FCC to Rule on Request to Limit Recording From TV

q2k and many others sent it in, and the original Inter@ctive Week story has been republished all over the place. The deal is that the MPAA and other copyrithg holders want copy protection built into VCRs and other recording devices that will keep users from recordings some shows broadcast in digital format over cable. On the other side, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, made up of consumer electronics manufacturers, wants people to be able to tape shows for later viewing (or whatever). The FCC is accepting comments on this matter through Sept. 7, and may issue a ruling as early as Sept. 14.

Comments

FCC to rule on limiting the right to rember show

[jmv]

In a move to rightly protect their copyrighted content, the MPAA asked the FCC to rule on what the viewers have the right to remember from a show. An MPAA representative have told us: "We are aware of viewers remembering great parts of a show and then telling the punch to other people. This is clearly an infringement on our copyrights. We want to have all TV's equipped with MIB flashing devices automatically activated at the end of each show."

Well, that and...

[Greyfox]

You missed a couple:

- Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is to program these protections in? It's gonna cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to invent some protections and some smartass kid in Sweden will break it in a week (Go smartass kids!)

- Oh, we'll see you a DVD player too, but some smartass kid already broke that (Yay smartass kids!) Rather than figure out what to do about that, they decided to start suing everyone. We've got no direction here, and it's fucking up our logistics! God that pisses us off (It's not the smartass kid's fault though.)

Re:Fair Use

[Neuracnu Coyote]

Even if the feeds are coming in through digital means, VHS tapes are a horrible representation of the original.

You assume that the MPAA is solely planning on preventing the ability to make analog copies of digital broadcasts. I think that their goals are more focused on the future when we can make digital copies of digital television broadcasts.

Just like you rip MP3s from an Audio CD, the MPAA forsees individuals sitting with their TV encoders tuned and ready for the 5th season of Survivor. They'll edit out the commercials, post episodes to alt.binaries.movies.survivor5.mongolian-desert, then compile all the episodes and give them away on one big fat DVD. Many many dollars are to be lost.

Hey Jack, maybe it's just me, but if you want to control your content so much, don't broadcast it and certianly don't broadcast it for free.

Legal Precedent can be Overturned

[Greyfox]

All the legal precedent ever does not exist inside the constitution though. Congress could come out tomorrow and pass a law that says reverse engineering and fair use as we understand it is illegal. Unless there are explicit bits about copyright in the constitution itself, that would overturn all case precedent to date on that topic. Of course, a court could come out and rule that code is speech and that such a law would violate the first ammendment, which would establish new precedent.

Kinda neat how it all works, really...

Re:FCC to rule on limiting the right to rember sho

[jmv]

He addeed: "Furthermore, our internal studies have clearly shown that people remembering they have seen a show are much less likely to watch it again then those who haven't seen it. The result is a big loss of revenue for the MPAA members. This new habit of remembering shows to stop watching it again must not be tolerated."

Please don't...

[Shotgun]

send letters to the FCC along the lines of:

But it's not fair. Those meanies are trying to take my VCR away. I deserve my VCR. Waah!!

Those letters will do nothing but irritate the powers that be. Use strong reasoning that quotes laws (section and paragraph), and case law. This is what the commissioners understand. They assume that the majority of the populace are a bunch of crybabies who'll accept anything as long as they get their bread and circuses. They actually get scared when the find that they are coming up against a large group of people who actually know stuff.

Go forth. Scour the internet for information where Congress/courst/State legislatures have deemed that people actually have rights to information that is broadcast over public airwaves and facilities (the controlled monopoly nature of most cable systems make them a public facility in my view). Let the FCC know that they can't pull a fast one here without someone taking it to court.

Also, remember, your Congresspeople have more pull than you. Be nice to them. Some of them seem to be on our side, despite their initial support for DMCA. Some of them might actually be looking for retribution over how that one went.

Is there a petition for this?

[paulproteus]

There needs to be a petition started for this kind of thing.

What kinds of petition campaigns have been successful online? Usually, those involving ensuring the rights of those who sign it.

The question the answer to which I would like is: Is there a petition for this sort of thing?

