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:
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.
-- $G
What is to keep me from building a device to mask out the broadcast bit and then passing it through?
Can't be that complicated, and I'm sure someone will even start selling such devices, "for educational purposes only."
====
Crudely Drawn Games
This will work just as well. So the average consumer will be hampered while the clued techy will be able to do what they've always done. Seems silly to me, to requiring others to provide a means to protect somebody elses property. Thats like the government requiring all theives to respect a "please do not steal" sticker on any car that has one.
How do you reconcile 'The flag does not restrict copying in any way' with 'required to check for the presence of the flag and apply DRM restrictions to its outputs'?
What is the purpose of the DRM if not to restrict copying in some way/shape/form?
Of course, it doesn't matter. Just about everything on TV these days, broadcast, cable, or satelite, is pure shite these days.
-paul
Damn it! I was bummed before and now I'm just pissed. I literally just finished ranting about this in the Red Hat thread!
Corporations have destroyed our dream and our hobby that was technology. New ways to do new cool stuff whenever and however the hell we wanted.
Gee I wonder why music sales are down and the economy is tanking. They get what they deserve.
We handed them something great, tore down communication beariers around the world, toiled for decades building more and more for them, and they kicked us in the nuts, handed us the bill, and then told us we weren't patriotic because we didn't smile but that's okay because we are all just evil sons of bitches anyways.
Yup. Now I'm pissed.
Oh boy, this is really bad. I remember when they put that region encoding on DVDs, and boy, you sure can't find any region-free DVD players on the market, no sirree.. And it's not like big name brands make DVD players with "unintentional" "secret" "maintenance" backdoors that can switch off the region code restrictions by entering some code that was "accidentally" "leaked" to the internet. That never happens! If it did, why, perhaps people would start buying the models that did have those "accidental" backdoors, in preference to the models that don't..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
all this does is add the flag to the stream. and it says that receivers must SEE the flag. it does not say what the box does with the flag..if the box lets you record it to DVD, allows you to make a DRMed file for your PC, if it lets you TIVO it, etc. companies will come up with tools that use the flag, and all they have to do is make sure the content is protected from being transmitted over the internet on a massive scale.
this is just a bit that lets the box know "hey, you need to make sure what ever you do to me, I can not easily be thrown onto the internet"
no rule exists as yo what the restrictions are. so we have the power to buy a box that does what we want it to do (as long as it does not give us unrestricted use on the internet.
of course, many of you will say that it still hurts you. I say, worry about it when it actually does hurt you, if you can not do your basic things like TIVO or DVD-R or VCR, that is a problem that limits your ability to use the data. but if I can use the data that way, I am happy and don't care about being able to move a DiVx encoded file to Kazza.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
This sounds like the flag they have in Redbook audio. Whenever I copy a CD in Nero, I see that the tracks are flagged as protected... but that doesn't affect the software in any way.
If you're a cow, however, you don't consider yourself just meat. And if you're a human being, you shouldn't consider yourself just a "consumer".
Consider what the word consumer means - one who consumes, ie one who swallows what the producers shovel. To consume, one merely needs products to buy; anything that works in favour of products to buy is "good for the consumer".
Me, I think of myself as a citizen or just a plain human being.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
keep the Tivo, or switch to a free version.
use GNU Radio. (Ha, as if that will be user friendly in any way. still, I like the concept.)
DIVX died. DAT died. DTV will be next.
sulli
RTFJ.
Their new season is sucking in the prime 18-49 demographic. And the networks want to implement technologies that make it more difficult for these young people to watch their shows (Tivo, taping, etc.)
These folks are scared. They're content distribution monopoly is getting taken over by the Internet.
Slashdot and other independent content mechanisms are the the future. Not flags on broadcast signals.
remember that the fcc is ultimately run by people that are *elected*. if in 2005 poeple are bitching about not wanting to lose old-analog, it's not going anywhere.
if you want this fixed, the best way is grassroots so that people will complain to their elected officials.
there may not be very many tech savy people out there, but there are *lots* of people that have VCRs.
let me also make the following point: tv land is hurting. 10% drop in male viewers 18-24 (or such). it doesn't take a lot of lost viewership before lost revenue hurts. why am i saying this? because if a sizable portion of the viewing populations gets fed up (poor quality or punted into new tech), it costs them money.
two years until this happens or doesn't happen. i would say that it's still way up in the air.
eric
I hate DVDs for many reasons, but the main reason is similar to this "broadcast flag". That is, there is a "feature" of DVDs that allows the creator to designate a portion that cannot be skipped.
This is so they can show you the "FBI Warning", that lies and says you would be committing a criminal act by copying the disc, and so on. Only lately they are abusing this to show previews that you cannot skip.
It's rediculous. There exists no technical reason my DVD player can't skip those previews, and likewise there's no technical reasons a tuner has to obey the "broadcast flag". Unfortunately things are headed in this direction, and there will be many, many other things that don't let us copy -- whether because of actual encryption (at least this is respectable) or some "flag", "region code", or non-standard hack (like CD copy protections schemes).
