Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Tastes New Copyright Victory - Act NOW
Geekwannabe writes "The FCC is about to pass regulations requiring all television
manufacturers to include copy-protection in any television receiver or
recorder. The 'broadcast flag' regulation is intended to allow TV
networks and broadcasters to determine which of their shows you can
record (essentially giving control of your VCR, TV and Computer back to the
broadcasters.) In order for the new, copy-restrictions to succeed
the FCC will make it illegal to manufacture or sell non-copy-protected
devices in the U.S."
...even if everything on T.V. is crap and not work recording anyway.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Have I been out of it? Has there been a lead-up to this?
... yet. Raise a ruckus, however; no profanity. :)
However, it does appear to be in its early stages. There's a difference between proposing and implementing, which is why agencies are forced to to issues a "notice of proposed rulemaking," have periods for public comment, hearings, etc. They've had their shares of idiotic proposals.
Don't panic
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html
Background:
Pepsi Corp. owns the soft-drink distribution rights for my university's campus. No one is allowed to sell, say, a product from Coke. To get around this a small group of people sells straws, and then give a coke to anyone who buys a straw.
So what if a company would sell, say, a license to use a tivo, and then give purchasers a tivo?
ok, so in a sense the broadcasters own the content they broadcast and therefore can somehow manage to get a law like this passed.
don't you own your house?, what about the broadcasted waves that go through your place?.
can't someone make it ilegal to broadcast copy-controlled content through his/her house?.
i don't live in the us, but if this gets passed, it probably will spread to third world countries
such as mine who are always passing laws in order
to get more money lent.
I'm going to open an appliance store in Niagra Falls Ontario. I'll specialize in legal uncrippled TV's
I should be ready to retire in a few months.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
A lot of slashdotters attack libertarians, but the root cause of this kind of FCC mandated regulation of your lives is your trust in big government. Both liberals and conservatives want big governmetn and what that creates is huge departments that have no accountability to anyone, except congress, and even then they are not held in check.
The FCC has no right to prevent me from buying any product I want form anyone who wants to sell it to me-- whether it has copy protection or not.
Every time you vote democrat or republican or green, you are voting for these unanswerable, unchecked government powers.
You're just reaping what you've sown.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Of course, I can see the FCC coming down on the makers of TV / video capture cards at some point, too, but this should be an easy work-around for the time being.
"What kind of chip you got in there, a Dorito?" - Weird Al Yankovic
From this page you can either type in a comment on the web page, or attach a document (PDF, DOC, TXT, and a few other formats).
You need to include the proceeding number, which is 02-231.
The link given in the comment I'm replying to is the FAQ for the comments page but I think most /.'ers don't need no steenkin' faq on filling out a web form.
Design the damn DRM system so that it doesn't need laws to stand on its own. Laws that exist just to ensure a company a profit because they have subpar technology are stupid.
May we never see th
...Now my name and address is on the FCC's black list!
Since the current crop of HDTV sets do not have built in tuners they use external set-top boxes.
The RGB outputs of the set-top box are then hooked up to the HDTV set which is basically a monitor.
The problem is that since the RGB ouputs can be copied they will use the broadcast flag to determine when you can really get a 1080i signal from your set-top box. Anything with the broadcast flag set will come out in 480i.
That will make the current round of HDTV sets junk since most good programming will only show up as 480i. To bad for all of the early adopters.
...when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.
assert(birth_date<time-86400)
This won't stop or even slow down much of anything, just a waste of money. I'm going to start copying shit that i have no interest in now.
Looking at this , this , and this , someone has provided a form letter. And, since that first link's address is listed as "1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA," I wonder if we can guess who it is?
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
IT would seem that the FCC.org is currently unreachable. There are only three possible explanations for this: /.ers bitch and disabled the DNS binding. /.ers and are suffering the wrath of a DDOS.
...what do you mean by "over the top"?
1. They got tired of listening to us
2. They pissed off one too many
3. The FCC upset the army of undead minions fueled by all that is dark and unholy, known only as...the script-kiddies...
_______
Death wish, n.:
The only wish that always comes true, whether or not one wishes it t
Why can't the government stop criminalizing every thing I enjoy.
It's like they want to lock up everyone, at least fun-loving, happy-go-lucky geeks. Seriously....
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
feel free to pirate it. YARGH!
i
Remember to use your carriage return if typing over 70 characters. The address is http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cg
--
Please do not pass this action which will not help address the issue of piracy. Copyright
infringers will ignore this prohibition. They will use pirated set-top boxes and leak copies onto
file-trading networks. This action will only destroy rights that Americans have come to expect
to enjoy.
