EFF Goes To Court To Fight The Broadcast Flag

Silwenae writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and nine other organizations including Public Knowledge (PK) and the American Library Association (ALA) have gone to court to fight the Broadcast Flag. The press release sums it up: The brief argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress. While the FCC does have jurisdiction over TV transmissions, transmissions are not at issue here. The broadcast flag limits the way digital material can be used after the broadcast has already been received."

Comments

Macrovision

[Anonymous Coward]

So who was responsible for putting macrovision on the dvd players?

Re:Macrovision

[stratjakt]

The MPAA. If you want a CSS license to sell DVD players, you have to include Macrovision and region locking, etc.

Hitachi can put whatever "features" they want in their TVs, the EFF is saying the government can't mandate what goes in and doesn't.

Ie; V-Chip is optional, TV and Movie ratings are all completely voluntary, there are no US laws that have to do with PG-13.

Re:Macrovision

[evilninja]

I don't believe the FCC was responsible for the region codes on DVD's and in DVD players. (See FAQ here.) That was a decision by the movie industry to take copy pretection into their own hands, and they managed to pressure most hardware manufacturers into making DVD players with embedded regions. With the FCC's help or not, there's a good chance the MPAA et. al. will manage the same thing here. If the industry can influence the production of DVD players, the industry can influence the production of TV's. If the MPAA blocks their movies from broadcast on any station that transmits a digital signal without a broadcast flag, it won't take long for all digital channels (think HDNet Movies) to adopt the broadcast flag.

Re:Macrovision

[GoodNicsTken]

That's where your getting the issue confused. MPAA has a relationship with the stations because they sell them content. They have no relationship with TV makers. Just because the broadcast flag is sent doesn't mean the TV has to use it. That's why they pushed the FCC for the flag.

Just like they are going to push congress for a law after the EFF wins. However, it's a much harder sell, and we can speak up about it to our represenatives.

Re:Macrovision

[Hatta]

Ie; V-Chip is optional...

From the FCC's V-chip page:

Pursuant to the Commission's rules, half of all new television models 13 inches or larger manufactured after July 1, 1999, and all sets 13 inches or larger manufactured after January 1, 2000 must have V-Chip technology. Set top boxes that allow consumers to use V-Chip technology on their existing sets are now available.

Of course, it's up to you whether you want to use the V-chip that the gov't forces you to buy.

Re:Macrovision

[Anonymous Coward]

If the MPAA blocks their movies from broadcast on any station that transmits a digital signal without a broadcast flag, it won't take long for all digital channels (think HDNet Movies) to adopt the broadcast flag.

The signal ultimately means nothing unless all manufacturers hardwire their recievers to obey the broadcast flag. Which will only happen when either A) market demands will not support a product that ignores it, or B) adherence is imposed by a government agency. I think that after twenty years of VCRs we can rule out case A.

Hmm, I wonder if the Betamax decision could be used as legal precedent against the broadcast flag?

Re:Macrovision

[Goalie_Ca]

They have no relationship with TV makers. Okay, maybe its just me, but if i recall SONY sells tons of TV's :P

Re:Macrovision

[Armando_Mcgillicutty]

But if this thing isn't forced by law to be in every tv, and I have a choice between a Sony tv that supports the flag, and another brand that doesn't, guess which brand I'm going to buy.

Re:Macrovision

[cdrguru]

The Japanese Government operates the DVD Forum, of which the DVDCCA (DVD Copy Control Authority) is a part. These organizations dictate how DVDs are made, and license the CSS technology. Failure to have properly licensed CSS technology or failure to use Macrovision properly gets you a lawsuit by either Macrovision or DVDCCA or both.

The broadcast flag is pretty much a done deal. CBS said they would never move to digital broadcasts unless the broadcast flag was mandated. Since moving all television broadcasting in the US to digital is a significant goal, it was virtually a no-brainer to thus mandate the broadcast flag. I think some other broadcasters were on CBS's side but none made the big public splash that CBS did.

Basically, the only way to get rid of the broadcast flag is to (a) convince the broadcasters they should give up their copyright to digital broadcasts, and (b) ensure that without this protection the broadcasters still move to digital broadcast.

Unfortunately, this will only apply to a few million people in city centers - digital broadcasting doesn't have the range that the analog broadcasts do. Cable and satellite systems will implement the same no-copy on the digital output from satellite receivers and cable set-top boxes. I believe it is there already for those folks with an IEEE 1394 connection from the cable box to the HD TV.

Re:Macrovision

[bnenning]

CBS said they would never move to digital broadcasts unless the broadcast flag was mandated.

An obvious bluff. What are they going to when analog goes away, not broadcast over the air at all?

Basically, the only way to get rid of the broadcast flag is to (a) convince the broadcasters they should give up their copyright to digital broadcasts

That doesn't follow. I can record non-HD shows today, but that doesn't mean that the producers have to give up their copyright. All they have to give up their fantasy that they should have complete control over how the content is used.

Re:Macrovision

[Anonymous Coward]

your getting the issue confused

"you're".

What are the odds?

[njfuzzy]

What I want to know, is what are the odds of defeating the bill? It is great to see people and respected institutions standing up and saying this is wrong, a betrayal of our rights-- but can they make a difference?

Re:What are the odds?

[MikeMacK]

I'd say they are pretty high. The FCC is clearly out of it's mandate here and I would say the odds of defeating it are good, not on the merits of violation of consumers rights, but that the FCC doesn't have the authority for Congress to do this.

Re:What are the odds?

[InfoVore]

It is great to see people and respected institutions standing up and saying this is wrong, a betrayal of our rights-- but can they make a difference?

If people try, maybe.
If people don't try, never.

I.V.

Re:What are the odds?

[jxs2151]

Win or not, we must continue to fight tyranny even in mild forms. The power of government must be constrained on a constant, consistent basis in order for freedom to flourish.

The FCC is obviously outside of its mandate and that fact will be communicated just by the very fact act of taking to the courts.

...but can they make a difference?

Be not afraid.

Re:What are the odds?

[JackL]

I think the point of the EFF's action is that they are not fighting a bill, but rather an FCC mandate. From one of the linked articles:

Thanks to an FCC ruling, as of July 2005, it will be illegal to manufacture or import DTV tuners unless they include DRM technologies mandated by the FCC.

The FCC only has power to regulate transmissions. They can require broadcasters to transmit a broadcast flag but they cannot require television makers to pay any attention to it. That would require a bill to be voted into law by congress.

Re:What are the odds?

[dgatwood]

The odds are very low. The FCC does have the authority to regulate all transmitter and receiver hardware. That has always been within their purview. They have the right to regulate digital hardware, too, as every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.

Sorry, but the EFF is likely to lose if they are fighting it on "digital hardware" jurisdictional grounds. The right way to fight this is to fight it on grounds that the FCC doesn't have the authority to alter the fundamental nature copyright law through their rulemaking, not that they don't have the right to regulate the design of receivers. The consumer rights issue is the only issue that may be outside the FCC's rights.

Re:What are the odds?

[corngrower]

I'ld agree with you. Based on what's indicated in the article, I think the court will rule that the FCC has overstepped its authority. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out congress passing a measure that would 'restore' this authority when it gets overruled. Especially if it's a Republican congress.

Re:What are the odds?

[Greger47]

What are the odds that Congress will happily enact the necessary law to mandate the broadcast flag if it turns out that the FCC ain't allowed to put it in its regulations?

/greger

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is great to see people and respected institutions standing up and saying this is wrong, a betrayal of our rights-- but can they make a difference?"

One person can make a difference. I see current examples are with us even today.

RMS has made a difference, with the creation of the GPL and the GNU software.

Kelly Goen made a difference, with PGP (Phil Z. helped of course, but it wasn't Phil's idea, nor did he release the software).

Linus made a difference, with Linux. I am sure there are other examples as well.

The only question one needs to ask is "what are you yourself doing"? We all can start by supporting the FSF with a donation.

Re:What are the odds?

[Wizzo1138]

But isn't the reason that they regulate devices that can cause interference is that they are themselves transmitters?
I don't actually know if they have any authority over receiver hardware or not, but it might only be that most receiver hardware is capable of transmitting in some form (if only via interference.)

Re:What are the odds?

[dnoyeb]

What? The EFF is not fighting on any "digital hardware" grounds.

The FCC has the authority to regulate transmitters and receivers. Not any accompanying hardware, except with respect to interference. I agree with the EFF that this mandate is outside of the authority of the FCC.

I don't understand why you think the EFF is not doing what you claim they should be doing!?

Re:What are the odds?

[AvantLegion]

If people try, maybe.
If people don't try, never.

Originally:
"You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take" -- Wayne Gretzky

Re:What are the odds?

[v_1matst]

"every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference."

right... and that's all. They have to approve the device to not interfere with other transmissions that they govern.

