Hollywood Tastes New Copyright Victory - Act NOW 131
Geekwannabe writes "The FCC is about to pass regulations requiring all television
manufacturers to include copy-protection in any television receiver or
recorder. The 'broadcast flag' regulation is intended to allow TV
networks and broadcasters to determine which of their shows you can
record (essentially giving control of your VCR, TV and Computer back to the
broadcasters.) In order for the new, copy-restrictions to succeed
the FCC will make it illegal to manufacture or sell non-copy-protected
devices in the U.S."
This is important to fight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is important to fight... (Score:1)
However,
Think how long it will take for some leet hax0r d00d make and/or market some sort of mod the make this regulation as irrelevant as the pron ban in australia
Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:2)
However, it does appear to be in its early stages. There's a difference between proposing and implementing, which is why agencies are forced to to issues a "notice of proposed rulemaking," have periods for public comment, hearings, etc. They've had their shares of idiotic proposals.
Don't panic
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:2)
Now I am suddenly 10x as sympathetic to "the cause." And so will a heck of a lot of other people who have taken it for granted for 20+ years that they could time-shift their programming. I don't like piracy, but this strikes at the heart of fair use.
(If the FBI is listening, I, um, wasn't soliciting a conspiracy to violate the DMCA or anything. It was a rhetorical question. Yeah, that's the ticket.... Hey, what's that helicopter circling overhead for? Hello? AHHHH! Send
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1, Insightful)
-seatbeltless
-motorcycle helmetless
-conscientious war objector
-NRA gun nut
-separation of church and state atheist
-tinfoil-hat-wearing-privacy-fanatic
-l
-Linux geek
-DMCA protestor
-Kazaa user
-pot smoker with hemp clothing
-spam fighter
-AdAware installer
-RIAA hater
-MPAA hater
-compulsive GPG/PGP encrypter
-blogger
-nudist
-other
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:2, Insightful)
ok, yeah, to be a dick:
it's not Fing piracy. there are no boats involved. "Piracy" is a PR term dreamed up by M$ to make something sound worse than it is.
Did you see the article in the register last week showing that microsoft could sell Office for $40.00 and still make a profit on it? how is this morally better than me giving my friends a copy of it when i've had to pay $400 for it?
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
Pricing: MS can price it however they want. Giving away copies is not fair use (why not sell them? MS won't know the difference. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
>[bartleby.com]. Get used to it.
yes - as people use words in new ways, they take on new meanings. If, however, we refuse to use them in these ways, we may be able to change the language in a positive way.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:2)
If I recall, it was the pirates themselves who came up with the term. I remember it from the late 70's. Made them feel sexy or something.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
>piracy will not redeem it.
I'm not suggesting we find a prettier term for software piracy, i'm suggesting we stop using an uglier term for "copyright infringement" - as using the uglier term does not make it any worse.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
If anything, the education curve has been to persuade people piracy is wrongful. Most people don't get it and copy whatever on the flimsiest of excuses, and would never admit to being either a copyright infringer (if they even knew what that meant) and a pirate.
And, as I said, I'm pretty sure the pirates named themselves.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
>themselves.
I don't actually have evidence either way, and i also remember people calling themselves pirates in the early 80s, so i'll let you have this point.
Now, can you give me an argument as to why infringement/copying is wrong?
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:1)
To claim that there is a "moral" dimension to "intellectual property" is just Cato Institute blather.
"Intellectual property" is a legal fiction for the benefit of society, by encouraging authorship. As such, it is an economic and legal issue, not a moral one.
Re:Where the hell did this one come from? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I damn well consider it a moral entitlement to be paid for my work. I work for you, you pay me. Ask the union movement if there was no moral dimension to their work. Sure, getting paid it's an economic matter, also, but economics is a proxy for people's welfare. Also, the artist expects to get paid when putting the item on the market. There's no right of the public to ignore the artist's wishes and impose their own idea of the way to market the artist's stuff. If the artists wanted to give away free samples, he or she would; if they don't that's their business. Don't patronizingly say your theft is good for them. That's unethical and offensive.
You say you're good about it and consider it sampling. I'm sure you delete everything you don't pay for after a while. Fine, you're rare. But that's not the consensus. Piracy is routine in some parts of the world because the law simply is unenforced, and real people besides the big bad studios lose money, and, surprise, prices for the honest buyers are higher. That is economics, but it's also offensive.
Reality check: all this copying of copyrighted stuff is pretty trivial in the scheme of things. But it's still wrong. See what % of artists you can get to agree they don't really know what they're doing, that you are smarter.
link to electronic comment filing system at FCC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:link to electronic comment filing system at FCC (Score:4, Funny)
Better link to comment filing system at FCC (Score:3, Informative)
From this page you can either type in a comment on the web page, or attach a document (PDF, DOC, TXT, and a few other formats).
You need to include the proceeding number, which is 02-231.
The link [fcc.gov] given in the comment I'm replying to is the FAQ for the comments page but I think most /.'ers don't need no steenkin' faq on filling out a web form.
