FCC to Require Anti-Piracy Features in Digital TVs

RobTerrell writes "The FCC is now requiring that next-generation digital TVs and VCRs use anti-piracy feature so that programming can be tagged as copy-protected. " Not only will this slow HDTV adoptance even more, but it will make a lot of existing sets incompatible with formats. Thanks Uncle FCC.

Comments

Time-shift recording

[jea6]

I thought time-shift recording had been upheld in court.

Re:Time-shift recording

[cosmosis]

Yes, but now they are trying to have that decision overruled! Soon you will only be able to watch exactly what they want you to watch, and even have the gall to charge you for it! Ve Vill Kontrol the Vertical and ze Horizontal. Sometime in the near future:

Warning, coporate subject A-3451 is in violation of copyright law in sector 7 grid 9. Send an anti-pirate dispatch immediately

Its really sad when a Richard Stalman's Satire "The Right to Read" becomes closer to reality every day. He was wrong about one thing though. Its happening a lot quicker than even he predicted

Intellectual Property is Theft!

Re:Time-shift recording

[beagle]

Yes, it was. And apparently we'll have to go for another fight in front of the Supremes. Maybe we all should send some money to EFF to help get the ball rolling!

*sigh*

[xercist]

Perhaps this can be shot down just like in the betamax case?

Either way, I'm sure smart people will figure out a way around it far before I can afford one of these TVs...

--

Uncle FCC

[Adam Heath]

Is it me, or does this look like 'Uncle Fucker' to anyone else?

Re:Uncle FCC

[EricWright]

It *is* you, and it *does* look like 'Uncle Fucker'. That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read it, too.

Re:Uncle FCC

[GungaDan]

And for their next cowardly maneuver... Chicken FCC

AHRC

[talonyx]

Didn't the audio home recording act permit people to tape (record, whatever) whatever they wanted from TV and other broadcast media?

Doesn't that still apply?

And do they think it will stop anyone? Macrovision didn't stop anyone from copying VHS tapes, they just buy a little "video stabilizer" box. CSS hasn't much stopped anyone...

If there is a video out, there is a way.

Re:AHRC

[spezz]

Will it make a difference when stuff isn't "broadcast" over the airwaves in the traditional sense and it's all digital?

If they treat shows as digital media won't the DMCA cast it's shadow over television?

Re:AHRC

[TheLaser]

Didn't the audio home recording act permit people to tape (record, whatever) whatever they wanted from TV and other broadcast media?

Doesn't that still apply?

Nope. As long as you slap a XOR on it (paying all required patent licencing fees for the XOR technology, of course) fair use and time shifted recording no longer exists, thanks to our friend the DMCA.

Re:AHRC

[ttyRazor]

What they're trying to do is bypass it by making it so you can't record, even though you may record. Such a law is moot if there isn't any equipment capable (or in this case, all available equipment is crippled and castrated) of recording.

Up until now, the media cartels have grudgingly tolerated home recording because of quality degradation inherent in analog signals. All of a sudden "digital" comes along with the promise of infinite flawless error-corrected non-degrading copies. No tapes that wear out, no records that scratch up, no magnification of error from copy to copy. At fist they were cool with it since the equipment to write it to media large nough to hold it was beyond the means of normal people. But abruptly storage, bandwidth, compression, and processing power all caught up and turned digital media into a two way street: people could once again record their own media. Now they're all scrambling to "secure" their digital media without understanding the meaning of the word: to keep others from getting something you already have. I hate to break it to them, but they have already given or sold their stuff to us, and the only think copyright allows them to prevent us from doing is giving it to someone else. Anything else is our business.

Want to stop piracy? Convince people that copying is wrong because you honestly deserve their money and don't give them a reason to willfully rip you off because they want to see you go into bankruptcy. Hiding behind the "protecting the artists" excuse isn't working, especially when the artists don't want your protection.

Re:AHRC

[luxor]

how long can electronics manufacturers stand up to the FCC and the MPAA/TV/RIAA cartel? the news over the last few months has become increasingly grim: SDMI, "copy protection" DTV, hard drive IDs, Carnivore, govt. backdoors into Cisco routers, etc. etc. when the powers that be have locks and IDs on all hardware under the sun, where does that leave us? shouting "free information!" through a tin can?

looking back at the whole anti-Divx campaign, we geeks really got suckered. yipee Divx is dead, "Open" DVD won! seems to me we'll go down the same route with the next round of cool gear (which will restrict our freedom just a little more) as the Creative's and the Toshiba's cave in. we're doomed.

Re:AHRC

[jovlinger]

You know this, of course, but maybe others took it for sarcasm.

XOR is actually patented. In the context of save-unders for mouse pointers. #4,197,590.

Re:AHRC

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Sound like predictions in the Book of Revelations coming to fruition(sp?). I'm not overly religious myself, but wasn't there statements to the effect that 'those who who do not have a number tatooed on their foreheads could not buy or receive anything'?

Considering the bible can only be loosely interperated, could the 'tatooed' number really mean the decryption code embedded in our media players and the entertainment media are the things we all want to buy or receive? So when do we see the four horsemen of the apocolypse?

Disclaimer: I'm trying to remember this information from 20 years ago....

Re:AHRC

[Slak]

Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law.

Re:AHRC

[titus-g]

Remeber the same thing coming up when barcodes were first introduced, looking more and more likely though...

I'd go more for a embedded encryption codes in media players etc just being the first step, the next logical step would be would be to put the codes in the viewers themselves.

I'd move to a religion with more future...

Re:AHRC

[titus-g]

Damn must he have been partying when HK went back to china, now hollywood's got all the good action directors as well.

And they are nurtured into turning out shite like MI2.

I mean, The Killer MI2????

They need more competition, more indie films, basically now the big hollywood co.'s have a monopoly, because of thier influence and advertising power.

But the best films I've seen recently weren't from there... (not that I'd recommend 'The Cube' to anyone without happy happy pills nearby)

Re:AHRC

[titus-g]

3rd line replace: I mean, The Killer <=> MI2????

Re:AHRC

[hirlemad]

I think we as a society need to protect people's work from being pirated. It may seem like fun now to steal the work, but I think you're going to regret it down the line. It doesn't matter if Offspring wants to give it away because they are already rich they just want more fans. It matters to the bands just starting out.

What it comes down to is property rights. Here in America if you own land, nobody can take it(unless you are the government hiding behind environmental laws) without severe repurcussions. If you are confident that your land won't be taken, then you can start to invest in it buy building a home or a factory. However if you aren't confident that it won't be taken from you, then you would never spend the time or money building anything. Companies need to feel confident in their ability to make money in order to invest. If they don't, guess what? THEY WILL STOP INVESTING TIME OR MONEY IN FINDING NEW TALENT. And if somebody stumbles upon new talent? THE NEW TALENT WILL HAVE NO REASON TO WORK WHEN THEY CAN'T GET PAID.

What that means to us: We'll still be downloading the same crappy Metallica songs 20 years from now.

You know what America would be without property rights: _________ (insert any country on the African continent)

Re:AHRC

[fornix]

It doesn't matter to the bands just starting out since they don't recieve significant royalties anyway. The bands that are just starting out are the ones much more likely to "give it away" to spread the word. The bands like Offspring, who have platinum sales (and thus sell enough to recieve royalties) are the ones with something to lose by giving the recordings away.

However if you aren't confident that it won't be taken from you, then you would never spend the time or money building anything

That's simply not true. But it's a common myth of IP supporters. Did Michelangelo, Leonardo DeVinci, Isaac Newton, Aristotle and all the other creative types who existed before intellectual property laws came into existence have no motivation to do their thing? Of course not! If there is no intellectual property, will companies stop competing to sell consumers products that they want to buy? Of course not! If there is market demand, then somebody will meet it - with or without the existence of intellectual property.

Re:AHRC

[Scareduck]

Ahem. The real problem here is that they're trying to avoid selling us their product via UCITA. That is, their hirelings in Congress have obliged H'wood in voiding Universal v. Sony. Hm -- Barbara Streisand gets her very own tax deduction, but the gubmint can't give the rest of us Joes one because evil will befall? Feh.

Re:AHRC

[sallen]

>>Why should laws apply to the entertainment industry? Mr. Valenti seems to think the entire industry so critical to the nation that it be above the law. ------- Of course he does, because if you remember, he's a Democrat with the capital 'D', going back to the lyndon johnson years. (Wasn't he a spokesman back then, helping keep the blinders on the citizens about Nam, IIRC.) While he may be 'senile' or appear totally dumb in depositions (his DeCSS depo would have been humorous if it wasn't so serious... he probably felt it was ok, since Bill and friends have said it's ok to deceive and lie in depositions, long as you don't think it's serious.) But he still has a lot of pull in Washington with the politicians and plenty of money to dole out via the industry. I never considered him very bright, but he has the connections...and IMHO, is nothing more than bought and paid for by the MPAA. (And he was probably pretty cheap since he has an ego the size of Saturn, just being in front of the camera probably takes care of 1/2 of that payment)

Re:AHRC

[tshak]

The bands like Offspring, who have platinum sales (and thus sell enough to recieve royalties) are the ones with something to lose by giving the recordings away.

However, Offspring announced that it will digitally distribute their album for _FREE_ on the Internet one month before the CD comes out! They claim that it will only help their sales.

Re:AHRC

[fornix]

My point exactly. If the artists with the most to lose aren't afriad, then nobody should be!

All the more reason to kill your TV

[skatan]

I stopped paying the bills on my satallite (I live in a bandwidth/reception forsaken town) over 3 months ago and have not missed TV one bit. Thank you /.

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[Bob McCown]

Ditto...I dont have cable (cause my provider doesnt have cable modems), and the TV is hooked up to the playstation...I want movies, I go rent...

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[EnderWiggnz]

my roommate moved out a couple of months ago, and when he cancelled the cable, I never had it turned back on.

and its one of the best decisions i've ever made.

at first it seems like the end of the world when you dont have TV, but soon you realize that there are all sorts of other, much more useful ways to spend the 6+ hours/day that the average american is watching every day.

all of a sudden, i had time for hobbies, reading, coding, hanging out with friends... Its amazing how much time that damn thing sucks up of yours.

One of funniest things that I've come across is the reaction that I get when I tell most people that I dont have cable, and hardly ever watch TV. Most people say something along the lines of "I cant survive without TV". Kindof sad, really...

After you dont watch TV for a while, you being to realize how exploitive the advertising is, and how manipulative the programming is. My favorite example is the damn Prilosec "Purple Pill" commercial. It gives you the impression that taking this pill will save your life... when all it does is stop heartburn :-)

so... I dont exactly see myself buying one of these HDTV's.

tagline

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[EnderWiggnz]

I have a friend who used to speed home every day after work so he could watch A*Team and dukes of hazzard re-runs.

He realized how pathetic that was, and cancelled his cable.

tagline

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[Megahurts]

> My favorite example is the damn Prilosec "Purple Pill" commercial. It gives you the impression that taking this pill will save your life..

Heartburn? I never paid attention to the ad and always assumed it was an anti-depressant. Interesting.

---

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[RSevrinsky]

I agree that TV is largely a waste of time, BUT -- any attempt on the FCC's part to put copy-protection in over-the-air broadcast must be seen as a battle in the larger war on our rights to our legitamitely acquired bits. And this applies to all bits -- video, music, literature, art, etc. - Richie

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[bridgette]

Reminds me of a really funny conversation I had w/ a digital cable telemarketer once ...

He starts in on his schpiel about how digital cable is just the best thing ever and I say "well, my tv is really really old and crappy so i won't really get much out of the enhanced signal or the digital music stations"

"out of curiosity, why don't you get a new tv?"

"actually, i've been thinking about getting rid of the tv all together, i was really a much better person when i didn't have a tv."

At this point the guy starts laughing, "A better person? What do you mean?"

"You know, I did all those things that I usually mean to do but never get around to doing, I read more, did more artwork and crafts, went out more, socialized more, did volunteer work, I was the best possible version of me."

More nervous laughter, I can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief. "Well this was, umm, a really 'interesting' conversation ... if you ever change your mind ..." blah blah blah ...

The sad postscript is that I ended up caving in when they moved the sundance channel to a "digital only" station. I feel so 'dirty'.

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[killthiskid]

I'm with you. I haven't even OWNED a TV for 2 years. I can count the number of hours I've watched a TV in the past year on one hand.

Every one I know owns a TV and watches TV more than an hour a day. I get the same response from all of these people... "God, how can you live with out TV?"

I say: "God, how can you watch TV?"

When I see the commercialism on TV (which doesn't take long, watch for 5 minutes and you'll get subjected to some sort of intentional attempt at influence) it DRIVES ME CRAZY!

It's gone from not watching TV to not even being able to watch TV... it really is that bad. It pisses me off, it makes me cringe...

And not a lot of people understand, 'cause... god, I don't know how you can live with out tv.

Scary, very scary.

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[Mr T]

Amen. I've been pretty much TV free for about a year now. I work for a TV company and get to test products and what have you but for the most part I don't watch it any more.

Life is too short to watch TV

I excercise more, I read more, I code more, I do more things not related to computers, I date more women, I spend more time with my family and friends. Best part of all, I'm not contaminating my brain with the pointless garbage that fills up what we call TV, how many shows are on TV simply because of short skirts and breasts? Pro-wresting is one of the most popular shows on TV, it's fake violence. I woke up one day and I couldn't stomach the crap that I dedicated time to, the idea that I would setup the VCR to tape something because it was too important to miss makes me sick when you really look at it all. And then there are the commercials, it seems like they can't even put together a complex thought and communicate it to you anymore without a fricking commercial getting in the way.

What I want is an HDTV without the tuners, they are optional plug-ins anyway... I just want it to be a monitor for a digital VCR type device, be it HDVD or whatever and I don't care if I have to pay to view. I just want it to watch movies on occasion.. BTW, I go to more movies now, and yeah it costs more money but there is something about getting up, leaving the house and watching a movie with other people, it's probably a good thing for a lot of geeks to do more often.

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[ddent]

yes.. but TV is just where it starts... how long until it reaches books (oh wait, thats almost too late..).. how long until it reaches your computer.. (oh wait, its getting there already... )... how long until it reaches the chair you sit in?? (please insert quarter to use YOUR chair for another 5 minutes)

Re:All the more reason to kill your TV

[spudnic]

I'd be interested to see how productivity levels of /. readers would go up if /. didn't exist.

I'm not saying this as a troll. I know I have sort of an addiction to /. I know I spend more time here than I probably need to.

But then the argument could be made that I really learn a lot from some of the conversations here, and it gives me a break from the problem I'm working on at the time and lets me start fresh.

The same can be said for TV. I don't know what I'd do without Discovery Channel, or The History Channel. I even really like Food Network. I don't spend a whole bunch of time watching pointless shows.

I think I'm a more rounded person for having access to quality television and /., rather than being someone who is missing out on other things because I choose to spend time with such things.

And I don't think ads on TV are really targeted to the average /. reader who knows how to think for themselves. I've never been swayed by advertisements.

So much for the protest emails.

[sulli]

I guess the FCC wasn't interested in the interests of consumers. No surprise there, they're completely in the pockets of Hollywood, which takes Lieberman spankings and pays for them with millions in soft money.

But fuck it. I don't need a goddamn digital TV. I don't really need an analog one. This will just further push real creativity away from a medium that desperately needs to be replaced, and the indie film producers (think George Lucas in Love) will be the beneficiaries.

sulli

Re:So much for the protest emails.

[ninjalex]

No, but the FCC should be concerned with citizen's rights.

Why do so many people self identify as a "consumer"? 10 years ago that word wasn't used except to describe someone sitting at the dinner table. Where exactly did we stop being citizens, or even customers?

I think on a subconsious level it is easier for groups/businesses/government to trample over our rights when we are thought of as consumers. It has such a parasitic tone to it, as if we need them more than they need us.

Funny how a small change in terminology can swing the power base.

Re:So much for the protest emails.

[sulli]

[T]he FCC should be concerned with citizen's rights.

True enough. But citizens need to be treated with respect as consumers and businesspeople. The argument that somehow we don't have the right to make choices about what we buy is a bad one that inevitably leads to bad products and service.

Re:So much for the protest emails.

[Steeltoe]

Well, pendulums do swing back and forth. If you want stability, then you gotta keep the balance.

I think the mindset and will of change of mindset came before people actually started adopting the business-term consumer. So this is probably a sign that we should join Hare Krishna or put transistors into our brains or something.

- Steeltoe

The true meaning of FCC

[Khan]

"The only bad "F" word is FCC" -Tom Moreno

Re:The true meaning of FCC

[Sydney Weidman]

What I'm proposing is the reciprocal of privatizing a segment of the government: we publicize it, i.e., give the control of the organization to those whom it affects, the public. Any thoughts on this?

I have been thinking along very similar lines. An intellectual property consumers' union that would just flex it's muscle to keep producers honest. Volume buying of property for the benefit of members. This doesn't really address the issue of guarding the public interest, however.

Because intellectual property isn't a necessity, no one would ever consider rioting for their rights to share information. Many people consider it shameful to put media access in the same category as homelessness or poverty. Take away bread and the people will act. Take away TV and the people will... do nothing. I used to think that free speech and common cultural bonds were things worth fighting for. I don't think it's worth it anymore. People don't care about freedom of information (in the broadest sense of the words freedom and information) because they're justifiably concerned with other things.

At the same time, I think it's important for people to be participants in their shared culture, and not just consumers of it. Therefore, the fight against the "big, greedy corporations" is the wrong fight. Making something cheap or free doesn't make it yours. You have to participate in shaping the discourse in order to really make it public property.

The entertainment industry would like us to believe that consumers of information live on one side of the fence and producers of information live on the other. That is a lie. We all produce and consume ideas.

By making tv-dinners more readily available, we are only weakening the true public domain -- the arena of omnilateral engagement in cultural discourse. Cacophony is the sound of life, not a sine wave.

Who cares about HDTV anyway?

[blacque_jacques]

I never could get excited about buying a new TV to watch the same old programming anyway, and it looks like a lot of people agree so far. It would have been a shame had this happened to a format that really mattered. Did Sony et al really want this? Operation Footbullet once again.

Re:Who cares about HDTV anyway?

[piku]

Agreed. Satellite quality video is all we REALLY need. Past that it gets kinda pointless.

Hypocrisy

[talonyx]

"My fear is that the American consumer . . . walks away with a set that is fully capable of hooking up to cable but incapable of receiving any [over-the-air] signal," Ness said.

Susan Ness, who said that, is an FCC commissioner.

But the FCC is possibly precenting people from getting what they want to watch by restrcting the use of it through this piracy-protection thing...

Hypocrisy.

Can't wait until mod-chip.com starts selling TV mod chips...

Re:Hypocrisy

[talonyx]

oh
i thought she was speaking offically for the FCC

my bad

Go out and buy

[Zerth]

I almost want to go out and buy a digital tv right now, just in case. I constantly kick myself for abusing my old vcr until it died. It used to be great for inserting clips into lectures and stuff.

Right after I got my DVD player(yah, bad me giving in to the Man) I was thinking hey, next time I rent a DVD I have a tape of, just copy all the extra special bits. Then the vcr died and now I just have this crappy Macrovision enabled thingie. Sucks.

Re:Go out and buy

[Groundskeepr]

Except that you probably will not be able to watch the copyright-protected stuff with any digital tv available right now. One of the reasons the manufacturers have opposed this is the loss of customer goodwill they will experience when all the early adopters find out they spent so much money only to get digital tv's that won't show some programs.

Who's gonna buy that crap?

[YIAAL]

Frankly, nobody. Already they can't get anyone interested in buying HDTV. They're gonna kill the industry -- or wind up with a bureaucratically-embarrassing format-flop on their hands. And why is it the government's business to help businesses limit their customers' use of broadcasts? Where does that fit into "the public interest?"

It already happens in the UK...

[lverrall]

UK digital satellite and cable already have Macrovision pulses, inserted by the decoder boxes, into pay-per-view movies to prevent recording. There was some kerfuffle about Sky Digital (UK Satellite owned by Murdoch) using the anti-copy feature and failing to mention it to anybody until they went to playback the Movie they thought they'd payed for...

Seems like we've just rolled over and accepted it though.

Re:It already happens in the UK...

[ColdGrits]

I have to say that in my experience here in the UK, certainly some PPV sports events are definitly not Macrovisioned.

I know because I video them when they are on at like 1am, then watch them the next evening.
These are ones broadcast on Sky BoxOffice (such as WWF PPV events etc), received via a normal standard Pace Sky Digital stb.

Hmmm. Must try that with SBO films sometime - next time they actually show something good, that is! :)

Re:It already happens in the UK...

[titus-g]

They said that when they set the set up, and I was just in 'yeah, sure, whatever' mode.

Later I tried videong (?) some PPV stuff and no problems at all... (quality not great though)

Could be a problem with thier software I guess, I'm still getting all the movie channels etc after cancellng after the first month (anybody any idea why this happens? I do tend to cold boot by pulling the cable out of the back when it goes weird)

Re:It already happens in the UK...

[dbrower]

In the UK, ``it'' happened long ago with the mandatory Beeb TV license, didn't it?

