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."

Comments

This is important to fight...

[SpaceLifeForm]

...even if everything on T.V. is crap and not work recording anyway.

Where the hell did this one come from?

[MacAndrew]

Have I been out of it? Has there been a lead-up to this?

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 ... yet. Raise a ruckus, however; no profanity. :)

Re:Where the hell did this one come from?

[MacAndrew]

OK, f*ck the DMCA, how do we work around this one?

Now I am suddenly 10x as sympathetic to "the cause." And so will a heck of a lot of other people who have taken it for granted for 20+ years that they could time-shift their programming. I don't like piracy, but this strikes at the heart of fair use.

(If the FBI is listening, I, um, wasn't soliciting a conspiracy to violate the DMCA or anything. It was a rhetorical question. Yeah, that's the ticket.... Hey, what's that helicopter circling overhead for? Hello? AHHHH! Send ... civil ... libertarians..^%$^[NO CARRIER]

Re:Where the hell did this one come from?

[ignorant_newbie]

not to be a dick...

ok, yeah, to be a dick:

it's not Fing piracy. there are no boats involved. "Piracy" is a PR term dreamed up by M$ to make something sound worse than it is.

Did you see the article in the register last week showing that microsoft could sell Office for $40.00 and still make a profit on it? how is this morally better than me giving my friends a copy of it when i've had to pay $400 for it?

Re:Where the hell did this one come from?

[MacAndrew]

I *think* most people are intelligent enough to know the difference between piracy ("Blackbeard") and software piracy ("warez"). It's efficient. And finding a prettier term for software piracy will not redeem it.

If I recall, it was the pirates themselves who came up with the term. I remember it from the late 70's. Made them feel sexy or something.

Re:Where the hell did this one come from?

[MacAndrew]

I couldn't be farther apart from the Cato Institute! Even a liberal (me, and that doesn't mean socialist or communist) will tell you the same, it's about stomping on another's person rights and welfare because you want something.

And I damn well consider it a moral entitlement to be paid for my work. I work for you, you pay me. Ask the union movement if there was no moral dimension to their work. Sure, getting paid it's an economic matter, also, but economics is a proxy for people's welfare. Also, the artist expects to get paid when putting the item on the market. There's no right of the public to ignore the artist's wishes and impose their own idea of the way to market the artist's stuff. If the artists wanted to give away free samples, he or she would; if they don't that's their business. Don't patronizingly say your theft is good for them. That's unethical and offensive.

You say you're good about it and consider it sampling. I'm sure you delete everything you don't pay for after a while. Fine, you're rare. But that's not the consensus. Piracy is routine in some parts of the world because the law simply is unenforced, and real people besides the big bad studios lose money, and, surprise, prices for the honest buyers are higher. That is economics, but it's also offensive.

Reality check: all this copying of copyrighted stuff is pretty trivial in the scheme of things. But it's still wrong. See what % of artists you can get to agree they don't really know what they're doing, that you are smarter.

link to electronic comment filing system at FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html

Re:link to electronic comment filing system at FCC

[CableModemSniper]

the code is 02-230. Go to the link, skip the article. Slashdot the FCC.

how about your 'air space' rights?

[nandix]

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.

Re:how about your 'air space' rights?

[renehollan]

ok, so in a sense the broadcasters own the content they broadcast and therefore can somehow manage to get a law like this passed.

Well yes, but there are several problems with laws like this:

1. They suddenly make an assumed legal activity illegal. People have come to expect that they can time-shift broadcast TV with VCRs. In fact, their right to do this has been upheld in the Sony v. Betamax case. While this can change, it hardly serves what the public wants to do with the content it receives.

2. Because of history (see 1, above), there is something that seams fraudulent about suddenly depriving people of a capability they had. I doubt that this new "feature" will be widely advertised.

3. Criminal laws are enforced at public expense. If it is impractical to enforce the law (i.e. the technology can be easily circumvented), expect either increased taxation to fund the "war on time-shifting" or selective enforcement.

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?.

Difficult. Yes, you own your home, subject to eminent domain, zoning laws, and HOA covenents. But, your elected representatives explicitly permit broadcast television. About the only thing you could fight are excessive radition levels (i.e. someone getting a broadcast license and putting up a tower right beside your home -- but that doesn't happen).

In the case of cable, since you permitted the installation in the first place, you'd have no case.

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.

Dunno. The dynamics aren't the same as with, say, the drug trade. I'd expect that similar laws would get passed by pressure from local content owners for the same reasons as in the U.S., rather than because of pressure from the U.S. government.

This is great

[the_other_one]

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.

key point

[BigBir3d]

This is for digital recorders, not VCR's.