This is an apples and oranges comparision to what the EFF is trying to limit.

Re:What are the odds?

[MikeMacK]

I wouldn't bet on it. Even the Republican Congress has not gone along with everything the FCC has wanted to do

Re:What are the odds?

[value_added]

MikeMacK writes "I'd say they are pretty high."

dgatwood writes "The odds are very low."

Somebody please make up my mind for me.

Re:What are the odds?

[memfrob]

They have the right to regulate digital hardware, too, as every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.

Sounds like regulating transmissions to me. Now, when the FCC tells me that my HDD can only boot an FCC approved OS image, or can only store files that have been signed by a corporate entity, then they get the FINGER.

Re:What are the odds?

[hackstraw]

The FCC is clearly out of it's mandate here and I would say the odds of defeating it are good, not on the merits of violation of consumers rights, but that the FCC doesn't have the authority for Congress to do this.

Think again. From their about us page they say, "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.">

Parallel that with the CIA, "The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, and accountable to the American people through the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress."

I'm growing skeptical of these "independant agencies". They are not elected, they are not part of the "checks and balances" system, there is no meantion of them in the Constitution, yet they appear to be having greater power than any real part of our government.

I mean the CIA still has publically downloadable 23page document from 2002 about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" here, yet its pretty much common knowledge that they never existed. The document even has a map on page 9 that has 9, yes, 9 "Declared nuclear facilities".

Re:What are the odds?

[J.R. Random]

I don't think the Republican/Democrat divide has much to do with this. Democrats depend very much upon Hollywood money (more than the Republicans do) and so are quite inclined to do the bidding of their corporate masters on this issue.

Re:What are the odds?

[chris_mahan]

> "every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference."

Dang. those guys should have never certified windows boxes then...

Re:What are the odds?

[InfoVore]

Originally:
"You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take" -- Wayne Gretzky

Nice one. My compliments. How about:

"Never tell me the odds." -- Han Solo

Cheers,
I.V.

Re:What are the odds?

[zogger]

--they seized the authority under the commerce clause, and have been abusing it ever since. Just like the BATF (and a host of other federal bureaucracies) seized illegal authority in their domain.

Of course, I'm a realist and understand they got the goons with guns to make whatever they say sorta stick, too.

Re:What are the odds?

[mpe]

The FCC does have the authority to regulate all transmitter and receiver hardware. That has always been within their purview.

But do they have any authority over what happens to signals after they have ceased to be freely radiating RF?

They have the right to regulate digital hardware, too, as every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.

That is only the function of the computer as a radio transmitter. It has nothing to do with the function of the hardware as digital computer.

Re:What are the odds?

[mpe]

"It is great to see people and respected institutions standing up and saying this is wrong, a betrayal of our rights-- but can they make a difference?"

It certainly won't make a difference if they don't. The thing to remember that there are chaotic factors at work. It might be the first person to "sit at the front of the bus" or it might be the thousanth.

Re:What are the odds?

[claytongulick]

It is things like this that make me believe wholeheartedly that I picked the correct charity to donate to. So many charities out there simply consume donations to feed their massive administration United Way and only a tiny fraction, if any, of your donation actually helps anyone.

With the EFF, I really feel like I am doing some good when I dontate.

Re:What are the odds?

[poptones]

The FCC does have the authority to regulate all transmitter and receiver hardware. That has always been within their purview.

But do they have any authority over what happens to signals after they have ceased to be freely radiating RF?

Doesn't matter at all. because the FCC DOES have the right to say "you shall make all receiving devices compatible with this (broadcast flag) device..."

This ain't new, and I'm surprised the EFF thinks it has even a slim chance with such a play. Apparently no one at the EFF has read their history books:

The problem was that UHF stations would not be successful unless people had UHF tuners, and people would not voluntarily pay for UHF tuners unless there were UHF broadcasters. Of the 165 UHF stations that went on the air between 1952 and 1959, 55% went off the air. Of the UHF stations on the air, 75% were losing money. UHF's problems were the following:(1) technical inequality of UHF stations as compared with VHF stations; (2) intermixture of UHF and VHF stations in the same market and the millions of VHF only receivers; (3) the lack of confidence in the capabilities of and the need for UHF television. Suggestions of de-intermixture (making some cities VHF only and other cities UHF only) were not adopted, because most existing sets did not have UHF capability. Ultimately the FCC required all TV sets to have UHF tuners. However over four decades later, UHF is still considered inferior to VHF, despite cable television, and ratings on VHF channels are generally higher than on UHF channels.

The allocation between VHF and UHF in the 1950s, and the lack of UHF tuners is entirely analogous to the dilemma facing digital television of high definition television fifty years later.

Even fifty years ago the FCC had the power to (and did) regulate receiving devices. They mandated all sets sold with something larger than (I believe) a 13" screen MUST have both VHF an UHF tuners... and it stood, and it worked... just as this latest move will.

Re:What are the odds?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'm growing skeptical of these "independant agencies". They are not elected, they are not part of the "checks and balances" system, there is no meantion of them in the Constitution, yet they appear to be having greater power than any real part of our government.

From the FCC's statement, I'd say that they function as extensions of congress. They claim independence, but they are still accountable to congress.

Re:What are the odds?

[legirons]

"What are the odds that Congress will happily enact the necessary law to mandate the broadcast flag if it turns out that the FCC ain't allowed to put it in its regulations?"

Depends... is that a power given to them by the US constitution?

Re:What are the odds?

[Artifakt]

"The right way to fight this is to fight it on grounds that the FCC doesn't have the authority to alter the fundamental nature copyright law through their rulemaking"

I'm very glad you got mod points for this, as it seems both accurate and informative, but it raised another question in my mind.

A while back, there was a legal decision usually referred to as the "Thor Power Tool" case, that involved the IRS and company accounting/amortization methods. The case had a huge impact on the publishing industry, and is effectively the reason why now, even a popular author such as Tom Clancy or Steven King has works that cycle in and out of print instead of being reprinted constantly in anticipation of eventual demand.
For those people who have considered copying an out of print work and claiming that the fact it is long out of print means there's no economic loss, 'Thor Power Tool' is ultimately the root law that negates that defense, as 'long out of print' is no longer something the court dares consider or define more precisely, unless they want to risk screwing up tax law over a copyright case. Note that author's associations and such have frequently claimed 'Thor Power Tool' hurts the authors and publishers, and in particular new authors just starting out, and not just those persons wanting to distribute out of print works.
I'm wondering if it could be argued on the same basis as you mention, that the IRS doesn't have the authority to make 'Thor Power Tool' apply to the publishing industry, because it has more than its intended effects, limited to tax law, and instead, also alters the nature of copyright law (if it makes it harder for new authors to get started, it's doing the opposite of "promoting progress in the useful arts", as the U.S. Constitution says).
It looks like it might actually be in the publishing industry's favor to recognize a right to copy works long lapsed from print, if in return they would regain the right to make 'out of print' mean what it originally meant to them financially.

(The necessity for my signature is shown by the fact that I am actually discussing the possibilty that the courts decide an issue by reference to the constitution, rather than just precedent. It'll happen right after Monkees fly out of Rhenquist's butt.).

Re:What are the odds?

[Detritus]

Congress had passed enabling legislation in the form of the All-Channel Receiver Act of 1962.

Re:What are the odds?

[andrews]

" I mean the CIA still has publically downloadable 23page document from 2002 about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" here, yet its pretty much common knowledge that they never existed"

So what exactly DID Sadam use to gas the Kurds? Pretty hard to do that with something that never existed.

All Sadam did was the equivalent of flushing the drugs down the toilet when the police raid the crack house. WMDs? What WMDs? I have no WMDs.

Re:What are the odds?

[Ciggy]

There's the rub: MUST have both . Decreeing that all TVs now MUST have broadcast flag recognition is the same as if they had decreed "Must ONLY have UHF" then.

Re:What are the odds?

[hackstraw]

First, my definition is a little different than the government's and press' definition of WMDs. I just leave it that a WMD is a weapon that can do mass destruction, especially at a distance. Nuclear bombs are good examples of WMDs. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe that all of the people killed from the advent of gas and chemical bombs would not equal to one of the nuclear bombs that the US government dropped on Japan. We know about WMDs, and have used them.

The number of Kurds that were _locally_ killed varies from source to source, but lets say for the sake of argument 5,000 that were gassed by Saddam. And that is not one from one bomb.

About 3,000 people were killed with box cutters not too long ago.

I would think that it is unanimously agreed that Saddam put up little to no fight when went over to their country and killed 1,000 of our people and over 10,000 of theirs. If Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction or even just weapons worthwhile to defend himself, I think he would have had no reservation to do whatever it took.

He's the nutcase that likes to kill people, right? Where's the evidence?

Re:What are the odds?