Re:Better link to comment filing system at FCC (Score:1)
Everone who is annoyed with the idea that the regulatory agency in charge of protecting a public asset is instead helping corporations restrict your rights, write a comment!
Proceeding number is 02-230 (Score:2)
FCC 02-231 is the document that refers to docket number 02-230, neither of which is described as a "proceeding", but the number you enter into the "proceeding" field must be 02-230, as I found out after mistakenly commenting on 02-231.
Sheesh.
Better Link (Score:2)
DIRECT LINK for submission on 02-230 (Score:2)
Here's my comment:
Mandating a "broadcast flag" will only serve to impede a transition
to Digital Television because consumers simply refuse to buy
rights management crippled products. The Audio Home Recording
Act mandated that all Digital Audio Tape devices must enforce
rights management. Consumers simply didn't buy them. The
technology is virtually nonexistent today. Claims that companies
will withhold content are nothing but empty blackmail threats.
Analog signals are already subject to the same "danger" of unlimited
distribution of perfect copies after a simple digital conversion. The
broadcast flag is inherently flawed technologically, it can never
achieve the goal of preventing copyright infringement. It is not in
the public interest. It will inconvenience the public and interfere
with legitimate activity. It will interfere with innovation. The
broadcast flag also becomes entirely nonsensical when you consider
that television signals will be increasingly be received on computers
and processed in software.
The FCC is entrusted with managing the public airwaves in the
public interest. The recommendations of the Broadcast Protection
Discussion Group simply do not reflect the public interest.
-
Is the following a possible circumvention? (Score:1)
Pepsi Corp. owns the soft-drink distribution rights for my university's campus. No one is allowed to sell, say, a product from Coke. To get around this a small group of people sells straws, and then give a coke to anyone who buys a straw.
So what if a company would sell, say, a license to use a tivo, and then give purchasers a tivo?
Re:Is the following a possible circumvention? (Score:2)
Thanks for playing!
Re:Is the following a possible circumvention? (Score:2)
There are several ways to circumvent this. Most of them would eventually land you in court. You could claim that only Congress has the power to make laws and only the Executive branch may enforce them. You could make claims about fair use and the betamax case and time-shifting and undue burdons on the marketplace, &c, &c, &c.
BUT WE'RE GEEKS.
Go get a generic radio scanner from your local Radio Shack, Fry's, or other gadget store, and send the stream to your computer. Go to SourceForge and start a project that 'interprets arbitrary radio waveforms as though they were arbitrary DTV and HDTV signals'. Provide and establish primary uses such as 'Enabling consumers to view DTV and HTDV on devices that the Industry is unwilling to support.'
Perfectly legal, ethical, and cheap. See how well it worked for DeCSS?
Sure you'll go to jail, 100 or so people will have their lives ruined for it, but its worth it, right?
Right?
Anybody?
Hmmm... Sounds like some chilling effects [chillingeffects.org]
Frob.
Re:Is the following a possible circumvention? (Score:1)
how about your 'air space' rights? (Score:2, Interesting)
don't you own your house?, what about the broadcasted waves that go through your place?.
can't someone make it ilegal to broadcast copy-controlled content through his/her house?.
i don't live in the us, but if this gets passed, it probably will spread to third world countries
such as mine who are always passing laws in order
to get more money lent.
Re:how about your 'air space' rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well yes, but there are several problems with laws like this:
1. They suddenly make an assumed legal activity illegal. People have come to expect that they can time-shift broadcast TV with VCRs. In fact, their right to do this has been upheld in the Sony v. Betamax case. While this can change, it hardly serves what the public wants to do with the content it receives.
2. Because of history (see 1, above), there is something that seams fraudulent about suddenly depriving people of a capability they had. I doubt that this new "feature" will be widely advertised.
3. Criminal laws are enforced at public expense. If it is impractical to enforce the law (i.e. the technology can be easily circumvented), expect either increased taxation to fund the "war on time-shifting" or selective enforcement.
don't you own your house?, what about the broadcasted waves that go through your place?. can't someone make it ilegal to broadcast copy-controlled content through his/her house?.
Difficult. Yes, you own your home, subject to eminent domain, zoning laws, and HOA covenents. But, your elected representatives explicitly permit broadcast television. About the only thing you could fight are excessive radition levels (i.e. someone getting a broadcast license and putting up a tower right beside your home -- but that doesn't happen).
In the case of cable, since you permitted the installation in the first place, you'd have no case.
i don't live in the us, but if this gets passed, it probably will spread to third world countries such as mine who are always passing laws in order to get more money lent.
Dunno. The dynamics aren't the same as with, say, the drug trade. I'd expect that similar laws would get passed by pressure from local content owners for the same reasons as in the U.S., rather than because of pressure from the U.S. government.
I dont think there is much reason for concern yet (Score:1)
So, FCC is now goimg to be supporting the electronic industies in Korea, Japan and China?
Sounds like a great win to the VCR manufacturers OUTSIDE america (since from the article it says that it will be illegal to make vcrs without the devioce o' doom IN AMERICA). I mean, patriotism in America is pretty big, but will people buy handicapped devices just because they are made in usa? I doubt it. You'll buy the properly working vcr's from outside usa.