Please do not bend to the pressure of big business.
Let the FCC take up the mantle of serving the public if Congress drops it.
47 USC S. 336b5 grants the FCC the authority to prescribe regulations relating to advanced
television services "as may be necessary for the protection of the public interest, convenience,
and necessity." This action is not necessary for any interest of the public, although the MPAA
might think it necessary for their interests. Nor does it advance our convience.
If this action is followed through, the FCC will become a tool of the media businesses instead of
an agent of the public. Please stand up for our rights.
-A Concerned and Worried Freedom-Loving American
Is this not front page material???
I would think so.
comment directly in my journal
The proceeding number is actually 02-230. The FCC's web site is infuriatingly difficult to use, and their bureaucrats use the same format for FCC/DA numbers and docket numbers.
FCC 02-231 is the document that refers to docket number 02-230, neither of which is described as a "proceeding", but the number you enter into the "proceeding" field must be 02-230, as I found out after mistakenly commenting on 02-231.
Sheesh.
Every six months or so I turn on a TV (or get stuck someplace where one is on & too loud to ignore. Given what I've seen the past few years, I'd be in favour of some sort of flag bit that not only prevented recording the programs, but also prevented broadcasting them in the first place.
-- MarkusQ
If they pass such a stupid law it would be the best thing that could happen to our argument. It would be a good hard slap in the face to consumers, rather than slowly boiling a frog. I hope they make the laws cross TVs and Digital VCRs, and that there is a rush of people buying the older (non-crippled) components, and then a falloff on buying as the market becomes saturated with the new devices.
Then, hopefully, someone raise their voice and make the point that it is hollywood and special interests hurting the consumer electronics and computer industry, rather than the "end-user". Say goodbye to Jack Valenti's influence in Silicon Valley.
OK lots of people have posted already about what a bad thing this is; loss of fair use, not being able to timeshift etc. These are good points, but what about the flipside of the argument?
Studios have to make money to employ people to make shows. If something like this isn't implemented then where will these people get their money from?
Picture a few years down the line, lots of people own tv cards. One person records all of the broadcast output and dumps it onto the p2p system of the day. Everyone downloads it for free, nobody watches the adverts (they've been stripped), nobody pays the subscription fee (download for free instead). So what happens to the studio that produces output that nobody pays for? They go bust.
So instead of attempting to cripple every pc and tv in the world which won't work (If I can see it then I sure I can find a way to record it) what is the alternative? What kind of system will work?
At the end of the day, somebody has to foot the bill...
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
True words. The only way to fix it is to piss off the herd enough for them to moo.
What were you expecting?
The FCC might as well be controlled by Libertarians already, given its ever-increasing affection for deregulation and the "free" market.
Dirty little secret: the airwaves are owned by the public. The FCC's supposed purpose is to grant licenses for the use of those airwaves (after all, somebody has to decide who gets to use what portions of the airwaves), on behalf of the public interest.
What has happened over the course of the past few decades is that the FCC has becoming increasingly cozy with the broadcasters it's supposed to be regulating. Meanwhile, Cato Institute-types sit on the sidelines touting the miracles of the free market.
What we end up with is an FCC that's more interested in the interests of giant media corporations than the interests of consumers.
So, please, go ahead and vote Libertarian -- there's plenty more where this came from.
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
So what does that mean for you. If you were planning on "sharing" hi-def movies over the web, you are probably out of luck (of course the multi-day downloads for a hi-def movie might also discourage you). Otherwise, this won't affect you much. When you buy your new hi-def TV, it will show you great looking hi-def video from your antenna or cable. You can still play your old video tapes and DVDs. Your new hi-def DVD player will look great.
So where is the problem? In most cases, you will be able to tape shows onto your existing VCR and TIVO as well as your nifty new hi-def VCR or TIVO. But there are several "flags" in the HDCP protocol that allow the broadcasters to either limit taping to low-def resolution or to prohibit it all together. The intent is to prevent you from making copies of hi-def DVDs or pay-per-view movies. The networks are unlikely to decide to prevent you from time-shifting, they understand it's value, but there is nothing stopping them. There has also been talk of a flag which would disable the fast-forward function (aka commercial skipper) on hi-def recorders/players. Then there are those of us who have spent thousands of dollars as early adopters and helped work the kinks out of the DTV system. If HDCP gets implemented, all existing DTV equipment becomes useless.
In many countries (such as Australia), it's just as illegal to tape broadcast TV as it is to set up a camera in a movie theater.
