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.

47 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

  4. 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 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:
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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 zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Attention MPAA.

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

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
  7. 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 :)

  8. 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.
  9. 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...
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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 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.

    2. 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)
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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...)

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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?
  27. 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!

  28. 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?

  29. 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
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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