Hearings On Bills To "Promote" Digital TV

jsproul writes "The New York Times (registration required) is reporting that hearings will be held today on a bill by Billy Tauzin (R-Disney) to require the digital broadcast flag, end analog broadcasts by 2006, and (according to the Consumer Federation of America) obsolete VCRs and make taping of television shows subject to the control of broadcasters. Another bill by Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) will also be debated, which bill allows record companies to attack peer-to-peer networks without liability for 'accidental' damages."

Comments

Maybe this is actually good news...

[dpilot]

We always seem to see the hacker vs Joe 6pak mentality battle on /., and how so many of these information issues are hacker issues, and how Joe 6pak won't notice them.

Joe 6pak is going to notice this.

After all, it's only legislation, and legislation can get repealed about as quickly as it is enacted, if the voters feel strongly enough about it. It's just got to come to their attention.

At the moment, I'm equally worried about all of this DRM mess slowing down the tech industry even further. It's bad enough as it is, but just wait for new consumer products are mandated to have features that only hinder. They'd like to say it's going to spark new demand, as we all run out and spend bux upgrading all of our electronics. But since those electronics are going to cost more, and in many cases grant only reduced function, I say we'll hold on to what we have. We're going to see a further slump in consumer electronics, and therefore the rest of the electronics industry.

Whine and Complain

[sdjunky]

We can whine and complain all day but I think the best way to defeat this is to get a list of names of those who support this and make it KNOWN to their constituents

The only way to do that is to get advertising on TV that shows that
1. These people want to stop you from recording to VCR
2. These people want to make you pay for a new TV, Receiver etc
3. These people want to put your rights to use media ( purchased and otherwise ) in the hands of those who have already been shown to have no respect for fair-use

I believe this is the only way. It would have to be done in a way that the majority can understand.

example:
Man watching a baseball game. He cheers as his favorite batters steps up to the plate.

He hits record to capture this moment
*screen goes blue*

*screen shows text that says 'due to DRM security restrictions you are not permitted to copy this broadcast'*

I believe that would get the point acress

Re:telling stats

[rocur]

Because the story isn't on the front page?

Or maybe its just that most of us recognize that until we own a Congresscritter or three, it doesn't matter what we think. As for writing my Congressmen, I have, several times, about this as well as about the Internet Radio issue. Each time I got back polite letters basically quoting from RI/MPAA press releases. As always, money talks.

Re:"peer to peer"

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on how you interpret the bill's definition:

`(2) `peer-to-peer file trading network' means two or more computers which are connected by computer software that--

`(A) is primarily designed to-- `(i) enable the connected computers to transmit files or data to other connected computers;

`(ii) enable the connected computers to request the transmission of files or data from other connected computers; and

`(iii) enable the designation of files or data on the connected computers as available for transmission; and

`(B) does not permanently route all file or data inquiries or searches through a designated, central computer located in the United States;

(A) seems to cover just about everything, but (B) could probably be taken to exclude anything connected through a router (i.e., EVERYTHING ON THE ENTIRE FREAKING INTERNET ).

Ordinarily, the lack of technical understanding displayed by politicians irritates me, but in this case it may work to our advantage.