Slashdot Mirror
TiVo Has to Fund Your Local Stadium
Strudelkugel writes "The Washington Post has a truly Kafka-esque article regarding TiVo, the broadcast flag, the NFL and limited file sharing. "TiVo, the company that makes the digital-video-recorder boxes that inspire such strange idolatry among their users, is in a weird spot. It's asking the Federal Communications Commission for permission to add a new feature -- the option for a TiVo user to send recorded digital TV programs via the Internet to nine other people." Just wait until your read the rest of the story..." This one is actually really worth a read to see just how bizarrely corrupt this all is. Enjoy.
...than taxpayers having to fund a local stadium?
Why do we keep subsidizing broken businesses? The NFL isn't like the airlines or Amtrak, our country could still function normally if some of the less profitable teams folded.
How did the cat get so fat?!?!
Wow, the NFL sure is spending a lot of effort to prevent people from watching their in-market game-- which any sensible DirecTV customer can do today. Sick of the Raiders game being blacked out in Oakland? Well, just "move" to Los Angeles, and you'll be able to see every game on Sunday Ticket. And there are more ways than that.
Do you think the NFL will come after me for a DMCA violation-- is this considered a workaround of an effective security method?
Jim Burger, a lawyer for TiVo, fumed about the NFL's complaint: "Maybe their engineers understand how to inflate a football, but I don't think they understand encoded, encrypted MPEG-2," TiVo's tightly secured format.
Perhaps it is Mr. Burger that doesn't understand. The ability to rip unencumbered video streams from a hacked TiVi has existed for sometime now. If you want to know the future, Mr. Burger, study the past...
In many ways, we're seeing examples of how people want dumber technology. Hands up the number of people who hang on to outdated CD-ROM drives because they ignore the corrupted crap that infests so many of today's alleged CDs? (recently, I didn't realise I'd bought an unrippable CD until after I'd ripped it). When the pernicious broadcast flag becomes endemic, people are once again going to look for older tech to overcome it. Tivo will find itself out-featured by older models, ones that ignore such crap.
To my mind, this is a sure sign that things are going wrong (as if more signs were needed); the broadcast flag and other silliness are anti-technology (and anti-business) because they'll discourage people from upgrading. Of course, they'll be banking on the fact that relatively few people will stick to such technologies, but it only takes one person with a linux-based PVR and a copy of gtk-gnutella to totally screw the pooch.
One thing about the article, though; it implies that the NFL are wasting their time because bandwidth limitations mean it'll never be practical. This assumes that super-duper ultra-high-speed connections will never be available (or at least commonplace); this is a specious argument, I reckon. Not that I'm arguing for it; I just dislike arguments that can be easily overcome.
It's a ridiculously tiny jump from freedom of speech to freedom of information. The only reason it seems like a big jump to having no copyrights is that, although we're far better off than some parts of the world, we don't REALLY have free speech.
The US constitution, while protecting speech, explicitly authorized (even mandates) the protection of innovation by granting monopolies on copying.
In the case of literature and the like this is intended to keep publishers from printing copies without paying the authors, for a limited time.
In the case of inventions to encourage invention by protecting against reverse-engineered copies for a limited time in return for publication of complete descriptions of how to "practice the invention" after the time expires.
Over two centuries of legal hacking have worked around the original intent of the provision. But the provision is still there. And the Constitution is the SOLE authorizing document for the government - the "kernel code", so to speak.
If you want to make such a change, you need to amend the consititution. That's a really tough road to hoe.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
watching a game on television/their computer a replacement for going to the game? If possible, I would much prefer to go to a game rather than watch it on TV. Being able to watch a game on TV has no bearing on whether or not I will buy a ticket. The atmosphere is just so much different. Plus, you can decide what you want to watch, you aren't forced to watch what the camera is pointing at. This is just another one fo those "enablers", it enables them to do all sorts of stupid shit to cover up the fact that they just can't sell tickets.
