Slashdot Mirror
Draft of 'Broadcast Flag' Treaty Now Available
The Importance of writes "If you liked the broadcast flag, you're going to love WIPO's proposed 'broadcast flag' treaty (PDF link). The draft treaty will give copyright-like rights to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets its way, webcasters. As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it. The treaty also includes DMCA-like protections, in case you try to circumvent the broadcast flag. The treaty is going to be discussed in Geneva, June 7-9. The draft is discussed over on Corante.com and late last year on the DMCA activists list."
... until the UN runs the internet!
but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.
I would assume "old" recording technologies such as VCRs and PVRs would still be able to record the signal? (Current protection, Macrovision, is easily scrubbed from a signal.) These bastards have forgotten what the term "Fair Use" is all about.
Trolling is a art,
You can prevent people from recording. You can try, but you'll probably fail just as everyone else has prior.
With the hardware that most manufacturers build and work with, the sort which a broadcaster would use to both create and monitor their transport stream, the ability is needed to record and play back at will, thus, such a flag would pretty much be ignored by most systems if implemented. Besides, if you end up modifying the ATSC standard, in order to prevent breaking all previous encoders/decoders on the market, you would need to make such modifications to portions of the stream which are unused, and existing off the shelf parts would ignore such a modification. Thus, the protection starts off ineffective.
Even after the existing non compliant decoders/recorders/etc on the market are retired to due age or death, newer hardware which ignores such protections would still be available, you'd just have to pay a fair amount.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
The more they make TV a pain to own, pay for or operate, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.
er. wait... I mean, eventually I'll get tired of it and stop watching TV altogether.
As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.
I say if you don't have the copyright to what you broadcast, you shouldn't have the right to prevent redistribution.
First reply to a stupid first post!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
1 4|\/| teh l33t35t!
I don't see what's so outrageous about this.
The owls are not what they seem
I am a citizen of the US, I vote for my "leaders" and one way or another have a say in the laws I must follow. BUT A treaty saying what I can and cannot record.
BAH!
Those who won't follow it can't be forced to and those who will aren't offending anyway.
Taiwan will still be the primary source of bootleg video movie and software and the US will be a primary consumer.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Imagine if all of these groups spent as much time dealing with dictators, genocide, hunger, slavery, child abuse, rape, privacy, female genital mutilation, government spending and other important issues as they do protecting corporate greed.
I'm starting to believe that this stuff doesn't matter.
I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.
That's not to say that I don't think we'd be better off without this stuff. I'd rather not be a criminal, if it's all the same. OTOH, I'm not going to run Windows just so I can watch DVDs that I've bought.
I guess time will tell.
-Peter
If the USA can ignore the UN and attack Iraq, then they can sure as shit ignore the UN for *any* reason.
... this would outlaw such things as time shifting? And they could accomplish that...how?
Yes, I'm waiting for some smart guy who can understand lawspeek to read the PDF and translate it into a paragraph or so of normal english.
Next they'll want to brain scan you and make sure you don't REMEMBER a tune or news story or a video scene, because you would be avoiding some royalty payments...
And when this new broadcast flag "technology" comes out, how many weeks do you think it will take for some one to find a way to circumvent it?
Meanwhile, to appease this silly laws, extra software/hardware solutions will have to be added to new recording equipment, likely raising prices for a lost cause.
Lets see:
Good content sometimes makes money.
Bad content sometimes makes money.
Good content sometimes loses money.
Bad content sometimes loses money.
YET people still make money making content WITHOUT restrictions on "fair use". The question is, does RESTRICTING fair use make MORE money or LESS money?
The various media outlets know that CONTENT is going to be King soon, and that Advertisements are slowly going to lose out.
They are trying to prop up revenue streams with bad ideas that aren't going to work. All technological measures can be twarted, and in the long run, do not work.
People will pay for content worth consuming. Bands will have to play more concerts, poets will have to do more readings etc. Recording is/was just a new form of revenue which has approached the end of its useful life, in regards to generating a profit stream.
Now we are going to have to go back to what worked 200 years ago, before we had TV, Radio and the Internet.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
This would make it difficult to generate your own mix CD for the car...
First, you'd have to check to make sure no one had ever broadcast the songs you wanted to record in the order you wanted to record them...
-bs
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
If I read that correctly, this means that even if I release something for free to the public, they can *still* find a way to prevent people from copying it and distributing it? In that case, I throw my full support behind the lo-techs and their falling cars of doom. Get your VCRs ready. I may even start carrying around 80 gigs of divx files in my head, childhood memories be damned.
I also reply below your current threshold.
The same adage will always be true... If you can play it, you can copy it. No copy protection mechanism will ever escape that simple fact.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This seems like as good a time as any to ask:
In the discussion following a similar article a few months ago, someone posted a list of the different states for the broadcast flag, and their corresponding values (ie. 000 forever, 001 1 hour, 010 2 hours, etc.). However, I've been unable to find it again.
