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."
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.
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.
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
... 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...
Nothing wrong with the broadcaster sayign "hey, dont record this". There is nothing wrong with recording things (set in law since the time shift case) There is something wrong with them telling you you cant modify your own equipment to ignore their request.
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
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.
When your hardware start listening to the Megalocorps and won't permit you to record, pause, skip, change channels, volume, turn off your TV...
Will that make a difference then?
We already can not fast forward through the commercials on several DVDs, even though we purchased the DVD or legitimately rented it, and own the DVD player. This is due to agreements forced upon the hardware manufacturers. It is the law that makes it a crime for you to try and fix this unwanted feature, and that part is entirely wrong.
Also, I don't see how placing additional non-flexible restrictions advances the sciences and useful arts, when your equipment refuses to record clips of various media for debate, parody, discussion, etc.
The change to the ATSC standard is trivial. They are adding a single flag to the stream that says "This is protected content". This can be added to existing encoding hardware with a firmware update. But, this is irrelevant to the issue.
The problem is that in early 2005, it will be illegal to sell hardware that does not obey this flag. So, the major changes come at the receiver side, not the broadcaster. It adds complexity and cost to the hundreds of millions of receiving devices. Even though my current PC is completely capable of recording, viewing, and modifying HDTV content, which I've been doing for a couple years now... In order to do that in 2005 and beyond, I need to buy all new hardware, which enforces DRM control as defined by the big media companies.. You want to copy this weeks episode of "The West Wing" to your powerbook to watch on that long flight? No can do.. Not until you buy a new laptop that obeys DRM, and makes sure thieving bastards like you don't have open access to this precious material.
Once it goes into effect, the current ATSC receiver cards will no longer be sold. Eventually, a new breed of receiver cards will come out. They will enforce the flag in hardware, and will not pass the transport stream to your PC, unless it also has hardware support for DRM, and the stream can be saved in an encrypted format.
So, say goodbye to any open source software to modify the transport stream (like I have today, to transcode HDTV to save in DVD format, or edit the streams to remove commercials). Say goodbye to broad innovation in digital TV. This locks the current structure firmly in place.. Disney, Viacom, GE, and Fox have their positions cemented. You'll watch their programs in the way that they allow, you'll watch their commercials, and anyone who tries to circumvent that will have their DRM license revoked and a lawsuit slapped on them.
Yes, there will still be some basic HD receiver cards floating around which do not care about the broadcast flag. But, how does that matter? Any product you want to buy in the future will be crippled, and the flag will give the big media companies an easy way to sue anyone who dares to challenge their stranglehold on digital media.
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? :-)
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.
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
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!
Um, you mean the same Swiss that collaborated with the Nazis during World War II?
i go ld/intro.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/naz
Or how about that whole bit denying insurance payouts to survivors of the holocaust?
Yeah, I think the Swiss would work really well there.
InThane
"If the USA can ignore the UN and attack Iraq, then they can sure as shit ignore the UN for *any* reason."
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.
"Derp de derp."
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)
"Note I didn't say that Kerry, Clinton or some other random "Democrat" would have done anything better."
Yes, you are right. I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I wrote that. Sorry for not being clearer about that.
"It just makes me fucking sick when I see guys who still believe that the people who have clawed their way up to the highest leadership positions in the country really care about morals and not just about money and power."
We share agreement here.
" I arrived at the conslusion that the system does not reward people who care about morals all on my own, imagine that."
I agree with you here as well. I don't think the system is encouraging the right people to come by and be president. Wish I knew how to fix it but I'm still chewing on what the actual problem is. I feel that if you have to win by pointing out the faults of your competitors on TV (be they truthful or not), then anybody who campaigns is negatively tainted.
"Derp de derp."