There is a reason people don't go to Buffalo games in November and December, it's fucking freezing! Do they seriously expect someone to say, "Well, it's so cold out that really don't want to go to the game, but since I can't watch it on TV, I will go anyhow"? My best guess is that they will just not watch the game, or go to a bar or something to watch it, where people pay even less attention to the commercials....
...funding their local "education" establishment and huge amounts of those monies going to subsidise the NFL and NBA "farm teams" in the schools? since when is getting children addicted to professional sports part of an "education"? Aren't there other athletic and fun pursuits that might cost less available? Why not make those businesses fund them instead? Why should people on pensions-more or less pretty fixed incomes, be asked to support professional sports leagues to perpetuate the societal addiction to team sports? If these profitable businesses have enough to pay salaries in the millions per year to "sports stars",it seems like they can fund local schools "teams" then, don't ask the tax payers to do it.
And yet you guys still don't vote Libertarian. We've been saying for years that the FCC just continues to get more and more powerful, in addition to being an evil censoring draconian cesspool to begin with. We told you that no republicrat would ever take power away from them, and that it would continue to get worse.
But nooo, you wouldn't listen to me, "oh it's just a little bunny rabbit" you said...
Latewire
When it comes to technology our own government leaders are out of touch. GB does not even use email and if that's a example of how smart our USPTO,Congress, and others are then were in big trouble.
I dont believe that what Tivo is doing is such a bad thing. What I do believe that the cable companies who are trying to knock Tivo off it's seat are probably the cause of the problems in the first place. All they had to do is put a bug in the ears of the RIAA,MPAA, and the NFL the latter which probably knows the least about the device. Then those groups go arguing to the FCC where they might have a slight idea of what MPEG2 consists of but I'm sure the group arguing against Tivo conviently forgot to mention the slow speeds of our current broadband services.
Now 3 years down the road this will be a changed world in the US as the FTTP rollouts will be in full steam and will have probably crossed the 2million mark or even more and it would be a standard thing to have a 10/10 connection to the internet. It's even faster between neigborhoods with testing in Keller TX, on multi gig transferrs taking a few seconds. So I would expect that people could then easily send videos to others. Hell with a little work Tivo could turn your box into a Napster for tv shows, and other recordings using the combined networked Tivo's as local servers.
Back to my point. These groups want to shut Tivo down so they can profit on their own distribution methods and limit choices to the consumer so they can inflate prices as they please. And it's true that NFL teams tend to milk whatever city they reside in through taxes. Now they want to milk the consumer even more through limited choice and high prices. If they wanted to do otherwise they would work with Tivo to come up with a acceptable solution and restrictions. However since they're not I have to stick with my original theory.
This year is not the year to vote libertarian. I saw it said no better the other night on Real Time with Bill Mahr. Voting anything other than the current two parties on the presidential election means absolutely nothing, because if you loose, you've wasted your vote.
However, voting libertarian for a Senate or House seat, or even more local government building up the third party from the ground up is the only way to go in the United States political system.
So if you want to vote libertarian, do so to fill seats in the house/senate not the presidential race. That'll never fix anything but let Bush back in office because the people more likely to vote libertarian would vote against Bush (not necessarily FOR his opponent either, but just to get him out of office)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Why do we keep subsidizing broken businesses? The NFL isn't like the airlines or Amtrak, our country could still function normally if some of the less profitable teams folded.
... particularly the current administration.
Sports is the mechanism by which the powers that be keep the American people dumbed down, sedate, and easily controlled. More so than religion (although that is certainly also a potent tool in undermining a person's ability to think critically), more so than a shoddy educational system.
Sports is the true opiate of the poeple. Baseball fans who can't balance their checkbook routinely excersize college level statistical analysis on their favorite player's batting averages and team's performance. Clearly these people aren't stupid per se, or necessarilly ignorant, but their creative and intellectual capacity has been stupified and hijacked toward ends that present no competition or threat to those who rule. The message is quite clear and effective: "think as much as you like, as long as it isn't about something important."
