EFF Suing The FCC Over Broadcast Flag

Tamor writes "According to this press release the EFF with 'five library associations, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Federation of America, and the Consumers Union' is suing the FCC over its decision to mandate the broadcast flag." Reader MImeKillEr explains "The lawsuit is charging that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and failed to point to substantial evidence in adopting a broadcast flag mandate. The FCC has asked the court to put the lawsuit on hold, pending the FCC's decision on petitions to reconsider the broadcast flag mandate, although all of the petitions address unrelated matters. The coalition of organizations opposed in court the FCC's attempt to postpone the lawsuit."

Comments

Timeshifting

[kathgar1]

IANAL(I know, it's shocking! Someone on slashdot that isn't a lawyer!) but wasn't timeshifting deemed fair-use by the courts? Thus doesn't the broadcast flag impair the viewer's fair-use rights? (I didn't read the brief, I'm not a masochist.)

Re:Timeshifting

[rusty0101]

Actually, there is no "brief", it's a press release, which was pretty fairly summarized by the summary. (odd that, can't say it's been noted as happening fairly often.)

"Fair Use" is one of the things that has been identified as being adversly affected by the FCC decision.

Re:Timeshifting

[Jerf]

"Fair use" is a technical term, and "timeshifting" is not now and never has been "fair use".

The courts did rule in Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) that use of VCRs is primarily for time-shifting, and that such use does not harm the value of the work to the copyright holder, thus the courts refused to ban VCRs. However, there has never been any ruling, implied or otherwise, that copyright holders are obligated to assist us in our fair use, or prohibited from engaging in other technological measures to prevent us from engaging in activities that might be defended as "fair use".

Slashdot in general has a very, very, very unbelievably wrong idea of what "fair use" is, to the point that it has virtually no connection with what the legal concept actually is. Fair use is a very narrow allowance to use small portions of copyright works subject to severe limitations, no more. There is no such thing as a "fair use" right in law. (Which isn't to say there shouldn't be one; I do in fact argue that something like it should be protected. But that doesn't make it magically appear in the real law we have now.) As a result, the flag can not infringe on our non-existant "fair use right".

The reason why I continue to post this point, despite continued evidence that Slashdot as a whole refuses to understand this, is that the misunderstanding is dangerous. Thinking you are protected legally means you won't do anything to protect a "right" you think is safe. It's not. Fair use doesn't do shit for you unless you fit into the narrow provisions as described in the link above, and Slashdot as a whole needs to stop thinking otherwise or we will continue to have our "fair use rights" "stripped" from us, with no coherent protest.

Re:Timeshifting

[/dev/trash]

Give this man a cookie!

Re:Timeshifting

[evilviper]

As a result, the flag can not infringe on our non-existant "fair use right".

That's true for your standard time-shifting, but what about schools, teachers, and students? Certain educational use is considered fair-use, and the broadcast flag does prevent them from being able to exercise their rights, as per fair-use.

However, there has never been any ruling, implied or otherwise, that copyright holders are obligated to assist us in our fair use, or prohibited from engaging in other technological measures to prevent us from engaging in activities that might be defended as "fair use".

Okay, but has there ever been a lawsuit that tried to force a company to allow fair-use? I only know of one. On the issue of artists using clips from DVDs in their resume, the judge was able to claim that they were still able to use the VHS versions, and that was the end of that. If a better case was brought-up (one where there is no non-DVD alternative, and more obviously a non-infringing fair-use example) I do believe that the courts would rule in favor of the public. Because encryption is just such a new phenomenon, it hasn't been tested in court yet, and the congress hasn't been asked by the public to do something about it.

Re:Timeshifting

[Alsee]

(Oops, the last half of my post turned into a rant, chuckle.You are absolutely right that copyright holders are not obliged to assist fair use. Much of the rest of your post is dead wrong however.

What fair use applies what it does mean is that you are completely immune to all copyright law rules and restrictions. Someone selling you a product can certainly make make fair use inconvient, but that's all they can do. I can sell you a song etched into a solid diamond disk, that would certainly make it a challenge to snap that disk in half, but you still have every right to do so. If you make the effort to work around their obstacles and make fair use anyway then they don't have any copy rights to call on. You are immune to copyright.

