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."
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.
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.
HAHAHA.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
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
Check out my eclectic infosec blog at InfoSecPotpou
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
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.
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?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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...
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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
"....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.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
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.
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.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
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 $PARTY fundraising dinner, provide a large contribution. Then, using the telephone, you can call the boss of the FCC head and tell him you think that a particular point of view is very important to you.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
What I don't understand is why the industry thinks it can "broadcast" a signal through the public airwaves and maintain this level of control. If I get a permit and hold a parade down a residential street, don't the people in the houses along the route have the right to record the sights and sounds which can be seen and heard from their own property? Certainly they don't have the right to sell sheet music derivied from listening to the performance, but by the virtue of the performance being "public" some rights should be lost.
I don't have an issue with a "flag" on a signal sent over a privately owned and funded cable, but the airwaves are different. If they won't let me do what I wish with a signal with enters my property, why can't I tell them not to trespass? (I sound like a militia member here....)
The broadcasting industry wants the right to send a signal into people's property without consent and then they want to place restrictions on what can be done with it?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Action Center has a very easy to use form for sending a letter to the appropriate folks.
Please take a minute to fill out the form and submit. If you're a member, you need only enter your e-mail address, another great reason to join the EFF.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
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.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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).
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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.
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?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
funny how the more money you spend, the more it makes it legit. One could almost see our driving force.
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.
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.