Slashdot Mirror
Broadcast Flag Technologies Open For Comment
An anonymous reader submits "The Broadcast Flag Rule, discussed here(1) and here(2) controls redistribution of digital television by requring receivers to restrict the output of content to certain outputs. One of the most influential concerns as to how bad this will be is what digital output and recording technologies are approved for use. Today, a Public Notice has been issued listing the technologies submitted for approval. This is the public's chance to comment on these submissions. The information provided to the FCC can be found using the Electronic Comment Filing System and searching based on the docket number from the Public Notice. Comments can also be submitted using ECFS."
There is precisely zero chance that a comment this time is going to be any different. You cannot affect this process by posting to a forum.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Don't misunderstand me. I do support copyrights. But that doesn't mean that I have to be a total zealot regarding artists' rights. I don't propose that we abolish copyright altogether.
The point I'm trying to make is that copyright isn't something that artists are automatically entitled to; not in whether it exists at all, or what qualifies for it, or what prerequisites have to be satisfied to get it. Given that it is intended to promote the public good -- which includes more than just rewarding artists and encouraging them to do stuff -- it has to studied with a critical eye.
I am messing around with a proposal (obviously it would never get anywhere) but it's rather more nuanced than what you inferred.
And incidentally, ideas aren't protected even now. Ideas are cheap and worthless. Copyright protects expressions of ideas; how you say it. It doesn't stop people from saying something differently.
With regards to your point, I would require the artist to take some affirmative steps in order to get copyrights. I wouldn't give them out willy nilly to everybody for every stupid little thing. They wouldn't be difficult to get, but you'd have to want one enough to file for it. If the author doesn't think their work merits such a minimum amount of effort to get protection, why should I think it merits any? But that's easy, and if you're going through the effort you describe, you'd pretty certainly fill out some simple forms, etc.
Whereupon you'd have a copyright -- probably for five years, subject to renewals if you were willing to bother to do so -- which could be used to prevent people from commercially competing with you.
But honestly, I increasingly find that noncommercial infringements by natural persons are sufficiently widespread, desirable, perhaps fair-use-like, etc. that to try to stop them would be like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. Better to allow it, and limit your rights to going after people that're competing with you commercially.
You'll still have a return on your investment. It might be less than it is now (though noncommercial piracy _is_ widespread without seemingly putting a big dent in Hollywood et al) but it's still something. I don't have a problem with this because, like I said, copyright is intended to promote the public interest. This might mean that the best way to promote the public interest involves reducing the amount of available money to be had. Since it still leaves everyone better off in the end (remember artists are in the public too, and frequently create derivatives of public domain works) it's still the right thing to do.
-- 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.
Ironically recent studeies show (not supprisingly) that TV viewing (especially for "news" programming) is on the rise. The funny part is that people actually trust the "news" that they are getting even less according to one poll (see here).