When you make fair use anyway they have no right to do squat.

Fair use is a very narrow allowance to use small portions of copyright works subject to severe limitations, no more.

Completely false.

The Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984) clearly held that timeshifting was not an infringment of copy rights. Timeshifting a movie blatantly involves the copying of an ENTIRE work. "Small portion" is merely one one indicaton of fair use.

It is also usually fair use for a teacher or student to make multiple copies of an entire work for classroom/educational use. It is usually fair use to copy an entire work as part of a research project. It is usually fair use to copy an entire work for virtually any personal use at all. There are numerous other examples where copying is fair use, even some cases where it is fair use to do so while selling products for profit.

There is no such thing as a "fair use" right in law.

It was acknowledged in copyright law in 1976, but it existed before that. If you check the court history of fair use you'll see that many of the limiations on copy rights were mapped out by the supreme court on 1st amendment grounds long before 1976.

The litteral text of copyright law violated the constition in a dozen ways or so. Normally when a law comes into conflict with the 1st amendment or any other part of the constituion that law is struck as null and void. Rather than striking copyright law outright the court decided to bend over backwards and "pretend" that copyright law never actually attemped to apply in that case, that the law doesn't actually attempt to restrict what it claims to restrict. They assumed that copyright law willingly and implicitly flees when faced with "fair use".

Some of those existing limitations on copyright were written into copyright law in 1976. That was merely written acknowledgement that copyright did not (and could not) even attempt to restrict those things.

It is extremely unfortunate that it was written into the law at all. Why? Because now many people MISTAKENLY think that fair use is something that copyright law grants to us. They therefore mistakenly think that fair use can be changed/reduced/eliminated at will simply by rewriting that law.

It is not copyright law that restricts fair use, is is fair use that restricts copyright. Where fair use treads, copyright vanishes. In most cases it would be unconstitutional for copyright law to even attempt to infringe into the realm of fair use.

Copyright holders don't have to assist fair use, but they have no rights at all and therefore no power at all when you proceed make fair use anyway.

Fair use doesn't do shit for you unless you fit into the narrow provisions as described

You have it backwards. It's copyright that "doesn't do shit for you unless you fit into the narrow provisions" granted. And the granted copy rights are subject to all sorts of limitations and restrictions and exceptions and have all sorts of holes in them.

P.S.
I am actually pro-copyright. Traditional copyright is a good and beneficial thing. I'm only agai

Re:Timeshifting

[Jerf]

You make a lot of assertions, but you back them up with nothing but your word. I back mine up with actual quotes from actual copyright law, as done in the links, plus discussion based on that law. I'm pretty comfortable basing my understanding on that law, and the various readings of that law. Wacky interpretations made by one person may even be semantically correct in some uselessly abstract sense, but if the entire legal system from top to bottom disagrees with that person, it still does not describe how the system works. And I'm afraid that's where you are.

I leave it for the reader to decide which of us is thus more likely to be right.

Re:Timeshifting

[Alsee]

You make a lot of assertions, but you back them up with nothing

Which ones do you dispute?

I refuted your claim that "Fair use is a very narrow allowance to use small portions of copyright works subject to severe limitations, no more" with your own refference to the Betamax decision. If you need a link, fine, here's a link.

The court said:
"The District Court denied all relief, holding that the noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement."

Obviously recoring a movie or TV show involves recording an entire work. The court said it was fair use. The narrow definition you gave for fair use is clearly over-restrictive.

You read the Title 17Chapter 1 Section 107 as if the four items listed must ALL be met:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

However the law actually sayd "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ". They are merely factors to consider. Moreover it is not an exhaustive list. The factors to consider merely include those four examples. Judges routinely include any number of other factors in the evaluation. One could conceivably qaulify for fair use while "failing" on all four listed factors. The Pretty Woman case comes pretty close to failing all four. The decision that it was fair use was reached largely on a non-listed consideration, namely that it was "transformative".

I also said "What fair use applies what it does mean is that you are completely immune to all copyright law rules and restrictions". Well, according to Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107:

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

If a use is fair use then it is not an infringement of copyright. You have blanket immunity from all infringment claims. Copyright rules and restrictions are only enforced through upholding infringment claims, therefore you are immune from copyright rules and restrictions.