The Federal Communications Commission is weighing a plan to forcibly implant copy-protection technology in digital television receivers.

Re:key point

[bwt]

VCR's are obsolete. Blockbuster is going all DVD and nobody is going to keep them around.

Re:key point

[Dyolf Knip]

Except uncrippled VCR's that can receive HDTV and record it are circumvention devices under the DMCA. We can therefore expect an anti-electronics version of the War On Drugs in the next decade.

Attack the root cause of this.

[BitGeek]

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.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[NickFusion]

Or, let the system work the way it usually works:

Bad Law gets made

Courts rule on Bad Law

If Bad Law survives court challenge, wait until Citizen-Consumers realize how big an inconvenience Bad Law is.

Citizen-Consumers vote the Bums out (to be replaced with new Bums).

Shampoo, rinse, repeat.

My little Toaster can make toast in 1 minute. Show me a Cuisinart that can do that, or...oh, never mind.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[BitGeek]

If you think it started with Bush2 you're not paying attention.

Clinton worked hard to criminalize encryption, self-defense, homosexuality, etc.

And before him, along with congress during these whole periods, the politicians worked to increase their power base and their control over people.

Any democracy without really stringent controls on the government is a tyranny.

It really started here in 1919 when the constitution was ammended to allow income tax- the federal government has been growing like crazy since then. And the feds are far less accountable than your local state or city government. The New Deal, the gun bans of 1930 and 1968, the war on drugs that started soon after 1919... all of that is the result of people putting big government fans into power.

We need to rollback the last 100 years of laws- almost everything needs to go, except women voting.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[dh003i]

Actually, I believe Libertarians -- including myself as an independant Libertarian (one who disagrees with sevearl of the Libertarian Party planks) -- would abolish the FCC altogether.

The FCC is an unconstitutional organization, which is not answerable to the people and not accountable. It makes laws, which is wrong; the Congress and Senate should be making the laws.

In general, I think that we should get rid of communications regulations in as much as possible. No one has the right to own the air, and the government attempting to regulate such just hinders the right to freedom of speech: because of commmunication regulations, though everyone has freedom of speech, only the rich can get their message to the public.

Such laws are unconstitutional violations of our rights anyways. It violates consumers rights to force them to buy inferior products. I should be able to buy the best product on the market -- which isn't one which is crippled. If anything, what should be illegal is not the copying of copyright material, but the mass distribution of it.

I disagree with even that to some extent. The purpose of intellectual property law -- patent and copyright, in this case -- is to promote progress: to act as an engine of free speech, fueling it, or fueling invention. That is, it is there to promote people to excercisee their rights to free speech, and to excercise their right to be inventive. This is a legitimate aim, even from a Libertarian perspective: giving people incentive to excercise their rights is a good thing; conversely, giving people incentive not to excercise their rights is a bad thing. But when it is of overly broad scope and unnecessarily long duration, it in fact does the opposite.

IP laws regarding copyrights and patents should provide protection for just enough duration to give authors and inventors the incentive to write/invent, and its scope should be as narrow as possible. Exceptions should also be made for life-saving cases. Your patent shoudn't mean the death of somebody because they can't afford the cost of your drug. For those who can prove inability to afford drugs, the government should allow 3rd parties to produce generic versions of it and sell it to these people at the cost of production. The original inventor loses nothing: those who couldn't afford to buy the drug wouldn't have bought it anyways, and would be dead. For copyrights, their scope should also likewise be limited. Some things, for example, should not be copyrightable. Religious texts, for example, like that of scientology. Religion is a public thing, and the public has the right to know the dictates of religions, so those in the public can weigh the cons/benefits of converting to that religion. The Scientologist's copyrights on their religious texts violate the public's right to freedom of religion, by denying the individuals adequate information to make an informed decision about religion. The scope of copyright should also be limited in other ways; namely, fair use needs to be greatly expanded.

This brings me to an idea I have. As computers programs are becoming smarter and smarter, it may be possible for them to read in paragraphs and reword them to be written differently, but still mean the same thing. This seems like something that we should all be working on, so that we can distribute the ideas of any book without worrying about the copyright. For example, if I took Lawrence Lessig's book, Code, and re-wrote each paragraph, switching words and sentences around, then distributed it, that would be perfectly legal. Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those ideas. Thus, we should be working on programs which can figure out ways to restate things in a preferably better manner, but still have them mean the same thing. That way, you could scan in Lessig's code, have it auto-reworded, and distribute it.