-dB

Can you say ...

[twingo_gtx]

... class action lawsuit ?? I thought you could.

I wonder how hard it would be

[VValdo]

to strip out the "protected" flag from the signal (see the watermark story from earlier today)...

Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?


-------------------

Re:I wonder how hard it would be

[bnenning]

Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?

Support the EFF. The DeCSS case is probably the best shot we have at giving the DMCA a well-deserved burial. And they've also come out against this instance of Hollywood attempting to rewrite copyright law.

Re:I wonder how hard it would be

[Hittman]

Sigh. Must be some way to get the DMCA repealed, no?

It should be pretty easy. All you have to do is give congress weasels more money than the movie, recording and broadcast industry already does.

I'd be happy to lend you a couple billion, which would barely get you started, but yesterday someone stole my wallet.

V-Chip

[byee]

And you thought the V-Chip was bad. What the heck is going on with TV? Macrovision copy protection... V-Chip... Now this...??? There just isn't any trust any more....

Control is really the issue as usual

[BadBlood]

Right now, there is little control the user (us) has over what is seen on TV. We are told when to laugh, cry, and watch commercials. Introducing the digital nature of broadcasting sets the stage for someone to take control away from the networks and put it into the users hands. Corporate America sees loss of control as loss of income. When you sit down and think about it, it's amazing what we're force fed collectively each day through the media. Those who are currently in the money don't want that to change. They are willing to let us watch that latest pepsi commercial in HDTV format though. How nice of them. :)

Future Slashdot Article

[blueg3]

Hacking the HDTV -- how to remove copy-protection.

I can see it all now...

Re:Future Slashdot Article

[True Dork]

Actually, I was thinking "12 year old Norwegian boy executed at the request of the FCC for publishing information describing how to disable copy protection with a paperclip, a rubber band, and an Apple ]["

Another nail in the coffin of HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's just another nail in the coffin.

Pay $5000 for digital TV, and you can't even use a VCR.

And the HDTV companies wonder why they've only sold 23,000 fully-capable HDTV sets TOTAL in the 2.5 years that they've been available.

all in one boat

[Grifter]

I never thought that Sun and the FCC could just piss me off in the same day. Gee who thought of that? When I woke up this morning if someone had told me that Sun would blantly violate the GPL I would have said "maybe possible". Then the stinkin FCC wants to come piss me off as well...

The US government is trying to get back at it's citizens for the who Napster issue, and other copyright issues and stuff like DVDs. So they decide to put copy protection on the airwaves... I just know that I'll have a VCR that somehow bypasses this new protection. People need to protest this, and then when it goes through then buy the illegal devices that work around it.

People won't use it if they know what it does

[ttyRazor]

My aunt and uncle have refused to get a dvd player until they can record with it (and they record a LOT of crap). There is no way in hell thay'd ever touch such a thing voluntarily if they knew it was capable oof not letting them record stuff (and the stuff they'd want t record is likely the very same stuff that this would block.

T-Shirts

[Eponymous, Showered]

Man, if all these big orgs don't chill out, I'm going to have a lot of T-shirts: HDTV-crack, censorware crack shirts, SDMI-crack, decss, etc.

In the immortal words of the Beastie Boys, "Something's got to give."

Mod Chips

[jjr]

In two weeks of a to market device there will be a mod chip to bypass the copyright information.

Re:Mod Chips

[Rasvar]

In two weeks of a to market device there will be a mod chip to bypass the copyright information.

This is so true. The only people who won't be able to copy stuff are those how don't understand technology or are just too scared to do it.

Re:Mod Chips

[flufffy]

i.e. 99% of consumers.

Re:Mod Chips

[DavidTC]

That's NT crashing, assuming this is not a troll.

-David T. C.

Re:Mod Chips

[TM22721]

The weakness of their scheme is that they will have to kill all of the engineers after the encryption is developed.

This is really bad news

[Bruce Perens]

This is very bad news because it extends the DMCA to television reception and video recording. It will be used to close systems like the TiVo and to prevent Open Source software from being used to view television broadcasts.

Bruce

Re:This is really bad news

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to persuade Sun to find us a loophole.

Re:This is really bad news

[Slak]

IANAL:

The DMCA does supercede the AHRA because of the word Digital. It changes everything. Face it, the content providers have one by buying legislation that favors them.

All hope is not lost, however. We (the people) can challenge the legality of all copyright extention acts (such as Sonny Bono) on a Constitutional basis (why should extentions apply to extant works).

Furthermore, to challege the definition of "Sciences and the Useful Arts" as set by the Constitution.

And finally, to pursue monopoly charges against content providers and device manufacturers. By this, I mean that if all device manufacturers make products that conform to content provider wishes, then that creates a monopolistic environment. For example, Sony produces (in a supreme irony of the term) music and devices to play that music. The situation forces me to buy both content and access devices from the same source (e.g. RIAA and cronies).

I am, in general, not very hopeful. The recent suck.com article (am I allowed to link to it anymore? http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/09/08/) brought the point home. It is apparent to me now, that in the USA, We (the People) don't have bubcus on The Corporation. Warren Buffet's recent article on how to limit soft money contributions was particularly glaring. I wish I had the link to it.

The point is, laws are bought. The People's will matters not a wit.

Back to the matter at hand - the point is: the RIAA (and MPAA) have bought the laws. They have the lawyers. They own the judges. They own the parties. Geeks have no legal hope in any of these matters. No matter how absurd the law is, no matter what rights they take away, there is no short term hope for remedy.

Let's face it, have you heard one candidate's stance on Intellectual Property? Do you even know if your Congresscritter voted for or against DMCA (passed by voice vote, so you don't).

Intellectual Property laws (as they stand) were designed for the Industrial Era. And while everyone talks of the promise of the Informtion Era, most of the USA lives in the Industrial Era. There is no overwhelming call to re-examine IP/Copyright law. The Machiavellian Quote that has been floating around /. is very apropos:

"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the emnity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones."
-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513

We have an uphill battle to face. The Revolution will not be Televised. The Revolution will not be Digitized. The Revolution will not be Re-broadcast or Re-Transmitted without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, the Motion Picture Association of America and the RIAA. Any attempts to reverse engineer the Revolution will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

Re:This is really bad news

[Bushwacker]

That's US government for you. This seems to happen whenever a new form of technology becomes avalible. I don't forsee, however that the FCC will win the case brought on by manufacturers. It's a sort of Napster-like case, but in reverse.

Re:This is really bad news

[Slak]

Rats; I didn't check spelling - it should read:

"...content providers have won by buying..."

To further clarify why DMCA trumps AHRA - it was passed after (1998 to 198?) so, my understanding, is that anywhere the DMCA and AHRA conflict, the DMCA wins. Unless, of course, it violates the Constituition.

Re:This is really bad news

[ksheff]

All that will do is get you arrested for littering or whatever environmental violations can be dreamed up.

Our forefathers didn't get their freedom by yelling and dumping tea in Boston harbor. They won because they took their guns, formed armies, and killed those who wished to force their will upon them. The founding fathers of this country saw that we may have to do it again, and that's why we have the 2nd amendment.

all the HDTV owners will have to upgrade...

[tuffy]

...both of them.

We all know this won't work

[karma_policeman]

Copy protection never works. It just creates an opportunity for people who like to break copy protection.

Personally, I think it's an outrage that the government is mandating copy-protection. If a company wants copy-protection, they can put it in themselves. They shouldn't be forced by the government to include it.

Re:We all know this won't work

[Groundskeepr]

You seem to be out of touch with what the FCC's job is. The name on their bribe^H^H^H^H^Hpaychecks is "MPAA/RIAA".

Blargh

[Ptolemarch]

I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.

• Copy-protected VHS tapes didn't seem to matter. You could still copy them, but copying them left a tell-tale tag. Of course, it was only illegal to make illegal copies and then rent them out for money, so no harm done. Fair use is preserved, and people trying to make a quick buck off of the work of others get what they deserve.
• Copy protection on DAT recorders really sucked, but it still didn't seem all that bad. Maybe that was just because I wasn't a musician or musical artist.
• SDMI really rankled me, but hey, it doesn't stop me from recording my *own* MP3s. And now that things like Ogg Vorbis are coming out, this is really irrelevant.
• Encyrpted DVDs aren't great, but somehow I don't mind that as much. You paid for it, you play it, you can't copy it. I really don't like it, but somehow it seems like something we could overcome.
• The DMCA really really sucks, but that one seems destined to be destroyed in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident.
• But when the federal government starts mandating total copy protection of media broadcast on the open spectrum, the property of the people, I feel much more betrayed than I did before. The Executive branch, much harder to control than the legislative, is taking away an entire chunk of property that used to belong to the people as a whole, and giving it wholesale to a small handful of very large companies.

Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.

Re:Blargh

[ZanshinWedge]

Damn straight! The TV industry is using the airwaves that belong to us, and they are trying to tell us what we can do with what belongs to us? This is rediculous. We own the airwaves we should be telling them what to do! I'm gettin' pretty uppity about all this shit, I may just bitch to my congressman / senator.

Re:Blargh

[GlassUser]

What the hell do you mean MAY? You damned couch potato, get off your lazy consumer ass and write your congressional rep, both senators, and anybody in the FCC you can get the name of. This is one thing that really pisses me off about the average slashdotter, all you do is sit there and complain, when it takes almost NO effort to DO something to make a difference. Is it just too hard, because you can't pick up a damned remote control and press a couple of buttons to have the for letter read from your head and zipped up there? Stop being a pig consumer and assert the rights that many of our ancestors died to give to your lazy self-serving ass.

Re:Blargh

[David Hume]

The DMCA really really sucks, but that one seems destined to be destroyed in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident.

Could I ask why? My question is neither rhetorical, nor intended as flame bait. I would really like to know. Why are you confident? What do you think the Constitutional problem with the DMCA is? What clause of the Consitution does it violate? What is the relevant case law?

But when the federal government starts mandating total copy protection of media broadcast on the open spectrum, the property of the people, I feel much more betrayed than I did before. The Executive branch, much harder to control than the legislative, is taking away an entire chunk of property that used to belong to the people as a whole, and giving it wholesale to a small handful of very large companies.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold. The media companies paid for it, and the people (through their government) received the money. Now, you might argue they did not pay enough, but they did pay.

Re:Blargh

[Ptolemarch]

What do you think the Constitutional problem with the DMCA is? What clause of the Consitution does it violate? What is the relevant case law?

I'll admit that this is just my own vague feeling on the subject. IANAL. Still, I have some means of backing up my statement: that the DMCA, as I currently understand it, violates Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

What the DMCA provides, in effect (where "effect" == Judge Kaplan's ruling), is perfect, eternal control of the media so protected. This seems to me to be in direct violation of the above clause.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this could just be wishful thinking on my part.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold. The media companies paid for it, and the people (through their government) received the money. Now, you might argue they did not pay enough, but they did pay.

I'm definitely not saying that it was given to the companies free of charge, though I can understand why you might think I meant that. I'm not really even saying that they weren't charged enough. What I meant to express, rather, was that the FCC is granting rights that it shouldn't be granting, regardless of how much the licensees paid for their respective spectrum allocations.

When you're granted a license to broadcast, you're already given a monopoly on a given frequency band, for a given wattage (or geographical area, I'm not sure). But the spectrum still belongs to the people, not to any particular company. It seems, therefore, that we, the people, should be entitled to fair use of the content broadcast. Right now, we are: you can tape the last episode of Survivor, if you want, or record the year-end countdown of top hits on your favorite radio station. You can even save it for posterity, or give the tape (or whatever) to your friends. You just can't sell it.

The technology that this regulation would require would effectively push the people off of the last toe-hold they had on the radio spectrum. The people as individuals (not as represented by their government) would lose their last semblance of ownership of the frequencies licensed to the television networks.

Re:Blargh

[Ptolemarch]

Get off your lazy consumer ass and write your congressional rep, both senators, and anybody in the FCC you can get the name of.

Hey, um, good idea. :-)

I think this FCC silliness is just what I needed to finally jolt myself into real action.

Re:Blargh

[Zigurd]

Absolutely outstanding! A limited term of protection does have some historical meaning, and this ability to revoke access does appear to stretch this to the breaking point. While courts do defer to the Congress to do whatever moronic things it gets elected to do, this is at or over the line.

Guess all those protest letters meant nothing...

[Svartalf]

I sent one, with a well-thought-out argument that led to the connection of the Universal vs. Sony decision. Simply put, the FCC apparently thinks that, it too, is completely above the law.

Couldn't the Tivo be hacked to get around....

[esoteric0]

since the tivo is a linux box, couldn't it be hacked to get around whatever copyright protection they come up with? i'm sure someone will figure out how to break the copyright system in a matter of weeks if it's even implented.

There's always a "hack"

[slecht]

Regardless of whatever steps they take to block piracy, someone will figure a way around their road block. Concerning copyrights... just another one of those laws that helps keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. Sure, you can argue that a copyright can protect anyone but what you mostly see is record companies screaming bloody mary because they may make $2.0 billion instead of $2.1 billion because of pirated music. But, that's another debate... :)

Simple job for a PPC 8xx series

[Weirdling]

Take the incoming signal, analyse it, remove tags, shouldn't be too hard.

Government is totally being owned by corporations

[Benjamin Shniper]

IMHO,It's our fault. Years of better and better marketing has caused americans to just accept corporate ownership of everything. We gave in to marketting years ago, allowing companies to get away with almost anything and still buying their products in droves.

Now they have turned their amazingly large resources we gave them into political control and stronger and stronger ownership of their resources. Expect marketting to get so good in the future that when you see a McDonald's commercial on a "free" tv, you've agreed to purchase a Big Mac by watching "their" program. Just as soon as a child is born in this country, he learns how cool mattel or hasbro or fisher price is and how much he wants it. Soon they will have the same control on all age groups. And we won't own the commercials, the tv, or the government anymore. (not that we do now)

-Ben

Sony DVD

[DigitalDragon]

I recently bought Sony hometheatre system. DVD that came with it refuses to play CDs that I recorded myself from MP3s into Audio CD format, although they play fine in any other stereo system. This one accepts only original CDs.. Now what's up with that?

Re:Sony DVD

[photozz]

Dose it SAY it's compatable with CDR, CDWR discs? it may not have multi read compatability.

Re:Sony DVD

[ruebarb]

I couldn't use my band's burned CD in my player DVD player either. some of them aren't setup for CD-R/CD-RW

Re:Sony DVD

[Kev Vance]

I remember the salesdroid at circus city talking about this when I bought a DVD player -- you need a player with two lenses because the one used for playing DVDs does not work with burned CDs.

Re:Sony DVD

[louzerr]

Don't buy Sony, that's the best solution. Not only are most of their products disposable ( I never got more than a year out of anything I've bought from them), they also happen to be one of the biggest companies hit by piracy (Sony Music, Playstation, etc). Buy a Phillips. Listen Freely.
The next generation search engine -- TRY IT!

Re:Sony DVD

[queef]

My Toshiba SD2109 doesn't play audio CDRs either...I think it's more of a compatibility problem than anything else. Oh well, I only use it for movies anyways.

Re:Sony DVD

[jfk3]

Your problem with home recorded CDs may not be due to evil censorship. I had a similar problem playing homemade CDs in my new truck. It turned out that the player only likes CDs recorded in Disk at Once (DAO) mode. When you record in Track at Once (TAO) the formatting is different. I would be surprised if you cannot overcome this problem because, in theory, you should be able to make an *exact* duplicate of a CD. I doubt the MP3 -> DA has anything to do with this. Good Luck.

Re:Sony DVD

[ewhac]

Uh, actually, you have to go out of your way to build a CD/DVD player that will reject gold discs.

We, in fact, did this at 3DO when we were designing the low-cost version of the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer. The CD-ROM guys (both hardware and software) were instructed by management to detect and reject CD-R (gold) copies of 3DO CD-ROMs. This took extra work and code to accomplish.

The new players did play gold audio CDs, but they could just as easily have added the code to reject them as well. But since that wasn't a specific management request, the techs didn't do it.

Schwab

Re:Sony DVD

[GOiNK]

And of course being hit by piracy means that they make crap ?

BTW: my Sony Minidisc player has lasted me a LOOONG time, the Discman I got early in the last decade still works.. I'd go with Sony over Phillips most days of the week... they just make better products.

Re:Sony DVD

[sshoop]

I recently bought Sony hometheatre system. DVD that came with it refuses to play CDs that I recorded myself from MP3s into Audio CD format, although they play fine in any other stereo system. This one accepts only original CDs.. Now what's up with that?

This is actually a feature of _most_ home DVD players. They will not play any CD-R disks, but they will play CD-RW disks. You read that correctly, CD-RW disks. I did not believe it until I did it myself. This is the opposite of most early DVD-ROM drives, which would play CD-R's, but not CD-RW's.

Re:Sony DVD

[kashem]

I too ran into the same problem. The solution: I returned the Sony and bought the Phillips DVD 751. (it has two separate lasers, and thus uses one for dvd and the other for cd/r/rw.) It's also cheaper.

A little negative, are we?

[AintTooProudToBeg]

Not only will this slow HDTV adoptance even more, but it will make a lot of existing sets incompatible with formats.

You forgot "this will slow piracy."

Shut

[DigitalDragon]

your ugly face, Uncle Fucka! You're ass-licking... Southpark RULEZZZ!!

GAK!!! KEYS, KEYS!!!

[Crutcher]

When will these people learn that the ONLY way to do 'Secure Content' is the way that Rocket eBook does?

You have a central db, it has keys, one for every consumer device. The consumer devices have the other half of their key pair in an eprom. The do not have any digital output. You encode the content for the player upon which it is to be played. It works. It is the only approach that could posibly work.

-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

Re:GAK!!! KEYS, KEYS!!!

[Slackrat]

Which is great until you have a couple million people all decide to turn on their TVs to watch the final episode of "Survivor IV: New Jersey". Everybody grabs their key at the same time, every piece of content has to be encoded seperately. Network screams to halt as millions of slightly different video feeds are pumped to the dull eyes of the waiting consumer. Granted, no one would be copying anything... but only because no one would be getting anything.

who owns one now?

[ArchieBunker]

How many people actually own a digital tv right now? Can they only receive digital broadcasts, or can they receive normal air/cable? Why pay so much for something that will never catch on anyhow?

The NOT Video Recorder

[fpn]

That will boost sales. A Video Recording device that does not record your favorite TV show. My parents already have serious problems using their VCR for recording purposes. This gives them three usage patterns:

• View live show
• View rented DVD/VHS tape
• Read the newspaper or a good book

Maybe Tivo has a way around this? After all you can allways change the SW.

I love the FCC...

florian nierhaus

P.S.
Vote democrat in the next election otherwise you will have even more "industry represenatives" in the FCC. The democrats traditionally try to appoint more custumer friendly representatives. The current breed is as far as I know mostly leftovers from Bush...

Corruption Corruption

[Pru]

Can you smell Corruption?

Can you see Corruption?

IS IT BLATANT CORRUPTION

Creating black markets

[suitcase]

This type of action just stimulates demand for illegal 'unadulterated' A/V equipment. And you know when these sets come out that there will be ways to modify or remove the protection, giving organized groups a valuable resale operation.

Blame the Constitution for this...

[Gothmolly]

According to the US Constitution:
From Section 8 -

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Thus the FCC is justified, as is the SEC, FBI and all the other alphabet-soup Federal groups.

This is an anachronism to the times when the States taxed each other's products, and charged customs/duties on imports/exports, all of which is left over from the original Confederation. So in knee-jerk response to that, Congress gave the individual states the smack-down, and now we get the FCC.

History Lesson

[mttlg]

Ok class, now we're going to look at 20th century entertainment. Swipe your debit cards to activate your electronic books and put on your privacy goggles so only you can read the text. In the late twentieth century, there was a strange concept called "fair use." People were actually allowed to do whatever they wanted with information content they purchased. They could read, watch, or listen to it as much as they wanted, they could loan it out to friends, they could even copy it for personal use. Even television signals were fair game. All of this made the poor media giants angry because it was costing them additional sales. Finally, the government fought back against this injustice and put an end to unrestricted use of information for good. Now we live in a wonderful world where nobody can get away with not paying for every single piece of information they use every time they use it. That concludes today's lesson, you will now be charged the usual fee for any notes you have taken. Remember, if you tell anyone else about this lecture, you will be in violation of the Intellectual Property Act of 2005.

Re:History Lesson

[xerx]

Very nice post!

Time Shifting?

[GeorgeH]

The Supreme Court has ruled on a few occasions that it is perfectly legal to timeshift copyrighted content. I kind of hope that the HDTV copy protection doesn't permit any kind of recording, because then the supreme court ruling would trump the copyright protection. Then they would have to ditch the whole concept.

The again, it's never a good idea to bet on your enemiy's stupidity, so we should probably nip this one it the bud. Hmmm, I guess that implies the US government our enemy... uh oh, looks like I'm about to be put on a list of persona non gratia.
--

well.... another stupid move by UNCLE SAM...

