Slashdot Mirror


MPAA vs. Television

Today brings several articles on the MPAA's attempt to create a "broadcast flag" to kill home recording of broadcast television. Lunenburg writes "Apparently too impatient to implement the Broadcast Flag in digital media through legislative means, both Sen. Hollings and Rep. Tauzin have both sent letters to FCC Chairman Michael Powell urging him to mandate the implementation of the Broadcast Flag under FCC rules, according to the EFF's Consensus at Lawyerpoint blog." There's a CNet story about a presentation given by the MPAA to pro-business lobbying groups, and a MSNBC story about digital video recorders.

512 comments

  1. Wee... this is going to be fun. by canwaf · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The MPAA going to the FCC so they don't have to use their paid senitors

    1. Re:Wee... this is going to be fun. by aronc · · Score: 1

      Did you even look at the story? Their paid senators are going to the FCC for them! Yeesh!

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    2. Re:Wee... this is going to be fun. by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

      Actually it's their paid senators/congresscritters going to the FCC since the MPAA hasn't pain enough legislators to get this through the legal process.

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  2. Weee - the FCC by wichtolosaurus · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the FCC won't let me be or let me be me, so let me see........

    1. Re:Weee - the FCC by Maran · · Score: 4, Funny

      "So the FCC won't let me be or let me be me, so let me see........"

      Ahem

      They try to stop me taping MTV, but they'll make no money, without me!

      Maran

    2. Re:Weee - the FCC by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      It's funny how as soon as the FCC 'goes after' a person, that person becomes insanely paranoid and narcissistic. If eminem died in a plane crash tommorow I don't think MTV would have any problem with profits.

    3. Re:Weee - the FCC by k2enemy · · Score: 3, Funny
      So the FCC won't let me be or let me be me, so let me see........

      this is an unacceptable violation of riaa intellectual property. please post proof of copyright ownership or refrain from stealing others' work.

    4. Re:Weee - the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cack-cack-cack!

      • Cack.
      • Cack-cack.
      • CACK-o-CACK
      • cack!
    5. Re:Weee - the FCC by rattler14 · · Score: 2, Funny

      or how about.

      So the FCC won't let me be,
      let me trade shows on IRC,
      they tried to put the flags on my tv,
      but it looks like shit on NBC

      --
      my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
    6. Re:Weee - the FCC by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      I would think the opposite would happen.

  3. As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the capitalists will use force to protect their wealth. You can bet they'll do all they can.

    1. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the communistst will use force to protect their power..... NYAH!

    2. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but capitalism will collapse upon its own weight.

    3. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What capitalists? There are no capitalists to be found in this story. This situation is an example of socialism, not capitalism. If you are a socialist, this story should make you happy.

      Just because the welfare cheats in this story are businessmen, does not mean it is capitalism at work. The fact that there are welfare cheats in the story at all means it is socialism at work, regardless of who the welfare cheats are.

      Do not confuse pro-business with pro-market.

    4. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, let's see. Capitalism vs. Communism. One is chugging along as the dominant economic model while the other is in a crumbling shambles, reducing its formerly powerful advocates to third-world status. Which is which again?

    5. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you look at the US economy lately, chumpy?

      the fact is, there are failure points for all economic models, and the US capitalistic model is fast approaching a crisis point.

      capitalistic economies fail when there is a crisis of confidence.

      communistic models fail when the means of production do not produce enough to satisfy the needs of all.

    6. Re:As Marx said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Marx say communism would only work for a country like America? He didn't think Russia could sustain a communist government. (or something like that)
      He just came up with the idea, he didn't force Russia to use it.

    7. Re:As Marx said by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      err is the US the ONLY example of capitalism...no, how about the rest of industrial nations ? ALL practice capitalism is some form or another, as to your point, IT IS valid, confidence in the system is lower than it has been since the crash in the 20's, but even then people still believed the government was there to help them. Today I fully believe that the governments SOLE purpose is to make a $$ for its' coprporate handler, and the overall good of the people and the state is totally lost in the for profit rush.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  4. Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by fajoli · · Score: 5, Funny

    the MPAA will start distributing movies with only two minutes of actual story line and filling the remaining 88 minutes with explosions, noise, bad dialogue, and product placements to prevent the unauthorized distribution of its intellectual property.

    1. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Bizaff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh wait.. they already do that.

    2. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Puggs · · Score: 1

      dont they do that already?

    3. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

      start. yeah right. go see a van damme movie. or a james bond movie, for that sake.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    4. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this already has happened...

    5. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by crm114 · · Score: 0

      ...or a spielberg movie :+

    6. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, guys, way to beat a good joke into the ground...

    7. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by robson · · Score: 2, Funny

      fajoli: the MPAA will start distributing movies with only two minutes of actual story line and filling the remaining 88 minutes with explosions, noise, bad dialogue, and product placements to prevent the unauthorized distribution of its intellectual property.

      Bizaff: Oh wait.. they already do that.

      fajoli: I think that was implied, Bizaff.

      Bizaff: Implied, fajoli, or implode?

    8. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the old "CDs only have one good song" argument.

      Look, don't get me wrong- I copy and trade CDs with wild abandon- but if most CDs you have only possess one decent song, you need to expand your musical horizons a tad.

    9. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Snover · · Score: 1

      Wait, I'm sorry, doesn't this happen already?

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    10. Re:Taking its lead from RIAA . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no, he said 88 minutes not 130 minutes

  5. interesting by tps12 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While I hate the MPAA and television as much as the next slashdotter, I have to say I approve of the senators' methods.

    Our legislative system is bogged down with bureaucracy and partisan game-playing. The only decisions that get made with any efficiency are those dealing with terrorists or legislators' pay raises. So although I find their goals nauseating, the senators' approach of going straight to the source and sidestepping the whole legislative tar pit is admirable and invigorating.

    Now let's hope some of the Good Guys (tm) start doing the same thing.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:interesting by JPelorat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, so then you think it's ok to set up a dictatorship? No need for any of that pesky 'democratic debate' nonsense? Just get it done with no accountability whatsoever?

      Wrong.

      The ends do not justify the means. Ever.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    2. Re:interesting by SataiCam · · Score: 1

      Our legislative system is bogged down with bureaucracy and partisan game-playing

      I'll agree that the legislative system does bog things down, but....the FCC is bureaucracy. At least when it comes through the legislature, the decision comes from elected representatives, not from appointed bureaucrats like Michael Powell.

      Call me nutty, but I've always been a fan of the "representation" thing.

    3. Re:interesting by Gryffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Now let's hope some of the Good Guys (tm) start doing the same thing."

      You're laboring under the misconception that there are "good guys". Remember, this is Congress we're talking about.

      (Yeah yeah, I know, Boucher seems fairly clueful on issues of importance to the Slashcrowd, but I suspect he's just playing contrarian because the RIAA/MPAA haven't stuffed him full o' cash. Yet. Dig around, I'm sure he belongs to somebody other than his voters.)

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
    4. Re:interesting by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Our legislative system is bogged down with bureaucracy and partisan game-playing.
      That's not a failure of the system. That is the system. "Partisan game-playing" is just a different way of saying "deliberative process".

      The FCC is an executive agency. It should not be making policy, especially policy of this scope. Haven't you been paying attention to the disastrous results of FCC policy changes in the 1990s? Consolidation of radio into one or two companies. Creation of horizontal media empires. Extensive and undisclosed cross-branding. Death of HDTV.

      This is not two elected officials taking the high road out of the muck and mire. This is two elected officials who know that there is no way they can get something like this through Congress -- most voters like their VCRs very much, thank you -- and thus these two elected officials want to do an end-run around the democratic process.

      In an administration explicitly modeled on and sympathetic to big business, of course the bought senators would rather deal with the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats are much more likely to have at heart the interests of the senators' masters, Big Media.

    5. Re:interesting by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      The true irony is how you like the very method that might be the _only_ way Hollywood gets to truely fuck you.

      Bureaucracy might be slow, but thats the whole point - so those with power and no public accountability can't stick it up your ass with nary a second thought.

      Democracy .. if you don't believe its working, thats pretty much the reason it ain't.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:interesting by tgibbs · · Score: 2
      Our legislative system is bogged down with bureaucracy and partisan game-playing.
      Indeed it is. It always has been, because it was intentionally desiged that way. Our founding fathers carefully set up a system in which legislation must pass through a long gauntlet of red tape before taking effect, because their experience had taught them that efficient government was the single greatest threat to individual freedom. There is nothing more dangerous than a government that can turn on a dime.
    7. Re:interesting by matastas · · Score: 1

      You approve? They're going straight to the FCC to bypass the standard legislative process, which might actually get people to think about what it is, exactly, that the MPAA really wants. They're pulling an end-run to get it into practice, so the law is easier to pass. That's not applaudable: that defeats the entire point.

    8. Re:interesting by boatboy · · Score: 1

      Better yet, skip the Congress, FCC, and go straight to the National Guard. Convince them to enforce a distribution of government-issue televisions that only show the "America Channel." Don't let anyone record it, incase something erroneous is shown. Dictate that every citizen watch it for at least 6 hours a day. Children under 12 must watch for 8 hours a day. I love you, Big Brother.

    9. Re:interesting by efedora · · Score: 1

      It's easy to find out who is supporting your favorite congressman.
      You can look it up here.

    10. Re:interesting by invenustus · · Score: 1
      The FCC is an executive agency. It should not be making policy, especially policy of this scope. Haven't you been paying attention to the disastrous results of FCC policy changes in the 1990s? Consolidation of.... etc.
      Most of that deregulation was brought about by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which, whether or not one approves of it, was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    11. Re:interesting by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

      ah have you forgotten who wanted that ruling in the 1990s? the RIAA!

      --
      Don't Tread on OpenSource
  6. Way to go! by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As if there wasn't a fairly good chance that HDTV adoption was doomed before.

    1. Re:Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because of these kind of issues that I canceled my plans for ever buying HDTV, or even buying a new set. With luck, maybe the MPAA will kill television, and the backlash will kill them.

    2. Re:Way to go! by rhadamanthus · · Score: 2
      Unfortunately, the large majority of people will buy it, since it is just a "new TV". Also, it is extremely probable that the MPAA et. al. will quickly push for HDTV's (with their broadcast flags and encrypted signals etc.) to become the only option available to "consumers" (I hate that word!) interested in new TVs. Luckily I don't watch TV anymore, but the prospect and ideology still makes me sick to my stomach. Go read a book.

      ----rhad

      --
      Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
    3. Re:Way to go! by TheSync · · Score: 2

      As if there wasn't a fairly good chance that HDTV adoption was doomed before.

      The funny thing is that Congress has not required all new television receivers to have DTV decoding capability. Of those "HDTV Televisions" being sold right now, most don't have a DTV decoder.

      In the 60's when the UHF TV bands came along, Congress required television makers to include UHF receivers in most all new TVs. But there has been no parallel for DTV.

      So if Congress can't even mandate DTV reception, how are they going to mandate the broadcast flag?

      (BTW, I'm not saying they should mandate DTV reception, but certainly things will be very interesting at analog turn-off in 2006 without it.)

    4. Re:Way to go! by ethereal · · Score: 1

      The FCC already screwed the pooch on that one, by planning to force consumers to upgrade. Because market forces just aren't enough for the U.S.A. anymore...

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    5. Re:Way to go! by EllisDees · · Score: 2

      The problem is that TVs aren't something that people replace very often. I have three televisions in my house right now. One of them is 5 years old, and the other two are a lot older than that. I think one of them is even older than me. Just imagine the uproar that's going to happen when Granny can no longer watch Matlock. She's going to say "Spend how much on a new TV?!?" and start bitching at her congresscritters.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    6. Re:Way to go! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      rhadamanthus wrote:

      > Unfortunately, the large majority of people will
      > buy it, since it is just a "new TV".

      A large majority of people do not have the money to toss out their fully functional TV's and buy really expensive new ones. Especially on the government's say-so.

      > Also, it is extremely probable that the MPAA
      > et. al. will quickly push for HDTV's (with their
      > broadcast flags and encrypted signals etc.) to
      > become the only option available to "consumers"
      > (I hate that word!) interested in new TVs.

      Well, in case you have forgotten or haven't heard, all TV broadcasts will be switched over to HDTV by (in?) 2006. Last I heard, our old TVs will cease to work (unless you are playing your own VCR tapes or DVDs), and if Joe Sixpack wants to see the SuperBowl, he will have to buy a new TV, for a couple thousand dollars (unless they come down by then). Then he will get it home, get set up to tape the SuperBowl, only to find he can't.

      That's when the couch potato riots of 2006 start.

      Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay!
      New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

    7. Re:Way to go! by Digitech · · Score: 1

      HDTV will not make it, but not because of Congress. Rather, it is again the bottom line. The average person looks at HDTV and says: "Wow, that looks nice, how much?" They then have a good laugh. A lot of them didn't pay that much for a car, why would they pay it for a TV?

    8. Re:Way to go! by gorilla · · Score: 3, Informative
      very interesting at analog turn-off in 2006 without

      IF there is an analog turn off in 2006. By now, according to the original schedule, by now every commerical station should be dual broadcasting, and every TV sold should be DTV capable, to get 85% penetration by 2006. Current estimates say there will be 30% penetration by 2006, and I personally think those are optimistic. It took the UK from 1964 to 1985 to phase out 451 line television, and this was in an era when TV's were unreliable with short lifespans.

      In addition, the original reason for cancelling analog has gone. In the late 90's, spectrum was seen as a resource which you could sell almost without limit - Telecoms were on the up, and new uses were eating up more and more spectrum. Since then, telecoms haven't been doing so well, resulting in auctions in both the UK and US that have been disasters for the companies involved and the governments trying to sell the spectrum.

    9. Re:Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have three televisions in my house right now. One of them is 5 years old, and the other two are a lot older than that. I think one of them is even older than me.

      Yeah, but it's not really 'your house.' You have a 'room.' Maybe Mom and Dad will give you your own TV next year for Christmas. Or maybe they'll update the family set and rotate that oldest set (the one that was made in 1986) into your 'room.'

      Always something for you to look forward to as you mature and can accept more responsibility.

    10. Re:Way to go! by SwissCheese · · Score: 1
      "Well, in case you have forgotten or haven't heard, all TV broadcasts will be switched over to HDTV by (in?) 2006. Last I heard, our old TVs will cease to work (unless you are playing your own VCR tapes or DVDs), and if Joe Sixpack wants to see the SuperBowl, he will have to buy a new TV, for a couple thousand dollars ("
      TV's won't cease to work. By 2006 there will most likely be inexpensive HDTV convertors that will take the digital signal and convert it to plain old NTSC for all the existing tv's out there. People need to not be so paranoid about this.
    11. Re:Way to go! by grahamm · · Score: 1

      The UK government is also trying to replace analogue with digital TV, but rather than going to HDTV the broadcasters are muxing as many channels as they can possibly manage onto each frequency. Not only that, but for terrestial services, they are transmitting on considerably less power than on analogue. All of which combines to reduce the quality.

    12. Re:Way to go! by invenustus · · Score: 2
      That's when the couch potato riots of 2006 start.
      No, that's when the black market in modchipped VCR's starts booming. It'll be just like using CD-R's in the Playstation. Everyone who wanted it bad enough was able to get it done.

      Hell, if just one country keeps recording legal, I won't be surprised if mainstream American electronics companies start building functional VCR's to sell in that country, where they'll be exported to the USA and anywhere else that wants them.

      One bit sure as hell isn't going to stop the people who created DeCSS.
      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    13. Re:Way to go! by kubrick · · Score: 1

      How can you say that? I heard that several *hundred* HDTVs have been sold here in Australia... of course, most of those were to television industry executives :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    14. Re:Way to go! by anewman · · Score: 1
      Interesting side note on the HDTV analog turn-off... there's a bail-out clause to that, the turn-off will only become mandatory when there is 80% market penetration of HDTV. Consider this - when color TV was mandated and everyone forced to do color in the 1960's, it took about 20 years until there was 80% penetration. And, color is a lot easier to adapt to since old black & white TV's would work just fine with a color signal.

      Just something to consider. Bureaucracy has killed HDTV in America. The technology has been around in analog form since the mid 80's, and we still haven't adopted it. It's a big, tangled mess and I really don't know what's going to be next.

    15. Re:Way to go! by funky+womble · · Score: 1
      The power should be going up with the new noncommercial (BBC/Crown Castle) license, though it remains to be seen if they'll get enough bandwidth to have respectable video quality on at least the main channels...that's one area Murdoch has quite an advantage.

      Pity C5 broadcast on terrestrial analogue really, I think terrestrial digital would be doing a lot better now if they'd had some extra capacity to play with. (And I really think they should have arranged to put VGA connectors on the set-top boxes too, I'm sure they'd have sold a lot more).

      Would be nice to get everything changed over once and for all so that the license fee doesn't have to be spent on maintaining two transmission systems and chasing up non-payers, and can be redirected to either programming, cost reductions or getting an internet multicast service up and running (I'm sure there are a *lot* of people worldwide who would be happy to pay a license fee to be able to watch BBC which would boost revenue too...). And making sure the Kingswood Warren techs are happy!

      (Oh, before someone pipes up about how evil license fees are, don't knock them unless you've had the chance to watch quality TV without commercials!)

    16. Re:Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I have a house. Or, more honestly, the bank owns a house that I'm slowly buying off of them.

      Did you have a point to make? Didn't think so...

      Oh yeah, I guess I shouldn't respond to trolls, so I'll do it AC.

  7. Won't work ... by vrai · · Score: 1
    As long as the picture has to be decoded before it is sent to the TV (via your SVHS/Scart/RF lead) we'll be able to record it. Admittedly not digitally, but then very little of what's shown on TV would *really* benefit from HD-TV super-hires digital quality.

    Of course the MPAA could just make all TVs without builtin digital decoders illegal but even their (very strong) lobbying ability is powerful enough for that. Yet.

    1. Re:Won't work ... by umm+qasr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As long as the picture has to be decoded before it is sent to the TV (via your SVHS/Scart/RF lead) we'll be able to record it. Admittedly not digitally

      It would be just like saying "DVD's will not be copied" 5 years ago. We all know that isn't true.

      Someone will always find a way around it, just as the MPAA will always find a way to stop it. This article shows that it is seemingly more difficult for the MPAA to put these procedures in place, that it is for people to circumvent them.

      This is a Good Thing--it shows the government is protecting fair-use for the most part. Just as people will not stop circumventing stupid technologies that restric fair use (e.g. DeCSS), the MPAA will never stop their crusade either.

      They have a flawed business model, and think we are all thieves, and while they continue to have enough money to buy senators (Fritz et al.), that image will prevail, and the leapfrogging will continue.

    2. Re:Won't work ... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2

      Well, old (and I do stress the OLD) Fritz isn't going to be around forever... Hopefully when he moves on he'll be replaced by someone younger and more in-tune with reality.

      I think the Boston Strangler's days are long since over... Perhaps it's time he realized it.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    3. Re:Won't work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you are using a CRT instead of digital technology such as LCD or micromirrors, then you can always get at the RBG signals with some mods to the TV.

    4. Re:Won't work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      One of the proposals floating around is the signal sent from the receiver to the CRT is encrypted and only decrypted right before the electron guns. That way you would not be able to save the signal at that point. It would, however, make all existing digital TVs pretty much obsolete, so I don't know if the proposal is still being considered.

      There also was talk of sending an encrypted full-resolution signal and an unencrypted , reduced resolution signal to the CRT. Then you could use the existing digital TVs, albeit at lower video quality.

  8. Won't someone find a way ... by zubernerd · · Score: 1

    Won't someone find a way to filter the watermark out. If so, how will they have control. (are PVRs going to have little stickers on them saying they where 'measured' by the dept of digital watermarks... (think gas pumps))...
    --
    Just a thought, not a flame.

    --
    Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
    1. Re:Won't someone find a way ... by aronc · · Score: 1

      Technically it's possible. Likely even. But there's that pesky little DMCA thing that the indust.. I mean congress passed. Distributing a device to bypass a protection scheme and all that. If DeCSS can't fly with the interoperability clause no way in hell is removing a watermark.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
  9. My question number one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why isn't the current laws enforce instead of introducing new ones? I just don't get it.

    Why doesn't RIAA and MPAA require the police (as their member companies are juridical persons and tax-payers they have that right) to do something about the huge crimerates. I mean, houndreds of thousands of people are commiting crimes each and every day in this field (coyright violations).

    The police should do their jobs and track down people "sharing" copyrighted material with a million "friends" and put them in jail. It's clearly illegal and not considered fair use by any laws or definitions.

    There is no reason to ban P2P networks, just grab the criminals and let the few who are not trade non-copyrighted material however they want to.

    1. Re:My question number one! by aronc · · Score: 1

      They have realized that wide enforcement of the current laws is difficult to impossible (mainly due to the populous being both ill informed and disliking said laws). Instead of seeing this as a problem with the laws, and thus their business plans they are simply going to make it impossible to actually break the laws.

      Neatly enough, this will also make it very, very difficult for you to become a content producer without their blessing. If you can save your own audio/video in a format you can copy you could do the same with theirs. Can't have that.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    2. Re:My question number one! by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      You can ask the same question about the drug war - why not change the laws, because if you arrested every person who'd ever committed a drug related crime, you'd arrest the population of Texas, Colerado, Arkansaws.

      Really, the game of fighting drugs, or fighting piracy has become such a business and goal in its own right that it really isn't connected to the purpose (protecting communities, artists) it was meant to serve in the first place. What are all the businesses who's viability rests on the protection of IP going to do if you just go out and arrest all the guilty folks tommorow?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re:My question number one! by TGK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why isn't the current laws enforce instead of introducing new ones? I just don't get it.

      You posted this AC and I'll never know why. At first glance it looks like a troll, but it's not.

      The NRA has advanced this argument for years. It's summed up in their bumper stickers "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As much as I hate to say it, they're right.

      DVRs don't commit piracy, people commit piracy.

      The NRA has launched a succefull and powerfull campaign in American government to portray guns as tools, not weapons. The MPAA and the RIAA are launching a similarly successfull campaign to portray P2P networks, DVRs, CD burners, DVD burners, Computers, Abaci, and Pencils as criminal skills development equipment.

      I only wish the technical professionals in the US had the gumption to organize like the AARP has. There's a reason why everyone's afraid to touch Social Security but no one thinks twice before trying to outlaw something like floppy drives.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    4. Re:My question number one! by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As much as I hate to say it, they're right. No they are not - "Guns don't kill people, bullets do - guns just make them go really fast!" But seriously - ""Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged' 1957) "

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    5. Re:My question number one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. There should be an organization to protect consumer rights.

      AND, instead of assuming we (consumers) are going to pirate content just because we can, we should be innocent until proven guilty...

    6. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      The NRA has advanced this argument for years. It's summed up in their bumper stickers "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As much as I hate to say it, they're right. DVRs don't commit piracy, people commit piracy.

      The only flaw in your argument being that DVR's have a legitimate use; but can be used for illegal purposes.

      The gun is a tool designed solely to kill.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    7. Re:My question number one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas, Colerado, Arkansaws

      You misspelled Tixus. Plz fix. Thx.

    8. Re:My question number one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solely to kill? yes
      Solely to kill people? NO

      You left out a small but important word. Try using the statement as written instead of your edited version.

    9. Re:My question number one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun is a tool designed solely to kill.

      No, the gun is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high velocity. People commonly use these tools for sport (target shooting). There also have been proposals to use specialized artillery as an alternative means for launching satellites, not to mention SDI-related programs to deploy rail guns for missle defense. Just because the only use for a gun that you can think of is killing doesn't mean other uses don't exist.

    10. Re:My question number one! by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2

      Gun's don't kill people - guns make it very very easy to kill people, so that people who otherwise wouldn't have killed do so. Often by accident.

      DVR's don't commit piracy - neither do the people who use them. You have the right to record anything you are sent. PERIOD.

      You claim there's some sort of similarity between the two situations. There isn't.

    11. Re:My question number one! by DimitryP · · Score: 1

      actually, guns are not soley desined to kill. many guns are made solely for the purpose of target shooting. and before you tell me that target shooting rifles and pistols have been used to kill, remember that although not made for it, steaknives make damn good stabbing weapons.

      --
      Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
    12. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      No, the gun is a tool designed to propel a projectile at high velocity. People commonly use these tools for sport (target shooting).

      The gun wasn't designed to propel a projectile for no reason, or for doing so to participate in marksmanship, it was designed to kill an opponent in warfare.

      Sure people have found less murderous uses for the gun, but that doesn't change the difference between the entirely murderous genesis of the gun (the basis of it's existence) and the entirely non-harmful genesis of the DVR.

      The two are not synonymous.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    13. Re:My question number one! by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      The big flaw in your arguement is that there are legitimate uses for firearms. Self Defense is a legitimate use. Hunting and sports shooting are legitimate uses. So it has the same issues as a DVR, it has legitimate uses, but can be used for illegal purposes. A gun is a tool, it can be used for bad and good, which solely depends on the operater.

    14. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      But the basic flaw in your premise remains. You try to contrast guns with DVR's by saying that DVRs have legitimate use, and the illegal uses are an unfortunate side-effect, but the intended purpose of guns is illegal/illegitimate from the start.

      The flaw: killing != illegal/illegitimate

      Yes, guns were designed to kill. The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any particular killing, however, is another question entirely. Self-defense springs immediately to mind, as does hunting. Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by itself, isn't a bad thing. At the very least, it's not necessarily illegal.

    15. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by itself, isn't a bad thing"

      Ah... well you see, that's where we disagree.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    16. Re:My question number one! by FueledByRamen · · Score: 1

      Seen on a button or bumper sticker: "Guns don't kill people, I kill people"

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
    17. Re:My question number one! by Saeger · · Score: 1
      You'll change your mind after some guy breaks into your house and ties you to a chair, while you watch in tears as he violently rapes then murders your wife. You'll probably go a buy a gun the next day so you can shoot yourself in the head.

      You're on my foe list. A gun is a legitimate tool for which the user is responsible. Only a government (or you, apparently) would be so arrogant as to take it away.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    18. Re:My question number one! by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      How is that a flaw in his argument? DVR's have legitimate legal uses, whereas guns don't, so the idea of dealing with criminals instead of trying to prevent criminality by assuming everyone is a pirate... is flawed how? [paraphrasing, not claiming there is no valid legal use for a gun] If the argument works for guns (people commit crimes, not guns), how can it NOT work for a less lethal object? (people commit crimes, not their hardware) It's the same thing, regardless of the lethality of the object. Besides that, a gun is not SOLELY designed to kill... I'm sure the designers planned for maiming and incapacitation too ;)

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    19. Re:My question number one! by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      You have the right to record anything you are sent. PERIOD.

      I thought you weren't allowed to record a phone conversation?

      Obviously, it's not the same as a broadcasted signal, but it's still effectively data being transmitted to you that you are not entitled to record... without permission anyway.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    20. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      // //"Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by // //itself, isn't a bad thing" // //Ah... well you see, that's where we disagree.

      Yes, apparently. But it's definately not "illegitimate" in any legal sense, which is the main point of this discussion.

    21. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      Ack, sorry for the bad formatting. I forgot to press "Preview".

    22. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "You'll change your mind after some guy breaks into your house and ties you to a chair, while you watch in tears as he violently rapes then murders your wife. You'll probably go a buy a gun the next day so you can shoot yourself in the head."

      Wrong on (at least) three counts, I'm afraid. Firstly I'm not married, secondly I'd phone the police and get the perpetrator thrown in jail, rather than do something futile like kill myself, and thirdly, I live in the UK, where buying a gun is almost entirely illegal.