Will someone try to outlaw overseas electronics that are now commonly acceptible (vcrs, computers, players, tvs, etc?)? No. Because of a simple equation:
X > Y
Where X is the overseas companies money
and Y is the $ belonging to the folks pushing this proposal.
All politics/regulations are about money and votes. Arguments about technology and whats right and wrong are secondary to the question "will the lowest common denominator of voters like it?"
So yeah, while this might pass, it will only be good for overseas vcr manufactuers who will be happy about it
Folks in america, dont panic just yet
Be thankful you are not getting the all the government that you pay for
Re:I dont think there is much reason for concern y (Score:2)
Sounds like a great win to the VCR manufacturers OUTSIDE america (since from the article it says that it will be illegal to make vcrs without the devioce o' doom IN AMERICA). I mean, patriotism in America is pretty big, but will people buy handicapped devices just because they are made in usa? I doubt it. You'll buy the properly working vcr's from outside
I'd think that it would be illegal to import such VCRs because they would be circumvention devices. Thus, I can't see this chanelling American demand to foreigh suppliers, as you seam to imply. It would mean that there would be no demand for such crippled VCRs outside the U.S. So what? Most likely, the crippled VCRs would be foreign-made anyway. Just another variation on the basic product.
This is not the same as the issue of limiting export of American-developed hard cryptography: there, such limitiations were silly because foreigners are quite good at developing their own crypto, and would have no need for crippled American versions. That was an example of legislation which was ineffective in controlling access to crypto technology outside the U.S. The present case is an attempt to control access to technology within the U.S. - arguably easier to accomplish when it comes to hardware.
This is great (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to open an appliance store in Niagra Falls Ontario. I'll specialize in legal uncrippled TV's
I should be ready to retire in a few months.
Re:This is great (Score:1)
PS: who are you?
Re:This is great (Score:1)
key point (Score:4, Informative)
Re:key point (Score:2)
VCR's are obsolete. Blockbuster is going all DVD and nobody is going to keep them around.
Re:key point (Score:1)
Re:key point (Score:1)
Re:key point (Score:2)
Attack the root cause of this. (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of slashdotters attack libertarians, but the root cause of this kind of FCC mandated regulation of your lives is your trust in big government. Both liberals and conservatives want big governmetn and what that creates is huge departments that have no accountability to anyone, except congress, and even then they are not held in check.
The FCC has no right to prevent me from buying any product I want form anyone who wants to sell it to me-- whether it has copy protection or not.
Every time you vote democrat or republican or green, you are voting for these unanswerable, unchecked government powers.
You're just reaping what you've sown.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1)
>but the root cause of this kind of FCC mandated
>regulation of your lives is your trust in big
>government
s/trust in big government/rampant apathy/
people just don't care... Yet.
King George the First has managed to take away pretty much every right we assume the constitution gives us. Because we were to busy watching the Osbornes, we'll now have to fight to get them back. unfortunatly, this time, there's no underpopulated contenants left to move to to get away from this oppression.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you think it started with Bush2 you're not paying attention.
Clinton worked hard to criminalize encryption, self-defense, homosexuality, etc.
And before him, along with congress during these whole periods, the politicians worked to increase their power base and their control over people.
Any democracy without really stringent controls on the government is a tyranny.
It really started here in 1919 when the constitution was ammended to allow income tax- the federal government has been growing like crazy since then. And the feds are far less accountable than your local state or city government. The New Deal, the gun bans of 1930 and 1968, the war on drugs that started soon after 1919... all of that is the result of people putting big government fans into power.
We need to rollback the last 100 years of laws- almost everything needs to go, except women voting.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Big government, in fact, has very, very little to do with how tax is collected -- money is money, when it's spent. Every industrialized country uses some combination of income tax, sales tax, and so-forth.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
Bad Law gets made
Courts rule on Bad Law
If Bad Law survives court challenge, wait until Citizen-Consumers realize how big an inconvenience Bad Law is.
Citizen-Consumers vote the Bums out (to be replaced with new Bums).
Shampoo, rinse, repeat.
My little Toaster can make toast in 1 minute. Show me a Cuisinart that can do that, or...oh, never mind.
What's actually going on here (Score:1)
Dirty little secret: the airwaves are owned by the public. The FCC's supposed purpose is to grant licenses for the use of those airwaves (after all, somebody has to decide who gets to use what portions of the airwaves), on behalf of the public interest.
What has happened over the course of the past few decades is that the FCC has becoming increasingly cozy with the broadcasters it's supposed to be regulating. Meanwhile, Cato Institute-types sit on the sidelines touting the miracles of the free market.
What we end up with is an FCC that's more interested in the interests of giant media corporations than the interests of consumers.
So, please, go ahead and vote Libertarian -- there's plenty more where this came from.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
The FCC is an unconstitutional organization, which is not answerable to the people and not accountable. It makes laws, which is wrong; the Congress and Senate should be making the laws.