[phearlez]

Would you please concentrate on preparing for friday's debate, Senator Kerry?

Re:What are the odds?

[mefus]

That depends on how The Supremes interpret Congresses authority to grant copy rights for "a limited time".

As has been stated elsewhen, copyright protection mechanisms do not acknowledge copyright expiration (or fair use, for that matter) and exceed the mandate.

Re:What are the odds?

[Dyolf Knip]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe that all of the people killed from the advent of gas and chemical bombs would not equal to one of the nuclear bombs that the US government dropped on Japan

Tough call. They had a merry old time with chemical agents during WW1. Since then? Still a tough call, since there's umpteen third world two-bit one-man-rule hellholes that get their rocks off killing civilians by the thousands. If any of them got it into their heads to use chemicals instead of bullets or machetes, it wouldn't take long to rack up an impressive body count.

Re:What are the odds?

[andrews]

" First, my definition is a little different than the government's and press' definition of WMDs."

Well if we can just make up any definition we want then what's the point? I prefer to not live in Wonderland. Words have definitions and have meaning. We don't get to just make up whatever definition we like. If we can't agree on the basic definitions of what we're taking about then we have no basis for communication.

"...lets say for the sake of argument 5,000 that were gassed by Saddam."

But I thought there were no WMDs? So now there are and even you are willing to allow 5000 killed with them.

"About 3,000 people were killed with box cutters not too long ago."

No, they were killed with hijacked jets.

Re:What are the odds?

[FLEB]

Link!

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

This broadcast flag is a different matter because it gets into copyright issues because you're adding something that controls usage after the transmission is received.

the lack of UHF tuners is entirely analogous to the dilemma facing digital television of high definition television fifty years later.

And I think that statement has more to do with how most televisions today don't come with HDTV receivers.

Re:What are the odds?

[chanceH]

Depends... is that a power given to them by the US constitution?


What does that have to do with it?

Re:What are the odds?

[CmdrGravy]

He used all that Poison Gas he bought off the USA and other similar countries, unfortunately he has since had trouble proving he used it all or destroyed the rest in some less lethal fashion.

Re:What are the odds?

[CmdrGravy]

I don't think anyones arguing whether Saddam ever had WMD at any point in his long career, we know that he did. The question is whether he had any at the time we decided to invade Iraq and take over.

I think the Iraq survey group who's job it is to find all these alledged WMD that he had says it best.

They say that he had no WMD but would probably like to have acquired some if he could. Who knows why, maybe he was worried his country was likely to be invaded by a massively superior military force in the near future and would have liked to protect himself a bit.

Re:What are the odds?

[bob beta]

The question is wether Hussein was harboring and encouraging terrorists.

Actually, no, that isn't in question.

Re:What are the odds?

[91degrees]

Interesting. Does the FCC have the power to prevent import and manufacture? For example, could I acquire a 10GW transmitter if I had no intention of ever using it? (Exactly why I'd want to transmit with that power is another matter entirely).

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are very strong if one recognises the distinction between receive, and post receive stages.

They are making a grab to regulate SOFTWARE, software functionality, and maybe processor design and functionality.

The Analogy would be should the FCC also dictate TV speaker size/quality ohmage, the quality of the audio amplifier, or the color or design of the receivers knobs - hey even the battery pack, or even regulate the TV Guide. Or dictate what brand of videotape you must buy for your videorecorder, or not putting sticky tape over the record tabs - waay out of line. ..regulate all transmitter and receiver hardware
yep, no problem with that - thats all part of spectrum management, frequency, modulation and all that, and that your blender and coffee machine does no intefere with police radios etc.

The beef is that AFTER the signal has been received. If the FCC wanted to regulate TCP/IP, they would be quickly told where to go. Spectrum management, and protocol formats are entirely different things.

It does not take many brains to realize a straight RF receiver card with materialize - with software to do the post conversion bit. Using this test, its about software.

The correct law to determine the honouring of this 'bit' will be the same legislation that deals with packet sniffers and generators, and the posession of unsocial software with 'intent'. However this one would also probably get struck down - what you do in your own home is your business. Also, like mandated internet filters, the ammendments are hostile to this sort of restrictive inteference. IANAL

Re:What are the odds?

[arminw]

The odds are pretty good that the FCC will have their nails trimmed on this. The broadcast flag has nothing to do with TV technology, but with implementing COPYRIGHT restrictions, which are NOT in the FCC domain. Congress would have to extend the FCC jurisdiction to enforce copyrights for the big rich IP owners. Since a considerable number of Congress people are in the pockests of the various copyright owners, there is a good chance that the FCC will get that authority to enforce copyright rules in all communications.

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it depends on whether you television crossed state or national lines (it did.)

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. It is hearting to see the EFF "play the game" and get this stuff overturned based on bureaucratic technicalities rather than their usual broad appeal to slashbot civil rights which fails.

Re:What are the odds?

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly out of it's mandate

"its".

Re:What are the odds?

[Upphew]

It's hard to concentrate beacuse your war on terror makes so much noise, President Bush.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Doc Ruby]

"The broadcast flag limits the way digital material can be used after the broadcast has already been received."

Does it? Or does the flag just say that the sender set the broadcast flag? The receiver limits the use of the data, or not.

Re:Actions speak louder than words.

[Lehk228]

that is the point made in the lawsuit, and mandating that hardware acknowledge and respect the flag after reception goes outside the scope of the FCC's authority.

Re:Actions speak louder than words.

[Rude Turnip]

The FCC is also mandating that receivers made after a certain date honor the broadcast flag. It's not good regardless of the semantics.

Re:Actions speak louder than words.

['nother poster]

Yes, but the issue is whether the FCC can mandate the honoring of the broadcast flag in the digital TVs and recorders, I believe.

Re:Actions speak louder than words.

[kawika]

Nonsense! The FCC has the authority to prevent "harmful interference", and the lack of a broadcast flag would harmfully interfere with the profits of Disney, Sony, etc. ;-)

fp?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

woo hoo.

at least top ten....

Once again - this "flag" will be a problem for the Common Ordinary copy maker, but all it takes is a nice little Time Base Corrector to strip the digital crap out to clean up the signal, and then route that signal into your recorder of choice. Done.

RS

Re:fp?

[onion2k]

but all it takes is a nice little Time Base Corrector to strip the digital crap out to clean up the signal

This is for digital television broadcasts. If you strip the digital information out you'll be left with a blank screen. ;)

Re:fp?

[Eccles]

If you strip the digital information out you'll be left with a blank screen. ;)

For most shows, that would be an improvement...

Re:fp?

[Anonymous Coward]

next time try to not make shit up.

a TBC is 10000% useless on a DIGITAL video stream let alone the mpeg2 compressed HD video stream used in HDTV.

get a complete clue. your information is so 1985.

Re:fp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but that still seems like more trouble than just hitting the power button...

Re:fp?

[orcus]

Hmmm - if I had mod points, I'd have modded this as "insightful".

Sad, true, but definitely not funny.

The stupid thing is...

[Pig Hogger]

... the US is painting itself in a corner with the broadcast flag.

They will not be able to export their technology as other countries are protecting the right of their citizens to make private copies.

Expect the EU to adopt another HDTV standard.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Fred_A]

Maybe Disney and the other studios are planning on buying a few aircraft carriers...

In between shooting propaganda movies for the navy, they could use them to "promote" their point of view abroad...

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Disney and the other studios are planning on buying a few aircraft carriers...

They already did.

One slightly used admin, heavily used army, and slightly used Navy offering self up to top bidders. Inquire at the white House or DOJ.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Any other country can just ignore the broadcast flag (well, except for whatever commerce threats the US throws at them); the FCC mandate for respecting the flag will only apply to hardware manufactured for use/distribution in the US.

Alternatively, the EU can just allow their media corporations to use the broadcast flag for themselves. Same flag, essentially same hardware restrictions, different broadcast zones. Or they might not; at any rate, it's one "bit" of information in a torrent (don't know what the HDTV throughput is off-hand).

Yes, I know that this does not allow Region-coding, but that's beside the point.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Expect the EU to adopt another HDTV standard.

They have. They've chosen their own modulation and encoding standard. They are NOT the same as the US ATSC HD broadcasting standard.

Now, the EU can still be cowed into implementing the same thing, much like the software patent vote was manipulated.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[sicking]

Who says that that's not something that they want? Europe and the US has a history of never using each other standards. Just look at PAL/NTSC, NMT/APMS, GSM/DAMPS, Metric/Imperial, 110V60Hz/230V50Hz.

And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There's defenetly plenty more (I think pulsediling were different before we got tonediling). Then there's 802.11 and bluetooth, both has had difficulty getting over the pond (in different directions), though it seems like finally they are.

Both parties have been equally bad. It's just as often Europe reinventing some existing american weel we the other way around.