      Your hostile attitude ("You're on my foe list") is interesting. I wonder if there's a correlation between it and your love of guns?

      You on the other hand, are on my love list. May you find some of the happiness in your life , that you've evidently lost.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    23. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      "But it's definately not "illegitimate" in any legal sense"

      Sure it is. I live in a country where guns are considered illegitimate legally. We'd better not get started on the whole moral dimension, or this will go on forever.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    24. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1
      Your hostile attitude ("You're on my foe list") is interesting. I wonder if there's a
      correlation between it and your love of guns?

      Do you really think that? If so, I'm guessing you haven't done much political discussion in open, online forums--if not, you've been uncommonly fortunate. Unreasonable hostility abounds on every side of any remotely controversial topic.

    25. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that I don't think you know enough about Saeger to characterize him as having a "love of guns". Doing so no more fosters reasonable conversation than his hostility. Granted, his hostility was a bit over the top--he obviously feels strongly about the issue--but you really don't know why. From what I could tell, it was the question of self-defense and defense of one's family that was his main concern.

    26. Re:My question number one! by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1
      Ah. Since we were talking about the tactics of the MPAA and the NRA to accomplish legal and political goals, I assumed a context of the American legal system. (Nitpick: My point wasn't that guns are legally legitimate, but rather killing in self-defense.)

      Aside from the moral question, I'm curious about something. Is your view of archery similar to your view of guns?

    27. Re:My question number one! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      Well, first, to go back to the original post I replied to:
      "The NRA has advanced this argument for years. It's summed up in their bumper stickers "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As much as I hate to say it, they're right. DVRs don't commit piracy, people commit piracy."

      What I really wanted to say was that the NRA, are certainly NOT right. Their slogan should be "Guns don't kill people, they just make killing people more efficient and effective."

      If you carry that argument over, then the issue becomes one of the nature of the act that the tool is capable of, and so on. DVR's just don't compare.

      And if you apply the new slogan, you probably know my views on archery (it does not compare in terms of scale or damage, to the destruction that a single revolver can do. Or ease of use.

      That all said, your question made me re-read the posts in this thread and re-consider the issues that the NRA puts forward (what little I know of them.)
      In the UK, the idea that we need to carry or stock-pile guns to prevent the government from visiting totalitarianism upon us, is pretty laughable. But I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't possibly necessary in the US.
      All it took Ghandi to overthrow the British Empire in India, was the burning of some id papers, and a lot of people willing to die for freedom (but not kill.)
      I wonder if that's true for the American people, and the American Government/Army?
      Another question that you've thrown up, is whether the civil war could have been won by the US Citizens-to-be, adopting the Ghandian method? :)

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  10. Ugh by kafka93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just Macrovision for broadcast, basically; the MPAA notes that "legislation would be required", and that's because without it manufacturers or third parties will quickly develop means of circumventing the protection. Of course, whatever happens, there *will* be the means of recording any broadcast stream -- these people need to recognise that, if it's human-recognisable, it's machine-recordable. All that's achieved by these kind of nonsensical restictions is a) increased costs for the manufacturers, which lead to b) increased costs for the consumer, and c) a less satisfactory user experience. But that media will continue to be recorded, nobody should have any doubt.

    And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!

    It's incredible to me that so many presumably intelligent people waste so much effort on these draconian measures. Corporate greed is to blame, of course - but, with a little thought, it seems to me that many of these people could do better by *not* alienating the populace, and by finding some other, better way of making their money such that everyone could be happy. The MPAA and their kind are scared of technology that they don't really understand, and they're losing their grip on the industry. Tough luck. Legislation shouldn't be put in place which will serve big business at the expense of the consumer. Rather, big business needs to learn to evolve to the consumer's wishes, or it needs to die.

    1. Re:Ugh by Peyna · · Score: 2

      The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television.

      I could see many big vcr / tape companies as well as Tivo and everyone else standing up against this bill. They stand to lose a lot of money otherwise. The MPAA needs to be more careful about whose shoes they step on, or they might end up stepping on someone with real big feet and steeled toe boots.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather, big business needs to learn to evolve to the consumer's wishes, or it needs to die. Yeah, but its easier to be RICH and FAT than it is to be RICH and NIMBLE. These suits have gotten to the point where they have all the toys, possessions and anything else a human could desire. The only place for them to go is downhill and they are proving it through this legislation. They keep this up and people will start turning to other forms of entertainment. I know I rarely watch TV these days. Due to the internet I've rediscovered reading, discussion and books! Far cheaper than the tripe these fat-cats put out.

    3. Re:Ugh by aronc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could see many big vcr / tape companies as well as Tivo and everyone else standing up against this bill. They stand to lose a lot of money otherwise.

      Which is exactly why they are [b]not[/b] trying to push a bill through. They are attempting to bypass that whole system by pressuring the FCC to make it regulatory. Clever. Evil, but clever.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    4. Re:Ugh by Masem · · Score: 4, Informative
      And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!

      If you read through the articles carefully, no one, not MPAA/show producers nor Tech appear to be arguing against the one-time recording (time-shifting) of digital TV programming; it's the question of whether you can save that content to removable media, watch it on another TV in your house, send it to yourself at a remote location (even if authenicated/secured), or to share it on the Internet with a single friend/family member. Some of these seem like obvious fair use, some don't, and where the line has to be drawn is what is the major contention; MPAA appears to want the push the line to limiting recordings to a single, non-retainable format, possibly viewable only once, while other groups are arguing for less restrictive measures but still limiting full-fledged wide scale distribution as today's P2P networks allow.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    5. Re:Ugh by elmegil · · Score: 5, Insightful
      So let me ask you what is the difference between the following scenarios:

      I wanted to see the Sunday night special episode of Good Eats in Paradise, but couldn't because I was out of the house because of a prior committment.

      • Scenario 1, I program my VCR, it records the show, I watch it later at my leisure.
      • Scenario 2, I forgot to program my VCR, I call my brother and ask him to record it for me on his VCR, so that I can watch it later at my leisure.
      • Scenario 3, my brother has a Tivo, records it and lets me download it through our mutual broadband connections.

      Why can't the industry understand the similarity and reasonableness of these cases? Beyond that, if my brother wants to share it with the rest of the internet, why is this a problem? It was a broadcast show! Anyone could have recorded it! *IF* the show is available for sale on DVD/Video *THEN* it would be a clear violation of the copyright holder's rights over distribution to still be sharing the show. Aside from that, the only thing that sharing does "to" the copyright holder is allow more people to see the work. How is that bad?

      Let's try one more example: I'm a huge fan of Invader Zim, but Friday nights are a terrible time for me to stop my world to watch a TV show. So I generally try to download copies from the net and burn them to VCD (because my wife wants to watch them too, and we don't want to sit in front of the computer to do it). Unfortunately, most of the copies are really bad, but I do it anyway as a fan of the show. When and if these episodes become available on DVD, it will be my pleasure to go buy high-quality copies and discard the relevant VCDs.

      This is just like music sharing; I use it to judge what I want to buy, not to steal things I would otherwise buy. The quality of product on the internet is not as good as the quality of the product from the originator, in any case I've seen so far. If it's really good enough for me to want to buy it, I'll still want to buy it despite having "pirate" copies around.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    6. Re:Ugh by pmz · · Score: 2

      ...big business needs to learn to evolve to the consumer's wishes, or it needs to die.

      Yes, absolutely. When the legislative branch of the U.S. government begins thinking about how to artifically prop up a failing industry, that means something is so fundamentally wrong with that industry that legislation is almost always the worst solution to the problem. Whenever someone like the MPAA or RIAA begins begging for quick fixes from Congress, every single person in the House and Senate should have little alarms going off in their minds. Let's hope cynicism prevails and the media industry is sent home with a bruised ego.

    7. Re:Ugh by count_dooku · · Score: 2, Informative
      And besides, will anyone really stand for this? The idea of recordable media -- vcrs, in particular -- is very deeply ingrained, and most people probably consider it their "right" to record their television. And rightly so!

      Yes, but the broadcast industry does not see it that way, and they have enough lobbying money to overturn fair use. Turner Entertainment's Jamie Kellner claims that by not watching commercials, you're stealing TV. Notice the word stealing.

      So when the broadcast industry and the motion picture industry claim they want to prevent copying (or stealing) digital content, they won't stop with the peer-to-peer file traders. They'll target time-shifting. The broadcast flags they are proposing could easily say "don't record this program." Because, after all, if you own a PVR, you'll skip over the commercials.

      Time Warner cable is debuting a set-top box with a PVR. But, there is no commercial skipping available. That's right, you can time-shift the West Wing, but you cannot hit the fast-forward button. There isn't one.

      Funny how that goes.

      --

      --
      For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
    8. Re:Ugh by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I follow you as far as 1 and 2, 3 is more iffy, since your brother still has a copy of his own.

      Would it be okay for me to record stuff to a VCR, and then copy tapes and distribute them via a catalog?

    9. Re:Ugh by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Who said his brother was charging him to see it?

    10. Re:Ugh by Ollierose · · Score: 1

      I'll second that, and raise you an "not yet released in foreign countries", which the cases above don't exclude.

    11. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From dictionary.com

      Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

      I find that a lot of people don't really understand what a copyright is. It's not really a matter of whether or not you charge money for the distribution of something to which you do not own the copyright. When you have a copyright on some IP that means that you have the RIGHT to COPY (or distribute) it as you please. In the case of GPL'ed software you have the RIGHT to grant others the RIGHT to COPY it as they please for free. In the case of a TV show the copyright holder has the RIGHT to disallow others the RIGHT to COPY it as they please. Even if that TV show was broadcast publicly.

      When you COPY something for which you have no COPYRIGHT you are violating the copyright holders RIGHT.

      You can disagree with that, but that's they way the law is. The law would have to be changed. You can justify it how ever you want (it was broadcast to the public, etc.), but if you don't have a copyright then you don't have the right. On the other hand a copyright holder has the right to allow a TV show to be distributed publicly at a specific time, and then at the same time to disallow you from copying it and distributing it.

    12. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Why can't the industry understand the similarity and reasonableness of these cases? Beyond that, if my brother wants to share it with the rest of the internet, why is this a problem? It was a broadcast show! Anyone could have recorded it! *IF* the show is available for sale on DVD/Video *THEN* it would be a clear violation of the copyright holder's rights over distribution to still be sharing the show. Aside from that, the only thing that sharing does "to" the copyright holder is allow more people to see the work. How is that bad? "

      The industry does understand the reasonableness of your cases, and so do I. Yes, these are freely broadcasted shows that anyone could have seen on their own. So I'm with you 100%. However, have you noticed the rise in the number of shows that end with an ad for you to send off for a video of the show you just watched? For only $20, you can get a copy of a show that you could easily have recorded yourself.

      The industry is moving in this direction. They don't want you to be able to record shows, not even broadcast shows. Instead, they want to move to a future where everything is pay-per-view. Watch a broadcasted show two times? Pay twice. These legal discussions are one more step in that direction.

      Your statements are reasonable and logical. But not as profitable as what the RIAA wants to do.

    13. Re:Ugh by elmegil · · Score: 2

      How is him "having a copy of his own" any different, from the standpoint of their argument, than him watching the tape at a different time before he gives it to me?

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    14. Re:Ugh by crevette · · Score: 1

      As far as sharing it with your family, I don't really have a clue, but it sounds like fair use, albeit a bit stretched.

      However your argument about your brother sharing it with the rest of the internet is flawed. Yes, the show is broadcasted in his area. The broadcast company paid for the right to broadcast in his area and another broadcast company paid for the rights somewhere else across the country. By making the show available on the internet, your brother is actualy breaking the boundaries of his own broadcast. He may even make it available in areas where it is not yet broadcasted. Hence, it is a really clear breaking of the fair use rule.

    15. Re:Ugh by jparker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big fuss isn't about broadcast; it's about cable and premium channels.

      If you share some random Friends rerun, no big deal. (Though they'd still like to stop you.) However, if you start recording and sharing The Sopranos and Sex in the City, HBO would get pretty upset. Same goes for Pay-Per-View.

      If we lived in a world where the MPAA, etc. cared about the consumers, this would be the purpose of the broadcast flag; it would indicate a show that was premium content and could not be shared, but the rest of the shows (regular broadcast stuff) would freely distributable.
      Additionally, the MPAA sees no difference between scenarios 2 & 3 (just as we don't). Only problem is, they think both should be illegal.

    16. Re:Ugh by ottffssent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're completely off-base here. This is the kind of thinking that has led to the frenzy of new laws in the past few years. If my brother records something and mails me a VHS cassette, we both get copies of a show. If he records it to vcd and mails me a CD, we both get copies of a show. If he records it and sends it over the internet, we both get copies of a show. If he watches it and telepathically broadcasts it to me, we both get copies of the show. USING THE INTERNET DOES NOT MAKE IT DIFFERENT!!!

      To respond to your other point: Yes, it should be okay for you to record stuff with a VCR and copy the tapes and distribute them via a catalog. The person who buys your VHS cassette could have recorded the show him/herself, so the effect on the original copyright holders is nil. Since they didn't, you are providing a service which you should be able to charge for.

    17. Re:Ugh by Kintanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a big part of the Anime fansubbing scene. I eagerly await the release of fansubs of things like Hikaru no Go, which haven't been licensed in the US yet, but as soon as a DVD box set is released (or hell, a single individual episode on DVD) I'll go buy it because I want to support the series and I really enjoy owning the higher quality DVD versions.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    18. Re:Ugh by dubiousmike · · Score: 1
      Scenario 3, my brother has a Tivo, records it and lets me download it through our mutual broadband connections.

      Don't you mean Replay TV? Or does TIVO now connect via broadband and allow for the sharing of programs like ReplayTV does?

    19. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to see the Sunday night special episode of Good Eats in Paradise, but couldn't because I was out of the house because of a prior committment.

      Dammit, I missed that one too!.

      Could you get your brother to send me a tape too? :o)

      Alton Brown rocks!

    20. Re:Ugh by ThePilgrim · · Score: 2

      Time Warner cable is debuting a set-top box with a PVR. But, there is no commercial skipping available. That's right, you can time-shift the West Wing, but you cannot hit the fast-forward button. There isn't one.
      Thats all right. I'll just go and do what I allways do juring the commertials, I'll go get a drink or sumthing
      Untill they can leagaly strap me into my poatery appretion ... oops TV appreation chair. I'm a free person.

      --
      Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    21. Re:Ugh by thales · · Score: 2
      If your brother was making hundreds of copies of the tape or vcd and mailing those copies to anyone who happened to send him a postcard, that would be a closer model to what is happening on the internet today

      If your brother put the download on a password protected site, so that just you could pick up a copy, then that would be closer to your first two examples. The MPAA would probelly still whine about it, but they wouldn't be able to get the support for things like broadcast flags and a fritz chip if that was all that was involved in casual distribution over the internet.

      The open blatant disregard for copyright laws on the internet is why the MPAA stands a good chance of getting this bullshit enacted.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    22. Re:Ugh by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Even though I was a big user of this scene. so this seems sanctimonious, going with fansubs is illegal under international copyright laws (Berne Convention, as I recall). With the wide selection available here, I havent gone near this source in years. The whole sitatution has gotten worse lately, with the advent of the digi-subs that are out there, so even the Japanese can download american fansubs(those people more than most are in the most dangerous place legally, as they have high visibility and they generally have no access filtering, so anyone in the world can hit them).

    23. Re:Ugh by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      I'm aware of the illegality, but it doesn't bother me. I'm willing to pay for an american translation of the Anime, no one is offering to sell it to me, some people are investing their time and effort to do it for free, I don't see anything wrong with that. There isn't even a product that someone could be losing money off of involved. I'm certainly not going to buy a version that doesn't have an option for the language I understand...

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    24. Re:Ugh by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Technically there is a danger of loss. When that product is released here in the states it runs the risk of having the people who own the fansubs not purchasing the product. I am not saying that you would, but that is how some people operate, and it does run the risk of hurting sales of shows that eventually end up here. Just because you are impatient to see the show does not give you the right to break the copyright. They spend a lot of money developing these shows, and just because there is no immediate damage does not mean there is no long term damage.

    25. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to point out that you CAN buy the tapes to all shows on Cooking TV. They give you the address and information to buy the tape at the end of every show.

      The same thing for DIY network and TLC. The tapes cost waaay too much, and it is a hassle, but they do offer them.

    26. Re:Ugh by realdpk · · Score: 2

      TiVo's got some investors who would probably end up on the MPAA's side of the fence. Thus, TiVo will likely just conform.

    27. Re:Ugh by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Your brother recording something and mailing it to you while he retains a copy is already illegal. To use your own logic : why does the internet make it different?

    28. Re:Ugh by elmegil · · Score: 1
      An AC writes:

      Dammit, I missed that one too! Could you get your brother to send me a tape too? :o)

      Sadly, it was just a hypothetical. I actually taped it myself successfully, so my brother can't send you a tape :-).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    29. Re:Ugh by elmegil · · Score: 2
      An AC writes:

      I just want to point out that you CAN buy the tapes to all shows on Cooking TV. They give you the address and information to buy the tape at the end of every show.

      This is false. You can buy MANY of the shows. You cannot buy EVERY episode of EVERY show, and particularly you cannot buy Iron Chef video or DVD (I've bought the Good Eats DVD's that are available already, thanks; they only have 9 episodes, and I know that Alton has done more shows than that).

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    30. Re:Ugh by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      I was with you... I really was, right up to "...so the effect on the original copyright holders is nil. Since they didn't, you are providing a service which you should be able to charge for."

      Um... It's not ok to charge for distributing, via a semi-permanent medium, content that someone else has spent money, time, effort creating and holds copywrite over.

      By your way of thinking it's ok to:

      * Scan the contents of a book, create a new, bound copy, and start selling that for a profit. Hey, anyone could have gone to a library and read it, so why can't you make money from selling copies of it?

      * Take copies of photos that you may have up on a website (for instance), print them up nice, frame them, and start selling them... hey, anyone could have gone to your website and done the same... right?

      * How about taking some music you may have posted on your site... you've put it there as free MP3s for people to listen to, but not for re-distribution or profit... so someone comes along, likes your music (excellent you think), then burns all your songs to a CD and starts selling them as a profit...

      They're making money from selling something YOU made... without asking YOU, without having done any of the effort to create the piece themselves. And yet they're making money.

      I don't have a problem with people sharing copies with no money changing hands, especially if it's just so people can see a show they otherwise would have missed.

      But charging money for it? That's stepping over the line... that's exactly the type of thing that's going to get such laws brought in.

    31. Re:Ugh by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I just realised, on re-reading that rant of mine, that it sounds like in all cases it was someone going to their own website and copying things and making profit from them... I meant someone else, not the original owner of the pieces.

      Me use poor english... :)

    32. Re:Ugh by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      There's also no garauntee that they will EVER license it in the US. So I either wait at the whim of the studios to see what gets licensed and hope it's what I want and that it doesn't take 5 years, or I get the fansubs now to tide me over until the DVD release. When I can buy, or even rent, english language subs here I'll happily do so, but until then I'm going to keep breaking their copyright.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    33. Re:Ugh by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      If your brother was making hundreds of copies of the tape or vcd and mailing those copies to anyone who happened to send him a postcard, that would be a closer model to what is happening on the internet today

      Even so, how is this wrong? That was his point.

      It only holds up so long as we're talking about broadcast stuff though. If you rip off a for sale dvd and try to sell multiple copies of that for money, then you are doing something illegal... I can sympathise with the poor guys who spent months making a movie, only to have some cock in China rip and sell it for $5 with no royalty, that's got to be wrong - the copyright holder can still make money off their investment at this point.

      But if you record something that was broadcast, and sell one copy or a trillion copies, what's the problem? The copyright owner was apparently happy to have it beamed all over the place via satellites and whatnot. They can't exactly complain if you find a way to make money with something they felt they no longer could.

      One more time though: This would only apply to broadcast data, not, e.g subscriber satellite TV.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    34. Re:Ugh by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      But charging money for it? That's stepping over the line... that's exactly the type of thing that's going to get such laws brought in. I see your point, and I mostly agree with you in respect to scanning a book and selling it... I see this as wrong, somehow, where I don't with the other examples. I think probably because the author didn't give the book to the library because he could no longer profit from it. The presence of the book in the library is almost like a good faith 'gift' from authors, a bit like a shareware version. But in the case of pictures on a website... Yes! Anyone COULD go and download and print these pictures. So why exactly is it wrong for someone else (note: the web site owner is not offering this service, nor are they charging to view the pictures) to offer a service when someone else is willing to pay? They're making money from selling something YOU made... without asking YOU, without having done any of the effort to create the piece themselves. I'd argue that slightly... the person who burns MP3's to CD, or prints and frames pictures, is doing quite similar work to what Redhat does with Linux. They ARE providing added value, even if that value is not having to stream/download the MP3s. They are filling the void of physical distribution, which the author apparently isn't interested in.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    35. Re:Ugh by thales · · Score: 2
      Copyright is distrubition rights. Nothing in fair use covers mass distrubition. The TV station has paid a considerable sum for a limited right to redistrubite the movie. If you don't have an agreement with the copyright holder (like the TV station does) you don't have the right to distrubite the work.

      A Movie does not lose all value when it's broadcast. Video rental store have lots of movies that have been broadcast that people still rent. Movies that have been broadcast still are offered for sale by the studios, and people buy them. The copyright holder not only can, but is still making money off the material after it is broadcast.

      The problem with copyright isn't that it exists, it's that the length of the copyright has become so long that it no longer serves it's original purpose of encouraging new works, rather it's become a way of keeping works out of the public domain where they could serve as the basis for new works that would compete for market dollars.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    36. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys:

      It's NOT about stopping you from doing any of the above - although that would be a consequence over which the MPAA and RIAA wouild shed no tears.

      It's about protecting their current positions as gatekeepers of what you see and hear. That's where they make their money. All this new technology is liberating.

      If there are no watermarks, if you can record, distribute and play anything you want in any way you want, then why would you need a Sony Music or a Blockbuster video?

      All of us here know the genie is out of the bottle; these comapnies will be dead in our lifetime. They are desperate and scrambling to get off death row. It's the hail mary pass; the only scary thing is they've got the resources on their side to maybe connect.

      I for one am ready for the party on their graves.

    37. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the argument I've seen from the anti-piracy people is that they don't release something to broadcast until they're pretty positive they wont make any more money off it. Of course, there's still incidental purchases, but nothing like what it USED to make. Effectively, in their heads, it's not worth the time any more. I wasn't talking about legality... I know it's not legal to do what I suggest. I'm only saying it doesn't sound at all wrong to me. I can't see how someone providing a service (when the original holder is no longer providing this service) and charging a fee can be wrong.

    38. Re:Ugh by spoco2 · · Score: 1
      You said: "the person who burns MP3's to CD, or prints and frames pictures, is doing quite similar work to what Redhat does with Linux"

      But the major difference here is that those that coded for Linux did so with the understanding that it was for the use of all. They coded and devoted their time to developing the system not expecting people to pay for it.

      Now, just because the website owner isn't yet selling framed versions of their photos (such as on, say www.deviantart.com, where many, many people post photos and artworks for people to see... however if they choose to charge for a print of it, they can choose to, and get money from it, as they should.

      Or, say, just because the tv station isn't yet selling a boxed DVD set of their series, doesn't mean they aren't GOING to. By jumping the gun, and doing these things beforehand, with no permission from the creator of the works, they are effectively stealing from the original creator of the works.

      I kinda like your library 'shareware version' book analogy, quite nice... :)

  11. This should work. by one9nine · · Score: 0

    After all, it worked for CDs right? Music trading is completely dead because of the success of "rip flag" CDs.

  12. Welcome to Democracy by tomcio.s · · Score: 0

    Or should I say capitalism.

    Well, that's the price you pay for living in the States I guess.
    I wonder how soon, the rest of the free world will want to 'rescue' US from their oppressive government.
    I find that ironic, while the government touts and preaches the American Way (TM) as the True Way (TM?)..
    You know no opression, free speach, etc., to every other nation in the world, they turn around and take that away from their own citizens.
    Irony at its finest.
    The worst part is that they will probably try to blame it on Terror(ist)s using VCRS to communicate or something...
    Just my 2 (not so informed) cents.

    1. Re:Welcome to Democracy by mcwop · · Score: 2

      Yes, the rest of the world is setting a fine free speech example as evidenced by Italy

      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  13. Sen Hollings by MeNeXT · · Score: 3, Insightful
    has forgotten who the PEOPLE are.

    --
    DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    1. Re:Sen Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but have these PEOPLE given him any money to run for senator ?

    2. Re:Sen Hollings by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'm afraid you are right. Senator Hollings has forgotten who people are, because he is only a refurbished automaton from the 'Pirates of the Caribbean.'

      When no one is in his office, 'he' quickly opens his chest plate and drinks some more oil. (You can see the Bush connection rather easily.)

      Senator Hollings and his rampage of bad legislation MUST be stopped. 'He' will let nothing stand in his way of his goal of Total Disneyfication of the entire world.

      'His' Achilles Heel?

      Pies.

      Throw pies at the Senator. That will interfere in his 'Small World Reasoning Center'. Only you can stop the madness.

    3. Re:Sen Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming he ever KNEW who the people are.

      He's called the Representative from Disney for a reason, you know.

    4. Re:Sen Hollings by buford_tannen · · Score: 1

      The sad part, is that here in South Carolina, "his" people are too stupid to care about what he is doing.

      Case in point: In the 1960s, when he was governor here, he was the one who had the Confederate Flag flown over our statehouse. About 35 years later, this is turned into an issue against the state's Republicans, even though a Democrat was responsible for it being there in the first place. Most of the people who vote for him are blacks and ignorant redneck whites who don't seem to know or care what he's about. That's how he is able to stay in power no matter what he does, with minimal campaigning and plenty of earning opportunity from the MPAAs of the world. We need a grassroots effort to get him out of office, but I fear that the "moron majority" of our state will keep him around until he dies, just like they have with Strom Thurmond.

      --
      Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
    5. Re:Sen Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush connection? You are an idiot. The dmca was passed by Clinton. Hollings is a democrat. Hollywood spends a lot more on the Democrats than on the republicans.

      I'm not trying to defend Bush, but pull your head out of your ass and quit blaming everything on Bush.

    6. Re:Sen Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil = Bush. Take a comedy pill.

  14. Uhh.. by iONiUM · · Score: 2

    Apparently too impatient to implement the Broadcast Flag in digital media through legislative means

    I'm glad companies no longer feel the need to respect the government, and they'd rather just pressure them into doing what they want fast. I find it amazing what people will do (government) when they don't understand things (technology), they just assume people like the FCC are right.

  15. I don't get it.... by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How, exactly, is a PVR any different from a VCR?

    Ok, lets say we give in to the removal of the ad-skipping feature. Now -- how is it different?

    1. Re:I don't get it.... by phunhippy · · Score: 4, Funny

      How, exactly, is a PVR any different from a VCR?

      the PV and VC... the R is the same :)

    2. Re:I don't get it.... by TGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A PVR records digitaly onto a hard drive. With a little work and way to much spare time you can modify one of these things such that this file can be coppied, burned to CD, distributed over P2P network etc.

      VCRs record (I think) in analog on a magnetic tape. Thus, repeated duplication always results in inferior quality. Furthermore, repeated viewing also results in inferior quality.

