TiVo Has to Fund Your Local Stadium 437
Strudelkugel writes "The Washington Post has a truly Kafka-esque article regarding TiVo, the broadcast flag, the NFL and limited file sharing. "TiVo, the company that makes the digital-video-recorder boxes that inspire such strange idolatry among their users, is in a weird spot. It's asking the Federal Communications Commission for permission to add a new feature -- the option for a TiVo user to send recorded digital TV programs via the Internet to nine other people." Just wait until your read the rest of the story..." This one is actually really worth a read to see just how bizarrely corrupt this all is. Enjoy.
Is this any less Kafkaesque... (Score:5, Insightful)
how about taxpayers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally like college football and basket
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't go to college to major in football, typically.
You pretty much answered your own question. The purpose of college sports is not, with most schools and for most students, to prepare atheletes for a career in atheletics. That's not where their priorties lie.
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm... don't get out much do you?
A large percentage of the guys playing division one football went to college for precisely that major... the "phys ed" degree is a often a figleaf at best
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't go to college to major in football, typically.
You are saying:
Football players do go to college to major in football, typically.
A much different statement.
The American college sportssystem is system (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Sydney, Australia, Rugby League players don't go off to uni to further their career, they simply go of & get a job at a footy club playing the greatest game on earth. Then later they retire & buy a pub or sports store or become a commentator.
It seems to me in the US a college education has become a prestigue/class thing that everyone's expected to have if they don't want to be consided a red neck illiterate, never mind the fact it's not desirable for everyone to desire a college education.
AFAIC sports people are much better off pursueing their sporting career by playing their sport when they're young 'n strong. They can always go to uni mature-age in their 30's after they've retired from injuries.
Re:The American college sportssystem is system (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Professional sports leagues shouldn't use our university system as their minor leagues. They should establish universities that grant degrees in football, basketball, whatever. Sort of like a trade school. You would attend, and work on your degree in football. Get your B.S.football or B.S.basketball, and enter the league. No taking up space at a university praying to be drafted before you graduate.
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:how about taxpayers.... (Score:3, Interesting)
j
Account (Score:4, Informative)
a/c: slashdot42@slashdot.org
password: slashdot
Enjoy.
Re:Account (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Account (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Account (Score:2)
Re:Account (Score:2)
Re:Account (Score:4, Insightful)
What Bug Me Not is good for is the sites you go to once, and don't want to be bothered with setting up the account just for one story or download. In those cases it is faster, especially if you have the browser extension.
Broadcast flag out of control (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire SYSTEM is out of control. The article covers everything from the abuse of the broadcast flag to benefit rich folks at the top of effectively monopolized industries to the fleecing of taxpayers to fund "public" stadiums that they have to then pay exhorbitant prices to get into, and pay exhorbitant prices to eat in. Just think, you could be funding your local superstar's overblown salary so that he can snag 14 million dollars a year to support his coke habit. You ARE funding the FCC to tell you what you can and (more often than not) can't do with the video signal broadcast from that stadium your tax dollars built. If you live in California, you're paying tax dollars to enforce "protection" measures in movie theaters by funding police that now have to respond to copyright violations.
People amaze me. They just do. It just never crosses that thick bone barrier in the majority of this country's moronic populace that every which way they turn, whether it be shopping at Wal-Mart, buying movie tickets, buying CDs, or buying sporting even tickets, that they're actually paying people to make them poorer. The sheer ignorance that the regular public has proven itself capable of is overshadowed only by the fact that the situation just keeps getting worse. Not only are they not smart enough to stop it, they're too dumb to see that they're being fed their nieghbor's body parts in the trough.
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:3, Funny)
Paying people without getting poorer would be a real trick.
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:4, Funny)
I think you're on to something there. What we need is GPL'd money. You'd be able to make as many copies as you want, and fix the design to your satisfaction (I never liked the new asymmetrical style; also, they mis-spelled Adam Weishaupt's name on the $1 bill - I've been waiting forever for them to fix that) as long as you include the licensing terms on each piece. This requirement might be kind of tough for coins, but I think today's microengraving technology is up to the task.
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:3, Funny)
A pretty well-known trick then - e.g. every company is paying its employees to do something. You tell me, the companies that make a profit - are they getting poorer or richer?
Or me paying a stock broker to manage a portfolio - and (s)he does what I expect.. I'm getting richer, right?
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Broadcast flag out of control (Score:2)
Quite the contrary - when the only boxes you can buy are hobbled with the broadcast flag and other DRM, it'll probably become a lot more valuable!