I see no harm in this regulation as long as it does not intrude on my fair use rights. The ability to record TV shows for free and keep the copies indefinitely is not included under "fair use". You're not even paying for it, so you have no rights to it except what the broadcasters permit you.
This is vastly different from the CBDTPA, because the latter is a cumbersome and futile scheme that would inhibit hundreds of perfectly legal things that you can do with a personal computer. The former is more akin to the regulation passed by the FCC several years ago requiring VCRs to be made so that they can not dub copy-protected video tapes.
Repeal the DMCA!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
After the first use of the Gutenberg printing press, the engravers and church are in uproar.
The engravers guild said 'If people could buy books for 2 farthings the engravers would be but out of business.'
A spokesman for the chruch said 'This is against Gods Will and only degrades the sanctaty of the written word and circumvent the correct and proper process of distribution that ensures only books go to the rightful gentry who can read them.'
The church later release imposed a law in which they asked the govenment to ensure all books are produced with a hook and chain allowing printed books to be chained up and so restrict access to only those who are just or just rich. Chained library
Go here to get directly to the form you need.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
A man was shot during an investigation of the theft of a cop's gun. He was taken to hospital and later interrogated forcefully, at which time he confessed.
At issue is whether his confession is admissable on grounds it was coerced and it was obtained without the suspect ever having been Mirandized! If we lose Miranda, and we're already losing our privacy, why should a trivial thing like the loss of time-shifting be a shock?
GTRacer
- I still don't get what they're so pissed about. They had a chance to build the infrastructure THEIR way, and they stood by and let Napster and KaZaA do it instead...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
In many countries (such as Australia), it's just as illegal to tape broadcast TV as it is to set up a camera in a movie theater.
Here's proof.
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
Basically, the problem comes if someone uses the link in the article to locate the existing comments, and then submits their own comment by following links from there. I emailed the ZDnet author, so perhaps he can still correct the link.
There also appears to be some "spamming" of the correct proposed rule -- a huge number of identical comments. I'm sure that the FCC will treat all these identically-worded comments the same way your congressperson does: they count as ONE comment unless there are tens of thousands of them, in which case they count as a half dozen. Write your own reply comment in your own words!
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
But slashdot won't.
my TV is older than me, and my VCR isn't that much younger than me. They both work great (better than the newer TV/VCR my parents got a few years ago)
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Imagine this legislation as a stepping stone toward requiring all devices that may contact information that is broadcast (i.e. computers, capture cards, etc.) .
Every time I hear about more draconian laws preventing fair use, I think to myself, "Is it really worth bothering with in the first place?" I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I had to get it off my chest.
The comment procedure is for 02-230, not 20-230.
Nightman
"We sat and watched...as the Moon rose...for the very first time" - "The Carnaval is Over", Dead Can Dance
fire up your favorite video recording software
"This video source contains gain control copy protection. Recording halted."
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sigh,
...and of course "will the companies that pay my bribes/donations like this?".
:)
:) :)
So, FCC is now goimg to be supporting the electronic industies in Korea, Japan and China?
Sounds like a great win to the VCR manufacturers OUTSIDE america (since from the article it says that it will be illegal to make vcrs without the devioce o' doom IN AMERICA). I mean, patriotism in America is pretty big, but will people buy handicapped devices just because they are made in usa? I doubt it. You'll buy the properly working vcr's from outside usa.
Will someone try to outlaw overseas electronics that are now commonly acceptible (vcrs, computers, players, tvs, etc?)? No. Because of a simple equation:
X > Y
Where X is the overseas companies money
and Y is the $ belonging to the folks pushing this proposal.
All politics/regulations are about money and votes. Arguments about technology and whats right and wrong are secondary to the question "will the lowest common denominator of voters like it?"
So yeah, while this might pass, it will only be good for overseas vcr manufactuers who will be happy about it
Folks in america, dont panic just yet
Be thankful you are not getting the all the government that you pay for
Comments need to be in to the FCC by 2002/12/05 at the lattest.
From the OED:
Piracy:
2. fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76
They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition.
1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520
He is charged with `Literary Piracy', and an `unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'.
1855 BREWSTER Newton I.
iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.
So...if the FCC is a branch of the Executive, charged with executing the laws, it isn't allowed to make laws -- regulations that incur penalties if broken -- especially laws that Congress itself is not permitted to make.