Does anyone have this information that they could re-post here? It's pretty relevant to the current discussion.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
fortunately the system in europe at the moment makes it hard for such chips to be installed. at least for a while, this will not be an issue over here.
something interesting i notice is that the better the quality of the media (be it music, tv, movies) the harder their are being made to be copied. on one end this makes sense as quality and so resell value is better. on the other hand it becomes more and more a pain in the butt to actually enjoy your rightfully purchased art, be it tv, movies, music.
finally, i guess this will be the end of tivo, huh? after all broadcasters will now be able to block certain shows from being taped. or maybe there will be some deal for them to be taped, but you will be allowed to copy them to hard media only 3 times? we'll see what pain the future will bring...
there is no way they can lock things down well enough to stop people finding a way of making a copy of the content. Even if everything is 100% locked down, you can still take the DVI-D stream from your video card and capture the co-ordinates on the video stream with the television tuner software playing. I bet people will go out of their way to pirate content just because the powers that be are trying to stop them.
Of course, I'd dearly like to know what exactly this broadcast flag is supposed to be...but I'm willing to bet that this broadcast flag is going to essentially come down to a small sequence of bits (like the "second generation" marker that is used to prevent you from dubbing one MiniDisc digitally to another) or a signal overlay (like Macrovision that causes severe degredation if you copy the content). I don't think there's ever been a time that all the various hardware and content groups have been able to agree on a standard.
...simple to remove. Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up, but there will also be a large percentage...the same people who go out and purchase "video enhancers" to remove Macrovision...that find ways to defeat it. That works for me. Sure, we are breaking the law, but it's civil disobedience, just like making backups of your DVDs and, just like the original Betamax case, time shifting your viewing material.
So, here's how I think it will shake out. There will be a small bit sequence in a digital broadcast that says "do not copy". It will be trivial to add that support to hardware, and simple to include that in broadcasts.
AND
Maybe, eventually, some company somewhere will sue people who bypass this signal, or a company who makes a signal filter. When that happens, hopefully they will have the balls to take it through the court system to try and positively affirm the public's rights the way previous cases have.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
through over-regulation.
Theres a massive market for high quality recording off of tv/dvd/hd/whatever. All that legislation like this does is raise the barrier to entry, and thereby cause LESS competition, giving the consumer (fitting word in this example) less of an option.
Besides, if/when it becomes widely known that you cant record your favorite sports game/movie/whatever with these new tools, people simply wont purchase them, and will stick with their old equipment.
And when that happens, theyll blame "piracy."
no
evil_bit broadcast_flag sue_and_kill_evil_pirate's_dog
0 1 0
1 1 1
evil_bit
1 forAll evil_pirates
0 forAll good_guys(TM) = {RIAA, MPAA, political_puppets}
broadcast_flag
1 always 1
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
You've got the question backwards. The point of copyright is to further the people's interest by encouraging the creation of new works. So long as copyright is providing enough incentive to entice people to create more art, then the system is working as intended.
It isn't the copyright system's purpose to maximize profits for creators, but merely to ensure that there is just enough - and no more - commercial advantage to keep them producing more art.
Somehow, somewhere along the way popular perception changed to the idea that copyright serves the author. Not so, it always was about the people's interest.
The second dark age will not be caused by organized religion, but by the "content" industries and those politicians that deliberately or unwittingly serve their interests. Their power will come, not from the flawed dogma of authoritarian religion, but from the flawed dogma of intellectual property.
The people pushing this are not creators, in fact, if they really understood creativity they would understand why the whole concept of knowledge as property is so flawed. Walter Elias Disney understood, but those that control today's Disney Corp certainly does not (or just don't care).
The free software movement is a powerful demonstration of why these concepts are flawed, but could be rendered powerless by some of the more potent forms of intellectual property, such as patent law.
We must fight this on the political battlefield, if you haven't contacted your political representatives about this - now is the time.
I have only given the treaty a quick scan, and see no fair use provisions
Article 9
Right of Reproduction
Alternative N
Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts.
Alternative O (1) Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit the reproduction of fixations of their broadcasts. (2) Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of their broadcasts from fixations made pursuant to Article 14 when such reproduction would not be permitted by that Article or otherwise made without their authorization.
[End of Article 9]
Article 16
Obligations concerning Technological Measures
(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by broadcasting organizations in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their broadcasts, that are not authorized or are prohibited by the broadcasting organizations concerned or permitted by law.
Alternative V
(2) In particular, effective legal remedies shall be provided against those who: (i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal; (ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organization that emitted it; (iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.
Alternative W (2) [No such provision]
Article 15
Term of Protection
The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the broadcasting took place.
[End of Article 15]
They want their content displayable on any device but they don't want to pay for the devices.
I paid for the TV set.
I paid for the PC. (The P is for Personal, remember?)
They came up with the DVD player and the Xbox. Fine, make those gadgets able to read DVD and obey *Their* rules. That's implied.
If they want PCs to read them too, well then, they can't have it both ways!
These TV people and Spammers want the same thing: a Free Ride on US.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
It will just increase piracy. There's going to be old video capture cards out there for years that ignore the broadcast flag. If people can't do what they want with new equipment, they'll just return it. People will eventually migrate to sources on the internet to get their commercial free, already encoded fix for TV. I think this idea will backfire in a bad way for them. Just my $0.02.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Because you not only get a chance to make money, but you're entitled to it, and if anything changes and you can't adapt, fuck them, change the law so you're still profitable.