The loosers, as always, are the customers.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[chez69]

why do people think that the republicans are the ones who support this? the democrats helped pass the DMCA and get a whole lot more money from hollywood.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uuuh, dufus, Metric and Imperial are both from Europe...

Re:The stupid thing is...

[sicking]

Doh! :)

Well, UK is at least switching to metric.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[mpe]

Europe and the US has a history of never using each other standards. Just look at PAL/NTSC, NMT/APMS, GSM/DAMPS, Metric/Imperial, 110V60Hz/230V50Hz.

It isn't quite that simple, PAL is a derivative of NTSC. The French then came up with SECAM. The USA actually signed the Treaty of the Metre (pre Noah Webster) yet has never implimented it, the system actually used in the US is called "English" which is not the same as the Imperial system of measurements.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Daengbo]

Because, in the eyes of elitist Dems, all evil is Republican. See my sig.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

And has been for the past about 50 years.

In fact, since in 1 July 1959, the yard has been defined as exactly 0.9144m and (more improtantly) 1 pound has been defined as exactly 0.45359237Kg - thus 1 pound, 1/4 pound, 4 Oz, etc are all metric units of weight and have been in use as such in the UK since 1 July 1959!

Re:The stupid thing is...

[The_REAL_DZA]

You forgot "Left-side" -vs- "Right-side" for automobiles.

Also, having never been to Europe, I'm curious: for them is it "Hot on the left, Cold on the right..." like here in the U.S. or is it the other way around (and for that matter, does it flow uphill over there?)

Re:The stupid thing is...

[MrNiCeGUi]

I can't say this is true for all of Europe, but where I'm from it's hot on the right and cold on the left.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[IvyKing]

Europe and the US has a history of never using each other standards. Just look at PAL/NTSC, NMT/APMS, GSM/DAMPS, Metric/Imperial, 110V60Hz/230V50Hz.

The US 110V standard was in place in 1882 when Edison set up the Pearl Street station in NYC - however it was DC not 60Hz (the last vestige of DC distribution disappeared a couple of years ago). I have seen a reference stating that the US picked 60Hz to be specifically incompatible with the European 50 Hz system - from a book on Southern California Edison, which was a 50 Hz utility until 1948! BTW, 25Hz was the standard frequency in the US for railroad electrification and found considreable industrial use.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[CmdrGravy]

Here in the UK the cold is on the right and the hot is on the left ( standing facing the taps ).

Re:The stupid thing is...

[91degrees]

You forgot "Left-side" -vs- "Right-side" for automobiles.

Erm, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and several other countries drive on the right. Great Britain (with the unusual exception of Savoy Court) and The Republic of Ireland drive on the left.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[DunbarTheInept]

Both of the top parties are now in the pockets of large corporations - the only real difference is in what *kind* of corporations. Big Media slightly more so for the Democrats, Big Industry slightly more so for the Republicans, and IT being split between the two. But it's a problem that ignores party lines. While most Democrat Senators are supporters of Big Media protectionist laws, the staunchest opposing senator of those laws (Feingold) is also a Democrat.

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

> standing facing the taps

on your head, or on your feet?

Re:The stupid thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The loosers

"losers".

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The British still have TV detector vans.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic? Good God Almighty - There are more moronic moderators breeding than can be killed by meta-moderation.

Re:In other news...

[hyphz]

Actually, they don't (and possibly never did).

All they do is to keep a record of all the houses that *don't* have TV licenses (very few) and then check them randomly.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what I know is that a friend visiting the states from the UK was blown away by the fact you could pick up any TV anywhere, in any kind of working condition and TURN IT ON WITH IMPUNITY!

Total abandon consumed them without regard to "TV police" breathing down the the back of their necks! They could actually watch what they wanted, when they wanted where-ever they wanted absolutely free of any intimidation!

Holy f-cking Cow! What a concept!

Time to donate!!!

[SuperKendall]

I dontate to the EFF every year about this time, and you shoudl too! Is this not exactly the kind of issue that is near and dear to most every Slashdot reader?

So dontate whatever you can! Is some small portion of your salary too much to fight for digital rights?

Re:Time to donate!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So who is this Don Tate you speak off? I'm sure the FCC would like a word with him, sounds like a shady character.

I hope this is overturned, but

[revery]

I find it highly unlikely that it will be. The Federal Government has been usurping more and more power over the past 100 years (Dems and Repubs) in ways that clearly go against the intent of the Constitution.

Consider if you will this Supreme Court case:

The Court's 1942 decision in Wickard vs. Filburn gave Congress the power to regulate anything. In that case, the Court remarkably held that the interstate commerce clause could be used to regulate an individual farmer's wheat production or his family's consumption. The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.

So, in this case, even though the television sets are not engaging in interstate communication, they are receiving a signal that very likely is, and therefore, the government's resposibility to regulate cannot end at reception... or some other similar crap.

Now I'm depressed...

--

Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[Anonymous Coward]

> "...his family's consumption..."

Holy shit! This is literally straight out of the Stalinist Russia playbook; google for "squeezing [the] kulak". Thanks for turning me onto this rather disturbing Ruling.

It's sad that the U SAP AT RIOT act is only acceptable in context.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[gcaseye6677]

For a number of years, this ruling was used to justify federal regulation of just about anything. In more recent times, however, courts have somewhat limited this authority. The gun free schools act was overturned in 1995 when the supreme court ruled that the government had overstepped it's authority regarding interstate commerce regulation. Although courts have traditionally sided with the federal government in issues of regulatory authority, there have been exceptions, so it's hard to say what will happen in this case.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[4of12]

The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.

That's an ugly travesty of a precedent, deserving to be overturned.

Next thing you know, bands won't be able to do cover songs because the audience might otherwise have purchased recorded music of said songs that were part of interstate commerce.

You can tell that even in the 1940's, people were willing to come up with contorted reasoning to justify a commercial policy based on entirely different premises.

It looks to me as if the EFF has a nice technicality based case.

But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[mreed911]

The Court's 1942 decision in Wickard vs. Filburn gave Congress the power to regulate anything. In that case, the Court remarkably held that the interstate commerce clause could be used to regulate an individual farmer's wheat production or his family's consumption. The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.

Much has been written about the interstate commerce decision/clause. Here's an excerpt:

Beginning with the Hepburn Act (1906), the ICC's jurisdiction was gradually extended beyond railroads to all common carriers except airplanes by 1940. Its enforcement powers to set rates were also progressively extended, through statute and broadened Supreme Court interpretations of the commerce clause of the Constitution, as were its investigative powers for determining fair rates of return on which to base rates. In addition, the ICC was given the task of consolidating railroad systems and managing labor disputes in interstate transport. In the 1950s and 60s the ICC enforced U.S. Supreme Court rulings that required the desegregation of passenger terminal facilities.

The ICC's safety functions were transferred to the Dept. of Transportation when that department was created in 1966; the ICC retained its rate-making and regulatory functions. However, in consonance with the deregulatory movement, the ICC's powers over rates and routes in rails and trucking were curtailed in 1980 by the Staggers Rail Act and Motor Carriers Act. Most ICC control over interstate trucking was abandoned in 1994, and the agency was terminated at the end of 1995. Many of its remaining functions were transferred to the new National Surface Transportation Board.

Suffice it to say that the ICC has been oft-abused in a search/grab for power, and many activities we take for granted in our daily lives are now subject to continuing jurisdiction of the government under the ICC. Do you check email? That email crossed state lines and someone paid for connectivity at both ends... thus the software, keyboard, mouse and monitor you use with your computer are theoretically subject to ICC regulation. Want to use Linux instead of Windows? Want to install SP2 on your Windows box? Maybe Congress will decide that it needs to regulate software distribution and require you to register your use of any updates with them...

The ICC is a big, dangerous thing in the hands of often overzealous public officials...

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[m42power]

Actually, the court has said that there are outer limits to the things Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[PMuse]

The Federal Government has been usurping more and more power over the past 100 years...The Court's 1942 decision in Wickard vs. Filburn gave Congress the power to regulate anything...

You'll be pleased to know that this exact point is going before the court again this year. The Supreme Court will consider whether Congress can ban medical marijuana in California even if it never leaves the state.

The WWII wheat-quotas-are-OK case (Wickard v Filburn, 1942) is looking pretty weak after the can't-prohibit-guns-near-schools case (US v Lopez, 1995). I can hardly imagine that the Court will force a broad role-back of Congressional authority, but we'll know in a few months or so.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[Fascist Christ]

The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.

I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such reasoning.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[n6kuy]

The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.

Aha! So this is why you can only get *Florida* orange juice in California, even though California grows shitloads of oranges.....

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[SpaceLifeForm]

But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.

And this is the true and present danger that could occur depending upon the outcome of the upcoming election. MS and the Greedy Old Party would drool over the prospect of that level of control.

