Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV

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"

[Unknown Poltroon]

Umm, dosent this broadly mean ANY computer connected to the internet?

Re:"peer to peer"

[mjpaci]

It probably means P2P like Kazaa and the likes. It's kind of like 'Kleenex' and 'Xerox.'

Re:"peer to peer"

[Unknown Poltroon]

Of course. But what a law says, and what a law means, and what a lwas winds up doing are three entirely different things

Re:"peer to peer"

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on how you interpret the bill [loc.gov]'s definition:

`(2) `peer-to-peer file trading network' means two or more computers which are connected by computer software that--

`(A) is primarily designed to-- `(i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers;

`(ii) enable the connected computers to request the transmission of files or data from other connected computers; and

`(iii) enable the designation of files or data on the connected computers as available for transmission; and

`(B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States;

(A) seems to cover just about everything, but (B) could probably be taken to exclude anything connected through a router (i.e., EVERYTHING ON THE ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET ).

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"

[Steve Franklin]

Do you get the feeling these guys just don't want anybody doing anything they can't spy on?

the google link to NYT

[newfoundry]

no registration required via google... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/25/technology/25DIG I.html?ex=1033617600&en=479c48c630cb24a1&ei=5062&p artner=GOOGLE

oops...

[newfoundry]

that didn't come out right... should have been a link [nytimes.com]

Maybe this is actually good news...

[dpilot]

We always seem to see the hacker vs Joe 6pak mentality battle on /., and how so many of these information issues are hacker issues, and how Joe 6pak won't notice them.

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...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

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

[sdjunky]

We can whine and complain all day but I think the best way to defeat this is to get a list of names of those who support this and make it KNOWN to their constituents

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.

[gnovos]

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.

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:

[ninewands]

The New York Times (registration required) is reporting that hearings will beThe 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.

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 ... will somebody explain to Senator Berman from the Disney Party in the People's Republic of California that there's no such thing as 'accidental damages' when someone is attacked. The damage done is intentional! I find it interesting that Congress has within the last year passed a law that treats attacking a computer system as an act of terrorism, including the possibility of life imprisonment as a sentence for a convicted offender. Then the Congress Critters turn right around and wants to give the RIAA permission to commit this act of terrorism without fear of prosecution and with a shield against being sued for the harm they might cause! Seems to violate a little constitutional principle called "Equal Protection under the Law."

telling stats

[rodentia]

As of 4pm CDT there are eleven comments on this article. The FSF naming hoo-ha posted two hours earlier in the day has broached 100 times as many comments. That is 2 orders of magnitude more interest in the semantics of alternative OS naming than in the erosion of fair-use and the digital land-grab. Lessig is an *optimist*.

Re:telling stats

[rocur]

Because the story isn't on the front page?

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

[krazor84]

In the UK the BBC are to stop all nondigital TV signals by 2006 and it has hardly caused a stir. The diffrence? VCR's work with BBC digital signals and there is noone trying to stop people from recording what they like. The effect in the UK has been that digital TV has not only become popular but semistandard as people embrace the new technology. However the effect in America from what I can see is that this will alienate people from new technology. These laws need to be stopped so that Joe 6pack can enjoy technology like the geeks do and realise that it really is better in digital.

Freedom to hack bill

[Alsee]

Here's a link to the full text (PDF) [house.gov] of the bill to legalize hack attacks by the copyright industry.

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

[unitron]

"...and the government plans to auction off billions of dollars of analog TV spectrum for other uses as soon as broadcasters make the switch to digital signals."

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

[rossy]

The implications to the semiconductor industry are significant. To provide new television receivers to all of america from 2003-2006 so that we can all continue to watch "leave it to beaver", will create lots of jobs. Even set top "receiver converter" boxes will need to be manufactured. If it passes, buy stock in capacitor companies. Also, digitally limiting copying will impact the "infotainment" industry boxes such as TIVO, which allow digital recording. These industries would have to get on-line with the credit card companies so that we can all be conviently drained of funds to watch our daily fix of television. Does anyone remember when CABLE-TV meant channels that had NO commercials? (This is 8-track vintage thinking). -- Ross

Re:Implications

[Technician]

Ever notice that downtown shops are suffering more than the malls? To keep shoppers out of downtown, just have high priced parking and transportation. Nothing kills shopping like worrying about the meter. Doing the same thing to TV by adding on all sorts of rules and regulations (added to the cost of your set) may keep many people from making the change at all. I have no plans at this time to go digital. It's too expensive. I've already dropped cable for the same reason. (cable has since doubled in price for basic and buried in Time Life/ Sports Illistrated adverts) It looks like I will just go offline with DVD's, VHS, and analog. Over the air is a wasteland now. I used to watch the movies, but the selection is poor and overstuffed with advertising. I spend my extra time onling now instead of veging surfing TV channels.