      The result is that any video stream recorded from a VCR has a finite shelf life (long, but finite). Where as anything recorded with a PVR could (hypotheticly) have an infinite shelf life (ok, remaining life of the Earth) and no real limit on the number of copies possible.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    3. Re:I don't get it.... by aronc · · Score: 1

      VCRs record (I think) in analog on a magnetic tape. Thus, repeated duplication always results in inferior quality. Furthermore, repeated viewing also results in inferior quality.

      Except of course for less cost and less trouble than the PVR hack you can record the output from the vcr onto your harddrive with an input capable video card and do the same thing.

      Uh oh, if they read this we'll lose out encoder cards. Nevermind! Nothing to see here, nope, not a thing.. move along.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    4. Re:I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. But do you think the MPAA or the networks were happy you used one to record their content? This is a chance to fight the battle over again and maybe win a little, or a lot, more control over what constitutes fair use. After all, it's digital and it's soooo different. bleh.

    5. Re:I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      VCRs are mostly use to watch RENTED movies, not record TV.

    6. Re:I don't get it.... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      CDR has a 10-20 year life in theory. HDD have MTF of about 5 years I think. Quantum drift will eventually destroy any recorded media. So everything has a Finite shelf life. It is just that some may actually out last copyright itself. :)

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    7. Re:I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that the magnetic domains on the hardware platter would revert to some quiescent state eventually, rendering the recording incomplete.

      Granted, it would be a long time, but I don't believe that it's as long as "remaining life of the Earth".

    8. Re:I don't get it.... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

      As to shelf life, videotape typically outlives hard disks by about 3 to 1.

      As to quality, considering that compression down to rational file sizes (say one CD apiece) cuts quality to less than good VHS, that's a marginal argument too.

      I think the real reason is more akin to what the RIAA has already demonstrated: the desire for total control over the distribution channels, for ALL related products. The MPAA wants to cut off independent producers who just might eschew traditional theatre or even DVD entirely and go for the pay-per-download approach. Voila, no middleman, no distribution chain, thus no need for the MPAA.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, DVD and VCR tapes cost about the same. The quality is very different. Is this about the consumer or the greed of the companies?

      If burned CDs are so great and last forever no one would buy either VCR tapes or DVDs. The truth is that people are willing to pay for what they want(better quality, more features). OTOH, I want to record tv shows on friday night to watch later. Just my 2 cents.

    10. Re:I don't get it.... by SideshowBob · · Score: 2

      You can buy digital VCRs now.

      http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/dvhs.html .. is one example.

    11. Re:I don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or.. record rented movies. :)

    12. Re:I don't get it.... by ShadowDrake · · Score: 1

      :VCRs record (I think) in analog on a magnetic
      : tape. Thus, repeated duplication always results
      : in inferior quality. Furthermore, repeated
      : viewing also results in inferior quality.

      I love the simplistic reasoning-- if there are 100% perfect copies, people will want them. Otherwise, they won't.

      People will often gladly accept a quality degradation (MP3, anyone) for convinence. Furthermore, there's nothing to stop a user from attempting to *restore* analog media, which could, in fact, result in a product SUPERIOR to the original (for example, by removing static on the original broadcast as seen in locale X)

      I tend to think this is a very knee-jerk reaction occuring-- "there's a means of copying, so it MUST be precluded".

      Rather than seeing an opportunity to cripple the consumer, why don't they see dollar signs? I'm sure there are a fair number of shows where people would gladly drop a fiver to get a perfect recording on tape or disc. If you can do that, people probably won't feel the need to make unauthorized copies. This seems verified by the posts in TV-related newsgroups (ie alt.fan.disney.gargoyles) of people asking for copies of episodes, and/or begging for the original supplier to offer the shows on disc.

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    13. Re:I don't get it.... by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Uh oh, if they read this we'll lose out encoder cards. Nevermind! Nothing to see here, nope, not a thing.. move along.

      Sorry, but the "copyright bit" plan includes a phasing out of video encoder cards. That is, once the copyright bit is introduced (and enforced), that encoder card will be useless for recording copyright-bit broadcasts without some type of intermediary.

  16. where can I get what the mpaa is smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or does it appear that the MPAA just sits around their offices lighting up, injecting, or snorting some really wild drugs?

  17. Inticing by prof187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whenever someone comes out with new technology to prevent piracy, all it does is spur interest in trying to get by it. For instance, the "protected CDs" that could be gotten around with a marker. If they are serious about it, they need to implement the technology without letting the world know first, that way there will at least be a slow down before people realize it and get around it. It's always just a matter of time.

    --

    My other sig is an import.
    1. Re:Inticing by dubious9 · · Score: 1

      I agree, you can't stop talented individuals( Remember the 7 line perl DVD hack?) No market level encryption scheme will survive long on the field.

      --
      Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
    2. Re:Inticing by nege · · Score: 1

      In addition, I think its kinda fun. For example, when I was new to linux I was quite dissapointed that I could not watch my DVDs. I don't have to watch my DVDs on linux, I could pop them into my PS2. But it irked me that I couldnt play them with my computer even if i wanted to. There was a solution- XINE. Now, being new to linux installing this was no easy task. There were many dependencies to resolve, and lots of learning new commands. Once I got it working I didnt really watch movies on the computer so much, since I usually watch them on the tv. Most of the fun was just learning the technology and "sticking it to the man" so to speak.

  18. Our junior senator by wayward_son · · Score: 1

    Hollings is lucky he's not from a technologically oriented state. No matter, he'll be gone in 2004. He's done enough other things to offend the voters of SC in the past four years. (Or else he'll retire)

    1. Re:Our junior senator by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      You may be making the grave mistake of underestimating the stupidity of people in large groups. I hope you're right though. Not only is he failing his constituents, he's endangering the freedoms of the entire country. I guess he's too senile to remember the oath he took to uphold the Constitution?

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    2. Re:Our junior senator by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      True, no one ever lost an election by underestimating the stupidity of South Carolina voters.

      All the Republicans have to do is remind the voters of his full page ad that he bought in The State (Columbia, SC) paper defending Bill Clinton in 1999. (Most SC voters HATE Clinton.) Since then it's been more of the same. He'll lose on his liberal voting record, not on trying to infringe on our freedoms.

    3. Re:Our junior senator by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ShavenYak writes:

      > Not only is he failing his constituents, he's
      > endangering the freedoms of the entire country.

      The entire Senate is not qualified to make any laws forbidding fair use, as the following illustrates:

      http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0,14179,2874687,00.html

      >>> Until last week, the staff of the United
      >>> States Senate was demonstrating that the
      >>> people who create our legislation don't think
      >>> they have to obey it themselves. The Senate,
      >>> which is now crafting legislation that would
      >>> further restrict the illegal sharing of
      >>> copyrighted works over networks, was
      >>> apparently a hotbed of illegal file sharing
      >>> and other peer-to-peer (P2P) networking
      >>> activity.

      Hm, does the word "hypocrite" ring a bell?

      > I guess he's too senile to remember the oath he
      > took to uphold the Constitution?

      I don't know if Hollings took part personally in the mass unconstitutional screaming fest, but a couple weeks ago a good sized chunk of Congress ran outside, said the pledge of allegiance to the flag, screaming the then unconstitutional "under God" part. Regardless of the merits of the judge's controversial decision, I would think doing something that was legally at that moment found to be unconstitional would break their oaths.

      Even if their oaths are intact, no one can argue their immaturity. ;)

      Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay!
      New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

    4. Re:Our junior senator by bnenning · · Score: 2
      but a couple weeks ago a good sized chunk of Congress ran outside, said the pledge of allegiance to the flag, screaming the then unconstitutional "under God" part. Regardless of the merits of the judge's controversial decision, I would think doing something that was legally at that moment found to be unconstitional would break their oaths.

      Saying "under God" in the pledge is in no way unconstitutional. The only unconstitutional portion is public school employees (i.e. agents of government) *leading* children in the pledge. In a way, that makes their demonstration even sillier; they may have thought they were engaging in civil disobedience, but they weren't.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    5. Re:Our junior senator by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Actually, having the word "God" in the official pledge of allegience is unconstitutional; unless, of course, you can point out where the Constitution provides exceptions to Seperation of Church and State...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    6. Re:Our junior senator by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Well, the particular section of US Code which states that the "under God" version of the pledge is the official version could be considered unconstitutional, because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". However, this does not make that version of the pledge illegal or unconstitutional to recite, so the Congresscritters were not in any way violating the Constitution by saying it. They were, as the previous poster pointed out, acting very immature, but that's par for the course in D.C.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    7. Re:Our junior senator by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance ruling won't take effect for several months, and even when it does, it will only be in effect in the 9th Circuit Court's jurisdiction -- namely, several western states.

      EXCEPT, they day after the ruling was announced, the judge who wrote the ruling basically put it on hold pending a review by the full 9th Circuit Court. So at this point, the ruling effectively does not exist and everyone in every state can legally go around saying "under God" in classrooms. Even if the full Court does approve the ruling, not until the Supreme Court of the United States has its say will anything apply to the entire country (if SCOTUS confirms the ruling, then it will be illegal for teachers to recite "under God" in classrooms, and if they deny the ruling, then it will still be legal -- unfortunately so).

      Tangentially... It pisses me off whenever I hear someone claim this country was founded on "Christian values". That is utter bullshit. The founding fathers were, almost without exception, Deists, not Christians -- they very specifically excluded religion from the government (haven't you fundies ever even HEARD of the First Amendment?) because they knew the kind of horrible atrocities that ended up getting perpetrated when government was in bed with religion, as had happened countless times in the European theocracies of their forefathers.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    8. Re:Our junior senator by swillden · · Score: 2

      Actually, having the word "God" in the official pledge of allegience is unconstitutional

      I must have missed that part of the constitution.

      The only relevant section I can find is in the first amendment, where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

      Now, explain to me how that makes it illegal for congressmen to say the pledge? All I can see is that they're not allowed to make laws that either support or prohibit religion.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Our junior senator by aronc · · Score: 1

      Pay attention. As other have already said before you: It doesn't make it illegal to say. The illegal part is the "official" part. Making a religious symbol part of the state mandated and state run education system.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    10. Re:Our junior senator by swillden · · Score: 2
      *You* pay attention. The event under discussion was the congressmen going outside to say the pledge.

      Yes, it is reasonable to argue that since congress has made a law saying children have to go to school, then those children should not be forced to verbally express a belief in God, otherwise there would be a law respecting religion.

      But that is *not* what was being discussed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  19. You actually ELECT these people? by Winterblink · · Score: 1

    I mean why can't they backdoor established procedures with something constructive? Like putting a chokehold on the MPAA/RIAA? Or, god forbid, actually representing the wishes and views of the people who put them in the position they're in.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Peyna · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the minority of people who actually vote are uninformed and ignorant to the issues that really matter. Instead they will vote for someone based on their view on 1 subject or simply because of their party alignment.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by i0chondriac · · Score: 1

      When it costs millions to run for a Senatorial position, the people who put you in power ARE the MPAA/RIAA/(insert Large business intrest here)

      Senators who actually make it to the ballot usually take up very neutral positions as far as their constituencies go, and then they change their tune as soon as they are elected. Sadly money speaks louder than voters.

    3. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by TGK · · Score: 2

      You make the rather tragic assumption that they're not allready doing that. I mean, we know who -=voted=- for them, but those people don't really count. Most of the country has either decided well in advance of any election that it is either Democrat or Republican. It's the undecided few (or apathetic many) that decide the election.

      Who do you think changes those people's minds? Who gets those swing votes out? I'll tell you who. Advertising agencies. Those agencies need money. Where do you think that comes from?

      So yea, they are representing the people who got them there in the first place. Problem is, those people aren't their constituents.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    4. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The problem is that the minority of people who actually vote are uninformed and ignorant to the issues that really matter."

      Actually, the problem is that to those who vote, these types of issues DON'T matter. I'd be willing to bet they have a laundry list of concerns before they get to stuff that the slashcrowd cares about.

    5. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by dschuetz · · Score: 2
      You actually ELECT these people?

      Well, yeah, some of 'em. Others win sort of ambiguously (Bush in Florida), and still others are simply appointed to powerful posts with very little real voter control (Powell as FCC chairman).

      The worst of it is there's really not much we can do about it. (I'm feeling cynical today). Here're the big problems, as I see it, with the US system:

      Special interests pump lots of money into elections. They do this to get their issues voted on their way. Because they're so vocal, candidates get plenty of expensive press. Because (for example) the incumbent gets so much press, his opponents needs press to, so he goes to other special interests. And so on. This is why we need good campaign finance reform, but we won't get it (or something like it) until after the next round of elections, and even that is unclear if it'll survive a court test because of a little something we call Free Speech.

      Politicians want to keep their jobs. Congressmen want to stay congressmen, and Senators *definitely* want to stay senators. So they have to run every few years. So they need money to run. And we're back to campaign finance reform (CFR, 'cause I'm tried of spelling it out). Basically, we need to reform campaign finance because, well, people are constantly campaigning. But, wait, we could institute term limits! Well, that can't be done at a state level (it's been tried, and I believe some state measures have been struck down). So, we need term limits in the US Constitution. Well, who writes and approves amemendments for presentation to the states? Congress. It took how many years for CFR? Any bets on when we might see an amendment for term limits?

      We could bypass the congress and amend the constitution directly. It's possible to have a Constitutional Convention, bring together representatives from each state, and modify the constitution directly, without having to wait for congress. But the last time we did that, we threw out the old system ENTIRELY and created what we have now. I don't expect that we'd do anything quite as drastic, but I would expect that any delegates to a convention would be just as pressured by special interest groups as Congress is (if not, more). So, sure, we might get term limits. But we'd also get anti-abortion (or pro-choice, depending on who spends more), anti-flag-burning, DRM, permanent copyrights, and who knows what else. So this isn't an option.

      So, to review, for those of you outside the US wondering why we keep electing these idiots:
      • We can't stop the money
      • We can't get 'em to voluntarily step down
      • We can't use the power of the populace to force them to step down
      • We can't even get reasonable opponents elected, 'cause they all tend to swing too far to the *other* side. (you need one loud special interest to beat out the other).
      The only way, then, to "win," is to fight them at their own game -- with money. Campaign contributions, issue ads, strong PR campaigns, etc. But the "common folk" don't have a strong lobby. We don't have the money, we certainly don't have the party. There's simply no single unifying force for the vast majority of opinion in the US. So the majority ends up being ruled by some weird combination of minority (but well funded) views.

      At least we've got one thing going for us -- we don't kick out our President every time he does something that pisses off the majority of the country (well, we do, but we have to wait up to 4 years to do it). I never understand how countries like Isreal, Great Britain, or Italy can survive with Prime Ministers losing all hold on power on, essentially, a popular whim. So at least our executive branch (current dictatorial fiats notwithstanding) isn't quite as screwed up as other countries'.

    6. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Which is why people need to inform them of issues that should matter to them. Why do candidates always talk about a few key issues when they're up for office? Because big media and many other people have spent a lot of time and money convincing them that those issues are what matters (Abortion, campaign finance, etc.). Then look at what is actually done about those issues once they get into office. Not much is done, because not much can be done, because they are so controversial.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Which is why people need to inform them of issues that should matter to them."

      Why should this matter to them? Seriously. Have you ever tried to talk to average people about this stuff? I come from a fairly typical blue-collar community. I've tried explaining these types of things, using some of the most easy to comprehend methods around. The great majority still either do not get it or could care less. They just want tax breaks, decent schools and other public services, and health care. Recording TV shows is going to be about last on their list.

      "Why do candidates always talk about a few key issues when they're up for office?"

      Because thats what matters to voters, no matter how it starts, opinion poll research will still say campaign finance, abortion, etc. That's what matters to everyday Americans. And I can just imagine the first average person raising a ruckus about recording TV shows. His neighbors would quickly label him an idiot, since there are so many other, more compelling things to be concerned with, like better schools and health care.

      This is _not_ a sexy issue. It will not be a big attention grabber. The average voter is not going to be the one fighting this, it will be the companies who stand to lose if it happens. VCR makers, TIVO, etc. Joe Sixpack just wants the potholes on his street fixed, a safe school for little Jimmy, and health care thats good enough so he can afford it if he takes ill. Frankly I can't blame him.

      What matters to you and I is generally no one elses concern.

    8. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by -dhan-101 · · Score: 1

      just tell them that not having to buy a new tv and vcr is like getting a tax break!

    9. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by mwigmani · · Score: 1

      How does this work for Sony Pictures? They're part of the MPAA but they're also part of a corporation that sells millions of VCRs.

    10. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Trekologer · · Score: 2

      This is _not_ a sexy issue. It will not be a big attention grabber. The average voter is not going to be the one fighting this, it will be the companies who stand to lose if it happens. VCR makers, TIVO, etc. Joe Sixpack just wants the potholes on his street fixed, a safe school for little Jimmy, and health care thats good enough so he can afford it if he takes ill. Frankly I can't blame him.

      You can use that to ge the attention of the average citizen. Write into a local newspaper about how "The government is wasting our tax money to line the pockets of Hollywood while allowing our schools deteriorate" or "Congress warms up to Big Business, Elderly left out in the cold".

      This is war and we need to spread our own propaganda and FUD. Hollywood constantly lies, cheats, and steals from the American people to get ahead. But truth is on our side. Its time we used it.

    11. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by csteinle · · Score: 1

      The thing is, they will care when it happens. Joe Sixpack likes to record things off of TV, and if he suddenly can't, he'll be pissed.

      But you're right, Joe Sixpack right now couldn't give a monkey's. Partially because it's so unbelievable. "What, the government is going to stop me from recording my TV shows so I can watch them later? Don't be stupid."

    12. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Recording TV shows is last on their list because they take it for granted. The day Joe Sixpack can't record the SuperBowl game is the day he screams Bloody Murder and goes after the people in power with a pitchfork! And don't worry about the neighbors calling him an idiot. They're grabbing their own pitchforks because THEY wanted to record the SuperBowl (or "Friends" or "Survivor").

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    13. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Many people are part of an organization but don't necessarily support all its causes. I live in the US, but that doesn't mean I support every action the government take overseas. I may be a member of the republican party (i'm not a member of any party), but that doesn't mean I'm 100% with them all the way.

      The leaders of the parties just have to be careful who they piss off in the membership.

      --
      What?
    14. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by SirGeek · · Score: 2
      How does this work for Sony Pictures? They're part of the MPAA but they're also part of a corporation that sells millions of VCRs.

      Easy.. they stop making the VCR's. Think about, you've got Circuit City no longer going to be selling VCR's.. And others are prolly going to follow.

    15. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by eldurbarn · · Score: 2

      No. We don't elect these people.

      "We" (or, more accurately, the votes that we cast) simply exercise our rights according to what we understand of the situation... and (for the most part) our understanding comes from the ad time and publicity that is bought by the candidates during an election. (At least, this is what the candidates seem to believe.) This ad time and those messages are bought using money that comes from campaign contributions... often from large corporations.

      In effect, the corporation buys the votes, and the candidate gets elected. His belief that he cannot get elected without the financial support of some or another corporation means that, in effect, he is representing the corporation that will buy him the next election.

      Isn't this obvious?

      Is the only fix to change how candidates pay for election expenses?

      --
      -Eldurbarn
    16. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by SirGeek · · Score: 2
      When it costs millions to run for a Senatorial position, the people who put you in power ARE the MPAA/RIAA/(insert Large business intrest here)
      Senators who actually make it to the ballot usually take up very neutral positions as far as their constituencies go, and then they change their tune as soon as they are elected. Sadly money speaks louder than voters

      We need to make it so that No Vote = No $$$. This would restore the power in the government to the people. We need to get the politicians to remember that they work for US, not Hollywood, MPAA, RIAA, or big business.

    17. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Is the only fix to change how candidates pay for election expenses?

      My proposal for this is that each state has an Election Fund, anyone can donate to the election fund, but you don't choose where the money donated goes. Candidates are welcome to donate their own personal finances to the election fund, but it will also get spread out to their competitors.
      Every candidate who is running gets the same amount of money out of the election fund. This is ALL of the money they can spend on their election. They have oversight from an Election committee that makes sure they submit an itemized list of their purchasing expenses which is available for review. 3rd parties are not allowed to advertise on broadcast media for any candidate, print media is OK as long as it is clearly marked that the third party is paying for it. Not in tiny tiny text at the bottom of the last page, but in large text across the top of the front.

      This way everyone gets an even shot.
      Do the same thing for Federal Elections.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    18. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by InigoMontoya(tm) · · Score: 1
      3rd parties are not allowed to advertise on broadcast media for any candidate, print media is OK as long as it is clearly marked that the third party is paying for it.

      I'm hoping here that you mean 3rd parties as in NOW, NRA, ACLU, NRL, etc. and not 3rd parties as in Greens, Libertarians, Natural Law, and Communist. If it's the latter, then you just want to further prop up the two-party system that has subverted the will of the people for so long.

      InigoMontoya(tm)

      --
      This signature is self-referential.
    19. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Hehe, Yeah, I should have specified that. I mean third parties as in, people not running for office. So the Democrats and Republicans couldn't run big multimillion dollar TV ad campaigns for their candidate any more than the NRA could. Only the individual candidate can pay for TV spots and only with the money they receive from the election fund.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    20. Re:You actually ELECT these people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (i'm not a member of any party)

      Aww don't let the raving lunatic liberals on /. scare you from sharing your true feelings. If you're a conservative, let it out man!

  20. Get BETA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beta VCRs are, and always have been immune to macrovision. By the time macrovision was developed, beta was dead, so they didn't take it into account.

    1. Re:Get BETA! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      ONLY betaCAM vcr's are immune to macrovision because of the built in TBC. Macrovision is based on screwing up the video signal so that the VCR will freak out when recording because of the AGC circuitry. if you had a vcr that was anything but the crap-grade sold to comsumers (Yes your $1000.00 Sony VCR is CRAP GRADE) it wouldn't have an AGC but have a manual video level control and therefore it would self defeat Macrovision..

      Macrovision can be easily defeated in every VCR by simply finding the AGC circuit and either potting down it's Variable resistance for reaction or replace it's chip resistor with something significantly smaller... or as I have done.... simply disable it by bypassing it with a simple jumper. (Video in jumpered to video out, remove the AGC circuitry or cut the traces going to it.)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Get BETA! by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      That's handy to know. Can you still get blank tapes? (this is not a flame, it's a legit quesion)

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    3. Re:Get BETA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quoth the DMCA:

      (k) CERTAIN ANALOG DEVICES AND CERTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES-

      (1) CERTAIN ANALOG DEVICES-

      (A) Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any--

      [. . .]

      (iii) Beta format analog video cassette recorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 1,000 Beta format analog video cassette recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter;

    4. Re:Get BETA! by cortana · · Score: 1

      As the quote on the bottom of the page says (currently)

      Woolsey-Swanson Rule: People would rather live with a problem they cannot solve rather than accept a solution they cannot understand.

    5. Re:Get BETA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that quote ot overly broad and incorrect.. it should read...

      Stupid people would rather live with a problem they cannot solve rather than accept a solution they cannot understand, for it is beyond their abilities to comprehend anything other than simple submission.

  21. Will they ever understand? by Capt_Troy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At what point in time will the government and big business understand that watermarks and "broadcast flags" will not work? I can't imagine the ammount of money spent on technology that will (and has) failed in persuit of curtailing piracy...

    When will they figure out that P2P file sharing networks (not to mention IRC, which apparently they are oblivious to) won't be going away? They need to play the cards life has dealt them and figure out how to use these to their advantage or provide a system that is better and more aligned with their business (selling commercials). The world is about change, did all the radio stations get angry when they invented TV? No, they all became TV stations too!

    For example, if you assume all TV brodcasts are going to be pirated. Make it easier for the people downloading these shows by providing them for free on a website and keeping the commercials in the show. If you stream them then they cannot fast forward through commercials. So you basically provide all of your content on demand with commercials (more air time for advertisers thus more expensive commercials). Personally, I'd go watch Alias streamed (if it was a good 300k stream) with commercials rather than sifting around and waiting in queues on IRC or spending days trying to get it on gnutalla. And if we are worried about modem users, they can't download pirated TV anyway, files are too large.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Will they ever understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey! if the lastest girls gone wild was available id sure as hell spend a week downloading it via my 56k!

    2. Re:Will they ever understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ONE problem with the tv companies is that they replay the same commercials over and over again. To me the first time I see it is enough. (unless its funny as hell)
      Also... by me seeing it 10 times in a half hour does it make me want the product even more... not really. infact I want to see LESS of the product.

    3. Re:Will they ever understand? by zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Attention MPAA.

      Usenet does not exist.
      Nothing more to see here.
      Move along.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:Will they ever understand? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be that hard for binary attachments to be banned from Usenet. They already are (thank goodness!) at the newsgroups I frequent regularly.

      Check out the ratio of binary to non-binary bandwidth usage. A picture is definitely NOT worth a thousand words on Usenet. (your results may vary, depending on newsgroup and your topic of interest)

  22. What a Load of BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC is not charged with enforcing copyright control. In fact, short of obscene/indecent material, the FCC doesn't care in the least about the content of transmissions over TV or radio.

  23. Public my interest! by XenoWolf · · Score: 1

    In what twisted bassackward world does *any* of the uses for a broadcast flag serve the public interest?

    --
    XenoWolf The Original - Since 1993
    1. Re:Public my interest! by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      In what twisted bassackward world does *any* of the uses for a broadcast flag serve the public interest?
      Oh, they're ready for that. Read the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. If we don't give Hollywood what it demands, then they won't release digital content. That makes digital TV sort of a dead issue. And it keeps movies off the Internet, so no one will spend for broadband. A lot of phone and cable companies will be stuck with a lot of unused capacity. Then plagues will run the land and the sky will fall open and the earth be swalloed in darkness. Woe!

      That argument is of course BS -- it's Hollywood saying, "Give me a broadcast flag or I'll just walk away from the billions that digital broadcast is gonna make me" -- but that doesn't matter. They just need to have an answer, not a good one.

    2. Re:Public my interest! by schatten · · Score: 1

      The public supplies the money to the movie industry, and turns around and gives that money to the gov't or other individuals (lobbyists) to make things happen. In no way is it a public interest, but only a pocketbook interest.

      Its at least a semi-fair move to the NON-Anti-DeCSS following. But personally... I don't buy it.

    3. Re:Public my interest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      1) who wants digital tv anyway? (digital tv is in the tv manufacturers' interest. the public couldn't give a hoot. (hence the need for it to be mandated))

      2)who wants to watch movis over the internet? Lets get serious. Even the ultra-high-quality streams are crap when compared to the output of a $50 vcr. It is a novelty and all, but the quality isn't there, so there will be no mass market.

      3) broadband is in a world of hurt anyway. All the killer apps for it tend to (suprise suprise) suck up a lot of bandwidth. The current business model won't support massive numbers of power broadband users, and the market won't bear $150 -$500/month for access. This leaves broadband companies limiting the access of their users. $50/month to check my email and read slashdot is a waste. (now where did I put that modem?)

  24. Kill Senator Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do we draw the line on this one? This guy seems to be the biggest threat to our Freedoms right now, which says a lot given our current situation. If Hollywood doesn't like the way thier products are handled, they are free to make hamburgers. Instead, these guys are paying Mr Hollings to protect thier business model through legislation! Well, *screw* that! Preferential treatment to a corporation (or group of corporations) over the Citizens of this country is clearly abuse of governmental powers. Officials are elected by the People, to serve the People.
    How can this be stopped?

    PS: Don't actually *kill* senator Hollings...