In general, I think that we should get rid of communications regulations in as much as possible. No one has the right to own the air, and the government attempting to regulate such just hinders the right to freedom of speech: because of commmunication regulations, though everyone has freedom of speech, only the rich can get their message to the public.
Such laws are unconstitutional violations of our rights anyways. It violates consumers rights to force them to buy inferior products. I should be able to buy the best product on the market -- which isn't one which is crippled. If anything, what should be illegal is not the copying of copyright material, but the mass distribution of it.
I disagree with even that to some extent. The purpose of intellectual property law -- patent and copyright, in this case -- is to promote progress: to act as an engine of free speech, fueling it, or fueling invention. That is, it is there to promote people to excercisee their rights to free speech, and to excercise their right to be inventive. This is a legitimate aim, even from a Libertarian perspective: giving people incentive to excercise their rights is a good thing; conversely, giving people incentive not to excercise their rights is a bad thing. But when it is of overly broad scope and unnecessarily long duration, it in fact does the opposite.
IP laws regarding copyrights and patents should provide protection for just enough duration to give authors and inventors the incentive to write/invent, and its scope should be as narrow as possible. Exceptions should also be made for life-saving cases. Your patent shoudn't mean the death of somebody because they can't afford the cost of your drug. For those who can prove inability to afford drugs, the government should allow 3rd parties to produce generic versions of it and sell it to these people at the cost of production. The original inventor loses nothing: those who couldn't afford to buy the drug wouldn't have bought it anyways, and would be dead. For copyrights, their scope should also likewise be limited. Some things, for example, should not be copyrightable. Religious texts, for example, like that of scientology. Religion is a public thing, and the public has the right to know the dictates of religions, so those in the public can weigh the cons/benefits of converting to that religion. The Scientologist's copyrights on their religious texts violate the public's right to freedom of religion, by denying the individuals adequate information to make an informed decision about religion. The scope of copyright should also be limited in other ways; namely, fair use needs to be greatly expanded.
This brings me to an idea I have. As computers programs are becoming smarter and smarter, it may be possible for them to read in paragraphs and reword them to be written differently, but still mean the same thing. This seems like something that we should all be working on, so that we can distribute the ideas of any book without worrying about the copyright. For example, if I took Lawrence Lessig's book, Code, and re-wrote each paragraph, switching words and sentences around, then distributed it, that would be perfectly legal. Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those ideas. Thus, we should be working on programs which can figure out ways to restate things in a preferably better manner, but still have them mean the same thing. That way, you could scan in Lessig's code, have it auto-reworded, and distribute it.
I can picture a tree-climbing/AI algorithm, where it passes over the same sentences and paragraphs, several times, re-writing them in various combinations to find the one which "maximizes the score". Of course, this would be very complicated and difficult to program, requiring both exceptional knowledge of linguistics and programming; but its a project that seems worthwhile to me.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1, Flamebait)
I always believed you were an idiot. This proves it. Thank you.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1)
The only idiot is you for thinking that you can't express the same idea in different words, or believing that it won't eventually be possible for computers to do this. Not to say they'll be as good at it as us, but they will suffice for the purposes I suggested.
As for being unable to express the same meaning in different words, that's obviously bunk. Whenever one reads over something one has written and recasts the words -- i.e., for greater clarity or brevity -- one is expressing the same meaning in different words. That's the wonderful thing about the English language -- it's flexible. That doesn't mean that any two sentences are equal: just that there are different ways to say the same thing. I.e., "The bird dove down to the ground. It was flying fast." ; "The bird, flying fast, dove to the groud." ; and "Flying fast, the bird dove to the ground." These all mean the same thing. I'd argue that the 3rd is the best, as it avoids unncessary words and maintains a readable flow; however, in certain situations, the 2nd or even 1st may be desireable. Thus, though different versions may be more desireable in different situations, they all mean the same thing.
As for computers being unable to recast sentences and paragraphs, expressing the same ideas but with different expressions, that is not possible now. However, nothing prevents it from being possible in the future. With the advancement of AI, bayesian algorithms, and genetic algorithms, it may well be something which can be achieved with work. Computer programs can already find most grammatical errors and fix them; that was a problem thought unsolvable not so long ago. Stranger things have been done (i.e., rhesus monkeys have be taught primitive sign-language, with a vocabulary maxing out at ~500 words).
But, I wouldn't expect anything other than is-ought fallacies from the likes of Twirlip: "Software programs can't do that today, so they'll never be able to do that."
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
Given that you obviously don't understand in even the most basic terms what kind of problem you're talking about, I suppose it's no surprise that you're bandying it about so carelessly.
Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday. Then again, so are faster-than-light spaceships, immortality, and time travel. None of these things is proven to be impossible. And yet none of them have even a theoretical basis in fact.
The ability to distinguish fact from fancy is an important aspect of maturity. I would recommend that you spend a little time improving this skill in yourself. Or, if you prefer, you can simply remain an idiot. Doesn't much matter to me.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
I never suggested that this is something that can be entirely realized tomorrow, five years from now, or even ten years from now. Yet, it is most certainly going to occur before "faster-than-light spaceships" (impossible, it requires infinite energy to travel at the speed of light), immortality (also impossible by a strict definition). Time travel is entirely possible in a one-way direction -- into the future, if one travels fast enough.
