Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV 20
jsproul writes "The New York Times (registration required) is reporting that hearings will be held today on a bill by Billy Tauzin (R-Disney) to require the digital broadcast flag, end analog broadcasts by 2006, and (according to the Consumer Federation of America) obsolete VCRs and make taping of television shows subject to the control of broadcasters. Another bill by Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) will also be debated, which bill allows record companies to attack peer-to-peer networks without liability for 'accidental' damages."
"peer to peer" (Score:3)
Re:"peer to peer" (Score:2)
Re:"peer to peer" (Score:2)
Re:"peer to peer" (Score:1, Insightful)
Ordinarily, the lack of technical understanding displayed by politicians irritates me, but in this case it may work to our advantage.
Re:"peer to peer" (Score:2)
the google link to NYT (Score:2, Interesting)
oops... (Score:2)
Maybe this is actually good news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe 6pak is going to notice this.
After all, it's only legislation, and legislation can get repealed about as quickly as it is enacted, if the voters feel strongly enough about it. It's just got to come to their attention.
At the moment, I'm equally worried about all of this DRM mess slowing down the tech industry even further. It's bad enough as it is, but just wait for new consumer products are mandated to have features that only hinder. They'd like to say it's going to spark new demand, as we all run out and spend bux upgrading all of our electronics. But since those electronics are going to cost more, and in many cases grant only reduced function, I say we'll hold on to what we have. We're going to see a further slump in consumer electronics, and therefore the rest of the electronics industry.
"R-Disney" "D-Hollywood"? No, no... (Score:4, Funny)
Sheesh, how many times do I have to explain this... :-)
"D" is for "Disney", "R" is for "Rupert" (as in Murdoch, of the Fox Network)
So, Tauzin is a Rupertican, and Berman is a Disneycrat.
There, NOW we can discuss the issue with a better understanding of the political system here :-)
Whine and Complain (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to do that is to get advertising on TV that shows that
1. These people want to stop you from recording to VCR
2. These people want to make you pay for a new TV, Receiver etc
3. These people want to put your rights to use media ( purchased and otherwise ) in the hands of those who have already been shown to have no respect for fair-use
I believe this is the only way. It would have to be done in a way that the majority can understand.
example:
Man watching a baseball game. He cheers as his favorite batters steps up to the plate.
He hits record to capture this moment
*screen goes blue*
*screen shows text that says 'due to DRM security restrictions you are not permitted to copy this broadcast'*
I believe that would get the point acress
Failure to think. (Score:3, Interesting)
Any law that gives the power to do harm without consequences is ripe for abuse. The record companies themselves don't even need to be intentionally abusing thier powers, they just need to be predictable. If I don't like little Bobby, and I want his machine trashed, I just put up the latest pop band on Kazaa and spoof his ip address.
A few random thoughts: (Score:3, Informative)
Now THIS is gonna go over with the voters like a lead balloon: "Mr. SixPacque, you will have to buy all new TVs within the next four years whether your current TVs need replacement or not. And, while you're at it, you better plan on buying new VCRs too, because come Football Day (oops, New Years Day) 2007, NONE of your old ones will work again." Nothing like a nice "pocketbook issue" to get the voters' attention.
Another bill by Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) will also be debated, which bill allows record companies to attack peer-to-peer networks without liability for 'accidental' damages."
Errm
telling stats (Score:2)
Re:telling stats (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe its just that most of us recognize that until we own a Congresscritter or three, it doesn't matter what we think. As for writing my Congressmen, I have, several times, about this as well as about the Internet Radio issue. Each time I got back polite letters basically quoting from RI/MPAA press releases. As always, money talks.
UK comparrison (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom to hack bill (Score:2)
As far as I can tell Definition (2) `peer-to-peer file trading network' applies to virtually any internet aware program, even ordinary web browsers. Browsing the web is nothing more than "request[ing] the transmission of [HTML]files". Ordinary links "enable the designation of files or data on the connected computers as available for transmission".
-
We haven't heard the last from the NAB yet (Score:2)
Although broadcasters will gleefully accept all the new spectrum they can get their hands on I fully expect them to give up what they have now when the government pries it from their cold, dead fingers. As long as there are households out there to be reached via the current analog system the National Association of Broadcasters' lobbyists will be roaming the halls of Congress buying as many politicians as necessary to let them keep beaming commercials to those households.
And yes, this story should have been on the main page.
And yes, the government should be leasing spectrum, not selling it.
Implications (Score:1)
Re:Implications (Score:2)