    1. Re:Kill Senator Hollings by Nonillion · · Score: 0

      I remember back in the 80s when this poor excuse of a senator helped raise a big fuss over "porn rock". Artists like Frank Zappa were raked over the coals at hearings for the lyrics in their music and wanted "WARNING" stickers placed on questionable albums.

      "The Mothers of Prevention". A wonderful addition to any Zappa fans collection...

      --
      "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    2. Re:Kill Senator Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS: Don't actually *kill* senator Hollings...

      Oh, man, I already had my rifle put together, then you tell me you were kidding.

  25. MPAA RIAA general tripe by silas_moeckel · · Score: 0

    OK what part of the broadcast industry gets to send a signal into my house that may or may not have adverse affects to me do people dont understand. It's invaded my property bring back the old school pre 80's it comes into your yard you can do whatever you want with it except rebroadcast it. I want to be able to record edit and generaly mess with broadcast TV my toaster should be able to display CNN on it's side while toasting my bagle while skipping commercials (saying you must watch them is like saying you must read every banner ad and billboard we going to get arrested for not reading our spam?) Guess what if your a company using advertising to pay for your product then either deal with it design a better way (product ad placement in TV may be effective) I'm going to skip the commercials when I feel like it. Streaming video on demand with targeted advertisign may be years down the road (I made one of those anybody remember Microcast?) but people dont want all that hardware yet. DVR's are pretty close to that now I'm ammazed that nobody hasent made the "free" DVR that inserts it's own commercials in that it downloads at 4am from some obscure channel. Advertizing is worth more the less that there is of it less ad space means higher price per ad and happier consumers the networks dont get it reduce the ad count and jack the prices and they will pay.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
    1. Re:MPAA RIAA general tripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketroid speak follows:
      Prices for services are based upon optimal profits (equilibrium price between supply and demand), the current advertising model is based upon this. Somehow, somewhere, someone figured out the current scheme maximizes their revenue. When it begins to work less efficiently, you can bet they will change it. Or they'll die.

  26. With Real being open-source... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    Now that Real is open-source, wanna bet that the MPAA will "embrace and extend" it with it's own anti-piracy scheme???

  27. no more TV for me.... by night_flyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    thats it, Im through, there is nothing worth watching anyway, so good-bye boob-tube, we had some good times in the past, twilight zone, Barney Miller, MASH, I love Lucy, Hogans Heros, Bugs Bunny and Road Runner, but today it is nothing but drivel like "When batchlorettes in Alaska go bad 3" Its not worth it anymore, and this just seals the deal.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:no more TV for me.... by lamp77 · · Score: 1

      I have to say,

      I'm a tech savy fellow, non-luddite, watch all the movies I can. I let my cable run out in jan, and procrastinated (sp?) getting it turned back on, 6 months later, I still can't be bothered. I get 3 channels, and the quality of programming is no worse then when i had 50.

      Although, I do miss Iron Chef.

      L.

    2. Re:no more TV for me.... by Maran · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't worry, there's plenty of other things to do besides watch TV. You can...

      Watch a movie at your local cinema. Oh no, sorry, we hate the MPAA, don't we.

      Watch DVDs. Erk, same problem.

      Listen to music. Nope, that's the RIAA. Not doing very well, are we?

      Use P2P software constantly. Isn't that supposed to be terrorism?

      Write open-source software. Sigh. No, because open-source is terrorism too.

      Send e-mails and read the internet. Unless you want to be monitored constantly.

      Play games on your PC. Unless we don't like the EULA. Or it's by Blizzard.

      Read a book. Do we hate publishers at the moment? No? Whee! We've found a means of entertainment!

      Boredom - the fate awaiting all who believe in freedom ^_^

      Maran

    3. Re:no more TV for me.... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Call me weird, but I've watched a couple episodes of "King of Queens" lately and it's actually half-decent. But the ratio of watchable shows to mindless drivel has dropped precipitously recently. Not too long ago, it was a Sunday night ritual for us to watch The Simpsons, King of the Hill, Futurama, and X-Files. At least we still have The Simpsons.

      It does seem like the only new shows are mindless reality TV and extreme game shows. I guess the networks didn't want to pay script writers any more.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    4. Re:no more TV for me.... by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

      See? This is the problem! You've gotten to watch those shows! I'm too young too have seen most of them. I've caught them occasionally, and they're wonderful! I want to watch all of MASH! Hogan's Heroes is hilarious! I Love Lucy is classic! I've seen maybe 10 episodes each of Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents! It's infuriating.

      Even today, there are a few good shows that stand out. I want to watch them too. The Simpsons is still a good show, and West Wing is amazing. My family used to [college got in the way] sit down every Wednesday to watch West Wing together. Sometimes we couldn't watch it, as we had a play to go to (yes! REAL theatre!). If we couldn't record it, there's not exactly a way to see it, is there? Except wait until it comes on in re-reruns. And if you miss it then? Too. Fucking. Bad.

      I do have a question though. My family doesn't have one, but what are the implications for TiVO users? Are they just going to be told, "Well. You're screwed." or what? Any returns or refunds? I mean, this would be like buying a CD-RW drive and then being told it can't be used to burn CDs, only to read them. It negates a major purpose of a device. We use the DVD player if we rent movies. We only use the VCR to play back things we've recorded on it anymore. No record = no playback = no purpose. Damn them all.

      This is just as bad as the pop-up ads in TV shows article on /. a few weeks ago.

      I'm disgusted. Later all.

    5. Re:no more TV for me.... by ewieling · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't have a TiVo.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    6. Re:no more TV for me.... by grahamm · · Score: 1

      The way to see episodes of the West Wing if you miss them on TV is to buy the DVDs. I missed the first series but now have it on DVD.

    7. Re:no more TV for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's a solution to your problem: watch canadian TV. here in canada we have a channel called prime which shows (as of this day) MASH, Hogans Heroes and a ton of others and every year new shows appear

    8. Re:no more TV for me.... by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Rather than just listening to music, what about playing music? Or listen to music by attending concerts (of non RIAA performers/composers)

    9. Re:no more TV for me.... by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

      There are no copies of West Wing available in the US, according to Amazon.com. I live in the USA.

      I just researched, and you can't get the West Wing on DVD in the US. Isn't it sad that one if the most popular TV shows about American politics isn't available to buy, except in the UK? Not even in America?

      Basically, I could buy a region free DVD player and import it, but that's not exactly the economical way to do it. *sigh* They'd make a small killing by putting out season one here.

    10. Re:no more TV for me.... by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Oh...you meant watch the rerun channels. I was scared you meant watch those god awful shows on the CBC!

    11. Re:no more TV for me.... by parking_god · · Score: 1

      They'd make a small killing by putting out season one [of The West Wing] here.

      Maybe that's why they haven't done it yet--they're waiting until they can make a large killing!
      --pg

      --
      Brandishing Dangerous Logic
    12. Re:no more TV for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its sad that the RIAA/MPAA control most of our entertainment options. Why does everything audio and visual have to be under their control?

    13. Re:no more TV for me.... by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      You're right, I don't have a TiVo. I have a similar device, known as a VCR, which records television programming without being plugged into a phone line, downloading my viewing habits to a third party, and charging a monthly fee. That doesn't change the fact that there's precious little on TV worth watching, let alone going to the trouble of setting a timer to record.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    14. Re:no more TV for me.... by InigoMontoya(tm) · · Score: 1
      Quiet, you! Don't give the media corporations any ideas! Next thing you know they'll be banning the public performance of any non-RIAA music (and try to take over ASCAP in the process.)

      InigoMontoya(tm)

      --
      This signature is self-referential.
    15. Re:no more TV for me.... by InigoMontoya(tm) · · Score: 1
      I just researched, and you can't get the West Wing on DVD in the US. Isn't it sad that one if the most popular TV shows about American politics isn't available to buy, except in the UK? Not even in America?

      Either that, or it's schrewd politicking on the part of the Bush administration. They don't want you to see what an effective, humane, and FAIRLY-ELECTED president looks like. Might give us ideas. And we all know that ideas not approved by the Bush administration are really terrorism.

      InigoMontoya(tm)

      --
      This signature is self-referential.
    16. Re:no more TV for me.... by The_Shadows · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I wouldn't know whether to mod that as insightful or funny. :)

    17. Re:no more TV for me.... by loraksus · · Score: 2

      umm. . . fuck, lay, go to bed with etc?

      ya, ya mod me to shit, whatever
      Waiting for the lameness filter etc etc

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    18. Re:no more TV for me.... by jafac · · Score: 2

      I do have a question though. My family doesn't have one, but what are the implications for TiVO users? Are they just going to be told, "Well. You're screwed." or what? Any returns or refunds? I mean, this would be like buying a CD-RW drive and then being told it can't be used to burn CDs, only to read them.

      It's like buying a gun and being told it can't be used to shoot people. Only to look "cool" in a display case.

      It's like buying a car, and being told, since you might run someone over with it, you can't drive it anywhere.

      I don't think the entertainment industry gives a rat's ass what old hardware becomes obsolete and what new hardware you voluntarily to buy to consume their product their way.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    19. Re:no more TV for me.... by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

      As a friend of mine asks, what mad comic genius conceived that WWII P.O.W. camp would be a hilarious location for a sitcom?

    20. Re:no more TV for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and what drugs do you have to take to come up with a sitcom based around the idea of a nun that can fly?

      Those were the good old days of TV - when TV executives clearly took a lot of psychedelics. I think the last instance of this was probably "Cop Rock".

    21. Re:no more TV for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to "TVLand", I have all 168 episodes of Hogan's Heroes on VHS.

    22. Re:no more TV for me.... by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      No suprise there. They always seem late releasing shows here in the US. Remember here the syndication/cable rights are worth a lot, often more than any resale on DVD. It does get here eventually though... I remember being so frustrated a year ago when I saw Buffy TV on dvd in europe, but now it finally came out here. The economics are different, so we just have to be more patient.

    23. Re:no more TV for me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, the book publishing business is evil, too. Ask anyone w/o a book in the top 100.

    24. Re:no more TV for me.... by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

      And this is the same principle that goes behind Palladium. DRM in software and hardware. Actually, more appropriately, it's what goes into the SSSCA. Remember this bill? The one that makes DRM a requirement and open-source effectively a crime? This bill, if ever passed (Tyr forbid), would require new hardware for computer users within, IIRC, 6 months. And no building your own system. Ever.

      I agree that the industries don't care. But that doesn't make it right.

      To counter your examples, the 2nd can not be done and the first isn't buying a gun and being told not to shoot people. It's buying a gun and being told not to USE it. For any reason. That would certainly piss off the 5-10 hunters I know and the several million across the US. Just as this would piss off the many millions of people across the country who like to record things.

  28. I 've got an idea! by af_robot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they'll enforce broadcast flag under FCC rules, then it will create a good opportunity to ads-free recording: you just have to reverse firmware in your recorder to store programs WITH broadcast flag...So all ads will be skipped
    hehe :)

    1. Re:I 've got an idea! by jmorse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, you can do that now with the V-Chip signal. That signal is broadcast during shows so that Tipper Gore types can set their TV up to block their kids from seeing evil things like TV news and keep them focused on the healthy stuff like Marilyn Manson and Barney. The signal is not broadcast during ads.

      You can try this at home if you have a V-Chip TV. Just set it to some prudish PMRC-level setting and try to watch something. The program will be blacked out but the ads will show just fine.

      --

      "You done taken a wrong turn."
      -Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
  29. As long as the video signal is transmitted from the TV to my eyes in unencrypted form, I can record it with a video camera. What's the big deal here? heh.

    --
    example.org - powered by Linux!
    1. Re:bah by withak53 · · Score: 1

      They want all new video cameras to have technology that can recognize watermarks and not record anything with a watermark.

  30. BOYCOTT ADVERTISED PRODUCTS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consumers who oppose this attempt to squelch a "fair use" right should organize and make it clear to product manufacturers that they will boycott products advertised on shows that have this "broadcast flag". Manufacturers will then apply the pressure to "content creators" to not use this flag.

    Just an idea.

    1. Re:BOYCOTT ADVERTISED PRODUCTS!!! by lurch83 · · Score: 1

      If the Slashdot community was serious about taking action then this is a very good way to go. Someone should setup a Slashdot like site. Provide the community with the relevant facts as to what shows are flagged, what products were advertised and who is the company (with contact info) that needs to here our displeasure. We have the technology to allow us to effectively organize, we have the passion need to fight, and we have the financial influence to get the attention of the advertisers. We just need to ACT! Or we can sit around bitching about it until it is to late.

  31. I don't remember signing any contract by realmolo · · Score: 0

    If I don't want to watch ads, I'm free to skip them. Is there ANY kind of law that says otherwise? Looks like there soon will be if the MPAA has their way. If no one wants to see the networks' ads, it's up to the NETWORKS to find a new source of income. Not that they will. Personally, I could give a shit. There's almost nothing on TV worth watching, and there hasn't been for, well, forever.

    1. Re:I don't remember signing any contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "By continuing, and viewing the following program, you hereby agree to all terms and conditions of our click-on license. You agree that you will watch and listen to all advertisements contained around and within the program. Failure to do so shall constitute a violation of the agreement as well as all applicable laws and statutes. For the full terms of this license agreement, please turn to Channel 1, the real big bother channel, for the one-hour program titled "Your Obligations to the Television and Motion Picture Industry, with your host Jack Valenti".

      You further agree that all laws and statutes shall be interpreted, and proceedings adjudicated in the courts of the land of Disneyland. If you do not wish to continue, turn your television off NOW. "

  32. Hollings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sen. Hollings: how can this person keep getting reelected? He never works for his constituents, he's constantly has his pockets, I mean his ear turned toward the Entertainment industry.

  33. Congress not in session by zoombat · · Score: 2
    According to the Cnet article, they are going straight to the FCC because congress is log-jammed and about to adjurn for break. The senate is off from 8/5 - 9/2 and the house from 7/29 - 9/3. Then they both are planning to adjurn for the year on 10/4.

    They just know they introduced their bills way too late and don't want to wait.

    1. Re:Congress not in session by bbc22405 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and golly gosh when Congress returns, this highly unneeded piece of legislation will be trapped behind a logjam of other highly unimportant legislation (e.g. inevitable stupidities to restore the droning, mangled recitation by unwitting schoolchildren of the Pledge of Under God Allegiance), as well as another logjam of highly important yet likely doomed legislation (e.g. McCain's plan to count stock options as corporate expenses).

      "Hurry, it's an emergency!" Riiiiiight. Suuuure. There are already laws that can be used to prosecute people who try to sell copies of what you broadcast, and other violations of Fair Use. (As if anyone could SELL the dreck that is on broadcast television.)

    2. Re:Congress not in session by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...they are going straight to the FCC because congress is log-jammed and about to adjurn for break...
      A brilliant solution, and one which should be more widely applied. Get the SEC to prosecute corrupt corporate financiers under the racketeering and organised crime regulations, instead of organising hearings that delay departure for vacations. Ask the DoD and the Supremes to check legislation for constitutionality before enacting it so that you don't have to come back several years later to correct it, possibly causing you to miss your vacations. Ask the Army to imprison US citizens without trial when they're accused of involvement with foreign terrorism instead of spending time considering carefully what effect 9/11 should have on the balance between public safety and individual rights. Oh, wait, that's already been done, and the poor boys are still going to be late for their vacations?

      Jeez, if these paid legislators can't organise themselves to enact legislation efficiently, maybe the country could do better without them.

    3. Re:Congress not in session by theRiallatar · · Score: 1

      I wish I was in a position to make my own work schedule. Nothing like having more than three months paid vacation every year.

  34. Hmm by LordYUK · · Score: 1

    I see you've seen an advance screening of {Insert bad summer movie here} too, eh?

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
  35. The truth of the matter by Argyle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

    -Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

    --
    nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
    1. Re:The truth of the matter by egghat · · Score: 1

      Wonderful quote!

      --
      -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
    2. Re:The truth of the matter by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the truth...... It should not be up to the government to protect failing business models. It should be up to corporations to adapt or die.

      Major corporations seem to be unable to innovate. Because of this they have to stop others from innovating. One way to do this is to pay off government officials to legislate against such innovation.

      It is as simple as that.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    3. Re:The truth of the matter by spagma · · Score: 1

      Damned good quote!

      --
      If it won't boot, Fsck it!
    4. Re:The truth of the matter by Badgerman · · Score: 2

      The idea companies and individuals have an absolute right to make a profit is not just the root of this behavior - its one of the roots of the scandals now plauging American businesses.

      It's not very far from "I can cook the books to make money" to "I can manipulate the government to enforce my ability to make money" is it?

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    5. Re:The truth of the matter by clohman · · Score: 1

      Heinlein is morally right with this quote, but has recently become factually incorrect: NAFTA's Chapter 11 guarantees current corporate revenue streams.

  36. Reverse.. by saqmaster · · Score: 1

    ..Engineering..

    I'm not actually aware of any 'protection' system, on CD, Video or DVD that is un-hackable.

    Why do they continue to bang their heads against the wall? Surely by now they should have realized that paying some mathametics guru to sit in a room for 12 months to devise some wonderful algorithm is _not_ the answer. Narrow minded ideas, it's getting them nowhere and it's sure as hell costing them (and us) a lot of money.

    --
    "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..."
    1. Re:Reverse.. by Spleener12 · · Score: 1

      But remember, that violates everyone's favorite unconstitutional piece of paper, the DMCA. Of course, you could reverse-engineer it for the sole purpose of challenging the law and take it to the supreme court to get it overturned. Or something like that, I dunno. I don't know too much about all that "law" crap.

  37. Fine. by NetRanger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If I cannot control the equipment I bought with my own money, then I expect the content providers to pay for everyone's televisions. I think that's damn fair.

    Otherwise they need to stay the hell out of my equipment, because it belongs to me.

    --
    -- We live in a world where lemonade is artificial and soap has real lemon.
    1. Re:Fine. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Otherwise they need to stay the hell out of my equipment, because it belongs to me.


      I would recommend you look into getting a Faraday Cage for 'your equipment' to be housed in.

    2. Re:Fine. by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 2


      If I cannot control the equipment I bought with my own money, then I expect the content providers to pay for everyone's televisions. I think that's damn fair.

      They just might go for that. They'll make sure every house has a TV with no off switch. Or channel selector. Or volume control. They'll take care of all that for us.

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
    3. Re:Fine. by EvilStein · · Score: 2

      "An off switch! They'll get *years* for that.."

      -Max Headroom episode.. mid 80's..

  38. Reverse Engineering by akula1 · · Score: 1

    There have been a number of posts suggesting that no matter what the MPAA does in the form of a broadcast flag some clever cracker will break it. While this is almost certainly true the MPAA will still achieve two objectives;

    1. No matter what you say, I don't believe that your casual home user is going to break out a soldering iron (or metaphorical soldering iron in the case of a software hack) to defeat this protection. So the MPAA will eliminate a lot of copying.
    2. Since this flag would be a form of copyright protection it would, as I understand it, fall under the DMCA. Ask Dimitri about how much fun it is to present valid security flaws in a copyright protection scheme.

    So while a, fairly small I believe, group of techies will defeat this encryption, the club of the DMCA would probably greatly cut down on the sale of a box (ala the old school "free" pay per view boxes) to do it for your casual user.

    1. Re:Reverse Engineering by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      I agree with much of what you say, but there are also 2 other results that I believe will happen.

      I don't believe that your casual home user is going to break out a soldering iron (or metaphorical soldering iron in the case of a software hack) to defeat this protection. True. The casual user will not be able to do this. One guy in a thousand will (like almost everyone who reads /.) Said tech-savvy person will defeat the protection, then release the content on P2P networks. Hell, most likely the content will wind up on P2P before the protection even gets added. Star Wars ep. 2 anyone? We had it before the theatres did.

      Ask Dimitri about how much fun it is to present valid security flaws in a copyright protection scheme. You bet your ass. They will crucify the guy who breaks it. Even if he lives in South Backwanistan. But...even though they will nail the guy through whatever legal, pseudo-legal, or illegal means they can...we will still have it. Kinda like how they nailed the kid who decrypted DVD, but it did the industry no good because by the time they were aware...DeCSS was mirrored everywhere.

      The rule these guys have to learn is that Copy Protection Does Not Work. And the snottier and more abusive they are about pushing it down the public's throat, the more 16 year old kids are going to enjoy thumbing their nose at them by breaking the next "unbreakable" scheme. It'll happen - you watch. That sound you hear in the distance is Jack Valenti tearing out his hairplugs.

      Weaselmancer

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    2. Re:Reverse Engineering by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > The rule these guys have to learn is that Copy Protection Does Not Work. And the snottier and more abusive they are about pushing it down the public's throat, the more 16 year old kids are going to enjoy thumbing their nose at them by breaking the next "unbreakable" scheme. It'll happen - you watch. That sound you hear in the distance is Jack Valenti tearing out his hairplugs.

      And that other sound you hear is your own hard drive, furiously writing a (non-copy-crippled) MPEG of it :-)

    3. Re:Reverse Engineering by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      The casual user will not be able to do this. One guy in a thousand will (like almost everyone who reads /.)

      Michael Eisner:

      "DVD has been hacked, I believe. But, but, 10%, 5% of the people hack it, they have it on their T-shirts, they have the code, you know, they have to be a genius to figure out how do it. NORMAL people just put it in and say 'I'll pay the money.'"

      Eisner also decried Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn" campaign at Hollings' hearing, but said he's "addicted" to his iPod at the Disney earnings conference call a month later.

      Disney says slashdotters are abnormal.

  39. Bad precedent? by why-is-it · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our legislative system is bogged down with bureaucracy and partisan game-playing. The only decisions that get made with any efficiency are those dealing with terrorists or legislators' pay raises. So although I find their goals nauseating, the senators' approach of going straight to the source and sidestepping the whole legislative tar pit is admirable and invigorating.

    I wonder if this isn't a bad precedent. The members of the legislature are accountable to the electorate (in theory at least.) If the proposed regulation becomes a law, the voters can hold the senator from Disney accountable for his actions. Referring the matter to the FCC will no doubt be a faster means to the same end, but it is an end-run around the democratic process.

    After all, how many people voted for any of the members of the FCC?

    If anything, this move strikes me as rather anti-democratic. Certainly, bypassing the individuals who are publicly accountable from the process entirely would speed things up. I am sure that the lobbiests and appointees could get rules and regulations passed much faster. I am not sure that it would be to Joe Sixpack's advantage though...

    However, I am sure that the MPAA and RIAA would find the results very satisfactory. Just think how much they could save if they did not have to buy politicians anymore!

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:Bad precedent? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      After all, how many people voted for any of the members of the FCC?

      Everyone who didn't vote Libertarian? ;)

  40. Why?.. by Bitmap · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    would any one care about TV. It's just a waste of time, the only thing it's good for is the news.. and cartoons. And you get not as biased,less sensored, and more up to date News information from the Net. and they arn't going to flag cartoons.

  41. I don't see the justificationg by Burning*Cent · · Score: 2, Informative

    47 USC 336(b)(4), Hollings justification for the broadcast flag:
    The [FCC] shall ... adopt such technical and other requirements as may be necessary or appropriate to assure the quality of the signal used to provide advanced television services, and may adopt regulations that stipulate the minimum number of hours per day that such signal must be transmitted....

    I don't think any judge would believe that this provides for mandating standards to avoid copyright infringement. A change of law would be necessary if Hollings does want such a mandate.

  42. With any luck by unformed · · Score: 2

    They'd both complain about the other getting paid more, and refuse to help until they had a sole "contract". Weehee, on the road to chaos!

  43. camera use at concerts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did prohibiting audience camera use at concerts make concerts less likely to sell?

    The right to record an event or a broadcast is not guaranteed. Hiring security guards prevented (or at least limits it) the first; hardware copy prevention will probably accomplish the same thing.

    Recording a show shown not be a crime, but the broadccaster (producer) show be able to prevent those violating the broadcaster rules from viewing the show.

  44. Raster loves you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just remember when every else fails Rasterman loves you.....

  45. GOOD by angelo · · Score: 1

    Do it. Then I'll not only not record television, I'll stop watching it entirely. PVR changed my life. If you ask me to change back It's going to hurt YOU.

  46. Hollings and the Whores of Congress by cliff+judge · · Score: 1

    If the Carriage and Buggy industry had been able to get the senatorial ancestors of Fritz (the Shitz) Hollings in their back pockets in the 19th century, there'd be as much horseshit on our roads today as there is bullshit in the Halls of Congress. What's amazing is just how brazenly unprincipled these sell-outs are, and even more amazing is how they manage to get elected and, worse, re-elected. The frightening thing about all of this is that the whores are going to get their way, the industry fat-asses will get their laws, and the rest of us poor saps will either have to shut the hell up or be vilified as pro-terrorist crypto-traitors. I'd head to the hills -- but the fat cats and politicians have probably already bought and branded them.

  47. 10 yers later........ by tanveer1979 · · Score: 2
    The US senate has passed a ruling in which every infant born must be implanted with no memory flag which will not let it remember any digital content.

    This ruling was passed after MPAA realized that there is a signal flow between eye and brain and storing that DATA in memory is a copyright violation.

    Sounds funny eh? It isnt. It stopped being funny long time ago.

    We consumers are theives, and pirates who want to destroy the economy.

    Thats what the fine print says. Period
    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  48. Bring on dictatorship??? by sterno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That "tar pit" you speak of is also known as the democratic process and it exists for VERY good reasons. It exists so that people who might possibly disagree have a chance to express their disagreement. Legislation by executive fiat is a very dangerous road to travel.

    Historically democracies are destroyed, not by external forces, but rather buy a growing internal dislike of the corrpution and tar pit characteristics of the process. People feel like democracy doesn't ever get anything done, and while it is true to some extent, it is also democracy's methodical checks and balances that protects us from fascism. Fascism gets things done, it just sucks to be you when the boot heel comes down on you and those you love.

    This sort of move seems indicative of what I fear may be dangerous times for our democracy. All sides of the political spectrum are convinced that the system is fundamentally broken. Government, unable to trust it's own ability to get things done has been setting up these little extra-democractic bureaucracies to run the show without public input, in the hopes of getting something accomplished. ICANN is a perfect example of this dangerous trend, a bureaucracy outside of democratic controls, created by a government convinced of its own ineptness to manage things correctly.

    Maybe the distance between manipulating the FCC to get copy controls into broadcasts and electing Hitler is wide, but it seems that the same motivations drive either. We're fed up with the system, and we want somebody to fix it and increasingly we seem willing to give up our democracy just to get something done. It's that kind of desperation that destroys democracy.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by dschuetz · · Score: 2

      Government, unable to trust it's own ability to get things done has been setting up these little extra-democractic bureaucracies to run the show without public input, in the hopes of getting something accomplished.

      Hear, hear!

      Excellent analysis. I hadn't quite thought of it this way, but this does seem to be how it's been going, doesn't it?

      So, how do we fix things? It seems to me that these conversations always come back to needing a good, honest, centrist political party that actually *makes sense* and can win on those terms, without having to kowtow to the $$. If that party develops, and makes inroads, then maybe they can stop the madness. But you need a certain critical mass of people / opinions / visibility before a party could start winning elections, and then you need another critical mass inside congress to start actually making a difference.

      If we could do that, then maybe we'd be able to start trusing ourselves again, and can start wittling back the extra-democratic controls that you spoke of.