The sad thing is that, at least on a large scale: it will work. Joe Average won't know where to find DeCSS (or that it even exists), nor will he find the hacked driver (yet to be made) for newer DTV tuner cards; likewise, no manufacturer would mass-produce such devices for sale in the US. Thus, the scheme, no matter how stupid, will be effective, with the law behind it.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
First off, I can't begin to describe how shocked and appalled not by the board's decision, but the "reasoning" Chairman Powell claims is behind the decision. At any rate...
"Today's decision strikes a careful balance between content protection and technology innovation in order to promote consumer interests."
How exactly does content protection figure into consumer interests? It seems on its face that content protection is against consumer interests in that it limits what the consumer can do with the content. The only way content protection could be seen as being in the consumers' interests is if the provider takes the stance of "you'll have my product my way or no way at all," and even then having the product only on the provider's terms is only considered to be "in the consumers' interest" is if the product in question is some sort of narcotic, where the "consumer" needs the product in question at some level.
Considering that, even in the Twenty-First Century more people own a radio than own a television, are we really at the point where the American public needs television, so much so that the seller's desires must be catered to? After all, recent actions by the Commission works to ensure that content on television and on the radio come from the same providers.
If the consumer interest is so important to Mr. Powell, why doens't he take a more capitalistic approach and let the market itself decide exactly what kind of balance is required between consumer use and content control? I fail to see how an artificial, legislated "balance" mechanism such as this can ever be considered a true balance.
"In working through the difficult technical and policy questions in this area, I am very pleased that we have once again crafted digital TV policy in a bipartisan manner."
Bipartisanship is this important? Is it not possible for both Republicans and Democrats to be wrong at the same time?
"First, the broadcast flag decision is an important step toward preserving the viability of free over-the-air television."
This depends entirely what exactly "free over-the-air television" means. Does "free" in this context simply mean "received at no direct cost to the consumer," or does it mean "free to do with in your home as you please?" These are two very different and not always complimentary concepts.
"Because broadcast TV is transmitted "in the clear," it is more susceptible than encrypted cable or satellite programming to being captured and retransmitted via the Internet."
This analogy doens't hold water because, to my knowledge, nothing like this broadcast bit mechanism exists in private content networks such as cable and satellite. In fact, many of these private networks promote copying, archiving and time-shifting of their programs (consider the numerous set-top boxes that have built-in digital recording capabilities), all activities that the broadcast bit is essentially intended to stop. In this respect, these private networks are far more free than the "free, in-the-clear" broadcast market the FCC is now creating. And don't forget that most channels on these private networks rely on advertising revenue just as broadcast networks do.
"The widespread redistribution of broadcast TV content on the Internet would unnecessarily drive high value programming to more secure delivery platforms. The losers would be the 40 million Americans who rely exclusively on free over-the-air TV."
Except that those 40 million Americans you mention are the last people that would adopt digital television technology. Without the greater volume of content that private providers offer, digital television only appeals to die-hard technophiles. Even the FCC knows such people are few and far between; the new broadcast bit rule is an admission by the FCC that content is far more important than picture resolution.
But even if each and every one of those 40 million people did manage to scrape
From fcc.gov:
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business
I don't see what's unreasonable about this. If the system allows copying to a limit of 3 machines [snip] that wouldn't be unreasonable.
You own two machines, one for the living room and one for your bedroom. Of course you want to play your recordings both places, so there's 2 of your three copies. One day your home is burglarized and your machines stolen; you never had a chance to check-out the recordings played thereon. You buy two new machines. You have one playback left, so where would you like to watch all your existing tapes forever more, living room or bedroom? Choose wisely. If that machine breaks or you are robbed again, your entire archive is now useless. As soon as you tie the recordings to a limited set of playback devices, all recordings become temporary and are effectively timed out when those devices wear out, break, are stolen or destroyed.
Saying yes to DRM, even a little bit, is saying good-bye to ever really owning anything. These rules are really designed to circumvent ownership under the first-sale doctrine, and effectively convert your entire collection of video and audio media to rentals without directly saying so, and fair-use be damned. All in the name of stopping piracy. Bear in mind, we've only seen allegations that domestic home-copying is what's hurting the content industries, we've never seen it proven. And they've given this exact same gloom-and-doom sky-is-falling speech, practically word-for-word, about reel-to-reel tape decks, cassette recorders, and VCRs - and were wrong each time.
The real mass-scale piracy that actually costs the *AA real sales is in Asia and Eastern Europe, where the counterfeiters will be completely unaffected by this and every other copy-protection idea, not in American living rooms, where Mom will always be worried that if the VCR-alike breaks or is stolen, she'll never be able to play back the recording of the time she was interviewed on the local news again.
