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."

Comments

Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[Max Romantschuk]

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?

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[sl0ppy]

i can tell you that as a musician, the copyright bit on the personal dat recorder i purchased did a pretty good job of stopping me.

well, until i spent $1500 more on a professional dat recorder, that didn't contain it.

it's ridiculous. i wasn't even allowed to copy my own recordings. it's not like dat is a hotbed of piracy, i only recall one riaa album *ever* released to dat.

it's nice to see bogus legislature used to stop useful technology from taking hold, and the common man from being able to compete with those already in power.

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[captaineo]

The more I think about it the more I agree this is [i]exactly[/i] what the broadcast flag is about. It's not about stopping piracy*. It's about stopping low-budget Mac-wielding filmmakers from threatening Hollywood... Amazing consumer-level media tools do no good if they can't record anything. *I love how the article positions the broadcast flag as a "magic bullet" against internet piracy. As if one bit is going to stop anyone from doing anything...

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[sl0ppy]

AHRA-92 mandated that "consumer" DATs add copy protection to unprotected sources, but since the content is secured at the source, why would HDTV "recorders" be required to imprint it in original content?


why wouldn't they? :)

but seriously, to play devils advocate for a moment, let's think about a scenario:

television station zzba invested heavily in an initial hdtv rollout. just like the theaters in the area, the station has been hit with economic woes. now, the content providers are mandating that they broadcast with a content flag. being early adopters, their equipment isn't flexible, and simply can't be "re-flashed" to send the new bit.

they have a choice, get congress to pass a law requiring all consumer devices to set a flag on content that is missing a copyright flag, or force the early adopters to go broke redeploying.

since we already know that the current administration is very pro big-business, which way do you think they'll lean?

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[3terrabyte]

"But can you please explain to me what difference the broadcast flag will have on indie filmmakers?",

"....but there is no mandate for any producer to use the broadcast flag in material they create. If you don't turn it on in your recording, then nothing should stop you from making copies."

Sounds good for phase 1. Then what happens when someone starts to take out the 'bit', and re-transmit somehow, allowing everyone to watch and copy to their heart's content. I'll tell you what happens, they change the law so that EVERYTHING *MUST* have the bit. And all players must have the bit. And by then hopefully all computer hardware, bios, O/S, & software will have DRM also. And lo and behold it'll cost a minimum of $15,000 to get 'access' to licensing the 'bit'. That $15,000 will be what pushes out you, me & the indies.

What I just described is a very small jump compared to the other things they're trying to push for now. The bit is going to be bad. If we allow them to do this, they can then close the smaller holes without any problem.

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[aborchers]

So basically what you're telling me is not that I'm missing something about the broadcast flag but the slippery slope argument that it's a foot in the door for those evil thought control media corporations that own the Congress. I see.

Dang, and I thought my tinfoil hat was tight... :-)

How do you reconcile the fact that hardware/software vendors and consumer groups with an interest in innovating technologies are also large contributors to political campaigns? This is a big complicated issue, and the fact that it's taken this long to get this "mandate" tells me that it's a long way from over. There are just too many diverse interests in the mix.

I'm very worried about technological mandates, and I don't like the broadcast flag because I think it puts unnecessary inhibitions in the path of users, but I think your conclusion here is a little tenuous and contrary to pretty much all of recent consumer, technological, legislative, and judicial history.

For myself, if I can't get the use I want out of a device or content, then it's irrelevant because I just won't buy the shit. DVX comes to mind as a perfect example of how consumers voted with their wallets to give a big FU to an overly restrictive technology.

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[Adam_Weishaupt]

he elimination of Tivo-type PVR devices

I agrre with you, this is their ultimate goal, however, as soon as my Tivo is rendered useless, I will cancel my cable service. If I can not watch TV on my terms, then I will not watch TV at all. There is no such things as "Must See TV".

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[Simonetta]

Thank you for your interesting comment.

But, what exactly is a FPGA? Is it a Field-Programmable Grid Array? And how would this chip be related to the previous discussion?

I'm not disputing your claim, I'm only trying to understand what you're referring to.

On Slashdot, given the wide range of the audience, expanding acronyms and including a URL or two for some background info goes a long way.

thank you,

Re:Remember the copyright bit in SPDIF?

