FCC Adopts Broadcast Flag Scheme

sbrown writes "Today, the FCC adopted the MPAA's "broadcast flag" scheme, requiring that digital broadcast receivers and anything that connects to them is now required to check for the presence of the flag and apply DRM restrictions to its outputs. Currently, no such restrictions are required by law. EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen comments: 'The FCC has decided that the way to get Americans to adopt digital TV is to make it cost more and do less.' The unusual aspect of the FCC's ruling is that the restrictions are applied even though the input signals are completely unencrypted. Thus, this technology regulation goes beyond even the scope of the DMCA. "Instead of a scheme that actually protects content, the Flag forces manufacturers to go back to the drawing board and make all their devices monitor for Flagged content," said Public Knowledge Senior Technology Counsel Mike Godwin."

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:

• Powell Press Statement
• Abernathy Statement
• Copps Statement
• Adelstein Statement."

Comments

Hold on

[Hi_2k]

Its perfectly legal for them to beam these signals through our heads, on our property, but its not legal to decode the broadcasts that were in the clear without locking them down. God bless America.

Eddie Izzard?

[TimeForGuinness]

Do you have a flag?

"does not restrict copying" ???

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hmmm...

[leviramsey]

With no encryption, I'm not sure that distributing hacks to disable the flag would qualify as a DMCA violation... that's the interesting question.

Utterly POINTLESS!

[YetAnotherName]

A broadcast flag is meaningless given that there are a number of solutions that already ignore it. I happen to have three such systems:

1. Samsung SIR-T150 ATSC receiver, not known to recognize broadcast flag or de-rez component analog outputs.

2. MyHD MDP-100 ATSC receiver card, not known to recognize broadcast flag or de-rez component analog outputs.

3. HD-2000 Linux Only ATSC receiver card, with source code, which does not recognize broadcast flag, and can be reprogrammed to ignore it.

And of course there's GNU Radio, a software only system to receiving, processing, and decoding digital television (and other kinds of) broadcasts, which can ignore the broadcast flag.

The only way a broadcast flag will be useful is if the FCC, the MPAA, and our in-the-pocket politicians take the next logical step: make ignoring it illegal.

Not just Republicans and Democrats

[GuyMannDude]

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