It *MUST NOT* occur.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[DunbarTheInept]

that there are outer limits to the things Congress may regulate

"outer limits"?
Do not attempt to adjust your television set.
There is nothing wrong with your TV.
We can control the horizontal.
We can control the vertical.
We can control whether your record button works or not.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[ScrewMaster]

Probably they weren't regulating psychotropic drugs quite so heavily back then.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[bradleyjg]

No way they'll overturn a precident that old and important. They like to snip around the edges by 'distingishing' everything, but the current court doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to overturn the core holding.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[mreed911]

Congress exists, and Congress has the authority to deem something within the realm of ICC.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[slaad]

But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.

But at least we get to vote for them.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[IntlHarvester]

The Court's 1942 decision in Wickard vs. Filburn gave Congress the power to regulate anything.

You seem to have missed the main point. The EFF is arguing that Congress did NOT impose broadcast flags. It was an administrative decision from the FCC which overstepped their authority from Congress to "promote digital television".

If Congress had actually passed a law mandating broadcast flags, the antis would in a much more difficult position.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[revery]

No, the main point is that the government frequently uses any reasoning that they can to claim power over the citizens of the United States.

It was an administrative decision from the FCC which overstepped their authority from Congress to "promote digital television"

A conservative Constitutional constructionist would argue that Congress can not delegate its power to create laws just by calling them regulations in the first place.

Re:I hope this is overturned, but

[IntlHarvester]

And a Communist would argue that Congress is a bourgeois corruption and it's members should be imprisoned or shot. Which is just as irrelevant as your post. Try to follow the discussion.

Pardon my pessimism

[Anonymous Coward]

>>unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress

So the MPAA will just send a few more "donations" to congress and suddenly a new law magically appears extending the FCC's powers.

Re:Pardon my pessimism

[hyphz]

You know, I can't help be amused by the fact that one of the Slashdot autolinks from this story is:

'Best Deals: The Courts"

So if you need to go shopping for a judge..

Re:Pardon my pessimism

[Jaywalk]

So the MPAA will just send a few more "donations" to congress and suddenly a new law magically appears extending the FCC's powers.

Maybe, but that's no reason to make their lives easier. The real value of the suit is in raising the issue outside of the geek community. When have you last heard of "broadcast flag" outside of Slashdot? The average American doesn't even know that his rights are being curtailed. The MPAA et al would rather slip this new regulation in below the radar rather than expose it to public view by having to push it through Congress

Re:Pardon my pessimism

[IndependentVik]

Putting this in front of the court will let the average American know that his rights are being curtailed? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the average American following the Supreme Court closely, not unless the TV press gives it big coverage. And since the TV press is owned by the media corporations, well, I think you see where this is going. Unless people start watching PBS or begin reading a free-thinking newspaper, nobody's going to care.

Re:Pardon my pessimism

[ejaw5]

The public will find out eventually, which is what I'm depending on will lead to the eventual elimination of the broadcast flag, or increase in 'underground' equipment hacked together by dropout EE students.

Let's say a "big television event" is about to start. Johnny loads in a T-120GB digital-recording media into his newly purchased HD-VCR and goes to record [sports event, pay-per-view pr0n, etc] and is confronted with:

ERROR: BROADCAST IS FLAGED. I CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO RECORD, JOHNNY.

tricky.

[gclef]

Well, the FCC clearly does have some authority over end-user devices: notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US? There's a reason it's there. Now, their authority (to my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm full of it) is limited to controlling what the devices *broadcast*, not how they recieve things, but still...if the entire argument hinges on the FCC not being able to regulate TV sets at all (which the press release implies), then they're wrong. If they can make the subtle distinction that the FCC can only regulate what the TV/card *emits*, then they have a hope.

Re:tricky.

[thedillybar]

>Now, their authority (to my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm full of it) is limited to controlling what the devices *broadcast*, not how they recieve things, but still.

By broadcast, you mean transmit. But read the back of almost any device with the FCC logo you speak of. It seems they have authority over both transmitting and receiving.

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

Re:tricky.

[GooberToo]

Well, the FCC clearly does have some authority over end-user devices: notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US?

That's completely different. That ensures one device is not preventing another device from receiving a transmission. Basically, it ensures one device does not interfere with another. Which means, such restrictions exactly fit with the FCC's charter.

The broadcast flag has nothing to do with it's charter. Never has, and never will, save only by changes in law by Congress. Which is exactly the point.

Re:tricky.

[Andy_R]

I'm not American, but I've still got this government graffiti on lots of my home electronics here in England, and it's always baffled me. What the hell does it mean?

(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?

"accept" in what sense. If it does "cause undesired operation", then surely that means it didn't "accept" it? What wound not accepting interference actually involve?

Re:tricky.

[pdhenry]

May not == shall not -- e.g. it isn't permitted to. (Mother may I? No, you may not)

"accept" == not be damaged by. Example: receiving RF power in excess of some defined limit can't cause damage to the receiver

Re:tricky.

[thedillybar]

>What the hell does it mean?

I believe this is the FCC's classification of a particular device. They're saying, however you use this thing, it can't cause harmful interference (i.e. you don't have a right to use this device in such a way that will cause harmful interference). They're also saying that you have to deal with whatever interference it receives (i.e. don't complain to the FCC if something is interfering with it).

>"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?

Required. Anyone that complains to the FCC.

>"accept" in what sense. If it does "cause undesired operation", then surely that means it didn't "accept" it? What wound not accepting interference actually involve?

"Accept" in the sense that you have to deal with it. Even if it doesn't work at all, it's your problem not the FCC's.

Re:tricky.

[sjames]

By broadcast, you mean transmit. But read the back of almost any device with the FCC logo you speak of. It seems they have authority over both transmitting and receiving.

Only to the extent that the reciever necessarily radiates some RF in the process of recieving. Unless they can demonstrate that ignoring the broadcast flag necesarily increases RF emissions, they have no authority over that functionality.

What this amounts to is Congress and the Bush administration wanting to fulfill their obligations to their masters without having to put their name on what will likely be a very unpopular regulation. It's a lot easier to call up a voting record than to track down who knowingly looked the other way when a 'regulation' came out.

Re:tricky.

[CristalShandaLear]

Well, the FCC clearly does have some authority over end-user devices: notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US? There's a reason it's there.

Yes, part of the reason it's there is to ensure that the whatever electronic device meets safety guidlines and standards so little Johnny doesn't get the worst electric shock of his just ended life just for turning the thing on; or so you don't get brain cancer just so you can get a better signal on your wireless.

Re:tricky.

[Alsee]

Others have replied, but it doesn't seem that anyone has nailed this point:

notice the FCC logo on the back of every monitor/TV in the US? There's a reason it's there.

Yes, and the whole point is that reason. That reason is because the FCC is regulating incidental transmissions from those devices. Essentially all electronics leak/broadcast at least some noise in normal operation. The FCC is only regulating the permissible broadcast levels and broadcast terms, not any other operation of the device itself.

-

Re:tricky.

[mefus]

Yes, part of the reason it's there is to ensure that the whatever electronic device meets safety guidlines and standards so little Johnny doesn't get the worst electric shock of his just ended life just for turning the thing on; or so you don't get brain cancer just so you can get a better signal on your wireless.

Safety is completely irrelevant to the FCC's regulatory domain.

The FCC requires that the receiver not transmit interfering radiation, and can't be used to shut down a legitimate sender if it fails to prevent interference from a legiimate signal.

UL is an authority for electrical safety.

I'm not sure if the FCC regulates radiation based on safety concerns. That's entirely possible, but irrelevant to the rules for type 15 appliances.

How long will it take...

[jmcmunn]

How long will it take for someone to figure out how to strip this flag out using a piece of software on a PC (or hardware or firmware mod on a standalone unit) and then be able to record it without caring if this flag is set?

I'd bet within days, the first option, and maybe weeks or months on the second. This is not going to help anyone in the long run, same as Macrovision doesn't help anymore when it comes right down to it.

Re:How long will it take...

[DaHat]

This topic has been discussed before, the following link refers to my latest discussion on it here

Re:How long will it take...

[michrech]

It won't matter if someone can strip it out. If this flag comes about and hinders my ability to record, I will take the RCA video/audio outputs of said device and plug them into my All-In-Wonder and record everything I want. Sure, it won't be the origional singal, but it's close enough and better than VHS...

Plus, I can output this back through my receiver (An Onkyo TX-SR701) which will display right on my TV (I use the receiver as a video switch as well, so no need to unhook it to hook the computer to my TV - or something.. :) )

Anyway.. I've rambled long enough..

Re:How long will it take...

[Muerte2]

The problem isn't that this flag will actually stop people from recording/retransmitting/converting any signal. The problems is that it makes it ILLEGAL to do so.