Furthermore, what I require does not necessarily demand "machine-comperhension". All that needs to be done is that something needs to be re-written enough to escape copyright protection. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. What constitutes enough of a revision to be a different expression of the same idea is an ambiguity. If a "different expression of the same idea" can simply mean altering word-choice in the same expression, then programs could be written to do that today with a little consideration:
i.e., "Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday." could be re-written as "Yes. Machine understanding -- for that is what you are articulating about, after all -- is something that may occur someday eventually." Same idea, different expression. The only question is would it stand up in court as a different expression of the same idea, thus not fall under copyright infringement.
The program only needs to be "smart" enough to sidestep copyright -- create a new expression of the same idea. Depending on what court's rule, that may be relatively dumb; i.e., like the AliceBot.
I'd suggest you stop focusing on irrelevant personal insults -- which only serve to hide the weaknesses of your arguments -- and start focusing on useful suggestions or contributions.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1)
That would just create a derivative work. Since your work is strictly based on the other persons work, it is a derivative work. If you take the persons idea, research it yourself and then write what you've discovered doing your own research, no problem.
Besides it would probably make your head hurt to read it. Ever used one of these web translators. Usually not very pretty.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1)
From Artslaw [artslaw.org] "The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works." It also grants them the right to prevent others from creating derivative works.
It does protect the expression and not the actual idea. What was proposed was to take an original work, substitute new words for all of the old words, in order to screw the original copyright holder out of their rights. The proposal has nothing to do with the idea, just the expression of the idea. That is the kind of thing that will put your laywers kids through college. It will also have the US Attorney show up to make things difficult. If you care about the idea, then do your own research and present your own take on the subject.
Unless you're writing a parody(amongst other things), you don't have a right to create a derivative work without the copyright holders permission. Even if you write a parody, you might get sued to death. Person wrote a parody of "Gone With the Wind", and the court decided that the work had infringed (Findlaw) [findlaw.com].
Don't get me wrong, I think most copyright law is overly broad, and the DMCA is just bloody evil. Even more annoying is the fact that most of the crap in the DMCA is there to comply with conditions in the WIPO treaty.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Twirlip, you really have to find a better hobby than trolling me around Slashdot.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why? It's fun. Besides, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:1)
Although I agree with you in principle, the Standards set forth by the FCC are what keeps a lot of things from being dangerous. Think how pissed you'd be if your PC speakers were unshielded and messed up you monitor, or some other radiation leak from say a microwave. What about air wars between radio stations where one purposely jams another just for market share. I don't like it any more than you do, but big business isn't going to play nice whether there's a big government or not. The only thing big they concern themselves with is their wallets. Let's face it. There are no big consumers. If I can think of anything more, I'll add another reply.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
I call shenanigans on you. Libertarians *don't* trust government because it is bought and paid for by huge corporations. Libertarians want a government by and for the people, you may remember that phrase from somewhere.
Re:Attack the root cause of this. (Score:2)
Not quite right. Libertarians distrust governments because governments rely on threat of force for their legitimacy. It doesn't matter whether the government is run by large corporations, Marxists or anything in between. Any government that can jail you or confiscate your property for not paying its taxes is morally wrong.
Secondly, libertarians want a government that basically leaves them alone. Democracy without very strong limits is not suitable for libertarianism, since there's nothing to stop a mob voting in freedom-restricting laws. That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution, specifically in order to limit the powers of the elected government. A pure democracy only lasts until 51% of the population realize they can vote to enslave the other 49%.
Another example of bad legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another example of bad legislation (Score:2)
Great... (Score:1)
This has a big impact on curent HDTV sets (Score:4, Interesting)
The RGB outputs of the set-top box are then hooked up to the HDTV set which is basically a monitor.
The problem is that since the RGB ouputs can be copied they will use the broadcast flag to determine when you can really get a 1080i signal from your set-top box. Anything with the broadcast flag set will come out in 480i.
That will make the current round of HDTV sets junk since most good programming will only show up as 480i. To bad for all of the early adopters.
They can have my non-copy-protected VCR... (Score:1)
Looks like somebody's Fighting it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Looks like somebody's Fighting it (Score:2)
So the proposal to the FCC is my enemy, and Microsoft is its enemy...
Microsoft is my Enemy...
Microsoft is the enemy of my enemy, so...
Microsoft must... be... my... my... fr[KA-BOOM] (head exploding)
(It's funny, laugh.)
The FCC wont let me be!!! (Score:2, Funny)
1. They got tired of listening to us
2. They pissed off one too many
3. The FCC upset the army of undead minions fueled by all that is dark and unholy, known only as...the script-kiddies...
Re:The FCC wont let me be!!! (Score:1)
There they go again (Score:1)
It's like they want to lock up everyone, at least fun-loving, happy-go-lucky geeks. Seriously....