The last thing they are ever going to do is allow a key component of the Bread and Circuses America is spoonfed to fall, regardless of how much of the rest of the economy subsidizing their existence will harm. Just as the Romans would routinely choose to ship expensive sand for the Colesium, rather than much needed food for the people, so to will our government choose to prop up Hollywood and the NFL, at any expense.
To do otherwise risks the very real possibility that the sleeping, fooled and distracted masses of America might actually arise from the couch and get involved politically, and that is something none of the current politicans want
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It's refreshing to see the NFL has been rather open about the whole purpose of FCC-recognized corporate welfare. When asked why the NFL was demanding governmental heavy-handedness and intervention in the free market, the NFL suit answered:
"It's a question of pure ability to sell tickets," said Frank Hawkins, the NFL's senior vice president for business affairs.
Exactly. Hawkins goes on to explain that "they'll never sell out those December games if they are unable to enforce the blackout rule" (meaning manipulate, coerce and destroy consumer choice). The honest answer, however, is that the value of a northern market outdoor stadium seat significantly diminishes as it gets damn cold in December. And this is the consumer's problem how?
Has the NFL ever studied popsicle sales, especially looking at them in, say, January in Detroit? (Clue: The local Good Humor man doesn't drive down neighborhood streets when the outside temperature is lower than that of his product!) What about the hot soup sales at Disney World in July? If you've hit Disney's parks at different times of the year, you'll learn that they're well in tune to the weather and consumer behavior (ever notice the umbrellas that amazingly pop up all over at the stands just as the drops are starting to fall?)
If these businesses were run like the NFL, we'd have the government shutting down grocery stores in Orlando and limiting the only food choice to Campbell's Cream of Brocalli in order to protect the Disney soup racket.
Just as the RIAA doesn't understand (nor care about) the consumers of its industry's products, the NFL has lost it on fans. A Cleveland Browns seat may be worth $125 in September, but certainly not in December. Their inability to understand this is not grounds for absurd government intervention, and any bureaucrat that supports this nonsense is probably on someone's payola (hey Junior Powell - get your Redskins season tickets yet?).
The entire SYSTEM is out of control. The article covers everything from the abuse of the broadcast flag to benefit rich folks at the top of effectively monopolized industries to the fleecing of taxpayers to fund "public" stadiums that they have to then pay exhorbitant prices to get into, and pay exhorbitant prices to eat in. Just think, you could be funding your local superstar's overblown salary so that he can snag 14 million dollars a year to support his coke habit. You ARE funding the FCC to tell you what you can and (more often than not) can't do with the video signal broadcast from that stadium your tax dollars built. If you live in California, you're paying tax dollars to enforce "protection" measures in movie theaters by funding police that now have to respond to copyright violations.
People amaze me. They just do. It just never crosses that thick bone barrier in the majority of this country's moronic populace that every which way they turn, whether it be shopping at Wal-Mart, buying movie tickets, buying CDs, or buying sporting even tickets, that they're actually paying people to make them poorer. The sheer ignorance that the regular public has proven itself capable of is overshadowed only by the fact that the situation just keeps getting worse. Not only are they not smart enough to stop it, they're too dumb to see that they're being fed their nieghbor's body parts in the trough.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Even if this were to fly ( much to the glee of the RIAA and MPAA ) how do they propse we listen/watch things?
Ive not seen too many digital earbuds.. or digital portable TVs...
Espically audio, it has to be analog at some point.. but then again, if they ban A/D converters, then i guess they have won.. and hopefully noone will listen to music again, until the laws are repealed and the morons that are passing them are put in jail.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This really does relate to the topic at hand. I'm not trying to be morally superior or anything. Just want to give you some advice about reducing your tv habits before the DRM kicks in.
I gave up television a year ago tomorrow when I moved and decided that I couldn't afford the price of cable at least for a month or so during the transition to the new location.
