Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Security News

Regulators Lose Piracy Battle 312

Posted by samzenpus from the fair-game dept.
asok_g33k writes "The US broadcast regulators were told today by a court of appeal that it 'crossed the line' in trying to dictate how devices functioned. This was after the regulators tried to ban a device which allowed TV shows to be pirated. This comes after studies revealing that massive amounts of TV shows are beign illegaly downloaded from the internet and the regulators want a way to stop these shows being pirated and copied."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Regulators Lose Piracy Battle More

Regulators Lose Piracy Battle

Comments Filter:

  • Dupe ! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:01AM (#11765345)

    what is this a competition ?

    yesterday [slashdot.org]

  • Dupe of a dupe (Score:5, Funny)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:01AM (#11765346) Homepage Journal
    This article appeared yesterday.

    And the day before yesterday.

    Tomorrow, I intend to hold an opinion, so if you could post it then too, that'd be great.

    • Re-spin (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grax ( 529699 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:29AM (#11765491) Homepage
      Yesterday's article was spun towards the EFF side so this article spins more toward the "regulators" side. While they are regulators of broadcasts, the issue here is whether they are legitimate regulators of non-broadcast functions of devices. To call them regulators here gives them what I consider an undeserved legitimacy.

      As far as TV piracy being a growing problem. It probably will continue to be a problem until someone important catches on that all they need to do is come up with a downloadable program package that contains some forms of advertising that people will view.

      One possible downloadable tv program package would feature small corner ads or something. They need to make the ads useable but not so intrusive that people feel the need to try and hack them out of there.
      • Does it matter which way it's spun if it's the same topic? This should just be a comment in the previous thread(s), not another front page entry.

      • Re:Re-spin (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PetWolverine ( 638111 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:14AM (#11766372) Journal
        What worries me is that, now that the court has decided that the FCC is not allowed to do what it tried to do, they have to decide whether or not people are allowed to challenge them on it. If we're not allowed to challenge them, then effectively they're allowed to do it--or anyway, they can get away with it.

        As Jon Stewart said, "Now, I believe, in a democracy--and again, I wouldn't know, I've only lived in this country..." I thought the point of a democracy was to allow the people to control the government, which requires allowing us to challenge and criticize its actions. For all of you who are going to jump on me with "The US isn't a democracy," don't give me that crap, the same thing applies to democratic republics. If we can't challenge the actions of the government, even when they're known and admitted to be wrong, then it's a tyranny, no matter what it calls itself.
    • Dupe of a dupe

      Which would make this story ... tripe.

    • Well, since today was my first day back to work from vacation, I didn't see it the first two times.

      I can't bring myself to look at Slashdot unless I'm getting paid for it.
    • It'll be posted again toomorrow, too. Do you have a point to make here?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Ahh, but there are 2 things that make this dupe interesting. Firstly, it wasn't posted by CmdrTaco. Secondly, it gives a UK perspective on the issue. That said, allow me to summarize: FCC bad. EFF good. Big business bad. Open source good. Public domain best yet.

  • How many editrors are there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:01AM (#11765349) Journal
    Can we expect each of them to repost this? It's important stuff though. We need to hear it again and again.

  • First post! (Score:3, Informative)

    by richieb ( 3277 ) <richieb@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:02AM (#11765352) Homepage Journal
    Same story third time in two days?

    • Re:First post! (Score:3, Informative)

      by ecklesweb ( 713901 )
      tried to ban a device

      Yeah, third time in two days, but at least this time it comes with new uninformed bullshit. What more can you ask, right?

  • Analog defeats all! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thebes ( 663586 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:03AM (#11765357)
    As long as the stream can be recorded on at least a decent quality analog medium, broadcast tv or even dvds will be "reproducable"

    • That's part of what the problem the studios are concerned about. They know that analog is reproducible. But every generation of an analog signal gets progressively more derogated then the generation before, even with top of the line equipment. If they transmit the signal to you, you record it and give it to me, and I dub it and give it to my friend, that tape will not be identical to the original broadcast.

      With digital signal, not only is the quality measurably better, but each generation is an exact copy
      • Presumably when he said analog he meant an initial digital capture of an analog stream (like copying a VHS to a DVD, for example), followed by digital copies from then on. Considering that most people compress MPEG-2 digital recordings down to a lossy but smaller file anyway, this won't be a very big deal.

  • Flashback.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Folmer ( 827037 ) * on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:03AM (#11765358)
    I just think i had a flashback.. Or its just such a good story that every editor wants to post it..