The following link is a direct message to the FCC. Speak. Make your voice known. Let US lawmakers know what they would do if they further hampered the rights of consumers.

http://congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/oo_compose.pl?d ir=hrrc&comptype=agency&agency=112&message =101

This is amongst the utmost importance of anyone remotely interested in freedom. Free software users, especially, should be aware of this!

Speak!

-- This message posted by Konqueror.

Didn't we fight over this earlier...?

[Rayban]

I think this battle took place in the early 80's over the VCR with regular analog signals, didn't it? And they determined that we, as consumers, have the right to time-shift shows off TV.

I hope that ends up being a precident in this case.

This could be a good thing

[vertical-limit]

I'm glad this issue is being brought into greater scrutiny. If the FCC rules that copy protection cannot be built into VCRs, the MPAA and RIAA will have to drop the issue. It's easy to bash lawyers and government employees for the sorry state of technology laws (see DMCA, EULA, etc.), but remember that if employed properly, they can be on our side as well.

Don't pass up the opportunity to submit comments to the FCC on this. You don't have any right to complain about what happens if you don't make your voice heard. Let's seize this opportunity to strike a blow against intellectual property and protect our freedom to fair use.

Surely this will be their downfall?

[Booker]

Surely this will make people sit up and notice the absurdity of this whole copyright situation? Suddenly it's illegal to make an analog recording of something, simply because it was once in digital form?

And wasn't home television recording hashed out (and decided by the Supremes) quite some time ago?

Joe Average may not care about DeCSS, but tell him he can't record Monday Night Football (or Buffy, or whatever) and you just may have a revolt on your hands. I can only hope so!

---

Correct me if I'm wrong here...

[Sawbones]

But wouldn't a recording made from an HDTV source suffer from the same problems recordings from regular TV sources suffer from, namely analog degradation. I can understand they may want limitations put into future pure digital recording devices (NOTE I said I can understand why they would want that, not that I agree with it).

Right now this seems very analogous to the whole Napster is/isn't home recording debates. So I've got a DVD or HDTV broadcast of a great movie. I make an analog copy of it - some loss of quality. My buddy wants one so I make an analog copy of my analog copy - starting to look worse now. As the owner of a 3rd generation copy of Mafia vs Ninja (those who appreciate truely awful Kung Fu should check it out :) ) I can attest that after the first couple of dupings any advantage HDTV would have had is completely lost.

Supoosing that the MPAA is worried about digital recorders ala Tivo or ReplayTV - those still implement lossy compression schemes when making recordings so wouldn't the net result be the same?

And yes, I did RTFA, I just don't get quite what their new problem is.

Fair Use

[Wind_Walker]

Once again, the MPAA does all it can to throw the idea of "Fair Use" right out the window. Now, instead of attacking a new technology (i.e. DeCSS), they're attacking one of the oldest technologies out there. I remember having a VCR back in the early '80s. Whatever appeared on television was fair game for taping (well, aside from HBO and other specifically copyrighted materials).

Next, I expect to see no more radio-tape recorder hybrids. After all, the information that's being sent out through radio waves can be copied instantaneously to another media.

The MPAA has really shot itself in the foot, IMHO. Before, I could see their side of the story (albeit limitedly). A digital copy of a work (DVD, and even MP3 for the RIAA) is an exact copy. Quality is not degraded through the copying process. But now... Have any of you watched a video recording recently? I taped a TV program just last night (hope the MPAA doesn't find out about it!) and watched it this morning; the quality compared to even regular TV, much less DVDs, was terrible. Even if the feeds are coming in through digital means, VHS tapes are a horrible representation of the original.

What's more, if I buy a Pay-Per-View event, I am paying for the rights to watch that movie/event. I am not paying for 2 hours of television time; I am buying a license, and that license should entitle me to watch it whenever I want, whenever I want. This is akin to buying a computer game, watching the media it came on disintegrate, and then "acquiring" a copy from another place (this also happened to me just recently). I pray that this will not be upheld by the FCC.
------

If you want the support home recording...

[ravi_n]

Here's the link that the Home Recording Rights Coalition has set up for people to send comments (in support of the HRRC) to the FCC.