[jmccay]

I think this is stupid. The only way this could work is if ll markets had On Demand television viewing. In other words, if you want to watcht hat special on the discory channel you start watching it when you wanted, and paused when you wanted.
I personally will not buy a digital tv for a long time. I won't ever by one if they don't let me record television movies and shows. Growing up, my parents didn't have a lot of money. We couldn't afford ot buy a lot of movies. So we taped them with our BETAMAX VCR (which we bought used from a rental place). I won't like it if I can't record the movies, not everyone can afford to buy the movies, or even goto the movies these days.
This is just another attempt by the greedy Entertainment industry to force us to play the game their way. They don't want you single parent family who can barely afford the rent to be able to record the movie, or show, he/she missed bause they were working to pay the bills and put food on the table. Enoguh is enough. We need to start making our views known. I think we should boycott television. Personally, their isn't much on worht watching anymore. If we are lucky, the spoiled brats in the television industry give us 13 new shows a year. I can remember a time when new show were from Labor Day to Memorial day or later. Now they barely work! Enough is enough!!!!!!!!

Related Story

[photozz]

Yahoo had This news story earlier about the whole thing.

Re:Related Story

[himagus]

``Program creators expect their digital content over cable systems to be protected, or they won't make it available,'' said Robert Sachs, head of the National Cable Television Association.

Wow, think how grand that would be if the music industry felt the same way... Or if the movie industry felt, oh, wait, they do feel that way.

Re:Related Story

[photozz]

"Program creators expect their digital content over cable systems to be protected, or they won't make it available"

If this falls under copyright, how come they have not tried to defend it until now? shure VCR quality isn't the same as digital, but Mpeg is crap compared to VHS and they are going after that in a big way.....
Note to studios, get your story straight...

and you think this is a democracy

[evilned]

Welcome to the US, a corporate republic. Where profits come before rights.

Re:and you think this is a democracy

[1024x768]

whoa x3

This kind of garbage is DEMOCRACY in action. In a republic the rights of the individual to manufacture/purchase the hardware of their choice would not be questioned.

In a democracy, groups such as those who push for "standards" enforced by the government get to abridge the rights of the individual.

Re:and you think this is a democracy

[Xanlexian]

Actually, the United States of America *IS* a Republic. Not a Democracy. Look it up.

revisionism

[Barbarian]

I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but, if you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?

Where the US leads, the world follows. This will lead to widespread adoption if it catches on in the USA. If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.

To extend this a bit further, what if means were included to "revoke" privledges to record broadcasts after the fact, and disable existing copies? Then we'd be getting into an Orwellian nightmare.


--

Re:revisionism

[tfxx]

Where the US leads, the world follows. This will lead to widespread adoption if it catches on in the USA.

More or less. I'd also say: where the world leads, the US doesn't follow. Take the cell phone networks. Take the minidisc. To name just a few. OTOH, you can say: where the US leads, Canada follows, and that's just too bad.

Re:revisionism

[juuri]

"intelligent discussion"

oh you mean like your post?

While it *can* be recorded... the means to do so may not be available to the common man. Then we end up with a world much like it was from around 1100BC-1500AD. The few and the mighty excersizing absolute brutal control over the masses. Sure the few control, now, but at least for most of the world its not brutal.


---
Solaris/FreeBSD/Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...

Re:revisionism

[jmulvey]

Oh come on... Do you really want to record Digital TV to record the daily news for historical archives? If you believe that, then you also believe Napster was created for the express purpose of allowing anyone in the world to publish MP3 files by "consenting" bands. Hogwash. You want to record digital TV so you can get good movies at DVD quality for free! I'm all for upsetting the applecart if it needs to be upset, but let's make sure everyone involved understands what the leaders of this "copyright revolution" are trying to accomplish.. otherwise the "copyright revolution" is just as bad by using ideological deception to justify thievery.

Re:revisionism

[Lagged2Death]

You're right, it sounds scary from that political standpoint, and I'm very much against it, but consider:

It won't be long before photographs, video recordings, and audio recordings aren't considered proof of anything anymore.

It won't be long before the US$500 PCs for sale at Best Buy will put the finest graphical workstations now available to shame. With a few tens of GFLOPS on tap, even Joe Six Pack will be able to manufacture video, audio, and photographic "proof" of whatever the heck he wants - faces on Mars, the president is an alien, Nixon shot Kennedy, etc. Movie studios have used digital FX for years - and it looks, in some cases, better than photography of the actual event or situation would. TV networks are already capable of modifying live video (for ad insertion) in real time. In 10 years, Quake IX will probably require that kind of horsepower - it will be everywhere.

The government will have an easy time revising history if it wants - no help needed from a rule like this. They can simply claim that any recording that doesn't jibe with the "official" version is a fake. And the luncatic fringe will produce some fakes, anyway, strengthening the government's case.

Re:revisionism

[interiot]

Well, US law requires copyrighted works to become public domain after life + 70 years (here).

So perhaps companies should be required to maintain a copy of all released works, to ensure they are available for the public domain (since a consumer can't use a device to unlock a purchased copy).

That would also solve the history problem.
--

Re:revisionism

[mikpos]

Actually, I think that life + 70 years thing only applies to copyrighted works published recently and created by people. When corporations are involved, things get more complicated.

Re:revisionism

[RedBear]

To extend this a bit further, what if means were included to "revoke" privledges to record broadcasts after the fact, and disable existing copies? Then we'd be getting into an Orwellian nightmare.

The most frightening thing about this little snippet is how easily it could become a reality, if we take current government trends as an example. This kind of retroactive change is already happening in the war the feds are waging on lawful gun owners. People who bought a perfectly legal firearm as long as 30 years ago are becoming criminals overnight as California repeatedly changes it's firearm laws. As part of a presentation I was watching last night on cable (good thing I didn't record it, whew!) there was even a police officer who was in danger of losing his career because suddenly a legal personal handgun he owned became illegal (yes, retroactively!) under California's latest firearms regulations. Another example was an Olympic-hopeful sharpshooter who's target pistol was reclassified overnight as some sort of assault weapon because of it's specialized design.

It's total insanity, and it's happening. Right now. Today. In your backyard. The really scary thing is that I really can't blow the situation out of proportion, it has already become so bad.

I'm sorry I don't have any direct links to any information on this stuff, but if you go to the National Rifle Association website, or even better, the NRA/ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) website, they will probably tell you all about it. I believe these two situations are pretty much directly related. So if you think the quote above is way off base and could never happen, better think again.

Cheers,
--Kris Finkenbinder
=============================================

Re:revisionism

[puppet10]

This only puts any existing copies into public domain. If no one can make any copies and the company simply stops publishing when copyright expires that cantent is permanently lost as AFAIK.

Yet another reason to be disturbed by the DMCA.

Re:revisionism

[interiot]

Once the copyright expires, people can make all the copies they want (the copyright holder no longer has the exclusive right to copy or distribute). The "seed" doesn't have to come directly from the ex-copyright-holder.
--

Re:revisionism

[Barbarian]

This doesn't mean that well done fakes can not have flaws that can be detected. I think it'll be a long time before we get to that point.

Irregardless, if you're an underground opposition group opposed to an oppresive government, you'd like to have your own propaganda to counter theirs. And if you have morals, you'd like to have real footage.

--

Re:revisionism

[Deosyne]

Irregardless, if you're an underground opposition group opposed to an oppresive government...

Irregardless isn't a word. :) That said, why is it such a fun word to use, even though the correct word, regardless, is shorter and easier to roll out?

Deo

PS: Just a little offtopic chain pulling; I say irregardless all the time and get crap for it myself, so I couldn't resist. ;)

Re:revisionism

[Apotsy]

Unless Joe Sixpack is a really good artist, his altered photos, audio, and video won't fool anybody. No matter how good the software, it still takes skill to fake things convincingly.

Besides, ever since white-out and Xerox machines came along, it's been possible to fake documents, and yet documents are still considered evidence in court in many cases.

Re:revisionism

[cduffy]

Yes, you might have your own real footage. But in a world where everything's so easy to manufacture, how do you make people believe that it's real?

Re:revisionism

[Tom_N]

The problem is that if all of the copies that are in circulation are damaged goods (burdened with copy protection / encryption / access controls), it may be hard to get at the "seed".

Especially if there's some stupid law designed to criminalize breaking the copy protection / encryption / access controls without regards to the legality of the copying, or the public domain status of the materials being copied.

Re:revisionism

[jmulvey]

Do you really believe that producers of Intellectual Property must maintain such a level of gratitute to the public for not "petitioning congress" in such a way?? Do you really believe that the just renumeration of that gratitude must be unfettered use/access/reproduction of that Intellectual Property? That would be a scary precent indeed if it applied to material property. Better rethink hard on your suggestion, for it would shake the foundations of not just IP, but commerce in general. The Judicial branch would NEVER let Congress put such an unconstitutional idea into law!

Re:Oh my god!

[Hacker Cracker]

Quoth the poster:

You mean these people are trying to protect copyright! Heretics!

Every time I hear this tired old quote it makes me sick. Copyright is supposed to be limited, and this step by the FCC will make it that much harder for the rest of us ordinary folk to exercise our Fair Use rights. Get a clue, please!

-- Shamus

Arrrgh!

[thunder-in-pants]

So much for watching General Hospital in digital quality.

How much stuff would be tagged as copy protected? I think there is going to be a rude awakening on the entertainment industry's part when they realize half the stuff that is popular is popular because it is easy to access. Just wait when they make it difficult to watch and enjoy just how popular it is. Nobody Loves Raymond, they watch it cuz it is easy to.

Wait a second...

[Millennium]

...this one will be easier to fight.

The reason: it prevents all copying, assuming that all copying is for criminal purposes. This is not true; there are plenty of legal reasons for copying, several of which (such as time-shifting, the most popular legitimate reason) have been explicitly defined as legal; "traditional rights" are not the only defense.

Therefore, this regulation assumes that a consumer copying a program is guilty of a criminal act until proven innocent, when in fact there is very reasonable doubt (how do you know the consumer isn't copying for legal reasons; chances are that's precisely the case!) That's indisputably unconstitutional, having been added to the Constitution before even the Bill of Rights was added.

Incidentally, this also means that the provision in DMCA about banning devices that can conceivably be used in piracy is also unconstitutional (forget fair use; it's about presumption of guilt!)
----------

Re:Oh my god!

[Kaa]

You mean these people are trying to protect copyright! Heretics!

Maybe to you it sounds like they are trying to protect their copyright. To me it sounds like they are trying to technologically re-write the fair-use laws.

Seriously, when did Slashdot become such a thought police state?

Oh, you mean somebody prevented you from posting your rants to Slashdot? Or threatened to punish you for doing so?

It also means the FCC won't have to sue everybody's asses like what happened with Napster.


Err... FCC sue everybody's asses? like Napster? What are you talking about?

How in hell can you condemn an industry for not making it incredibly easy to rip them off?

Because, IMAO, they are not just trying to protect themselves from being ripped off. They are trying to increase their power at the consumers' expense. Specifically, they are trying to annul (through licenses or technology) fair use provisions, make it so that people had to buy a separate copy of music/video for their work/car/etc., and make it so everyone's use of music/video is collected, catalogued and analyzed. I don't like it.

Kaa

Cool.

[^_^x]

Whatever. I'll just buy a digital TV card (available now) instead of a TV, and if it has a copy-protection chip, I'll just switch it off like I switched off the Macrovision chip in my DXR3 board.

Damned if I'll let them keep me from fair use, especially this fundamental.

(And if they prohibit computer cards to do this, I'll just mod-chip the decoder in my TV. They WILL come out, mark my words.)

I may never ...

[Tairan]

I completely agree with the RIAA about Napster. The MPAA and I are not on the same terms of agreement, but we still are closer on the issues. But this, this is too far. There is absolutely no reason this needs to be done.

Yes, millions of people break copyright law and distribute illegal music, but how many people are distributing 'illegal' copies of digital television shows? Has anyone even considered it? How are they going to go about giving them to the masses? Put them on video tape and send it to all their friends? Come on, if that was an effective solution, then Napster would have never come along, because people would be distributing their cassette tapes years ago! But they didn't, because it is too much trouble! No one is going to spend hours uploading and downloading a movie or a 30 minute talk show, or anything else. No one cares that much.

The only way that these digital shows are being 'pirated' is through several buddies getting together, swilling a few cheap beers, and watching the nudie channel, or the boxing match. The biggest profit they are making is from one of the friends who brought over the beer or chips.

I am so disgusted at this, I may do something that hurts. I may never watch TV again. Really, it will not be that big of a loss. I already do not watch it, and have not for over a year. I never could find anything worth watching, and I see that pattern continuing. Why should I sit in front of a television, watching an hour-long show, that is at least 20 minutes of commertials? There is no reason I need to pay the media services for the privilage of watching their advertising, making them more money. I can get my news from the newspaper, my entertainment will come from a wonderful thing called the library, and my social interaction will come from real people, not people pretending to be over glorified people on TV. Anything else, (as well as those) can be filled up by the Internet. Who needs television anymore?

Re:Oh my god!

[fmoody]

Oh please... Why whine? Are you incapable of holding your own opinion if the Good Lords of Slashdot tell you their opinion? Grab a backbone and stop complaining about how somebody else brought up a topic and gave you their view on it. They didn't stop you, I notice...

And maybe I hadn't noticed, but when did locks on doors become *required*?! AFAIK, they ain't. Nor did the FCC sue Napster. Nor does an industry get to pass laws just to protect itself.

Kinda like DVDs?

[beagle]

Not only will this slow HDTV adoptance even more

I certainly won't buy one of those digital TVs with these restrictions. Kinda like I won't buy a DVD player with the region coding and CSS "access" controls.

I don't need no stinkin' digital TV anyway. As long as we have libraries & bookstores (well for paper-paged books anyway) I'm all set.

worse than that...

[MenTaLguY]

It will be used to close systems like the TiVo and to prevent Open Source software from being used to view television broadcasts.

It's another incremental step in completely shutting off Open Source from all involvement in consumer-level media. CSS was another.

We need Open Media. Now.

Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

[griffjon]

So, when did the FCC decide to smoke Satan's Own Crackpipe? Did they get totally bought?

Should-Happen-Irony: the DRM installed on HDTVs creates interference.

So yeah. Car manufacturers don't make cars that can't go over 75mph, even though it's widely illegal for cars to go over that speed limit. Can you imagine having to call in to the DPS/DOT office and get centralized permission before speeding to the emergency room? NO, of course not, that would be STUPID.

The reality will be that these techniques will be circumventable, the hackers (JArgon-file definition) will be sued under the DMCA, the documentation for the hack will be widely available, and nothing will actually change.

What happened to the Betamax time-shifting ruling??? Will the TV have IR sensors to make sure fewer than 15 people are watching, etc.??

Is this the end of superbowl parties?

Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

[Luminous]

Will the TV have IR sensors to make sure fewer than 15 people are watching, etc.??

And what if you a really fat guy who gives off the body heat of 16 people? Will you be prevented from watching tv, your sole source of enjoyment in life, because you are so huge? What an outrage!

Contrary to popular belief, I am not speaking personally, really...its a friend of mine, really!

Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

[Steve B]

Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

Hell, California plans to do that one better, by requiring a remote shutoff switch for cars.
/.

Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

[linzeal]

I don't think your friend should be watching any more TV, really!

Re:Next: Cars limited to under 75mph

[dwhite21787]

I'm waiting for the day (and I hope I never see it) when the chip in your dash records speed and GPS location, calulates you broke the law last night, and when you go put gas in the tank, adds your fine to your bill at the pump.

Step right up, get yer lo-tech '54 Fords here...

Severe Orwellian nightmare

[sulli]

if you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?

Seriously. Moderators, give this one an Insightful.

Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe.

But my old analog VCR still works. So there.

sulli

Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare

[ZanshinWedge]

Yes, and this is just the tip of the iceburg. Especially as a lot of the multi-media / software industry starts moving towards selling services instead of stuff you can actually own.

I posted a bunch about this in another post about some of the implications of this kind of technology. It's not pretty, it's pretty damn scary if you ask me.

Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare

[Hard_Code]

What are you
RAT
talking about?

We RAT all

RAT know that the
RAT
major RAT candidates are

decent RAT

upstanding citizens who would
RAT

never try a thing like that.
RAT

Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare

[WinDoze]

How subliminable.

Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare

[FreeMars]

> Big corporations got the hurt on you?

You misspelled "corpoRATions"

Re:Severe Orwellian nightmare

[sallen]

>>>>If you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was? ... Just imagine if the political candidates (for example) Macrovisioned their ads, so nobody could record them and analyze them on the air! The free-speech implications are severe. ----- I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a LOT deeper problem than the MPAA and studios. Remember, everything including the News broadcast is 'copyrighted'. The ability of any entity, be it a cable company or the gov't in permitting a set to be shut down remotely is so dangerous, it is hard to fathom. And it's not one political side or the other that should be objecting. Let's say something like oh... a brief synposis of the pentagon papers of the future are broadcast or refered to in a news program. It can't be copied. The gov't gets a temporary order restraining the original entity from broadcasting anything else about it. It was a copyrighted story. It was set 'you can't copy this'. So the 'x' number of people on a local station were simply told 'you never saw this'.. A journalist tries to get a copy to review for a block buster article, and he find that it couldn't be recorded, and the original station can't comment (if you say that can't happen, see earlier /. annoy.com feature). It doesn't take a 'government' to do this, just a few misguided individuals that work for the government and a judge or two. This capability is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. (It seems the politicians should be concerned too. The right can't record and examine every 'liberal' prime TV program to find the 'trash' they so wish to expose, the liberals can't record each buchanan speech and pick out the verbage they feel threatens each breath you take. Or a supposedly introspective program such as on CNN or FOX that attempts to review fairness of other news organizations features, which, if they don't choose to provide clips, likely can't be provided to support any comments.) I can believe the politicians are oblivious, they're blinded by the cash. But I'm surprised the press hasn't taken a WIDE stance, and the ACLU? that i love 1/2 the time and despise the other 1/2 (meaning they must be doing an ok job)... I haven' heard them.

will we see parallels to DVD players/blackboxes?

[ddent]

Ok, lets take a look at what happened with DVDs...

Product released which isn't what consumers want. Smart manufacturer ... avoids... some of the restrictions: product sells like wildfire...

If "hidden" features don't start getting built into the TVs, how long before someone creates an add-on (like a blackbox) which removes that signal...

Also, is the FCC restricting what this signal can be put into???

Re:Oh my god!

[Sekmu]

The FCC isn't sueing anyone over Napster. And the condemnation isn't over the industry, but over the government's involvement in the industry.
To extend/correct your metaphor: The FCC is *requiring* that all houses be made with a Bob brand lock, because Bob has been lobbying that all houses should have locks, otherwise they won't make houses anymore.
Which of course screws over anyone wanting a house without locks, or without Bob's brand of lock, because they don't like them for one reason or another.

If it were good for the people and the companies, it would be created and bought. But it isn't for either us, or the HDTV manufacturers, and they know it. So in comes the FCC with its mandate. We get screwed. nuff said.

~Vic

This is what happens

[Chas]

When you try to alter new technology to appease special interests. You wind up with bastardized, and broken soloutions that NOBODY really wants. It'd be a shame if it weren't so annoyingly stupid.


Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

When will they learn?

[mmmmbeer]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: you can't stop people from copying information. We've all seen the evidence with mp3's: no matter what you do, at some point it becomes audible, so it can be recorded. (Not to mention any copy protection scheme can be hacked :) The same applies to video: at some point it is visible, so it can be recorded. That is simply a fundamental fact - the only way copying can be prevented is by keeping the original from being seen and/or heard. And that rather defeats the purpose.

Re:Oh my god!

[BinxBolling]

You mean these people are trying to protect copyright!

What you fail to mention is that they're also trying to undermine fair use.

Where is the evidence that rampant piracy is seriously hurting any of the major copyright holders who are pushing for this sort of thing?

Honestly, I think the people behind this and similar schemes (SDMI, for example) must have rocks in their head. There's nothing that they can do that will prevent piracy by someone who is sufficiently dedicated (such as organized pirates who sell bootlegged content). But they they do make it more and more of a pain in the ass for those who purchase their wares legitimately to use them, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the (unencumbered) bootlegs. Like prohibition and the current war on drugs, all that the war on piracy will do is provide a profit center for organized criminals.

Yep....I'm turning in my VCR now

[Traverser]

Good thing they are protecting me from recording Ron Popiel and time shifting his program to the afternoon. Ensuring that Star Trek can not be shown to an audience greater than one per television. Soon I'll have to pay to see each television show.

Time to turn on the radio....oops...It is on. I wonder if the FCC will require tapes recorders in radios to malfunction if a piece of protected material appears in the airwaves. Hmmmm......Wonder how much money could be made for each "shifted" performance of the Backstreet Boys or Clint Black.

Time to research a patent on the encrypted distribution of audio shifted performances across public airwaves. And follow that up with offering my local representitives a piece of the action for bills suggesting protection of shifted audio performances by personal radios.

*It takes a wise man to stand still while bears are feeding on the ford*

hmm, what if...