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/15 46244&tid=129&tid=17 [slashdot.org]
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/21 33250&tid=123&tid=129 [slashdot.org]

    Tried to mail the editors, but apparently they dont check their email

  • Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:03AM (#11765363)
    From TFA:

    "Selling televisions is not what the FCC is in the business of."

    Amazing they needed a three-judge panel to tell them that. It's obviously not over yet with the appeals court still yet to rule whether the consumer groups that brought the suit have standing, but it's a fantastic sign! Both for this decision as well as upcoming decisions on whether the government can force PC makers to implement DRM and "Trusted Computing" initiatives.

    • Re:Hallelujah! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 )
      You're reading too much into this. The only thing that counts is the court's opinion, which won't be issued for months, most likely.

      The comments of the individual judges don't mean anything; it's commonplace for judges to be hardasses, challenging each side that comes before them, so as to get good answers to hard questions. It tells us little or nothing as to how they'll decide. In fact it's typically done to both sides, with the judge flipping as needed in order to elicit answers.

  • Judge was wise, but obvious (Score:4, Interesting)

    by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:04AM (#11765365)
    They decided that it's better to be in-line with the laws of physics.

    There is no way to stop
    • Digital bits from being copied
    • Analog signal to be converted to a digital form

    Sometimes, it is feasible to "invent" a DRM solution as if not all, but MOST users will obey it, and sometimes (in this case) it is not. What should be right or wrong, is a totally different question though.

  • Pointless battle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gabrill ( 556503 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:04AM (#11765366)
    If it can be viewed, it will be copied, and then distributed. Making money off of old TV shows is and should be from quality of packaging AND price AND availability.

    It's not the first time and it won't be the last time that retailers had to follow pirates into a distribution model.

    • Yep. Even if you have to intercept the calls to the video card you can do it.

      If they somehow stop that then you just point a video camera at your screen.

    • Re:Pointless battle (Score:5, Funny)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:30AM (#11765985) Journal
      If it can be viewed, it will be copied, and then distributed.

      The mods obviously feel that [slashdot.org] way [slashdot.org].

      • Re:Pointless battle (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @12:54PM (#11768203)
        In the Middle Ages, a fellow named Gutenberg developed a new tech that had the church in an uproar. Know why? Indulgences. What is an Indulgence? Well, it is a piece of paper that is a "Get out of jail free" card for sin.
        "Present this to St Peter and you will be without sin. uh that will be 3 farthings please", said the village priest.

        Scribes composed it (they had scribal sweat-shops in the monasteries for this), a priest would "bless" it, then a poor peasant would pay a life's savings for it to insure paradise in his afterlife.
        Along came Gutenberg's press and scribes were layed off right and left. Indulgences could be printed at a fraction of their earlier cost. For a while the Church made out like bandits. But then...Someone ELSE used a press to print them and suddenly Europe was flooded with Pirate indulgences... The Church declared unauthorized presses to be sinful and heavy penalties were imposed. Eventually Presses were everywhere and the Church lost control of a lucrative, and dishonorable scam. As you see, nothing new under the sun...

    • Re:Pointless battle (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cnelzie ( 451984 )
      I completely agree. I would much rather have the high quality, commercial free, logo free and scrolling text free as well as interuption free versions of a television show on a store bought DVD.

      Not more then a month back, I was attempting to watch the new Battlestar Galactica and several times during the show the cable company had to put up a 'Weather Storm Watch Advisory' that destroyed the show. The white block text scrolled across the screen and the audio was switched to some overly loud voice proc

  • This just in (Score:3, Funny)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:04AM (#11765367) Homepage
    Hammers are being massivly abused to kill people. They need to be equipped with a fingerprint sensor and a homing beacon and a rubber head so they can't be abused! END THE MADNESS NOW!

  • And in other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by castlec ( 546341 ) <(castlec) (at) (yahoo.com)> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:04AM (#11765369)
    samzenpus changes his name to dupesTacosPosts here [slashdot.org]
  • ...I barely watch any TV anymore since the internet. And when I do I would prefer it to be TIVOed, sans commercials. But can you take out the product placements?

    I'm just becomming too used to getting my content without the advertising rape job they do on TV. Especially the offensive (when my son is watching) "erectile disfunction" (wink) commercials. And after all, everyone says if you don't like it simply don't watch.