Analog outputs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Analog outputs (Score:4, Insightful)
But nooo, you wouldn't listen to me, "oh it's just a little bunny rabbit" you said...
Re:Analog outputs (Score:5, Insightful)
However, voting libertarian for a Senate or House seat, or even more local government building up the third party from the ground up is the only way to go in the United States political system.
So if you want to vote libertarian, do so to fill seats in the house/senate not the presidential race. That'll never fix anything but let Bush back in office because the people more likely to vote libertarian would vote against Bush (not necessarily FOR his opponent either, but just to get him out of office)
Re:Analog outputs (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a dangerous misconception.
A vote for a losing party is not wasted as long as there isn't a single
dominant party. As long as there are two dominant parties, then there is
competition for votes. If a non-dominant third party gets some small percentage
of the votes, then there is pressure on both of the dominant parties to make
changes in order to appeal to those voters so as to better compete against
the other dominant party.
In effect, a vote for a non-dominant third party is actually a more powerful
vote than a vote for a dominant party since a third party vote can change the
policy of both dominant parties as long as they have reason to believe that
they can earn your vote (this is why you should never come off as a fanatic
since nobody expects to appease a fanatic).
Re:Analog outputs???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Interesting)
The two fundamentals or Libertarianism are social and economic freedom from the government.
Clearly, Bush as a fundamentalist fails on the social freedom part as Republicans typically do. War on Drugs, Anti-Gay rhetoric, John Ashcroft (need I say more?) and of course Freedom of Religion but only if it's Christianity.
What has disturbed me most though is the complete disregard fo
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't think the Bush administration escalated the WoD, you must have missed Ashcroft's crackdown on medical marijuana and paraphanelia, as well as the (ab)use of the Patriot Act to prosecute drug dealers (methamphetamines, to be specific - while our troops in the Gulf are running on go-pills) as terrorists. I'd also like to see you try to reconcile your supposed libertarian beliefs with the largest increase in federal government institutions and power in the form of the Homeland Se
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Interesting)
deficit payments keep increasing
It seems that the debt has become invisible, all anyone ever mentions is the deficit.
There is no such thing as deficit payments. It's debt payments that are increasing. You could reduce the deficit by 99% and debt payments would still be increasing. As long as there is any decific the debt is increasing and debt payments are increasing. Any time to word "surplus" pops up everyone screams "tax c
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush recognizes that this is a war, the bad guys started it, and it's only going to get worse unless we start fighting back.
But this line I had to address - the only "war" we have is the "war" the Bush Administration made up. The "war on terror" is no more of a war than the "war on drugs", and the "bad guys" didn't start it - that's just the simple black and white picture the Bush Administration
Re:Analog outputs (Score:5, Interesting)
We're not at war with terrorists. Terror is only the means that Islamic fundamentalists use towards their end. We are no more at war with terrorists than we were with bomber pilots, riflemen, and U-boat crew during WWII. Painting with the broad brush of "terrorist" simply allows us to use the new-found law enforcement tactics granted by the patriot act on anyone John Ashcroft chooses.
the bad guys started it
Would SOMEONE please acknowledge the fact that these people don't just hate us for the sake of hating us? Could it not have something to do with the fact that for the past 75 years we have exploited their region for its oil reserves, propping up evil dictatorships only because they were friendly to us, while enriching the 1% of the population that owns the oil wells while the rest of the population lives in abject poverty? And because they live in poverty and have nothing to do all day, they sit around all day and come up with ways to hate us more! No, they hate us solely because we're rich. Bullshit. If that's the reason, then those hundreds of billions of dollars we are putting towards Iraq would serve us much better if we scatter them from an airplane over the entire Middle East in order to share the wealth.
it's only going to get worse unless we start fighting back
If you mean fighting back in the guns and bullets sense, then you are dead wrong. Hasn't Israel proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that attempting to wipe out Hezbollah, et al has done absolutely nothing but recruit more terrorists? Has the number of suicide bombings in Israel decreased since Israel starting going after these organizations en masse? I didn't think so. We need to fight an IDEOLOGICAL war, not a guns and bullets one. The guns and bullets war will be unsuccessful because for every one you kill, you piss another 10 off enough to want to kill us. Iraq has been one big Al Qaeda recruiting field day. Only by convincing these people that we ARE a great nation can we win (hint: beating the shit out of Iraqi prisoners is not a step in the right direction). We need to revise our foreign policy so as to treat Arabs as REAL PEOPLE, rather than just those poor brown people who happen to ride their camels on top of the largest oil reserves on the planet. We need to stop supporting terrible regimes like Saudi Arabia. We need to give these people SECULAR educations. We need to give them jobs and opportunities. Bush always says that fighting so-called terrorists is harder then fighting the Soviets was, because at least the Soviets didn't want to die. Well, why don't we give Arabs something to live for, and then maybe it wouldn't be such a simple choice for them. Am I the only one that finds this so obvious? Or is it the neo-typical "it's everyone else's fault, let's sue 'em!" American mindset?