Re:There they go again (Score:1)
By George, I think he's got it...
My Comment (Score:1)
Remember to use your carriage return if typing over 70 characters. The address is http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cg
--
Please do not pass this action which will not help address the issue of piracy. Copyright
infringers will ignore this prohibition. They will use pirated set-top boxes and leak copies onto
file-trading networks. This action will only destroy rights that Americans have come to expect
to enjoy.
Please do not bend to the pressure of big business.
Let the FCC take up the mantle of serving the public if Congress drops it.
47 USC S. 336b5 grants the FCC the authority to prescribe regulations relating to advanced
television services "as may be necessary for the protection of the public interest, convenience,
and necessity." This action is not necessary for any interest of the public, although the MPAA
might think it necessary for their interests. Nor does it advance our convience.
If this action is followed through, the FCC will become a tool of the media businesses instead of
an agent of the public. Please stand up for our rights.
-A Concerned and Worried Freedom-Loving American
FRONT PAGE MATERIAL???? (Score:2)
Is this not front page material???
I would think so.
Re:FRONT PAGE MATERIAL???? (Score:1)
Every six months or so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every six months or so I turn on a TV (or get stuck someplace where one is on & too loud to ignore. Given what I've seen the past few years, I'd be in favour of some sort of flag bit that not only prevented recording the programs, but also prevented broadcasting them in the first place.
-- MarkusQ
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, hopefully, someone raise their voice and make the point that it is hollywood and special interests hurting the consumer electronics and computer industry, rather than the "end-user". Say goodbye to Jack Valenti's influence in Silicon Valley.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:1)
Not only do I wish they would pass it, I seriously wish that MS had perfect copy protection. These two issues are one and the same. It'll be like Circuit City's pathetic divx format. When the manufactures of these crippled products see pathetic sales and are on the verge of bankruptcy maybe then the industry will realize that getting what they want will destroy them.
So where is the alternative? (Score:1)
Studios have to make money to employ people to make shows. If something like this isn't implemented then where will these people get their money from?
Picture a few years down the line, lots of people own tv cards. One person records all of the broadcast output and dumps it onto the p2p system of the day. Everyone downloads it for free, nobody watches the adverts (they've been stripped), nobody pays the subscription fee (download for free instead). So what happens to the studio that produces output that nobody pays for? They go bust.
So instead of attempting to cripple every pc and tv in the world which won't work (If I can see it then I sure I can find a way to record it) what is the alternative? What kind of system will work?
At the end of the day, somebody has to foot the bill...
Re:So where is the alternative? (Score:2)
Re:So where is the alternative? (Score:1)
Most people want to sit down and chill come TV time. (Even TiVo owners often don't bother skipping the commercials.) They don't want to hassle with P2P transfers, especially since doing real-time downloads of full-quality HDTV is well beyond any internet link I know of, and such speed is rarely necessary for anything but full-time HDTV, so no one would be willing to pay the extra. So people will still watch TV, buy DVDs, etc.
Re:So where is the alternative? (Score:1)
Re:So where is the alternative? (Score:1)
Lets assume that there is a TV show that everyone likes, so they do what you say, record/strip ads/redistribute. Then mid season the studio goes bankrupt and nobody gets to see what the fuck happens in the next episode. How long do you think people would enjoy a system like that?
Let's look at another possible outcome. People love a show. They miss an episode. They continue watching anyway. Some stuff doesn't make sense. (Think Sopranos or something.) They miss another episode. Oh well fuckit already I haven't a god damn clue what's going on.
Wouldn't everyone benefit in the second scenario if you could d/l the episodes you missed? If you haven't guessed by now, I watched Sopranos for a bit and said fuckit because I missed too many episodes. And you know what? I'll never bother watching it. In this case we're talking a pay serivce, HBO, but guess what, same outcome. I wouldn't bother subscribing to HBO because since I keep missing shit, it makes it not even worth the bother to subscribe == lost customer.
What this really is about (Score:2, Insightful)
So what does that mean for you. If you were planning on "sharing" hi-def movies over the web, you are probably out of luck (of course the multi-day downloads for a hi-def movie might also discourage you). Otherwise, this won't affect you much. When you buy your new hi-def TV, it will show you great looking hi-def video from your antenna or cable. You can still play your old video tapes and DVDs. Your new hi-def DVD player will look great.
So where is the problem? In most cases, you will be able to tape shows onto your existing VCR and TIVO as well as your nifty new hi-def VCR or TIVO. But there are several "flags" in the HDCP protocol that allow the broadcasters to either limit taping to low-def resolution or to prohibit it all together. The intent is to prevent you from making copies of hi-def DVDs or pay-per-view movies. The networks are unlikely to decide to prevent you from time-shifting, they understand it's value, but there is nothing stopping them. There has also been talk of a flag which would disable the fast-forward function (aka commercial skipper) on hi-def recorders/players. Then there are those of us who have spent thousands of dollars as early adopters and helped work the kinks out of the DTV system. If HDCP gets implemented, all existing DTV equipment becomes useless.