I can picture a tree-climbing/AI algorithm, where it passes over the same sentences and paragraphs, several times, re-writing them in various combinations to find the one which "maximizes the score". Of course, this would be very complicated and difficult to program, requiring both exceptional knowledge of linguistics and programming; but its a project that seems worthwhile to me.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[bcboy]

Income tax was very, very popular with the public when it passed. Otherwise ammending the constitution would never have happened. They perceived, correctly, that existing tax methods (like sales tax) were regressive, in the sense that they had more impact on the poor than on the rich.

Big government, in fact, has very, very little to do with how tax is collected -- money is money, when it's spent. Every industrialized country uses some combination of income tax, sales tax, and so-forth.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[Monkelectric]

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.

I call shenanigans on you. Libertarians *don't* trust government because it is bought and paid for by huge corporations. Libertarians want a government by and for the people, you may remember that phrase from somewhere.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

With the advancement of AI, bayesian algorithms, and genetic algorithms, it may well be something which can be achieved with work.

Given that you obviously don't understand in even the most basic terms what kind of problem you're talking about, I suppose it's no surprise that you're bandying it about so carelessly.

Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday. Then again, so are faster-than-light spaceships, immortality, and time travel. None of these things is proven to be impossible. And yet none of them have even a theoretical basis in fact.

The ability to distinguish fact from fancy is an important aspect of maturity. I would recommend that you spend a little time improving this skill in yourself. Or, if you prefer, you can simply remain an idiot. Doesn't much matter to me.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[dh003i]

Try reading next time Twirlip.

I never suggested that this is something that can be entirely realized tomorrow, five years from now, or even ten years from now. Yet, it is most certainly going to occur before "faster-than-light spaceships" (impossible, it requires infinite energy to travel at the speed of light), immortality (also impossible by a strict definition). Time travel is entirely possible in a one-way direction -- into the future, if one travels fast enough.

Furthermore, what I require does not necessarily demand "machine-comperhension". All that needs to be done is that something needs to be re-written enough to escape copyright protection. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. What constitutes enough of a revision to be a different expression of the same idea is an ambiguity. If a "different expression of the same idea" can simply mean altering word-choice in the same expression, then programs could be written to do that today with a little consideration:

i.e., "Yes. Machine comprehension-- for that is what you're talking about, after all-- is something that might happen someday." could be re-written as "Yes. Machine understanding -- for that is what you are articulating about, after all -- is something that may occur someday eventually." Same idea, different expression. The only question is would it stand up in court as a different expression of the same idea, thus not fall under copyright infringement.

The program only needs to be "smart" enough to sidestep copyright -- create a new expression of the same idea. Depending on what court's rule, that may be relatively dumb; i.e., like the AliceBot.

I'd suggest you stop focusing on irrelevant personal insults -- which only serve to hide the weaknesses of your arguments -- and start focusing on useful suggestions or contributions.

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[dh003i]

Yes, it would be a derivative work. But copyright is not supposed to protect the idea, but rather the expression of the idea, remember?

Re:Attack the root cause of this.

[sql*kitten]

I call shenanigans on you. Libertarians *don't* trust government because it is bought and paid for by huge corporations. Libertarians want a government by and for the people, you may remember that phrase from somewhere.

Not quite right. Libertarians distrust governments because governments rely on threat of force for their legitimacy. It doesn't matter whether the government is run by large corporations, Marxists or anything in between. Any government that can jail you or confiscate your property for not paying its taxes is morally wrong.

Secondly, libertarians want a government that basically leaves them alone. Democracy without very strong limits is not suitable for libertarianism, since there's nothing to stop a mob voting in freedom-restricting laws. That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution, specifically in order to limit the powers of the elected government. A pure democracy only lasts until 51% of the population realize they can vote to enslave the other 49%.

Better link to comment filing system at FCC

[doofusdan]

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi goes directly to the page you can enter comments on.

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.

Another example of bad legislation

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:Another example of bad legislation

[Jahf]

Damnit, I let my mod points expire yesterday. Consider yourself modded +1 Insightful.

This has a big impact on curent HDTV sets

[cs668]

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.

Looks like somebody's Fighting it

[pythorlh]

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?

Re:Looks like somebody's Fighting it

[Frobnicator]

If I remember correctly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So the proposal to the FCC is my enemy, and Microsoft is its enemy...

Microsoft is my Enemy...

Microsoft is the enemy of my enemy, so...

Microsoft must... be... my... my... fr[KA-BOOM] (head exploding)

(It's funny, laugh.)

The FCC wont let me be!!!

[Quicksilver31337]

IT would seem that the FCC.org is currently unreachable. There are only three possible explanations for this:
1. They got tired of listening to us /.ers bitch and disabled the DNS binding.
2. They pissed off one too many /.ers and are suffering the wrath of a DDOS.
3. The FCC upset the army of undead minions fueled by all that is dark and unholy, known only as...the script-kiddies...

...what do you mean by "over the top"?