    • Re:They should shut up and be happy... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Spacejock ( 727523 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:40AM (#11765573)
      Here in Australia they stick watermarks on every program now. Even funnier - if you're watching widescreen you can see the regular 4:3 station logo, then another one to the right of it, then another watermark with an HDTV logo. Then they stick flashing banners across the bottom telling you about this really great program coming up.

      You know, watching a decent movie on free to air in this country it's like viewing the Mona Lisa on a web site. I don't bother any more, I just pick up boxed sets of old UK TV shows off ebay. Faves so far - 7 years of Minder [televisionheaven.co.uk] and 54 episodes of The Professionals [televisionheaven.co.uk]

  • Slashdot needs a broadcast flag (Score:5, Funny)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:07AM (#11765377) Homepage
    Maybe if /. had a broadcast flag, it would be able to recognize stories which had been broadcast and avoid copying them?

    Ok, a bit lame, but I'm having a hard time trying to come up with anything which wasn't posted the first two times...

  • Nice angle... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by B5_geek ( 638928 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:08AM (#11765379)
    ...regulators tried to ban a device which allowed TV shows to be pirated....


    How about a little truth: "Regulators tried to ban a device that would allow for personal copying, and went against a previous Supreme Court ruling (Sony vs Betamax)."

    There once was a time when I respected Slashdot for it's common-sense + Left'ish wing viewpoints. Now it looks like nothing more then an elementary school whine-fest. Poor spelling, grammer and an uncanny nack for re-posting stuff other peoples' work.

    • Re:Nice angle... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 91degrees ( 207121 )
      How about a little truth: "Regulators tried to ban a device that would allow for personal copying

      Well, this is true, but doesn't mean the other statement was false. It would have allowed pirating. In addition to legimate copying.

      and went against a previous Supreme Court ruling (Sony vs Betamax).

      The ruling was simply that the video recorder didn't break exisitng copyright laws. Not that it is illegal for a law to ban it.
      • It wouldn't have allowed pirating.
        Pirating is allowed by sail ships.
        You need a ship to become a pirate, and then you need to kill people for their bounty.
        The word piracy itself used when talking about copyrights means nothing.
        It's used with many different meanings, usually implying some kind of abuse. That's funny, because it's usual that the companies with those "piracy" claims are very fond of abusing their clients, or the ones that create their content, and call "pirates", meaning something like "abusers
    • I was about to say well at least they can spell, then I remembered...! ;-)

    • The Editorial Board of Slashdot is Degenerating (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:52AM (#11765689)
      There once was a time when I respected Slashdot for it's common-sense + Left'ish wing viewpoints. Now it looks like nothing more then an elementary school whine-fest.

      The editorial board of slashdot is degenerating Fast. Not that its ever been particularly good at checking articles and correcting grammar, but in recent weeks there has been a significant increase in pro-microsoft, and now pro-cartel postings. This may only be a symptom of a misguided notion that a free software/open source forum and newssite should somehow be "unbiased" and give the enemies of their movement equal time and equal legitimacy (much like the misguided notion that Jewish leaders should debate whether or not the holocaust happened with right-wing revisionists, something the US media has actually tried to engineer, despite the inherent destructive effect of legitimizing very fring and demonstrably nonsensical notions in order to create an appearance of "balance").

      Whether this is a symptom of misguided "appearance of balance at any cost," a gradual sellout of slashdot to its advertisers (Microsoft does advertise here, and who knows how much of its bottom line is being threatened if it doesn't post stories along certain political/philosophical grounds), or a shift in slashdot's targetting (moving away from us free software/opensource geeks to a more staid, corporate, proprietary audience) is hard to know. But there has definitely been a change in the tone of the site, and as someone who has been reading slashdot for many years, I can say that it is not a good change.

      Spinning the banning of technology that makes recording a TV program a la a VCR as a "piracy device" takes the cake, that's for sure.

      What's next, spinning the banning of general purpose computers as an attempt at banning a "piracy device" since computers can (and have been) used to violate the copyright of proprietary software (most commonly MS Windows, alas), music, or even *gasp* TV programs that were broadcast for free on television anyway?

      Whoever did that writeup and/or vetted it for slashdot (if slashdot's laxidasical editing can be described as "vetting", a real stretch I grant you) should be fired.

  • Evolving the Business Model (Score:3, Insightful)

    by osewa77 ( 603622 ) <naijasms.gmail@com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:10AM (#11765387) Homepage
    The economics of distribution have changed, and they're trying to maintain their income stream while looking for alternate means. What google has taught us is that advertising can support freely copy-able content if done right.
    • yes but Google followed the zeroth law of good business, which media people almost always fail at:

      0. sell people what they want; don't sue them into wanting what you have
    • What google has taught us is that advertising can support freely copy-able content if done right.