Also note that that quote includes much the same list of examples of fair use as I gave, and it specificly confirms my statement of multiple copies for classroom use.

I only know of two copyright court cases reffering to educational fair use. Here's one link, and I could probably dig up the other if you want. While both cases were decided as infringment, neither case was actually against teachers or students. Both were against commercial copyshops (Kinko's and someone else). They were creating copies for a fee and selling them for class use. The commercial copyshop cannot borrow someone else's fair use right to create copies.

"The use of the Kinko's packets, in the hands of the students, was no doubt educational. However, the use in the hands of Kinko's employees is commercial.

The court specificly added a footnote stating that the ruling would NOT have applied had the teacher/students gone in, paid for use of the copiers, and created the c

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[twoflower]

As if one bit is going to stop anyone from doing anything.

It will. Every commercial broadcast will have this flag set. Every off-the-shelf VCR-like device will obey this flag -- and prevent you from recording the broadcast.

Say goodbye to timeshifting, saving programs for your personal use in future, buildling a personal collection of your favourite show by recording it yourself, etc.

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[scumbucket]

Will my 5-year old VCR still allow me to record shows? I don't think it knows about the the broadcast flag. If so, I see a possible upswing in the VCR repair and upkeep business......

Region codes

[metamatic]

Why hasn't the EFF gone after the MPAA for its ridiculous Region Code scheme on DVDs? If ever there was an illegal restraint of fair use rights to play legally purchased copies...

Re:Region codes

[Anonymous Coward]

They have - look at the sections of their site regarding DRM and the DMCA. Problem is, the law is against us right now, and it will probably require an act of Congress to change that, not a court case.

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[TamMan2000]

Will my 5-year old VCR still allow me to record shows? I don't think it knows about the the broadcast flag. If so, I see a possible upswing in the VCR repair and upkeep business......

You shouldn't be forced to use antiquated equipment in order to exersize your fair use rights.

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[looseBits]

As I understand it, any peice of hardware that doesn't recognize the broadcast flag will receive a down-res'ed signal. I am sure this will make for a market in line filters that you place between the source and the recorder that tells the source that the recorder supports the broadcast flag... and then come the FBI raids.

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[happyfrogcow]

... and then come the FBI raids.

FBI? na, the corporations themselves will be doing the raiding. You'll be lucky to get a legal, court approved, FBI raid.

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[shaitand]

Well at least goodbye to set top box timeshifting. All vcr's and set top dvd recorders will recognize the flag as well. That doesn't mean a linux pc turned PVR will.

How would this affect *me*?

[pla]

Okay, I don't want to hear the arguments about infringing on my fair use rights, I understand those completely and can assure you all, issues like this make me want to curl up into a ball and hide under the bed some times (that, or start ranting and raving until I foam at the mouth)...

But from a technological point of view (all that matters in practice, since we geeks will circumvent this crap, legal or not), how would this affect me (and those in the same situation)?

Example - This year, I finally upgraded my ancient 15-year-old TV (the lack of even an S-Video in finally got to me). So I (or rather, "my household") bought a nice widescreen HDTV (480p/1080i capable). Now, as with most such products currently on the market, it doesn't actually have a built-in HDTV tuner, so I would need an external one that connects via component video.

So, when HDTV becomes popular enough to warrant getting a decoder box, that box (currently) would have to support the broadcast flag. But, since the decoder would just output plain old component video to my TV that has no idea about the broadcast flag (not including a decoder, it also doesn't have to recognize the flag), what stops me from sticking my SVHS (or better, I personally plan to wait for a similar recorder that goes straight to HD-DVD) on that already-decoded signal, rather than on the raw (broadcast-flag-containing) input?

I don't mean this as a troll, or as I said, in any way to minimize the importance of simply getting stupid laws like this fixed. But really, how would the broadcast flag even matter, when the signal has to get to the TV somehow, and most HDTVs currently sold don't include a built-in tuner?

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[rusty0101]

Ok, an attempt at making this "simple" probably isn't really going to work, but here goes anyway.