[captaineo]

What I find most repellant about the "broadcast flag" is that nowhere does it codify fair-use. The flag is all about PREVENTING copying; it serves as a technological proxy for copyright law. But unlike a human, a technological system can't make judgments about whether you are within fair use. You can't tell the broadcast flag "I'm just time-shifting for my own viewing" or "it's to show my students." It just automatically assumes you are a criminal.

I fully expect the "broadcast flag" in all media will be set by default to the most restrictive setting (no recording at all?). Why wouldn't they do this? It would shut down all home recording of TV for any purpose (time-shifting, education, watching shows not carried by your local broadcaster, etc). I haven't seen the final rules, so perhaps the most restrictive setting will be less than "no recording at all." Maybe "record, but play back only once and delete thereafter?"

Mandatory copy-prevention laws are MUCH more dangerous now that we have the DMCA. I was never too concerned about Macrovision, since there are ways around it if you really want to record something, and it's within your legal rights. But there is no legal way around a digital system. (technically you *are* allowed to hack it *yourself*, but you're not allowed to distribute automatic hacking tools - and very, very few people have the knowledge to hack a DRM system on their own)... Outside DMCA jurisdiction this is not a big deal, but here in the US it will get harder and much more expensive to obtain "unrestricted" equipment

Or consumer-level recording equipment will add the broadcast flag automatically, preventing you from making copies of your own stuff. If this sounds like fantasy, it's not. I use a consumer MiniDV deck for dumping my CG animation to tape. Several times it has refused to record DV streams or dupe VHS tapes (of my own work) with some kind of "copying prevented" warning. I expect this kind of behavior to show up a lot more often if copy-prevention bits are mandated.

Plus it seems that mandatory copy-prevention is the best way to kill new recording media (R.I.P DAT for consumers, SDMI, "Secure" Digital, etc).

The replies may be right about this being a knee-jerk reaction by the MPAA. Perhaps they do not currently see the consequences for consumer recording, but I feel it acutely, and it's just too tempting to close the "final loophole" and shut off all consumer recording forever.

My hope is that Apple or even Microsoft will end-run around this whole mess by encouraging media distribution in a format not controlled by the mandate (Quicktime, WMV, etc). MS seems really eager to convert broadcasters and optical video discs to WMV; if that happens, anything goes. Of course MS will have its DRM system, but I'm actually a lot less scared of DRM by Apple or Microsoft than DRM by the MPAA or TV broadcasters.

dystopian, yada yada

[Azghoul]

Everyone cries about the horror of the future where we'll only be spoon-fed what they want to feed us.

What a crock. There has, and always will be, alternatives. While it's entirely appropriate for concerns to be raised now, to expect that we'll end up with some sort of "Evil Corporate Control" over what we can do with our lives is kind of paranoid, don't you think?

I mean, we COULD actually just go outside, sit in a hammock and read a book, couldn't we? Television entertains me less and less as time goes on (though I won't even try to claim I'm one of those who doesn't have one / never watches it).

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[Davak]

Or, you could just attack this the American way... and bitch about it!

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

General information, inquiries & complaints: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov
Comments on FCC Internet services: webmaster@fcc.gov
Elections & political candidate matters: campaignlaw@fcc.gov

1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) Voice: toll-free
1-888-835-5322 (1-888-TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free
(202) 418-2555 TTY: toll
(202) 418-0710 FAX
(202) 418-2830 FAX on Demand
(202) 418-1440 Elections & political candidate matters

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[agentk]

Azghoul wrote:

There has, and always will be, alternatives.

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.

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[3terrabyte]

And what kind of education and job would you need to be able to spend your saturdays in a hammock in a yard & house that you bought?

The story works well because it described the hoops you have to live with to make it through college to get the job you desire.

I'm sure if on a different day someone told you that the Chinese shouldn't bitch about the propaganda the government puts on the radio, TV, and newspapers. Afterall, there are other alternatives, like farming some rice outside. Come on, use your imagination.

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[4of12]

IIRC, different kinds of communication provide differents levels of effect.

An email from 733th4Xor@hotmail.com to one of the FCC commissioners will receive a weight close to zero.

A phone call is better.

A postcard is better still.

A well-written letter on good stationary and signed is even better.

If you want really impressive effects, then you need to go the next $PARTY fundraising dinner, provide a large contribution. Then, using the telephone, you can call the boss of the FCC head and tell him you think that a particular point of view is very important to you.