Oh yeah, and reducing our fossil fuel dependence wouldn't be a bad start either. Turn off your damn computer at night. Yes I know you look 3733t when you have an uptime of 6 months, but who cares. Turn off the lights when you leave the room. Buy an automobile that gets more than 10 miles to the gallon. Oh, you need an SUV for those two times a year when you carry big stuff? Bullshit. Go rent a U-Haul, it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper. Support serious investments in alternative energy sources. Hint: drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does not count as an alternative energy source, no matter what Dick Cheney whispers in your ear at night.
so we're fighting in Iraq
I would be willing to bet that 90% of the so-called terrorists that are currently in Iraq were not there before we showed up. Like I said, one big Al Qaeda recruiting picnic.
Kerry thinks we should wait for them to attack, and then get the U.N. to arrest them and try them in the World Court
At least that's an indication that Kerry acknowledges that there are other nations on this planet other than our own. Bush said it himself, you're either with us or against us. Well, it's turning out that more and more of the world is against us, and quite frankly, that doesn't make me feel more comfortable in our security.
Re:Analog outputs (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the voting system. It's the funding system.
How about we pass a law that says only U.S. citizens can contribute or financially support a candidate? No PAC funding. No "soft" party funding. No corporate funding. No foriegn funding. If any of those want to help a candidate financially, they have to get out and get citizens to open their wallets for their chosen cattle-herder.
(And don't tell me that this infringes those "entities" First Ammendment rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights" refers to mankind and does not include some legal fiction called a "natural person")
That would make elections very different, don't you think?
Here's another one: No one, and I mean no one , gets on any ballot anywhere without a petition signed by some number of registered voters. Why should citizens of every party be funding primary elections for members of just 2. Want to make a difference? Change your registration to "No Party Preference" and bitch like hell that your funding primaries for parties you don't belong to. It's called "taxation without representation." If everyone who feels neither the Demicans or Repulicats represent them did this, I believe the majority of voters would be thus registered and the parties would have no justification for imposing their candidates on a ballot.
Contrary to popular opinion, the "two party system" is not a U.S. mandate, it's just tradition. The 2 we have now are not the 2 we have always had, but they've rigged the system so heavily that unless we act they will be from this point on.
We do not have a democracy in the U.S. Worse, we no longer have a democratic republic (which is what it was really designed to be.) What we have is a contributoracracy, and that's the way it will stay until we cut off the cash flow from anywhere other than the people. The ones as in "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Freaking parties, committees and corporations are NOT people . People - WE - are not consumers, customers, constituents, markets or even voters. By law, WE ARE THE GOVERNEMENT, but only if we are willing to take responsibility for governing those we elect to serve us .
So get out, not only to vote, but to make your voice heard and your presence felt. Unless and until we become as vocal and as demanding as our "special interest" opponents they will continue to win. If a third party candidate represents your ideals VOTE FOR THEM. To try to fudge your vote to manipulate who among the others doesn't represent you less is like putting all your money on 42 at the roulette table. It only goes to 36, so you're not going to win. But there is no chance in hell that you'll actually change the numbers on the wheel either.
(If you can't find anyone else, write-in "mwa on slashdot". If nothing else, it will freak the power people out to see anybody get more than a handful of write-ins ;)
It's not the funding system. It's the voters. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how does this help? The PACs, corporations, and foreign interest will just run "issue ads", and fund "action groups" with no ties (direct or indirect) to the campaign in question. It's what they're doing now on behalf of the Democrats, in order to get around the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, because they don't have the same kind of direct-donor money machine the Republicans do.
Face it. The problem isn't the money machines that the major parties use. It's US. We should be able to distinguish fact from fiction, do our own research, and discount the MTV/PepsiSmash-ized media circus that passes for news and commentary today. There should be unbiased sources for news, accurate and in-depth debate, clear discussions of party planks with the general public, and a reasoned and insightful choice come voting day.
Instead, we have lies delivered as truth. Emotion and hyperbole delivered as matter-of-fact. Sound bites and media campaigns designed to influence public opinion. Bread and circuses to corral votes and keep incumbents in power. AND WE (as in the American people) ACCEPT IT.
