Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Media Television United States Your Rights Online

Broadcast Flag Technologies Open For Comment 32

Posted by timothy from the pith-appreciated dept.
An anonymous reader submits "The Broadcast Flag Rule, discussed here(1) and here(2) controls redistribution of digital television by requring receivers to restrict the output of content to certain outputs. One of the most influential concerns as to how bad this will be is what digital output and recording technologies are approved for use. Today, a Public Notice has been issued listing the technologies submitted for approval. This is the public's chance to comment on these submissions. The information provided to the FCC can be found using the Electronic Comment Filing System and searching based on the docket number from the Public Notice. Comments can also be submitted using ECFS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadcast Flag Technologies Open For Comment More

Broadcast Flag Technologies Open For Comment

Comments Filter:

  • Mirror (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mizery De Aria ( 554294 ) on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @02:19PM (#8590908)
    Obligatory /. mirror [sytes.org]

  • An observation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by (trb001) ( 224998 ) on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @02:40PM (#8591140) Homepage
    Why do they think this will work? Has digital DRM worked yet? All it takes is one person to design a digital filter, post the instructions on the internet, and they've just lost the ability to control content. This is gonna make cable descrambling look like a side project.

    --trb

  • ...You should pay for it, be it software, music, movies, still pictures, or books.

    Only the owner can run a printing press and sell their own copyrighted material. When the owner gives up that right, or the copyright expires, then anyone may duplicate the materials.

    Pretty simple, right?

    Users easily fall into the trap of "It's so easy to do it for *free*, why should I pay some publishing or record company a duplicating fee?" The answer is that you still owe the author or artist due compensation.

    The recor

    • Users easily fall into the trap of "It's so easy to do it for *free*, why should I pay some publishing or record company a duplicating fee?" The answer is that you still owe the author or artist due compensation.

      Which is why there is a considerably better solution: change the laws so that no compensation is due. Creators don't have a right to copyrights.

      • Creators don't have a right to copyrights.
        OK, IANAL., but you will be. And you raise an interesting point to me. If I have an idea, I might go through the effort to make money from it by selling a movie, book, sheet music, or similar item on distributable media. Someone else buys one of that item and then duplicates it and goes into the distribution business, as my new competition. What would my legal recourse be under your proposed law?

        Plus, where is the business proposition now? Who is going to make an

        • Don't misunderstand me. I do support copyrights. But that doesn't mean that I have to be a total zealot regarding artists' rights. I don't propose that we abolish copyright altogether.

          The point I'm trying to make is that copyright isn't something that artists are automatically entitled to; not in whether it exists at all, or what qualifies for it, or what prerequisites have to be satisfied to get it. Given that it is intended to promote the public good -- which includes more than just rewarding artists and

  • Not to be cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HunterD ( 13063 ) <legolas@NOSpaM.evilsoft.org> on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @03:08PM (#8591448) Homepage
    Not to be cynical, because I respect people participating in our democracy, but what's the point? Michael Powell blatently ignores the public commentary EVERY time, and sides with big business 100% of the time over the comsumer. The man has yet to make even one pro consumer decision since taking the reigns of the FCC.

    Realistically, we are not going to make a difference on this no matter how many of us post, because the FCC doesn't give one whit about consumers currently. If you really want this to have even a remote chance of working out for the best, take action by voting Kerry.

    Devon Jones
    • Hey, Powell got all righteous and indignant when Janet flashed her nipple. He was going to fine CBS and revoke their license. That's not exactly pro-business, is it?

      Of course, when they kill [yahoo.com] someone on TV that's just fine. No outrage, no fines. Death good, nipple bad. Just so we know our priorities are straight.
      • I couldn't agree more. The concept of a nipple on TV being the end of decency is a farce.

        One of (I think it was MSNBC's anchors) referred to it as the biggest scandle he could /think/ of. *pshaw* this is nothign compared to gettign US servicement killed in another country based on a mound of lies and damn lies.
    • We have no reason to believe that Kerry will support individual consumers over big business any more than the Bush administration has.

      If you really want meaningful consumer protection, vote for Nader. :p

      • That's a complete load of horse pucky. I jsut don't get he naderites. By every measure I can think of our country is worse off after 4 years of Bush. Sure, Kerry may represent special interests, but the democrat special interstes are FAR less repugnant then the republican ones. Hmm Bush's: Big Oil. Kerry's: The national teacher's union.

        Besides, your comment is TOTALLY wrong. need I remind you that Powell and teh two republicans running the fcc voted to raise the ownership caps. The dems in the FCC v
    • I agree. I spent quite a bit of time posting my comments the last time this came up. Obviously, all of our comments were completely ignored, or there is no way it would have passed.

      Malachi

  • Enter the cynic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@nOspAm.wylfing.net> on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @03:14PM (#8591498) Homepage Journal
    I recall when the Senate Judiciary Committee was first talking about the flag, they had the same sham public comment forum. The thousands of comments on that forum were one hundred percent opposed to the flag. Oh look, they passed the law anyway.

    There is precisely zero chance that a comment this time is going to be any different. You cannot affect this process by posting to a forum.

    • Re:Enter the cynic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Great_Jehovah ( 3984 ) * on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @04:09PM (#8592049)
      It may not have an immediate effect, but I believe these comment forums do go into official records and can be used later by someone fighting to change the laws for the better.

      It can't hurt to write a comment.
      • It may not have an immediate effect, but I believe these comment forums do go into official records and can be used later by someone fighting to change the laws for the better.

        It can't hurt to write a comment.

        It can, after Congress gives police powers to MPAA enforcers, and they look through these records looking for likely "pirates" whose homes should be raided.
        • All the more reason to comment. There are infinitely more of 'us' than there are of 'them.' The simplest way to beat the system is to get as many people involved as possible: it takes a lot more manpower to raid the houses of a hundred thousand than of ten. If there's enough public dissent, whether or not we're written off, we can prevent them from going after others by showing number solidarity-- and when people look back, the history books won't say "...and nobody tried to help."

          More seriously as to all
    • "The thousands of comments on that forum were one hundred percent opposed to the flag. Oh look, they passed the law anyway."

      Well, just playing Devil's advocate here, it was a request for comments as opposed to a vote. If the reasoning put forth had a strong rebuttal from the industry, then yeah I can see the people being fairly (I said devils advocate here, put your pitchfork down) blown off.

      "There is precisely zero chance that a comment this time is going to be any different. You cannot affect this pr

  • And that's for TV, right? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NickFusion ( 456530 ) on Wednesday March 17, 2004 @03:27PM (#8591641) Homepage
    So, there's some technology that's going to make it more difficult and less rewarding to watch TV?

    Yeah, I'll take some of that.

    I was having a conversation with someone about this today.

    Does anybody watch TV anymore? Aren't there more interesting things going on? Do people talk about TV shows at work, or is it games these days?

    Is a Tivo full of "Dharma and Greg" really the key to eternal bliss?

    Anyway, if someone wants a mutiny on a sinking ship, I say let him wear the captain's hat.

    • Re:And that's for TV, right? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ironically recent studeies show (not supprisingly) that TV viewing (especially for "news" programming) is on the rise. The funny part is that people actually trust the "news" that they are getting even less according to one poll (see here [npr.org]).

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close