      Huh? What are you talking about? Google is a content aggregator, not a content creator. All they have shown is that advertising can support fairly complicated and high-volume, AUTOMATED aggregation.

  • Rip Off (Score:5, Funny)

    by deutschemonte ( 764566 ) <lane.montgomeryNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:10AM (#11765394) Homepage
    I paid $5.00 to see 1,000 dupes before everyone else. It seems the only added value subscribers have now-a-days is to be the first ones to be disappointed by another dupe.
    • This is why I havent registered with Slashdot yet. I told myself that if /. ever went 6 weeks without a dupe that I would get a paid registration. I'm still waiting.....

  • Illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:11AM (#11765400) Journal
    "massive amounts of TV shows are beign illegaly downloaded from the internet"
    Is this really illegal , I am not aware of any case in which someone has been prosecuted for downloading TV shows .
    IANAL , though wouldnt this classify as Potential copyright infringment, as it is yet to be tested in court.
    Does anyone know if this is definantly illegal ?
    • You're right. Technically it could be illegal as you're making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. But the Supreme Court could always say it's fair use, as they did in Universal v Sony.

    • Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Xantharus ( 860986 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:10AM (#11765837)
      I just made a quick glance over the Sony v. Betamax decision (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_d ecision.html [eff.org])
      and it appears that one of the major factors that lead to the decision was that it could not be proved that commerical viability/value was lost by taping shows to watch them later. If shows are being downloaded without their commercials in place of taping them with commercials, then the industry could make a fairly strong case that they have lost value due to the decreased viewership of the commercials which they make their money from.

      IANAL, but I do have a gut feeling that someone does not have to be prosecuted in order for something to be illegal.

      • Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MikeBabcock ( 65886 ) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:33AM (#11766005) Homepage Journal
        They don't have to be prosecuted for it to be illegal -- someone needs to be prosecuted so we know how the court decides to apply the law.

        The judiciary handles the after-charged part of the issue, whereas the elected officials handle the pre-charged part. If nobody's been charged, we're just taking politician's words for it that this will stand in court. It may very well not.

        cf. Texas case w.r.t. sodomy

  • What will the world do ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:21AM (#11765445)
    When the MSs, the RIAAS, the MPAAs, the Disneys etc finally admit that there is no agressive tactic that will work. The world has moved on now. People have access to broadband to download tons of data, people have means of backing up loads of data (soon TBs we hear). P2P and similar stuff is rampant. People want to copy stuff from their TV. People don't want to be forced into shitty exploitative DRMed and constrictive nonsense. They want to transfer their music to CD, to play it in a range of devices, they want to make backups of their DVDs.

    They are all fighting a loosing battle. Start listening to what people want instead of what they don't want.
    • People like stuff that's "free". They don't want to pay for things, they don't want to schedule their lives around their TV/network/advertisers, and they certainly don't want to have to buy additional hardware to timeshift.

      The Internet (as we know it now) has created a medium that has changed the face of the media world. The media conglomorates think that they can win by using the clout and money we have permitted them to gain over all those years they had us glued to the sets...

      What they don't understa

  • Meta Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Greger47 ( 516305 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:26AM (#11765477)
    How about this?

    Lets create "Meta Slashdot", a site where we solicit news items. We'll have some real editors that actually weed out the dupes and check the facts. Then we submit the news to Slashdot where Cowboy Neal can rubberstamp it.

    With some luck we can even bribe Slashdot's ISP to reroute their mail to us, to make sure all submissions are properly vetted. :)

    So, what do you say folks? Instead of this endles bitching about how the Slashdot editors suck, let's get together and do something about it!

    /greger

    • Re:Meta Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:42AM (#11765588) Homepage Journal
      Then people would moan that its "old news".
      They would bitch if you decided to use advertising to support the server you use, they would complain in droves about your CSS and page layout techniques. They would find a way to break your system, or foil your filters, and the trolls will still laugh.

      Apparantly on slash, you can't win.

      Accept the dupes, accept the trolls, accept the bitching and the in fighting.

      the noise to signal ratio is high, but the majority of us have enough going on upstairs to cut through it :)

      I actually like it as it is though, the good parts easily outweigh the crap that comes along with it.