In most cases, what a HDTV receiver receives is a digital signal in the form of something like am Mpeg2 stream, however handling the 1040i, or 740p signal as a bit stream. This bit stream is not a bit/byte(64bitword)per pixle representation, it is a compressed, and in some cases encrypted bit stream.

An HDTV receiver will first decode the bitstream (if necessary), then check to see if the "block" bit is set. If it is, it will turn off any 1394 interfaces, to prevent you from capturing the raw HDTV stream to a PVR, or any other device capable of recording the HDTV stream.

After that happens, the stream will be sent to the Mpeg decoder, (either software or hardware, most often hardware) which will send the decompressed output to the component video splitter, which breaks out the component video to the three leads going to your HDTV display. That signal is an analog signal, not a digital signal.

At the moment I am not aware of any devices that will take that analog signal at 1080i, or 740p, as well as the 5.1, or 7.1 audio, and re-converting it into a mpeg2 stream that can be used to feed another hdtv receiver. Note that I am not saying it is impossible, or even difficult. I am saying _I_ am not aware of any consumer equipment capable of doing that.

People are welcome to followup with better information, should they have it, or flames if they don't feel they are up to the challenge.

-Rusty

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[GrumpyOldMan]

I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that it would affect you by the HD tunder refusing to output a broadcast-flag encumbered signal to a non-copy protected output. In practice, this means DVI with HDCP (High Bandwidth Digital Content Protection).

So you not only can't record it, I think you might not even be able to watch it unless your
set has DVI HDCP inputs.

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[javaxman]

So you not only can't record it, I think you might not even be able to watch it unless your set has DVI HDCP inputs.

Actually, you will not be able to watch protected content in HD unless you have an HDCP connection. Sure, you can get component video quality for SVHS copies, but that's not anywhere near HD, now, is it ?

This has implications for all sorts of video equipment- any type of recorder, processor or display device. HDCP encrypted signals also completely screw over anyone who has already purchased a DVI-only display.

All because content providers want to deny you the ability to record over-the-air broadcasts, everyone else has to foot the bill. I'll support this model when the content providers offer to subsidize the cost- otherwise this all amounts to a hidden tax for the benefit of that industry.

Actually, forget that. I'll never support any sort of limit on what I can record off of *public* broadcasts, and I'll do my best to avoid *buying* a content provider's service that limits my personal use of their content.

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[Alsee]

the signal has to get to the TV somehow, and most HDTVs currently sold don't include a built-in tuner?

Yeah, that's one of the huge gaping holes in the stupid Broadcast Flag plan.

The FCC is in the copyright lobby's pocket and willing to do *almost* anything they ask. About the only point the FCC isn't caving on is that they refuse to kill off every HDTV that's already been sold. The early-adopters would have a shit-fit about all of their uber-$$ hardware turning into worthless scrap would kill the High-definition switchover dead in it's tracks.

The FCC is requestion manufacturers to voluntarily start producing crippled-tuners-only after the end of 2004. At the end of 2005 the FCC's order is mandatory encryption-crippled-tuners only. So for the next 10 or 22 months everyone can buy flag-free hardware, but it will become increasingly hard to obtain.

I also suspect "compliant" devices like VCR's will refuse to accept non-encrypted inputs. So even if you do manage to bypass the flag and get non-protected output, the only hardware that can accept it will be the TV you already have. Or sometime around 2008 or so they will find some way to "upgrade" the system that will effectively lock out your obsolete flag-free tuner and/or TV.

Anyone who already owns an HDTV needs to buy a non-crippled tuner within the next year or so. Anyone who doesn't own an HDTV faces the dilemma of whether to buy a flag-free tuner quickly or to refuse to buy into the crippled system at all.

-

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[pla]

The early-adopters would have a shit-fit about all of their uber-$$ hardware turning into worthless scrap

At this point, I don't really think those of us upgrading to HDTV count as "early adopters", anymore... By the FCC's own rules, NTSC will die by the end of 2006 (The actual mandate reads oddly, but that seems like the basic idea of it). I don't know if 480i (basically our current NTSC, phrased as an ATSC standard) would count under that, but once HDTV broadcasts become ubiquitous, I doubt many stations would want to look like crap compared to the rest.