[Docrates]

I DONT'T know why digital television and HDTV has been so slow at been adopted, I understand it's been widely available in japan for a long time, so my opinion on this issue is as good as the next guy's.

that said, isn't it possible that maybe the fact that anti-piracy technology was not included is why it's taken forever for digital television and HDTV to be more available? I mean, if the powers that be (media) don't like it because it's a "risky scheme", they would just not support it enough and then it would not make sense to buy one...

just a thought.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[cpt kangarooski]

Yeah, tell me about it.

It's things like this that make me want to move out to the middle of nowhere (I'm partial to 0N 120W ) and start a new country.

Bleh.

What amazes (annoys) me is...

[Nafai7]

...that the FCC can make a decision like this with virtually NO input from the general public or elected officials. It seems something this important should require a vote or something.

Too much power with no accountability. I didn't realize that the FCC was owned by the corporations. I always thought they were a part of our government which in turn is owned/controled by it's citizens.

This shit just disgusts me....

Re:What amazes (annoys) me is...

[talesout]

If you think our (America's) government is actually owned/controlled by the people, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Big business controlls not only the elected officials (gotta pay back those campaign contributors), but it seems they also controll the courts. If you are 'the common man' (or woman) you're pretty much shit in the eyes of the government.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the FCC did say that they were going to allow encryption on the DTV signals yesterday. but that's all. They didn't say to what degree or where or when.

They did _not_ say that _everything_ would be copy protected.

Basically they've been letting the industry figure this out for themselves so far, which is making the going slow. That's what they said yesterday, too. The parties have to go back to negotiations and then come back in 30 days (29 now) with a proposal. (of course, that stratgey hasn't stopped a number of deadlines from being missed in the interim...)

The MPAA, who is spearheading the encryption charge, says that they don't want to encrypt all programs. In fact, they say the DMCA prevents them from encrypting basic cable and over the air TV. They _say_ all they want to encrypt is video-on-demand, etc.

It's up to you if you want to believe them.

From the FCC's point of view, BTW, they are trying to benefit the consumer. The content companies are saying that they won't roll out the "high-value content" until they can be sure that it won't be stolen (which does seem somewhat reasonable). So, the FCC is trying to get the content lined up, which I think we all realize will drive DTV adoption. Without the content, fancy resolution and a high price tag mean nothing.

As far as making existing sets incompatible: that was the other half of what the FCC did on this issue yesterday. They laid out a set of labelling standards for DTV sets. While current sets will be compliant (using a security system based in the cable box, not on FireWire ports as the newer sets will), it seems that they won't be able to access all the features that FireWire-equipped systems will.

Basically the FCC put the issue off yesterday. Partly this is due to the AOL-TW merger chewing up their time, partly because they want the industries to figure it out, rather than imposing a solution on them. The parties have to be back before the FCC in a month. That's when the serious rulings may happen (unfortunately, though, I think the public comment period is over).

still waiting for that password email so I can log in as something other than Anon. Coward,

Sam

Re:Well, it's a bit more complicated than that

[Nullsmack]

Right, is that why you can find movies that are 10+ years old being released on dvd with css encryption? Or Region Coding? Big Corporations are, have been and will always abuse any power given to them under any system. When Digital Radio comes out (and it will) they will lobby (make someone in gov't very rich) for encryption so that noone can record certain songs. Ie, brand new songs that have just come out.. but then they will turn around and use it everywhere except for commercials and the dj talking.. Intellectual Property my ass. I hope they're happy with the world that they've created when they die. They act as tho they are the only ones allowed to own "intellectual Property". Bastards.
-since when did 'MTV' stand for Real World Television instead of MUSIC television?

Bow to the TV Altar

[sckeener]

Oops...forget about that VCR and TIVO. No replaying of copywrited works for you (unless, of course, you pay a fee each time...)

Long live DIVX!

Oh yeah, that's been tried...

I guess I'll just have to race home after my 14 hour day to catch the last 15 minutes of my shows.

I did not say it was a good answer.

[Crutcher]

I said it was the ONLY answer. People are constantly asking "hey, how can we make a computer do X?", and the answer is often "Well, you can't", and the reasons are often obscure and mathematical, but they aren't interested in that.

Far to many people are convinced that computers are 'magic', and thus can do anything, even solve NP complete probs in linear time. They can't.

Digital content cannot be secure in a system where it is decoded outside of it's player. So the network isn't ready for it. Big deal, no one said it was. But it will be. There is an upper limit to how much computational power/bandwidth is needed, and computer power is growing FAR faster than consumer population.

-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>

Special Case of Trusted Client Issue

[David Hume]

This appears to be a special case of the Trusted Client issue. There is a wonderful article on Technocrat.net entitled, Is "Trusted Client" the Wave of the Future?

This might the long term solution for owners and defenders of intellectual property. One possible future: (1) all commercially, or at least corporately produced, data will be encrypted; and (2) a new law would require all future information display devices for different types of data (music, photographs, video, whatever) to have built-in hardware decryption.

There are those of you who will say, "so what, it has to be decrypted at some point in order to be displayed, and at that point I'll just attach a wire and run it to my VCR, CDR, TIVO, computer, etc., etc." You might be able to, but the vast, vast majority would never be able to, nor would they be inclined to void thier warranties (and perhaps risk future civil or criminal penalities) for opening their box. There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.

Another possible further legal response to the threat posed by the internet to intellectual property would involve:

1. A governmentally enforced licensed hardware regime, or leased hardware model where a term of the lease (backed by draconian penalties) is that you cannot open the box. In the future, you wouldn't be able to purchase -- actually own -- actually own title to -- anwhere or at any price, a TV, Stereo, VCR, Computer, TIVO, or other information display device. You could only lease and/or license, one, subject to the contractual and/or property right - tort and/or property right - criminal law requirements set forth above. AND/OR
   
   
2. A new equivilant to the DMCA that applies to hardware -- again, makign it illegal to open the box.
   
   

Re:Special Case of Trusted Client Issue

[Steeltoe]

People bending over deserves what they get.

Myself, I have no belief this will be the "wave of the future". There's simply no market for it. Sure, they'll try.

10 years from now they'll refer to it as the Dark Ages, and we'll be huntin' for petrol.

- MadMax Steeltoe

Re:Special Case of Trusted Client Issue

[David Hume]

Myself, I have no belief this will be the "wave of the future". There's simply no market for it. Sure, they'll try.

I believe there may be a market for it. Why? There will not be a market for anything else. This will happen, if it does, for two resons: (1) the manufacture and sale (or as I predict above, perhaps mandatory lease and/or license) of anything that does not have the hardware decryption chip will be illegal; and (2) eventually, nothing else will work. Want to watch broadcast TV? Encrypted. Want to watch a new DVD? Encrypted. Want to listen to new music? Encrypted.

All that is required for change number (2) above is a format change. Sure, there will be old CDs, tapes, and LPs with music, as well as old videotapes with movies. But want anything new? All on "improved" DVD, or broadband feed, which require the legally mandated hardware encryption chip.

Will there be leakage? Of course, but nothing like what there is now, making copyright enforcement much easier and more economical than it is now.

Re:Special Case of Trusted Client Issue

[Steeltoe]

My point was that if people really buys this shit, they gotta eat it too.

Without people buying it, the corporations must give in. People can survive a long time on "obsolete hardware" rather than hardware that simply doesn't function properly.

Jesus, it'll be friggin' time people wake up too. More power to corporations!

I'm tired, sorry for any incoherencies ;-)

- Steeltoe

Re:Special Case of Trusted Client Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck. This is Slashdot, home of the "Fucking MPAA! How the fuck do they fu... Hey, look! Star Wars DVDs!!"

Re:Oh my god!

[ZanshinWedge]

Don't you realize what thise means at all?

It means that you have less control over the things that you own. Your television, your VCR, you will no longer precisely "own" them, it will almost be like they belong to someone else. A television is supposed to be a simple device, it displays TV broadcasts, a VCR is supposed to be equally simple, it records and plays back TV broadcasts. They will no longer be like that. They will have restrictions that prevent you from doing anything you want with them. The first thing is to prevent you from recording certain shows so you will have to fork out the money to buy their tapes or DVDs if you want to watch it more than once (or if you have a job or other responsibility that prevents you from seeing it the first time).

Do you have any doubt that the industry will expand this and make as many shows as they can copy-protected? Forget about taping the super bowl, you have to buy the tape. The industry will increasingly push copy-protection onto as many shows and broadcasts as they can get away with. And then, who knows what may be next? When they have the power you can bet your ass they will abuse it. There are so many possible scenarios for abuse of this kind of technology it's unbelievable. You've seen what the industry has done already with DVD, certain parts of the DVD you can't skip. What if they could do that to your VCR? It's only a half skip away from this technology.

Imagine this, recording of most broadcast television is illegal (because it's copy-protected). Wouldn't it be tempting for the industry to stop selling you movies and tapes? It would be much more lucrative if they went to a "service" model where you buy / watch TV shows or movies on demand but cannot record them (or skip the commercials). Parts of the software industry are already on their way to being service oriented instead of "item" oriented. Look at microsoft's dot Net crap.

In the future you may not be able to own movies, or software, or TV shows, or music, or maybe even books. All of these things must be rented on demand with a per-use fee from the big corporations. Now, imagine that world. Imagine the sheer power the corporations would have over all us little guys. Imagine how easy censorship would be. All it would take to effectively ban a book would be for no one to be willing to offer it for use, or for the publisher who owns the copyrights to decide not to offer it. And, using your rented software owned by faceless corporation # 317, it may not even be possible to determine the existence of a "subversive book". Imagine how easy it would be to track down the people who "abuse certain software programs" or "read the wrong books", etc. The technology to do that is only this far -> || away from what is being used today. I doubt things will be that severe (at least not right away), but it could and seeing as how it would be in the interests (and profit) of the industry I would be very wary in this area of technology.

Hot Air

[kevinank]

Wow!

The article is so thick with politically charged words that it is almost impossible to tell what Sun actually did so that we can decide for ourselves whether what they did was reasonable or not.

So much text. So little content.

This is just another example...

[bgarland]

... Of corporations taking over our government.

I'm paying for the movies, tv shows, whatever to come into my house. Why shouldn't I be able to copy it and watch it later? What do I do if I'm not home when the programming is on?

Guess we're all gonna be even more fucked pretty soon.

Vote Nader!

Ben

Because by about 2006, that will be all there IS.

[Svartalf]

The FCC has mandated all digital, more specifically, HDTV formatted broadcast television by the year 2006. The stations that aren't on that bandwagon by then get their licenses pulled.

HDTV is actually more spectrally efficient than analog, in spite of the increased resolution because of MPEG2 and they plan on auctioning off much of the old analog spectrum (which has appealing propagation characteristics (which is WHY they used it for TV)).

Re:Freaks.

[talesout]

George dubwa?

WFT!?!?!?

[MaynardJ]

Did I just wake up in russia?!??!?!?

Re:WFT!?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and for showing discontent to the communist party by failing to support the DMCA, FCC, MPAA, and the RIAA, and for your continued interactions with known party criminals like DeCSS, FSF, and GNU, you are hereby found guilty of treason. Your are hereby banished from your peers and shall spend the rest of your days in Redmond.

Have a nice day.
Stalin

Re:WFT!?!?!?

[piku]

Now, but I think you woke up dyslexic.

Re:WFT!?!?!?

[Denial of Service]

Frankly, yes.

doesn't matter.

[MenTaLguY]

My aunt and uncle have refused to get a dvd player until they can record with it (and they record a LOT of crap). There is no way in hell thay'd ever touch such a thing voluntarily if they knew it was capable oof not letting them record stuff (and the stuff they'd want t record is likely the very same stuff that this would block.

too bad. Once they phase out analog TV, the TVs with the mandatory digital anti-piracy measures will be the only ones availible.

I guess people like your relatives will just have to give up on TV then. Not such a loss, really.

Too bad the FCC's given the airwaves to the corporations. Otherwise, us Open Source types might be able to do things like make our own (short-range) analog TV stations using old equipment, broadcasting Open Content that could be viewed on non-crippled devices.

My FCC Comments

[ewhac]

Here are the comments I sent to the FCC last week. I'm disappointed they did no good. (I've reformatted the submission for viewing on Slashdot.)

Schwab

________________

Comment on Proposed Rulemaking, PP Docket No. 00-67

1. I, Leo L. Schwab, am a resident of Redwood City, CA. I am a software engineer of over 15 years professional experience and, as such, have direct experience with "copy protection" measures as employed to combat unsanctioned copying of computer software. I am also an owner and buyer of consumer electronics and computer equipment.

2. The FCC has been asked to resolve compatibility issues surrounding digital broadcast and cable television and consumer electronics equipment. My comments will focus primarily on the issue of "copy protection."

3. I urge the Commission to oppose mandating copy protection measures in consumer electronics equipment, for the following reasons:

Inherent Fragility

4. In general terms, copy protection measures operate by attemptng to distinguish between "legitimate" copies (i.e. copies manufactured by the vendor) and unsanctioned copies (as typically made on a home computer). Because computers -- and indeed all digital equipment -- are designed to copy information perfectly, making this distinction is a difficult technical challenge.

5. Many methods have been employed to attempt to make this distinction, all of which have attendant advantages and drawbacks. However, no matter which specific method is employed, they all basically introduce artificial fragility and unreliability into the system. More clearly, by introducing copy protection measures into a product or system, that product or system is by definition rendered less reliable, since it now has a deliberately introduced capacity for failure. Some copies will work, whereas others will fail, having been identified as, "illegitimate."

6. There is not, nor can there be, a 100% reliable method of distinguishing between sanctioned and unsanctioned copies. As such, all existing copy protection methods can and do yield false results, causing legitimate store-bought copies of software to fail (and allowing unsanctioned copies to operate unhindered). The reasons for the false results may be manifold: damaged distribution media, incompatible hardware, incompatible operating system software, etc.

7. Working remotely (as do cable system operators when dealing with subscribers), it is impossible to determine if such failure is due to an "honest" flaw in the hardware or distribution media, or because the user is attempting to use an unsanctioned copy. Direct examination of the system and media is necessary to make such a determination.

8. Thus, employing copy protection measures in consumer electronics will render such equipment inherently less reliable, resulting in undue inconvenience and cost to the consumer and equipment manufacturer alike.

Lack of Compelling Need

9. Until the mid-1980's or so, consumers were tremendously inconvenienced by copy protection systems. This was due not only to their fragility, but also by their preventing users from copying their software from the vendor-supplied floppy disks to internal hard disks, which were gaining popularity at the time.

10. Consumer opinion on the issue was overwhelming and adamant. Bowing to market pressure, many vendors agreed to abandon copy protection measures. This was done with much trepidation because vendors feared that, without them, individuals would make unsanctioned copies in such overwhelming numbers that the potential market for the software would be diluted to the point where even recovering development costs would be impossible. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single instance throughout the history of the computing industry where such fears have materialized.

11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.

Undue Burden to Consumers

12. In my experience, copy protection measures, as applied to computer software, are expensive to develop, both in terms of engineering time and resources. It is reasonable to believe that the same will be true for measures applied to digital broadcast content. These costs must be recovered somewhere. If the Commission mandates copy protection measures in consumer electronics, the consumers will solely bear not only the direct costs of their development and manufacture, but the indirect costs associated with decreased reliability.

13. If copy protection were a feature being requested by consumers, then it would be reasonable to expect consumers to pay for it. But they are not requesting it. Indeed, they are demanding the precise opposite.

14. The only organizations professing a need for copy protection are television and movie studios, and cable system operators. It therefore seems reasonable that those organizations solely bear the costs of development and deployment, and leave end-user equipment unencumbered.

Squelching Future Innovations

15. My review of proposed copy protection methods involve the use of viewers or viewing software that are "approved" by a central licensing authority under the control of film and television studios (this is currently the case with DVD playback devices, which have been licensed by the DVD Copy Control Authority). To obtain such approval, the viewing device typically may only have functionality deemed appropriate by the licensing authority, and nothing else. This functionality is typically limited to playback only, with pause, fast-forward, and rewind features (and even these are handicapped in certain circumstances). In the proposed protection schemes, any individual wishing to employ new or different functionality must first petition for and obtain approval from the licensing authority, or risk being sued.

16. One use to which an individual might put digital broadcast content is to incorporate it into their computer's "screen saver" facility. For example, images from a digital television signal could be received by a computer (possibly through a IEEE-1394 interface), mathematically transformed into a sphere, and bounced around the screen. Such use of broadcast television content is not (currently) unlawful. Indeed, it would strain credibility for content producers and broadcasters to argue such use was even unethical. As such, seeking approval from a licensing authority for such use would seem to throw an unnecessary roadblock in the path of developers conducting lawful research and development.

17. While my example is admittedly a trite one, I hope it serves to illustrate that there are non-obvious uses to which digital content may be put that are useful, interesting, beneficial to consumers, and non-infringing. Full exploration of such possibilities has yet to begin. Mandating copy protection would seriously cripple such explorations.

Not a Commission Function

18. At this point, I stray from my expertise into admittedly inexpert readings of the Commission's charter and contemporaneous intellectual property disputes. Nevertheless, I request the Commission bear with me.

19. I can find nothing in the Commission's charter that suggests it should be involved in interpreting intellectual property law. By mandating copy protection measures, the Commission will effectively serve as an interpreter of Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is not applied in a blanket manner, but on a case-by-case basis by the Federal Courts. Moreover, the meaning of Fair Use is constantly changing as circumstances evolve and technology advances.

20. Should the Commission choose to mandate a form of blanket copy protection, it is easy to envision a future Federal Court decision declaring that consumers have Fair Use rights that extend beyond those provided by equipment containing the Commission-mandated protection measures. In practical terms, however, such a decision would be virtually moot, since the Commission's previous interpretation of Fair Use has been cast in stone (or, in this case, silicon). The Commission would then find itself in the unenviable position of having to implement the Court's order. Whatever form that took, it would be tremendously burdensome to the Commission, electronics manufacturers, and consumers.

21. Finally, my readings of intellectual property disputes show that -- if the Commission will permit the colloquialism -- the field of intellectual property law is extremely hairy bananas. It is inordinately complex, frequently self-contradictory, and its interpretation is crucially dependent on the specific circumstances of a given case. I respectfully suggest this is a field of endeavor the Commission would wish to avoid. It would take Solomonic wisdom to design a technical specification that would serve the interests of copyright holders without impacting the ever-changing Fair Use rights of consumers.

Conclusion

22. In summary, I urge the Commission to oppose mandatory copy protection measures for consumer electronics equipment because:

1. such measures inherently decrease product reliability;
2. the film and television industries have not demonstrated a compelling need for them;
3. consumers have stated unequivocally and consistently they don't want it;
4. it attempts to shift the cost of such systems away from the organizations insisting on it;
5. it would stifle innovation;
6. interpreting intellectual property law and Fair Use doctrine is not a function traditionally undertaken by the Commission.

23. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide comment, and sincerely thank the Commission for its time and attention.

Re:My FCC Comments

[indiigo]

I also filled out a comment and never received a confirmation or any acknowledgement from them. Perhaps they have filters of negativity go "straight into" the void?

Re:My FCC Comments

[maraist]

11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.

Unfortunately this is the single most important point, and you have no supporting proof supporting. It's merely here-say. The most popular arguement I can think of is Bill Gates in his development of "BASIC" for what I believe was the Sinclair. The famous story showed how before his debut, everyone already had a copy. I assume from this that sales were bismal (though rarely is the rest of the story told).

You claim that there is no justification for Copy protection, when I think you really only mean for audio / visual.

I'm pretty sure I remember lots of hype about Chinese pirating of American videos. I do not know that the Asian market is very big for the US because of such piracy. I do not know of any cases where foreign piracy has subverted the American market (anything large scale would be noticed and attacked). Though I'm sure lost markets scare profit seekers, no matter what, I think we can agree that we are not truely threatened by it's presence.

The issue however is that content producers have always had the support of the government in protecting their interests. It is really the level of said protection that we are debating here.

You are [alledgedly] trying to convince the FCC that the proposed level of copy-protection is excessive and unjust. However, the single most important argument is your number 11. This is what corporations will debate to no ends.. So I suggest that your submission was useless to the FCC, because your rebuttle of number 11 was heresay, and I might add, the smallest section.

Re:My FCC Comments

[Dun Malg]

11. Thus, there are no historical precedents or incidents justifying a need for copy protection measures. Further, there is no credible reason to believe the situation will be different for digital content delivered via broadcast or cable systems.

• Unfortunately this is the single most important point, and you have no supporting proof supporting. It's merely here-say.

How do you suggest he prove the lack of historical precedence? Show the FCC the blank note pad on which he intended to make note of incidents, if he had found any? Hogwash! He's merely pointing out the it is the entertainment industry who is engaged in HEARSAY when they claim such protections are necessary, as it is THEY who provide no proof of actual damages. What THEY have is statisticaly dubious ESTIMATES of losses based on the absurd premise of "if they couldn't get it free or cheap, they'd pay full price". The FCC, as a government agency, should not impose regulations to solve a problem whose very existence has not been substantiated.

Re:My FCC Comments

[maraist]

Unfortunately this is the single most important point, and you have no supporting proof supporting. It's merely here-say.

How do you suggest he prove the lack of historical precedence?