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[glenrm]

You have to keep the barrier to entry for small/indie startups in almost any industry as low as possible. For instance let us say you start an online video or audio site (inet radio for instance) that only uses truely independent non-signed talent and content, you should be able to operate such a biz without being constantly hasseled and legaly threatend by the current large incumbents in the field. This is very important if you want true capitalism with creative destruction and all that good stuff. So you have to be careful that the only goal is to stop piracy and not to destroy alternitve legal competition.

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[gfxguy]

One could argue that the public use of the airwaves, granted to broadcasters on our behalf, gives us the "right to watch".

If not, then I should have the right to broadcast whatever I want at the same frequency, no?

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[karlk79]

funny how the more money you spend, the more it makes it legit. One could almost see our driving force.

Re:dystopian, yada yada

[CoolToddHunter]

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...

Incorrect

[Klerck]

I think "Right to Watch" would be a bit of a misnomer. It's much more like the "Right to Record". Nothing is going to stop anyone from watching something when it's broadcast.

the bottom line

[Anonymous Coward]

But consumer advocates warn that it would make obsolete 50 million DVD players already in Americans' homes.

Broadcast Flag.

[EinarH]

I think this will help the companies and boost demand for HDTV.

HAHAHA.

Open Letter to the FCC Commissioners

[Hanashi]

[This is the text of the letter I faxed to the FCC yesterday. Please feel free to copy it and send it yourself if you like, or visit the EFF's Action Center and use their spiffy online form. They haven't voted yet; it's not too late!]

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Jonathan Adelstein,

Commissioner Kevin J. Martin
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Kevin Martin,

Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Michael Copps,

Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Kathleen Abernathy,

Chairman Michael K. Powell
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Michael Powell,

Please allow me to take a few moments of your time in order to express my opposition to the proposed adoption of the "broadcast flag" for digital televisions. I strongly believe that this misuse of technology will do little but stifle legitimate innovation (including slowing the adoption of digital television) and infringe on the consumer's fair-use rights.

One of the most serious problems with the "broadcast flag" proposal is that it places control over marketplace innovation in the hands of the MPAA, an organization with no vested interest in innovation. In fact, the MPAA can be viewed as having more of an interest in the LACK of innovation, in that they are rooted firmly in the current technology and content distribution model. Allowing the MPAA to veto new features in digital television equipment is like giving organized crime the power to veto new wiretap laws. As a business organization, the MPAA will always act in the interest of it's members, and not the public. The result is that marketplace innovation will suffer, and consumers will have to make do with fewer features and no way to exercise their legally protected fair-use rights.

In conclusion, I urge to you avoid "broadcast flag" technology at all costs. It is a system tailor-made to appeal to the Hollywood content providers, striving to protect their distribution-based business model in the face of new technologies. Rather than adapt to the realities of the current situation, they choose to adapt the current situation to that which they desire to be reality. This situation is unworkable, in that it places unreasonable restrictions on both consumer electronics manufacturers and the consumers themselves. Please do not adopt the "broadcast flag" technology. It benefits only the MPAA, and abridges the rights of consumers.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
YOUR SIG HERE

Re:Open Letter to the FCC Commissioners

[jez9999]

Dear Mr. Hanashi,

We at the FCC are not interested in this 'innovation' that you speak of. My job description clearly states that I'm here to help businesses make more money! In fact, why you thought it purposeful to write this letter to me I don't quite know. Why would I go against my duties as chairman of the FCC, especially when this chip implant the MPAA gave me makes everything so much better. Yeesss... that's right... come to daddy, endorphins... ahhhh.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Powell

Re:Open Letter to the FCC Commissioners

[Hanashi]

Actually, I don't have the fax number. One of the nice things about the EFF Action Center is that there is a nice little "email, fax or print" selector at the end of the form. I sent this through that form, and asked it to fax my letter. I highly recommend this form, since faxes are regarded somewhat more highly than email.

Re:Open Letter to the FCC Commissioners

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Bottled Water, Anyone?

[tds67]

"Why should anyone in the world buy if it's on the Internet," said Andrew Setos, president of engineering at News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment Group.

Why should anyone in the world buy bottled water for $1.00 each if they can get water for pennies at home?

Re:Bottled Water, Anyone?