Do you honestly think that we can restrict their money, and keep them to the spirit of the law, when we can't even keep them in check now? We need to take the foxes out of the henhouse before we staple the wire netting in place. Otherwise, we're just ensconing the foxes right where they want to be.
Personally, I think two things would help to change the political landscape in this country, money or no:
1. Move election day to the first Tuesday after Tax Day. Let's see the politicians try and raise their salaries for themselves and justify it when people see how much money the government is taking.
2. Regularize redistricting, and get rid of the winner-take all system. Right now, gerrymandering continues across the country with the consent of both parties, in an effort to create districts that are bulletproof for the incumbent party. We should regularize districts on a grid basis by population, and combine the elections for multiple districts in order to prevent the 50%+1 system from ensuring that only major party candidates can secure representation.
Number one isn't going to happen, not with the current politicos in power. Number two might happen on a local basis, assuming you have a voter initiative system in place, and someone with enough guts and money to ram it through. But you're going to need to break the legislative stranglehold on things - one reason why I like governor Schwartzenegger's proposed plan to cut the California legislature to part-time status.
In the meantime, what can WE (as in the Slashdot crowd) do? Well, first thing is to get that GeekPAC running (geekpac.org, supposedly - and it's down, for who knows how long.) The second is to break up the media empires that politicians cater to for positive spin and information control. The third is to encourage competition on all fronts, in order to churn up the layers of sediment, and get proper representation going. Lastly, is to educate the populace (not an easy task) and get them to treat the vote with more respect than they treat the rest of government.
There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's see... People have rights, legal fictions (corporations/PACS/parties) consist of people, therefore legal fictions have rights. I think that's the legal precedent that got us into this mess.
No one can or should stop the people that comprise those entities from speaking their minds or contributing to campaigns. As individuals, they have those rights. As individuals, they can send out communications to their employees/i
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Insightful)
If voting changed anything, they'd outlaw it.
Re:Analog outputs (Score:3, Insightful)
Kerry is far from perfect, but let me ask you a few questions. Consider your answers.
Are you concerned about the environment? Should the U.S. sign international clean air accords? Should we be more concerned about water pollution, arsenic levels in munici
Privacy and marketing (Score:5, Informative)
Makes me wonder if they will ask for the contact info of the receiver/viewer friend also?
Re:Privacy and marketing (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if they will ask for proof if the receiver is a real friend or have other affiliation
ARGGH (Score:5, Insightful)
How did the cat get so fat?!?!
Re:ARGGH (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew you could!
The NFL Helps Keep the Masses Under Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Sports is the mechanism by which the powers that be keep the American people dumbed down, sedate, and easily controlled. More so than religion (although that is certainly also a potent tool in undermining a person's ability to think critically), more so than a shoddy educational system.
Sports is the true opiate of the poeple. Baseball fans who can't balance their checkbook routinely excersize college level statistical analysis on their favorite player's batting averages and team's performance. Clearly these people aren't stupid per se, or necessarilly ignorant, but their creative and intellectual capacity has been stupified and hijacked toward ends that present no competition or threat to those who rule. The message is quite clear and effective: "think as much as you like, as long as it isn't about something important."
The last thing they are ever going to do is allow a key component of the Bread and Circuses America is spoonfed to fall, regardless of how much of the rest of the economy subsidizing their existence will harm. Just as the Romans would routinely choose to ship expensive sand for the Colesium, rather than much needed food for the people, so to will our government choose to prop up Hollywood and the NFL, at any expense.
To do otherwise risks the very real possibility that the sleeping, fooled and distracted masses of America might actually arise from the couch and get involved politically, and that is something none of the current politicans want
Re:The NFL Helps Keep the Masses Under Control (Score:4, Insightful)
You might touch a nerve.
Re:The NFL Helps Keep the Masses Under Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The NFL Helps Keep the Masses Under Control (Score:3, Funny)
Using the word 'fuck' many times is certainly a sign of True Intellect(tm). I bow down before your greatness.
Clearly, your masters degree did not require you to debate a point cogently.
Re:ARGGH (Score:2, Interesting)
This is, for several reasons, a relatively ignorant statement. The first problem with the statement involves categorizing the NFL a "broken business." The NFL has a nice profit sharing system that is damn near communistic. In fact, because of the sharing scheme, even the worst teams make alot of money, and cities, essentially, have
Re:ARGGH (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ARGGH (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ARGGH (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ARGGH (Score:5, Informative)
The truth is, mayors and governors win and lose elections based on whether they're able to bring in and/or retain a NFL/MLB/NBA franchise. The economic argument is nothing but a smokescreen of legitimacy over the whole stinking process.