We Americans as a whole have become a bunch of self-important, arrogant, whiny twits, who seem to believe that we are owed something simply because we exist.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
"The tighter you squeeze your fingers, the further the jizz squirts from your penis."!!!
...when amassing a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes is outlawed, only outlaws will amass a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes.
Gravy!
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up
I dont't think they'll give up, I think they'll get really angry.
I'm beginning to wonder whether all of this crap (broadcast flag, forced HDTV switchover, various flavors of DRM) is all part of some huge experience to see just how much consumers of entertainment will take.
On a personal note, I've already given up on the recording industry and will never buy another CD again. The day my Myth box can no longer timeshift TV shows is the day I take a baseball bat to my TV and throw it out on the curb.
*Insert bitch about how our rights are being trampled upon here*
*Suggest a solution that has pretty much no chance of working due to a lack of practicality*
*Bitch some more*
*Go back playing video games and watching anime*
Man - I can't even watch a movie or listen to music without feeling like a criminal. It's time we invented a new form of entertainment. Open source entertainment with a GPL like license. In the 90's it was "information wants to be free". In the new millenium, entertainment wants to be free. (That's not free as in beer)
Standard disclaimer - I am an entertainer, and I do both "freeware" shows (open mic nite) and paid shows.
Alternative V
(2) In particular, legal remedies shall be provided against those who:
(i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal;
(ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organizatoin that emitted it;
(iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.
so... this means that digital TVs would become illegal. Or, in fact, any device that would allow you to actually watch the encrypted TV, since the proposal is that a device which can decrypt the content under any circumstances (even to watch it) is illegal. Period. No exceptions. Only part (ii) here has an exemption for express authorization by the broadcaster. Part (i) makes it illegal to watch TV if it was encrypted (since you have to decrypt it to watch it) and part (iii) makes it illegal to sell a TV.
Y'know, I'm thinking maybe that isn't what they meant. Isn't overbroad legislation wonderful? :-)
the idea of a broadcast flag is a good one - there should be metadata telling you exactly what is copyrighted material, but it should be your choice if you want to 'break the law' and record it. At most gadgets should simply say 'it is illigal to record this material, are you sure you want to continue?' and let you choose. why should manufactures be forced to cripple their hardware? why should consumers be banned from buying/owning un-crippled hardware from overseas? this is a monopoly in so many ways - why should corporate sponsors have sole ownership of the governments policies? why should we live with this? America simply cannot call itself free or democratic at this time, and europe is just following allong.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
If it has been done by human, it can be undone by human.
Human explore, human discover, we are able to understand things like physics, mathematics, we are able do describe nature and are able to make sense of thing that we can't even touch.
How the heck, am I suppose to believe that NOONE can understand what another human being create? We are able to make nuclear weapon because we understood the principle behind fusion/fission. Now, you want me to believe that we will not be able to understand what another person creates. Right...
There is a flaw to all of this. No matter how many thing they put inside the recorder or their box, sounds need speakers to function, and when you have speakers, you have two wire carrying the sounds. This point will ALWAYS be vulnerable. (Unless they invent set of speaker that are sealed with a decoder inside or they make some kind of four speaker thing that would combine the sounds to create one sound)
Anyway, what I am saying is even if they put 20 different flags, use 20 self-changing encryption schemes and whatnot it will still be possible to record the sound because it need to be played. The only thing they do, is make themselves annoying. Of course, this prevents Aunt Tillie from recording her favourite show. However, if she cannot record any, and she misses too much, she will lose interest in it don't you think?
Instead of trying to block people from doing thing, they should try to find what people want to do, help them do it, and figure out a way to make some money from it.
Of course, it seems people do not understand that evolving means going forward, it means changing. Instead, they try to stonewall people in their current model. This might work for now but in a couple of year, it will be evolve or perish. But then again, I would be surprised if many of the people making those decisions are going in retirement in a couple of year. Are they are just trying to prolong the business model until they leave?
Anyway, they either have other agenda, they do not understand the problem or they are too lazy to try to find out other business model (also there is the risk thing). I vote for the lazy/don't want risk option.
My 2cents
MrB
AND ...simple to remove. Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up, but there will also be a large percentage...the same people who go out and purchase "video enhancers" to remove Macrovision...that find ways to defeat it.
Before: A few people did that kind of advanced "hacking", and in small circles
Now: A few people do that kind of advanced "hacking", and everybody gets it over p2p nets.
Where I really don't think they have any idea what they're up against, is their attempts to stop p2p networks. They are nowhere near their full potential yet. This little stunt is irrelevant to that, there'll always be some people that manage to get around it. This will only hurt choice and stifle competition in other markets, such as the OS market.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Do we really need this? What will it solve? Television programming is ALREADY copyrighted. By adding this explicity copying restriction then are calling all television viewers CRIMINALS.
Also. This thing needs a new name. Just like DRM's correct name is "Digital Restrictions Management". Calling this a "broadcast flag" isn't descriptive enough to the average person. It needs to be referred to as something else. "Copy prevention flag", etc...
Also, keep in mind, it's really not preventing only copies to be made. It actually prevents you from even making a FIRST GENERATION recording of a live program as well. Guess what, no more timeshifting. TIVO just got a whole lot less useful. No more instant replays of Janet Jackson's boob.