[Noco]

Perhaps you haven't considered that the water flowing through the pipes of your neighborhood and home isn't the purest and/or tastiest water available. I myself would rather purchase purified bottled water to avoid the musky, metallic taste of my house's water. I do know that not all bottled water is the same, with some being only marginally better than that of my home. So I choose wisely. Additionally, the water you consume at your home is not free. It is less expensive than bottled water. You can check this out by reading your utility bill next month. Personally, I would gladly pay for content that is delivered to my house via Satellite, Cable, DVD, etc. if the quality is better than what is available for free. I buy music from Apple's iTunes music store because I hate the hassle of P2P systems, and I want a good quality, readily availabe music source.

Next Up

[killmenow]

Closing the analog hole

Translate this to Car talk...

[t4b00]

What if Ford Motor company suddenly decided to include a clause in the contract that stipulates, something like: "if you purchase a Ford vehicle, you agree to purchase all accessory and or replacement parts from Ford Directly" ? I think you would see allot more Chevy's running arround town. let the FCC pass all the regulations they want. I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.

Re:Translate this to Car talk...

[jkovach]

I for one will be sticking to Regular Tv/DVD combo, At least untill the FCC decides to make THAT illegal too.

There are no plans in the works to make your NTSC TV and TiVo illegal per se, but there are plans to make it useless. The FCC's ultimate goal is to shift all broadcast TV stations over to digital and discontinue analog broadcasts by the end of 2006 (assuming enough people are able to receive the digital broadcasts.) Their motivation is that digital TV uses less spectrum than analog TV, so they will be able to repurpose the old analog TV spectrum for other uses and no doubt make a pretty penny by auctioning the licenses. Broadcasters have been rather slow to switch over, and it makes sense that the FCC would give them stuff like the broadcast flag to encourage them to switch over faster. So in a few years, if the FCC gets their way, you won't have a choice other than digital TV with the broadcast flag.

Of course, this ignores some pretty tough facts: something like 98-99% of Americans have a television. More Americans have a TV than have telephone service at home. A sizable number of these folks probably don't have the money to just run out to Best Buy and buy a new television because the FCC says they have to. I expect to see a bunch of noise made in the news about this once the deadline approaches, followed by lots of Congressional campaigns running on the "The big bad federal government wants to take away your TV... over my dead body!" platform. This will likely lead to the analog/digital cutover deadline being pushed back significantly.

That's just semantics...

[WIAKywbfatw]

The last Slashdot article on this topic had a post that contained the various lengths of time within which you could view a HDTV recording. After "forever" the next longest length of time was "one week".

One measly week.

Well, one week might be fine if you record something becasue you know you're going out for the night, but what the hell do you do if you're going away on a two-week vacation? What choice do you have except to miss out?

Can you imagine missing the last two weeks of 24, The West Wing, ER or whatever you're hooked on because some silly timestamped restriction is set to one week (or less)?

How do you tell your young kids that the show that you promised they could watch when they got back home from a long car journey to visit the grandparents can't be watched anymore because you exceeded the time limit? Ever tried explaining silly things like that to a screaming three year old?

Let's face it, for a lot of people, life is more hectic now than it was ten years ago. Ten years from now, it'll probably be more hectic still. What good is a timeshifting device like a VCR or a PVR if you can't timeshift with it?

say bye bye to HDTivo

[e40]

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...

Re:say bye bye to HDTivo

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I think it's more likely to kill HD. For me, at least. Neither HD nor TiVo has achieved anything like "broad market penetration" so it's tough to determine who will win that battle. Essentially, it's a decision between convenience vs. quality--but the TiVo works with things out now, whereas HD requires new gear.

My bet's on TiVo.

pathetic

[retards]

News like this will be very funny in 20 years. Incredible fuss over something as boring as simple push-entertainment.

Wake up! TV is dead. Or will be quite soon. I don't give a damn if I can watch sit-coms in high definition in 5 years and not record. I want to kill people online in high-res. I want to walk on other planets and meet interesting people in high-res.

Guess what? I already can! So good luck to broadcast technology (the name kinda says it all). A "don't copy" flag will not save you.

Here's my idea

[rhadamanthus]

DON'T BUY AN HDTV!

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

Re:Here's my idea

[tuffy]

DON'T BUY AN HDTV!