Re: ARGGH (Score:2)
> it creates a somewhat massive economic boom in the area
So how come they aren't funded by selling shares to the people who expect to benefit from it?
Re:ARGGH (Score:2)
That's a pretty controversial claim. Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist have written an influential book on the topic, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums. Quoting from the Amazon book description, their primary conclu
Re:ARGGH (Score:2)
I've been forcibly taxed for quite a number of years to pay for the Diamondback's stadium ($238M out of $354M or 2/3 of the cost). Bank One then supplied the project with something like$2.2M, about
Since the stadium was opened, my tax bill had risen each year at the same rate as th
Too Many Complications (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a ridiculously tiny jump from freedom of speech to freedom of information. The only reason it seems like a big jump to having no copyrights is that, although we're far better off than some parts of the world, we don't REALLY have free speech.
Bottom line: if they want the TV revenue, let them take the risks associated with having it out there. As the article says, at this point an online viewer would be lucky to watch the game by the next day anyway, and who knows? Maybe this kind of exposure would draw in MORE fans and let them sell out MORE games. Maybe.
Re:Too Many Complications (Score:5, Insightful)
The US constitution, while protecting speech, explicitly authorized (even mandates) the protection of innovation by granting monopolies on copying.
In the case of literature and the like this is intended to keep publishers from printing copies without paying the authors, for a limited time.
In the case of inventions to encourage invention by protecting against reverse-engineered copies for a limited time in return for publication of complete descriptions of how to "practice the invention" after the time expires.
Over two centuries of legal hacking have worked around the original intent of the provision. But the provision is still there. And the Constitution is the SOLE authorizing document for the government - the "kernel code", so to speak.
If you want to make such a change, you need to amend the consititution. That's a really tough road to hoe.
Re:Too Many Complications (Score:2)
Escrowed Release (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to make such a change, you need to amend the consititution.
That's a really tough road to hoe.
Especially if it is paved with asphalt. Really, that's "tough row to hoe" as in "row of corn."
I think it was Valenti who was quoted as saying that he wants to define "limited time" as "forever" but since his lawyers told him that's not possible, he'll settle for "forever minus a day."
But, just as the copyright industry is "legally hacking" the provision, we could do the same thing (if we had the power to get an amendment in place, we certainly would have the enough power to do the following) -- define "limited time" to the first 10 seconds after publication.
The difference between Valenti's absurdity and my apparent absurdity is that his position is akin to eating his own feedcorn -- by destroying the public domain, eventually there will be no raw material to draw on as a basis for new creations, everything will require licensing and royalties and you can be certain that as soon as there is no longer any "free" competition for raw material, the cost of the not-free stuff will skyrocket.
Meanwhile, my proposal still leaves open plenty of room for artists to make money. Not distributors and the other types of middlemen who make up the copyright induistry and only serve as bottlenecks today, there is no room for them to make much money, certainly not the gazillions that they do today. But the artists, the actual creators of the work can still get paid and even paid well if they are successful by implementing the idea of escrowed release to the public domain. Essentially, they set a total price for their work, interested buyers pay into an escrowed account. Once the total meets the price (or the seller lower his asking price), the work is released to the public domain. Artists who create popular work will be able to fetch successively higher prices for each new release.
One might argue that under such a scheme it is impossible to get started in the first place since no one will know the quality of your work. My response is that under today's system so many artists work for next to nothing all of their lives that simply releasing a few pieces of work for free as advertising is effectively no different than the way things work today and provides a much higher probability of achieving some level of success in the long run.
Perhaps a simpler, more catchy way to say "escrowed release to the public domain" would be - "work once, paid once (just like everybody else)."
PS, googling for "streetperformer protocol" will turn up a white paper or two describing one form of escrowed release to the public domain.
Re:Too Many Complications (Score:2)
Anyway... Are you saying that the jump to freedom of information should not be made? Or are you merely disputing the size of the jump? Can you perhaps
Frostbite (Score:2, Insightful)
Silly bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think the NFL will come after me for a DMCA violation-- is this considered a workaround of an effective security method?
Misleading headline... (Score:2)
I don't see where the article says that TiVo has to fund the local stadium. Here's the relevant excerpt:
This is an important point: The NFL is not asking the FCC to protect its television business -- never mind that the flag exists only to stop indiscriminate file sharing, not cure every copyright-infringement issue.
