Slashdot Mirror
FCC Adopts Broadcast Flag Scheme
sbrown continues: "However, the FCC isn't changing the format of DTV broadcasts at all. As a result, DTV equipment bought right now will continue to work forever, even though future-generation equipment will have fewer features. (For example, a current-generation DTV tuner card like this one can save any DTV broadcast as an MPEG-2 file on your hard drive. But that feature would become illegal in DTV cards after 2005.)"
And The Importance of notes "Note that the facts of the release include 'The broadcast flag protects consumers' use and enjoyment of broadcast video programming. The flag does not restrict copying in any way.'" CBS/Viacom says 'Today's decision by the FCC is an historic step forward for consumers.' The decision was unanimous, with detailed statements by the commissioners here, in PDF:
You see, the FCC also recently mandated that all broadcasts be digital by 2006(?). So you can buck the system all you want but it won't make any difference.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
How on earth is this going to work? It's just a flag, a bit flipped to true, saying don't copy this. Yet, DTV's right now haven't been engineered to respond to this flag, and the signal format isn't changing, so there's nothing stopping you from using an old DTV and recording video in violation of the flag. Someone needs to just buy up lots of old DTV video cards so shows can be recorded when all new DTVs come with the flag "feature"
I doubt it will be long before people are selling equiptment that ignores the broadcast flag.
That's the funny part. Right now, *all* equipment ignores the broadcast flag...
Incorrect. It has been against the law for decades to receive many kinds of broadcast signals, regardless of who created or modified the equipment. (Depending on details, it may or may not be legal to do the equipment modification without actually using it, but you can imagine that this is skating on thin ice in general.)
For example, under many circumstances it can be illegal to listen to military bands, police bands, eavesdrop on cordless phones and cell phones, etc.
The FCC has a broad mandate backed up by strong laws, and people do sometimes go to jail for violating them.
Anyone interested in learning about this: check up on the abundant how-to material for ham radio enthusiasts; that tends to be where it's most accessible.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
I am becoming more and more convinced that intellectual property is on a collision course with personal liberty. Unfortunately, neither the Republicans or Demorats seem to get this yet.
The problem is more widespread than that. Here is a very brief email exchange I had with the anchor of a certain cable news program:
Me: I was dismayed to see Mr. XXXXX's interview with the new president of the RIAA on Monday night. The issue of downloading music from the internet is not quite as clear-cut as your show presented. It would have been much more interesting to have the RIAA president interviewed side-by-side with a representative from the file-sharing community. The issue of illegal music downloads is the tip of the iceberg for a range of important topics concerning the meaning and relevance of intellectual property and copyright in the 21st century. You are missing a valuable opportunity to examine these complex and important issues and are doing a poor job of reporting impartially when you conclude such a one-sided interview with a comment along the lines of "we wish you good luck" as you did with the RIAA president.
Mr. XXXXX: thanks for the note. My daughter shares your view. She's wrong too:) Stealing is stealing and this is theft. Do I think the industry has handled this correctly? I think my questions suggest probably not. But at the end of the day it is stealing. I am a bit at a loss that you see it otherwise.
I did send a follow-up email that made another attempt that persuing the file-sharing story beyond the shallow depth that they have been could lead to some interesting material for them. I never received a reply.
I was disappointed that this particular individual who, supposedly, is always interested in finding the hidden story behind the headlines, was so quick to compare me to his (persumably) young and immature daughter. I don't believe his quick dismissal of my point was due to spite or pressure from his boss. I think it's just because almost no one (outside of slashdot and a few other niche places) seems to realize that there are much bigger issues at stake here.
I think we need to somehow get "one of us" on one of these news programs to help "the masses" see that there is really an important battle coming in the very, very near future. That being, of course, the collison course you mentioned. How we get someone from our side on one of these programs is beyond me...
GMD
watch this
This sounds like the Don't copy bit on the old Mac OS. No one paid attention to it, no one coded for it. No one remembers it today, hence it is now the bogus bit.
I encourage you to read the statments by Copps and Adelstein. While both of these individuals voted for the measure, the spent a considerable amount of time framing three general areas of dissent:
public domain: the flag should be limited to use only for materials which are copyrightable. For instance, government meetings should not be locked behind the flag
fair use: the flag does not provide a mechanism for educational use of the material where fair use of copyright would be permitted
privacy: improper use of this technology could be used in such a way that people lose privacy; the comments don't say it, but in the hearings it was voiced, "what good is first amendment protection if the government and/or political groups know who is listening to you"
To protect your rights, we limit them.
'The broadcast flag protects consumers' use and enjoyment of broadcast video programming.
Sure am glad that I don't watch TV anymore. Looks like I won't be watching movies now.
I went into Bust Buy the other day looking at a HDTV setup, with fairly good sound, a nice picture, a recorder.... all that stuff. It ran over $6,000.00 for everything.
HELLO? Like just *what* friggin' show is worth SIX FREAKIN' KILOBUCKS to watch?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
What is to keep me from building a device to mask out the broadcast bit
Section 1202 Digital Milleneum Copyright Act
Integrity of copyright management information
Yet another absurdity in the DMCA. You can be fined up to a million dollars and sent to federal prison for up to a decade for putting a tiny but well placed scratch on your own property.
An important point is that this is NOT about punishing copyright infringement. You can go to prison for a decade for scratching "copyright management information" if it COULD enable infringment, even when you do so for a perfectly legal and legitimate purpose. Even if you are a teacher or librarian doing something that is explictly authorized and protected by law.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.