Ok, the recording industry still doesn't understand that their sales are down because they are producing crap. I don't buy their crap now.
I don't watch much broadcast stuff anyway, time to drop out of that market too.
Fortunately, the fair use of books is deeply enough entrenched so I can still use the library.
What happened if someone build a little site that propose to download a file with a given length full of random data?
This site can produce any digital file. Does that mean that the owner of the site have a copyright on all the files the site can produce?
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
What's going to happen when people start walking around with "personal memory augmenters" that record everything they see and hear for their own personal data mining later on?
Are they going to make such a device illegal because you might wear it to a concert / movie / theme park and then get to play back your experience again later?
What happens when the technology advances so far that it becomes a sort of implant?
When we begin to become practically symbiotic with such a device such that our competitiveness and our daliy lives begin to depend on it more and more, will we still be told by large media organizations what we can and can't re-experience?
When our human memories become fully meshed with technology (which I expect will happen within the next 100 years), where will we draw the line between our rights to re-experience something from memory and the content producer's right to get compensated for repeated experiences?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
Really, this ranks up there with the DMCA and lawsuits against children sharing files. And to think, just a decade ago average voters didn't give a damn about copyright extensions and other such nonesense. This one may just be ticket to wake them up when they find they can't timeshift their favorite reality dribble.
Now all that will be necessary is to remind them that is Congress that has the power to set copyright terms, and it is they who have the power to elect Congress. Now matter how much money the *AA's have, bribing out of work Representatives ain't going to do them much good.
So what do you say broadcasters, how does 24 hours of copyright protection sound to you? It will sure sound a lot better than 100 years to Mr. and Mrs. Couch Potato.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I can understand them not wanting us to copy and/or sell an EXCLUSIVE, non-necessary product (such as a DVD, VHS, etc), but for a newscast or the like, that's public information that they shouldn't supress from us... not to mention that this stops us from recording information that could be important/necessary in the future... I'm sure the governments don't record half as much as the collective public does.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
The only valid point that you make is that (some people) find a "cut" penis more aesthetically appealing.
Check the facts in this study published in the Journal of Urology.
Not that Men's Fitness is a trusted medical authority, but they have some information, also. Great quote here:
Here's another article with links to some other resources.
Speaking from personal experience (I'm uncircumcised), every woman that I have ever been with has found my equipment very aesthetically appealing. As long as you wash it, it stays clean (just like feet or armpits).
There's no MAYBE in that sentence. It is absolutely going to happen. With the DMCA tied to this, it will be illegal to even try and make a machine that will ignore the broadcast bit. And they've learned from their mistakes from DeCeSS, and failing to sue DVD-John from Norway.
The companies are slowly lining up everything exactly the way they need it to hit a home run and have an iron fist on this right out of the starting gate.
Ever wonder why HDTV is going so slow in catching on? Because they want to get all this crap out of the way to start with.
And the U.S. government will pass ANY LAW they can to make this happen because they have a deadline on selling all the HDTV airwave range to these companies. They desperately HAVE to sell this spectrum to the content companies because it's been allocated in their budgets for many years now.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
The right to restrict fair use is NOT a copyright holder's right. It is outside of copyright much like the DMCA. However it IS enforced through an extension to copyright law called the DMCA.
:) Maybe a better phrase is "DMCA-backed controls"?
So your statement is wrong in two ways
Anyone else thinking "you know what? keep your damn content - I'll take on a new hobby, go out enjoy nature, read more books, learn to cook, take up hiking, etc." ? If they're going to these great lengths to protect their content, why not just keep it to themselves? It's like going into the water at the beach. You're afraid you'll miss this crap until you fully do it - disconnect. Then you realize what a fool you've been wasting your non-refundable, one-shot & short life in front of a non-interactive tube.
Must-not-watch TV!
Since they're determined to do this anyway, they need to do it soon. The sooner it's presented to the general public, the sooner we can all get cracking on it.
Really, what difference will this make when everyone's got a 100 Mbit conenction to the Internet and 'friends'? The industry really needs to work on value as opposed to obstruction. People will see this for what it is and get around it anyway.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Many of the folks here are worrying about losing 'Fair Use.' But to them 'Fair Use' means Tivo or home taping. The real issue is losing Fair Use in a deeper sense. In a democracy, it is important that we be able to reproduce sections of recorded thoughts, ideas and position statements so that others may comment on them. The use of such short excerpts is the major sense of fair use, and things like the home taping act are just later minor additions spurred by technological advances (i.e. VCRs and cassette tapes).
Hopefully we won't need to add this to the long list of ways our democracy is being eroded...
With crap like "The Apprentice", "Survivor" or "American Idol" on TV, I really don't care if you can time shift your TV anymore. I WANT to miss shows like this.
NO TV show's worth the trouble to deal with this like this...
Let them have their flagged programming to save themselves from the phantom pirates that're downloading their precious shows on the internet.
It's honestly getting a little too retarded for my taste anyways... My TV shows have to be watermarked to impede me from watching them properly... My trips to see movies have amber dots all over the 'fcuk'ing screen to properly illustrate that could be pirated from this location and been noticed...
What's next? Nielsen lo-jack bracelets?