Or sometime around 2008 or so they will find some way to "upgrade" the system that will effectively lock out your obsolete flag-free tuner and/or TV.

I worry most about that idea... Should I buy a flag-free tuner now, and risk it becoming a paperweight in less than two years? Or should I wait, and risk my entire TV becoming obsolete? Or will it not matter, and in less than five years whatever I have now will only work as a dedicated monitor for playing video games on?

As much as I hate getting "cable descrambler" spam, somehow I suspect that illegal decoder boxes will turn into a huge market in the next few years... ;-)


Anyone who doesn't own an HDTV faces the dilemma of whether to buy a flag-free tuner quickly or to refuse to buy into the crippled system at all.

If you've never seen "real" HDTV (even 480p, such as you can get off many DVDs now, if your player supports progressive), a normal NTSC TV looks just fine. But once you visit a friend who has it, you'll start to hate what you have more and more.

Personally, I don't even watch all that much TV (a couple of hours per week), and only upgraded because my old TV decided to spontaneously "retire" on me. But since getting a widescreen HDTV, I can only say "wow!". The difference just blows me away. For the simplest example, on both my old and new TVs, I have TV-out from my PC... Previously, I could kinda read a 16 point font, if I squinted a bit. Now, I can read most web pages, at a 10 point font. It makes *that* much difference.

Re:How would this affect *me*?

[Alsee]

At this point, I don't really think those of us upgrading to HDTV count as "early adopters", anymore... By the FCC's own rules, NTSC will die by the end of 2006

If you go by FCC mandates, then you're right, it's not really "early adopters". On the other hand if you go by percentages, something like 4% of homes have an HDTV set at all. Certainly not "bleeding edge", but I'd say that percentage still qualifies as "early adopters". Expecially since the FCC is still arguing over critical aspects of the system.

Should I buy a flag-free tuner now, and risk it becoming a paperweight in less than two years?

Yep, exactly one of the reasons to avod picing up an HDTV at all while this flag nonsense is going on.

HDTV, I can only say "wow!"

No doubt. But I am extremely outraged at what is going on with with copyright and the flag nonsense etc. I will go signifigantly out of my way to avoid crippled products. Not only does does buying the product give them money, but it also adds to the "market success and acceptance" establishing the crippled system and encouraging more crippled systems. The FCC "plan" is to exceed 85% HDTV penetration before turning off the analog broadcasts at the end of 2006. If they can only get a fraction of that adoption rate due to objections to the broadcast flag they will have no choice but to drop the flag nonsense.
-

Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Uninvited Guest]

A little background:

The motion picture and television industries know that digital broadcast is coming. They want to be able to play their content (movies and TV shows) over these digital channels. They are afraid that persons uknown will record the content in perfect digital clarity, and redistribute it overseas, for free or for profit. Overseas syndication is a big profit center for these guys; they don't want to give it up without a fight.

If the broadcast flag fails, these industries just won't introduce content to digital broadcast. Movies will be available strictly by satellite or by digital cable (which already have protection built in). Original broadcast televions shows (which already have something like a 1 in 20 success rate) will just never appear on broadcast digital TV. In fact, broadcast digital TV might completely fail as a widespread technology (like AM stereo) for lack of content and because of low consumer adoption.

The FCC sees its jobs as making that kind of widespread adoption possible, easy, and necessary. That's why the FCC adopted the broadcast flag. They think it's the only way that enough content will come to broadcast digital for the medium to have any chance of success.

What we are left to ponder is this: Is broadcast digital televison so important that we are willing to accept these kind of use restrictions from the industry? Whatever you decide, be sure to let the FCC know.

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[reub2000]

Don't worry, it will be bypassed very quickly. Besides, do you think that many people care weather the copy they are watching is a perfect digital copy or inperfect copy analog copy?

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Uninvited Guest]

Hold on there. If you bypass the protection, you're violating the DMCA, even if the purpose is for fair use. That's why we might want to prevent the broadcast flag from becoming standard in the first place.

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Stephen Samuel]

If you bypass the protection, you're violating the DMCA, even if the purpose is for fair use.