This is not unprecedented (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no harm in this regulation as long as it does not intrude on my fair use rights. The ability to record TV shows for free and keep the copies indefinitely is not included under "fair use". You're not even paying for it, so you have no rights to it except what the broadcasters permit you.
This is vastly different from the CBDTPA, because the latter is a cumbersome and futile scheme that would inhibit hundreds of perfectly legal things that you can do with a personal computer. The former is more akin to the regulation passed by the FCC several years ago requiring VCRs to be made so that they can not dub copy-protected video tapes.
You're right about Australia (Score:1)
In many countries (such as Australia), it's just as illegal to tape broadcast TV as it is to set up a camera in a movie theater.
Here's proof [copyright.org.au].
Re:This is not unprecedented (Score:1)
I didn't force 'em to beam energy at me. Once they do that, it's mine to do with as I wish.
Cable shows, on the other hand...
Substantial non-infringing use (Score:2)
Ye olde news (Score:2)
After the first use of the Gutenberg printing press, the engravers and church are in uproar.
The engravers guild said 'If people could buy books for 2 farthings the engravers would be but out of business.'
A spokesman for the chruch said 'This is against Gods Will and only degrades the sanctaty of the written word and circumvent the correct and proper process of distribution that ensures only books go to the rightful gentry who can read them.'
The church later release imposed a law in which they asked the govenment to ensure all books are produced with a hook and chain allowing printed books to be chained up and so restrict access to only those who are just or just rich. Chained library [herefordcathedral.co.uk]
Why should this be a surprise? (Score:2)
A man was shot during an investigation of the theft of a cop's gun. He was taken to hospital and later interrogated forcefully, at which time he confessed.
At issue is whether his confession is admissable on grounds it was coerced and it was obtained without the suspect ever having been Mirandized! If we lose Miranda, and we're already losing our privacy, why should a trivial thing like the loss of time-shifting be a shock?
GTRacer
- I still don't get what they're so pissed about. They had a chance to build the infrastructure THEIR way, and they stood by and let Napster and KaZaA do it instead...
Warning: Some FCC comments attached to WRONG rule! (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, the problem comes if someone uses the link in the article to locate the existing comments, and then submits their own comment by following links from there. I emailed the ZDnet author, so perhaps he can still correct the link.
There also appears to be some "spamming" of the correct proposed rule -- a huge number of identical comments. I'm sure that the FCC will treat all these identically-worded comments the same way your congressperson does: they count as ONE comment unless there are tens of thousands of them, in which case they count as a half dozen. Write your own reply comment in your own words!
Re:Warning: Some FCC comments attached to WRONG ru (Score:1)
Nightman
who cares (Score:2)
Pardon my French, but fuck TV. (Score:2)
www.nyfairuse.org has more info (Score:1)
Comments need to be in to the FCC by 2002/12/05 at the lattest.
Blatant disregard of Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
So...if the FCC is a branch of the Executive, charged with executing the laws, it isn't allowed to make laws -- regulations that incur penalties if broken -- especially laws that Congress itself is not permitted to make.
Maybe we should require anyone who wants to serve in government to pass a test on the comprehension and use of the Constitution. We'd have a smaller government in no time =8^D
Re: Blatant disregard of Constitution (Score:1)
The regulation will require a government-approved content control device, but will not require it to be used. In that sense, it is not abridging the broadcasters freedom of speech but giving them more control over it. The question really is are they abridging the general public's right to fair use of that free speech (if it is controlled, it's not really free, is it?)?
You are right that the executive can not make laws - what they do is make rules and regulations in order to implement (execute) the laws. Don't get me wrong, I think this is one of the more idiotic ideas to get through the FCC (though they've had their fair share). Unfortunately, the process is working the way it was designed to, except the entertainment industry is driving the train, not our elected and appointed officials.
Easy fix for me (Score:2)
Same old thing (Score:1)
Hollywood will get a taste, real soon (Score:1)
Hollywood's perceived ability to survive in this digital arena has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, what you hear in the news are not the sounds of a monster chewing on its next digital victim, but the last cries of a dinosaur as it crashes to the arena floor.
It follows: The group that screams the loudest in opposition, is usually the group responsible for stalling inevitable innovation and is frequently first to be exiled from the arena. You can't reverse technology to appease certain organizations; it's an inevitable step in our digital evolution.
Lets put things in a little perspective. My adversary is a woman that couldn't write ten lines of code if her life depended on it. Fortunately, for all of us, she's in charge of bringing the recoding industry into this new digital age. In fact, the world's largest entertainment companies have entrusted her with their future and livelihood.
The way I see it, we just need to arm the revolution with knowledge and equipment. Luckily for everyone I can provide some help in both the equipment and network department.
But they don't line up. Ahh, but they do, if you think like a Vegan
Matrex Station [matrexstation.com]
I'll be glad to answer any questions:
My Submission to the FCC (Score:1)
FCC should reject the proposal as unacceptable as a whole for
the following reasons:
1) The rulemaking is based on faulty premises.