If it comes to it... I'll create my own shadow puppet shows in my own home, and my TV can sit in the corner until it learns that ruining the experience of watching content with this crap isn't good for anyone.
At what point will they (you know, the bit THEY) introduce a flag that prevents turning off the receiver and display. (some SciFi I once read had TV sets where an off button was an extra cost option.) If you wanna run cool, you got to run on heavy, heavy fuel. -Dire Straits
If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
Macrovision is an analog technology (poorly designed so it does affect quality). It does not get protection under the DMCA. The broadcast flag is digital and will get protection.
Writing, distributing, or using a tool or technique to bypass the broadcast flag will be a civil and criminal offsense which can subject you to large fines and even jail time. Thank the DMCA.
Seriously, how is it possible that series DVD sales are through the roof yet piracy is supposedly so rampant that it warrents an international treaty to spend billions of dollars to develop and disseminate technology to stop people from recording a show broadcast on tv?
Here's the end result: now I can't record my favorite program 'x' and watch it later because I have to work late.
Wow, awesome. Who did we put into office that treats the entire population like criminals because a miniscule fraction actually are? I think it's time to pass some laws about lobbying - you should be able to mail one(1) letter, 2,000 words or less, stating your case to the politician of your choice. That's it, fini. Nada mas. No more big business can afford 3 full time lobbyists to push and pull the administration at their whim. Everyone gets an equal opportunity to affect policy decisions, because policy is what determines our laws and how our society functions. Only the elections are democratic, the rest of the system is as corrupt and elite money-driven as any communist state.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
I am sick of the male genital mutilation apologists saying that there are health and cleanliness benefits to being circumsized when each of their arguments has been nicely debunked.
:-)
As an uncircumsized male, let me say that I feel bad for the mutilated ones. Sex and masturbation are many times more pleasurable when uncut, since the foreskin acts as a lubricating smooth sheath. My partners also seem to like the difference too, saying that it feels different, but better. (When I ask how, they just shrug, say 'Shut up, I'm coming', and we just continue.)
I'd like to see circumcision outlawed myself, but I know it's just not going to happen overnight. Until then, I'll be quite happy with my body in its intended form.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Common joe sixpack timeshifts. He will continue to timeshift.
The moment his new toy says 'no can do' over timeshifting, every damn consumer organization will be all over this crap.
And all the nerds will dump their TV & just leech the shows off the net. Heck, most non-US people already do so since local channels are years behind. And there will always be people who will decrypt/remove flags to encode the stuff to a downloadable format.
You kill timeshifting -> you kill TV. And if you can timeshift, you can copy. TV is already dying (viewership going down/fragmenting). Adding extra crap to limit your viewing will *not* add viewers.
Time to call the local sports talk radio and tell them, "Are you aware that the UN is plotting to outlaw HDTV VCRs?"
Region coding just increases costs and prohibits a "free economy". If the same movie sells in China for 50 cents instead of $20 and I can save money by having it shipped here for $5 don't they see that they are keeping costs high by artifically infating prices?
If companies can get laws to protect their content from begin copied and sold elsewhere and that's a good thing, why are people trying to protect their jobs from being copied and performed elsewhere doing a bad thing?
Can we apply their copyright "IP" logic to the out sourcing argument?
meenwyle, yu0 hav suckseeded at bieng teh f@gg0t!
YU0 SUCK$E3D 1T!!!!11!1!!!!!!!!
All the elements of the next dark age are in place, all it takes now is time and apathy on the part of our society. People don't want to do anything but consume.
And just why are these companies entitled to perpetual survival. They want an eternal free ride for getting one thing right or buying the rights to such a thing. It's corporatized socalism, not capitalism.If anything we are drifting away from the ideals of free enterprise, governments bail out and protect corporations out of fear for the consequences of thier downfall instead of letting the market rid itself of what is no longer fit for survival.
Meanwhile, everyone is so convinced that we must be perfectly safe (which is of course, impossible) that rights are being handed up to the chopping block without anyone caring. We heve become totally obsessed with our safety, without reagard to any other priorities.Feh.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
kl3rck where is teh wide pagez? i l0ve them!
is teh l337 slashkode making yuo fail it? rnt u l337 enuf?
s0 sad...
Now if only broadcaster's would broadcast something worth recording. Since FOX canceled both Firefly and Wonderfalls, and after Angel's demise (the show, not the character) at the end of the season, I'll be watching one single TV show for the 2004-2005 season.
I'm personally not a reality TV fan, or a teen-sex drama fan, or a law and order fan, so there's not much more on these days. There's a reason I'm watching less TV, and it's not all because of EverCrack. Thank god for Netflix.
Which I guess is a good thing -- sitting in front of the TV really kills your... your... what's that thing called? The one in my... uhh... uhh...
Isn't a vcr just a rudimentary device to help me remember some information ? So my videotapes (or in this case digital storage) are essentially a part of my own memory. Am I not allowed to access that information lateron ?
It's just not right..
Have they considered that viewers may just tell them to take their damn crappy broadcast junk and shove it!!??
They are so hell bend on protecting their "precious content". Geez, the content SUCKS!
And this is a *reason* to spend 3K$ or more on an HDTV... not!
Good luck, TV execs.