FRONT PAGE MATERIAL????

[emptybody]

Is this not front page material???
I would think so.

Proceeding number is 02-230

[qengho]

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...

[MarkusQ]

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

Good.

[Picass0]

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.

Re:Is the following a possible circumvention?

[NickFusion]

Circumvention is against the law (DMCA).

Thanks for playing!

MOD PARENT UP!

[NickFusion]

True words. The only way to fix it is to piss off the herd enough for them to moo.

What this really is about

[rocur]

These FCC rules are designed to enforce the proposed HDCP (High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection) standard over DVI/Firewire connections. HDCP will be used to "protect" all high-definition video content starting with over the air, cable, and satellite digital television signals and eventually hi-def videotapes and DVDs. Details may be found here, but basically HDCP ensures that only HDCP enabled devices can play hi-def video. Non-HDCP devices will only receive down-converted (S-VHS quality) signals.

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.

This is not unprecedented

[Tuxinatorium]

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.

Substantial non-infringing use

[bill_mcgonigle]

The real problem here is that the FCC is trying to rule away rights reserved for the citizen by the Supreme Court. Should the rules go forward anyway and the rule is struck down by the Supreme Court the techinical standard will need to be re-worked, rendering a generation of machinery obsolete. This is what I filed in my comment:

I am concerned that the broadcast flag requirement is in direct opposition to the Sony Betamax finding of the Supreme Court which ruled that VCR's were entirely legal for substantial non-infringing purposes, such as time-shifting. While I understand that the ruling does not apply to VCR's, the Court certainly knew at the time that the video tapes were portable, and, as such, implicity backed both time-shifting and room-shifting as non-infringing activities. However, if I have a PVR in my living room, and one in my bedrooom, it is my understanding that the proposed rule would prohibit copying a 'protected' show from one PVR to another, an activity with substantial non-infringing purposes. Therefore, the proposed rule would allow content providers to effectively deny a right assigned to the citizen by the Supreme Court of the United States. While I vigourously oppose copyright infringement, there are law-enforcement avenues available to pursue violators - it is not the place of the FCC to deny rights to the consumer already found to be protected by the Supreme Court.

As a practical matter, should the proposed rule go into effect, be challenged, and Supreme Court finds itself in agreement with the Betamax ruling, the standard would be thrown into turmoil, existing equipment would be obsolete, and the industry would incur significant cost. To avoid such costly risks, the FCC should take the conservative path and stay far clear of reducing the rights of the consumer.

Ye olde news

[AntDaniel]

And in breaking news today...

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

Better Link

[booch]

Go here to get directly to the form you need.

Re:So where is the alternative?

[Frobnicator]

We're still required to watch the commercials, remember?

Why should this be a surprise?

[GTRacer]

Has anyone else seen the news about the Supremes hearing a case from a California circuit court regarding Miranda rights?

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...

Re:Is the following a possible circumvention?

[Frobnicator]

That doesn't help much. As someone else replied, there's always the DMCA to contend with, but even then...

There are several ways to circumvent this. Most of them would eventually land you in court. You could claim that only Congress has the power to make laws and only the Executive branch may enforce them. You could make claims about fair use and the betamax case and time-shifting and undue burdons on the marketplace, &c, &c, &c.

BUT WE'RE GEEKS.

Go get a generic radio scanner from your local Radio Shack, Fry's, or other gadget store, and send the stream to your computer. Go to SourceForge and start a project that 'interprets arbitrary radio waveforms as though they were arbitrary DTV and HDTV signals'. Provide and establish primary uses such as 'Enabling consumers to view DTV and HTDV on devices that the Industry is unwilling to support.'

Perfectly legal, ethical, and cheap. See how well it worked for DeCSS?

Sure you'll go to jail, 100 or so people will have their lives ruined for it, but its worth it, right?

Right?

Anybody?

Hmmm... Sounds like some chilling effects

Frob.

Warning: Some FCC comments attached to WRONG rule!

[markwelch]

The author of the ZDnet article linked here made a mistake in one of his links -- changing the proposal number from 20-230 to the next sequential one -- and as a result, a number of comments clearly intended to be attached to 20-230 are attached to the next proposal in sequence.

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!

who cares

[jon787]

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)

Pardon my French, but fuck TV.

[Glytch]

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.

Blatant disregard of Constitution

[Randym]

Only Congress may make laws. Congress may make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...". Seemingly, a regulation that requires a government-approved content control device would fall under one of these clauses.

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

Easy fix for me

[Hostile17]

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.

Re:I dont think there is much reason for concern y

[renehollan]

Sigh, 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

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.

DIRECT LINK for submission on 02-230

[Alsee]

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.

-