An HDTV is a fine DVD viewing platform. Heck, that's about all it's good for. Considering the cost of an HDTV receiver and the dearth of programming for it, I doubt I'll be getting one - ever. This obnoxious flag can't make them any less enticing than they are now.

Re:Press Release

[Davak]

Broadcast flag... FCC Sucks!

Do Not Call List... FCC Rocks!

Okay... they are one for one now. Honestly, if they just give us free porn, they'll win the series and we'll all be happy.

Just say no.

[DaveV1.0]

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.

They have to plan for the future

[enosys]

They have to plan for the future. When CDs came out could people rip them, encode to MP3 and share on P2P networks?

Nowdays you can find lossless rips (typically Monkey's Audio) on the edonkey2000 network. Entire (non-transcoded) DVDs are also being shared somewhere. I haven't seen this firsthand but I've seen people talking about it. It's only a matter of time before those DTV shows become easy to share. In fact smaller DTV (though not high-definition) rips are already being shared (mostly music videos).

I'm not defending the broadcast flag, and I'm sure it'll get hacked and the stuff will get shared anyways, but I can see why they're at least trying to do it.

Windfall Profits

[Junior Samples]

The music industry has been plagued over the last few years with consumers illegally sharing and copying songs over the Internet, which has led the recording industry to sue music downloaders for damages up to $150,000 per song

Gee, If they can make $150,000 on each pirated song, then why would the content providers want to close this source of revenue?

Correcting the poster...

[Masem]

HDTV is NOT the same as digital television. HDTV is High Definition TV, which is where your ultra-large plasma TV will display in all it's beauty and can be recieved with standard over-the-air signals without the need of digital TV, as it's already there now (While I think the FCC is interesting in promoting HDTV, it's not a mandate yet). DTV is digital TV, and that's the transferring of everything, including the mandated shutdown of analog-out from broadcast towers, by 2006, though most likely this will go even later. And if you read carefully, and look at older issues, you will be able to make at least one copy for personal use of any non-premium/PPV show on the network, at least, with unlimited duplication of standard over-the-air broadcasts. This has been voted by the FCC back in July/August at some point.

FCC Disabling VCRs in 2006

[Effugas]

Analog transmission stops in 2006.

Anything that lets VCRs work will have to respect the broadcast flag (i.e. will have to fail).

Nothing will air with the broadcast flag disabled. This includes news.

Ergo, it seems perfectly reasonable to claim VCR's are being effectively banned between the next two presidential elections.

--Dan

Re:FCC Disabling VCRs in 2006

[tuffy]

Analog transmission stops in 2006.

Analog over the airwaves transmission stops in 2006 - as of right now. Your cable company is free to send as much analog signal into your home as they like; it's their cable, after all. And if you get satellite, they can do the same. So unless your cable company sees some compelling reason to switch to all digital, your VCR will be safe with them.

Re:FCC Disabling VCRs in 2006

[Chuck Milam]

"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.

Re:FCC Disabling VCRs in 2006

[CyberGarp]

Analog transmission stops in 2006.

The US's metric conversion act of 1975 stated that the US would be fully converted to metric by 1992. Right.

Re:FCC Disabling VCRs in 2006

[khyron664]

I must disagree with you here. There are many households that will not be ABLE (read afford) to just purchase a new TV because the FCC wants to stop analog broadcasts. And what about those people who are more fortunate who have 5 TVs in their house? Think they'll run out and buy 5 new TVs? No. They might buy one, but they'll sure as hell be very unhappy about it. Analog broadcasts won't stop anytime soon, despite the FCC's mandate. Think anyone is going to buy a $200 receiver for their 10+ year old TV that isn't worth $200? Again, no.

After all, just THINK of the outcry from the TV networks and the TV viewers if half the fans of Survivor couldn't see the next series. :)

Since the FCC's mandate deals with over the air broadcasts, the only thing that really needs to be looked at are the number of homes with cable and those without. Last I checked (and I could be wrong now) the number of homes with cable were not the majority.

Khyron

Over the air only?

[bert33]

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?

Even that's not enough anymore....

[RobK]

Remember the PATRIOT ACT?

We all know that legislation doesn't win customers. No customers, no product. No product, no business. No business - more legislation - because that'll fix it.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will come knocking on your door.