No, the NFL is asking for help with a stadium business, one that already benefits from massive government welfare. (A December 2002 Buffalo News story c
The real funny thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it is Mr. Burger that doesn't understand. The ability to rip unencumbered video streams from a hacked TiVi has existed for sometime now. If you want to know the future, Mr. Burger, study the past...
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
"Until that can be answered, his lobby contends that the safest course is to block Internet sharing -- after all, he noted, you can just pop a DVD in the mail."
Don't they also dislike the idea of people using DVD-Rs to distribute their material?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Blunt-edge technology (Score:5, Insightful)
To my mind, this is a sure sign that things are going wrong (as if more signs were needed); the broadcast flag and other silliness are anti-technology (and anti-business) because they'll discourage people from upgrading. Of course, they'll be banking on the fact that relatively few people will stick to such technologies, but it only takes one person with a linux-based PVR and a copy of gtk-gnutella to totally screw the pooch.
One thing about the article, though; it implies that the NFL are wasting their time because bandwidth limitations mean it'll never be practical. This assumes that super-duper ultra-high-speed connections will never be available (or at least commonplace); this is a specious argument, I reckon. Not that I'm arguing for it; I just dislike arguments that can be easily overcome.
Re:Blunt-edge technology (Score:5, Interesting)
And what happens when your capture card in that PC dies? Any new one you buy will have to honour the broadcast flag. The Broadcast flag isn't an over-night fix, but 20 years from now when all the hardware that doesn't support the broadcast flag has died, it will reign supreme - except of course for the foreign hardware that illegally trickles in from places that are not the land of the 'free' thus are not mandated to provide broadcast flag censorship.
Re:Blunt-edge technology (Score:4, Interesting)
If TC becomes reality, there won't be freer countries. Everything in the WTO will be required to build TC hardware only. Everyplace else that manufactures flexible computers will be threatened by the USA with supporting economic terrorism.
How many people actually consider (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a reason people don't go to Buffalo games in November and December, it's fucking freezing! Do they seriously expect someone to say, "Well, it's so cold out that really don't want to go to the game, but since I can't watch it on TV, I will go anyhow"? My best guess is that they will just not watch the game, or go to a bar or something to watch it, where people pay even less attention to the commercials....
Re:How many people actually consider (Score:3, Funny)
Ignorance is just as deadly as patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont believe that what Tivo is doing is such a bad thing. What I do believe that the cable companies who are trying to knock Tivo off it's seat are probably the cause of the problems in the first place. All they had to do is put a bug in the ears of the RIAA,MPAA, and the NFL the latter which probably knows the least about the device. Then those groups go arguing to the FCC where they might have a slight idea of what MPEG2 consists of but I'm sure the group arguing against Tivo conviently forgot to mention the slow speeds of our current broadband services.
Now 3 years down the road this will be a changed world in the US as the FTTP rollouts will be in full steam and will have probably crossed the 2million mark or even more and it would be a standard thing to have a 10/10 connection to the internet. It's even faster between neigborhoods with testing in Keller TX, on multi gig transferrs taking a few seconds. So I would expect that people could then easily send videos to others. Hell with a little work Tivo could turn your box into a Napster for tv shows, and other recordings using the combined networked Tivo's as local servers.
Back to my point. These groups want to shut Tivo down so they can profit on their own distribution methods and limit choices to the consumer so they can inflate prices as they please. And it's true that NFL teams tend to milk whatever city they reside in through taxes. Now they want to milk the consumer even more through limited choice and high prices. If they wanted to do otherwise they would work with Tivo to come up with a acceptable solution and restrictions. However since they're not I have to stick with my original theory.
Youthful Indiscretions (Score:5, Funny)
2024 US Presidential Election: Yes, I downloaded on Napster, but I didn't share.
Re:Ignorance is just as deadly as patents (Score:5, Informative)
mplayer is fine by me (Score:2)
Corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's a question of pure ability to sell tickets," said Frank Hawkins, the NFL's senior vice president for business affairs.
Exactly. Hawkins goes on to explain that "they'll never sell out those December games if they are unable to enforce the blackout rule" (meaning manipulate, coerce and destroy consumer choice). The honest answer, however, is that the value of a northern market outdoor stadium seat significantly diminishes as it gets damn cold in December. And this is the consumer's problem how?
Has the NFL ever studied popsicle sales, especially looking at them in, say, January in Detroit? (Clue: The local Good Humor man doesn't drive down neighborhood streets when the outside temperature is lower than that of his product!) What about the hot soup sales at Disney World in July? If you've hit Disney's parks at different times of the year, you'll learn that they're well in tune to the weather and consumer behavior (ever notice the umbrellas that amazingly pop up all over at the stands just as the drops are starting to fall?)