I've always been a television junky though and really expected that I'd get something: satellite, cable, or even go back to antenna broadcasts. I'd come in from work and HAVE to have the tv playing something in the background. I remember even driving around for several weekends evaluating different recording technologies (Tivo looked the most promising) and I probably would have even bought one in anticipation if I'd already decided whether I was getting satelite or cable service.
For housewarming, christmas, and my birthday I received some fantastic DVD series (Six Feet Under, Babylon 5, some britcoms and music documentaries) that I'd put into my computer or dvd player when I just wanted something on. Six Feet Under was so good that I actually thought of getting HBO to see the show (but I'd have missed two seasons which weren't out yet on DVD).
I was talking to an old friend who knew of my pop-culture, tv-addicted habits. He wanted me to watch the new Battlestar Galactica but I told him that I didn't have cable. Not to worry he said, it'd be rebroadcast that night and later in the week if I thought my cable would be back on then. He was in shock when I told them that I didn't have a subscription and didn't really intend to get one. They said that such a declaration from a television addict like me was akin to Bill Gates switching to Mac OS X.
With some efforts above and beyond the call of my friend, I did wind up watching the Battlestar remake and quite enjoyed it. I probably would have liked it better without the incessant commercials (on a DVD release or something). I'd forgotten just how annoying those things can be.
Now with stories like this, it appears that the DRM is only going to get worse. The advertising is only going to get longer and bolder. I wish I could say that my decision was one of moral rectitude, but it was really one of evolved practicality. I can say that giving up tv is a whole lot easier than you probably imagine (I certainly couldn't imagine it).
Give it up now while your friends can still videotape those one or two shows that you "must see". It'll only get more expensive and more difficult when DRM comes on the scene.
Ok, suppose that TIVO plays along with this little farce. It will pass on the additional expenses to the customers in some form or another. Higher expenses, higher prices. No big deal, right? (I would be pissed though. I hate pro sports, and never watch them, so why should I have to pay anything?)
UNTIL, some SE Asian company makes a Tivo clone that does everything that a tivo does, EXCEPT pay attention to broadcast flags, or pay 'protection' fees to the NFL. Now they have a product that is better, and cheaper, because it left a feature out. Basically they have built a better mousetrap by not adding something on.
Adding 'features' like CSS, Macrovision, Broadcast flags, and Trusted Computing Controls will ALWAYS fail because if you have a single company/person who decides not to play by the rules, they can build a better product by simply not doing adding in the encryption features.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
THe point isn't to use it for sites that you frequent. For those, you may as well make an account that won't get disabled by the site or someone else.
What Bug Me Not is good for is the sites you go to once, and don't want to be bothered with setting up the account just for one story or download. In those cases it is faster, especially if you have the browser extension.
Can this be the same Slashdot where I get flamed all the time for mentioning the Second Amendment?
You boys and girls seem all upset when the Federal Government starts depriving you of your toys and amusements, like analog plugs for your TiVo. Lots of complaints about how dumb and crooked all these arguments are I see. Well, you know, you're right. It is dumb and crooked.
Welcome to Gun Owner Land kids. How do you like it so far?
This is not about the broadcast flag and only vaguely about fair use and your rights as a consumer. This is about TiVo establishing their right to redistribute content ths same way your local cable provider redistributes you local broadcast station. CATV tested these limits in the midwest in the fifties with tall towers and local coax. Ted Turner broke the mold with TBS and CNN making Atlanta a global distribution hub. TiVo is taking this to the Internet, as a new means of redistributing content. They just push the cable headend out to your TiVo box and let you serve your friends and your common programming interests. Thus the requirement for subscriber ID's. TiVo needs to know who, anonymously aggregated, is watching what--because, like all television networks, they will rise or fall as a business by proving market demographics, both to advertizers and to content vendors who will want to get on their network--to distribuet movies. Don't be confused by the appeal to the FCC--this is part of TiVo's on again-off again struggle to find a business model they can defend.
It's not the voting system. It's the funding system.
How about we pass a law that says only U.S. citizens can contribute or financially support a candidate? No PAC funding. No "soft" party funding. No corporate funding. No foriegn funding. If any of those want to help a candidate financially, they have to get out and get citizens to open their wallets for their chosen cattle-herder.