The only people who won't be harmed are the pirates, as it seems rather trivial to mask out the flags in the process of running a criminal copying enterprise anyway. Add a small grey-market cottage industry for enterprising geeks to break the flags for acquaintances so they don't lose their collections when they buy new equipment, or they forgot to check-in their recording and the power went out or something, and so on.
All this, just to avoid producing content people would want to pay for. Reasonable, it's decidedly not.
The problem of course is, who do we get to represent us? Eric Raymond? RMS? Oh please Ghod no.
Let me tell you a brief story about a guy named Vladimir Posner. For years he was one of the more familiar voices on Radio Moscow's North American service. He was as Russian as they come, but he lived with his parents in New York City during his growing-up years, so he talked like an American, in perfectly idiomatic English . . . but he job was to put across the party line. And you know what? Just the fact that the looked and sounded American made his positions sound almost sensible. You (or at least I) couldn't dismiss him like the anonymous announcers on some of the other English language Radio Moscow services who fanned the fires of anti-Americanism.
Put simply, we need a speaker-to-suits. Someone who can speak Suit, who looks good in a suit, and someone who comes across to average Americans as a reasonable person with a reasonable point of view, not a commie nutjob who's out to steal money from that nice man at the RIAA.
Unfortunately I have no idea who that would be. Linus would be good, but he also wouldn't be interested. I don't have any good candidates in mind, unfortunately.
This points up the free software movement's greatest weakness, which is paradoxically its greatest strength. It is an unorganized coalition of like-minded individuals with an amorphous idea that Software Should Be Free As In Speech. Other than that, there is no "us." "We" can't write a check to hire someone. "We" can't come up with a single united response to SCO, or Microsoft, or even to Szulik's statement that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. Of course it also means that "we" can't be bought out or eliminated, which is wonderful, and one of the things keeping "us" alive.
End of rant. I don't know what the solution is, but I hope "we" can come up with one.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Well, aside from your example not quite working (the GPL doesn't apply to use), I at any rate would limit the right of copyright holders to restrict the future disposition of their work or copies thereof in some circumstances.
Namely, I would prohibit licensing to prevent non-infringing activities.
Thus, for example, licenses to prohibit copying TV shows where such copying was fair use, would be void. OTOH, licenses to prohibit putting the TV shows on P2P networks would be breeched, since that activity is infringing. Of course, such a license would be pointless, as that activity is already illegal. Licenses to permit the putting of TV shows on P2P networks would be entirely permissible, however.
Licenses to regulate the use of computer software (EULAs) would be void, since 17 USC 117 permits incidental copying and backups with regards to software that one owns (and w/o the license, there would absolutely be ownership of copies, no argument), and using it is not subject to a right of the copyright holder. However, a license to make non-incidental, non-backup copies, to make derivatives, and to distribute copies, that would be a permissible license, since you can't otherwise do that for copyrighted software w/o authorization.
I'm sure my proposal could stand a bit of work, but what's your general opinion?
-- 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.
Yes! You are so, so right, I have said this for ages.
At the moment, when there's an environmental issue, we have Young Corporate Representative in a Nice Suit vs. Filthy Matted-Haired Hippy with Dope Leaf Symbol T-Shirt...
When there's a trade/WTO issue we have Sensible and Mature Trade Negotiator vs. Angry and Psychotic Looking Teenager Wearing Anarchy T-Shirt and Ski Mask...
When there's a civil liberties issue we have Reassuring Government Spokesperson Who Just Wants to Protect Us vs. Nutcase Professor of Liberal Arts from Wacky College Campus...
Whenever there's a human rights issue we have Police/Army Representative Doing their Best in a Difficult Job vs. Washed Up Dumpy Looking People Complaining Hysterically.
People who care about such things (which is hopefully most people here) really, REALLY need to learn the difference between adopting an appearance that is appealing to ordinary people and 'selling out.' Imagine how much more impact an environmental/trade/human rights protests would have if they were attended by people with good haircuts, wearing nice clothes and even *gasp* suits, shirts, and ties. And imagine how much more impact it would have on the average TV viewer to see a smartly dressed person in their late 20s/early 30s talking clearly and compellingly about these issues instead of a nervous looking doped up hippy/drooling nerd/fringe dwelling libertarian.
We live in a democracy. As such, we need to appeal to the majority or at least a solid minority of people to get anything to change. This will not happen while people are too principled to realise that one of the basic rules of PR is to come across as (a) the same as your audience or (b) a charismatic authority figure who can be trusted.
Every time there is an issue I care about on TV they do an interview with some braindead first year university student or junior high school student with bright red dyed hair and a nose ring who says something to the effect of "big companies fucking suck" or "I hate how stupid ordinary people are," and I just shudder to think of Mr. and Mrs. John Q Voter at home listening to it and deciding to vote for the Nazi party because at least they have neat uniforms and are well spoken.
Read Pynchon.