Why don't I have rights to do whatever I want with signals broadcast into my home without my express permission? Nobody asked for my permission to broadcast encrypted info through my property.
Come on guys, we all knew this freeloader stuff would never pan out. We knew that what we were doing was wrong.. we had fun while it lasted.
If these 'flags' are brought into practice, I hope that an FCC backed regulatory commission (balanced between industry and public interest) is appointed to oversee and address abuses within the system.
The power of broad- and cable-casters is too strong with these 'flags'. One can easily see that eventually all shows on TV would have a flag enabled to stop recording and/or time-shifting.
If we cannot stop this plan, the very least we should do is propose how to make it a little fairer to the general public.
What would a requirement to use the broadcast flag mean for a software radio like the GNU Radio? It seems to me that once software radio matures to the point where we can interpret these transmissions in real-time then all the software has to do is ignore the broadcast flag. Or do will they try to require all software to adhere to this flag as well?
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
You know, I'm starting to not care about all this stuff anymore. No matter how loudly people complain about stuff like this you know the studios are only going to do what makes them the most money. Whether the public agrees or not they could care less. So unless anyone here actually has some pull on decisions like this, its rather pointless to even talk about it. No matter what we say or think it won't make one bit of difference.
You can prevent people from recording. You can try, but you'll probably fail just as everyone else has prior.
I want them to try. Anti-consumer laws get passed because of public apathy, but that will end just as soon as Joe Sixpack presses record on his fancy new video device and it says "Permission denied". The shit will hit the fan. There will be blood in the streets. Who cares about corporate corruption or wars in 3rd-world countries; but you can't fuck with TV and get away with it.
1. They have lost all control of their schedules. With easy, good-quality time-shifting, they can no longer target a particular show for a particular day and time. Counter-programming one show against another is futile.
2. They have to stop people from easily skipping commercials. With any PVR, that's a simple matter of recording a show, and starting to watch it about 20 minutes after it starts.
Instead of adapting to the new reality of the consumer being in charge of their own entertainment, the broadcast networks are forced into these draconian measures.
The first network to use this flag will get a lot of complaints, and lose viewers to the competition. That competition will be most happy to use its lack of the broadcast flag as a major selling point.
Corporate greed created this flag, and that same corporate greed will prevent its widespread use. This whole issue will become a tempest in a TV plot.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Sure, we are breaking the law, but it's civil disobedience, just like making backups of your DVDs and, just like the original Betamax case, time shifting your viewing material.
Don't forget that the second and most important part of civil disobedience is getting caught and paying for the crime to win the sympathy of the masses. Man I can't wait to see so many of you geeks who like to argue over trivial things go to jail or be forced to declare bankrupcy.
My understanding is that the broadcast flag (at least in the US) is primarily aimed at High Definition broadcasts sent over the air, not via cable or satellite. Analog VCR's, and non-HD Direct Tivos won't be affected (I don't know about cable).
The way I see it, this will threaten the adaptation of HDTV by the American public before the deadline set by Congress (2006? 2007?), and cause the broadcasters more angst than copying.
For myself, I'm quite happy with analog TV (the little that I watch it). I have no intentions of spending a fortune for a High Def home theater. And, if I have to choose between High Def and my Tivo, the Tivo will win hands-down.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Certainly it has nothing to do with the fact that the early-generation monitors, like any newly-introduced technology, were priced way out of the average person's budget and were far too complicated to set up. Or with the fact that huge numbers of people are happy with 19-inch TVs, and at that size HDTV's picture quality isn't much more compelling than NTSC's. Or with the fact that while HDTV has been ramping up, people have been spending their TV-equipment budgets buying DVD players and movies at unprecedented rates.
Nah, it's gotta be a conspiracy instead. All those consumer-electronics manufacturers said to themselves, "Hey, I know! Let's retool our factories to build expensive new products so we can SIT ON THEM while movie studios try to make them illegal! Ha, that'll show those pesky consumers!"
will it take before someone builds a recoder that is able to handle the signal but ignores the flag?
to bad the us goverment tryes so hard to prove RMS right in that novell of his...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
You forget about the Irish who were there when the "Icelanders" arrived. They lost, and had to go back to Ireland or Orkney or whatever.
That's what legal defense funds, and perhaps the EFF, are for. I think the big problem is that people don't really know which way the wind is blowing with regard to digital civil disobedience. Would anyone want to end up being scapegoated like Kevin Mitnick? Of course not, but he did what he did at a time that public opinion wasn't all too clear on the subject, so no one backed him up. He also ran, which didn't help matters. If you are going to challenge something in the court system, you unforunately have to pay attention to the subject. Even thought 2600 had a perfectly valid points, they were tainted by the media painting 2600 as a "hacker" magazine.
What we need is a civil disobedience pact. Someone creates a website. The website contains a contract that you download, sign, and fax/mail back to the group running the website. The contract basically states that should the number of people who sign this contract reach X, you will commit this act of civil disobedience and then turn yourself into the authorities and demand a trial by jury. If you welch, you agree to be liable for a sum of money that would then go to pay for the legal costs incured by the others who did go through with it.