VCRs

[Dungeon Dweller]

1 Most people already have VCR's, and can record to content, unless you scramble it somehow.

2 People have been recording from TV for years, it's a good thing. Now you want to take that away to bleed us even more

3 If you're going to broadcast it, you should be prepared to at least allow people to record it. You don't own the ground lines over which this is broadcast

4 Don't you make enough money not to have to harass us even more?

Call me old fashioned...

[Pollux]

...but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Re:Call me old fashioned...

[Surazal]

Do you also blame people for putting locks on their doors?

No, but when people start installing locks on my doors for me without my permission and lobbies for laws that let them arbitrarily change the lock whenever they so choose, *then* I start raising hell.

Re:Call me old fashioned...

[levendis]

I think it was repealed somewhere in the DMCA....

There's a form to write the FCC...

[AugstWest]

...at this url.

This is just plain *wrong*. The MPAA is trying SO hard to take advantage of the digital age to take away our rights to record and archive our own media.

We need to beware reasoning like "We want to make sure that [the device] has the ability to provide copy protection, but it doesn't mean all product running into the box won't be able to be copied" -- this kind of vague, "honor system"-based lingo doesn't limit what they can later decide to do with the technology. Once it is in place, they can do whatever they want with it.

Honestly, the MPAA frightens me.

Re:I'm not seeing how this would affect...

[gammatron]

There won't be any hacks out "shortly after it came out"... what they are proposing would all be done in hardware, and from the looks of it, with encryption (as opposed to the current macrovision scheme). It would take a hardware device capable of decoding the data then outputting an unencrypted video data stream to the VCR or other device, unless you can re-program you VCR, which seems unlikely at best.

This differs significantly from Macrovision-type copy protections, which insert an anomoly into the analog video signal (usually a pulsing pure white signal outside of the visible screen area or else a munged colorburst) - TVs are able to display the picture fine, but the anomoly screws up the VCR and the signal that gets recorded either exhibits a large pulsing of the brightness value or else has a rainbow-type artifact smeared across it; either way, its pretty un-viewable. This scheme wouldn't let the TV display anything unless it had the decoding circuitry built in (read the article about how it potentially renders current HDTV equipment useless). This cicuitry would never be put into VCRs, which means they'll never be able to record this stuff. The MPAA and its thugs won't allow the construction of external set-top boxes to decode this data, either, since the output could easily be diverted to a recording device.

It is possible that someone will be able to write a DeCSS-type program for this scheme, but the MPAA et al have probably learned their lesson and won't make it so easy this time.
--

One rather blatant lie

[Coward, Anonymous]

[The MPAA] believes an open signal to a VCR would make the risk of widespread copying of hot movies far outweigh the potential profit from broadcasting the material.

If this were true, there wouldn't be any movie studios which would put movies out on pay per view. The fact that they do put them out on pay per view shows that they think the risk of loss from widespread copying is less than the potential profit from broadcasting it (unless their goal with pay per view is to lose money, if that is the case then the MPAA is correct).

MPAA Overconfident

[Luminous]

Up until now, the MPAA has had the benefit of working against obscurity. Few people knew or cared about DeCSS. But a great deal of American's know about their VCR's and what they can do with them (even if they can't work the digital clock).

Start messing with what people have already come to accept as a God Given Right (the right to watch the porno they taped off of The Hot Network at 2am anytime they please) and you'll rampant, flagrant violations.

Essentially, a congressman pays a little attention when a small group affected by a ruling writes. But when a vast majority of MiddleAmerica(TM) begin to get pissed off, that congressional representative starts to hold hearings to guarantee his constituent feel he is doing his job.

I can't wait for this to play out.

It is the entire word "digital"

[singularity]

People have been recording analog signals with VCRs. With the advance of digital-based recorders and digital signals (HDTV, etc), however, the MPAA and others are worried about what you would do with a digitally recorded copy.

You could easily upload it to the 'net for others to download *without commercials*. They could enjoy the same high-quality show you got (no degredation since it is digital)*for free*. This would be against their idea of copyrights. You could record it to a DVD and bootleg it (think about HBO sending a digitally recordable movie).