Maybe we should require anyone who wants to serve in government to pass a test on the comprehension and use of the Constitution. We'd have a smaller government in no time =8^D
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Because of my work schedule, I never watch live TV, I record everything I want to watch using two TIVOs and a VCR. If this passes and I can no longer record the shows I want to watch, then my cable TV subscription will become usless to me and I will simply call up Time Warner and have it disconnected. It won't take more than a few months for me to recover the money I lost on my TIVOs throught the saving from not paying a cable bill. In the end, I have more money in my pocket and since a fair amount of TV shows are now being put out on DVD, I will eventually get to see the shows anyway. I win, they loose, simple as that.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
Sounds like a great win to the VCR manufacturers OUTSIDE america (since from the article it says that it will be illegal to make vcrs without the devioce o' doom IN AMERICA). I mean, patriotism in America is pretty big, but will people buy handicapped devices just because they are made in usa? I doubt it. You'll buy the properly working vcr's from outside
I'd think that it would be illegal to import such VCRs because they would be circumvention devices. Thus, I can't see this chanelling American demand to foreigh suppliers, as you seam to imply. It would mean that there would be no demand for such crippled VCRs outside the U.S. So what? Most likely, the crippled VCRs would be foreign-made anyway. Just another variation on the basic product.
This is not the same as the issue of limiting export of American-developed hard cryptography: there, such limitiations were silly because foreigners are quite good at developing their own crypto, and would have no need for crippled American versions. That was an example of legislation which was ineffective in controlling access to crypto technology outside the U.S. The present case is an attempt to control access to technology within the U.S. - arguably easier to accomplish when it comes to hardware.
You could've hired me.
Fair use does include time and format shifting. Thanks. If you live in Australia of course you may not have such rights. But don't tell the US what rights we should and should not have.
We're back to the same old thing... No matter what they do, the stream ultimately has to be unlocked and decrypted for human viewing.. unless the DRM is going to spawn the advent of organic brain powered Decryption Devices that we will have implanted just to watch 20 minutes of commericals, and 5 minutes of actual show..
Hollywood's perceived ability to survive in this digital arena has been greatly exaggerated. In fact, what you hear in the news are not the sounds of a monster chewing on its next digital victim, but the last cries of a dinosaur as it crashes to the arena floor.
It follows: The group that screams the loudest in opposition, is usually the group responsible for stalling inevitable innovation and is frequently first to be exiled from the arena. You can't reverse technology to appease certain organizations; it's an inevitable step in our digital evolution.
Lets put things in a little perspective. My adversary is a woman that couldn't write ten lines of code if her life depended on it. Fortunately, for all of us, she's in charge of bringing the recoding industry into this new digital age. In fact, the world's largest entertainment companies have entrusted her with their future and livelihood.
The way I see it, we just need to arm the revolution with knowledge and equipment. Luckily for everyone I can provide some help in both the equipment and network department.
But they don't line up. Ahh, but they do, if you think like a Vegan
Matrex Station
I'll be glad to answer any questions:
In the matter of the notice of proposed rulemaking FCC 02-230, the
FCC should reject the proposal as unacceptable as a whole for
the following reasons:
1) The rulemaking is based on faulty premises.
2) The rulemaking does not solve the problem it is intended
to address.
3) The rulemaking unfairly infringes upon the fair use rights
of consumers under copyright law.
4) The rulemaking unfairly represents the views of a minority of
stakeholders.
5) The rulemaking unfairly externalizes the costs of protecting
intellectual property.
Originators of intellectual property have a valid interest in
exercising their rights to protect the fruits of their labor and
it is in the interest of everyone to find a compromise that
balances the rights of content producers and consumers. However,
the proposed rulemaking satisfies neither the legitimate need of
intellectual property holders to protect their content nor does
it protect the rights of the consumer to engage in fair use of
that content. The proposal is flawed and should be rejected for
the following reasons:
1) The rulemaking is based on faulty premises.
The premises under which the rulemaking was authored are
faulty and results in a subsequently flawed rulemaking. The
faulty premises advanced to support this rulemaking and the
arguments refuting these premises are as follows:
a) Premise: Content released in digital media are more
Susceptible to piracy than content released in analog
media because digital copies can be made with no loss of
quality.
Content released in digital media are no more susceptible
to piracy than content released in analog media. Any
analog content can be transferred to a digital media and
thereafter retransmitted with no loss of quality. The
rate of technological advance assures that any imperfections
in the transfer process from an analog master to a digital copy
will continue to fade. Thus, any attempt to discriminate between
analog and digital transmission or media when considering the
implications of piracy is nothing more than an attempt to secure
a government sanctioned monopoly for digital technologies that
is non-existent for analog technologies.