The Broadcast flag is NOT a better mousetrap - what the world needs is a better Buffy!

Re:TV Already Losing Viewers

[blizzardsoup]

Typical 18-24 males don't change viewing or buying habits to make policital/social statements. They base their habits on whether or not the products suck.

Vibrating my airwaves

[Halo-]

What I don't understand is why the industry thinks it can "broadcast" a signal through the public airwaves and maintain this level of control. If I get a permit and hold a parade down a residential street, don't the people in the houses along the route have the right to record the sights and sounds which can be seen and heard from their own property? Certainly they don't have the right to sell sheet music derivied from listening to the performance, but by the virtue of the performance being "public" some rights should be lost.

I don't have an issue with a "flag" on a signal sent over a privately owned and funded cable, but the airwaves are different. If they won't let me do what I wish with a signal with enters my property, why can't I tell them not to trespass? (I sound like a militia member here....)

The broadcasting industry wants the right to send a signal into people's property without consent and then they want to place restrictions on what can be done with it?

So?

[Sebby]

I mean, really, TV has become such crap that I barely watch 3hrs of it per week, usually mostly news.

They didn't need to stuff this down my throat to get me to stop watching it, but it certainly won't make me take a second lood at it either now.

So I say let them piss off their own customers; in the end they'll just become irrelevant that much faster.

Easy Way to Comment

[bill_mcgonigle]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Action Center has a very easy to use form for sending a letter to the appropriate folks.

Please take a minute to fill out the form and submit. If you're a member, you need only enter your e-mail address, another great reason to join the EFF.

The right to watch what, exactly?

[vudufixit]

Sports? Vacuous comedies? Insipid crime shows? Reality TV? Network news that's not even "long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to be interesting."

no

[Ender Ryan]

I mean, we COULD actually just go outside, sit in a hammock and read a book, couldn't we?

Not when all books are electronic, and you're only allowed one reading of a book.

So, perhaps, you COULD go outside with your e-reader, if the wireless authentication mechanism works, and read an e-book in your hammock.

Of course, we (the people) could create all our own entertainment, if all the tools for doing so aren't considered "copyright circumvention devices." Want to write a book? You'll need an e-reader writing license, and all the authorship slots are currently full. Paper is illegal, because it allows easy recording of potentially infringing information.

That may sound insane, but my point is that our rights are being eroded on multiple fronts, specifically, corporate control and legislation.

Honestly, I don't think it will be as bad as some people think, but I imagine it will get Pretty Bad(TM).

Examples

[nurb432]

Try posting instructions on how to make explosives. Try discussing something 'racial', you will be charged with a hate crime. Discuss the overthrow of your government. ( which should be allowed under free speech, remember its how the US got here in the first place ) and you will be jailed for terrorism.

For independent verification, talk to paladin press ( a book company ) about having to pull books off their catalog due to harassment by the government.

Yes, I agree I was able to say something here, but I guarantee, if I said something large enough, id be under investigation ( actually I already am since I'm out spoken in R/L too ) and if it was too out of line, id be jailed. Regardless of my love for my country. ( though I HATE what its becoming ).

In time even minor dissadent speech will be disallowed. .

In several states they have removed the 2nd amendment from existance to their citizens. Free Press ( see above ), Free Speech ( see above )...

I could go on, but lack of time prevents it.

DTV Internet distribution is already very unlikely

[TiggsPanther]

So the broadcast flag will stop a football fan from emailing a 34 gig Superbowl DTV attachment to his cousin overseas? Those entertainment folks must have some awesome ISP support to think that the average citizen is capable of such feats.

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.
(I only wish I was joking!)

Tiggs

Small publisher comments on broadcast flag

[Brad Lucier]

This is what I sent the FCC last January.

The proposed Broadcast Flag Mandate would allocate to a few corporations a valuable government monopoly to produce and manipulate digital media. This is a vast theft from the American people and I strongly oppose its adoption.

I already see the affects of similar government mandates in the area of book publishing. I own a small company that produces electronic texts distributed over the internet. The Bowker company has a government-granted monopoly to sell and distribute ISBN numbers. Bowker in turn has developed policies that greatly favor large companies over small startups; for example, they sell 10,000 ISBN numbers for $3,000 ($.30 per ISBN), while requiring $800 for 100 ISBN numbers ($8.00 per ISBN).