It's very similar to watching a DVD on Linux. It takes about 5 seconds to install a piece of software to play a DVD on Linux, but everytime you do that you're breaking the law. It's not that it's IMPOSSIBLE to watch a DVD, it's that it's ILLEGAL to watch a DVD on Linux.

Now illegal in this sense doesn't mean the cops are going to break down your door, it just means that's you have to make a decision to skirt that part of the law.

So it's more important that we be ALLOWED (under the law) to watch that DVD, or that HDTV signal however we want.

Especially since that signal is coming in to my house/business over public airways. If it's coming in to my house, and I have no (reasonable) recourse with which to stop it, I should be able to do whatever I want with the signal once it gets there. But that's another argument.

It's all about rights, not capabilities.

Re:How long will it take...

[Anonymous Coward]

An even more grey area: I frequently rip DVDs I own to the hard disk in my laptop so I can watch them while travelling without worrying about damaging my DVDs. This is also illegal.

Probably a good time to mention the Digital Consumer Bill of Rights.

Re:How long will it take...

[Actionable Mango]

Especially since that signal is coming in to my house/business over public airways. If it's coming in to my house, and I have no (reasonable) recourse with which to stop it, I should be able to do whatever I want with the signal once it gets there. But that's another argument.

I'm against the broadcast flag, but this is an argument I've never understood. If something is in my house I'm free to do anything with it?

If a supermodel walks on my property can I do anything I want with her? If some drunk tard rams his truck into my living room can I do anything I want to him? If I get home to discover that a robber left a gun behind, can I do anything I want with that gun? No, I have to follow the law.

I hope the EFF wins, and I'll send them some money tonight. Fortunately I have pre-flag HDTV tuners that will ignore the flag.

Re:How long will it take...

[Muerte2]

No but if my neighbor has some really expensive rare flower that the wind blows the seeds on to my yard the flowers that grow as a result are mine.

If I have a stream flowing through my property and someone upstream dynamites open a mountain and gold flows on to my property that becomes my gold.

Those aren't perfect analogies but they work. The examples you mention above are crimes against people. It's never OK to harm another person (in my book).

I'm not advocating breaking the law. I'm just saying that if that signal is coming in to my house and I can capture/remodulate/transfer/etc. *without* affecting anyone else I should be able to do that. That should not be against the law. Just like it shouldn't be against the law for me to claim the flowers/gold that ended up on my property.

Re:How long will it take...

[SpaceLifeForm]

The signal is electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation (emr).

Do you want the government to legislate that you cannot close your window blinds so that light must be allowed in?

Once the emr is emitted, the emitter has no control over the emr anymore. You should be able to block it, or accept it and possibly process it in some useful way.

Just because the emr contains a digital signal should not take away your right to block/use the emitted emr in any manner you chose, including recording the digital signal in the emr, which may just contain a broadcast flag.

Re:How long will it take...

[Dyolf Knip]

If a supermodel walks on my property can I do anything I want with her?

When your VCR develops both self awareness and a really nice rack, then we'll talk about extending rights and protections to your household appliances. Until then, comparisons to actions against real people don't make any sense.

If some drunk tard rams his truck into my living room can I do anything I want to him?

To him? Certainly not. Not unless he starts threatening you or anyone else, and even then the courts will think long and hard before letting you get away with using lethal force (there's a large and fascinating case history on this topic). Again, why are you making analogies to physical actions against real people?

If I get home to discover that a robber left a gun behind, can I do anything I want with that gun

I fail to see why not, short of using it to commit a crime yourself. If you report the break-in, the cops will want it as evidence and it would probably be pretty foolish not to call or give it to them. The regulated nature of firearms also muddies the water a bit, but what if he'd only dropped his wallet? Or a swiss army knife, or a camera, or so much as a pen? I am not aware of any law that says that perfectly ordinary, everyday legal things you find in your house must be reported under penalty of law.

I hope the EFF wins, and I'll send them some money tonight.

A commendable action sir. I salute you.

And if I were filthy rich...

[GoMMiX]

I could fight for my rights too...

God, I sure do love my freedom!

Now, if you'll excuse me - I have to go take out a mortage on my home and sell my children on eBay so I can pay my taxes.

You know what's funny, you really have to think about this... Each time you drop a log and flush it - the government taxes your shit. HA!

Re:And if I were filthy rich...

[Anonymous Coward]

did you build and maintain the water pipes from your toilet to the waste treatment plant?

when there is human crap flowing down the street, who will you ask to restore your communities sanitation?

Re:And if I were filthy rich...

[GoMMiX]

I'm affraid my point was not made clear, which was obviously my fault...

However, let me expand a little...

Let's say I make $40,000 a year.
Of that $40,000, $10,000 comes out directly for income taxes, SS, et al...

I now have $30,000 a year to spend. Of that $30,000, I spend $20,000 on general living expenses, purchasing things, utilities, etc. Now, my local tax is 8% so add $1,600 to the total tax foot.
Now, additionaly I will spend $4,000 on gas, at an average of $1.70 a gallon. $0.33 of each gallon is federal tax. That's another $776 in taxes.

Addiontally, each year I will have to pay $1,200 in property tax on my home, and about $200 for my vehicle. That's another $1,400 in taxes.

Then if you count up all the little taxes the government manages to sneak in places you don't even see - I end up actually having about HALF of what I earn.

$40,000 a year is a pretty good wage for an American these days - especially someone in IT (Lucky to have a damn job period, it seems).

But after taxes are done with a normal guy who makes $40,000 a year - the guy really only MAKES around $25,000 a year. And even that's probably aiming a little high.

So, tell me - on $25,000 a year spendable cashflow - how on earth is a man expected to defend his rights?

He can't.

And there we have it, our America, our government, our freedom..... their mouse cage.

Mind you, this is also why illegal immigrants LOVE the United States. They may get paid about half of what a normal US worker would - but in reality it's about the damn same since they don't pay the taxes we do.

As per my reference to taxing our feces -- the city is responsible for the pipes, yes. (And in some cases the utility is privately owned) However, the government STILL taxes the sewage fee. Thus, they're taxing our shit - not charging a fee to process it - but taxing it ta'boot!

Yes, taxes are acceptable. But what happens if you screw up and miss a tax? Jail? Yeah, very likely. The collection methods are insane - you have no rights if the IRS comes for you - people are merely oblivious to it all until it happens to them, like the good cattle we are.

I digress...

Anyway, before WWI - people didn't pay 1/10th the taxes we pay today. The government has become bloated, and far to powerfull. Our rights dwindle day by day - and for good reason: No one man can fight for his own rights.

This article is case in point, it takes multiple large corporations to fight for our rights - because you're rights are something that cost money, lots and lots and lots of money. More money then the average man would have, that's for certain.

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson

Re:And if I were filthy rich...

[AaronW]

This article is case in point, it takes multiple large corporations to fight for our rights - because you're rights are something that cost money, lots and lots and lots of money. More money then the average man would have, that's for certain.

Huh? If anything, large companies are the ones fighting to eliminate our rights. For example, Disney and a bunch of companies turned around and sued ReplayTV because the Replay allowed one to share what they recorded and it had the capability to automatically skip commercials. Big companies sued over the early MP3 players (and lost) in an effort to prevent the spread of MP3 music. Disney and friends tried to force Replay to record everything the PVR users did (every button press, etc.) in addition to banning the sharing capability and commercial skip feature.

Big companies are only for freedom if it helps their bottom line. In many, if not most cases, they are against expanded freedoms. Who do you think is fighting for the broadcast flag? Large corporations. Who fought for adding the DAT copy protection? Large corporations. Who is fighting P2P networks? Large corporations.

Unfortunately, the large corporations are often writing the laws and winning because they do have the money behind them.

Re:And if I were filthy rich...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, additionaly I will spend $4,000 on gas, at an average of $1.70 a gallon. $0.33 of each gallon is federal tax. That's another $776 in taxes.

Then you either spend far too much time in your car or you drive a Humvee. I can't believe the way Americans whinge about "gas tax" when they're already getting the stuff for practically nothing. Try paying $5.50 a gallon like in Europe.

Delaying the inevitable?

[kawika]

They probably will get a court to agree and stop the FCC. Temporarily. Does anyone find it curious that Congress hasn't been yelling about the FCC overstepping their bounds? Well, that's because if the FCC is prevented from enforcing the broadcast flag due to lack of authority, most likely the Disney-aligned Congress will give them that authority. It's for our own good, you know, because without those protections the content providers will never let their precious content be broacast in HD and we'll all be looking at blank screens.

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit about HD.
I could go out right now and walk up and down the street, knocking on doors and taking a poll and not one god damned neighbor would care about HD.
We don't want it, we didn't ask for it and the government and MPAA can shove it up their collective ass.
I'm not about to upgrade both my Sony Widescreen TV's or either of my ATI All In Wonder computer installations or pay the fuckin cable company one penny more for this crap.
When it rains and the wind get's up here in Texas the regular cable sucks and digital cable will still suck.
Actually it will suck worse as it'll be a pixelated suck and not a snowy but you could still watch it kinda suck.