The FCC, as a government agency, should not impose regulations to solve a problem whose very existence has not been substantiated.

It's more difficult than this. It is definately plausible that free riders _could_ undermine the entertainment industry (given the right conditions). It's easier to argue that point than to say, naah, it's too unlikely; we don't have any good examples of any big company's going under because of free riders, so they have no reason to fear, and much less reason to enforce new ledgislation.

The problem is historically there were stabalizing factors. Signal quality and the seediness of the organization that would sell you pirated copies kept the threat low enough to tolerate. But with Digital, it is trivial to share or even sell the content. What's more, we, as consumers know it. Why pay for HBO, when I can just use HBO-napster to get my free rebroad-casting.

Sure, today it's a stretch to get away with broadcasting premium channels. BW + liability get in the way. But what's to say that 10 years from now we won't be able to download entire DVD's in seconds? What's more, I'm sure we'll devise better ways of maintaining anonymity on the web (thus removing liability for providing such services).

Many campuses, for example, don't get premium channels in the dorms. I'm sure that there would be a pressing demand for such streamed content. To say nothing of the pr0n channels.

My point is not to defend the MPAA / RIAA, etc. I'm simply saying that the argument we have to make has to be more intelligent than this. We can't just say "It won't happen", or merely suggest that past trends will continue. The above (or it's like) is what their lawers are likely to argue. The entire argument should really only be about whether or not digital media can undermine premium TV.

Though I idealize a restriction-free society (read free-speech), I can understand the fear of the industry of losing content to digital mass-reproduction. The only thing that concerns me is in the use of speech quelching. As was pointed out in this thread, if they control the media devices, they could actually erase all public records of an event ever having happened. (say a corporate embarrasement) Orwellian to say the least. THAT is the fear that must be fought. Media control will probably continue. The industry won't put their content on unsafe media, period! Fight for open-stuff all you want, they'll just refuse. What we should fight for is to limit how they can enforce their copy-protection. Limit it only for digital redistribution purposes.

If you fight for the ability to make analog recordings, then it's another sordid problem. Currently I can take a decent VHS recording and digitally encode it, then distribute it out ad infinitum. If I were allowed to go from Digital to VHS somehow, then the problem comes back up. But the sick thing is that it's no different than today.

-Michael

Re:Oh my god!

[rotor]

Back to the article, lest I'm marked as off-topic (Not that I give a fuck, mind you.) Yes, building a house with locks on the doors means it's gonna take a bit more time. It also means the FCC won't have to sue everybody's asses like what happened with Napster. How in hell can you condemn an industry for not making it incredibly easy to rip them off?

I agree to a large extent, but what about those times when there's something on that you want to watch, but you have to work? If the station says you can't tape it, then you're screwed. My wife wouldn't be too pleased if suddenly she couldn't tape As the World Turns, and I wouldn't be to amused if I suddenly couldn't tape Buffy on nights that I'm unavailable to watch it. And no, I don't have a lage collection of Buffy tapes that I've held onto. I do just tape to watch and then tape over (movies from HBO and PPV are a diffent story, I'll admit).

Kids and TV

[CharlieG]

Which is why I don't let my daughter (age 3.5) watch TV! I don't watch TV, and I WORK for one of the networks!!!!

When my wife and I made this decision, we got some flack - NOT from any of my friends and co-workers (they thought it was a great idea), but from people like my parents.

They said things like:
"Do you want her to grow up different" (answer - Hell yes)
or
"She won't understand the other kids, and the kids won't like her"
(Maybe, but she seems to have a lot of friends who like her, because she always has good ideas for new games)

There is nothing like curling up on the couch with your child, and a good book.

Note: I don't speak for my employer - all opinions my own

Re:Kids and TV

[jovlinger]

surely we can't expect parent's to be responsible for their children's upbringing?! The government has a duty to create a system where all children can be brought up by coorporate powers safely.

I'm thinking that 1984 and Brave New World don't look so funny anymore. Me, I'm buying a hounddog, a truck, a gun (typed it gnu first time around... muscle memory), and some land up in montana.

Re:Kids and TV

[jovlinger]

grr. grammar.

s/parent's/parents

Re:Kids and TV

[CharlieG]

Why have a TV? Darned good question! The only reasons we still have ONE are two fold:

My wife like to watch 1-2 shows/week

and

They are cheaper than old video monitors for the few times we rent a movie!

BTW It's funny, because 2 of the shows my wife like to watch come on against each other, at a time when we usually aren't home, so I end up paying for 2 cable boxes. I tell my wife that her 8 hours of TV per month cost us $45

Re:Kids and TV

[bridgette]

FYI, a few datapoints ...

My husband and a few of my friends grew up in TV-less households and they all wound up doing much better things with their time. Occasionally they feel bad about not "getting" some brady bunch reference, but I'm quick to point out that knowing how to play several musical instruments is way cooler than having seen every episode of the brady bunch, benny hill and three's company. Dispite growing up in very differnt households, they all learned to play multiple musical instruments, were extremely well read and had various interesting hobbies and side projects.

Of course, as adults, they all have a positively morbid facination with TV. Hopefully they'll get over it soon. My husband will watch absolutely anything (pro-wrestling if nothing else is on) since it is all a new a facinating insight into our culture (yeah right).

But once your daughter starts school, the other kids will gladly get her "up to speed" on important commercialism, materialism and brand-conciousness issues :P

TV should be standardized. No Really!

[Tiger Smile]

We need to have open and accessable documents standardizing TV broadcasting, two-way communication, and the viewing devices.

By "we" I mean the people of the net, the global people of the net. We want to recieve broadcasts and do what we will with them. We'd like device/broadcast interoperation.

Personally I think we need to craft a standard for the world. Something global, so that there might be more products and a larger market.

I don't want to have a cable box on every device. I'd like to have my picture within a picture work! I need a tunner that will work on it's own for every channel I'm paying for.

Who else wants this?

This is great

[Auckerman]

Wow, you mean we will have YATTH (yet-another-thing-to-hack)? That's great. What is the FCC going to do when someone goes to radioshack and builts himself a receiver from off the shelf parts, writes the linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file? Ban people from shopping at radio shack and building PC because they can get around copyright. What about the fact that today, any watermarking or encryption can be circumevented, even if by brute force (piping the SVGA signal to a file)?

This is just stupid.

Re:This is great

[David Hume]

What is the FCC going to do when someone goes to radioshack and builts himself a receiver from off the shelf parts, writes the linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file? Ban people from shopping at radio shack and building PC because they can get around copyright. What about the fact that today, any watermarking or encryption can be circumevented, even if by brute force (piping the SVGA signal to a file)?

This is just stupid.

No, it is not "just stupid."

I don't doubt your ability to go to radioshack and build yourself a receiver from off the shelf parts, write linux drivers for it, then uses it to pipe the signal to a file. However, the vast majority of people would not be able to do that, nor would they invest the time and effort to do so.

There is a fundemental economic and mass market difference between hardware and software means of circumventing encryption and copy control mechanisms. Software means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control are, once discovered and implimented, themselves digitally reproduceable and easily and economically distributed over the internet. Obviously, hardware means are not.

There is also a vast difference between the law enforcement costs associated with policing and preventing software vs. hardware means of defeating encryption and circumventing copy control mechanisms. Obviously, it is now very hard for the "authorities" to track down and take down every copy of DeCSS. It would not be nearly be so difficult for them to get somebody to whom you sold an "illegal" receiver to roll over on you. If making "illegal" DVDs is difficult, costly, and therefore infrequent, then it is not all that costly for law enforcement to track any illegal DVDs you produce back to you.

worse...

[MenTaLguY]

Vote for Gore and thinks won't get better for sure. This guy is definition of ever-present, forcefull goverment.

Let's not forget that his wife and running mate are big supporters of media censorship, net filtering, mandatory ratings, anti-video-game stuff (Leiberman, mainly), you name it...

With this stuff going on at the same time, I'm starting to think a Gore presidency would be extremely detrimental to our digital and intellecutal rights.

Conversely, I have no clue what to make of Nader (he's way too secretive), and don't even get me started on Buchanan...

Anyone happen to know what Bush's involvement in things has been? (or would like to suggest another party+candidate?)

Re:worse...

[chandoni]

I hate to feed trolls, but I'm replying in case you seriously think Nader is too secretive. As if posting his views on the campaign website or the green party platform site are being secretive! You can bet FCC-related issues won't be raised by Gore and Bush in their "debate", but fighting corporate welfare (such as giving away public airwaves to a few corporations) is Nader's main theme. In exchange for their handouts, the major networks aren't covering Nader's campaign or allowing him in the debates.

Here's a quote from the platform about the public airwaves:

As Greens, we support those who urge the public to "reclaim the public airwaves." The privatization of the broadcast airwaves - one of our most important taxpayer assets - has caused serious deformations of our politics and culture. The basic problem is that private broadcasters control what the public owns. And in return for free licenses to use taxpayer property, broadcasters give us a steady stream of increasingly coarse, redundant, superficial programming and, of course, exclusively decide who says what on our public airwaves.

and another on censorship:

Although we see regular assaults on the freedoms of speech enshrined in our nation?s founding documents, we oppose censorship in the arts, media (including the World Wide Web and Internet), and press.

JMC

Re:Oh my god!

[goldmeer]

We get screwed. nuff said.

Whew! Well, on to the next article...

I mean after "nuff said" there isn't anything more to say. I'm suprised that this post was even accepted, because well, "nuff" is "nuff"...

Re:If you don't like the editorial comments...

[Enoch Root]

Looking idiotic is my god-given right, and it's the last amusing thing left for me to do before I leave Slashdot once and for all. Not that their click-through rate will drop, and not that you or anyone else will give a fuck. But then again, neither will I.

Copyright bit can be beneficial, but also misused

[Masem]

In the promise of HDTV, one of the things suggested is that you'll be able to have the latest movie sent down your pipe to watch in the comfort of your home for a small fee, similar to PPV. In cases like this, where you are setting when you want to watch it, and it's the real movie, not the made-for-tv one, there's no reason why the copyright bit should not be set, lest you get people putting out first run movies to the general public for no major cost. Premium movie channels should offer the same deal (that is, ad-free movies)

Of course, then there is the problem of a station that gets overprotective of it's work, and tags everything with their copy-protection bit. There needs to be some way to place complaints and have them followed through if stations behave in this fashion.

Is the Government *trying* to lose money??

[fumble]

This demonstrates how out of touch the US Government is with reality.

When it comes to "anti-piracy" "features" in the computer world, they are with out a doubt circumvented quickly & easily. Even high-end software that require dongles are cracked with ease. We all know that what ever "anti-piracy" "features" the US Gov. comes up with will be painfully out-dated and bypassed with ease by making a quick run to Radio Shack!

With the slow moving TV industry, the term "Hardware Costs" takes on a whole new dimension. How much do you think a satellite and broadcast tower cost? Once they do this, they are seriously committed to the technology they choose. There's no turning back.

1. Here's my predicted chain of events:
2. TV's released with "anti-piracy" "features".
3. They are cracked/hacked the next day.
4. The TV industry tries to stop this on a person by person basis, then they give up.
5. They'll just have to live with the fact that anyone can copy anything on their "anti-piracy" "feature" enabled sets.

USA, the land of the $35,000 toilet seat.

the short road to a worldwide .NET

[mrWrong]

do these people not see where this trend is leading? can you imagine a worldwide .NET where you pay every time you want a service? it's absolutely sad how obviously greedy the world is getting. no longer is it enough to purchase a VCR, TV, and various tapes and have that done just once, now they want you to pay every time you want to record something. Soon VCRs will be mandatorily replaced with TiVO style devices which will automatically deduct so much from your bank account when you press "record". Can you imagine a world where you have to pay every time you want to drive your car? (in addition to gas) They want you to pay every time you read a book, wanna eat dinner? 25 cents a bite. the world is quickly becoming a "pay for play" society because corporations cannot BEAR to think of you only paying once and then using the item to your heart's content... how awful that they aren't MAXIMIZING profits by taxing us, the sedated consumer, to the bone! fucking pathetic. i'll stick to my VCR and hack my way around anything else they choose to throw at me, and silently pray for another depression where these companies go bankrupt and get what they deserve.

Re:the short road to a worldwide .NET

[Chris Johnson]

Hell, this only opens the door to good dedicated small business. It doesn't take much ingenuity to think of a way to make a product that is _not_ a complete scandal and ripoff (for instance, CDs still work- you can make CDs. You can make VideoCDs that play on many DVD players, and if I understand right you can make no-region DVDs if you so choose, and for all these things it's legal to buy big duplicators and do the small business thing).

Don't you see what a great setup this is? I will risk being mocked once again (ha! Piss off, mockers, 'cause I refuse to quit pursuing my dreams just because some dweebs think I'm self-glorifying a lot) to mention that I am getting snazzy CD-Rs printed up- archival 100-year CD-Rs, but the important thing is seven words that are on every single one- "All commercial rights RESERVED- noncommercial copying OKAY". I think this is important enough to write it right on the CDs I'm making- but I'm not so dumb that I don't realise what a killer marketing angle that is. It could provoke a shock of recognition- someone looking at the thing in a store could do a doubletake and instantly decide, 'This must be cool and underground! I should support this!' just because of the pro-copying notice. It predisposes a certain type of person to approve of the CD even if they have no idea what the music is- and might predispose them to like the music more, too- and might lead to word-of-mouth (which is priceless) and you can do this too. If you produce anything you can try to align your interests with the people who are your customers. You don't have to act like Big Media- in fact, it may be suicide. The more Big Media goes absolutely nuts and tightens the screws on consumers, the more pressure is created for a backlash effect- rewarding the people who rebel and refuse to take people's rights, or what people think of as their rights.

If there was no RIAA, no MPAA, no kids being arrested in the middle of the night or having their computers seized by police for music-sharing, then my notion to write 'copying OK' on my CDs would be dumb and meaningless. It is only meaningful in a political context when that very action is getting people arrested and their property seized. But then, it's a seriously powerful message.

What the FCC actually said

[krlynch]

This really had me worried, so I went to the FCC site to read what they actually ruled, and I am now convinced that the linked article above is REALLY screwed up, freely mixing comments and opinions about two rulings that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Here is the summary of what the FCC actually said concerning copy protection:

Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:

In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.

With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.

Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.

Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).

FCC Press Release

So the FCC clearly IS concerned with ensuring that "reasonable" home copying is possible, although it isn't clear from this summary what EXACTLY that means. It is also not clear to me after reading this whether the quote from Jeff Joseph is complaining about the inclusion of copy protection itself, or whether it is complaining about the loss of backward compatibility. The latter is a problem, but allowing copy protection into some devices was already decided. I'm not sure exactly what the copy protection is allowed to copy, but this ruling was covering the narrow question of exactly where in the digital decoding process that copy protection has to go.

It seems that the original linked article was mixing comments concerning TWO FCC releases; this copy protection rule clarification, and another one regarding uniform labelling rules that make it clear what "Digital Cable Ready" means: FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR LABELING OF DTV RECEIVERS. THIS is what Commissioner Ness was complaining about, not about the copy protection ruling.

In summary, this article is highly confused about the events it is reporting.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the potential for abuse with embedded copy protection, just that I'm not sure this article had a clue. I'm also pretty certain that the FCC is not "trying to get around AHRA" as some others have said. I'd just like to understand what is really going on here, and not jump to outrageous conclusions.

Re:What the FCC actually said

[swordgeek]

Damn! Now where are all of those moderation points
I had the other day? This article would go up up
up if I had the power right now.

In this context, the FCC uses the phrase "is
consistent with..." Careful reading shows that
this ruling (tentatively) _allows_ such copy
protection to be put into place, it does not
_require_ such things.

The article seemed to be missing that subtle (like
a brick!) point.

Re:What the FCC actually said

[Bruce Perens]

It doesn't matter that they want to allow reasonable home copying, because to allow it they have to put some sort of copy-restriction device in both the TV and VCR. This is most likely a copy-counting device that would allow first-generation copies but not second-generation ones.

To do this, they must restrict the devices as they do DVD players, and DMCA will apply. That means no Open Source software for TV recording or reception.

Bruce

Re:What the FCC actually said

[interiot]

DMCA allows for fair use of copyrighted material in 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201(c)(1), so reception certainly seems okay.

Are you refering to something along the lines of this post: DMCA is anti-open source? I disagree with the post **. One could say that compilers, computers, or employees aid in accessing protected copyright works. The law certainly has to draw the line somewhere, or else brains will be outlawed. 17 U.S.C sec. 1201(a)(2)(A) says:

• No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is
• primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

So as long as an open source digital TV viewer was made with the intention of viewing only, then I think it would be legal. (IANAL) If someone subsequently went in and modified an OSS viewing program to allow copying, then that act would probably be illegal under DMCA.

• 
  ** No, I'm not schitzo. I changed my mind a little bit, and playing devil's advocate often results in information gained.

--

corporate influence, again :(

[MillMan]

and it hasn't always just been on the content side. HDTV standards were slow in being approved, since the FCC dragged it's feet and was a poor arbitrator as the set manufacturers (Hollywood MAY have been involved, I can't remember) couldn't agree on what they wanted. Therefore they ended up with 18 possibilities with different resolutions, interlaced / non-interlaced, and possibly frame rate.

The point is that the FCC was not willing to put it's foot down and force a smaller number of standards...keep in mind the more standards used, the more the hardware tends to cost. The FCC allowed the corporations to do what they wanted, and as profit mongering crybabies, they couldn't agree on anything.

The digital TV spectrum giveaway was another fiasco, as the bandwidth was given away for free by uncle sam. It could have been sold for billions. You can thank the industry's lobbyists for that.

Which brings us to today's news. I don't think the government has any reason to give a damn, I think this is clearly a corporate move to "preserve" profits, even though it will hurt corporations in the long run, just like any other copy control strategy.

I read up quite a bit on current TV/stereo info/issues, and I have to say for me this is the final straw. I was looking at getting some sort of digital TV in the next year or so, now, it might be years, if I ever get one. Hollywood and content makers have been dragging their heels on this because of this issue, broadcasters have been slow to upgrade their facilities to HDTV probably for the same reasons. It's truly sad.

We all know where this is going. Anti-piracy controls might be legitimate for, say, movies on HBO. However, I think we all know we won't be allowed to record anything, except for a "small fee", I'm sure.

The fundamental problem from a corporate / consumer standpoint is this: corporations view new technology as a way to extract more money from the public, once they finally understand it, whereas the public sees it as a way to drive down costs, and will only pay more if the new technology is vastly superior.

Digital technology is not worth the price of pay per play. I think we've reached the point of true robbery....pay per play, of every damn thing. This is exactly what hollywood wants, and the exact opposite of what consumers want.

Re:Oh my god!

[Enoch Root]

The FCC isn't sueing anyone over Napster.

Sure, go ahead, take me for an imbecile. It's certainly easier than arguing coherently. That's not what I said, and you know it.

Re:Because by about 2006, that will be all there I

[ronfar]

You forget about broadband TV, which is something else these people want to control. What is broadband TV? Well, put simply it is when enough people have broadband connections to the Internet, and video has been compressed enough to allow near instant video downloads.

It's considered a serious enough possiblity that one of the things the actor's guild is considering striking over is the fact that the actors in old reruns that are beamed out via pay-per-download TV won't see a dime of that theoretical money.

The big question is, what new laws will be enacted to prevent a private citizen like me from broadcasting my own show in this way?

DON'T Blame the Constitution for this...

[DuBois]

The word "regulate" used to mean "to make regular." And making things regular in the 18th century meant something like what TCP/IP is to computers today: make some simple rules that everybody can follow so that lots of commerce can take place and no state government can muck up this glorious free trade zone that is These United States.

But then came the Bureaucratic Imperative: "Regulate or die!" and the word "regulate" came to mean "control." That's where we are today.

Replacing the current meaning of "regulate" with the far superior 18th century meaning will take some doing, but those of us that use the Internet know the benefits of doing so.

The FCC is an unconstitutional organization, since nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to control the "press" (meaning: the way in which information is distributed). Since the First Amendment specifically forbids federal control of the press, the FCC is thus unconstitutional.

When Libertarians are elected, the FCC will be replaced by a free market bandwidth auction, and property rights will once again apply to the electromagnetic spectrum.

Re:DON'T Blame the Constitution for this...

[Ender Ryan]

When Libertarians are elected, the FCC will be replaced by a free market bandwidth auction, and property rights will once again apply to the electromagnetic spectrum.

And you think that'll do any good? It'll just allow it to be distributed to the corporations with the most money, which is where we are now with corporations basically controlling our gov't, using their money to get what they want.

Re:DON'T Blame the Constitution for this...

[DuBois]

Corporations are a legal fiction created by government with certain rights that are currently not balanced by responsibilities.

When Libertarians are elected, the current irresponsibility of corporate officers will be replaced with full responsibility.

This will change the way corporations do business and will return us to a truly free market.

Fully responsible corporations will probably not exceed a reasonable size, and thus not be capable of the kind of roughshod power they currently have.

Re:DON'T Blame the Constitution for this...

