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."

Comments

Mirror

[Mizery De Aria]

Obligatory /. mirror

An observation

[(trb001)]

Why do they think this will work? Has digital DRM worked yet? All it takes is one person to design a digital filter, post the instructions on the internet, and they've just lost the ability to control content. This is gonna make cable descrambling look like a side project.

--trb

Not to be cynical

[HunterD]

Not to be cynical, because I respect people participating in our democracy, but what's the point? Michael Powell blatently ignores the public commentary EVERY time, and sides with big business 100% of the time over the comsumer. The man has yet to make even one pro consumer decision since taking the reigns of the FCC.

Realistically, we are not going to make a difference on this no matter how many of us post, because the FCC doesn't give one whit about consumers currently. If you really want this to have even a remote chance of working out for the best, take action by voting Kerry.

Devon Jones

Enter the cynic

[Wylfing]

I recall when the Senate Judiciary Committee was first talking about the flag, they had the same sham public comment forum. The thousands of comments on that forum were one hundred percent opposed to the flag. Oh look, they passed the law anyway.

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.

Re:Enter the cynic

[Great_Jehovah]

It may not have an immediate effect, but I believe these comment forums do go into official records and can be used later by someone fighting to change the laws for the better.

It can't hurt to write a comment.

And that's for TV, right?

[NickFusion]

So, there's some technology that's going to make it more difficult and less rewarding to watch TV?

Yeah, I'll take some of that.

I was having a conversation with someone about this today.

Does anybody watch TV anymore? Aren't there more interesting things going on? Do people talk about TV shows at work, or is it games these days?

Is a Tivo full of "Dharma and Greg" really the key to eternal bliss?

Anyway, if someone wants a mutiny on a sinking ship, I say let him wear the captain's hat.

All the more reason

[God Takeru]

All the more reason to comment. There are infinitely more of 'us' than there are of 'them.' The simplest way to beat the system is to get as many people involved as possible: it takes a lot more manpower to raid the houses of a hundred thousand than of ten. If there's enough public dissent, whether or not we're written off, we can prevent them from going after others by showing number solidarity-- and when people look back, the history books won't say "...and nobody tried to help."

More seriously as to all of this, I am a little tired of the cynical view on issues, speaking as a cynic: My vote may or may not be actually counted, my opinion may or may not be listened to, I'm pretty sure they're probably not. Either way, though, isn't it worth a little effort, and a little fight, just to try? If you're right, sure, your efforts amount to nothing-- but why not give it a try, just in case you may be wrong?

Just because you're cynical doesn't mean you have to be apathetic.

Re:You forgot about nipples

[HunterD]

I couldn't agree more. The concept of a nipple on TV being the end of decency is a farce.

One of (I think it was MSNBC's anchors) referred to it as the biggest scandle he could /think/ of. *pshaw* this is nothign compared to gettign US servicement killed in another country based on a mound of lies and damn lies.

Re:Well, if you want content...

[cpt kangarooski]

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.