If these businesses were run like the NFL, we'd have the government shutting down grocery stores in Orlando and limiting the only food choice to Campbell's Cream of Brocalli in order to protect the Disney soup racket.
Just as the RIAA doesn't understand (nor care about) the consumers of its industry's products, the NFL has lost it on fans. A Cleveland Browns seat may be worth $125 in September, but certainly not in December. Their inability to understand this is not grounds for absurd government intervention, and any bureaucrat that supports this nonsense is probably on someone's payola (hey Junior Powell - get your Redskins season tickets yet?).
Re:Corporate welfare (Score:2)
This may be true in some markets, however, the steelers have not had a game that did not sell out since the early 1970s. Part of i
Diable Analog (Score:4, Insightful)
Ive not seen too many digital earbuds.. or digital portable TVs...
Espically audio, it has to be analog at some point.. but then again, if they ban A/D converters, then i guess they have won.. and hopefully noone will listen to music again, until the laws are repealed and the morons that are passing them are put in jail.
Value Added and the future of broadcasting (Score:3, Insightful)
Broadcast media,however, is a service for which we already pay once in channel access charges, and now technologu is being deployed to prevent us sharing the pre-packaged, re-transmitted coverage of old events for which we've already paid if not once then several times.
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of the broadcast industry, subscribers are sophisticated enough to know when they're being ripped off, and when a service provider loses the trust of its customer base no amount of law or technology can save them.
can't be helped (Score:5, Funny)
Brian: Oooooooooh sorry, the VCR hasn't worked since you tried to tape Monday Night Football
(flashback, Peter puts tape in VCR and presses record, then security guards bust in)
Security Guard: Do you have the expressed written cocent of ABC and the National Football League?
Peter: (holding up contract) Just ABC
(Peter jumps out of the way just as they begin shooting at the VCR)
I ain't falling for it. (Score:4, Funny)
Heh. Yeah, nice try.
Gave up tv by accident (Score:5, Insightful)
I gave up television a year ago tomorrow when I moved and decided that I couldn't afford the price of cable at least for a month or so during the transition to the new location.
I've always been a television junky though and really expected that I'd get something: satellite, cable, or even go back to antenna broadcasts. I'd come in from work and HAVE to have the tv playing something in the background. I remember even driving around for several weekends evaluating different recording technologies (Tivo looked the most promising) and I probably would have even bought one in anticipation if I'd already decided whether I was getting satelite or cable service.
For housewarming, christmas, and my birthday I received some fantastic DVD series (Six Feet Under, Babylon 5, some britcoms and music documentaries) that I'd put into my computer or dvd player when I just wanted something on. Six Feet Under was so good that I actually thought of getting HBO to see the show (but I'd have missed two seasons which weren't out yet on DVD).
I was talking to an old friend who knew of my pop-culture, tv-addicted habits. He wanted me to watch the new Battlestar Galactica but I told him that I didn't have cable. Not to worry he said, it'd be rebroadcast that night and later in the week if I thought my cable would be back on then. He was in shock when I told them that I didn't have a subscription and didn't really intend to get one. They said that such a declaration from a television addict like me was akin to Bill Gates switching to Mac OS X.
With some efforts above and beyond the call of my friend, I did wind up watching the Battlestar remake and quite enjoyed it. I probably would have liked it better without the incessant commercials (on a DVD release or something). I'd forgotten just how annoying those things can be.
Now with stories like this, it appears that the DRM is only going to get worse. The advertising is only going to get longer and bolder. I wish I could say that my decision was one of moral rectitude, but it was really one of evolved practicality. I can say that giving up tv is a whole lot easier than you probably imagine (I certainly couldn't imagine it).
Give it up now while your friends can still videotape those one or two shows that you "must see". It'll only get more expensive and more difficult when DRM comes on the scene.
This is an absolute RIOT (Score:4, Insightful)
UNTIL, some SE Asian company makes a Tivo clone that does everything that a tivo does, EXCEPT pay attention to broadcast flags, or pay 'protection' fees to the NFL. Now they have a product that is better, and cheaper, because it left a feature out. Basically they have built a better mousetrap by not adding something on.
Adding 'features' like CSS, Macrovision, Broadcast flags, and Trusted Computing Controls will ALWAYS fail because if you have a single company/person who decides not to play by the rules, they can build a better product by simply not doing adding in the encryption features.