Further, the issue of quality as a motivator to encourage
piracy of content is seriously called into question by
the actual behavior of consumers in the music market. The
most popular format for exchanging digital copies of music
files, legitimately or not, is the MP3 format. This format
is a "lossy" format meaning that information about the music
is dropped selectively to reduce the size of the resulting
file. Any copy of piece of content that is stored in MP3
format is by definition inferior to the original copy, often
times noticeably so. Despite the fact that these copies are
inferior to the original, music industry representatives
continue to claim that these imperfect copies are having
a significant impact on the sales of content. Quality, then,
does not appear to be a significant factor in piracy of music
and there is no reason to assume that consumer behavior will
change with respect to video media.
b) Premise: Content providers will not provide content in the
absence of this rulemaking or regulation or legislation that
is substantially similar.
This assertion is false on its face. The technology required
to make illegal copies of content already exists and is easy
to acquire, both in digital and analog form. Despite the fact
that piracy of content is trivial, content providers have
not changed either the channels of distribution or the frequency
of distribution of their content. As examples:
Content providers continue to provide broadcast programming
despite the fact that piracy of that content is entirely
possible. Content providers will argue that the content being
broadcast is analog and of lower quality and is therefore
undesirable for piracy. As demonstrated above ( See: 1a ),
neither of these conditions is an inhibitor to piracy. New
programming continues to appear on broadcast television
despite the lack of any effective controls on the content.
The encryption system for Digital Versatile Disks (DVDs) has
proven trivial to circumvent and the tools for consumers to
make copies of the digital content contained therein are
easily available. Thus, any content distributed on DVD
media is an easy and obvious target for piracy. Again, even
in the absence of any effective protection for their content,
DVDs continue to be offered for sale.
Intellectual property owners' arguments that they will be
unwilling to provide content in the absence of this regulation
is inconsistent with their own behavior.
2) The rulemaking does not solve the problem it is intended
to address.
In the age of the Internet it is unrealistic to believe that this
regulation will negatively impact the rate of piracy of intellectual
property. The United States is not isolated from the rest of the
world and a single illegal copy of a piece of content that is
subsequently posted to the Internet effectively knocks down the
house of cards that this regulation is constructing. Pirates will
continue to operate with the same ease as before this regulation but
law abiding citizens, now presumed guilty until proven innocent, will
be forced to pay to support this farce.
3) The rulemaking unfairly infringes upon the fair use rights
of consumers under copyright law.
The purpose of intellectual property law is to balance the
rights of the intellectual property creator and the benefit
to the public. This rulemaking undermines legitimate non-infringing
uses of copyright protected content, such as time shifting, while
granting new and substantial power to intellectual property holders
without an offsetting benefit to the public.
4) The rulemaking unfairly represents the views of a minority of
stakeholders.
In the recommendations of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Subgroup
implemented in this proposed rulemaking one significant stakeholder
is conspicuously absent: the consumer. Ultimately it is the
consumer who will have to pay for and live with this rulemaking.
5) The rulemaking unfairly externalizes the costs of protecting
intellectual property.
Under the laws of the United States intellectual property holders
are already provided remedies to discourage and
prosecute those who abuse the holders' property rights. In this
rulemaking IP holders are asking for additional protections above
and beyond those provided for by law and are asking that the costs
of that additional protection are carried by the entire populace
of consumer electronics purchasers. The costs of this additional
protection should instead be carried by those that derive the
benefit of the protection, namely the IP holders and the consumers
of their content.
DIRECT LINK with 02-230 already filled in. Just type in your name, address, comment, and send!
Here's my comment:
Mandating a "broadcast flag" will only serve to impede a transition
to Digital Television because consumers simply refuse to buy
rights management crippled products. The Audio Home Recording
Act mandated that all Digital Audio Tape devices must enforce
rights management. Consumers simply didn't buy them. The
technology is virtually nonexistent today. Claims that companies
will withhold content are nothing but empty blackmail threats.
Analog signals are already subject to the same "danger" of unlimited
distribution of perfect copies after a simple digital conversion. The
broadcast flag is inherently flawed technologically, it can never
achieve the goal of preventing copyright infringement. It is not in
the public interest. It will inconvenience the public and interfere
with legitimate activity. It will interfere with innovation. The
broadcast flag also becomes entirely nonsensical when you consider
that television signals will be increasingly be received on computers
and processed in software.
The FCC is entrusted with managing the public airwaves in the
public interest. The recommendations of the Broadcast Protection
Discussion Group simply do not reflect the public interest.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.