      About the only silver lining is that, eventually, any really crappy laws will get repealed. The problem is that we might have an entire generation or two (or many more, as was the case with slavery and civil rights reforms) before things "get better". And what will that do to our country as an economic power? *that* is my real fear. That as we try to sort out these stupid special interests, we end up hindering our own economy so much that the European Union destroys us in the long run (or the Far East, or, God help us if they ever unify and start governing effectively, Africa). There're plenty of SMART people out there (most of the planet). Just because we're kicking their butts today doesn't mean that, in a hundred years, the tables won't be turned.

    2. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by csteinle · · Score: 1

      The EU destroys you in the long run? Eh? We're not your enemy you know. And the EU itself is run as just one big quasi-governmental undemocratic beurocratic "quango" anyway.

      (Me, I'm a pro-European Scot who's quite happy being British, too. But the way the EU is run makes me think we should shake it up like an Etch-a-Sketch and start again.)

    3. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by medcalf · · Score: 2
      So, how do we fix things? It seems to me that these conversations always come back to needing a good, honest, centrist political party that actually *makes sense* and can win on those terms, without having to kowtow to the $$. If that party develops, and makes inroads, then maybe they can stop the madness. But you need a certain critical mass of people / opinions / visibility before a party could start winning elections, and then you need another critical mass inside congress to start actually making a difference.

      Actually, you are making a classic mistake: assuming that people will suddenly wake up and act in the greater good, against their own predjudices and in some cases even self-interest. There is a solution though: repeal amendments 16 and 17 and modify the various amendments which have expanded the right of suffrage.

      The 16th amendment allows the Federal government to collect income tax, and thus to extend the Federal Legislative power without monetary restraint.

      The 17th amendment compels States to choose their Senators by popular election. This means that both the Senators and Representatives are chosen directly. This weakens (in fact, basically eliminates) the power of States to defend themselves by influencing lawmaking that would harm them. In effect, it has expanded Legislative power by removing the restraint of accountability to the States.

      The various amendments which have expanded the right of suffrage have been well-intentioned, and in some cases necessary. For example, disallowing a person from voting on account or race or gender is clearly wrong. However, the right of suffrage has been vastly overexpanded. People tend to vote in their own self-interest, so you really only want people to vote when their self-interest is in the long-term interest of the nation, and of its Republican form of government, as a whole. The original Constitution allowed people to vote if they owned significant real property or were otherwise qualified to vote for the most numerous branch of their State Legislature. This tended to meet the test I set out above, because these people tended to be independent and "unbuyable", and their interests were served by the stability and peace of the Republic and the growth of the economy overall. The original definition, however, was too narrow, and excluded people who had shown their dedication to the preservation of the Republic through other means. Personally, I'd say that any person who has attained the age of maturity (there should only be one - for military service, voting, drinking, driving or flying without restrictions, etc) and has met one of the following tests should be allowed to vote:

      • owns significant non-mobile real property either directly or in joint custody (as a result of marriage, for example)
      • owns at least 25% of a business generating revenues of at least some fixed amount, which is not purely a service business (so that it could not be easily relocated outside the US if things got bad)
      • has retired from service in the military, paramilitaries and first responders (reserves, Coast Guards, police and law enforcement agencies, firefighters and paramedics, etc)
      • has served in combat, combat support or combat service support in an active theater of war, or has lost a spouse or child to such service
      • an argument could be made for parents of dependent children

      The basic idea is that you want voters to be interested in the long-term peace and prosperity of the nation. People who can relocate without significant loss, and who have not already otherwise invested heavily in the peace and stability of the country, have no incentive to vote wisely. They will choose that person who promises them the most goodies over the person who promises expanding wealth and maintaining peace while not impinging on the rights of individuals.

      The beauty of this method of changing the system, by the way, is that changes to the Constitution can be made without the consent of Congress, by the procedures laid out in Article 5 of the Constitution.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    4. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by invenustus · · Score: 2
      I agree with you 100% on the 16th and 17th Amendments - they've got to go. However, I can't possibly imagine 3/4 of the states going for that now.... or even 1/4. Everyone is somehow dependent on the federal government for one thing or another, and it's hard to give up the one program that benefits you directly to get rid of the million other programs that hurt you indirectly. (Milton and Rose Friedman's The Tyranny of the Status Quo deals with this paradox in depth.) Also, I take issue with this:
      Personally, I'd say that any person who has attained the age of maturity (there should only be one - for military service, voting, drinking, driving or flying without restrictions, etc)
      If you're concerned with the rights of individual states, why would you want one age of consent for everything in the country? Aren't some of those things in the realm of state policy and others not?
      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
    5. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by modipodio · · Score: 1

      You are completly right. Democracy is all about balance , right now the democracies of the world are pivited away from public interests and geared more towards corporate interests.

      Having Money get's things done protesting and other forms of non money based complaints to public representatives do not not seem to do all that much
      this is the big problem with democracy today.

      Fascism does get thing's done and democracy does promote mediocracy , but in terms of running a country I would rather live under a democracy any day.

      --
      __________________________________________________ "UNIX is a fascist state, Windows is a democracy.
    6. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2
      Hear, hear!

      Thank you sooooooooooo much for using that correctly. I don't believe I have ever seen that phrase used correctly on /. before your post. If I see one more inane post with the words "here, here" I think I will vomit.

      --

      Enigma

    7. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right. I think an even more fundemental problem is that the government is assuming those responsibilities in the first place. The reason it fails is because the system is being asked to do something beyond its function.

      There's a reason that private businesses aren't structured like the federal government, and it's the same reason why the government isn't structured like a business. They're different structures designed for very different purposes with different types of controls on their behaviors.

      Hybridized monstrosities like ICANN typically exhibit the worst of both systems, an opauque beauracracy without even the most minimal restraints of market dynamics or regulatory accountability that a real corporation would face.

    8. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      here-yee, here-yee!

      (here's a bucket)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    9. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      The basic idea is that you want voters to be interested in the long-term peace and prosperity of the nation.

      Yeah, you want citizens, not mere civilians. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    10. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Everyone is somehow dependent on the federal government for one thing or another, and it's hard to give up the one program...

      Reminds me of one of Harry Browne's talking points, which went something like, "Name one government program you can't live without", to which most people couldn't respond.

      Seriously, most people KNOW that our government is mostly dead weight piled upon pork upon inefficiency. Most people are Libertarian at heart, or at least with the Republican party's original platform (of small gov't, etc).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    11. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hair hair! I like bunnies too, so: Hare hare! Everyone likes bunnies.

    12. Re:Bring on dictatorship??? by invenustus · · Score: 2
      "Name one government program you can't live without", to which most people couldn't respond.
      I can name four. My dad's state university job, my mom's federally-funded education job, my state university education, and my federally-funded research job.

      Would the country be better off without these? Don't tell my parents or my bosses here, but yes. These programs probably unemploy more people than they employ. But the people they unemploy are affected gradually and indirectly, whereas if the programs were cut, I'd be affected immediately and directly.

      I'd like to think I'd support reducing the scope of government even if it meant losing my job and my parents' losing theirs, but I'm only human.
      --
      grep -ri 'should work' /usr/src/linux | wc -l
  49. Re:WHO LET THE DOGS OUT? by roadkill999 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are so immature. This is an important topic which affects each and every one of us. I'd like to see you sing "Who Let The Dogs Out" when your VCR won't let you record the video on MTV anymore.

  50. Exactly by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 1, Troll
    The ends do not justify the means. Ever.

    Correct. For instance, it would be totally immoral for a person to committ suicide (an act expressly forbidden in the Bible and illegal in most states) to prevent a terrorist act from killing thousands. We'll just have to live with the worse outcome. It would also be wrong to go back and in time to 1937 and shoot Hitler, before he gassed millions of innocent people because savings uncountable lives of children just isn't justified by taking away fewer than 10 lives of a raving lunatic.

    1. Re:Exactly by zaphod110676 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would also be wrong to go back and in time to 1937 and shoot Hitler, before he gassed millions of innocent people because savings uncountable lives of children just isn't justified by taking away fewer than 10 lives of a raving lunatic.

      The Temporal Prime Directive forbids this. That's why it would be wrong.

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    2. Re:Exactly by NumberSyx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Correct. For instance, it would be totally immoral for a person to committ suicide (an act expressly forbidden in the Bible and illegal in most states) to prevent a terrorist act from killing thousands. We'll just have to live with the worse outcome.

      This is not suicide, it is heroic sacrifice of ones life to save others, there is a difference.

      It would also be wrong to go back and in time to 1937 and shoot Hitler, before he gassed millions of innocent people because savings uncountable lives of children just isn't justified by taking away fewer than 10 lives of a raving lunatic.

      Time travel "What If" type scenarios are silly. You have two problems, first, at that time in his life, he had not commited any of those crimes and you would be in effect killing an innocent man. Second, there is no way to insure by removing him things wouldn't be worse, another, dictator could rise up, put Germany on the H-Bomb fast track and use it first against Russia, winning the war. Perhaps because some economic plan was never implemented, Germany and possibly Europe could have remained in a depression for much longer, causing millions to die of starvation and or disease. Or WWII may happened anyway, changing virtually nothing.

      There are millions of possibilties and not one of them means anything.

      --

      "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
      -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

    3. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not suicide, it is heroic sacrifice of ones life to save others, there is a difference.

      Interestingly, this is the same argument used by islamic extremists to justify the actions of suicide bombers. Verbatim.

    4. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is interesting, especially considering how most Americans would celebrate the former while vilifyiing the latter.

    5. Re:Exactly by the_brat_king · · Score: 1

      Actually, in most states, suicide is perfectly LEGAL! It's attempting suicide that is illegal.

    6. Re:Exactly by matrix29 · · Score: 2

      Time travel "What If" type scenarios are silly. You have two problems, first, at that time in his life, he had not commited any of those crimes and you would be in effect killing an innocent man. Second, there is no way to insure by removing him things wouldn't be worse, another, dictator could rise up, put Germany on the H-Bomb fast track and use it first against Russia, winning the war. Perhaps because some economic plan was never implemented, Germany and possibly Europe could have remained in a depression for much longer, causing millions to die of starvation and or disease. Or WWII may happened anyway, changing virtually nothing.

      Okay, what if we go back in time, gouge out both of Hitler's eyes, ruin his voice, crush both of his hands, chop off both of his legs and then tattoo "I love sucking off dogs" (in German) on every square inch of his flesh, oh and chop off his balls so he could never reproduce?

      He'd still be ALIVE. Just not the poster child of Nazi-cult. Works for me.

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    7. Re:Exactly by Adrodieu · · Score: 1

      I always find it interesting that when one switches and looks at the situation from the other POV, they often find how hypocritical they are and how their actions are not as 'morally right' as they had thought.

      --
      "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it" - Voltaire
  51. Tried and true solution by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The absolute best solution to this kind of thing has been around for decades, works perfectly, doesn't cost a cent, and causes your day to suddenly seem a couple of hours longer:

    Sell your TV.

    Try, just try, life without a television. You'd be amazed how little you miss it, and how much other stuff you'll do instead. If you have a significant other, you'll have time to actually spend with that person, instead of sitting on your arse and not looking at each other. If you don't have an SO, you'll drastically increase your chances of finding one. If you're not looking, you'll at least have time to pursue other hobbies, like coding, or cooking, or bungee jumping, or whatever the heck else trips your trigger. Just try it. You may very well love it.

    We live in a capitalist society. If you don't like what the businesses are trying to do to you, then stop using their product. What the hell does a federally-mandted broadcast flag matter to you when you don't watch TV?

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Tried and true solution by roadkill999 · · Score: 0

      I agree. Did the hobbits watch TV? Hell no, and they destroyed that King of Darkness guy. Besides, who has time for TV when there is a million shared files screaming out to be downloaded.

    2. Re:Tried and true solution by acceleriter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next, get rid of your internet connection. It will have the effects you describe, ten-fold, for lots of people here :).

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    3. Re:Tried and true solution by pi+radians · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So your solution is if you enjoy something and someone comes alaong at tries to capitalize or restrict on your enjoyment, just walk away and do nothing?

      Why should anyone give up television? It's great that you're being all "holier-than-thou" about TV, but many people do enjoy it.

      If that were the case, I'm assuming you don't listen to music anymore, watch movies anymore, play video games and surf the intern--- wait a second! Obviously you feel that content control is only applicable on things you don't care for.

      This kind of action should not be ignored. Every medium that "they" restrict will just lead to more power for "them". Selling your TV doesn't solve the problem, it just gives "them" the go-ahead to do this to something else.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    4. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absolute best solution to this kind of thing has been around for decades, works perfectly, doesn't cost a cent, and causes your day to suddenly seem a couple of hours longer:
      Leave your SO.

      Try, just try, life without a SO. You'd be amazed how little you miss it, and how much other stuff you'll do instead. If you have a tv, you'll have time to actually spend looking at it, instead of sitting on your arse and looking at each other. If you don't have a tv, you'll drastically increase your chances of buying one. If you're not looking at the tv, you'll at least have time to pursue other hobbies, like coding, or cooking, or bungee jumping, or whatever the heck else trips your trigger. Just try it. You may very well love it.

      (of course you can substitute tv in the original post with anything else)

    5. Re:Tried and true solution by mosch · · Score: 2

      And the solution to removing the power from military regimes in the Middle East is to buy a bicycle. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly. The goal is to keep the things you like, not to change your life because somebody wants some boneheaded laws.

    6. Re:Tried and true solution by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not the original poster -- I was preparing to post the same advice when I found someone already had.
      My claim is that television is much more like an addiction than like something that people enjoy and appreciate. Watching television isn't living your life. At best it's setting aside your life for an hour or four every day. At worst, it's vicariously living someone else's idea of what your life should be.
      You (pi radians) think you're fighting against content control. Broadcast television television isn't uncontroled content today. The lines between "content" and "advertisement" are already blurred, and I don't just mean product placement, I mean program sponsors gaining editorial control over scripts.
      You're getting duped if you think you have the freedom to watch a show without ads. You're accepting a straw-man definition of "freedom" so you'll keep watching what they want.

      Just walk away. Wait for the withdrawl to fade, and see if you miss it or not.


      And for what it's worth, the quote generator at the bottom of the page had this to say when I viewed the parent:
      Woolsey-Swanson Rule: People would rather live with a problem they cannot solve rather than accept a solution they cannot understand.

    7. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh come on...

      There are Very VERY few programmes on the telly that are worth a damn or are entertaining to anyone but those with the lowest IQ and are easily distracted by shiny objects (dont believe me? watch MTV... they cater to the absolute stupidest segment of the population.)

      PBS used to be high-grade television... unfortunately all the good shows were stolen by Discovery with promises of being paid and then summaraily(sp?) killed.. (Yes NOVA is still on, but without carl segan it sucks...) Discovery has turned into the Cop channel with a smattering of cutsie animals.. so any real scientific or educational programming is gone.. sci-fi is now the horror channel (hey, Mass mruder movies is NOT SCI_FI you dolts!) and any of the real arts are too boring to the braindead culture they nurture with the telly's programming today. Cripes... some of the shows that are supposed to be about the smartest aske questions that 10 year olds should know, survival shows where a real survivalist or even a regular camper wouldn't even be uncomfortable and are stocked with morons and idiots...

      Tes the television is worthless, and those that like it are the exact idiots that the marketing companies love...

      so be glad, you are the exact kind of idiot that these companies love :-)) happy now?

    8. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get off it, everytime there is a story about media, there is someone on a soap box, shouting rhetoric about how life without tv is better.

      get over it,

    9. Re:Tried and true solution by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2
      Well, not always life without TV. Sometimes it's life without Internet, or life without PlayStation, or whatnot.

      It's just people who are willing to give up something and believe other people should be too.

      Sort of like those joggers who think that everyone would like jogging if they would just try it once or twice.

      The best thing is to just ignore them, and enjoy watching society move in its bizzare ways.

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    10. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are the exact kind of idiot that these companies love

      Yet you seem to know an awful lot about all the different types of programs on. You must watch alot of TV.

    11. Re:Tried and true solution by balthan · · Score: 1

      Would you have wanted to have no TV on 9/11? What about when Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon (if you were around then)? Or what about the many other significant news events of the past few decades? Sure, you can get news off the radio, or pull up some web page, but there are times when nothing beats watching a live video feed. The net can't replace TV for that yet.

    12. Re:Tried and true solution by ibis · · Score: 1

      I didn't have a TV on 9/11. We went to a friends house, had lunch and pleasant company.

      I prefer radio news. More content, less distraction.

      Oh, and I watched Neil at my grandmother's - she had a TV...

    13. Re:Tried and true solution by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      You (pi radians) think you're fighting against content control.

      No I don't. My post was saying that it is much better to try to fight such actions than to roll over and accept them (in this case, turning off the TV and walking away). If you think that they will stop at just TV, you just being ignorant.

      You're getting duped if you think you have the freedom to watch a show without ads. You're accepting a straw-man definition of "freedom" so you'll keep watching what they want.

      This has nothing to do with me wanting to record a show and watching it later. I am very much aware what kind of corporate crap they put out on TV. But for this thread, it's neither here nor there.

      And don't patronize me please. I will once again say that the only reason I posted was to say that just ignoring the problem won't stop it. Once "they" control what you can't record on TV, it'll move to other mediums (hell, it already exists on video-tapes, DVD's and CD's).

      Just walk away. Wait for the withdrawl to fade, and see if you miss it or not.

      Just so you know, I own one TV. It is connected to my DVD player, VCR and PS2. I don't get cable. I don't watch TV when I'm at home.

      Next time don't make such blatant assumtions. you'll be wrong more often than not.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    14. Re:Tried and true solution by pi+radians · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Okay, well, there are very few good musicans, so I'll stop listening to all music. There are very few good movies, so I'll stop watching any of them. There are very few good websites, so I'll stop going online. There are very few intelligent humans, so I'll just become a recluse.

      Your argument is terrible. But that doesn't mean that I'll stop reading other arguments.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    15. Re:Tried and true solution by balthan · · Score: 1

      But the point is you still watched TV. Having one in your house is just matter of convenience.

    16. Re:Tried and true solution by The+Wing+Lover · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on.

      I get paid to sit around all day and think. After that's done, I go to night school and think some more. After I get home from school, I often sit at my computer and code and think some more.

      But you know what? Sometimes I need a break. Sometimes it is useful to just kick back, relax, and watch something just because it's entertaining. I'm not pretentious enough that I have to pretend not to enjoy some mindless entertainment once in a while.

      --

      - In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!

    17. Re:Tried and true solution by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      There was a tv programme about this some time ago on UK tv. An "average" family gave up their tv for a week (or two) and the drama was filmed.

      The most interesting thing that came up, I thought, was the woman of the house saying that she felt like she had suddenly woken up; and that it had been like she'd spent years and years of her life in suspended animation, from which she had only just emerged.

      It wasn't us who had Walt Disney's head cryogenically preserved all this time; it was he who had our heads frozen. :oO

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    18. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Next time don't make such blatant assumtions. you'll be wrong more often than not.

      No he won't!

    19. Re:Tried and true solution by bughunter · · Score: 1
      Except that I found my SO on an internet matchmaking service... and she's the most amazing, wonderful, beautiful woman on the planet, inside and out. We would have never crossed paths otherwise... or if we had, we'd never have recognized one another.

      OK, sweetie, if you're reading this, yes technically, you found me. :*

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    20. Re:Tried and true solution by dswensen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Though I don't advise anyone else to sell / do without their television (in my experience, people get very defensive and personal about it very quickly, as if you're attacking a member of their family), I have been without it for a few years now, and I don't miss it a bit.

      I used to be a big-time TV junkie. I thought I couldn't live without Star Trek, Simpsons, Homicide, whatever... to the point where I would pass on social engagements to watch the shows, fly into rages when the VCR didn't record the show correctly (or it was pre-empted), etc. etc... and then I just stopped watching it and found out that yes, I could live without it, pretty easily.

      I still do have it, for occasionally watching the movies that I own, or playing some Dreamcast when friends come over, but that's about it. But in the meantime, I've caught up on my reading, the house is quieter, the nights are longer (it's true) and I actually talk to my SO during meals again. Not a bad trade.

      Oddly enough, the biggest hassle I get from not watching television is from people who can't believe I don't. I've seen reactions ranging from shock and disbelief to anger and hostility. The thing I hear most often is "Oh, so you're one of those KILL YOUR TELEVISION people?" No, I just killed mine, you can let yours live if you want.

    21. Re:Tried and true solution by dswensen · · Score: 1

      When they came for the Simpsons, I didn't speak up because I didn't watch Simpsons...

      When they came for the Britney Spears albums, I didn't speak up because I didn't listen to Britney Spears...

      When they burned all the books in the whole wide world and replaced them with e-books that couldn't be copied or purchased, I didn't speak up because reading is for sissies...

      When they introduced a drug that shortened the memories of everyone to a few seconds so that live theater could not be illegally "stored" in human memory, I didn't speak up because I'd seen Cats enough times already...

      Then they came for my tinfoil hat and by that time there was no one left to speak up!

    22. Re:Tried and true solution by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      They become jealous when they realize that they spend 6 hours a day in front of the tube, and you don't.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    23. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's so much easier to say no to TV and mainstream media these days, because it just plain sucks compared to the yesteryears. The novelty of radio, television, music, and movies has worn off big time. Early radio shows (e.g. War of the Worlds). Sitcoms of the fifties (e.g. Honeymooners). Music bands of the sixties (e.g. The Who). Movies? I can't remember the last plot and character movie I saw that immersed me.

      Yeah, life with TV is quite nice, and the withdrawal symptoms last all of cat nap in the EZ-Boy. There's simply nothing worth it on the dial anymore. I still think the "killer media creation" for the Internet has yet to see the light of day though, but I don't think it'll come from a media cartel. They're tuned into the wrong frequencies, i.e. they have lost touch with their customers. It's for this reason that individuals need to protect their rights as much as possible with regards to technology. Don't let them keep out the little guy with a creative itch.

    24. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      he solution to removing the power from military regimes in the Middle East is to buy a bicycle. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly.

      Duh, Of course it doesn't fly. It's a bicycle.
      I thought people on slashdot were smart.

    25. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I am over it. You seem to be the one with some problem over it. This is a public forum for people to voice their opinions. Why are you so threatened by someone else's opinion?

      I stopped watching tv because it ceased to be enjoyable for the most part. Watching tv requires no effort but for me provided little enjoyment. Reading on the other hand requires much more effort but also provides much more enjoyment. That's just my choice. My life *is* better without tv. What exactly is your problem with that? Seriously, get over it.

    26. Re:Tried and true solution by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I go into convulsions (no, not really) when every other time I tune to the SCIFI channel I find that fuck'n "Crossing Over with Kohn Artest" psychic crap on.

      I look at the audience of the show and just see a mass of sheep caught in headlights. I think to myself, "Poor saps... but at least they've got a cult leader to look up to in order to fill their empty lives and empty heads."

      Some time later I discovered that that same annoying show was on CBS. The stupidity is contageous!!! Advertisers REALLY want to target that audience.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    27. Re:Tried and true solution by Ferzelic · · Score: 1
      Watching television isn't living your life. At best it's setting aside your life for an hour or four every day. At worst, it's vicariously living someone else's idea of what your life should be.

      What's your opinion of books?

      Sure, you can read them at your own pace, so you have more control over the time you spend on them (but only marginally so, when VCRs are taken into account -- and this flag would take away that control); but it takes a lot longer to read a book than it does to watch a TV program...

      Don't your above comments hold for books as well? If not, why not?

    28. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't have a TV on 9/11 and I don't feel I missed out on anything. I listened to the radio and read the news on the web. I don't feel particularly compeled to be connected that way. Life goes on. Really it does. Even if you didn't see something happen in "real time" on the TV. TV is fine for some people, and has its uses. I just don't care for it myself. Why is that a big deal?

    29. Re:Tried and true solution by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      or if we had, we'd never have recognized one another.

      Holy shit! You mean if you hadn't met each other before you met each other, you wouldn't recognize one another?

      Excuse me, I need to pick my jaw up off the floor...

      Let's go back to how beautiful she is on the inside... got a photo? :P~

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    30. Re:Tried and true solution by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      Advertisers REALLY want to target that audience.

      It's all so clear to me now...

      Why do TV programs generally suck ass?
      Because they're trying to attract a specific segment of the population that will eat up whatever blinks on their screens.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    31. Re:Tried and true solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The absolute best solution to this kind of thing has been around for decades, works perfectly, doesn't cost a cent, and causes your day to suddenly seem a couple of hours longer:
      Leave your anus.

      Try, just try, life without an anus. You'd be amazed how little you miss it, and how much other stuff you'll do instead. If you have a tv, you'll have time to actually spend looking at it, instead of sitting on your arse and looking at each other (??). If you don't have a tv, you'll drastically increase your chances of buying one. If you're not looking at the anus, you'll at least have time to pursue other hobbies, like coding, or cooking, or bungee jumping, or whatever the heck else trips your trigger. Just try it. You may very well love it.

      Despite the humour value in very well loving my anus, I don't think this quite works for *anything*.

    32. Re:Tried and true solution by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      Amusing that they make a TV show about what happens if you stop watching TV... I guess most viewers aren't active enough to find out for themselves! Coming up next: A TV show about what happens to people who switch off halfway through a show. Stay tuned!

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    33. Re:Tried and true solution by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      You've actually had people get ANGRY at you for not watching TV?

      That's fucked up. The worst I've ever seen is blank incomprehension, and most people just sort of go "meehhhh" and forget it.

      The blank incomprehension was funny though...

      "Didja see Friends last night?"

      "I don't watch TV"

      "...*clunk* *clunk* *clunk* Parse Error - must've said "don't watch friends"... Didja see Home Improvement then?"

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    34. Re:Tried and true solution by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Heh. I've gotten that one too (and about Friends, no less). Though my favorite comes from a girl who was a huge TV watcher. I told her I didn't watch television and she grew outright alarmed. Her response was "What? You don't? How do you LIVE?"

      But yeah, I've been accused of being a sanctimonious prick, holier-than-thou, on a pedestal, think I'm better than everyone else, etc. etc. no matter how clearly and often I say I don't give a damn about what anyone else does with their time, up to and including watching all the television they please. I don't really get it.

    35. Re:Tried and true solution by spruce · · Score: 1

      My claim is that television is much more like an addiction than like something that people enjoy and appreciate

      Nope. Some people just enjoy tv. I watch news, history programs, national geo documentaries, even the occasional comedy show. How is that any less valuable than any other activity? It may not be what you prefer, but chances are I probably wouldn't like to do what you do. I don't know what this "life" thing you're talking about is. Sure I've got friends and I'm interested in other things. There's this thing called balance. Now maybe your message is "It's unhealthy to base you entire existence around television", but that'd be true for anything now wouldn't it.

    36. Re:Tried and true solution by spruce · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt people would call you a sanctimonious prick or holier-than-thou if you simply said "I don't watch tv." I'm willing to bet it was something like "I don't watch TV because I have better things to do with my time".

  52. someone buy that poster a beer by realgone · · Score: 2
    I don't have any mod points to spend right now, but I've just grabbed a dry-erase marker and scribbled a little (+1, Insightful) on my screen next to your post. Please accept it with my compliments. =)

    It's too true. Had one of the Good Guys taken a similar action, it would have been hailed in these pages as a necessary escalation to prevent the whole issue from getting bogged down in a corrupt legislative process. But when the Bad Guys do it, we all label it an underhanded attempt to circumvent the checks and balances of that very same legislature.

    And you want to know the scariest part? Even though I'm quite aware of this double standard, I still feel the temptation to lock Hollings in the Senate coat closet and not let him out until he admits he's a "dirty rat fink and kept boy of the entertainment industry".

