Slashdot Mirror
Broadcast Flag All But Approved
Are We Afraid writes "The FCC is about to approve the broadcast flag for HDTV, according to Reuters. The EFF has been vocal in its disapproval, but the suits appear to be pushing ahead anyway. We may soon need an updated dystopian parable: The Right to Watch."
SPDIF (Sony Philips Digital InterFace) has a copyright bit which can be set for audio signals... has that been stopping people?
Any wall a man can build can be torn down by another man... Is it really worth all the fuss?
.: Max Romantschuk
Why should anyone in the world buy bottled water for $1.00 each if they can get water for pennies at home?
Closing the analog hole
Look, we know Hollywood hates TiVo. OK, more like terrified of it. Seems like this will be one way to kill a TiVo (or other similar device) foray into HDTV.
Since I have DirecTV, I'm not too worried, seeing as I got the TiVo from them... but things change...
Azghoul wrote:
True, but how accessible will the alternatives be?
What if the law mandated that you needed a government license to publish books? How much choice would you have for your hammock reading material? (this is exactly how it worked in Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries) Obviously a bit more extreme than the broadcast flag, but not unrelated.
Personally, I don't care that much about TV, nevermind "HDTV". I think we need to really care when similar controls start changing the openness of the net, though.
VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
Heck, don't watch TV, movies, etc too. If you cannot get what you want out of it (i.e., fair use) don't buy it. Tell everyone in Hollywood to go f*ck themselves.
--rhad, who is sick of this shit
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
These broadcast flags may be a Bad Thing. But, if we all watch less TV, the world may be a better place.
More time to learn, to play, to volunteer, to socialise.
Maybe, parents will actually raise their children, take care of their households, and improve the lives of their loved-ones.
People will have the time to learn about the things their government is doing, how the politicians who represent them are acting, what the issues really are, and how to change things for the better.
Or not. I could just be dreaming.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
When the first article about this was posted it mentionned that the flag would be used for over the air broadcasts only because "people already paid for cable" or something. I don't see this in the current article. If this affects only HD over-the-air broadcasts I doubt many people will notice the difference. However, if it affects all cable, dish and OtA digital broadcasts it will definitely hurt HD adoption. Finally, my HDTV accepts only DVI and component inputs and uses an external decoder. If the info has to be sent to my TV unencoded how hard can it be to intercept that signal?
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
"Analog transmission stops in 2006."
No. Analog transmission is scheduled to stop in 2006, but with such a heavy level of investment in analog technology--both at the transmitter (content provider) and receiver (content consumer) ends, I highly doubt the cut-over to all digital will occur on schedule.
I mean, seriously, when it the last time you saw a technical conversion of this size and scope actually occur on schedule?
I also expect that when Joe Six-Packs T.V. stops working, the general populace might just get a might bit fired up over this whole issue and start calling for the folks in Washington's heads.
Nope. But the "average citizen" is capable of such stupidity.
There are still people out there who don't understand that files take up space/bandwidth. And will create high-quality images and wonder why they wobn't fit on a floppy disk.
Tiggs(I only wish I was joking!)
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Hopefully this will irritate enough people that they will revolt against the TV. Then they will be forced to *gasp* enjoy outdoor activities like excercise or hiking through parks, or worse yet, forced to read books such as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Fountainhead"!
Seriously, though, you do not have a divine right to receive television signals in the format you demand. If broadcasters want to encrypt signals so they only work with DRM enabled TVs then so be it. (Though you do have a right to hack the TV you own and manufacturers have a right to make their TV however they want, regardless of what government says, as per the most basic principle of property rights upon which all rights are implemented.) So stop whining about how this will cut into your ability to see every episode of "Surviver" reality TV and start opening your mind to real reality.
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
You bring up a very good point. "Right" is a little nebulous here, as it requires a television to receive the broadcast, and I don't think that many people would argue that owning a television is a right.
The broadcasters are granted the "right" to broadcast over a regulated public medium for the common good. So the question becomes, does the broadcast flag work for that common good? As television is used largely for entertainment, I think the broadcast flag will hold little harm. I for one will not die if I cannot record "Friends". But again, this must be guarded against to prevent abuse that would control the flow of important information, or, as stated by another poster, raise the barrier to entry for small broadcasters too high (as if it wasn't high enough).
It seems that also at issue here is whether the broadcast reciever has any rights over the broadcast. Of course, the famous Sony case says that at least we have the right to time-shift the broadcast. As the broadcast flag prevents us from time-shifting, this seems clearly illegal.
I guess I'm still conflicted. But then again, illegal is illegal...
Sadly, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Fair use is a very broad doctrine. It _might_ apply to literally any kind of infringement whatsoever. No one factor -- such as whether a use is a literal copy or transformative -- controls the entire analysis.
Instead, each and every time that the fair use analysis is conducted, all four factors of the fair use test (see 17 USC 107) must be considered.
The example that immediately springs to mind is if someone made a high-quality -- let's say exact copy -- of a work for noncommercial educational or research purposes.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.