      (having said all that, it might be a good idea to think about a Submission pre-moderation area that all moderators can access to potentially weed out dupes. Like the meta-mod area, but give 10-15minutes before stories even hit the mysterious future. Hell, just get the mods checking mails about stories in the mysterious future itself would solve it...)
  • Ohhh, boy, all the time I open slashdot.org these days I have strange deja vu feeling. It is glich of the Matrix or just a bad day for editors?
  • What terrible language they use: "tried to ban a device which allowed TV shows to be pirated." They make it seem like the default state is one where the shows could not be pirated rather than using language that would indicate the state where a device would be implemented as being restricted.

  • I submitted this 10 times!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:47AM (#11765648) Homepage
    It was only rejected 7 times though ;)

    Actually, the verbage in this reference is slanted the other way. The FCC wasn't requiring that hardware works a certain way, they were attempting to ban devices that could be used to pirate video. That's quite a spin wouldn't you say?

    And people sharing TV shows on the net is somehow piracy... I wonder if it would be okay with them as long as they left the commercials in?

  • Irritating (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gandell ( 827178 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:52AM (#11765691)
    I'm getting sick of hearing about this "pirated television" crud. If they mean someone is copying the files from a tivo, burning them to a dvd, and then selling them, all right.

    But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on.

  • This comes after studies revealing that massive amounts of TV shows are beign illegaly downloaded from the internet and the regulators want a way to stop these shows being pirated and copied.

    Well, certainly don't start thinking about ways to co-op those technologies and make them work for you. No, don't do that! Try to regulate the technologies you don't like away, that way you don't have to think outside your comfortable little corporate box. You're obviously not donating enough to the US Chamber of C

  • Not only it's a dupe, it LIES! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:10AM (#11765832)
    The real story is that there WAS NO RULING YET, damn it! The question that the judges can't even decide on is whether the suing parties are in position to sue, so it's still very, very likely that nothing will come out of this. Check your facts before posting, will you?
  • read penny arcade, decent discussion on tv show downloading, versus dvd sales.

    if you can tape it or time shift it, you can download it. stop fuckering about.
  • I don't see how it can be called "piracy" when you are talking about broadcast media, which potentially can be received by anyone. As long as your TV licence is up to date, and your satellite subscription is also up to date {which it would have to be, otherwise you would not be able to get a picture}, then surely you have a right to watch the programmes being broadcast? And, as the saying goes, all means to the same end are equally valid.

    There's half an argument about people who have not paid their TV
  • I got nothin.
  • It seems to me that slashdot editors (or story submitters) go out of their way to word the stories in a way that their dupeness is not immediately obvious...

  • Broadcasters side (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pintpusher ( 854001 )
    Here's a point I haven't seen, though I've not read all 100-gabillion replies...

    Broadcasters put up shows for people to watch. They pay for it through advertising revenue. Advertisers pay for air time based on how many people watch it. The more people are watching, the more they pay and the more the broadcaster makes. That's what ratings are for. So...

    If you download and watch the show, you are not watching it on broadcast which means you aren't counted in the ratings. The ratings for the show go down, th
  • Since this is apparently a dupe, this seems like a good time to rant. I'm so fucking SICK of these regulators trying to push their "anti-privacy" measures on everyone. I'm glad that someone told the FCC that they overstepped their bounds. I think I have the right to record whatever the hell I want from the TV. I travel for work, and most of the time I can't watch the shows I like because they're not on an available local channel. So I either record the shows at home with my PVR, or I get them off a torrent

  • Rape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zotz ( 3951 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:28AM (#11766545) Homepage Journal
    I don't mean to be insensitive in this, but here goes.

    Since we can't seem to get rid of the piracy and theft memes with respect to copyright, I propose we consider adding the rape meme.

    As in those price fixing, for example, the selling price of CDs, are raping the public. They are copyright rapists. That company is a convicted rapist. Along those lines.

    As in those taking undue advantage of artists are rapists as well?

    See if they like such pejorative terms when applied to them. They seem to like such terms when applied to those they consider to be their opponents.

    all the best,

    drew

    btw - three tabs open in firefox right now. slashdot, freshmeat and dictionary.com and I just got a popunder add for wall street advisor.
  • It's not even a dupe. It's a troupe.
  • Let's keep in mind that this verdict is just the beginning. The court decided that forcing consumer electronics manufacturers to incorporate the broadcast flag exceeded the mandate given to the FCC by Congress. Our next challenge will be to fight the inevitable legislation that will be introduced (bought and paid for the the content providers) to expand the powers of the FCC to include this mandate.