    Sometimes a overly strong opinion can be almost as dangerous thing to hold as a overly weak one...

  53. without letting the world know first by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    It would be very difficult to not let the world know first.
    1: You have to tell people that the system isn't standards complient or that a new version of the standard has comeout.
    2: Competition rules would require that information be freely available to manufacturers(but possibly cost something to implement)
    3: Somebody's going to leak the information anyhows.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:without letting the world know first by prof187 · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree with you on the someone leaking it. Really, no one has to actually leak it, someone will probably just find out. The thing that has surprised me above all secrets is how code doesn't constantly get leaked out for MS products. They must threaten their engineers with death if they release it.

      --

      My other sig is an import.
  54. Foot bullet by Arcturax · · Score: 2

    This is actually going to HURT them. If I can't record the show, then I'm not going to be able to watch it if I'm not around when its on. That means I'm less likely to get hooked on the show and less likely to buy it on DVD later, or buy any of the other collectible junk sold to support the show.

    If anything, I will boycott any show which won't let you record it out of spite and I think a lot more people may as well.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    1. Re:Foot bullet by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      I would venture to say that they don't necessarily care. Most of the revenue from a show comes from first-run advertising (and to a lesser extent syndication fees), the cost of which isn't based on recordings of shows. They only care if you're watching it when it runs, as its difficult to argue this point (recorded viewings) with advertisers. This is akin to pass-along readership with magazines, etc. - you can only go so far in mesuring this number, at least from the standpoint of direct correlational to ad costs. Anyway, all the other stuff, such as merchandising, is really ancillary to revenue generated from the actual run, although there are probably exceptions somewhere. Sorry, bored and rambling and should be working.

  55. Do we really need them? by mgessner · · Score: 1

    I wonder if we're ever going to get to the point where they figure out that *they need us* more than *we need them!* Really, there are plenty of things to do that are more interesting than sitting around and watching TV and/or movies.

    Who knows? This could lead to a new baby boom! Or a less fat-dense population!

    --
    "Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
  56. Highly inappropriate behavior by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (From my blog)

    I question the appropriateness and perhaps even legality (in an abstract theoretical sense) of a member of the legislative branch of the government urging a part of the executive branch to grab power it does not seem to have, because the legislative branch has not granted it. The legislator does not work by fiat, it's his job to legislate. Should he fail in that endeavor, as Hollings has up to this point, he should not go behind the scenes and try to get the executive branch to do his bidding anyhow.

    Congress should officially reprimand Hollings for this. (Not that I expect it...)

    1. Re:Highly inappropriate behavior by ethereal · · Score: 1

      "Fix It Again, Tony" :)

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:Highly inappropriate behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fiat Pronunciation Key (ft, -t, -ät, ft, -t)
      n.
      1. An arbitrary order or decree.
      2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

  57. Re:who the fuck really gives a shit by roadkill999 · · Score: 0

    oh please. act your age, not your shoe size.

  58. WRITE YOUR FREAKIN' CONGRESSMEN, DAMMIT! by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Instead of posting here, find out who your reps are and write them complaining!

  59. this is idiotic in so many ways by fz00 · · Score: 0

    first of all good luck getting this to fly internationally! you'd have to do that or else the chinese companies will have circumvention devices the next day. sure you can ban the sale of these devices but that doesn't mean people won't buy them. even at a premium. this in turn will kill any american companies who are not able to compete BY LAW. oh yeah and good luck getting viewers of shows that people can't watch AT THEIR CONVENIENCE which is what the whole point of the recording technologies is about!

  60. Probably the most telling comment: by Maeryk · · Score: 2

    "We're here to defend intellectual property," said Jim DeLong, an economist at CEI. "If you want balance, go to another session."

    Does it appear to anyone else that that is pretty much the running theme for ANYTHING the MPAA has its fingers in? Its all or nothing with them. They rail about how they are losing like crazy, yet refuse to hear anything even remotely like a compromise.

    Well, I paid a heck of a lot of money for my home theater setup.. I guess if they manage to whack my TiVO (which I would assume they are also thinking about, as its pretty easy to dump the signal out to a decent recorder) then DirectTV is gonna lose my business. And probably a lot of OTHER peoples business as well.

    This looks to me like a pre-emptive strike at the HDTV standards that are going to come out.. after all, why WOULDNT you want to record something that is twice the clarity and fidelity of even the best DVD right now? They can control DVD's to a certain extent, but they will NOT be able to control this, they know it, and they are running scared before the fact.

    (Now.. if only we could get them to program something WORTH RECORDING in HDTV.. right now, I only get HBO (same old same old) and a couple of news channels.. and interminable re-runs of ER)

    Maeryk

    --
    Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    1. Re:Probably the most telling comment: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loser. People are starving and dieing around the world. What is wrong with you? Maybe you should stop whinging and donate some of your money to charity. Might make you sleep a bit easier at night. And get a haircut too.

      Jealousy will get you nowhere my small minded friend. Just cause people are starving a dying doesnt mean I care. Well, I lie.. I *do* care.. I watch em starving and dying on CNN in 57 inch 16:9 aspect Dolby 5.1 surround sound glory. And I love it. I even eat popcorn while Im watching. I didnt claw my way into a job just to give hand outs to other people.

      Get a job, luser.

      Maeryk

    2. Re:Probably the most telling comment: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take the bait. While I agree with you, one must remember that men who boast about how much they spent on something, or how big their gas-guzzling SUV is, or that they can write an entire operating system in one line of Perl are to be pitied, because they are truly disadvantaged - in the size of their (shall we say) manhood. Feel their pain and move on.

    3. Re:Probably the most telling comment: by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      why WOULDNT you want to record something that is twice the clarity and fidelity of even the best DVD right now?

      Because that would mean it was x^2 the size? Sorry, there isn't a TV program on right now (except the Simpsons, and that's just.... a low-res cartoon) that warrants that kind of data storage. I am not interested in having to change writable media twice while playing an hour of program.

    4. Re:Probably the most telling comment: by Quikah · · Score: 2

      DVHS holds about 4 hours of HD res content on a tape. No media change neccessary.

      --
      Q.
  61. Re:Macrovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macrovision (dvd based) doesn't need to be 'Circumvented' in the sense that most people think, the only reason it works at all is that dvd player manufacturers were strongarmed by the MPAA and the consortium into cooperating.

    It's in essence a goddamn bitflag, basically: 'fuck up this stream'.

    Literally, if you rip the ifos/vobs, you can edit it out in about 12 seconds (faster if your editor isn't gimpy and doesn't try to load the entire goddamn file into memory to let you edit it.)

    Yet, changing it is circumvention and those who do so are criminals. This reminds me of Adobe's fearsome 'ROT13' ebook protection. 'Arrest that man, he rotated the alphabet, CIRCUMVENTING OUR PATENTED DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE'. Yeah. Whatever.

    Maybe they're making it easier to 'circumvent', so that they have more people to send the legal departments after.

    Granted, VHS tape based macrovision is a different story, and out of the scope of this comment.

  62. Why be so drastic? by mblase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like my TV, for one reason: it lets me watch movies I rent and own. I don't like broadcast television, because it's saturated with commercials and the selection just isn't there and the quality is spotty and I have to stick to someone else's schedule (I can't afford a TiVo). Plus my wife and daughter like their soaps.

    So I keep the TV, got a good pickup antenna for network broadcasts, and refuse to pay for cable. Yeah, there are shows on Sci-Fi and Cartoon Network I wish I could catch, but when it's a big deal I ask a friend or family member to tape 'em for me. And they generally do. And if they don't, I wait until I can buy or rent the DVD and watch the whole thing without commercials (or download them off of KaZaA while I'm waiting, if it's really that important me).

    Bottom line: I'd rather spend $40/month on two DVDs I really like and want to own, than on cable television piping hours upon hours of useless junk into my household.

    1. Re:Why be so drastic? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      But see that's what they are trying to ban right now: the ability for a friend or family member to tape a show for anything but their own personal use!

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Why be so drastic? by Casca · · Score: 2

      Too bad if they have their way you won't actually own the DVD anymore, you'll just have a license to watch it. If they want to, they will be able to revoke that license, and your (their) DVD won't play in your (their) player anymore.

      --
      Casca
  63. MS Code by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    Well beta's get out into the wild..

    M$ may monkey farm there developers so that developers only have access to a small amount of code, this is probably why the code is so bloated I can't intergrate systems properly in a sand-box environment

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:MS Code by prof187 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft could get some definite respect if they would release source to *something* of theirs. But then it would be one of those "why is someone evil doing something good" things.

      Well, I guess according to them, they have with their "contribution" to OpenGL, but I'm sure if they win whatever law suit they put in for, they'll try to hide it as fast as they can.

      --

      My other sig is an import.
  64. More ways the internet will change society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider in relation to this article, the article yesterday concerning Case Western and their gigabit ethernet setup. That network allows the possibility of streaming HiDef. Now, if you ask me, it truly is pointless to say HDTV is the future of television. The internet is the future of TV (as it is the future of phone or just communications in general). When you have a system in place like Case Western, what is the point of television? Or a phone? The MPAA should realize that traditional systems of delivery and recording and in particular revenues (i.e. ads) are just not going to be the same. They should partner with internet providers to determine a new system for revenue since something like the Case Western setup means I can get my HDTV programs and record them on my hard drive (or later burn them to some optical storage like HDDVD). Providers and producers of content are going to have to resign themselves to working much closer together to derive revenue to keep the shows flowing. Personally, I welcome this system. Hollywood does not have a monopoly on ideas. This type of system should give rise to more independent and better produced movies/shows streaming across the screen. It also spells the death of ads...or dramatically changes them. Hollywood will certainly take a hit. I doubt in 15 years there will be actors making millions per movie or series. Well boo hoo. For you and me though, it will mean better shows and movies. The DVR debate is just the tip of the iceberg. Vive la Titanic.

  65. Mod Parent Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funnier than the grandparent.

  66. Legislation and Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm working my way through "A People's History of the United States" and find the current tactics of the RIAA and the MPAA very similar to those described throughout the book. The use of ostensibly neutral "laws" to further enhance the pocket books of monied interests.

    Prior to 1910 the law was used to protect the land owners and property owners, with numerous examples throughout the book of the courts upholding what were essentinally very unconstitutional laws favouring monied interests over blacks and poor whites (i.e. those without property) .

    With the RIAA and the MPAA we are seing similar sorts of laws proposed, only this time to protect the monied interests (those that "own" intellectual property) against those who don't.

    Why do the monied interests have the power to pass and uphold these laws? Because they control the legal systems - they are better able to afford lawyers, better able to lobby congress, better able to propogandize against those that hold alternate views.

    To me, this is all part of the tragedy of America these days.

    1. Re:Legislation and Power by zestymonkey · · Score: 1

      With all this talk against greedy corporations in our country taking advantage of its citizenry, many are forgetting our own government.

      --

      return;
    2. Re:Legislation and Power by norhythmsoldier · · Score: 1

      Prior to 1910 the law was used to protect the land owners and property owners, with numerous examples throughout the book of the courts upholding what were essentinally very unconstitutional laws favouring monied interests over blacks and poor whites (i.e. those without property) .

      With the RIAA and the MPAA we are seing similar sorts of laws proposed, only this time to protect the monied interests (those that "own" intellectual property) against those who don't.

      To me, this is all part of the tragedy of America these days.


      Does anyone else find these statements incompatible somehow? If this has been going on for two hundred years, then it is not part of the tragedy of anything these days. Yes, this has been going on for years, so don't act like some new evil has arisen in the last decade. The monied interests control things because they have lots of money and they use it. We lose because we have lots of money and lots of votes, and we use neither. Who has more power, cars or pedestrians? Well, it depends on how many of each there are and whether you are in the street or on the sidewalk.


      Young people continue to strive for the impossible - and achieve it - generation after generation.

    3. Re:Legislation and Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the American way. You must be a terrorist for complaining. You've been reported via TIPS.

    4. Re:Legislation and Power by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      Who has more power, cars or pedestrians?

      Cars. Well, people IN cars.

      Well, it depends on how many of each there are and whether you are in the street or on the sidewalk.

      Bring me your hordes of pedestrians, put them on the pavement, and I will get a good long run up and demonstrate for you. Haven't you ever played GTA3? :)

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  67. Vote out of Office by attobyte · · Score: 1

    When are we going to get those two voted out of office? They are now good for the US and all they do is pass bills that are good for the MPAA.

    Mike

    --
    I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!

    Mike

  68. Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That huge amount of code they release under the microsoft open licence?

  69. How this *is* guaranteed.... by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

    > strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law.

    Heinlein was obviously not familiar with the concept of Lobbyists...

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
    1. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Threed · · Score: 1

      I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!

      Ha! In your face, beeotch!

    2. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Your daddy gave you money so you could buy a low number Slashdot account on eBay and you're acting like HE is the loser??

    3. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Indomitus · · Score: 1

      Sorry, in _your_ face. :)

      And I didn't buy this number on ebay either.

    4. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... How much could I get for my number on Ebay?

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Damn. I'm such a n00b :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Wow. You guys must be the ancestors I hear about in legends.

      I bow to your seniority.
      I fear your smoked filled good ol boy club.
      I'm humbled by your innate wisdom.
      I'm envious of your low (#) rank.
      I respect your early adoption foresight.
      I ... ok, that's enough fake asskissing of the powerless. :)

      Social Status is a boring game (especially in the context of /. id's :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:How this *is* guaranteed.... by Danse · · Score: 2

      Relax. Nobody is claiming some sort of power because of their ID. If anything, it's just a bit of self-deprecating humor. We know that a low ID means nothing in the great scheme of things. Oh, and we don't allow smoking in our good ol' boy club.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  70. The admiral was years ahead of his time. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Damn.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  71. FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Informative

    because people have the right to timeshift all of the tv they watch, not just the programming the broadcasters want. There is already caselaw substantiating this.

    The MPAA tried shenanigans like this in '00 attacking RecordTV.com suceededing in shutting it down.

    If PVRs were in every house instead of VCRs, there would be no chance of this getting by, but since this wont directly impact people for several years it will be too late to complain once the new generation of flag obeying goods arrives, and everyone will probably just accept that now, you have to PAY to record TV and watch it at a later date. Or this will kill the adoption of PVRs; once people realize that you cant record whatever you want with a flag-crippled PVR.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • people have the right to timeshift all of the tv they watch [...] There is already caselaw substantiating this

      Al that means is that we have a fairly good chance of not being prosecuted or being found guilty of copyright infringement for timeshifting, or for making or selling devices that allow timeshifting.

      There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, the proposal allows PVRs to record a flagged program, as long as they ensure that the video doesn't get outside of the PVR in unprotected digital form.

    3. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      There is no "right" that stops broadcasters producing technical means to prevent you from doing so. Can you find caselaw for that?

      Since you asked:

      TV broadcasters cannot add this flag to their broadcasts because this would remove the fair use rights of TV watchers; from the EFF:

      "Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

      In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)"


      Which is the same case I posted above.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    4. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2
      Yes, it is the same case you posted above, and you're missing the point. "Fair use" relieves you, the consumer, from legal hassle if you tape a program. It does NOT oblige the broadcaster to co-operate.

      Fair use means I can Xerox a page from a magazine to cite in a report. It does not require the publisher to print nice high-contrast pages that copy well.

      Fair use also applies to movies, which can be parodied, etc., but does not outlaw Macrovision.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    5. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Beautyon · · Score: 2

      Macrovision is not a legally mandated content control system; what Hollings is asking for is a FEDERALLY MANDATED SYSTEM whereby it will become illegal to manufacture players that are non compliant with the broadcast flag standard.

      This is the crucial difference between content control systems that are voluntarily implemented like macrovision and those that are mandatory, like the proposed broadcast flag.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    6. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 2

      Yes, you're right. It's funny (well, my wife didn't think so) but I was just eating dinner when I abruptly said, "Oh, I bet he meant that the FCC couldn't do that!", and of course I agree with you. Mea culpa, and I especially apologize for my pedantic tone.

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    7. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, um, watching it is out of the question?

      Or does a digital TV actually convert from digital to analogue and then back again?

    8. Re:FCC cannot impose broadcast flag... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Macrovision is not a legally mandated content control system; what Hollings is asking for is a FEDERALLY MANDATED SYSTEM. [...] This is the crucial difference between content control systems that are voluntarily implemented like macrovision and those that are mandatory, like the proposed broadcast flag.

      And that difference would be? Please cite a legal precedent to support why it's illegal for Congress to pass a new law to do this.

      Your assertion doesn't make it so. USING CAPITALS DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. If you're done with your tantrum, let's look at what's actually happening.

      Let's ask U.S District Court Judge Ronald Whyte what he thinks. He thinks that even when Congress writes a law that contains an explicit promise to not prevent fair use, that it still protects (note; protects, not allows) technology that de facto prevents fair use.

      Further, he thinks - explicitely - that even if you have fair use rights, you do not have the right to easy access. In the case of eBooks, Judge Whyte thinks that transcription is a perfectly acceptable method of making a fair use copy. I'll conjecture that he'd consider making a camcorder recording off of a TV screen as being about as practical.

      But don't mind me or Judge Whyte. You go on shrieking that fair use overrules technological protections, without bothering to cite relevant recent legal precedent.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  72. Low tech Ad skipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Next the MPAA will be after those that have this device that circumvents ad's its called a TV remote, and TV viewers everywhere are using it to skip commercials by changing the channel. The MPAA has decided to fight back by running commercials on every channel at the same time so that channel surfing can no longer circumvent TV AD's. "We even went so far as to add this huge chain to the TV so that users are no longer allowed to leave the TV to skip adds. If they try to leave or disconnect the chain, the TV automatically turns off for 10 minutes. Some think this is drastic but we must protect the rights of the movie industry.", said Jack Valenti.

    1. Re:Low tech Ad skipping by pjgeer · · Score: 1

      I've turned off the TV to skip ads and turned it back on without missing a beat. Although I've been told it's a neat trick, it has nevertheless failed to impress the ladies.

    2. Re:Low tech Ad skipping by Whammy666 · · Score: 1
      If they try to leave or disconnect the chain, the TV automatically turns off for 10 minutes.

      10 minutes? Well that's just long enough to mute your typical commercial break. Perfect!

      --
      When all else fails, run.
  73. Is it time for the Geek community to target... by dpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People like Hollings for non-re-election? Perhaps we need "The Geek Lobby Page" where information about key publicly elected officials is kept.

    When is Hollings up for re-election?

    Who is running against him?

    Are the opponents views any better?

    We all grumble, complain, and flame. We also say we're too small. But have we tried yet to use tried-and-true mainstream political techniques?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by sehryan · · Score: 2

      When is Hollings up for re-election?

      Who is running against him?


      Doesn't matter, he will win. I know that sounds like a defeatist attitude, and well, it is. Be a liberal in this state for a few years and you will understand. I feel it, and I would say I am pretty close to middle.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    2. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by Plutor · · Score: 2

      Ernest "Fritz" Hollings was last re-elected to the US Senate in 1998. With the six-year term in the Senate, that means that he will be running again for office (presumably) in 2004.

    3. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by lunenburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the tech community needs is a united front on the issues. Sure, there's the EFF, DigitalConsumer.org, anti-dmca.org, digitalspeech.org, publicknowledge.org, etc. etc. etc - all with varying degrees of influence, completeness, and scope. It really seems like a big duplication of effort.

      Whether you like them or not, we could learn a lot from the National Rifle Association. The NRA has their "protecting our freedoms" issues, and they've managed to unite a group of fairly individualist people for a common goal. Legislators do not defy the NRA lightly in Congress, while they routinely screw over the tech industry. We need a solid lobby like the NRA to watch over our interests in Washington.

    4. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      Hollings wins, but not by large margins. Many people in South Carolina think he's too liberal to represent them in Washington.

      Unfortunately, the SC GOP hasn't realized that it isn't too smart to antagonize the 1/3 of the voters in SC who happen to be a different color than they are.

      A good Republican candidate could easily defeat Hollings. ...but that would require the SC GOP to actually do something smart for a change.

    5. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      It won't do any good, at least not for Hollings. The people of South Carolina simply don't care about those issues.

    6. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by lunenburg · · Score: 2

      While I'd tend to agree with you, I still think it's important to get the message out to people in South Carolina that Sen. Hollings is selling their VCRs out to Big Hollywood, a sellout that will bring no benefit to South Carolina. In this day of Enron, Worldcom, etc., Hollings is trying to legislate profits for multibilliondollar companies in California. At the very least, Hollings' opponent in '04 might be able to use that as ammunition against him.

    7. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by thales · · Score: 2
      "Unfortunately, the SC GOP hasn't realized that it isn't too smart to antagonize the 1/3 of the voters in SC who happen to be a different color than they are."

      That third is unlikely to vote for any GOP canidate no matter what his stance is. The big problem is the "God Squad" dominates the GOP nomination process and they would rather lose the election with a "true beleaver" than win with a more modarate canidate.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    8. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When is Hollings up for re-election?
      Not soon enough.
      Who is running against him?
      Foghorn Leghorn
      Are the opponents views any better?
      like most senators, Leghorn:
      - spends a lot of time chasing women
      - doesn't seem to do much work
      - is fat, and has bellowing voice
      - is kinda, uh, ssslloowwww, if yuh know what ah mean
      - likes a good dog-fight
      - can be easily outwitted by small kids

      One caveat: he works for Warner Brothers - Disney's competition.

    9. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Well, here's a thought: how about someone with the time and motivation approaching the NRA and asking them for political advice. After all, we're in the same boat -- someone with an agenda is blaming the TOOL for committing the CRIME, and using that as an excuse to curtail our personal freedoms (and perhaps our future livelihoods as well). Yeah, geek stuff is not gun stuff, but the parallel is plain, and a bad precedent for one is a bad precedent for the other. So it might behoove us to join forces.

      Tho the NRA doesn't have the problem of having so many manufacturers crawling into bed with the enemy, like we're seeing with computer hardware and software. It strikes me that nothing will do much good unless the big mfgrs start seeing these **AA-inspired restrictions as a threat to their corporate future, and band together to resist being locked into encumbered devices.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by wayward_son · · Score: 1

      That third is unlikely to vote for any GOP canidate no matter what his stance is.

      Not always true. Strom Thurmond has actually done pretty well with black voters. Unfortunately, most members of the SC GOP are too obsessed with keeping the damn rebel flag on the state house (that Gov. Hollings put up BTW) to make much of an outreach to the black community.

      The big problem is the "God Squad" dominates the GOP nomination process

      Especially true in S.C. This is the state that brought you Bob Jones University and Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker. This is also a state GOP that considered John McCain a bleeding heart and where the Chamber of Commerce (you know, those pro-business, anti-union folks in each town) is considered liberal.

    11. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

      I've noticed. When your state continually elects Strom Thurmond, you know there's probelms with the state's mentality. Senators and Reps really do need term # limits.

      On the other side of the coin, in Indiana we have Senators (D)Bayh and (R)Lugar. Lugar is a solid guy. I (D-IN) voted for him because in the past he's stood up for issues that his party usually goes against. And Bayh is one of the best loved governors in our state history.

    12. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by Detritus · · Score: 2
      Tho the NRA doesn't have the problem of having so many manufacturers crawling into bed with the enemy, like we're seeing with computer hardware and software.

      Gun manufacturers have undercut the second amendment when they thought it was in their interest. Many of them supported restrictions on the importation of foreign firearms. Smith & Wesson pissed off a lot of gun owners by caving in to the Clinton administration.

      Contrary to popular opinion in anti-gun circles, the manufacturers do not have much influence in the NRA.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    13. Re:Is it time for the Geek community to target... by jafac · · Score: 2

      We have the same problem in California.

      Thing is, I live in a VERY conservative region in California, and nobody here feels like voting is worth a damn, because national elections are usually decided before we get up in the morning on election day, and in California issues, Dems always win.

      Of course, if a republican were to ever win anything out here, we'd be up to our armpits in oil wells, so you can see why there's be a few lefties out here. Hell, with Bush "in da house", we're probably already doomed on the oil well front. He's using federal muscle to overturn a ban on central coast drilling. Oh well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. When oil is $60-$100 a barrel, you can bet they'll do anything to squeeze any drop out of the ground wherever it is. NIMBY-ism be damned.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  74. Recordable until by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sure today , if its human readable its machine recordable, but what happens when DRM is mandated to be included in EVERYTHING.. wont happen today, but in time.. and at that point that statement wont apply anymore to the masses... just the few that can disable the DRM components..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  75. Out of the frying pan, into the fire by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    After all, how many people voted for any of the members of the FCC?
    All hope may not be lost, but we're damn close. Our last hope is the official FCC public comment period when they propose making new rules.

    Yes, it would've been more democratic to debate it and vote in the congress on something of this nature, but we have two choices:

    1) Sit around crying and watch it happen.
    or
    2) Accept the opportunity to defend the consumer and take advantage of the comment period!

    I don't know about you, but option two sounds better than grabbing the kleenex and crying to till I puke, thanks.

    You can bet that TiVo and ReplayTV will write comments, but the general public has to care or this will be a cakewalk for the bad guys. If you're wealthy, consider hiring a DC communications lawyer to write your stuff for you. They're expensive, but you're rich, what do you care. Or of course, donate to EFF.

    Don't forget that the FCC is mandated to regulate broadcasting "in the public interest." You're the public, tell them what your interest is.

    Once the FCC issues a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) you should be able to submit comments online at fcc.gov. Or you could always print a hard copy, sign it in ink, and send certified mail to the address on the site. (Which would be much better.)
    --
    Who did what now?
  76. Tried and failed solution by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Sorry, I like sitting down and just get fed some story at times. Just have a beer and don't really work my brain much, at least not more than getting into the series/movie, particularly some sci-fi or cartoon stuff (Farscape, ST: Voyager, Futurama, Simpsons lately). There's too much and too little. Having no TV is too little. If you can do without, fine. I've been without one for 5 months, and it's been more than enough. Books and music and "Real Life(tm)" is fun enough, but judicious use of TV is a good thing, not a bad one.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  77. I was promised flying cars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he meant "does not work for Fiat"?

  78. Re:I don't see the justification by Grotus · · Score: 1

    I think that Fritz persuaded himself into believing that "quality of the signal" was equivalent to "quality of the content encoded onto the signal". And of course even that delusion depends on the "no content without protection" mindset to make it "necessary or appropriate".

    Hopefully the FCC will be able to recognize the mistaken interpretation and file both letters in the appropriate (round) recepticle.

    --
    "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
  79. Learning from the NRA by dpilot · · Score: 2

    I agree with you 100%, and have long felt that the NRA is the right example. More appropriate than many might thing, even. After all, crypto is a big geek issue, so we are very much into, "The right to bear arms." But getting too close to the NRA might make for strange bedfellows. (except for ESR, of course)

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Learning from the NRA by lunenburg · · Score: 2

      The big thing with the NRA is that they're generally recognized as THE lobby on gun control issues. From what I can tell, the tech community (being those of us involved in it, not technology corporations) has no organized presence in DC, aside from several fledling groups that haven't really gotten off the ground yet.

      I think that part of that might be the newness of the issues (the NRA is over 100 years old, so they've had plenty of time to build clout), but a lot of it seems to relate to the tech community as a whole's propensity toward splitting into lots of ultra-pure, ultra-focused camps due to disagreements (vi vs. emacs, Debian vs. Red Hat vs. Mandrake, Gnome vs. KDE, Free Software vs. Open Source). As long as we concentrate more on infighting than on the big picture, our opinions will be disregarded in favor of big-money corporate lobbies.