[Ender Ryan]

Ok, I see what you're saying. I think think it would be great if corporate officers could be held fully responsible for their actions. I really haven't thought about what that would do and how it would change things.

Fully responsible corporations will probably not exceed a reasonable size, and thus not be capable of the kind of roughshod power they currently have.

Could you explain this to me? I don't see how this would limit the size corporations could grow to, as long as they are careful.

Personally, I don't think corporations should be allowed to dontate money to political campaigns and such. Their political influence needs to be taken away, otherwise they will always be able to change things to their own liking. However this can be accomplished, I'm all for it.

Creating controlled market for compatible devices

[Anonymous Coward]

That's also what it's about, besides the piracy hysteria. Want to make a better time shifter? Pay license fees. Got a new idea for snarfing caption data and generating something for PIP (picture in picture) presentation? Automatically bluetooth advertiser contact info to your Palm? Pay license fees. Want to do it with GPL software? Haw. Want to write research software to analyze TV fare? Erm, you want to do what? Just what kind of statistics are you interested in, and why? We'll get back to you. Not. Control, control, control.

Your only hope is that they'll want to buy you. And so it goes. The big get bigger.

I'm beginning to think this evolution of economic entities is just about beyond human control. Those who think they are in control are playing their parts in any case. It doesn't matter what they think.

This is BAD BAD BAD!!!

[greggman]

Okay, so who do I pay to make this not happen? Where do I go? What group to I join? Will the EFF fight this? I'll donate more money right now. Who do I right?

-gregg

Don't like it? Don't watch it!

[Alioth]

If you don't like TV, don't watch it. Vote with your feet.

I gave up on TV about three years ago. Let's face it - it sucks - the news is sensationalized and devoid of real facts. If you think the news gets it wrong about computer issues - think about what they get wrong in other issues! I know they are completely incapable of getting the facts right about aviation for a start.

Even the good programs on TV are so advertisment-filled that it's become annoying to watch them. The only channel that's not annoying to watch is PBS. (They have Red Dwarf on Saturday nights here!)

The real problem is that the vast majority of people aren't people at all - they are sheeple who just lap up and follow whatever the marketing suits and talking heads on the news say. Don't be a sheeple; kick the TV habit and do something more intelligent - learn a new language, ride your bike, get outdoors or whatever!

yeah this is fun.

[Kazin]

All this BS lately about copyrights, "required" encryption, and lawsuits over intellectual property is starting to make me seriously want to get out of the computer industry and persue my less-technology-oriented hobbies. Thanks to the U.S. government.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[matthewn]

A key point has been raised here. The government is now controlled not by Americans, but by Corporate America. It's a bad situation, but we have the tools we need to turn the tide.

Vote for Ralph Nader. I can hear you screaming already, "But he can't possibly win!" You're absolutely right. He will not win. But that DOES NOT mean that your vote is wasted. Consider:

• Ralph himself will tell you that his candidacy is not so much about entering the White House, but more about changing the political discourse in this country so that REAL issues are discussed.
• This time around, maybe Ralph only gets a lousy 5% of the vote. That's enough to make people wonder what the hell is going on. Next time around, he (or another Green, or another Third Party With Principles) gets 8 or 9%. Next time, 15%. Sure, this takes time, but over a period of years, you can become a force to be reckoned with. Either the Dems and Repubs will revert to representing the PEOPLE (they'll be too scared to do otherwise), or a third party will actually come to power. A revolution within a stable democracy takes a lot of time. That doesn't mean it cannot happen. (Look at what happened in Mexico this summer--and its government is far more corrupt than ours.)
• It's a vote for Bush or Gore that's actually a wasted vote. That's voting for continnued Governance By Corporations. Neither of these men is interested in serious campaign finance reform, ending corporate welfare, stopping the bargain-basement sale of the national commonwealth (our airwaves, etc.) to corporations, or . . .
• . . . DIGITAL FREEDOM. We are losing our personal freedoms in the electronic sphere because large corporations fear for their existence in this new age. They've bought the government in order to stifle changes that they find threatening. The only way to fight them is to take the government back. You can't do that by voting for Bush or Gore.

Vote for Nader. You'll sleep better. And after a few more election cycles, you'll live better.

/\/\/\/

Re:Oh my god!

[Bob Uhl]

And in such a world, politically dominated by the big money corporations and run exclusively for their benefit, we'd simply take up arms and overthrow them. First against the wall and all that sort of thing.

Oh, I forgot--we're not allowed to have weapons. Well, overthrowing the Corporate Hegemony with a fruitbat probably won't work too well. Guess I'll continue getting shafted. Might as well lay back and enjoy it...

re: FCC

[scharkalvin]

Seems to me that a set top box designed to allow reception of digital tv signals MUST convert the signal to NTSC video output in order for the old tv set to receive it, and this same signal is VERY recordable on my current VCR. They could Macrovision the output and fuck up the signal, but then there are ways to remove this shit. So at least recording the signals in 4x5 format will still work.

I don't think HBO, Cinamax, and Showtime will block recording of their signals since they know people time shift this stuff. Same for network TV (hell they WANT you to record the commericals!). Pay Per View, and sportcasts are another story though.

Re:Oh my god!

[xerx]

People just don't get it... this is not about piracy. This is corporate slight of hand, plain and simple.

The piracy that hurts is done by organized counterfeiting, it exists now, it will still exist tomorrow regardless of any technology.

Provide the average person with content at a reasonable price and there is very little motivation for copying. It is just not worth the trouble. AW... Yes I can copy VHS tapes from my friends, but why, if I can rent a tape for less cost and effort. Home copying only becomes a problem when the price of content is artificially raised, such as CDs. If a CD was 5 dollars, or I could download a very cheap lower quality MP3, what modivation would there be for me to copy it other than for my own personal use.

So what is the motivation of these laws?

It is simply greed, big-money wants to be able to charge whatever price they want. They want to remove fair use and charge you when ever and however they want.

Terms of Service subject to change at any time with out notice.

Degrading of Copied works as a solution?

[sterno]

If the FCC mandated that all digital VCR's, etc, had copy controls that wouldn't be all that bad a thing, except for the fact that they are also mandating that everything be digital. Frankly I think most broadcasters would be perfectly content to continue broadcasting analog as they always have, but the FCC is forcing them to go digital. Of course in going digital they open themselves up to the "perfect copy" problem so they want protection and soon we end up with fair use not existing.

I have a proposal. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems better than what I've seen so far. Right now there seems to be the option of no copy controls whatsoever, or these iron fisted copy controls. What I would propose is to apply an analog world concept to the digital realm, that of copy degradation.

Rather than saying, you can't make a copy, what about having it so that you can make copies, but that those copies, in transfer are degraded. So, if you copy your DVD to your computer, it degrades it so that it's only VCR quality. That way the fear of perfect digital copies goes away and it still provides for fair use of the information.

So, if you make a copy of your Magic Digital Media Disc, your friend can play the copy on his machine at VCR quality. If he makes a copy for somebody else it gets a little worse, maybe it's only mono sound now or a bit grainy. People will still make copies, but it will create an incentive to go out and buy the originals (which is what the media companies are so pissed about).

I think the FCC and the government need to start actively defending fair use, rather than selling us down the river to these corporate gluttons. There is a middle ground if somebody will try to stake it out.

---

Re:Degrading of Copied works as a solution?

[Cy Guy]

I have a proposal. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems better than what I've seen so far. Right now there seems to be the option of no copy controls whatsoever, or these iron fisted copy controls. What I would propose is to apply an analog world concept to the digital realm, that of copy degradation.

Actually this is already essentially guaranteed, since the FCC has promised that before TV stations have to give up their analog TV frequencies, there will be affordable (~$200?) set-top boxes to let you convert HDTV signals to be played on your current analog NTSC TV. So you could just use one of these boxes to strip out any digital copy protection, but at the same time it would degrade the video quality to VHS. You could then take the NTSC stream and run it to your VCR, or to your PC, or pipe it over the net. The first two would still be legal under Fair Use, the latter would depend on the circumstances.

Cripes!

[Denial of Service]

I hope this doesn't impede my ability to record TV shows just like how all those impossible-to-decode scrambled sattelite TV signals have alluded me for all these years!

This is an outra... wait.

Nevermind.

fight the fcc and nab in the streets of sf

[amphgobb]

Hey, pissed off at the FCC or NAB and don't have any way to release your anger except posting on slashdot?
Come to the huge protest/counterculture party outside and hopefully inside the annual National Association of Broadcasters meeting in San Francisco next week!

For details, see Media Democracy Now! and the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.

Tons of pirate radio. Tons of pirating of corporate copyrighted muzak. Drown out corporate radio in San Francisco on the Day of a Million Microradio Broadcasts.

Brought you by the same discontent which was at Seattle, Washington, Philly, LA, the list goes on and on. The police have already been in touch to "work out details" and they were told to fuck off.

Be there, be creative, fuck shit up!

To paraphrase that dog on Conan O'Brian:

[axel from afkmn]

These are nice anti-piracy features.

FOR ME TO CRACK!

Axel

Three words

[teasea]

You fucking morons. ^ | | refers to the FCC

Don't work around something that is wrong!

[Dman33]

Either way, I'm sure smart people will figure out a way around it far before I can afford one of these TVs...

Nah, just buy one from outside of the USofA. Does the FCC control a Japanese TV that is sold to a man in Japan? I hope that I am correct in saying no. I am an American, yet every day I become more and more ashamed of my country. It is not supposed to be this way, and the whole principle that the US was founded upon is all but gone in this country. Representation in congress is a joke when the big bucks buy the votes, and the good candidates that do not take corporate sponsorship are laughed at by the media. (I wonder why??)

The majority of the citizens of the US are too absorbed by the current 'prosperity' that they would fear making a change in the structure of the government, and as a result they (we) are taking a major hit in our freedoms!

The MPAA, the RIAA, the FCC...they may all be trying to take the world hostage for their benefit; but mark my word, one day the sh|t will hit the fan and they will wish they were free again!!
It is sad... and I just HAD to rant that one..

Re:Don't work around something that is wrong!

[Evil Grinn]

Nah, just buy one from outside of the USofA. Does the FCC control a Japanese TV that is sold to a man in Japan?

Well, the modifications you'd have to make to get that TV to work with US cable systems will almost certainly be illegal.

Not saying it will stop anybody, of course.

wrongo AC

[Ender Ryan]

It will be illegal to record it, the technological measures are just added insurance, you will still be prosecuted for breaking the law.

The problem isn't the technological measures they take to prevent us from copying, we can always get around them, it's the laws that will allow them to destroy our lives for doing it.

Looking down the road a bit

[delevant]

OK, let's be honest here -- the eventual outcome of the various DMCA applications will be the outlawing of technical know-how, except for persons with appropriate certification.

No, wait a sec, I'm serious. People will hack one system after another, trying to access TV, MP3, etc., and "The System" will just keep slapping restrictions on one set of technologies after another.

It's illegal to have DeCSS. It will eventually be illegal to own a soldering iron -- because you could use it to circumvent Copyright Control on your TV.

...people will have to become "Licensed Technology Practitioners" -- just like doctors.

Wait and see -- I'll be proven right, unless things change in a really big way.

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[interiot]

Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA as long as they're advertised as they currently are. 17 USC 12 (2)(C):

• No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.

The same is true of compilers (used to write tools that infringe), scissors (if someone uses cloth as an access control device), or brains (can potentially crack anything).

Has lock technology stagnated because of laws against lockpicking? Possibly, but not completely. However, at some point we have to say that it's not right for a person to initiate agression against another person.
--

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[sjames]

Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA as long as they're advertised as they currently are. 17 USC 12 (2)(C):

Last year, breaking simple encryption to watch a japanese import DVD on your Linux box wasn't a felony. In the '80s, the idea of an encrypted CD was laughable and a copyrighted show you saw in your childhood would be public domain before you died of old age.

Things change, and they're not changing for the better here.

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[interiot]

Well, breaking a lock and entering, even if it's a horrible flimsy and easy to surpass lock, is illegal. So I guess one could extend the analogy and say that breaking flimsy encryption is illegal.

But breaking in and copying software (with no loss of information to the owner) doesn't seem to be nearly as evil as breaking into an unlocked house and stealing the jewels.
--

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[Zach Baker]

Hmm. So even if I have a computer dedicated to nothing but circumventing access controls, it doesn't count because it's not manufactured or marketed with that intent? How phoney! =^)

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[Veteran]

All that has to happen for soldering irons - or anything else to be illegal under the DMCA is for Jack Valenti to take out an ad in Variety that says "Do you want to break the copy protection on your XXX device? Just use this!" He then sends a registered letter to the manufacturers of the soldering irons so that they have 'knowledge of his actions'. Notice that the DMCA says 'knowledge' it doesn't say knowledge and control.

This of course sets up another extortion racket for the MPAA: "Pay a licensing fee or your product is illegal" Oh, and expect free software operating systems to be among the first things the MPAA 'advertises'.

Folks - it is not about money - evil is never about money - money is to clean for evil to be interested in it; evil has always been about the creation of human misery - money is only a means to that end.

The only way to stop the DMCA is to show to the public that the people behind it are evil. But I can't even convince the geeks who are being hammered by that law of that truth. If the victims can't believe that evil is involved, there is no chance whatsoever of showing the population as a whole what is going on.

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[sjames]

Well, breaking a lock and entering, even if it's a horrible flimsy and easy to surpass lock, is illegal.

The analogy doesn't work. It is not illegal for me to break the lock on MY front door and enter. The law there says I bought the house, it's MY lock, and I can break it if I want to.

To make the house analogy work, we'll have to make it a mobile home. It has a special lock that will only allow the door to open in the southeast region of the U.S. and then, only after playing commercial jingles for 5 minutes. If I break the lock or go in through the window I cleverly left open (either because I moved to Kansas or I just can't stand the thought of hearing that stupid commercial again), I will be charged with breaking and entering and face over a year in jail as if I had broken into someone else's house.

In other words, effectively, you don't own the player or the DVDs, you just paid full price for a lifetime rental, except that the landlord paid the judge off so that he never has to fix anything, even if the house becomes unlivable. You'll just have to rent a new one.

Re:Looking down the road a bit

[JimDabell]

Soldering irons aren't illegal under the DMCA...because it wasn't manufactured or marketed with the intent to be used for copyright infringement.

Neither are televisions without copy-protection.

Ditto, I also wrote a letter of protest.

[maynard]

Our representatives and federal officials simply don't listen to their constituents any longer (or maybe they assume corporate america to be their only constituents). Either way, I'm seriously thinking of emigrating from America; this place is going fascist.

Re:Ditto, I also wrote a letter of protest.

[bdhall1313]

"Either way, I'm seriously thinking of emigrating from America; this place is going fascist."

I've been thinking the same thing. The question is where to go? What countries have low taxes and don't try to interfere with every aspect of citizens' lives?

Like the U.S. used to be.

Re:Ditto, I also wrote a letter of protest.

[muonman]

I hear Somalia has minimal government. Enjoy yourself.

Re:Ditto, I also wrote a letter of protest.

[phutureboy]

I hear Somalia has minimal government. Enjoy yourself.

Actually, Somalia does have minimal government, and it would seem that things are going pretty well now considering what they've been through in the past.

--

Email the FCC!

[ArcadeNut]

They are on the Net, send them an email.

http://www.fcc.gov/contact.html

I sent them an Email, so should you! Let them know that this is a bad thing!

Please keep the emails civil though.

What happened to betamax time shifting?

[AndyChrist]

The DMCA happened to it. Or may happen to it, depending on exactly how bought-and-sold the courts are at the moment.

Re:What happened to betamax time shifting?

[griffjon]

Now /there's/ an idea. A secure, online b2b exchange for buying and selling judges and other court influencers.

www.BuyAJudge.com -- it's up for grabs!

No... Thank you MP3 pirates!

[sheldon]

"Thanks Uncle FCC. "

It wasn't the FCC who forced this decision to be made...

stupid AC

[Ender Ryan]

Under the DMCA it is already illegal to bypass a copy control mechanism. This is not paranoia, it is a fact. It is why DeCSS is illegal.

Re:Because by about 2006, that will be all there I

[aenomie]

No, they have not mandated HDTV by 2006; they have mandated DTV by 2006, which is standard NTCS definition TV transmitted digitally instead of analog.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[xianzombie]

hehe, can i help you found the new homeland?

OT: The Offspring vs. their label

[DeeKayWon]

Here's an interesting quote from that article you mentioned:

Industry attorneys have told the band that they are afraid that the download promotion could jeopardize the industry's legal case against Napster and its 25 million users, who download unauthorized MP3 music files on a daily basis.

How exactly are they afraid? It can't be fear of being hypocritical because Sony is making it clear they don't want this and it's all the band's idea. Could it be that they're afraid that this might show that MP3s don't cut into sales as much as they claim?

Right....

[isaac]

...as if all records of such an era of intellectual wouldn't have been redacted from the historical records of the publishing carted.

-Isaac

Re:Oh my god!

[Groundskeepr]

Like prohibition and the current war on drugs, all that the war on piracy will do is provide a profit center for organized criminals.

That is not *all*. They are counting on us having the reaction you're having. Prohibition, the war on drugs, and the repeal of fair use also have the effect of making criminals out of a larger and larger percentage of the population. The next step is to use selective enforcement of these laws to imprison any one you don't like.

Imagine they made the speed limit 15 mph. Sure, few people would follow it. Those who did, they would assume were doing something *really* bad. Everyone else would be subject to enforcement whenever the cops decided they felt like it.

Hurray! Another excuse to delay DTV

[tenzig_112]

What if they held a revolution and nobody showed up?

By the time these corporate vultures and bureaucratic sycophants finally get the job done, the standard will be an absolute unmanufacturable mess- and consumers will no longer care.

Standard definition is dead. Long live standard def.

www.ridiculopathy.com

Let's See...

[RexRuther]

Let's see... I watched the Brady Bunch way too much and have the theme song imprinted in my brain. Is this a legal copy or is it my own property? The quality is pretty good, and I can sing it verbatim on a street corner. Perhaps I should send in royalities or something. If it isn't legal please send a legion of hungry lawyers my way ASAP. This song is driving me crazy.

Sooner or later...

[ichimunki]

it's going to be time to get tired of all this crap, pull the plug and head outside to congregate with other live humans. Of course, I suspect we'll find that's been paved, and people found outdoors without a permit or a purpose will be subject to numerous stalking, lurking, and loitering laws. "I swear officer, I'm headed to the mall to buy a DVD, we weren't having a conversation!"

Anyone remember the "public airwaves"?

[Daffy Duck]

Isn't that the resource the FCC was created to manage?

The article doesn't mention whether the FCC wants to make it illegal to receive DTV transmissions without government-approved hardware. If so, then the sellout is complete.

Anyone know which candidate is less likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold this kind of crap? Land of the free, my ass. We're headed back to a feudal system of information lords and consumer peasants.

Re:Anyone remember the "public airwaves"?

[wozz]

You're not allowed to receive ANY radio wave transmission on non-FCC (or FCC-proxy) approved equipment. This is nothing new. The reason for this is, equipment that receives radio waves, also give off radio waves, and the FCC needs to ensure that all such equipment doesn't interfere with higher priority equipment. For example, scanners which receive cell phone frequencies are illegal, and the FCC will not approve a scanner that can receive them, or can be easily modified to receive them, except for government use.

Re:Anyone remember the "public airwaves"?

[Daffy Duck]

Well that's very interesting. Is the emission of RF interference the only reason the FCC is allowed to regulate receivers? Because if so, what difference does it make to the emissions if the data contained in a certain band is copyrighted or not? And if the answer is "none" then what the hell is the FCC doing drafting these new requirements based on content licensing when there is no public protection involved?

Re:Anyone remember the "public airwaves"?

[wozz]

And what difference does it make if the data contained in a certain band contains the word fuck? Who knows, but the FCC has decided you can't do it.

As for what the FCC is about, here's a quote from their web page:

"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as an independent United States government agency directly responsible to Congress. The Act, which has been amended over the years, charges the Commission with establishing policies to govern interstate and international communications by television, radio, wire, satellite and cable. In February 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law, representing the first major overhaul of our nation's telecommunications policies in over 60 years. "

Any electronic communications fall under their jurisdiction, and they are directly responsible to congress, which is directly responsible to you. If enough Americans feel that such regulation of what we can do with others content is a bad idea, they have the option of making their voices heard with a vote. Those that don't vote, can't complain. The government was not created to read your minds, it was created to do what the majority ask it to do.

The FCC has to satisfy ALL Americans, including those that own stock, or just plain own companies that provide the content that goes over those airwaves. The government doesn't just represent YOU, it represents you and 275 million other Americans. Yes, even the people that run those big evil corporations and the dreaded RIAA and MPAA are Americans, just as American as you or I, maybe more so, because I'll bet they vote and make themselves a part of the political process (ethically or not) ;) They are part of the public, so there IS public protection involved.

No one's saying you can't make copies, you just can't make copies of something you didn't buy, and you can't give those copies away. Note, they aren't anti-copying devices, they're anti-PIRACY devices.

industry shooting itself in the foot again

[relinquish]

If this passes, what this will do is further encourage exchange of video content on the internet, therefore bypassing entirely TV. Maybe there will never be a next generation Tv other than the internet connected PC...