    This is a fight that needs to be won. The broadcast flag essentially does an end run around the Betamax deci

  • "Ding dong, the flag is dead!
    Which old flag?
    The Broadcast Flag!
    Ding dong the wicked flag is dead!
    Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed
    Wake up, the Broadcast Flag is dead!
    She's gone where the goblins go,
    Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out
    Ding dong the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
    Let them know
    The Broadcast Flag is dead!"

    Who gets her broom?

  • Since when is taping TV PIRACY, for God's sake?!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:50AM (#11766816) Homepage
    This question was settled over twenty years ago! Recording TV is not bloody piracy. The broadcasters are trotting out the same stupid arguments they made before the bench then, but this time the semantic war redefining basic terminology is making the fight unwinnable by the sane.

    Copying TV is not piracy. Passing copies around is not piracy. I know, I know, HBO is pay per view. But guess what? We've been recording the shows on VCR's for years. Passing them out to friends without cable. AND NO ONE CARED. Because it's not piracy, ie SELLING the tapes, and two, it didn't hurt HBO, it only made it more popular and made more people want to subscribe. As for satellite TV and similar, they've already bought laws making recordings almost impossible anyway.

    But broadcast TV is being shot through my body right now. The idea is to have as many people watch as possible. At least for the last 65 years or so. We've been recording for almost thirty years, we've beaten back the loons who tried to make it a felony, and now they're back and winning, for God's sake.

    The court system is stacked with extremely business friendly judges now, thanks to twenty five years of pro-free market Presidents, and there's no way of stopping them, especially since the regulators Bush appointed were lobbyists for the very industries they now regulate. It's a looting party for corporations. The legal precedents and semantic nastiness will be with us for the rest of our lives. Technology is being roped and tied by greedy gamers of the system, so it may not save us in the end. There won't be a place in the world you can manufacture tech not approved of by the powers in the U.S. God, they're raiding in Russia! The advance of corporate government is relentless, and largely ignored by the very people it locks into its worldview.

    TV? Recording? PIRACY? Why not just call it rape or murder? The penalties would be less severe.

  • The next 100 days... (Score:3)

    by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @10:52AM (#11766838) Homepage
    Hmmm...two days ago, this was on Slashdot linking to Rueters. Yesterday, it was here, linking to USA Today. Now it is here a third day in a row, linking to the BBC.

    Checking Google news, I see another 100 or so news sites that covered this.

    Are we going to see a Slashdot story a day for the next 100 days on this, or what?

  • Since when is this piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sj0 ( 472011 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @11:06AM (#11766962) Journal
    I don't know about others here, but I pay my cable bill every month, which in my view authorizes me to watch those TV shows. Frankly, the idea that downloading a show rather than taping it is immoral and illegal is insulting.

  • Re: Regulators lose piracy battle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elry14 ( 833223 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @11:22AM (#11767153)
    "The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." Quoted from the FCC web site. The broadcast flag battle isn't about piracy anymore than the lawsuits against P2P filesharing systems are about piracy. Piracy is the excuse given to make these battles seem legitimate. Piracy, in all its forms, is already illegal and we have fine laws and law enforcement to battle piracy. The issue with the broadcast flag and P2P networks is control of consumer access to technology. The RIAA and MPAA want to prevent access to technologies that they don't like. If my daughter wants to watch her favorite show 4 times this month why should it be piracy for me to make a recording of that show for her? If I want to listen to 4 songs from one album and 3 songs from another one, why should it be piracy for me to rip those songs to CD/MP3 and listen to them in my car (bike, on a hike, etc)? The only reason is that the RIAA/MPAA wants to force us to buy multiple copies of everything we own. They are moving towards DRM that will tie a purchased recording to a single device and force us to buy it again to play it on another device. Ultimately, they want us to accept a pay-per-use model for literally everything they produce. This is their "holy grail" and they are eagerly pursuing that goal in the courts, in trade groups and in standard committees. The RIAA and MPAA should use existing laws to combat actual piracy and leave consumers alone in their own homes.

  • Hello!?!?! This was not a ruling / decision! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ath ( 643782 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @12:58PM (#11768251)
    The only thing that happened is that the oral arguments in the case happened yesterday. During the questioning, two of the judges made statements to the point that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority. This was NOT a decision. A decision will come later. These were only questions and statements during a hearing.

    I get the slashdotters do not understand the distinction, but the reporters should be more clear about it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close