I wonder: If the intent of the circumvention it NOT intended to circumvent producer protection of their rights -- but is, rather, intended to protect fair use, with a simple side effect of possibly enabling violation of producer rights, would that make it past the courts?

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Uninvited Guest]

I wonder: If the intent of the circumvention it NOT intended to circumvent producer protection of their rights...

Come on. You've been reading SlashDot long enough to know that circumvention of protection alone is a violation of the DMCA. If you bypass the broadcast flag's protection algorithm, you're in violation of the DMCA, even if you do nothing with the digital output. If the broadcast flag is in place, there is no legal way to exercise fair use rights on protected broadcasts--not even for time-shifting.

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[APL bigot]

If the broadcast flag fails, these industries just won't introduce content to digital broadcast. Movies will be available strictly by satellite or by digital cable (which already have protection built in). Original broadcast televions shows (which already have something like a 1 in 20 success rate) will just never appear on broadcast digital TV. In fact, broadcast digital TV might fail as a widespread technology (like AM stereo) for lack of content and because of low consumer adoption.

So you think the broadcast industry will just shut down? They will voluntarily give back FREE spectrum they are making money on? Since digital broadcast is mandated by the FCC, rest assured that the networks will provide programming. It may be (more) crap, but there will be content.

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Uninvited Guest]

It may be (more) crap, but there will be content.

You have the idea. The broadcast industry is already having trouble making money. If they have trouble recouping investment on content, they will reduce their risk by producing less expensive content in the first place. That means more reality television and more game shows --because they are so darn cheap to crank out. The largest sports outlets will get coverage, so long as their broadcast fees don't go too high. By the way, according to Greg Craig, president of the Turner network, the only "top tier" TV sports remaining are football and NASCAR racing. No, really. The rest are breaking even or a net loss. Oh, and Drew Carey says his show 'Whose Line is it, anyway?' will be around forever, because the show is so darn cheap. As long as viewers keep watching and advertisers keep paying, the digital broadcasters will keep putting something on the air. Of course, if the viewers tire of unscripted shows and sports, broadcast TV (digital or analog) will gradually go bankrupt and disaappear.

Re:Is digital TV important enough for this flag?

[Alsee]

The broadcast industry is already having trouble making money.

Really? Not many years ago there a whopping SEVEN channels worth of programming (and that's counting the Public Broadcasting channel). That pretty much amounted to the entirety of nation-wide US programming. Maybe one channel of that was semi-regional.

Now I am personally supplied with over 270 channels, and that doesn't even touch on the chennels I don't happen to get from all of the satellite networks and the huge increase in regional programming.

If there is any difficulty getting money to produce more expensive programming the sole reason is because the staggering EXPLOSION in the amount of programming being produced. There is a huge amount of money for creating programming, there's just a lot of competition to divide the pie. Guess what? That's ordinary capitalism.

No matter how much total money is available for programming, each program will always get stuck with about the same budget. Increase the total available money to increase each budget and people will enter the business and splitting the pie more ways drives the budgets back down. Lower the total available money to lower each budget and people will quit the business and splitting the pie less ways drives the budgets back up

If someone claims they will stop broadcasting their programming without a broadcast flag then I say fine, call their bluff. They broadcast stuff because they make money broadcasting stuff. There are several hundred channels worth of programming, if someone wants to quit the business then everyone else in the business will quite happy with a few less competitors and that much larger market share.

The broadcast flag plan is just plain stupid. There's nothing wrong with the flag itself, it's just a zero or one sent along with the (free and public) broadcast signal. The absurdity is the accompaning need to enforce that everyone can only have CRIPPLED TV's and other crippled hardware. The TV signal is free and in the clear, but they want a rule that all TV receivers must then encrypt that signal. It then enforces that all hardware like VCR's must be crippled and enforce all sorts of restrictions that copyright holders have absolutely NO RIGHT to under copyright law. Crippled hardware that will forcibly delete somthing you recorded after just 90 minutes, even though under copyright law you have every right to keep it as long as you like or make copies of it for a number of uses.