Think about what it would mean if a million people did that. On a given day, they all run DVDXCopy to make a backup of a DVD they own, then march down to the FBI office and demand they be booked, processed, and given a court date. It would literally be a human DDoS attack against the enforcement agencies that would require immediate action by the government. Now put yourself in the shoes of congress. If a million people feel strongly enough about something to risk jail or fine, would you want to find yourself on the other side of the issue?
Napster had 60 million members...what if every single one turned themselves in for violating that proposed law that makes sharing files a crime? No one wants to be the scapegoat, but I think everyone would join in with a large crowd for the same reason that people continue to download music...there are so many people doing it the odds of you actually getting singled out are slim to none.
So, would I be the first one to step onto the battlefield and get shot? No...but would I take a step alongside a million other people and take that 1/1000000 chance of getting shot? Absolutely.
Now, ironically, all we need is one person to start the movement by making the website/contract...
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Every time there is a story about some invention or new application of technology that seems somewhat pointless, someone posts something similar to the parent and ALWAYS gets modded down. But when it comes to copy protection, the comment gets modded up. WTF?
I, like most people, think adding this flag is a step in the wrong direction, but I just can't grasp the hypocrasy of the Slashbots!
Guys, I can't post non-anonymously right now so mod me up if you can please.
I wonder about the effect these moves are having on kids. I have two kids, and they have already heard an earful from me about how the corporations and government are conspiring to take away their rights. They are growing up to absolutely LOATHE government and corporations.
The future generation, mark my words, the ones who are little kids now will start the revolution. No longer will there be a demarcation between libertarians ("the government sucks, problems are all the government's fault, take fetters off corporations") and socialists ("the corporations suck, problems are all the corporations' fault, take fetters off the government). Finally people realize it is BOTH their faults. And the little kids are feeling the loss of their rights worst of all. My kids are smart. Want to hear the type of conversation that actually goes on in my house, and probably in millions of others:
Child: "Why can't Daddy record Finding Nemo for me?"
Mom: "Because the government and corporations got together and passed a bad law to make it difficult for Daddy to do so. DVDs aren't like VCRs. "They" won't let us copy DVDs, and Daddy has to try to figure out how to do it on his computer, although they're trying to take that right away, too."
Child: "I HATE corporations and the government! They don't sound any different than those bad kings over in the Middle East who weren't letting their people even dance or play music."
Dad: "Well, you're right. There are a lot of similarities. As citizens, it's our job to fight against mean people who make bad rules, try to stop them from doing so."
Child: "When I grow up, I'm not gonna let them."
Actual conversation. Happens more and more frequently, too. Think I'm kidding? These clowns in the fascist UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA new government we seem to have will reap what they sow. They're teaching the current crop of little kids to HATE THEM with a passion. NEVER fuck with a little kid's Finding Nemo.
They won't make sure you don't REMEMBER the tune... Every time a tune floats through your head, they'll just deduct $2.79 from your bank account automatically. Every time you remember a scene from your favorite movie, they'll deduct $3.50 from your bank account automatically. If you remember a scene from a foreign film, they'll deduct $7.00 from your bank account automatically. And if you happen to visualize the Rolling Stones concert you went to last week, another $250.00 will be automatically deducted from your bank account.
If you accidentally imagine too many things and your bank balance goes negative, they will foreclose on your home and all of the proceeds will go to Time Warner or Viacom.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
This whole concept is like standing in the middle of a packed stadium and demanding that nobody take your picture. If you broadcast on the public airwaves it is implied that anyone with access can record, or rebroadcast anything that you put out there. If you as a corporation want to restrict viewer's ability to enjoy your product - you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Purchase space on regional cable and satellite operators and allow your customer base choose to subscribe to your offerings based on the merits of your distribution terms.
That's when it will really hit the fan. When the members of the AARP can't enjoy their TiVo that the grandson brought over, and the businessman that just spent 40,000 on his new A/V setup can't watch last night's game because of this. That's when the problems will start for the dumbasses that created these laws.
Take away the ability of your highest demographic of voters to do what they have always done and enjoy, and it will bite you in the ass hard.
To be fair, the UN wasn't doing their job with Iraq. The US didn't ignore them, they just couldn't wait any longer. Somehow I doubt that'll take place here, especially if the US's interests are being served. How well can you see with your head so far up your ass?
This space available.
Couldn't we use the security flag from RFC 3514 for that? It would make as much sense as the broadcast flag, but would be more general. Why new flag?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
This treaty is not being created to bring other countries in line. It is being created to do an end-run around the US constitution to bypass the fair use provisions in the copyright. You see, ratified treaties can take precedence over things written into the constitution. Only one other country needs to ratify it in addition to the US and fair use will be trumped. IOTW: THIS TREATY IS DESIGNED TO ENFORCE THE BROADCAST FLAG HERE IN THE US.
Ah, but even that has its limits. In the not too distant future, I suspect that the analog hole will exist only as long as we use old equipment and software.
Unfortunately, there is heavy research into DRM techniques such as digital watermarks which survive DA/AD conversion. They can be distributed across the medium, making removal impossible without significantly deteriorating the quality. Not only could these watermarks be used stenographically to uniquely identify copies for legal prosecution, but also to hold DRM authorization information.
Of course, even with old analog equipment, forces like macrovision (V1,V2) are still trying to close the analog hole. So, at the very least, technically, it will be a hassle and more costly to break whatever DRM system is used.