A little more paranoia for the discussion:

[AndyChrist]

Quick trip to radio shack, huh? Maybe we'll end up needing licenses to buy electronics parts. "Excuse me, sir, do you have a permit for that soldering iron?"

not really

[Ender Ryan]

I support anonymous posting. Sorry, I was just being an ass.

You are basically saying that you will forever sit there with your camcorder and it will always be interpreted as being legal. That doesn't follow the current trend of things being made illegal. It could very easily be construed as being access control circumvention, and most likely would be.

Why do you insist on believing that things won't go this way? What evidence points to that. With laws like the DMCA, and soon probably UCITA...

Can anyone actually point out the decision?

[EduardoLeonidas]

I was looking at the fcc web page, and I was only able to find two stories that mentioned copy protection in Digital TV's. Both say that some measure of copy protection is not against the rules, but not that they are required. CAn anyone find something different? Links below.
First Story
Second Press Release

Eduardo Ramirez

Re:worse than that... -- it's Good!

[vla1den]

This is just another *good* call for openly programmable VCR/TV sets. If I would be able to control how I watch it, they wouldn't try to force me to watch what they want... Isn't it simple?

Re:TeeVee SHOULD die...

[Evil Grinn]

Once we have high-speed internet connections, TeeVee and HollyWood are. dead. dog. meat.

Prediction: broadcast TV (and radio) will be so dead that the VHF/UHF spectra will be re-assigned to carry Internet traffic exclusively.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[PolyDwarf]

IMHO,It's our fault.

It's not my fault.
I didn't vote for the FCC.
Hell, I wasn't able to vote until the mid 90's.. And most of the cockups in our government were started long before that. Long before most people could vote, since lobbyists and lawyers have been around for years and years.
Maybe if we got rid of lobbyists, the government wouldn't be tempted by all that money.. Then again, what do I know, I'm only an American Citizen.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[bnenning]

As an alternative, vote for Harry Browne. Like Nader, he opposes allowing corporations to purchase anti-consumer legislation. Unlike Nader, he applies pro-liberty concepts consistently, including your right to spend your money as you see fit rather than having a huge portion it wasted on ineffective and often destructive federal programs.

Having said that, vote for Nader if you really do believe in his socialist policies. (That's not intended as an insult, just a factual statement). Both he and Browne are at least principled, unlike the major candidates.

FCC requires copy protection for digital TV

[jblewis007]

What a bunch of crap! Are all areas of the US on cable? I think not! What of FEMA's duty to warn all citizens about dangers over publicly available FREE systems lke radio and broadcast TV? Are poor people who can't afford digital TV or cable connection going to be left in the cold, or are they going to get "welfare TV"? This is discrimination against lower income and handicapped people. I am colorblind, so why the hell do I need higher definition to see what I can't see in the first place? I can see colors that I can't identify in much sharper detail. That sure has me sold! The FCC is an archaic organization still living under communications acts passed in the 30's befor mass media and communications were wide spread.All the FCC cares aboutis how their pockets will get lined by big commercial networks and the cellular industry. Just another way to bilk the tax paying masses out of their hard earned cash. What about all the American military so proudly serving in foreign countries? Is AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television) going to broadcast in digital to all the GI's? The generals will buy tanks and planes before they buy digital TV to improve the military quality of life. I think the GI will just get screwed again. With all this going on about Hi-Def TV, I'll make a prediction. It will flop because of vague and incompatable standards, lack of availability and prohibitive costs. remember AM stereo radio from a few years back? Oooooohh we all have those now in our homes and cars right? Want more? DAT. I know no one who owns those babies? A recording studio ok, but home users? You couldn't call video tape machines VCR anymore because they can't record. Your cable provider will be able to tell you what you nac and can't record, and how much you have to pay for the pleasure to do it. Bottom line, no matter how good your equipment is, if you can't get a signal because of equipment problems or mother nature, you watch Hi-Def snow! Vidiots Enjoy....

If the FCC and Apple have their way...

[Arkus]

Gee, I guess I won't have to worry about fast forwarding through any imaq commericals when I record something to watch later...
Or any actual program content for that matter! The FCC really needs to get their act together. I hate to have bureaucracy creating more bureaucracy, but it may be time for some entity to regulate them.

BSOD shirt is win nt

[Yottabyte84]

i think that is a kenerl fault from windows nt.

Re:BSOD shirt is win nt

[noweb4u]

I have one. It is a WinNT Stop Error :-)

Re:BSOD shirt is win nt

[Yottabyte84]

ah... well i was right it is nt. the boxen at school show that screen often. we had to reformat one of the hard drives...

Re:Oh my god!

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Maybe the TV broadcasters should take a cue (no pun intended) from :Cue:Cat and GIVE AWAY the digital TVs and VCR's. Then they have a legal right to control how we use them.

Until then, as long as I'm the one paying for the equipment, I don't want anyone telling me how and when I can use it.

Damn the man

[Beaker00]

Anybody else feel more like nothing seems to go along with the constitution anymore? sure technically by law it does, but the very principles which it stands for are what seems like their being violated. First copyleft is sued for putting code on shirts (DeCSS, and forced to remove it...hrmm, freedom of speech anyone?) Now they want to tell us we cant record public broadcasts and were being FORCED to buy new hardware just to make things work? Sure we've got a lot of nice stuff here and I probably have no room to bitch, but im still going to. this paranoid government/corporation that runs our country seems way to involved with preventing piracy lately. All because of the music industry. Sure MP3's are hurting the RIAA bigwigs, but as for DeCSS, and software piracy, and television piracy, is this really a problem yet? suing the sh*t out of people isnt going to stop movie's from being distributed, besides, people were doing so long before dvd, just now their prize had been compromised. This country is full of very greedy people, and I'll admit I can be from time to time, i'll admit I love money. but when it gets to be where its infringing on our human rights, I think its a little bit out there. They invade our privacy with the things they do, they take away our right to do what we want and we're constantly restricted more and more. Besides, nothing they do will work. they think someone won't crack this? their insane. Ok, enough ranting. I just think this is all really lame, and that THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US FROM MONOPOLIZING AND OVERPOWERFUL COMPANIES IS NOW ASSISTING THESE OVERPOWERFUL COMPANIES. that's just plain sad.

Lack of good TV roll models

[Mr. Happumapema]

Do you ever see, ANYWHERE, a character on TV: * talking to another character about current events * writing a letter to their Congressman * standing up to any sort of corporation * generally being a citizenlike person ? No, of course not. So 'consumers' have no template for action.

Re:Lack of good TV roll models

[Weh]

ask ms to include a 'letter to congresman' wizard in word or windows or something...

There goes another bit of US liberty...

[Fred_A]

I hope that law won't get forcefully imposed on the rest of the world as it (unfortunately) often happens :(

FCC authority

[Sloppy]

The FCC should not have the authority to require this. If this rule is truly desired (yeah, right), then it should be passed as a law by legislators who are accountable to voters.

Why should the FCC just be able to make up whatever it wants without having to answer to anyone?

---

Re:FCC authority

[interiot]

The FCC's authority is laid out in 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151:

• For the purpose of
• regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.

FCC decisions can be overturned by the courts if they violate the constitution/laws or if they overstep their bounds. (see here ).
--

Re:FCC authority

[Sloppy]

Purpose of promoting safety of property, eh? I have a funny feeling that whoever wrote that, was envisioning a telephone pole falling over onto someone's car...

---

Re:FCC authority

[phutureboy]

If this rule is truly desired (yeah, right), then it should be passed as a law by legislators who are accountable to voters.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here... but my understanding is that most federal rules and regulations are administrative law - that is, they are independently created and enforced by the various three-letter acronymic agencies that Congress has created in the past 75 years. Congress delegates authority over certain sectors of the economy to these Agencies, Boards, Bureaus, and Commissions, and generally only steps in if there is a public outcry of some sort.

I am really looking forward to the day when we have a U.S. Department of Software!

--

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[amphgobb]

wow, only 15 years or so to wait for the discourse to change? sounds good to me!

i think ralph nader is an easy way for hipster politics to seem different. it is hard for liberals these day to get radical cred if they are behind al gore, huh.

for people whose have real problems under this stinking system, the time has always been now. the problem is motivating those who sympathize to give up their comfort and security that the stinking system offers them.

anyway, this next week in san francisco, the NAB and the FCC will get a chance to see what this sense of urgency means when hundreds of like-minded people all decide to fuck with them.

so to get involved, organize with other humans. why waste your time volunteering for a nader campaign or casting a vote when you can cast your vote every damn day...

to get involved, checkout the san francisco independent media center...

Prelude to a revolution?

[Chris L. Mason]

If this keeps up for the next five to twenty years, I can see the real possibility of a violent uprising against the government or some of the large corporations.

While watching and reading about the various militia groups in the US, and their horrible actions in the past decade, I could never understand the motivation. I remember thinking that the US and Canada are among the most free countries in the world, with liberties broader than ever before in history. The idea that someone would think some type of armed resistance was needed would have been laughable if not for the tragic loss of life.

Recently, however, I've truly started to worry that maybe our freedom is not as secure as I had presumed. Over the past few years we've had a number of laws and rulings that have slowly started stripping our rights away. It's been subtle and most people probably haven't noticed, but it won't stay that way forever.

As one of the other posters pointed out, the groundwork is being laid for a society frighteningly similar to 1984. Maybe George Orwell's predictions weren't so wrong after all, but just off by a few decades.

Perhaps we've been naive to think that the so-called "information revolution" would be a bloodless one. When society has undergone massive changes in its structure in the past, there has always been violence. The old ways of thinking have never died out gracefully or quietly.

I'd very much like to hope that we've reached a turning point, that we've evolved past the need for such drastic action. I hope the courts and the politicians wake up and realize what's happening, what they're allowing to happen, and stop it now before it goes too far.

I suspect...

[Polo]

I suspect that the system will have to allow "fair use" recording, while preventing copies
of copies. Of course this killed DAT decks. You could make a DAT copy of a CD, but not a copy of that DAT tape (a copy of a copy didn't
work).

Perhaps you're off the deep end here?

[tswinzig]

I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but, if you can't record what's broadcast, how can you prove that it ever was?

If a government, anywhere, chooses to rewrite history so that an event 'never happened', it will be of great importance to them that news broadcasts can not be recorded.

Yeah, because lord knows we only get out news and history from the TV set.

-thomas


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Anyone know the Docket Number for this regulation

[Intrinsic]

I wanted to call them and voice my concerns.

Brazil

[graveyhead]

Terry Gilliams' classic comes to life!

DMCA and FCC just need to merge and rename the monstrosity: "Information Retrieval"

Have you forgotten?

[Sloppy]

2600 lost to the MPAA, and those same arguments applied.

---

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[chandoni]

I'm not sure how being in favor of small businesses, but against large monopolies and corporate lobbies (like the MPAA or RIAA) could really be called "socialist". In fact, it seems like there's very little difference between a our current situation (large corporations [mpaa], which control government [fcc], which control us [tv-watching buying machines]) and a socialist system of government (government runs large corporations, which control the everyday lives of the workers).

While the current situation has been brought about by the 2 main parties, I don't see how the libertarian ideas (i.e. allowing completely uncontrolled corporate abuse) would do anything to improve our situation.

JMC

ah!

[MenTaLguY]

I'm replying in case you seriously think Nader is too secretive.

I did. Thank you for the information.

(someone mod him up please?)

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[jefu]

You often hear that voting for anyone but the top two candiates (often about as dissimilar as tweedledum and tweedledee) is a waste of your vote - but its more likely that voting for one of them is a waste of your vote. Most of the major news media now say that the presidential election will be decided in about four states. This seems to imply that if you are not going to vote for the candidate that is forecast to be the winner you will be wasting your vote. So instead of wasting it on tweedledum - vote for a third party candidate whose views you agree with.

Nader? Nah, vote for Hagelin.

[tswinzig]

Fer chrissakes, Hagelin has a PhD in nuclear physics! An IQ of 165! And he's not as much of a socialist as Nader...

http://www.hagelin.org/

-thomas


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Re:Solution

[Flower]

And who will be better? Bush? Go to www.rnc.org and read the bits they have on IP and technology. Pretty much they talk about protecting American (i.e. corporate) IP.

Harry Brown? Sorry folks, I have read the libertarian party's web site. I'd rather vote for a right-wing, Christian Coalition, Republican than I would for a Libertarian. This "let's get government out of people's lives" is a point but they take it way too far.

The Reform Party seems to be in shambles and I wouldn't vote for Pat anyway.

Nader and the Green Party. I'm looking into it and if I like what I see I'll probably vote for them.

But as for the canidates who are likely to win, Bush is certainly not going to do any better on these issues than Gore.

Re:Freaks.

[david duncan scott]

But USA Today is television!

Freedom to choose

[Kenneth Stephen]

You have forgotten one thing. Movie companies who dont want to incur that risk have the choice to not allow broadcasting over digital formats. People who do choose to transmit in this format have to accept the risk that they may be recorded - which is the same as they currently incur with analog TV or radio. The fact that it is possible to commit piracy which this is no excuse for not allowing recording capability. After all, one can use fire to commit arson - but it is more commonly used for cooking and is pretty much essential to someone who wants more than salads or sushi.

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[phutureboy]

I believe that Ralph Nader truly has good intentions, and is generally a guy of decent character...

That being said, I firmly believe that the policies he proposes would greatly *increase* political corruption in the U.S. Nader proposes to vastly increase the size of the federal government and its control over businesses... thereby increasing the incentive for business people to lobby/bribe politicians for favors, access to markets, and thwarting of competitors ( this is how it works in China and Russia which, as I am sure you are aware, have very large governments)

If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries.

Favoritism, lobbying and political manipulation doesn't just happen at the Federal level.... it goes all the way down to your local 'Economic Development Commission' - the one that grants 10-year tax breaks and free infrastructure buildout to certain companies that it wants to attract, but not to others.

I'd like to wind up my rant by saying that I agree with the other posters... If you want your freedom, are tired of seeing your tax dollars wasted, want to end the completely absurd War on Drugs, and not leastly want to reduce corruption, Vote Libertarian, from the presidential ticket all the way down to the state and local level.

--

DMCA not required

[interiot]

I don't think the DMCA is required at all. Companies should just post this message at the start of every show (and optionally commercials):

• By continuing to watch on this channel, you are agreeing to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between you and Acme Movie Studios. The following motion picture contains trade secrets of Acme Movie Studio. As such, you may not discuss the contents of the motion picture with anyone else, nor may you make copies of the motion picture and leave the copies in an unprotected place. Under no circumstances may you allow anyone else to copy or view your copy of the motion picture. Any violations of this agreement will result in prosecution for the maximum amount under trade secret law. Thank you for watching and enjoy the show!

--

Thats why digital signatures are required

[Kenneth Stephen]

There is a known solution to your problem : digital signatures using cryptography. The problems of message integrity and sender authentication are addressed with this. Of course, it needs to be implemented in broadcast channels for this to be a solution, but if your problem becomes a widespread reality, thats exactly what will happen.

Re:FP

[Scrag]

You will have to buy a new box if you want to watch tv. The FCC has required that TV stations stop broadcasting analog signals by 2006. Yes, this will make all current TVs obsolete. Converter boxes will be available to convert the digital signal to analog, but I'm sure these will have copy protection stuff too. Your only option really, is to get a digital TV now, before this stuff is implemented.
My personal opinion is that everyone would be better off without TV anyway, but everyone can choose how to use their time...

Are we in The Matrix?

[jafuser]

This made me think. Is the "The Matrix" really just a metaphor for the society that the modern day mega-corporations have created for us? We all live about our happy lives, oblivious that the corporations are just sucking us dry?

I'll take the red pill.

--

I didn't forget...

[Millennium]

Unless I'm mistaken, that was a calculated move on 2600's part; they wanted to fight in higher courts than the one in which they were originally sued.

Of course, in the end it would take the SUpreme Court to shut down that travesty once and for all. But even the battles we lose will end up in our favor when that time comes, because we can use them to show the RIAA/MPAA/DVD-CCA/etc. for what they truly are.
----------

integration of government & corporations

[Weh]

here's my dictionary of 21st century politics :

corporation: government
customer : voter
purchase : vote
monopoly : dictatorhip
president : president
market : electorate
marketshare: mandate
advertisement: campaign

the list goes on and on, but i guess that what it comes down to is that the consumer/voter by himself has little power over government/corporations but a lot of them have a lot of power. I think that when you buy something from someone you can consider it as a 'vote' for that corporation. People just need to realize this politization of consumerism. off course sometimes you have no choice and off course you don't get any product when you vote. but the simile goes surprisingly well for the power aspect of it.....

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[phutureboy]

another method is available: take away the errant corp's charter. not too easily done, but the *attempt* is what's important: it'll chill the blood of every ceo around. and ONE success...

What it'll do is force every CEO around to send hired guns to DC to wine and dine lawmakers and get on their good side.

above all, don't buy! then the corp has lost, and you retain your money power, ready and able to support businesses that deserve your patronage.

This I agree with, as well as your statement about boycotts.

--

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[James Nolan]

WE NEED TO FIGURE THIS OUT FAST.

We should look to the system that makes us vulnerable to mass marketing in the first place.

A system that punishes and rewards us for learning.

We are screwing with a natural and valuable process: learning. It has been shown in study after study that behaviorism deadens learning, but our schools don't listen! Either do we!

Punishing and rewarding for learning causes apathy. Behaviorism is the antithesis of quality teaching.

Democracy can't function if the citizens are CONDITIONED into APATHY.

James.

If you can't join 'em...

[ronfar]

...beat em. What all of these various legal attacks by the content industry are about making sure that the information technology industry doesn't end up controlling them. That in the US, that they'll lead the content economy and information technology will be, at best, a junior partner. Basically, they know they won't be able to adapt, or even come up with, to a new business model in the age when scarcity of their products doesn't exist.

In fact, this sort of reminds me of DeBeers. Recently, I was watching an episode of Nova which shows that they have figured out how to synthesize gem quality diamonds which are 100% indistinguishable from natural diamonds. I can tell you, DeBeers is panicking over this, they've kept the price of diamonds high by keeping the supply artificially low.

So, one of the best things IT workers can do is to keep working on things like Ogg Vorbis (hopefully quietly enough that anti-Vorbis legislation won't be passed) and other content delivery systems. In the long run, by doing this, we'll have left an opening for people with the courage and business sense to take on the old corrupt structure and drive it into bankruptcy.

My guess is that, ultimately, if the content industry doesn't manage to turn the US into a planned economy, a new business model which can take advantage of the abundance of content the way the old one took advantage of scarcity will emerge. I'm not sure how, it might be hardware related (say MP3 player makers paying bands and having their own in house content creation) or sorting related (finding appropriate content for individual tastes against a sea of information).

I'm not a businessman though, but I do know one thing. The US doesn't control the world, and I believe the US is currently tops in the world economy. If we cripple our information technology industry to protect our content industry, we will eventually be bypassed in both by countries that don't take such a narrow, shortsighted view.

Weapons that your are allowed to own

[Kenneth Stephen]

Are you complaining that you cant own a Uzi / AK-47 or are you complaining that you cant own an anti-aircraft gun? The gun advocates dont seem to realize that even if they whole world had guns, they citizens would be no match for the sophisticated weaponry owned by governments. Pray tell me what you would do with your machine guns when the government owns laser-guided missiles?

Re:Weapons that your are allowed to own

[Bob Uhl]

Actually, yes. If one can afford a weapon it is my belief that one should be able to purchase it, if one can convince someone to sell it. So if I can form a consortium to buy a single ack-ack, then we deserve to have it. Won't do us a whole lot of good, but...

Message found on usnet -

[ZZane]

From: M3d14 nDus7r13
To: g0v.

1 0wn j00!!

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush...

[VValdo]

If this wasn't such a close race I'd consider it. But there's still a scary chance that Bush may win (it's still neck-and-neck)... Gore is only edging Bush, and the perception that Gore will win may cause people to vote for Nader or worse, stay at home.

I don't want to throw a vote at Nader and have Bush be president. That would be insane.

READ *MY* LIPS: NO NEW BUSHES.
W
-------------------

This is good news for Open Music

[JonCohen]

Napster tried to argue that they couldn't tell which music was copyrighted and which was freely distributable.

Since all machines will have the capability to recognize the copy protection, then it will be easy to have legitimate Napster-like sites.

You people sound a bit scared.

[Steeltoe]

Taping from a digital TV is no harder than putting a video camera in front of it. Of course, you may get sync problems, but I'm sure you can filter that out with a good algo.

Another thing, the moment this starts affecting ordinary (normal?) people's lives, they're not gonna take it. There ARE limits to what your "elected" representatives can do, but I'm sure they'll pass a law soon to bypass that.

- Steeltoe

NIGHT shows?

[Cardhore]

How will we record late night ("copy protected") programs, or programs on while we're at work/school, and watch them when we're actually home?

Obviously YANADeveloper either ;-)

[Steeltoe]

You mean like DeCSS was made just for viewing DVDs under Linux? It's too bad that argument is so undefendable, even though it is in many cases true (in many others false).