My TV and my TV are MY PROPERTY. I have every right to open them up and rewire it to a home-made 1200 inch disply, and I have every right to rewire my recorder to play a recording backwards looking for satanic messages if I like. A functional broadcast-flag system would require revoking my rights over MY OWN PROPERTY. It would require IMPRISONING ME for making such modifications.

-

Ya see!

[Whatthehellever]

It's crap like this that's preventing me from buying an HDTV set.

I honestly believe that this will take years to clear up. People who buy a set and tuner now are going to be S.O.L. because technologies change every three months with new mandates rendering all our newly purchased stuph useless.

I won't get an HDTV set until 2099 when they've finally stopped fighting about technology.

Re:Ya see!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other reasons to get HDTVs...you can upsample DVDs and regular broadcasts and recieve a picture that is much more pleasing to watch...

Re:Ya see!

[GrumpyOldMan]

In some sense its nice that they are still fighting about technology. Time Warner has no idea that my new Zenith C32V37 with built-in HD tuners can decode Time Warner's digital cable signal, including the neighbors' on-demand HBO and Showtime. All for the price of basic cable.

I'm sure they'll have all this sorted out by the time you get your set. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the free ride while it lasts.

Re:Ya see!

[BlankTim]

I'd be willing to bet that they already know all about it.

They probably just don't have an effective way of billing you for it/preventing it though.

Re:Ya see!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Possibly.. Their salescritters sure don't. They deny you can get HD without one of their set-top boxes.

Another interesting channel I get is a grainy b&w (x10?) picture of a rack of servers with a thermometer. Some nights, that's the best show on TV.

Favorite quote

[javaxman]

"The lawsuit"... "charges that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and failed to point to substantial evidence"

No! That doesn't sound like the FCC, or any other government organization, does it?!?!

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[APL bigot]

FBI? na, the corporations themselves will be doing the raiding. You'll be lucky to get a legal, court approved, FBI raid.

Who are you? What are you doing in my house? Are you a cop? Where's your warrent?
You have no warrent!? You're not a cop!?
CLICK! That's a 20 gauge shotgun. Keep your hands in the air and don't move, and you might not get hurt.
(Honey, call the cops. Tell them we caught burgulars in the house, and you're frightened they might try to hurt the children.)

Re:Broadcast flag is no big deal

[Alsee]

I guess you've never heard of Anton Pillar orders.

Someone goes to a judge and says he's a copyright holder and he aledges that you are infringing his copyright and that you have infringing materials in your house. He then generally says that there is a danger that you will destroy that evidence if it is not obtained immediately. The judge then grants an Anton Pillar order and the copyright holder's hired-thugs pound on your door and search your house and seize your property. A copyright holder may go from filing an allegation in court to seizing your property in matter of hours (time is critical because you might destroy the evidence, remember?). The first you hear of it is when the rent-a-thugs pound on your door with the order.

They aren't cops and it's not a "warrant", but it is an "order". You pull out a shotgun and you'll probably wind up in prison.

As far as I know the US doesn't have them yet, but the copyright industry is pushing hard to get the most absurd laws from each country passed in every country. They generally use Free-Trade agreements to force legislators into passing the laws they want. Usually it's exporting the DMCA to the rest of the world, but they are getting Anton Pillar-type language slippled into treaties to import it to the US. Take a look at the US-Australia treaty that's been nearly finalized.

The existing TRIPS treaty looks like it just about requires Anton Pillar orders already. It requires courts to have the power to issue inaudita altera parte orders - meaning copyright holders can have a court issue orders against you without you being in court to respond, or even informing you that they are going to court against you. Requirements for evidence to be expeditiously turned over and preserved (seized) to prevent destruction. And rather amusingly Article 47 revokes your right to remain silent. Note that when I say it "amusingly" revokes your right to remain silent I mean a perverse and sickening sort of "amusement".

Someone shoulg go check the vault in the National Achives building. I think our Constituion just spontaneously combusted.

-

Creative Accounting

[Detritus]

The broadcast industry is already having trouble making money.

From what I've read, major network affiliates in major markets have very fat profit margins. It's the small stations that are squeaking by. Considering the large number of "owned and operated" stations in the top markets, I'd be very suspicious of any claims that the major networks have fallen on hard times.