      We certainly have no need to join up with the NRA in any sort of organizational sense, but we could learn a ton from the way they've been able to push and protect their issues from legislators who are out to get them.

    2. Re:Learning from the NRA by forkboy · · Score: 2

      The problem with a united geek front is that some of the tech companies are just as bad as the MPAA, RIAA, and legislators.

      Gun companies don't alienate their users by pushing end user license agreements or suing their customers when they take their guns apart. They just sell you a product and contribute to an organization that helps make sure that you can legally own your product. Firearms manufacturers contribute quite a bit to the NRA and though gun nuts have varying opinions on WHICH gun manufacturers they prefer, they can all see a common goal in the 2nd amendment that benefits everyone.

      I don't see fractionalization of the geeks in the sense of vi vs. emacs, Gnome vs. KDE kind of stuff being a problem....those people can all agree on the main central issues...that being "don't legislate how we use our fucking computers." It's the tech companies like Microsoft that want complete control over the market and end users that make unifying a difficult proposition. Let's face it, corporations are heard by legislators a lot more than individuals, and without corporate sponsorship and cooperation, no sort of unified tech organization is going to get anywhere.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    3. Re:Learning from the NRA by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      Certain modifications to various guns are forbidden by law, so, in fact there are similar restrictions, in a sense.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:Learning from the NRA by forkboy · · Score: 2

      But those are Federal enforcements, it is not the company who made the gun telling you not to make the modifications.

      The analogy was drawing a parallel to the DMCA's restriction on reverse engineering or disassmebly of intellectual property. Federal laws are another story entirely as they pretty much apply to any industry or product in some way.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    5. Re:Learning from the NRA by Drunken+Buddhist · · Score: 1

      Gun companies don't alienate their users by pushing end user license agreements or suing their customers when they take their guns apart.

      End User License Agreements : Software :: Concealed Weapons Permit/Hunting License : Guns

      And about the second part, the gun compaines have nothing to lose if you take apart their guns, you can't use the individual parts, or mix and match with other guns, without it being more trouble than it's worth. It would be the equivalent of having practically every program in existance written in a different, unchangable language. Therefore, unsuitable analogy. (Sorry to bust your balls there, though)

      Firearms manufacturers contribute quite a bit to the NRA and though gun nuts have varying opinions on WHICH gun manufacturers they prefer, they can all see a common goal in the 2nd amendment that benefits everyone.

      But we don't now, and probably won't (at least for a while) have any major legistlation (i.e. a constitutional amendment) that guarentees you free access to information, fair prices on software, security of virtual data, or anything of the kind. And even then, would we want the government to care that much about our security? We already bitch and moan enough that the army has too much power, that if there were ever a civil war it would be put down faster than a rabid dog. How would we feel about a cyber-army of government trained 'hax0rs'? Sure, we'd be safe from major attacks, but that's not how computer system attacks work, they're small strikes in vital areas, where blanket defenses *don't* cover. *sigh*

      those people can all agree on the main central issues...that being "don't legislate how we use our fucking computers."

      But we need some kind of united front to rally behind, that we get ALL the tech-oriented people to rally behind. We need a battle cry, and a flag. And then we need to agree not to squabble over how best to get them not to legistlate how we use our fucking computers.

      It's the tech companies like Microsoft that want complete control over the market and end users that make unifying a difficult proposition. Let's face it, corporations are heard by legislators a lot more than individuals, and without corporate sponsorship and cooperation, no sort of unified tech organization is going to get anywhere.

      Ah, the sad sad voice of reality. This kind of harshness prevents the truth about tobacco from getting out in a means other than corny commercials. It prevents Hydrogen Fuel Cells from being available within the next decade. It proports the kind of thinking that we can't do anything about global warming, and therefore need 5 more years to think about it. It supports the belief that whatever the christian coalition says is golden. It allows the Goliaths of the world to crush every single David before the fight even starts. They've got us believing that we can't fight them, that they're too big, and we're too small. Well I don't fucking buy it. I know this is hypocritical, as I'm a windoze user (Sue me, I grew up on it, and I haven't had time to learn Linux yet, at least I built my b0xen), but still, it proves that even those the system has in it's grip can be vocally against it.

      If only we could all agree that we need to unify, and how to unify, then we'd be much better off. And we'd need a figurehead, someone who speaks for the g33k community. Someone who has the bullshit tolerance of buddha, and the diplomatic ability of Colin Powell. I elect myself, once I'm no longer a minor ^_^. But still, every great group has a leader, a face, a voice for their cause. The NRA has Charleton Heston. Don't let us just be those damn dirty g33ks.

      --
      -1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
    6. Re:Learning from the NRA by Drunken+Buddhist · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who's a traffic, who's told me several times, that there are so many archeic laws that still apply today, that you could be going the speed limit, driving the safest car in existance, and have 0% co2 emmisions, and he could still pull you, ticket you, and justify it in court if he really wanted. That's just wrong.

      --
      -1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
  80. Ominous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    statement in the Newsweek/MSNBC article:

    But programmers can't rely on viewers to watch all their ads voluntarily

    While those were the words of the writer, they gave me the creeps anyway. Perhaps he senses a weather change. Given the immense wealth and lobbying power of the industry and dumb-asses like Tauzin and Hollings (The preceding Senators were bought to you by Hollywood), can draconian legislation be far behind?

  81. Aren't senators elected once every 6 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In which case, wont he be in office until 2006?

  82. Re:WHO LET THE DOGS OUT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VCR? Americans use TiVo now. VCRs are so ... Third World.

  83. Please don't confuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    DTV with HDTV.

    DTV = Digital Television (vs Analog)

    HDTV = High Definition Television

    SDTV = Standard Definition Television

    DTV is a medium for communication of broadcast television. It can carry SDTV (the format that you watch now - interlaced and with the 4:3 aspect ratio) or HDTV (which like any modern technology specified by an large industry committee, has enough formats to make you gag, 16 of which are on the short list and 3-4 of which will probably finally be used). HDTV happened to arrive about the same time as DTV (technology being the enabler) and it is easy to see why people confuse them\, but they are not the same thing. If you like, DTV is a highway, SDTV is a car, HDTV is a truck.

    Therefore, you must be vigilant about issues that relate to DTV (as well as HDTV).

    No offence is intended to the poster - it just seemed like a good place to bring it up.

  84. GETCHOO (Echelon Remix) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ashcroft will getchoo, ah ha, getchoo, ah ha, getchoo, getchoo, getchoo. . . AH HA!


    OH NO!
  85. No pie-throwing, please! by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2

    Pie-ing government and business leaders has been a popular form of semi-non-violent (though it's technically assault) protest for a while, it's recently been done to Bill Gates as well as Prime Minister Jean Chretien of Canada (among others). However, in the current climate it's likely to get you shot. After all that pie could be a terrorist weapon of some sort!

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
    1. Re:No pie-throwing, please! by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 1

      Yes, that frosting can be full of...ANTHRAX!! *gasp*

    2. Re:No pie-throwing, please! by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I saw that video of Gates being pied. He shrivled up and shyed away like he was back in highschool again.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  86. Revolution by renehollan · · Score: 2
    Well, when the political and government machine pisses enough people off, they revolt. We just haven't got there yet.

    Right now, the little freedoms are being taken away, like TV recordings. They are not as important as other major issues and fall by the wayside easily.

    One can imagine a world where you're jailed because you share the same national heritage with some evil person (heck, what if your surname just happens to be the same as a certain anti-American?). What if you're slaughtered because of your religion? Or because of your beliefs about personal consumption of certain substances? Or because you know how to use a computer too well?

    Some of these attrocities have taken place in the past, some in the present, and some might very well take place in the future. There's an unnerving trend here: so-called "law" degenerates to the point of arresting and killing people because of what they "might" do, presumably because of something they have in common with the perpetrator of some crime.

    If history is any guide, things will get worse before they get better.

    Ironically, the 9/11/2001 attacks against the U.S. suggest just how vulnerable the nation, and by extention, it's government is. They suggest that when the time for revolution comes, a wide-spread decentralized attack on key areas would have a good chance of success. No doubt, while the government seeks to control panic, it will be caught off-guard as the attacks continue: what will they do? Launch nukes against widespread targets on their own soil?

    OBL's strategic "mistake", was blowing his wad on one attack -- he was done for the night, as it were. What is most troubling, though, is that an act of war ("terrorism" is a weasel word applied to enemies not associated with a recognized nation) against the civilians of a democracy is perfectly logical: they freely elect their government with a process they all accept, so why not hold them responsible for it's actions? If you want to wage war on the government, wage war on those who put it in place.

    Yes, yes, what about children and other non-voters? Surely they aren't responsible? No, but there's this notion of "collateral damage" in war - unintended, but expected, none the less. It's one of the things that makes war hell -- easily forgotten in these times of sanitized, automated engagement. Funny, thing, though, the winner's "collateral damage" is the loser's "war crime".

    It is clear, then, that a revolution against a formidable enemy will likely involve initiation by a relatively small percentage of the population, taking a no-holds barred attitude toward "winning" (or, from their point of view, survival): you're either with us, or agin' us. We see this in acts of domestic "terrorism": people considered sociopaths harm civilians in an attack purportedly directed against government. I ask the following questions: (1) If such an attack were disproportionately effective in harming the ability of the government to infringe upon a right you believe in, and (2) supporting further such attacks would be easy, would you "go along", collateral damage be damned?

    History says "yes". And that is what the Second American Revolution is going to look like -- unlike crumbling Eastern European regimes that toppled over from the sheer will of the opressed, the U.S. government is neither weak or crumbling. Taking it down would involve some of the dirtiest and blodiest fighting in history. And home grown -- unlike WW I and WW II, it's unlikely that foreign intervention would be significant.

    That's a horrible scenario, isn't it? Sure, but it appears that violent revolution is the natural end result of any oppressive regime that's been handed too much power over the years. The government with the lesser mandate (and thus less centralized power) is the better government. Somehow, the potential price of a government strong enough to protect "us" from "them" doesn't seam worth it and is an illusion on it's face.

    --
    You could've hired me.
    1. Re:Revolution by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Well, when the political and government machine pisses enough people off, they revolt. We just haven't got there yet.

      "Unfortunately it's too late to change the system, and too early to just shoot the bastards." -- unknown

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:Revolution by renehollan · · Score: 2
      "Unfortunately it's too late to change the system, and too early to just shoot the bastards." -- unknown

      Oh, how true that is.

      --
      You could've hired me.
  87. Re:Reverse This... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An extremely effective protection system that is consistently ignored by just about everybody is quality.

    If the quality of a product consistently increases beyond the ability of people to copy it there is little one can do to crack it.
    When CDs first came out they could easily be copied to tape, but that just didn't have the same clear sound.
    When DVDs came out they too could easily be copied using a VCR... but again, you're losing quality. Now there's divx... which isn't as good as the original DVD, but can get pretty close if one knows what they're doing.
    What media corporations should be spending their money on is not protectiong and encryption schemes, but in creating a product high enough in quality that it becomes impossible (at least for the present) to copy it. Give the dvd commentary up the wazzoo, 20 channel sound, an incredibly high resolution, multiple storylines, deleted scenes, and your dvd will be protected for a couple of years.

    Sure the movie itself can be copied, but pirates always like the goodies and will buy the dvd once they feel the itch to watch it in full quality without downloading the 100 cd rip.

  88. Mad Libs! by Rayonic · · Score: 3, Funny

    The absolute best solution to this kind of thing has been around for decades, works perfectly, doesn't cost a cent, and causes your day to suddenly seem a couple of hours longer:

    Sell your books.

    Try, just try, life without books. You'd be amazed how little you miss them, and how much other stuff you'll do instead. If you have a significant other, you'll have time to actually spend with that person, instead of sitting on your arse and not looking at each other. If you don't have an SO, you'll drastically increase your chances of finding one. If you're not looking, you'll at least have time to pursue other hobbies, like coding, or cooking, or bungee jumping, or whatever the heck else trips your trigger. Just try it. You may very well love it.

    We live in a capitalist society. If you don't like what the businesses are trying to do to you, then stop using their product. What the hell does federally-mandted illiteracy matter to you when you don't read books?

    1. Re:Mad Libs! by jafac · · Score: 2

      You laugh now, but just wait, books are next. They'll start with books on tape, and move to ebooks. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  89. Re:Get BETA : BETA Revolt!! Viva BETA!!! by CarrionBird · · Score: 1
    Lets start up a BETA VCR company. Refurbish and sell as many as we can. 1000 by years end!!

    Investors contact me!

    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  90. So true by putrescence · · Score: 1

    That broadcast flag is a bit like a padlock on a dumpster to keep raccoons out.

    --
    a3c6 0e89 b1ec aa4d d630 26c8 d07e 7eed 8148 5503 02b4 dfaa 9922 b28d 0820 c4af
  91. Why involve the FCC? by Fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the MPAA owns the copyright, then why don'tthey just tell the television stations that they can't air it without the bit set? Why push in FCC regulations when you can just require it anyway?

    --
    -no broken link
    1. Re:Why involve the FCC? by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 1

      I would guess it's because the bit "requirement" would have to wait for contract renewal/negotiation.

      Getting it "turned on" within a reasonable timeframe for all broadcast media is pretty much impossible if it's only included in new contracts. Plus there's always the chance of some small fry choosing not to require it, snubbing the MPAA so to speak while at the same time providing a lucrative opportunity for broadcasters (since their shows wouldn't require implementation, they could skip it and go with the third party).

      Working with the FCC turns that expensive battle (because the MPAA would have to pay, one way or the other, for implementation) into law (or close enough) which they don't have to pay for - beyond lobbyists, etc.

      Bear with me - because this "copyright bit" wasn't part of the original contract, and probably wasn't even a twinkle in Valenti's eye when most contracts were last negotiated, they probably don't have a simple way of amending the contract to require it. Well, without renegotiating the contract, which would no doubt require lower prices -- the only way broadcasters would even consider this expensive proposition.

      Sorry if I rehashed things a few times, I'm freakin' exhausted...

      --

      Moof!

    2. Re:Why involve the FCC? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      why don'tthey just tell the television stations that they can't air it without the bit set? Why push in FCC regulations when you can just require it anyway?

      Right, they can do that now. What they WANT is to make it illegal manufature, sell, or own a (cough cough) circumvention device.

      What is exactly is a "circumvention device"? It is a normal VCR-like device. Anything that doesn't cripple itself when it sees the broadcast flag is a circumvention device.

      This isn't about broadcast or communication standards. This is about outlawing software and hardware.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  92. MPAA is *quite* aware of irc trading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of mine received a letter at work informing him that one of his machines had been hacked and was being used as an fserve to distribute a dvd copy of "the royal tenenbaums". on a whim, i went to that irc server and joined the channel, only to find it had been shut down (closed by chanserv). i wonder if somehow MPAA pressure had it closed, or if the pirates simply moved since their hideout had been discovered.

  93. MPAA, RIAA, Evil Mouse Corp... by rootX · · Score: 1

    When will the insanity stop????

    --
    -- sed s/liberty/profit/g US.Constitution
  94. Sadly.. by CarrionBird · · Score: 2, Funny
    Hollings IS my rep....ugh.

    And let's not get started on the other guy....

    (Hey *I* voted against him!)
    --
    Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  95. It's broadcast!!! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    What the effing difference does it make -- if it was broadcast for free viewing, what the holy heck difference does it make how many people see it or how they see it?!?

    1. Re:It's broadcast!!! by Znork · · Score: 2

      Oh, but you see, it's _not_ for 'free' viewing. It's for viewing with commercials, no fast-forward (or bathroom visits) allowed. If you record it you're likely one of those who want to skip commercials, and not watching commercials is THEFT (well, at least according to certain broadcasters).

      Watch out for the new DRM Shackle (tm) soon to be delivered with your HDTV. Insert foot, and stay locked in front of the TV until the show is over, or no go. Oh, and dont even try to read a book or turn the TV down during commercials; there _will_ be a quiz (with accompanying shocks delivered through the DRM Shackle (tm), if you get it wrong).

  96. I'm glad I don't live in America. by altgrr · · Score: 1

    Every time anything of this ilk comes up, I find myself thinking how good it is to live in the UK. I'm not going to extol the virtues of state broadcasting without commercials, because I think that has its own evils.

    However, what the people over in the UK realise is that, in order to get people to watch TV, you have to make them want to watch it.

    Locking people into watching shows live, rather than recording them, is going to reduce overall viewer figures, no two ways about it. The only way to make a system where people don't need a VCR is to allow them to watch the program whenever - i.e. make an individual stream available for each person each time they want to watch a programme. And that, my friends, ain't gonna happen, save for the odd few on-demand film channels.

    I am still waiting for the day that the MPAA, RIAA, etc, realise that, no matter what they do, there will always be companies who are prepared to produce non-standards-compliant players to appease/please the marketplace. Just as you had region-free DVD players, so you'll get recorders that ignore the broadcast flag.

    Of course, I'll be waiting a long time for the RIAA and MPAA to remove their heads from their behinds; however, in the meantime, it looks as if we can look forward to a world where legislation and licensing are so constrictive that starting up a new business anywhere remotely near the field of technology is going to be nigh on impossible.

    Ah well - we can hardly say we didn't bring it upon ourselves.

    --


    Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
  97. All to familar by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    The FCC is an executive agency. It should not be making policy, especially policy of this scope. Haven't you been paying attention to the disastrous results of FCC policy changes in the 1990s? Consolidation of radio into one or two companies. Creation of horizontal media empires. Extensive and undisclosed cross-branding. Death of HDTV.

    I live in Dallas, ALL of the major radio stations are owned by Clear Channel, and when they have a "major" advertiser their commercial gets run on ALL their stations at once (or damn near close), so channel flipping doesn't help. All the stations run a similar format, at the same times, and some actually play similar music. Personally I think this approach has totally destroyed radio listening in the Dallas area. The same thing will eventually happen to television if we let the FCC make policy. My personal solution which I recommend is don't watch TV, vote with your dollar, if stuff is crap don't listen to it or watch it.

  98. Yes, yes, I meant MPAA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before anyone jumps on my post to ignore what I said but gleefully point out the typo, I meant to write "MPAA" instead of "RIAA." Hey, I tend to lump all those YAAA (Yet Another AA) together in my mind...

  99. Ironic by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

    Television - in the US - is supported by advertising revenue and subscription fees. If enough viewers skip the commercials, I would expect one of two things to happen. One would be that subscription fees increase to cover the lost advertising revenue. The other would be increased use of product placement. Would either of these possibilities be more palatable for viewers? The irony is that there would be fewer "commercials" but the product placement might be more obvious that the commercials.

    One thing I've wondered is how these viewers are accounted for in the rating systems that advertisers and broadcasters use to determine ad rates. Another thing I've wondered: is product placement more or less effective than commercials?

  100. I've been targeted right out of the market. by spoonyfork · · Score: 2, Redundant

    (I'm not the original author of this brilliant rant...)

    I've been targeted right out of the market.

    I've had it. I can't take any more advertising. Television, radio, magazines, billboards, even the Internet for Christ's sake. Everywhere. Why do they keep targeting me? I never did anything to them. I don't even buy anything! They're wasting their time! Fast food makes me feel like shit, soft drinks make me dizzy, candy is disgusting, chips make my stomach hurt, I don't smoke, and any band that has ever been advertised anywhere sucks unequivocally. I eat tortillas and vegetables, I drink tap water. I ride my $40 bike for entertainment. I buy a new pair of Dickies at the army navy store every year and I get all my other clothes at Costco in 3-packs. My car works fine, I use my Internet connection for long distance, I've had the same boots for three years and re-sole them when they wear out. As far as booze goes, well, as long as it's wet...

    So why do they keep attacking me? Why are they filling every square inch of every available space in my life? Above urinals, on concert tickets, underneath the ice at hockey games, on blimps, in video games, as props in movies, plugs in rap songs, on shitty Web Sites (No, I will not visit your motherfucking sponsor. If you're not in it for the love, and you can't figure out any better way to pay for your site than by slapping some ugly, corrupted banner across the top of your pathetic work, then fucking close up shop, kill yourself, and leave the Web to non-polluters). They'd advertise on the backs of my eyelids if they could get away with it, and I can't hack it anymore. They win. I lose. They succeeded. I failed. Like Brian Wilson, I just wasn't built for these times. I fold. Here are all my cards. Keep the pot, keep my ante, keep the goddamn jacket on the back of my chair for all I care, I can get another at Costco. I'll be out in the parking lot getting drunk and yelling at cute girls because I can no longer stand the taste of tentacles. Marketing has poisoned everything worthwhile under the sun, so I'm giving it all up. Everything.

    But the way I figure it, there's no real loss. I've seen all of the episodes of the Simpsons 200 times each. Most of the good writing was done 100 years ago. I haven't listened to FM radio in years. I could play all my records beginning to end alphabetically and I'd be 76 years old when I got to the Zeni Geva. Online culture is a fucking yawn, only good for buying stuffed goats on Ebay and getting cracked copies of $1000 software. Movies always end up at the 99 cent video store across the street eventually, and you can fast forward through those commercials. My girlie's cute and the corner bar has Pabst on tap. What else matters?

    True, by shutting myself off to everything, I'm probably limiting my future potential as a 'community building' or 'bleeding edge' cog in someone's nightmarish vision of Internet profitability, but fuck, a simple read through my writing should've cured that anyway (Note to potential employers: The bidding starts at $120,000 a year with full dental).

    So I'm out. No more.

    I just feel bad for those of you I'm leaving behind. You'll be wearing your Slave Labor Nikes, sweating under a Third World Vest, listening to Everqueer or Fratboy Slim, your hair styled stupidly with gasoline and aborted pig placentas, trying to choke down a Double Meat Fuck Splattered Cow Testicles On The Slaughterhouse Floor Pus Coagulated Lactacious Secretion Yellow Dye #2 Deluxe. Man, will you be looking dumb. It makes me want to cry. You poor, oversugared demographic you. You're filling your apartments, your bodies, and your minds with useless junk. You stagger under your own weight, throwing money in random directions until you collapse and die, buried by a bunch of people who you failed to create meaningful human bonds with, who forget about you on the way home from the funeral.

    Maybe I'm just oversensitive, but I actually feel those fingers reaching out at me - cute little girl fingers, feeling at my face like a bind man, pulling at the loose threads all over my brain, trying to find a sensitive one, one that tweaks me. Desires to be successful, attractive to the opposite sex, spiritually satiated, or conversely, the fears of disease, dismemberment, of being outcast, of repressed homosexual desires. Herd mentality as dictated by herd mentality. A gas mask of soiled wool, worn in a steaming shower of chlorinated pond water. A lumbering culture created by profit motive, existing as window dressing to disguise the brutal cynicism of the architects, the brassy checks and balances of accountants bleating commands to the flunky tastemakers on the production line. The subversion of anything subverting. The conversion of something dangerous into something profitable. The gutting of the lion and the championing of the taxidermist. And the puffy vests, my god, the puffy vests....

    I give it one more shot.

    I hit that little "on" button, and immediately this little red dot appears on my forehead. I feel the barrel rising on the other side of the glass as some powersuited executive attempts to get me in his sights. His scope is the best money can buy, but my nausea and skittishness mark me as difficult prey. I make a sprawling leap over a pile of books, spilling a glass of wine and sending my cats scattering. The TV takes a shot at me. It misses, but after the smoke clears, there's a shimmering can of Pepsi on the coffee table, seductively held by a well manicured (but severed) hand. Then the Taco Bell dog is outside, scratching at my window, singing "That's Amore", the secret code that alerts Col. Sanders and Ronald McDonald to get their tumor inducing grease guns at the ready. "We have a resistor! Alert Cap'n Crunch and Mrs. Butterworth. Tell Hogan to pull that Subaru around!" And then, as the entire posse of 1-800-COLLECT goons attempt to joke their way through the front door, a helmeted uberyouth does a backflip on rollerblades against the window, almost crushing the Taco dog, thankfully getting tangled in the iron jungle of security bars designed for such a moment. The severed Pepsi hand launches itself across the room onto the stereo, turns it to HOTROCK 99.5 FM and starts dancing suggestively on the turntable. Warm, gooey songs ooze from the speakers, blurring the lines between commercial and product, product and art. The walls are running with honey, blood, and Gatorade. Limp Bizkit tries to sign me up for the Rap Metal MasterCard, but is outvolumed by a chorus of creepy NY Gap models, dead eyed and Children of the Damned style, singing nostalgic 80s songs with cool detachment, trying to sell me vests. Close inspection reveals UPC codes on the backs of their beautiful necks and a legion of bulimic girls behind them, mascara mixing with puke on ten thousand toilet bowls. Budweiser frogs are crawling out of the toilet bowls. A one-eyed, mutilated Asian girl holds a pair of new Levi's against the window with a thin, purple arm and starts screeching "It's a Small World After All" at the top of her lungs. Magic, The Old Navy dog, is sniffing butts with the Taco Bell dog, who had since bit the Asian girl on the leg and now yelling something about Gordidas. A waifish beauty suddenly appears on my bed, vying for my attention, trying to talk me into a new car, her hand slowly unbuttoning her blouse, batting her doe-ishly brown eyes, "C'mon Mark. It's only a test drive. No one ever has to know."

    Realizing my one escape, I yank my battered wallet out of my back pocket and pull out a twenty dollar bill. The entire scene freezes. All eyes are transfixed to the damp, smelly piece of paper. Andrew Jackson snickers and you can almost smell the cannibalized Indian on his breath. A miraculous cross breeze flows through my apartment, and I let the money go. It catches an upward draft, a hot air thermal, and is gone out the window.

    And then, something even stranger happens. The spokespeople, animals, models, body parts, and corporate whores all disappear in a anti-climactic 'puff' of yellow smoke, leaving a slight smell of perfumed intestine twisting through the air. My twenty freezes in mid flight about thirty feet above the ground. A helicopter drops out of the sky, and lowers a rope down to the cash. A man in a business suit slides down the rope, commando style, and captures the money in his mouth, gives a contemptuous snort, mumbling something like "sucker" under his breath. And then the helicopter is gone, vanishing somewhere behind the radio towers spiking the top of Queen Anne Hill. Everything is quiet again.

    I didn't just turn that TV off. I unplugged the motherfucker.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
  101. go read a book by longduckdong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they don't want me to record and watch their shows and advertising, I will be happy to just go read a book - or a lot of them and give up on TV completely. I still have DVD movies to watch. So I guess I can eventually cancel my very expensive digital cable subscription and get back into reading - something everyone should do more of - and I mean the paper kind of book, not e-books.

    --

    -- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
  102. A "Broadcast Flag"- would that be like... by The_Guv'na · · Score: 1

    ...the "Copyright Flag" on MP3's? ;-)

    Well it will be once any "protection" is cracked, at least.

    Ali

  103. Buy Clorox! by Buskaatt · · Score: 1

    Okay, did that work? I didn't think so. Commercials don't work either, at least not how we think.

    The entire advertising industry is just a back door for the companies who offer $$ for ads to control content by, for instance, not advertising on shows they feel don't fit their image. If we can skip commercials, they don't lose this choke-hold on the networks, because they still pay the networks off to control what we see.

    Advertising doesn't shape us by the ads, but by the content that the ads pay for anyway. So let them keep bribing the networks to make us all fat, lazy, dependent, racist, money-grubbing, sexist idiots, and we can skip the commercials like we have since the beginning of TV-time.