Heaven forbid!

It is the same reason that you will never see a digital video out on the back of a name brand DVD player - it would allow for too easy of a non-encrypted digital copy (the same problem the MPAA has with deCSS).

My opinion? As someone who is big into high-quality home theatre, I hope I am able to record digitally (maintaining the same quality of the original source) for later viewing. I hope the FCC rules in favor of the populace. I, for one, am not really against protections that allow for one generation digital copies and no more. I do want that one generation, though.

I wouldn't be so sure of that...

[Greyfox]

The FCC and the court system are both bound by the laws Congress passes. If the FCC says consumers do have the right to record TV shows, the MPAA can still lobby Congress to have a law passed to limit the consumer's rights.

The courts would have to abide by that law unless it conflicts with the Constitution. I don't recall that there's a whole lot in the Constitution on the subject of IP law (I could be mistaken; IANAL and it's been a while since I've read it.)

While your congressman knows that voting yes to such a thing would make him somewhat less popular with his constituents, the RIAA and MPAA have a lot of money to sling around, and your congressman can be sneaky in a variety of ways in order to reduce the danger that he'll be accountable for such a vote. Which is probably how a good bit of the erosion of the constitution and the rights of the people has occurred over the years.

Of course, the ultimate power still rests with the people. A jury charged with prosecuting a case stemming from these laws could refuse to convict the defendant under such a law. Betting on jury nullification to save your ass isn't particularly safe, but it may end up being the final refuge against laws some company has bought from Congress.

Re:I wouldn't be so sure of that...

[cpt kangarooski]

Ho ho ho, the Constitution is the solitary source of the Congress's power to pass copyright laws. And it IIRC three important limitations built into it.

Given the most similar case before (Sony v. Universal) I would expect the Supremes to continue to rule against copyright holders. It doesn't matter if it's digital or not. And even if the Congress passed a law that supported the copyright holders, it would likely be struck down as unconstitutional. Fair use was created by the judiciary straight out of the Constitution. It'd be quite a feat to see it legislated away.

My letter

[ucblockhead]

Here's what I just sent. (Starting with the HRRC boilerplate and expanding on it.)

I understand the Commission soon will be deciding whether VCRs can be hooked up to digital cable systems, and whether home recording from digital cable will be allowed. Hollywood studios apparently claim that home recording is the same as theft of service and that this justifies limiting home taping. Your agency should protect consumers' rights to record and view DTV signals. The Commission should respect the Supreme Court's ruling in the Betamax case, and not equate private, noncommercial home recording with theft of service! In short, the Commission should take action to protect the interests of consumers in this proceeding.

Enough of the form letter. To say it in my own words, it seems as if certain corporations hold the mistaken view that the public airwaves are not public, but are instead owned by them. As we all know, this is not the case. Restrictions are put on the use of the airwaves only in order to prevent uses not in the interest of the public and not, as many of these large corporations seem to think, in order to enhance their profits. Enhancing of profits is fine, as long as it is done in a fair manner. It is not fine when it crosses into anti-social territory.

In the past, both the courts and the FCC have taken a reasonable, balanced view, not trampling on the rights of the the true owners of the airwaves while also preventing the sort of anarchy that would prevent individuals and corporations from being fairly compensated for their creations. It is my hope that both the FCC and the courts will continue to find that balance, protecting profits, but not at the expense of completely reasonable use of the airwaves by private citizens.

And in my mind, that fair and reasonable use is quite simply. If I pay, either explicitly, or implicitly through watching advertising, for signals to be sent to my house, I have the right to view those signals in any way and at any time that I see fit, provided I do not transfer those signals to someone who hasn't so paid. That is fair and reasonable. It imposes no onus on the private citizen and yet provides a fair profit to the creator of those signals.

Thank you for reading my views.

Sincerely,

Steven R. Burnap

The enemy of the enemy is not your friend.

[isaac]

Remember kids, the HRRC, despite its warm-fuzzy name, is about the interests of electronics manufacturers. Don't think for a minute that your best interests are represented by either side here.