Information is information. It can never be bound to one corner of the universe forever. An OSS project like this would have to UNSCRAMBLE the signal, and from there you can do pretty much as you please with the information.

My guess is that the DMCA would apply here because you've now circumvented a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. It doesn't matter that the rest of the sourcecode does something else with the information. THEY WANT TO MAKE THE ALGORITHMS ILLEGAL TO USE BY ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES.

Gained some information now? (Man I'm TIRED of these discussions, I want a vacation! ;-)

- Steeltoe

Re:Obviously YANADeveloper either ;-)

[interiot]

Yes, that's just what I argued in a past story.

But just because the decoder and displayer are layed out in source code doesn't mean that it's trivial to decode to a file, especially to a non-programmer. The DMCA focuses on manufacturing and distribution of programs that circumvent copyright protections. It does not say anything about making the job easier.

Indeed, it might be possible to write two programs, neither of which directly infringe on copyrights by themselves, but when combined allow infringement. Which would be at fault? The DMCA, 17 U.S.C. sec. 1201 (a)(2), lays out rules on determining that.

For a real-world example, what if a program were made that accesses the decoded video from a software DVD decoder by watching the decoder's memory? The program that leeches from the decoder would be found at fault. Though neither of the programs alone could allow copy infringement, the leecher 1) has no other useful purposes, 2) was created and marketed soley for infringing, and 3) has no other commercially significant purpose, but the decoder passes on all three counts. Note that the software decoder was the one that actually decoded the stream, not the leecher, but the leecher was still at fault.

Similarly, I don't think an OSS viewer would be at fault (it has legitimate uses and wasn't designed to be used for infriingement). But an OSS copier which uses some code (leeches?) from the OSS viewer would be found at fault under the DMCA.
--

Going too far.

[mindstrm]

That's going too far.
THey should be able to regulate limited public resources only.

RF spectrum.. yes. We need regulation here. THis regulation should be based on use & benefit to society, not the 'highest bidder'. Keep people from hogging spectrum just to maintain monopoly, but don't keep people from using underused spectrum either.

Television, Telecom: This only works out as a 'public' resource for a couple reasons. 1) the amount of land and right-of-ways across the country used for this (people 'own' property, but as a whole, the people of a country 'own' their country). The ohter is that, without the public, it is useless. Telecom has no power without customers.... similar to some trade unions. If the people get together, the people can demand things.
However.. the FCC regulating what kind of TV's oyu can sell is getting out of hand. Now they are trying to regulate a MARKET, and that is wrong. Stick to resources.

Fixed link to "life + 70"

[yerricde]

The "life + 70" figure (doesn't that sound like a prison sentence for free speech?) comes from the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Copyright Theft Act.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[Steeltoe]

Personally I think the US is trying to prove by example that you can go into excactly the same traps as USSR have. It's in the mindset of the people and their organizations, not in the rules and laws you make up.

Minds shift over time. An action from someone to shift other minds, will lead to an opposite reaction at a later point of time. Unfortunately, we're BAD at understanding ourselves, not because we can't, but because we don't WANT TO.

- Steeltoe

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[Steeltoe]

"If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries."

I'm not political active, and this may seem like a dumb question. But excactly HOW does this reduce corruption? Isn't this just the matter of pushing power completely over to corporations, including the corruption?

- Steeltoe

Macrovision kills this plan.

[yerricde]

before TV stations have to give up their analog TV frequencies, there will be affordable (~$200?) set-top boxes to let you convert HDTV signals to be played on your current analog NTSC TV. So you could just use one of these boxes to strip out any digital copy protection, but at the same time it would degrade the video quality to VHS.

Before these boxes are released to the public, Macrovision brand copy protection will be required by law, and making, using, or selling a device to defeat Macrovision brand copy protection will be made a crime under changes to copyright law <cough>DMCA 2.0</cough>.

<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!

Coasta Rica, The Netherlands, Canada, etc

[maynard]

There are places to go which would better
represent us as citizens. And frankly, I
think the only way we're going to gain the
attention of our government bureaucrats
and policy makers is to legally withhold
tax revenue by moving off-shore.

Sure, alone it's a Quixotic rationale, but if enough
technically trained citizens just left and worked
off-shore, the tax base decline could be
noticeable. I think these guys understand
money. That might convince our
"representatives" that they're fucking
withthe wrong crowd -- without any violence. I
support non-violent protest of this unjust
system.

Current Intelectual Property law and corporate
political sponsorship benefits only a few while
screwing the populace -- today's /. headlines
only prove my point. The FCC sells bandwidth
rights that were intended as citizen's property --
why wasn't I consulted? "Fair use" my ass!
And we're gonna watch you from now on; as in you
only get to use an appropriate "trusted client"; a
euphamism for "now you really can't do
that!" -- and we'll know it if you do
(gee, doesn't that feel like my privacy is being
"respected?"). Our congress sells out to the highest
bidder for all sorts of OTHER critical issues
which we don't follow -- this mess is fucked up
all over public policymaking...

ARRRRGH! Time to move.

Re:Blargh.

[Software]

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the public property -- in this case, the spectrum -- was given away. It was sold.

You are mistaken. The spectrum for the analog and digital TV service was given to the stations, not sold. There are some very minor regulatory fees that must be paid every year, and of course there are lots of other regulations, but the spectrum is basically free.

The FCC does auction off spectrum from time to time, but that's usually for stuff like cell phones, pagers, etc.

Do we even need the FCC?

[fermi's ghost]

FCC Reform
This section will include our work on downsizing, restructuring, or eliminating the hard-working Federal Commmunications Commission.

Re:Freaks.

[erotus]

Hmmm... You are trolling and I shouldn't even respond to a mindless sheep like yourself but I feel I have no choice but to ventilate. It seems that you are the one who is godless and un-american. You are a product of a culture you can't explain... You are in a prison you can not see or smell or touch. Yeah, I know, I ripped off morpheus here.

The vast majority, not all, but most people who watch TV, keep up with the NFL, popular sports and the like think they are living in the real world... The truth is, that those people are sadly caught in a vicious cycle... they are brought up not to think and to follow mindlessly.

People talk about how football is SO American and if you don't like baseball, apple pie, chevy, or some popular mindless activity you are unamerican. I would argue, however, that the inverse is true. America was founded by people who were trying to escape the very thing that America has become -- a mindless society. America, when it was young, was a promising land for inventors, scientists, and freethinkers like our own founding fathers - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson.

It really is disturbing that Americans are becoming more mindless day by day. Succumbing to media, advertising, and hype. Marx said "religion is an opium." Well, I say NFL, and competative sports in general are the opiums of today's society. How many American's know who wrote the declaration of Independence? A survey of today's high school teens showed that only a handfull even knew that it was Thomas Jefferson. However, the same teens knew who won what games and what so and so's batting average was.

And godless you say? You are the one who worships an oversized steroid pumping jock. You are the one who obsesses about a game. A GAME!!!
The world would turn whether they existed or not. I don't watch football and I don't give a damn about them and my life mysteriously continues. The problem with people like you who are trapped in the popular culture is that you can't see past the barrier that society has created for you. The "real" world is not concerned with such trivialities. You can't fathom someone not caring about football and it's truly sad you can't see past that barrrier. You're personal growth will be stunted as a result. I'm not saying don't like football... just realize that it is a fruitless pursuit.

Finally, you have let society define who you are. And since you are so hopelessly trapped in the system you are doing everything in your power to defend it. You are scared of people who don't watch football because deep down inside it bothers you that someone thinks. It bothers you that some guy out there has a productive life without succumbing to the pressures you did to be "normal." There are many more like me who just don't give a rat's ass about NFL, NBA, NHL, or some other time wasting activity. I hope that one day you'll come to grips with your inability to break away from that golden cage you are trapped in.

If you can see it, you can record it.

[rivertrog]

How about sticking a Video camera in front of the screen and recording the data after it's been transmitted, Sure there'd be a loss of quality , but with the new digital video cams, you could plug it into your digital vcr and in effect make a digital copy.
So what if it's mono.... It's beating the system.... As long as you can see or hear some data at one point, you can copy it, however crappily. there will ALWAYS be that, as long as we can actually percieve it at some point.

What are they going to do next, require that everyone has a brain copy protection device implanted? stop us discussing the news last night? gesh
that's when I'd start plotting to blow up the USA.

Thank god .nz seems to have sidestepped all this rubbish... for now.

Ralff (Uri)Nader is a socialist piece of shit

[0bjectiv3]

Umm, hasn't the world figured out that socialism doesn't work? Show me a successful socialist country.

[insert long silence here]

I know socialism makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but is that more important than rewarding human excellence? Do we want to turn the most powerful country in the world into a grand experiment? There are only two reasons why you would want to interfere with our current working system:

1. You are inferior, and therefore you aren't making any money.

2. You feel bad because you aren't inferior.

Nader = Lamer

Guess I probably won't be buying one them

[quantum bit]

Good thing I barely watch any TV anymore... The entertainment industry has just really sucked lately anyway.

TiVo - angry rant

[mother_superius]

Finally! Now the evil TiVo will be shut down!

Really though, I don't understand what "piracy" this is supposed to stop. Perhaps Napster was targeted because it is so popular. But I don't know anything about any TV pirating going on.

Besides, it's not like you can go down to the rental store and rent a copy of a show either. What if, say, there is a live concert on TV of a band you like? You'll just have to wait until and if the network decides to re-show it? For the love of the Constitution, it is (or should not be) not illegal just because there is a hypothetical illegal activity that can be performed.

I am sick of people just not caring as rights are stripped away. I go to a public school in Minneapolis. We can't wear hats (they are supposed to cause gangs, which are supposed to cause violence?), can't listen to a cd or even have headphones on while in the hallway, and the bitch principal harrasses me for having dyed hair. Worse, the school is full of MTV worshipping preppies. It's so bad, there are 2 groups: preppies and non preppies. Even when we all band together, there aren't enough to protest. We all get detention.

Get up, stand up.

Re:Freaks.

[tjb]

Dude, chill out!

I'm a programmer, a geek, and have a productive life. And ya know what: I like to watch football and an occassional hockey game. In fact, that's about all I watch (a grand total of about 9hrs/week, mostly on fall sundays). Most of the time, I'm busy doing something else, but sometimes I like to crack open a beer and watch sports.

Why? Its entertainment, dammit. I got to relax sometime. What's wrong with that? If I spent any more time coding (on top of the 70 hrs/wk that I usually so), I'd burn out in a few months. I get cable for the -sole- reason of watching sports (hell, I'm a programmer, I can afford it) because its relaxing, and occasional relaxation is good for me.

--The Timdog

New business model

[Chris Johnson]

That's not really that hard. When content is so ubitiquous that it's too cheap to meter, then _attention_ becomes the desperately valuable commodity. People are increasingly chased down and surrounded by ads, hype, spam, all desperately seeking ATTENTION and rarely finding it. The usual reaction to this is to seek stuff that isn't just hype- for content, this would mean _good_ stuff. For music- perhaps the Beatles. For a TV show- Monty Python, Red Dwarf, or for a docu-TV show, 'Roots' or the 'Connections' series.

Hype never cares whether the thing is bad or good- everything is equally overhyped until it becomes meaningless, and if you're not lucky the stuff itself becomes subservient to the hype- content gets written according to what somebody thinks will sell, rather than what somebody thinks is good. In the music industry this has taken the form of brutally extreme compression until the music is practically one big square-wave- have you _heard_ just how rotten the sound quality of Britney Spears music really is? But it's louder than the competition on Top 40 radio- until someone else comes along and turns up the gain even more, dares to produce even more flat and oversaturated sonics in the name of being louder than the next band. That's desperately seeking attention too- the _bad_ way.

The new business model will likely be about specialisation- and it will certainly be about what's good rather than what's mass market. But the underlying fact is that it will be about attention- getting attention over the din of noisy mass market competition by zeroing in on what particular people CARE about, and delivering that, bigtime. Word of mouth will become madly solicited, but skepticism will rise at the same time when it becomes clear that multinational conglomerates are in fact trying really hard to get your friends to sell you on stuff- and stuff that has integrity will end up with major cult followings on an Internet scale. Look at what happened with Napster- that is a simple product that does what you expect it to- bam, it's a worldwide controversy and threatens entire industries. Napster grew through word-of-mouth and attention... people, in vast numbers, went 'well THIS is worth my time, let's see what we can find!' And they did. If you tried to hype up a comparable service that didn't deliver on the promise as well, nothing would happen...

FCC SUCKS ASS

[linuxgod]

Fuck the FCC. I don't like half the shit
those sons of bitches do anyway. What is their site? Ill send them an unhappy email...

A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush

[Tejota]

but hey, you're allowed to vote for Bush if you want to.

Who is behind this?

[kruczkowski]

Now I know that FCC did not want this. The question is who is behind this all?

Slow down acceptance?

[Fervent]

Why would this slow down acceptance? Tivo's are already pretty proprietary in the way they save shows (as far as I know, noone has been able to hack the content to resave it somewhere else in a viewable format -- yet), but people still buy them. DVD players, which can't copy shows at all, are already gaining widespread acceptance.

What makes someone think that not being able to copy shows would slow down TV sales? Most people I know buy TV's to watch programing, not record it (and even if they did record it, there's nothing in the FCC document that states it can't be recorded. Merely, a tag would be embedded in the program as a digital signature that the material is copyrighted.

FP- From zen

[zen13]

broadcasting.....?????? no TV i will die

Re:Government is totally being owned by corporatio

[maraist]

"If you want to reduce corruption, get rid of the power that politicians have to dole out special treatment to different corporations and industries."

I'm not political active, and this may seem like a dumb question. But excactly HOW does this reduce corruption? Isn't this just the matter of pushing power completely over to corporations, including the corruption?

The government has a monopoly on the use of force. They have military and local police. That's it. No other organization can do so. Force is the coersion of last resort. The more organizational power you give to this force, the more of a dictatorship /fashist state you have.

Government should be like a hierarchical micro-kernel. The government should have a general principle that it upholds through the use of force. And it should fight to maintain it's monopoly of force (namely, getting ride of foreign agressors, violent crime, or mafia type). The laws at this level should be very simple and general. The problem is that sub-levels of government can make millions of special-interest laws, then back them up with force.

Libertarianism suggests that by making all special interests laws based on other forms of coersion, a citizen has the right to choose his course of action. If I choose to defy the RIAA, then the RIAA can choose to exclude me from their patrionage. They may also be able to colude with others to do the same. BUT, I could still live my life. Currently the RIAA can call apon civil legal justices which in turn can call apon the police and or the military to arrest you, confine you, and possibly even put you to death.. All because the RIAA's special interest conflicts with yours.

Here's the problem.. Let's say you elect a Lib. president. He takes power away from the fed. gov. and passes that power onto the states.. Then you have traditional republican + democratic officials controlling you at the local level. A state-constitution may not have as many civil liberties as the fed does. Also, special interests could more successfully target regional states (with less money, no likely). A state may not even have soft-money protection laws. The point of Libertarianism, is that you push all Force-based government out of special interests (including environmentalists and civil libertarians, for better or worse). You introduce Darwinian natural selection.. Supposedly states will have to compete for citizens, so it'll be in their interests to make good policy. But this is no defense against abuse.

No correct system, just better or worse for the time being.

-Michael

Re:Please don't leave

[Enoch Root]

Don't worry... I'm still having a lot of fun seeing Slashbots cry in outrage at everything I post.

Confused?

[gravis777]

Okay, I have several comments on this rulling.
First, what does Napster have to do with Digital Television? Is it really forseen to be a problem that people will videotape programs off of Television and distribute them on the Internet? Well, maybe so, it is being done already. But this is normally because certain channels are not available in certain markets. This is the only way I can view SouthPark in my area, without going Satelite, and is handy for viewing missed episodes of Voyager, and as for Buffy, can't get it at all out here without, once again, going Satelite.
2) The reason consumers are so slow to adopt Digital Television is because television sets are so high in price, lack of digital broadcast channels, and and confusion by coustomers. If I get a digital Television that is not widescreen, does that give me the inability to recieve widescreen programming? Can I still use my old VCR, and likewise. As for programming, in the summer I live in the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex, and there are only two HDTV channels there, NBC and ABC. NBC broadcasts the local news in HDTV, but not in Widescreen, and seem to be overcompressing the signal. It looks like crap. Seems to be from converting analog into digital. Little things such as text bleeding, edges unclear and pixelated, and likewise. The ABC station is much better, but currently their broadcast consists of the local news, anything ABC decides to broadcast in HDTV, such as Monday Night Football, and HDTV demonstration programs, which are mostly tours of the WFAA television studios, Nature programs, and a couple of other programs. These are repeated all the time, never any variaty. And yes, they pick up regular television signals, but why would you pay three times the price of a regular television when the only short term forseeable advantage is better picture from your DVDs?
3) Why would you make a television that was cable-only compatable? Funney, but I know that there are several cable stations already offering Digital Signals, such as Discovery Channel, but local cable companies are refusing to carry them. So, in reality, you are making a television that is nothing compatable, and are going to slap a $7500 price tag on it. Yes, watch the consumers come flying!
4) Everyone has a VCR nowdays, and assumes that they can tape shows off of television for later use. I mean, you pay $9.95 a month anyways for HBO, and now you mean that I cannot even tape shows off of it? Sounds more like people will start abandoning premium cable and start investing more in DVDs and Digital VHS, unless you are just one of those persons who watch HBO all the time.
5) I mentioned earlier that the lack of consumers is because of the lack of programming. However, the lack of programming steams from the lack of coustomers. Likewise, the price of these new television sets are affected by low quantity, and the low quantity is partly affected by low consumer demand, which leads back to lack of broadcast channels and high prices. In Programming, we call this an Infinate Loop.
6) Anyone remember the Digital Millenium Copyright Laws? Probobly not directly related to this case. The video tape laws of the 70s are probobly better related. 'Nuff said.

You know, I really have to ask about the marketing people at the FCC. Now that I think of this, they don't have any. Any good marketing person can say that if your item is not selling as well as you hoped, despite a fairly strong coustomer intrest, you do not add restrictions or take away features. Probobly why the electronic makers are in such uproar.

Not all that bad; check out the actual text

[wood]

Loooks like the Commision did not agree to destroy the rights we Americans have shared completely. The industry has 30 days to produce a final version of whatever license they propose for review. It will be reviewed and commented on. We will have a chance to get our say.

Send your input to each of the FCC commisioners (noted on the FCC website). Send your opinion to your elected representatives. Go to the Presidential stumps and get your questions asked. Don't be a dolt and let this happen without putting reasonable, rational concerns into the right heads.

Emphasis Added: Interesting stuff at bottom

FCC ADOPTS ORDER IN SET-TOP BOX PROCEEDING; INITIATES REVIEW OF 1998 NAVIGATION DEVICES RULES Washington, DC Today the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") and Declaratory Ruling ("Order") in its navigation devices proceeding.

In Section 629 of the Communications Act, Congress directed the FCC to adopt rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices," such as cable set-top boxes, remote control units and other equipment, from commercial sources other than their cable providers. In 1998, the Commission adopted navigation device rules with the intent of improving consumer choice by fostering a competitive retail market for this equipment and said that it would monitor the development of the commercial availability of navigation devices and commence a proceeding in the year 2000 to review the effectiveness of the rules and consider any necessary changes. The Further Notice adopted today initiates this review.

In various proceedings before the Commission, interested parties have argued that a copy protection licensing agreement under development by CableLabs, the Dynamic Feedback Arrangement Scrambling Technique ("DFAST") license, violates the Commission's navigation devices rules. Specifically, these parties asserted that the DFAST license requires that a copy protection encryption system be located in host navigation devices in violation of the security separation requirement of the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Commission's rules require that a cable operator's conditional access, or security, functions be located in a separate point of deployment ("POD") device.

In order to give guidance to interested parties and to prevent delay in the transition from analog-based technology to digital-based technology, the Commission determined in today's Order that this controversy was best resolved in the form of a narrow declaratory ruling, and concluded that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology located within a host navigation device is consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules.

Summary of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

In the Further Notice adopted today, the Commission sought comment on the following issues:

Whether the interface specifications developed by CableLabs allow consumer electronics manufacturers to build equipment that provides consumers a viable alternative to the equipment provided by their cable operator.

The effect operator provision of integrated equipment has had on achieving a competitive market and whether the 2005 date for the phase-out of integrated boxes remains appropriate.

Obstacles or barriers preventing or deterring the development of a retail market for navigation devices.

What actions, if any, should the Commission initiate to achieve the statutory objective of competition in the navigation devices market. Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:

In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.

With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.

Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.

Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).

- FCC - Cable Services Bureau contact: Thomas Horan at (202) 418-7200.

TTY: (202) 418-7172

Re:Because by about 2006, that will be all there I

[steve_bryan]

Gosh, it sure would be great if all the people who respond so arrogantly actually were familiar with a few details. For instance, there is an escape clause for the broadcasters if there is a substantial proportion of the market that is not equipped for digital TV by the cutoff date. It is not a slamdunk that analog TV disappears in 2006.