NEWSFLASH: /. EDITORS *READ* ARTICLE!!! (Score:3, Funny)
thought only to be possible "once in a blue moon", by actually really reading the article cmdrtaco has proved us....well, right.
once in a blue moon, indeed.
TV Monopoly, that's the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
So, perhaps we should do something about that rule first. And when all local stations (ok, many local stations if not all, satellite feed is limited in size after all) are easily available anywhere in continental US, NFL et all won't be able to force local black-out, as viewers would simply flip the channel.
Wait, is this Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
You boys and girls seem all upset when the Federal Government starts depriving you of your toys and amusements, like analog plugs for your TiVo. Lots of complaints about how dumb and crooked all these arguments are I see. Well, you know, you're right. It is dumb and crooked.
Welcome to Gun Owner Land kids. How do you like it so far?
This is about TiVo becoming a broadcast network... (Score:5, Insightful)
An Accident of History (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy your own stadiums! (Score:4, Insightful)
I consider that an obscene amount of money considering he only worked 10 years for the NFL. And even then he only worked at most 6 months out of each year.
If the NFL can afford to give someone who worked less than five years a lifetime salary of $300,000, it has a LOT of money.
Thus the question is: Why can't its owners buy their own god-damn stadiums?!?!
Re:Buy your own stadiums! (Score:3, Insightful)
MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. You can't, for example, just form a team and start playing the Yankees, you need to pay MLB millions of dollars and get their okay for an "expansion team".
The Fed says if you want to play professional baseball, you have to play according to the MLB rules (which include censorship of local games to increase ticket sales).
I think if a city, county or sta
We are now reaping what we sow (Score:4, Insightful)
We've given the RIAA, MPAA, and virtually everybody who owns "content" veto power over consumer electronics.
Why should I pay for something that I don't control? If I pay all that money for a Tivo, don't I have the right to decide what to do with it?
Apparently not.
If not for this hidden article in the Post, how many people would even be aware how much intrusion into our lives is happening via these folks?
You either let your congressman/senator know now, or yet another right will be lost. If it isn't already.
Television is an outdated tech, jeez. (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, TV is going to go downhill as better p2p networks, storage, and more bandwidth become available. And with those, better business practices. We've got 320 gig harddisks now, with dsl connections. In 10 years, we'll have several terrabyte sized disks with t3 pipes going to each household, if the economy keeps on it's path, not to mention more processing power. If a decent quality movie fits on a cd, then a 120 of them will fit on a drive; that's a quite a library...
I only see this as a law that will attempt to slow the speed of this adoption. We'll also see other adoptions such as being able to buy an entire season of some show for $5-$10, whereas you're paying for faster bandwidth to download a high quality copy that's insured against bad stuff and isn't crippled or bad quality in any way. P2P is reliable but it isn't fast, you don't get insurance against bad copies, low quality, or that someone didn't rename bad porn as a movie. I personally don't see it slowing down the adoption at all; whatever encryption they make, someone will inevitably break and rebroadcast.
As for the few topics above this that are talking about taxes going to fund corporations; as long as the people don't know, they won't care. Grease the monkey and he'll grease you back, that's the name of the game.
end of inovation (Score:3, Insightful)
There was never a broadcast flag in the past, why should there be one now? Did someone force me to sign an EULA before I watch TV broadcast on public airwaves? In the past there was a natural limitation that prevented games broadcast locally from being seen in other areas of a country (the signal only transmitted so far), now the FCC wants to maintain that limitation through an artificial administrative control system?
Look, if they want to attack someone it shouldn't be the end user or the company that manufactures the device. They are only going to hurt the consumer and the hardware manufactures. Maybe shuting down websites or people who are providing copies of programs to 100's of strangers would be appropriate. But telling a manufacturer that they have to change a 1 to a 0 in their code is ludicrous. Frustrating consumers is just wrong.
Quid Pro Quo (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the NFL allowed to say this but Tivo not allowed to counter with "It's a question of the pure ability to sell Tivos"? Seriously, what makes a professional sports team more important than any other business?
Re:Registration Required (Score:2, Funny)
They're two of the most important papers in America. There's no excuse not to be reading them every damned day.
Re:Registration Required (Score:2, Insightful)
They're two of the most important papers in America.
The vast majority of the people on earth are not in America.
Re:Registration Required (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: If you don't want to register... (Score:2, Funny)
> TiVo vs. the Broadcast Flag Wavers
> By Rob Pegoraro The Washington Post Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page F06
Thanks. You can still let eight other people read it, too.
Re: What.. (Score:5, Funny)
> If I don't have a stadium near me?
Write your congressman, and maybe the taxpayers will buy you one.