought that we elected people to actually draft legislation but I guess I was wrong. Now all you need to draft legislation is a billion dollars and the knowledge of where to deposit some of the money.
    • It's all about saving money. It costs much less to bribe the FCC than to bribe all those Congresscritters, on a regular basis.
    • Welcome to the new United Corporations of America!

      Our elected representatives can't be bothered with the details of reading & writing the legislation their party has decided to pass - they've got to focus on campaign funding for the next election and slamming the other, evil party!

    • Re:MPAA was elected? (Score:5, Informative)

      by brontus3927 ( 865730 ) <edwardra3@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday May 13, 2005 @03:08PM (#12522775) Homepage Journal
      No, no, no. Any one can draft legislation. All you need is to know how to write, and a way to write it down. We elect people to sponsor legislation, debate legislation, and vote on legislation. Further, I'd hazzard a bet that there hasn't been a bill on the table in many years that was actually WRITTEN (i.e. drafted) by a Congressperson. Most were written by their staff.
    • You think this is new? Where exactly do you think all the regulations surrounding the oil industry came from? Or logging? Or (NameYourIssue)?

      The trick is to write a counter legislation and convince Congress that yours is better.

  • Better copyright provisions: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:35PM (#12522395)
    Perhaps it would be wisest if the government would rule as follows: Any information broadcast in such a manner as to distribute it widely shall be deemed protected under copyright law, but only to the extent that you cannot sell copies of the information; that is, you may record it in any medium you want; you may display the information in any manner you want, even in a public performance; the only thing you cannot do is charge for it; only the copyright holder may do that. Therefore, you cannot charge others to watch a public performance of the same, nor can you charge for copies on, say, DVD.

    This would solve a variety of problems: Fair use would not be destroyed. And because information broadcast is, to all practical extents, available for consumption by "the public", then there should be no restriction on time- or format-shifting of the same. This law would be much more fair to both sides of the issue, as the bottom line is that our country is meant to be free, not governed by the will of corporations, though corporations should still have a fair chance at profits, even big profits, because corporations are the ones that pay us, feed us, drive our economy, and give us a better standard of living through the channeling of funds and efforts that would otherwise not take place.

    • Re:Better copyright provisions: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arkhan_jg ( 618674 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @03:04PM (#12522732)
      You're assuming the companies the MPAA represents, and the congressmen they own, want a fair deal.

      To them, it won't be a fair setup until everything we watch is
      a) produced by a MPAA member
      b) paid for* by every watcher, every time they view it. Yes, that means you pay twice as much if two people watch one show simultaneously.
      c) even better, paid for by potential viewers, whether you watch it or not.
      d) uncopyable, unless they're doing the copying
      e) Chargable like b) every time you change format or viewer, in addition to the per-viewing fee.
      f) only viewable when the MPAA producer wants you to watch it, especially if you're in a different country
      g) eternal copyright, so that all of the above applies to all content, forever.
      h) all fair use of any kind is eliminated.

      * paid for to include a flat rate fee, per-viewing fee, or unskippable commercials. Ideally, they'd like all three at once.

      "[Skipping ads with a PVR or VCR] is theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."

      This beautiful piece of logic was bruited about as part of the Big Media blitz against ReplayTV's model 4000 personal video recorder.

      This is what we're dealing with.

  • No such thing as "digital" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:36PM (#12522409) Homepage Journal
    Nothing is digital, once going to the pure nature of electronics and electricity. Even information transmitted over a fiber optic cable is an analog wave of light. Anything transmitted over a copper wire is an analog electrical waveform. When it comes down to all of it, Digital does not exist. We cannot look at a digital signal thru an oscilloscope and see 1's and 0's shooting across our screen.

    Digital phone network? Nope, it's still an analog wave carrying all of the information. No matter how anything goes or is transmitted, there's no true such thing as digital.
    • In one sense, you're right. Digital is an abstraction of a wave. But that's like saying that there's no such thing as red, just an EM wavelength. The reality is that we call a particular wavelength red because that's the name we've given it. Digital is the same way. There are lots of different naming conventions, but they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM
    • well, there are true 'digital' signals...

      \\// Live long and prosper. ..\/ Peace man.

      \../ Wicked. ..I.. (Guess)

      plus sign language.

      but anyway, a 'digital' signal is one that has a fixed number of reproducable states; such that the states can be reconstructed, relayed, and retransmitted with all the intented data intact by a predefined system.

      that is, a 1.1 is a 1, and a -0.05 is a 0.

  • Interesting Implication (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bob(TM) ( 104510 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:36PM (#12522414)
    You know, it's interesting that the MPAA is taking the approach of giving additional regulatory power of the FCC rather than lobbying congress to mandate the flag.

    Laying groundwork for easier actions in the future, perhaps ...
  • Can someone please tell me why we are letting the MPAA (or any **aa for that matter) draft legislation? Isn't this a step beyond lobbying?

    I understand that it doesn't mean it gets passed, but I don't think coporations should be drafting legislation that would extend the power of a Org. like the FCC that will benefit themselves.

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)

      by brontus3927 ( 865730 )
      Anyone can write a bill, you don't have to be in congress for that. Private citizens can write a bill on any topic they want. What a private citizen can't do is sponsor legislation. A congressman/senator has to sponsor a bill before it will be "debated" and voted on. I'm not naive enough to think there isn't at least 1 congressman whose campaign wasn't paid for by the MPAA and has a cushy $200,000 job waiting for them after they leave office, which is actual the issue that who are so, rightly, indignat

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sheetrock ( 152993 )
      Can someone please tell me why we are letting the MPAA (or any **aa for that matter) draft legislation?