Similarly, the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, which has a government monopoly on copyright registration and assignment of catalog information for the Library of Congress, has a list of priorities for books that it will catalog for its collections. At the top of the list are books published by large publishers, which get their books cataloged through the Catalog in Publication program even before the books are published. Officially, as a small publisher, books I send to the copyright office have the lowest priority for cataloging.

This is relevant because I can compete with large publishers with a computer and free software for designing, typesetting, and distributing digital media in the form of electronic books. If the Broadcast Flag Mandate goes into effect, I will be legally prevented from acquiring or developing hardware and free software to compete with large corporations in other areas of digital media. This would encourage anti-competitive activities and monopolies, while discouraging innovation and free development of new products.

So Instead...

[JavaSavant]

The approval, expected as early as next week, would be another step along the long road to the higher-quality, crisper digital signals, which have been slowed because of worries about piracy, high-priced equipment and limited available programming.

...We'll have copy-protected signals that are subject to limited availability and still require high-priced equipment to view? Sweet.

A Good Thing

[sirbone]

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.

Quick Conversions

[pommiekiwifruit]

In Sweden, when they recently changed from driving on the left to driving on the right (a sort of delayed reaction to germany being invaded by napoleon), they converted over all on the same day!

No doubt in the UK or USA it would have taken years for everyone to change over to the new side.

After all, the US tax department starts its year in April, thinking that that Julius Caesar bloke's reforms to the calender would never catch on.

Re:Quick Conversions

[roystgnr]

No doubt in the UK or USA it would have taken years for everyone to change over to the new side.

No: I'm pretty sure that once the change started, attrition would leave all the survivors driving on the same side of the road within days.

A little more seriously, folks...

[dpilot]

We keep talking about Joe SixPak and what HE cares about, and the fact that he DOESN'T care about geek issues.

Guess what? Right now DRM, broadcast flags, and the like are geek issues. Pretty soon they're going to become Joe SixPak issues, about the time he finds out that he can't do the things he used to be able to do.

Our challenge is to be prepared, and guide Joe into pushing for the Right Things as he gets incensed at his legislators. No doubt the Dark Side will also have some proposals to attempt to placate Joe and maintain Profit. If we're thoughtful and lucky, we can guide the course of events, soon.

Re:Advertisers will love this

[0123456]

They'll really hate it, though, when they discover they've pissed off their audience so much that the only people still watching are dead or on welfare; people with money to spend on their products are precisely the people who don't want to watch stupid ads.

You better hope your HDTV has DVI input

[cs668]

Because most of the HDTV televisions out there do not have their own tunners they use an external tunner.

This can be connected in multiple ways.

Many of the current TV/Monitors use component input to display 1080I. Since that can not be protected, but DVI can expect the component outputs of your HDTV reciever to start only sending a downconverted 480I signal for any content with the Broadcast flag set.

This will make a large protion of the current HTDV displays, that you paid good $$$ for, incapable of displaying 1080I.

My question is what liability do the manufactureres have that sold us those HDTV displays that no longer display any HDTV content?

Re:Let's be a little real here.

[tobybuk]

>> I would consider that a free gift

Then you are a thief. You know it's not a free gift but because it suits your thieving personality you choose to treat it as such.

No one is forcing you to watch this stuff. Vote with your wallet and don't by into their product. But by thieving it you admit they have a product you want, but are not prepared to pay for it. No different than going into a store and taking candy.

Truth hurts.

WTF?

[Cinematique]

Time-shifting is legal in the United States. The Supreme Court said so back in 1984. Wouldn't a Copy-Prohibition Bit go completely against that?

Oh... I get it... every new medium that comes along should have a new set of laws surrounding it, right? No. Fair-use should mean fair-use... regardless of the medium.

On the other hand... why would anyone want to go to the trouble of recording a movie that's aired on TV? I mean seriously... they're gonna have commercials and be edited to hell. Go rent the DVD if you want to watch it... or borrow it from a friend.

I can understand why there's so much outcry against the copy-control bit, but honestly, if applied to cable TV, do you think networks like Comedy Central are going to use the bit to prohibit people from TiVo-ing stuff like South Park? Fuck no. The only practical application this thing has is for the movie channels (HBO, et cetera) and personally, you're better off renting the flick. Get NetFlix or something.