(And don't tell me that this infringes those "entities" First Ammendment rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights" refers to mankind and does not include some legal fiction called a "natural person")
That would make elections very different, don't you think?
Here's another one: No one, and I mean no one , gets on any ballot anywhere without a petition signed by some number of registered voters. Why should citizens of every party be funding primary elections for members of just 2. Want to make a difference? Change your registration to "No Party Preference" and bitch like hell that your funding primaries for parties you don't belong to. It's called "taxation without representation." If everyone who feels neither the Demicans or Repulicats represent them did this, I believe the majority of voters would be thus registered and the parties would have no justification for imposing their candidates on a ballot.
Contrary to popular opinion, the "two party system" is not a U.S. mandate, it's just tradition. The 2 we have now are not the 2 we have always had, but they've rigged the system so heavily that unless we act they will be from this point on.
We do not have a democracy in the U.S. Worse, we no longer have a democratic republic (which is what it was really designed to be.) What we have is a contributoracracy, and that's the way it will stay until we cut off the cash flow from anywhere other than the people. The ones as in "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Freaking parties, committees and corporations are NOT people . People - WE - are not consumers, customers, constituents, markets or even voters. By law, WE ARE THE GOVERNEMENT, but only if we are willing to take responsibility for governing those we elect to serve us .
So get out, not only to vote, but to make your voice heard and your presence felt. Unless and until we become as vocal and as demanding as our "special interest" opponents they will continue to win. If a third party candidate represents your ideals VOTE FOR THEM. To try to fudge your vote to manipulate who among the others doesn't represent you less is like putting all your money on 42 at the roulette table. It only goes to 36, so you're not going to win. But there is no chance in hell that you'll actually change the numbers on the wheel either.
(If you can't find anyone else, write-in "mwa on slashdot". If nothing else, it will freak the power people out to see anybody get more than a handful of write-ins ;)
Voting anything other than the current two parties on the presidential election means absolutely nothing, because if you loose, you've wasted your vote.
This is a dangerous misconception.
A vote for a losing party is not wasted as long as there isn't a single
dominant party. As long as there are two dominant parties, then there is
competition for votes. If a non-dominant third party gets some small percentage
of the votes, then there is pressure on both of the dominant parties to make
changes in order to appeal to those voters so as to better compete against
the other dominant party.
In effect, a vote for a non-dominant third party is actually a more powerful
vote than a vote for a dominant party since a third party vote can change the
policy of both dominant parties as long as they have reason to believe that
they can earn your vote (this is why you should never come off as a fanatic
since nobody expects to appease a fanatic).
*sigh* back to work...
In Europe soccer players don't go off to uni to further their career, they simply go & get a job at a footy club playing soccer.
Here in Sydney, Australia, Rugby League players don't go off to uni to further their career, they simply go of & get a job at a footy club playing the greatest game on earth. Then later they retire & buy a pub or sports store or become a commentator.
It seems to me in the US a college education has become a prestigue/class thing that everyone's expected to have if they don't want to be consided a red neck illiterate, never mind the fact it's not desirable for everyone to desire a college education.
AFAIC sports people are much better off pursueing their sporting career by playing their sport when they're young 'n strong. They can always go to uni mature-age in their 30's after they've retired from injuries.
To keep this in perspective, let's remember that the whole copy-protection issue is an accident of history. Publishers, broadcasters and record companies have been able to flourish all these years because the general public simply didn't have the capability to widely distribute copies of things. If distributing copies had been as trivially simple as it is now, at the time sound and video recordings were invented, there would be no media companies because there would have been no market for records and tapes. People who wanted to make money in that area would have had to do it in a different way, or not at all. We would not have it ingrained in our minds that the world can't function properly unless someone owns or controls the distribution of every image and sound they produce. It's not a moral imperative, it's just an idea we are used to. If we want to, we can get used to other ideas just as well.