I used to believe as you and your sibling poster, holding high my and my fellow engineer's technical skills, which gave me peace of mind that I would always retain my freedom. But I've grown to be saddened when I see such posts because that attitude breeds apathy.
Ultimately, the war will be won or lost through legislation and its enforcement, and currently, those of us interested in "fair use" and freedom are losing. Consider that even in the best case, what good is technical freedom if you are fined or thrown in jail for exercising it?
Doesn't something have to hurt someone in some way in order to be wrong?
+++ATH0
Your reasons sound valid, but my so-called conspiracy is the reason behind your reasons. The technology has been out for longer than you think, but there is no huge market push for the hardware because there is not enough content to build a marketplace on.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
I've been seriously considering a real civil disobedience case. Buy a DRM'd e-book. Learn the math to unscramble the data. Sit motionsless on the steps of the Supreme Court building staring at the raw encrypted data. DESCRAMBLE THAT DATA MENTALLY to read the book. It would be a slow process, but it *is* doable. That is illegal circumvention of an effective protection meaure to obtain access to the content. Violation of DMCA 1201.
PURE THOUGHT CRIME.
Submit yourself for arrest. Admit all factors of the crime to guarantee conviction. I don't think you can get the law struck down as unconstitutional until there has actually been a conviction, and in the 6 years the DMCA has been on the books there STILL has not been a single conviction based on it. It's rarely brought to court, and thus far the charges have always been dropped, or the jury refused to convict.
I'm not certian, but you may want to have someone bet you $5 that you can't do it, that will guarantee that the circumvention was done for "financial" profit, and guarantee that the criminal code will kick in. Not only is it a perfect test case because of the appaling notion of thought crime, but it also guarantees no possibility of draging in copyright infringment to muddy the waters.
It's a very tempting project.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
we'll get more tech that way! think of how fast modchips will show up, and advances in optics so you can capture the output right off the screen into another optical device/camera that isn't borked.
In the olden daze, this was the only way we sci fi nerds could get a copy of TV shows, set up a super 8 on a tripod and record whoever had the clearest screen and signal. It was tedious, clunky, gave medium dismal results, but at parties we could actually watch old twilight zones,the prisoner, outer limits, one step beyond, etc.
It will also hurt the economy, as people just will not be fast to trade in their old vcrs and tvs as long as there is an over the air signal to catch and something to record. It might even make people ditch the dish and the cable, and increase the demand over the net, perhaps from foreign servers.
Same deal as now with cds and music, but once you fork with joe sixpack and his ability to record nascar and football and his old lady's soaps to watch when he/she gets home from work, it will make todays "pirating" look like a lemonade stand stick up.
Unfortunately, it's not a thought crime once you start talking. There's tons of examples where talking can get you into trouble...performing a public broadcast of a copyrighted work would be one of them.
Even without any encryption you could technically get in trouble for giving public readings of a copyrighted book. Not to mention, it seems a little silly to engage in the mental exercise of decoding a book when that's what your eyes are already doing when they stare at printed words. There's no crime in decoding anything in your head, text, DVDs, government databases. The crime is sharing that information by speaking, uploading, posting, etc.
Thought crimes are appaling, but only because it implies someone has the ability to get inside my head. That's a long ways off. Everything else is just speech or action crime.
Nice try tho.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Unfortunately, it's not a thought crime once you start talking
Who said anything about talking???
I indicated sitting motionless. You may read that to include lips and vocal chords. Heck, assume I even hold my breath - though I wouldn't get very far before passing out. But reading so much as the first letter is still access and illegal circumvention. No speech or action involved at all.
I then wake up, turn to the nice police officer, and admit that 2 minutes ago I violated US code Title 17 chaper 1 section 1201 (a)(1)(A), and submit myself for arrest under Sec. 1204 Criminal offenses and penalties.
Upon arrest and questioning I freely and truthfully answer all questions reguarding the facts of the case and to my actions, and I then stipulate to all such facts and actions when brought to court.
decoding a book when that's what your eyes are already doing when they stare at printed words
False, as far as teh DMCA is concerened.
1201 (a)(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The DMCA is absurd, but it does not prohibit looking at normal text. It is a crime to descramble the DRM encryption they applied. Well, that's exactly what I'd be doing. A crime commited purely through thought.
you could technically get in trouble for giving public readings
LOL. You're making the mistake of assuming the DMCA has something to do with copyright infringment. The DMCA has nothing to do with copyright infringment. No connection at all.
Yes, giving a public reading could be infringment - I would not be giving a public reading. Creating a copy could be infringment - I would not be creating a copy. Distributing copies could be infringment, I would not be distribution copies.
The entire point is to violate the DMCA without permitting any allegations of infringement at all. I wish to deny them any possibility to muddying the waters with claims of infringement. People (and judges) often bend over backwards to uphold a bad law in order to "get the bad guy". In a civil disobedience case to overturn a law you want an angellic defendant. You want a narrow and precise violation of only the DMCA. You want nothing to muddy the waters.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I got married and had a baby. Unfortunately it was a black baby, how odd is that??
;-)
We should meet up for some anal sometime, like the good old days.
-- Klerck