      Because voters do no research beyond attack advertisements and puff pieces on news channels, reelect lousy incumbents because they're afraid of the other party getting in, and care only about one or two issues rather than integrity.

      As it is, a congressman is more likely to get raked over the coals for voting with integrity because this stuff always gets attached to patriotic or must-pass legislation (

  • Problem with it is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snwcrash ( 520762 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @02:42PM (#12522484)
    The device makers will put up a pretty strong resistance to this. MPAA isn't the only industry group that would be lobbying over this.

    The FCC regulations were politically convenient, since the elected officals could distance themselves from it, claim to support or oppose it depending on the direction of the political winds.

    Republicans would probably find it hard to increase the amount of regulation on high-tech industries. Not saying it's impossible, but it's hardly going to zip right on through. Unlike the DMCA which was generally pro-business this bill pits several intrests against one another. If the bill directly attacked consumers it would pass in a hearbeat :)
    • The device makers will put up a pretty strong resistance to this. MPAA isn't the only industry group that would be lobbying over this.
      "My lobby group can beat up your lobby group."

      Whichever special interest group with the deeper pockets will win this one. Plain as that.

      • Whichever special interest group with the deeper pockets will win this one. Plain as that.

        The good news is that the electronics industry is MUCH bigger than the entertainment industry.

        Whether they will want to fight this is another question.
    • I hope they do, but I don't have much faith. Intel, Hitachi, and other companies are already in bed with the entertainment industry (such as Sony) in terms of devising content control schemes [dtcp.com] to forbid transmission of flagged content over firewire to noncompliant devices (read: your PC-based PVR [mythtv.org]).

  • I hope not... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stop Error ( 823742 )
    Is it really the Federal Governments job to mandate technologies who's sole purpose is to restrict what I do with media in my home?

    I hope this gets crushed. I hate the idea of the Fed's in my home dictating whe I can do with my stuff by means of Technology that I will simply have to work around which will probobly make me a criminal at that point.

    How depressing.
  • Welcome to America. When in doubt, Sue 'em and let the courts sort it out. Pretty soon we're going to see the "record" button disappear from VCR's and DVR's because it will all be under some rediculous rule brought about by those with the check books.
  • Am I the only one to find the words "indiscriminate redistribution" and "broadcast flag" difficult to use in the same sentence.

    Are they being ironic or what?
  • control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content

    So if I promise to be discriminating in the way I redistribute things, that would be OK? Would releasing a Mac-only client count?
  • So we've got an unelected commission of five people here. And we're going to give them broad power to make whatever rules they want...

    I think this is great. In fact, Congress should delegate ALL rule-making authority to independent agencies. That way, they can play more golf and spend more time shopping for nice suits.

    These people REPRESENT us. Let's make sure that they look good, feel good, and don't have to do any work at all.

  • When Fair Use is outlawed, only outlaws will have Fair Use.

    Anyone else up for a shopping trip to pick out bandanas, gunbelts and spurs? ;-)

  • I think this is actually a good thing. Even without extra legislation, in my opinion, we're too far gone. Therefore you can file this under the "as you tighten your grip, the more that will fall through your fingers" section.

    If passed, the broadcast flag will likely slow down piracy just as much as Compact Discs that won't work in CD-ROMs. While solution, ahem work-around, might not be as simple as a magic marker, rest assured that people will continue to make up their own free use policies so long as

  • Loss of respect for the law. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Harry Coin ( 691835 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @03:22PM (#12522936)

    Nothing is more harmful to the rule of law than measures such as these. Blatantly obvious purchase of legislation, the ever-expanding scope of "criminal" behavior, and plainly selective enforcement of the law is combining to create an entire generation of people who will simply ignore the increasingly broad and self-contradictory stack of rules.

    People truly follow the small subset of the law that they understand, and nothing more.

  • Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday May 13, 2005 @03:33PM (#12523053) Homepage Journal
    The FCC mission is to prohibit interference among signals, by enforcing the assignment of segregated communications channels. Some of those channels travel over "airwaves" owned by the public: the space between points in the US which carries light in frequencies invisible to humans. That trusteeship of the airwaves justifies another role: publicly receivable signals transmitted over those airwaves must meet acceptable standards for public consumption, as agreed by transmitters in the terms of their license for spectrum leased from the FCC. Those standards are limited to offensive criteria, like sexual representations, some politics, and (minimally) violence. That is the FCC's entire mission, which excludes private transmissions (including subscriptions like cable and satellite), and transmissions in media other than the airwaves (including telephone and data networks).

    This "broadcast flag" rule is not just "technically illegal". Content policing is the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress' Copyright Office. That office is already complicated (and often contradictory) enough, with its own overreaches (eg. copyright perpetuation). This rule is not so much the FCC filling a gap, or even augmenting LoC oversight. It is really a recognition by a bureaucracy that its main source of power, administering the airwaves, is becoming a tiny area of activity. As other media dwarf the airwaves in traffic, and tech like phased arrays undermine even the necessity for segregation of channels by frequency, the FCC is becoming merely a 20th Century office, as obsolete as the 19th Century offices governing horsedrawn carriages. But its ability to influence Congress, while it still controls the still popular airwaves (which carry most news broadcasts), offers a way to change its mission to one with more power than it ever had. If it jumps beyond the airwaves domain, to define its mission as censor (rather than guarantor of signal integrity), it will not only have power over otherwise free American activities, but need never again be threatened with obsolescence.

    The FCC's creeping power grabs are completely predictable, given the increasing irrelevance of the underlying problem it is chartered to solve. But Congress should see this as a chance to phase out a dangerous and unnecessary bureaucracy. Preserving only its technically necessary functions, while they still exist. Then let it die, not reanimate it as a monster censor we'll never banish.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close