  104. I have a better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of altering every single electronic device in the world so that people can't copy RIAA and MPAA content.

    Silicon Valley should instead make every single electronic device so that it WON'T PLAY any MPAA or RIAA content. Instead when you try to play it, a little BSOD comes up that says "Please remove the crap from this fine hardware, thanks!". But it will let independant works play just fine.

    Seems like a better solution to me!

  105. Dangerous by dmarx · · Score: 1
    Berman has not introduced his bill yet, but his description says that it will immunize copyright holders from civil and criminal liability who use technological methods such as hacking to "prevent the unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted works via P2P networks."

    How do they define "hacking"? Deleting a user's files? Reformating the user's hard drive?

    --
    "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
  106. Something tells me... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    ...that my old silver top-loader is going to care about this just as much as it cares about macrovision: not at all.

    Now that I think about it, my camcorder probably won't care either...

    These Chicken Littles need to quit wasting their time. The VCR didn't kill them off, the digital equivalent isn't going to either, and for the same reason: most people are not theives. They just want a decent value for the price they pay, and if you're unwilling to provide that, they won't buiy your product.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  107. Why is it drastic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't care for TV anyways, so it was an easy bargain to lose it.

    Instead I used the money I could have wasted on a television and used it to buy a much nicer computer monitor. (I spent $800.) Getting rid of the extra piece of equipment saves me space in a cramped apartment, results in a pefectly good movie experience (a 21" monitor is enough in a small room), and a much nicer computer experience (these monitors are usually sold to professional graphics people).

    For sound quality I hook up the output to an existing stereo system. TV speakers just didn't cut it. But that means that I have better sound for both my computer and "TV".

    If I really wanted to get broadcast TV (I don't, but your wife and daughter might), then for about $100 you can pick up a TV tuner card. (You would have to do some research to find one that works under Linux, but there has been work on that and some do.)

    People talk about the digital convergence. What they don't realize is that it is here, now. Anyone who lives in an apartment who likes computers owes it to themselves to give serious thought to whether they really need a TV. If a 21" monitor is enough for your needs, then replacing your TV with an upgrade to your computer monitor probably makes sense.

    1. Re:Why is it drastic? by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      Television == Monitor for games consoles.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  108. homeschool agenda winning by beanerspace · · Score: 1

    For those not familiar with homeschooling, there is a hyper-conservative segment of that population that just says NO to television.

    Perhaps this legislation is a back-handed means of erradicating liberalisms most useful weapon by denying us the ability to record?

  109. This might be a good thing by lelitsch · · Score: 2

    Up to now, the MPAA has mostly affected geeks, students, or other politically not very relevant groups, and to a large part of the electorate, somewhat mistrusted group. Especially republicans know that they (a) don't vote for them and (b) don't donate.

    But if Joe Sixpack can't tape the Superbowl on his TiVo, the phone lines on Capitol Hill will melt.

    1. Re:This might be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I agree with you entirely.

      However, that being true it realy makes you wonder where in the hell the MPAA and the RIAA pull there massive loss figures from.

  110. Yeah, not worth it anymore... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    West Wing
    Sopranos
    Six Feet Under
    Oz
    Sex in the City
    Live Sports

    Just because "Bachelorettes in Alaska Go Bad 3" is on [Fox] doesn't mean we actually have to watch it, nor that it represents the quality TV shows that are available.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  111. Sad, but false by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    Try this experiment (at work :)

    1. Take a $100 bill.
    2. Make a copy of it on your fancy color copier at work.
    3. Notice it doesn't come out correctly (or if it does look OK, look for small 'tracing' dots).

    And if you really want to have some fun, call a copier repairman, and see how long it takes for the secret service to arrive -- no, really.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  112. Life without TV by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've never owned a TV. I have a VHS player and a monitor, but nothing that can receive. I rent tapes, but haven't seen much broadcast TV in many years. It just doesn't do anything for me. Too many commercials. Occasionally I watch TV when in hotels, but get bored after an hour or so and go out.

    A friend gave me a Radio Shack 1" TV, which I last used on September 11, 2001. It's in a drawer with the flashlights, extra batteries, and other emergency supplies.

  113. Maybe I'm the only one... by Cinematique · · Score: 1

    who is sick of listening to the people preaching about how television is nothing but a content wasteland, and how they're somehow better off without it. Expecially those who take an arrogant, "I'm better than you," air to their rant.

    If I were to apply that same logic to the Internet, then I'd shout from the rooftops that the Internet is a vast sea of shitty content. But guess what... for all of the "bad" stuff on the net, there sure is a lot of positive here (Internet) as well.

    The very same is true for television.

    Moderation: 4-Insightful, 2343293847-Flamebait

    1. Re:Maybe I'm the only one... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      The difference is the distribution channels in each media. Any guy off the street can put up a web page, and most of the time, yeah, it will be crap. But to get your program on television requires a great deal of funding and industry connections.

      The advertising model found on most stations prevents innovation at most points, because it evalulates a program based on mass appeal to target demographics instead of basic quality.

      The assumption that which programs are to be aired are only done so because people will like them is false, simply because the industry executives can't seem to figure out what people will like and what they won't. Instead, they tend to fall back on variations of a common formula which can yeild an acceptable level of ratings.

      Television in and of itself is not a flawed media, but the practice and procedures of the distribution of the media is. The Internet doesn't have this fault because as a general rule there is no central corporate control over the distribution system. Innovation typically is discovered and spread by word of mouth far more often then in telivision, despite all the crap and noise.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  114. Star.Trek.Enterprise.7.3.centropy.[ts].divx.avi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can just imagine it... (:

  115. Re:WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN - Cos it helps *so* much by JLucien · · Score: 1

    I do. On all these issues.

    And do you know what difference it's made? Absolutely none.

    How much of a difference has your writing to your Congressman made?

    I just don't know what can be done anymore. Ideas, anyone?

    --
    Audere est Facere
  116. I predict... by micq · · Score: 1

    ...a black box that sits on your cable line between where it comes in the house and before it hits the cable box that just turns the flag off.... it will be sold wildly on the internet, or schematics will be distributed for free, and this will be yet another failed attempt at controlling our lives by the MPAA/RIAA/bigbadmofoco....

  117. The REAL way is should be... by keith_veleba · · Score: 1

    As has been debated in forum before, government reaction to media giant corporate pressure has always been to treat John Q Public as a thief.

    I'm relatively new to posting here on /., so forgive me if I'm rehashing something that's already been rehashed. :)

    The answer is simple. Make ALL TV pay-per-view. Right now, it's the potential loss of advertising and distribution revenue that is driving all these draconian ideas to restrict copying and subsequently destroy fair use.

    We should pay for every program we watch. The fee would be inversely proportional to the amount of advertising you're willing to view. This removes timeshifting and commercial skipping from the equation. Subsequent viewings could be discounted.

    The very real laws of supply in demand will play a greater role in the product.

    To the media companies: Beware! This double-edged sword will make you bring the level of TV programming up to something for which we are willing to pay, as opposed to the garbage that passes for cutting edge TV today. Gimmick TV will be at an end. Also consider the wonderful other streams of revenue that could spring up! Want to watch the entire second season of your favorite show? That's a package deal available for a limited time, so act now! This will protect your distribution and advertising revenue, without destroying our right to fair use. Let's see some creativity and your hard work will be rewarded.

    For those of you speculating that you could just digitize the analog signal coming from your PVR to the TV, that's great. It works, and protects fair use since the copies made are of a lesser quality than the original.

    Think about it. Supply and demand. This solution simply shifts the model to the consumer and the provider from the provider and the advertiser. Looks like a good way to do it for me.

    Keith

    --
    --- If you hadn't stayed to read this .sig, you'd be home by now.
  118. COULD NOT CARE LESS, dammit !! (NT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the pain...

  119. great signature quote by os4 · · Score: 1

    One of my joys in life are the various signature quotes/mantras/sayings that appear on the message boards. Yours is definitely a keeper. Thanks.

  120. Your elected official doesn't read Slashdot! by Proudrooster · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would like to congratulate all of you who write eloquent replies on Slashdot, however you need to write letters to your "elected officials".

    Myself, everytime I read an article on Slashdot which makes my blood boil and pertains to privacy, civil liberties, anti-consumer electronic devices, and/or bad technology legislation, I contact my legislators via email, fax, or snail mail.

    Your elected official needs and wants to hear from you on the issues! If they get a mere 10 letters, faxes, or emails on a topic it raises a "red" flag and forces them to look at the issue before unknowing upsetting their constituency.

    I urge you to contact these people and let them know what you think on a weekly basis. America is still "Government by the people, for the People."

    While you are at it, register to vote!

    Lastly, we always hear talk about buying legislation in the form of campaign contributions. Believe it or not, it doesn't cost all that much to buy legislation and once we all get in the habit of contacting our legislative officials and voting, we can donate money to a PAC, donate to campaigns and hire lobbyists. Then the Slashdotter will truly be running with the big dogs, but political involvement has to begin small.

    Here are some helpful websites to guide you:

    U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate Congressional News

    I fear if we do not act and unite soon, that we will lose control of the Internet and consumer electronics in the name of Patriotism and anti-piracy.

  121. pay per view and such by Casca · · Score: 2

    There are so many issues involved in this industry, and the other similar entertainment industries, it is almost overwhelming. No single plan or argument is correct, or can fix the problems that exist and are coming.

    One of the things that will have a very dramatic effect is that it will only get cheaper and easier for individuals to produce movies and music. The recording media is getting cheaper by the minute (hard drive space and so on), the recording devices are getting cheaper (cameras and computers), and the methods of distribution are radically changing. Twenty years ago, it was pretty much impossible for a single person with limited resources to get a movie or video out to more than a few hundred people at best. Now, anyone with the talent can get it out to potentially millions of people (if it is interesting enough). Marketing is dirt cheap, production is dirt cheap, and distribution is nearing dirt cheap. MPAA is going to lose a lot, and they are going to fight it like there is no tomorrow.

    I think what we will have in the near future will be commercial free subscription channels, and commercial free subscription shows. You might get some product placement, but the viewer has the ultimate power over what they watch. What you will end up with is a distribution method that brokers getting independant shows to the viewer, essentially, like a for profit PBS.

    Thats my opinion, I could be wrong.

    --
    Casca
  122. been done before by EZmagz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is a brilliant piece of writing, and it's definitely made its way onto /. before (the first time I remember being when /. announced going to a subscription service). It's written by a guy named Mark Driver, and his website is full of similar-themed essays at blindwino.com. Granted, this is probably his best piece, but Driver has a pessimestic anti-establishment point of view that's very refreshing compared to the shit that your mom reads in Newsweek. The first time I read this piece, I went to the website and read every other piece on there...it took an entire day!

    There is a point to be learned here: passive observation is useless in regards to shit like this. You have to take ACTION! You have to risk sounding like a religious zealot and "preach" to people about what's going on. Why the DMCA is bad. How the MPAA is screwing over music as they know it (as if it's not bad enough already). And so on. Not buying a CD may make a very slight impact on the MPAA, but take the time to explain to people why you're doing so. That way, hopefully, you can instill the idea and reasoning in someone else's head too. Numbers matter here, whether it's how much $$$ you have to spend to lobby in congress, or how many friends you can get to let the FCC know that this idea is rediculous.

    Make your voice be heard.

    I unplugged my t.v...did you?

    --

    "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

    1. Re:been done before by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      Ironically, he seems to have a Flash-only site...

  123. Hehehehe by JPelorat · · Score: 1

    If you have to resort to analogies involving time travel, you've already lost the argument.

    Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute.

    --
    Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
  124. To be honest, I don't care. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

    And for good reason.

    Namely, I never record television programs anymore. If I don't have time to watch them in the first place, it's doubtful I'll get around to watching it later. I tried for a while, and ended up with a collection of tapes I never looked at. Combine this with the fact that the quality of broadcast (or commerical) television continues to go down, and I just sort of shrug.

    Somehow, I can see good comming out of this. If commerical television succeeds in upsetting its customer base more and more, I have a feeling consumers will tend to move towards commerical free subscription channels and services. There are great models already in place for this.

    1. Pay-per view. For films, this is a great feature. Most services for a one time fee allow you to view a movie as many times and whenever you want in a particular time frame.

    2. The 'HBO' model. HBO continues to produce their own content, and as a general rule it's much better then its counterpart on commerical TV. Using digital cable, they can broadcast 10+ channels at the same time (for basically the same fee to the end user). More often then not, if you miss a favorate program, it will be on a dozen more times in the following week.

    I wish more commerical stations would take that sort of view, and move towards a subscription service. I can think as an example the TNN channel, which I find myself watching more and more (some neet movies and a ton of star trek re-runs). Would I pay $5 a month for the same content commerical free and unedited despite the fact that its mainly re-runs? Absolutly

    Would I pay $5 a month to see the golf channel without commericals? No. I don't need 300 channels of commerical television because 90% of it I won't watch. Would I fight for the right to record the content on those commerical stations? Nope.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  125. ads on the eyelids? futurama reference... by caveat · · Score: 1

    They'd advertise on the backs of my eyelids if they could get away with it

    (after fry wakes up during the underwear dream-ad)
    fry: "you people have ads in your dreams!?"
    amy: "didn't you have ads in the 20th century?"
    fry: "well sure we had ads, but they weren't in our dreams. they were on tv, the radio, the internet, billboards, buses, food continaners, in magazines, in movies...but not in our dreams, nope."

    (i'm probably wrong with the details, but you get the point. peace.)

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  126. cat ratings 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone I know has careers, and timeshifts shows using VCRs or DVRs, and they all agree that they'd find other things to do if they could not ecord their shows for that purpose.

  127. ONLY $250/yr!! by RandomCoil · · Score: 2
    From the MSNBC article:
    That's why Jamie Kellner, chairman of Turner Broadcasting System, told the Television Critics Association this month that DVR users should pay an extra $250 a year for ad-free TV. "Don't think for a moment that there's a free lunch involved in this," he said.
    $250/yr is all that those ads are worth? WOW! Who do I send a check to? Since this is the TBS chair, I assume that the he's figuring the $250 be sufficient to cover all of my extended-basic cable channels. West Wing will be 45 minutes with no interruptions -- no home loan / precious metal ads on CNN in the morning. Hour long MTV shows will be a mere 20 minutes! Best of all, I won't wear out the FF button on my Tivo remote.

    Now where does this check go and how do I receive the ad-free video stream?
  128. WHERE IS SENATOR SLASHDOT? by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    Where is our senator in all of this? Why is it that all the PVR, VCR, DVD/CD-R(W) manufacturers and everyone else from HD makers to paper and pen manufacturers can't all get together and buy their own senator. Hell for that matter, why doesn't slashdot buy a senator. We need someone to start standing up for us. Someone who will spread our FUD. We need a lobyist group.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  129. Commercial Flag by vanyel · · Score: 2
    Jamie Kellner, chairman of Turner Broadcasting System, told the Television Critics Association this month that DVR users should pay an extra $250 a year for ad-free TV.

    If they would put in a "commercial flag" so my Tivo could accurately skip the commercials completely automatically and seamlessly so I truly got "ad-free TV", I would willingly pay $250/year for it. But it would have to be on all channels...

  130. It's worsr than that... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

    The DRM shackle (tm) will be foisted upon all of us, because as you know, analog TV broadcasts will be illegal come 2006 or so. Everyone is going to have to buy the George Orwell/Hillary Rosen/Jack Valenti Corporate Media Theft Protector (tm, pat. pending), even for your old 1957 KUBA Komet, complete with shock collars, pupil trackers and catheter for preventing you from missing commercials due to "nature's call".

    The deluxe model dispenses beer, snack foos, antacid and feminine hygiene products.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  131. This completely ignores one thing by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    That brief technological mule, the DIGITAL video cassete recorder. Yes you can record on a VCR in analog. But you can also do it in digital. My college roommate and tape trading freak had one that he used. Oh no, digital piracy in 1995!

    All this technology just makes the things he already did in 1995 easier. He recorded every episode of the Simpsons and (god knows why) of In The Heat Of The Night. Then he carefully, using frame advance, edited out all the commercials. Perfectly, like studio quality perfectly. He'd also make bootlegs of concerts, audio and video. Then he'd trade this copyrighted material thru the mail with a huge list of tape traders from around the world. He accumulated video and audio bootlegs of all his favorite bands' concerts, all kinds of pirated media. Everyday he'd get and receive packages from FedEx.

    The year was 1995. The technology was VCR's and a super-8 handcam. The media giants didn't notice this loss of revenue (who the hell was going to try to market boxed sets of In The Heat Of The Night anyway?) because there was no loss of revenue. Watching the copies of the Simpsons I taped from him just whetted my apetite for legitimate DVD's that didn't get worse and worse with the passing years. I'm sure that today he's one of the gods of gnutella, but the media giants still don't need to worry, because his obsessive consumption of media wasn't limited to pirated, he also spent more money on media than anyone I've ever known, and only had to get all the bootlegs because there is no legitimate channel for them.

  132. The solution is obvious... by sjonke · · Score: 1

    ...and they've been doing it for years: put utter crap on the air.

    --
    --- What?
  133. Sure we can trust the Big Corporations . . . by Badgerman · · Score: 2

    Just a thought . . .

    Right now America's mistrust of corporations and those that run them is quite high.

    Maybe this is a new weapon in our arsenal against the MPAA and their ilk.

    People are now aware that some CEOs and their cronies used their companies for personal enrichment while shafting everyone else. They used others for their own personal enrichment.

    The MPAA is trying to use lobbying and pressure to expand their control and wring more money out of us - previous laws and policies and basic decency be damned.

    In both cases it's "we're rich, forget you and what happens to you."

    Perhaps this may be a useful way to help Joe Public understand the issues.

    Just a thought.

    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  134. This really pisses me off! by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    Some of these bills are the most outrageous that I've ever seen:

    "Berman has not introduced his bill yet, but his description says that it will immunize copyright holders from civil and criminal liability who use technological methods such as hacking to "prevent the unauthorized distribution of their copyrighted works via P2P networks."

    So, the bill would allow copyright holders to hack into my PC if they feel I have taken their intellectual property. If they do and they don't find anything will I have legal recourse? If not can I hack into Hollywood's computers and poke around? I mean I think maybe they have some of my intellectual property and isn't turn about fair play?

    This is truly outrageous. We are suppose to be protected from search and seizure from the government but now this stupid bill would allow Corporations a right of trespass! What's next? Maybe allow Microsoft to break into my home, hold me at gun point and rifle thought my software looking for copies of software that I didn't keep proof of purchase?

    Maybe next they can introduce a bill that will allow corporations to punish violators without due process? They find intellectual property without proof of purchase and the corporation can take your equipment maybe?

    You know, even if they hack into your computer and find MP3s it doesn't prove that you stole them. We DO have fair use rights and if we own a CD it is perfectly legal to create MP3s and keep them on our PCs. I find it much easier to do that than keep all of my CDs at my desk.

    If you haven't figured it out by the tone of this message, these guys are really starting to piss me off!

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  135. IT IS TIME... by Dan+Yocum · · Score: 1
    ...to kill your TV. I'm sick and tired of it. The whole deal. TV. The MPAA. The RIAA. Everything. And everyone involved in the dumbing down of America, and the world. Excuse the pun, but it's time to Get Smart, people!

    Kill Your TV
    Kill Your TV
    Kill Your TV

    Cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system. TV is an idiocy delivery system.

  136. The MPAA must be worried. by WiredOni · · Score: 1

    With a break comming up for each house, and a even longer back up in paperwork that goes through them, I can see why the MPAA are taking this to the FCC. I can understand why they feel that they need to go to the head of the FCC, the MPAA feels they are not making any progress, going through routes like congress is very risky, the public is begining to catch on to this, the deadline for the HDTV switch is coming up "very soon", and know they will be SOL if they do not get their standard backed, supported and implimented soon.

    I would not be supprised if they are doing this to avoid any questinging and oppositions that they might accure if they tried going through congress. What better way to get what you want with out having to go through those costly and damaging route when you can just go to the top? Of course there is the chance that this could back fire on them.

    This is a really risky move on their part, in doing so they are drawing even more attention to themselfs, and this has a good probability that this can back fire on them. If they fail they can make matters worse, not only could they have the FCC against them, they can have the opposition from other government officals and government agencys. This can be very costly if they fail and have to go through congress.

  137. Re:WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN - Cos it helps *so* much by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 0

    Well, unfortuantely, *they* (congress) live by themselves in a fantasy land. As a result I have a motto: 12 years and GONE! That works out to 3 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate. Not too shabby. I believe in term limits. I also believe that the State that they are representing should be the ones to vote on if they get a raise (take that power from them!--God how I wish I could vote myself a raise!) I've written to my 2 senators many, many times. I get nice form letters in return. I've told them many, many times that they suck. That I was voting against them next time. They keep winning, darn it. I swear, if it comes down to it I'll run against them myself. Of course I'd need lots of money to do that.... kind of a problem since I don't make that much. (Thus the need for the raise!) I say, let's vote them all out. Screw it. If there is an "I" next to their name, they should be tossed out. That's not a bad idea.

  138. When is Jack Valenti going to die? by spack · · Score: 1

    When is Jack Valenti going to die? The last time I saw this guy, he was looking ancient. I personally am going to host a party when he kicks off to honor the passing of this remarkable man. And it truly is remarkable how backwards minded this guy is. I find it disgusting that this man is behind a hugely financed movement to hinder technological freedom in the name of profits. Yes, the same can be said for many other industries, but this one hits close to home on the computer front. Anyway, I think I'll throw a fun party with a cake that says, "Jack Valenti, you won't be missed" and colorful balloons, and darts (thrown at a print out of Jack of course), and pirated movies playing, and I'll invite the media too. And to all you who think it's funny, I'm damn serious.

    --
    For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
  139. Better yet... by Un1v4c · · Score: 1

    Become a congressman.

    The minimum age requirement for a U.S. Senator is 30 years old. 9 years US residency

    The minimum age requirement for a U.S. Representative is 25 years old. 7 years US residency.

    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html

    --

    I gave myself to Jesus, but now he never calls
  140. Imminant Domain by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

    Hey, MPAA, yeah YOU!

    You are illegally broadcasting waves of electromagnetic energy through my home and property without my express written permission or concent. These waves consist of digital and analogue encodings of endless hours of mind-altering programming and I demand that you cease and decist at once!

    Since the waveforms are passing through my property (and indeed, my own body!), I claim imminant domain rights to them. If you don't wish me to retain ownership of these intruders, you must prevent them from entering my property.

    PS: Next time I come over to your house (uninvited) with cheap beer and nachos, you MUST eat them cold (dipped in the beer), because that's how I brought them and you aren't allowed to use them the way you'd like to. You must also accept the road salt I sprinkle atop them as advertising, since I want you to. Oh, and you have to put them together yourself as well, since I can't be bothered with programming on demand.

    MPAA/RIAA, you guys need to grow up and get a life.

  141. Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ASCII pr0n just doesn't really do it for me. I'll have to stick with the actual pictures.

  142. Copyright laws=immoral greed? by Snaller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It just feels wrong that these people getting payed over and over. Record a song, get some payment, and thats it. Why should they keep getting payed over and over when the song is being played again? Does the people who built my TV keep getting money when i used it? Or any other thing?
    Sick I tell you, lets vote to get the damn laws changed.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Copyright laws=immoral greed? by thales · · Score: 2
      Oh I'm in favor of copyright reform, like returning to the original length of copyrights, 14 years automatic protection, with the posibility of an additional 14 years if the copyright is regestered, the law also needs to make it plain that copyrights only cover unauthorized distrubition. Once I purchase the copyrighted material I have full rights to transfer it to another media or format for my personal use. This would include getting rid of restrictions in EULAs that go beyond protections for any other copyrighted work.

      Copyright reform needs to be coupled with Patent reforms including a ban on any patent that isn't hardware related.

      However until the reforms happen, simply ignoring the current laws isn't going to help the cause for reforms, instead it's only going to make it harder to get the laws reformed, and is likely to lead to even harsher laws. The only excuse breaking laws like the present copyright laws would be for the purpose of creating a test case to take before the courts in an effort to overturn them.

      We can't make a credible plea that the rights associated with the public domain and fair use be respected if we show no willingness to respect the rights of copyright holders.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  143. a solid lobby.... by Snaller · · Score: 2

    preferably well armed!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  144. Betamax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do these people even care about or understand the law? The supreem court of the US has already deamed it legal to record TV shows for later viewing. Oh well, fuck the judicial system...we don't need it.

    NR

  145. Valento was smarter 20 years ago by epeus · · Score: 2

    In the 1982 House Hearing on Home Recording of Copyrighted Works Jack Valenti said:
    I know of no technological device at this time that would bar taping in the home and if it did exist, it would only be a matter of days before the Japanese manufacturers would have an override piece of equipment on their machine and you would start from ground zero again.

    So why is he trying to force such a thing now?

  146. Blank media is taxxed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thing is a mute point on current VCR technology. (same with audio cassettes). They are taxed secretly and the money is payed to the MPAA/RIAA as appropriate. This is to "Help them make up for piracy". Its complete BS but what can we do with the crooked poloticians we have.

  147. Trillion Dollar Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These 'little' flags add up to trillions of dollars, and cause end consumers to 'loose' several multiples of this amount. Any legislation is a 'blatent gift' to media interests. If you look into the man/person hours devoted to getting around present digital impediments, the numbers get worse.

    One acceptable flag, would be an upto 3 hour delay flag, so live premiums are protected, partly based on thsi is how long it takes copy a video tape. Long term, anything more restricitive wont be honored. and or cracked.

    The mums and dads of this would expect digital TV will work exactly the same as the present arrangement, and any corruption of this process is well, corruption. RIAA should be relabeld as indian-givers, as that is what they are up to, except this time the congresscritters end up with the beans..

    Australia understands this, and brought in ineffective anti-siphoning legislation, so that public broadcasting went backwards, and guaranteed the failure of digital TV. The upshot is that the broadcasters don't think they will get a return on new digitally enhanced commercials in hi-res, nor interactive.
    Their non-ingenious solution is to stop broadcasting, and have one single monopoly cable outlet, just like the days of regulated telcos. The umpire is waving a red card.

  148. That's a grammar error. by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 1

    Why use the future tense? The past tense works just as well...

  149. Did it. Not bad. by mkcmkc · · Score: 2
    I recently spent a couple of months without TV, for a reason unrelated to ideology. Here are a couple of things I noticed:
    • I had a lot more free time and I did in fact tend to get productive things done with it.
    • Most of the news content on TV can be had better and faster on the Internet.
    • TV does have a subtle addictive quality to it that's difficult to detect unless you quit.
    • It can be rather difficult to escape from TV, even if you try. There almost always seems to be one on, around the house and in many public places. This is particularly onerous in some airports.
    Although I'm watching again, occasionally, I do it even less now, and with the knowledge that it really is a nearly utter waste of my time (and therefore, my life).

    --Mike

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  150. Second Amendment by ces · · Score: 1

    The thing is when it comes time to "throw the bastards out" as it were, the instigators are going to be very glad the Founding Fathers had the forsight to put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is there for a reason, and not one having to do with frontiers or hunting or killing natives. If you don't believe me read the Federalist Papers. For additional supporting evidence note that most tyrannical governments throughout history have attempted to limit private possesion of weapons.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  151. MPAA vs. consumers by ejay · · Score: 1

    I would be happy to agree to the MPAA proposal... but first they must convince me that something on TV is worth stealing.

    --
    Rehabilitated journalist and web builder No electrons were harmed during the creation of this mess