2) The rulemaking does not solve the problem it is intended
to address.
3) The rulemaking unfairly infringes upon the fair use rights
of consumers under copyright law.
4) The rulemaking unfairly represents the views of a minority of
stakeholders.
5) The rulemaking unfairly externalizes the costs of protecting
intellectual property.
Originators of intellectual property have a valid interest in
exercising their rights to protect the fruits of their labor and
it is in the interest of everyone to find a compromise that
balances the rights of content producers and consumers. However,
the proposed rulemaking satisfies neither the legitimate need of
intellectual property holders to protect their content nor does
it protect the rights of the consumer to engage in fair use of
that content. The proposal is flawed and should be rejected for
the following reasons:
1) The rulemaking is based on faulty premises.
The premises under which the rulemaking was authored are
faulty and results in a subsequently flawed rulemaking. The
faulty premises advanced to support this rulemaking and the
arguments refuting these premises are as follows:
a) Premise: Content released in digital media are more
Susceptible to piracy than content released in analog
media because digital copies can be made with no loss of
quality.
Content released in digital media are no more susceptible
to piracy than content released in analog media. Any
analog content can be transferred to a digital media and
thereafter retransmitted with no loss of quality. The
rate of technological advance assures that any imperfections
in the transfer process from an analog master to a digital copy
will continue to fade. Thus, any attempt to discriminate between
analog and digital transmission or media when considering the
implications of piracy is nothing more than an attempt to secure
a government sanctioned monopoly for digital technologies that
is non-existent for analog technologies.
Further, the issue of quality as a motivator to encourage
piracy of content is seriously called into question by
the actual behavior of consumers in the music market. The
most popular format for exchanging digital copies of music
files, legitimately or not, is the MP3 format. This format
is a "lossy" format meaning that information about the music
is dropped selectively to reduce the size of the resulting
file. Any copy of piece of content that is stored in MP3
format is by definition inferior to the original copy, often
times noticeably so. Despite the fact that these copies are
inferior to the original, music industry representatives
continue to claim that these imperfect copies are having
a significant impact on the sales of content. Quality, then,
does not appear to be a significant factor in piracy of music
and there is no reason to assume that consumer behavior will
change with respect to video media.
b) Premise: Content providers will not provide content in the
absence of this rulemaking or regulation or legislation that
is substantially similar.
This assertion is false on its face. The technology required
to make illegal copies of content already exists and is easy
to acquire, both in digital and analog form. Despite the fact
that piracy of content is trivial, content providers have
not changed either the channels of distribution or the frequency
of distribution of their content. As examples:
Content providers continue to provide broadcast programming
despite the fact that piracy of that content is entirely
possible. Content providers will argue that the content being
broadcast is analog and of lower quality and is therefore
undesirable for piracy. As demonstrated above ( See: 1a ),
neither of these conditions is an inhibitor to piracy. New
programming continues to appear on broadcast television
despite the lack of any effective controls on the content.
The encryption system for Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs) has
proven trivial to circumvent and the tools for consumers to
make copies of the digital content contained therein are
easily available. Thus, any content distributed on DVD
media is an easy and obvious target for piracy. Again, even
in the absence of any effective protection for their content,
DVDs continue to be offered for sale.
Intellectual property owners' arguments that they will be
unwilling to provide content in the absence of this regulation
is inconsistent with their own behavior.
2) The rulemaking does not solve the problem it is intended
to address.
In the age of the Internet it is unrealistic to believe that this
regulation will negatively impact the rate of piracy of intellectual
property. The United States is not isolated from the rest of the
world and a single illegal copy of a piece of content that is
subsequently posted to the Internet effectively knocks down the
house of cards that this regulation is constructing. Pirates will
continue to operate with the same ease as before this regulation but
law abiding citizens, now presumed guilty until proven innocent, will
be forced to pay to support this farce.
3) The rulemaking unfairly infringes upon the fair use rights
of consumers under copyright law.
The purpose of intellectual property law is to balance the
rights of the intellectual property creator and the benefit
to the public. This rulemaking undermines legitimate non-infringing
uses of copyright protected content, such as time shifting, while
granting new and substantial power to intellectual property holders
without an offsetting benefit to the public.
4) The rulemaking unfairly represents the views of a minority of
stakeholders.
In the recommendations of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Subgroup
implemented in this proposed rulemaking one significant stakeholder
is conspicuously absent: the consumer. Ultimately it is the
consumer who will have to pay for and live with this rulemaking.
5) The rulemaking unfairly externalizes the costs of protecting
intellectual property.
Under the laws of the United States intellectual property holders
are already provided remedies to discourage and
prosecute those who abuse the holders' property rights. In this
rulemaking IP holders are asking for additional protections above
and beyond those provided for by law and are asking that the costs
of that additional protection are carried by the entire populace
of consumer electronics purchasers. The costs of this additional
protection should instead be carried by those that derive the
benefit of the protection, namely the IP holders and the consumers
of their content.
Macrovision (Score:1)
fire up your favorite video recording software
"This video source contains gain control copy protection. Recording halted."