During the OJ trial I learned that he makes $25,000 a month from his retirement package from the NFL. That's obviously $300,000 a year.
I consider that an obscene amount of money considering he only worked 10 years for the NFL. And even then he only worked at most 6 months out of each year.
If the NFL can afford to give someone who worked less than five years a lifetime salary of $300,000, it has a LOT of money.
Thus the question is: Why can't its owners buy their own god-damn stadiums?!?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
We've given the FCC veto power over consumer electronics.
We've given the RIAA, MPAA, and virtually everybody who owns "content" veto power over consumer electronics.
Why should I pay for something that I don't control? If I pay all that money for a Tivo, don't I have the right to decide what to do with it?
Apparently not.
If not for this hidden article in the Post, how many people would even be aware how much intrusion into our lives is happening via these folks?
You either let your congressman/senator know now, or yet another right will be lost. If it isn't already.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
How about we pass a law that says only U.S. citizens can contribute or financially support a candidate? No PAC funding. No "soft" party funding. No corporate funding. No foriegn funding. If any of those want to help a candidate financially, they have to get out and get citizens to open their wallets for their chosen cattle-herder.
And how does this help? The PACs, corporations, and foreign interest will just run "issue ads", and fund "action groups" with no ties (direct or indirect) to the campaign in question. It's what they're doing now on behalf of the Democrats, in order to get around the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law, because they don't have the same kind of direct-donor money machine the Republicans do.
Face it. The problem isn't the money machines that the major parties use. It's US. We should be able to distinguish fact from fiction, do our own research, and discount the MTV/PepsiSmash-ized media circus that passes for news and commentary today. There should be unbiased sources for news, accurate and in-depth debate, clear discussions of party planks with the general public, and a reasoned and insightful choice come voting day.
Instead, we have lies delivered as truth. Emotion and hyperbole delivered as matter-of-fact. Sound bites and media campaigns designed to influence public opinion. Bread and circuses to corral votes and keep incumbents in power. AND WE (as in the American people) ACCEPT IT.
Do you honestly think that we can restrict their money, and keep them to the spirit of the law, when we can't even keep them in check now? We need to take the foxes out of the henhouse before we staple the wire netting in place. Otherwise, we're just ensconing the foxes right where they want to be.
Personally, I think two things would help to change the political landscape in this country, money or no:
1. Move election day to the first Tuesday after Tax Day. Let's see the politicians try and raise their salaries for themselves and justify it when people see how much money the government is taking.
2. Regularize redistricting, and get rid of the winner-take all system. Right now, gerrymandering continues across the country with the consent of both parties, in an effort to create districts that are bulletproof for the incumbent party. We should regularize districts on a grid basis by population, and combine the elections for multiple districts in order to prevent the 50%+1 system from ensuring that only major party candidates can secure representation.
Number one isn't going to happen, not with the current politicos in power. Number two might happen on a local basis, assuming you have a voter initiative system in place, and someone with enough guts and money to ram it through. But you're going to need to break the legislative stranglehold on things - one reason why I like governor Schwartzenegger's proposed plan to cut the California legislature to part-time status.
In the meantime, what can WE (as in the Slashdot crowd) do? Well, first thing is to get that GeekPAC running (geekpac.org, supposedly - and it's down, for who knows how long.) The second is to break up the media empires that politicians cater to for positive spin and information control. The third is to encourage competition on all fronts, in order to churn up the layers of sediment, and get proper representation going. Lastly, is to educate the populace (not an easy task) and get them to treat the vote with more respect than they treat the rest of government.
There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Study the concept of non-zero-sum-gain sometime. While in the short term your statement is true, its not always. Back in econ 101 we lear that if you have two people and one is good at fishing and the other better at basket making, if they can trade products and both be better off. What the poster was commenting about is about buying the $1.26 item at Wal-Mart vs the locally made one at $1.96 means your going to decrease the total wealth in your area and then you end up paying more in taxes so your transaction turns out to be a negitive-sum-gain.