The HRRC is only concerned about the MPAA's proposals inasmuch as they might

• Make existing sets obsolete, burning their most profitable sector of early-adopters or (probably) forcing recalls.
  
• Drive down demand for VCRs (anyone who believes that even marginally-desirable programming won't be copy protected is fooling themselves. No more taping "The Simpsons"... but for only $29.95 you can buy three episodes on DVD!)

Given that the MPAA/networks won't budge on the copy-protection point, I'm not surprised the issue has gone to the FCC to decide.

And as a licensed amateur radio operator (KC4TQP), I can tell you the FCC is the fox guarding the consumer henhouse. If a consumer-friendly ruling comes down from the FCC, it will be purely coincidental.

-Isaac

Re:Repeat after me...

[Luminous]

...even then they would not be happy because people could hum tunes or act out what they'd seen on the TV.

In other news, two co-workers were arrested for piracy when one told the other in explicit detail what had occured in the summer hit movie 'Scary Movie'. The MPAA spokesperson said, "Water cooler chat is killing the movies. Why would anyone watch a show when they can hear all about it from their friends and co-workers? This is why we have requested a complete gag order on anyone who has entered a movie theater. If you buy a ticket, you are essentially entering into a non-disclosure agreement with the movie studio not to relate any detail of the movie to anyone." The MPAA has also extended this gag order to any person reviewing the movie, with exceptions only going to people who get their reviews OK'd by a local MPAA spokesperson.

Tomorrow...the RIAA sues people taping songs from the radio.

if this capability were there...

[Barbarian]

..I can see in certain controlled societies (Russia? China?) that news broadcasts would be unrecordable, so that people could not bring up inconsistencies later.

--

Re:I'm not seeing how this would affect...

[Cramer]

Well, it has to be displayable on your TV. So, therefore, it is copiable. Unless your entire home theater system is all digital where the "firewire" data is encrypted between devices, it's always gonna be recordable.

Personally, I think MPAA is a lost cause. In the digital world, there is no way to prevent criminals from being criminals. You can, however, render everyone a criminal and be done with it. This seems to be MPAA's ploy.

What's next? C&D orders to people looking at billboards on the side of interstate highways?

This is getting ridiculous

[jayhawk88]

Rant Time: It seems the MPAA won't be satisfied until they control all media with an iron fist. Usually I scoff at people who talk of things like "The MPAA is Big Brother", and "Your being spoon-fed what they want you to have", but after reading articles like this, I wonder if, to paraphrase the X-Files, I'm not paranoid enough.

I can't belive the MPAA has the balls to do something like this. They can talk all they want to about "artists rights" and "copy protection", but I think it's pretty clear that this whole issue is about one thing: executives making money. This is even more offensive with TV shows, where advertising already permeates nearly show in existence. So now, not only do I have to endure 10 minutes of ads, but I cannot record it and fast forward through them? Sad thing is, it'll get worse before it gets better. Hey MPAA, many people have e-mail accounts now. Why not send e-mails to everyone, and make them digitally sign and return the e-mail as proof that they won't record, rebroadcast, or distribute a show, and that they will watch all the advertising like the good little sheep they are?

OK, rant over. It's funny, though: since I got my cable modem, I spend most free evenings either playing D2 and Team Fortress Classic online, or just generally surfing Slashdot and the like. About the only TV shows I watch any more are SouthPark, Simpsons, X-Files and sporting events, and even then it's hit or miss. I think organizations like the MPAA, RIAA and their ilk have known for a while what I'm just figuring out: that they are pimping a dying media, and they must squeeze it for every nickle while they still can.

MPAA Nonsense

[Th3 D0t]

Ideally, they should take casual copying into account in the license fee structure for rebroadcasting shows. I'm sure they already do, though, and they'd have a hard time justifying this to the broadcast/cable companies that are already paying for this. And what about digital satellite? That's been out a long time, rebroadcasting DVD-quality signals. You can already copy DVDs and digital satellite. Why is cable any different?
I think we'll be seeing a lot of this crap in the next few years as last desperate gasps of a dying industry.
---