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[sjames]

It's for our own good, you know, because without those protections the content providers will never let their precious content be broacast in HD and we'll all be looking at blank screens.

Of course, the screens wouldn't be blank for long. Talk about a goldmine for an upstart content producer. The highest resolution out there, populated exclusively by people with disposable income to spare, and all the big fish voluntarily removing themselves from contention. Surely, someone can figure out a way to make money when the red carpet is rolled out like that.

Naturally, Disney and friends would prefer to poison the well and salt the fields.

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[bob beta]

Enjoy your infomercials and religious broadcasts, then.

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[sjames]

Enjoy your infomercials and religious broadcasts, then.

There's plenty of that now, I never said it would go away.

A primary reason for so many infomercials is that there have never been enough people in the latenight audience to make broadcasting profitable. At the same time, transmitters do NOT take well to being shut down. The FCC won't let them broadcast dead air. So, it was cheaper to show B movies, and old reruns (because the royalties are cheap).

Then, unfortunatly, they found people willing to pay them to show infomercials. They don't reach many people, and they don't make much from playing them (they may even take a net loss except for the saved cost of shutting the transmitter down).

Broadcasters would much rather show entertaining (at least marginally) shows and collect the much higher fees to show regular commercials during the programming. While they might not get as much for the commercial time with reletively unknown productions, they also wouldn't have to pay as much in royalties.

Note that as soon as it became apparent that even one such show might get popular, the big players would be back in an instant trying to lock them out before they catch on.

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[kb7oeb]

Why does it cost money to turn the transmitter off?

Re:Delaying the inevitable?

[sjames]

Why does it cost money to turn the transmitter off?

Believe it or not, many transmitters use huge vacuum tubes in the power amplification stage (imagine trying to find a 50,000 Watt and larger power transistor that's no more expensive than a tube). The tube must be warmed carefully to operational temperature, the cooling systems gotten up and running after that, etc. Of course, there is a risk of frequency drift and such that can result in huge fines if it interferes with another station.

While NOW we are starting to see the huge power solid state devices, they still have to be stabilized at operational temperature before they can operate within FCC requirements, and careful tuning has to happen. They still suffer from thermal stress. They definatly don't resemble the transistors in a reciever.

Either way, the hardware is big, expensive, and subject to much more thermal stress than the smaller equipment we normally see and deal with. Every power cycle cuts their potential lifetime down due to those stresses, introduces the very real risk that it simply won't power up again in the A.M., and requires extra techs on hand (rather than on-call) to monitor the process, and tune it to operational condition.

Just to add to the fun, if you simply disconnect the antenna, the transmitter power will reflect back in and burn the whole thing out (perhaps violently).

So, as you can imagine, there's a really strong incentive to just leave it on.

It does when...

[SuperKendall]

When the FCC mandates by law that every receiver must comply, then yes it DOES rather limit things!

Without FCC certification how are you going to sell a receiver?

And of course building anything that does not honr the flag is disallowed by the DMCA. It's basically a form of prohibition all over again.

Re:It does when...

[kleinux]

Without FCC certification how are you going to sell a receiver?

...off the back of a truck in Chinatown.

Re:It does when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the DMCA only prohibited breaking encryption. As I understand it the broadcast flag is not encrpytion, it is just a little piece of data, like region codes on DVDs, that says "FUCK the user"

Re:It does when...

[Waffle Iron]

And of course building anything that does not honr the flag is disallowed by the DMCA. It's basically a form of prohibition all over again.

One question would be how hard would it be to filter the flag with a generic piece of hardware? Say somebody produces a little dongle with a small FPGA in it for generically filtering serial data streams. It would have substantial non-infringing uses, because you might be able to use it to encrypt SATA drive traffic, for example. However, you might also be able to download a configuration from a foreign server that parses digitial TV streams and zeroes out the broadcast flag.

Re:It does when...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the DMCA only prohibited breaking encryption.

You thought wrong. The DMCA says nothing about encryption. It does have provisions about "technological measures that effectively control access" to copyrighted works. That could include encryption. It could include a padlock. It could include a broadcast flag.

Re:It does when...

[DunbarTheInept]

The DMCA doesn't give any sort of definition what sort of content proteciton measures count. It's so fuzzy in its definition that technically it would count to encode a book in the standard "encryption" format known as "ASCII". Are you using a device that translates ASCII into pictures of letters on a monitor, and are you using it with copyrighted content? Then it's illegal under DMCA. Basically, if it's copyrighted, then the DMCA is activated no matter what, because of this stupid hole in the law (or, if you're feeling more cynical, it's not a hole - it's the way it was designed to work).

FCC NEEDS this

[grunt107]

For a government group that is losing its relevancy (airwave TV and radio are being trounced by cable/internet/sat. radio), they need to try and branch out into areas seemingly not of their control.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[trentblase]

This is hardly insightful. Satellite radio? FCC controlled. Internet? WIFI/Fixed Wireless/Bluetooth/Allsortsofgoodies FCC Controlled. If anything we as a society are moving towards MORE dependence on very tightly regulated radio spectrum. Just ask anyone with a cellphone.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[forgetful_ca]

or a government group that is losing its relevancy (airwave TV and radio are being trounced by cable/internet/sat. radio),

Er, except the internet is doing so wirelessly. Not much danger of them becoming irrelevant anytime soon.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[Sqwubbsy]

No kidding.
Michael Powell pointed this out when they were looking to loosen ownership restrictions for news outlets in a region.
Everyone took it to mean that Bush et al. wanted more corporate ownership in markets, but Powell pointed out that it only applied to local ownership and over 70% of homes, by having cable or satellite, were already living outside of the regulation.
However, every time they try to change anythying the press makes it out like corporate cronyism, especially because Westinghouse would die in certain markets, like Philly, if there ever were real competition.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[Svartalf]

Excuse me? If a government group is losing it's relevancy, then the group should be DISBANDED , not branched out into new areas.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[robertjw]

Yes, but the FCC cannot control CONTENT on Satellite radio, Internet or Cable. What fun is it just regulating the bandwidth, they really get their kicks by rattling their saber over one of Janet Jackson's boobs.

Intresting this comes up during the same time period where the FCC is making a big deal about all of the fines that they are passing out. The FCC commissioner was even interviewed at halftime during Monday Night Football (was that this week, or last week) and was spouting off about what a bastion of decency the FCC is. How glamorous will the job of FCC commissioner be when he's only handing out fines because Verizon was using the wrong cell phone frequencies.

Re:FCC NEEDS this

[trentblase]

I wouldn't put it past the FCC to try controlling content on any open broadcast medium. I agree with you on the point that the FCC shouldn't really be in charge of decency. However, the job of the FCC commissioner IS glamorous when he is raking in BILLIONS from spectrum auctions. The petty six figure decency fines are chump change in comparison.

Stupid Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The brief argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress.


OK, so if they win this round look for Congress to specifically instruct the FCC to do so.

It is as if they don't see that coming...

Re:Stupid Argument

[thisissilly]

Good. Then we get another chance to fight it, and delay while HD-VCRs/Tivos/etc make it into the hands of the "consumers", who will yell and scream if Congress tries to "take away my VCR!".

Re:Stupid Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'll have the congressional record of who passed a bill to prevent americans from recording their favourite TV programs.

Re:Stupid Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they realize this. But they lost the fight to keep the FCC from approving it, if they win this fight, there will be another fight in Congress where they can try to lobby to stop it. It would be better if they could argue it was unconstitutional so that Congress couldn't do it either, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.

Re:Stupid Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

They can always pass it by voice vote so there's no record and they have no accountability.

We already did.

[Zarhan]

Article with link to Astra press release.

Well let's see...

[m2bord]

The EFF's arguments are correct.

The FTC only has that power which Congress has delgated to it.

That said, it's become quite clear to me that the FTC is doing what it can to support corporate rights at the expense of consumer/end user rights.

Surely there has to be a happy medium here.

Re:Well let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FTC doesn't have shit to do with it, it's the FCC we're dealing with here. You know, the guys who bent over and took it in the ass when CBS said "hey, if you guys don't do this flag shit, we're taking our HD toys and going home! waa waa waa!". Had I been the head of the FCC, I'd have told them, "As long as your O&O's broadcast DTV signals, I could give a fuck less if they are HD or not."

Re:Well let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there has to be a happy medium here.

On Slashdot it's mostly malcontented extra-larges.

Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

Why does the FCC have any jurisdiction over speech in the first place? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
Apparently, however, it's okay for Congress to make an agency to do it...
Of course, we accept it as though it's the most natural thing in the world for someone else to be responsible for our speech.
Now, I realize that the FCC does more than censor free speech. However, a lot of what they do is not un-Constitutional. Did they simply regulate access to the airwaves (not based on content of speech), I wouldn't have a problem with them. I do, however, have a large problem with some bureaucrat passing judgement on my words.
Note: I am not opposed to censorship, only government-backed censorship. Network owners should be free to censor whatever they wish. I should be able to censor my own publications. However, the government has no right to do so.

Re:Bigger question:

[Peyna]

The basis for allowing the FCC such power is that it is broadcast communications; and therefore since it is bouncing off the head of every one in the country, they should be able to control the content of the communication.

It's not necessarily akin to standing inside someone's home yelling obscenities in their ear, where they have no choice but to listen to you; but there is plenty of room for argument in cases of broadcast communications as opposed to subscription based ones.

The FCC has very limited power over subscription based communications. (Anyone else notice Comedy Central started airing completely uncensored movies late at night?)

Re:Bigger question:

[0123456]

"The basis for allowing the FCC such power is that it is broadcast communications; and therefore since it is bouncing off the head of every one in the country, they should be able to control the content of the communication."

Why? Where do they get the right to tell Americans what they can and can't broadcast?

Re:Bigger question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech only applies when you own the forum. So you can say what you want in your house or print what you want in your own newspaper. You don't get to force someone else to print something in their newspaper just because you wrote a letter to the editor.

The airwaves are considered to be owned by /everyone/, so everyone gets a say in what you can use them for. The FCC is the public's proxy in deciding what's acceptable on the airwaves.

Now, I wish the public were a little more accepting of naughty words, but by and large they aren't - so I'd say the FCC actually does a decent job at representing what middle amaerica wants, censorship-wise.

Of course, many of their policies on other issues are horrible and too anti-consumer, but you can't fault them for doing what the public wants on censorship.

Re:Bigger question:

[slayer99]

By definition only a government can censor.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

Of course, many of their policies on other issues are horrible and too anti-consumer, but you can't fault them for doing what the public wants on censorship.

On the contrary, I can and do. 'What the public wants' is not what's guaranteed in our Constitution. Freedom of speech is. Again, freedom of speech does *not* apply only when you own the forum. It applies to government meddling in *any* public forum. There is a major difference between controlling speech in a forum you own and the government controlling speech in a public forum.

Re:Bigger question:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Where do they get the right to tell Americans what they can and can't broadcast?

Because the electromagnetic spectrum is a PUBLIC resource... like a park.

Because he who has the "biggest wattage transmitter" can literally take control of a slice of the spectrum - the public resource - and he drowns out anyone else and thereby can restrict what goes out on that slice of the spectrum since no one can shout over him... akin to someone marching in and taking over a public park and allowing only what he wants to happen occur on the park - in other words, he's converted a public resource to his own private use ... just because he's the "biggest."

Because free speech in a public area is important for everyone - not just those with the "loudest voice" - the government takes control of the public resource that is the Electromagnetic spectrum... to ensure that EVERYONE gets a shot at being heard. They're actually protecting your rights by regulating who can say what when, because it gives you a chance to "get a word in edgewise." Remember, the spectrum can only be divided up into so many non-interfering channels; it is a scarce resource, so you can't just ask someone to move to another part of the spectrum over and over - just like the number of parks in your city, when N people each take over one park, and N = the number of parks in the city, there are no more public parks.

Now, the government may LICENSE a certain portion of the spectrum to an entity, but it's basically giving someone a monopoly on a public resource. In that case, the government (on behalf of the people) is basically saying, "we think the speech you are presenting has extra merit, and so for now we'll give you exclusive control of a portion of our public resource. If ever we the people decide what you are presenting does NOT have extra merit, we reserve the right to return the spectrum to the public (i.e., rip your broadcasting license), so don't abuse what you've been given." Like it or not, a lot of people decided that presenting Janet Jackson's breast did not have extra merit, and in effect were saying, "you no longer have extra merit, give us our park/spectrum back."

Broadcast TV is to the public as a tenant is to a landlord... if ever the tenant gets too annoying, the landlord is fully within his rights to kick the tenant out. Broadcast TV lives in the public-owned spectrum at the pleasure and whim of the public. When broadcast TV loses the pleasure and whim of the public, they can and should be kicked out of the public-owned spectrum.

Incidentally, that's also why cable and satellite providers are "off the hook" in terms of the FCC regulating their content - they're not using the public spectrum, so they're not bound to the same rules of behavior as a tenant in the same way that a homeonwer doesn't have to worry about what a landlord thinks of him - he owns the joint! Cable and satellite aren't using public resources, so they're not bound to the public's whim.

--AC

Re:Bigger question:

[Chyeld]

Airwaves belong to the public, as such, you are not free to do whatever you want with them, because that might infringe on someone elses rights to enjoy them. Just the same as you are not free to park your home square in the middle of the city park, just because you like the view. As such, the FCC was created to regulate and promote the responsible use of the airwaves over the US. The ability to broadcast over those airwaves is a priviledge, not a right. In order to continue to be able to use those priviledges, you are expected to not use that privledge for the benefit of the community at large, but to follow it's standards. The FCC has the ability to censor broadcasts based off of those facts.

Re:Bigger question:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also a major difference between a true public forum and a public forum hijacked for completely private use. As I noted in an earlier post, "the guy with the biggest transmitter can hijack the public forum for private use." Government regulation on how the public forum is used just makes common sense... in the same way that the government doesn't have a problem if you show up for a day and "take over" a public park to hold your soccer games, birthday parties, whatever... but if you try to exercise 24/7 control over that public park, you'll have the police shooing you off because it's someone else's turn.

Part of free speech IS guaranteeing those with "soft voices" the right to be heard, even if it means telling the "loud voices" that, "you've had more than your turn, now shut up and let someon else talk."

Re: Bigger question:

[gidds]

they should be able to control the content of the communication.

Maybe so*. But this isn't about controlling the content -- it's about controlling what you can do with that content!

(* Though shouldn't they be controlling the format of the communication, not the content?)

Re:Bigger question:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is /not/ freedom of speech to use a /shared/ forum any way you see fit. Other people get to have a say.

The airwaves are a shared forum. The government administrates it because someone needs to, and no one else can.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

Maybe by your definition. However, M-w.com disagrees with you:

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

What you are saying makes no sense. If some guy puts up a transmitter...I can turn the channel. If he hijacks part of the spectrum, then sure, get the government involved. That has nothing to do with the content of his broadcast. If I am in a public park, to use your analogy, and I am talking with a group of friends, and I say 'oh shit' and a government employee fines me, that is censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with who is broadcasting and everything to do with what they are broadcasting. I stated previously that I don't object to their regulating the distribution of the airwaves...only to their regulating content on those airwaves.
(I also object to some of the favoritism they show in who they allow to use the airwaves, but that's another issue. I don't object in theory to a government agency regulating the fair distribution of the spectrum)

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

It is /not/ freedom of speech to use a /shared/ forum any way you see fit. Other people get to have a say.

The airwaves are a shared forum. The government administrates it because someone needs to, and no one else can.

It certainly *is* freedom of speech for me to use a public forum however I wish. I cannot use private forums that way, if the owner of those forums does not wish it. With television and radio, if I determine that something being broadcast isn't suitable for me to watch or hear, I have the freedom to turn the channel. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?
Other people get the same right to their say that I have to mine. Why is it okay for some government employee to decide what is suitable for me to hear and see?
Yes. The airwaves are a shared forum. That means everyone should have equal opportunity to access those airwaves. As I previously stated, I do not object to regulating the distribution of the spectrum, if it is fair and equitable. I *do* object to government employees determining what is okay to broadcast on those airwaves. I'm truly sorry if you can't understand that distinction.

Re:Bigger question:

[DavidTC]

Yes, and regulations about who can use the resource when would be appropriate.

In a public park, for example, the government has the right to say 'Hey, those kids are playing soccer here, go stand somewhere else. You're messing up the game.' or even 'Those kids are playing soccer, you guys can play soccer in 45 minutes.'. We all understand that our cellphones shouldn't transmit on the police band, and our TVs should be able to tune all TV stations, no matter where in the country we are. No one has any issues with the government dictating that kind of stuff unless they're the tin-foil hat crowd. There are issues with, for example, microtransmitters for radio and whatnot, but they aren't huge concerns.

However, saying 'You can't say 'fuck', this is a public park' is not appropriate for the government to be doing. That's nothing to do with making sure the park is used fairly.

The FCC stopped just being about 'Don't transmit on top of each other' a long time ago, and got into some nonsensical position where you can only use the public resources for whatever they decide is the public good. This is so obviously unconstitional it's not funny.

Re:Bigger question:

[slothman32]

The problem with allowing non-gov't entities to censor means that those with money can say whatevery they want. If I need money to get a airway so I can broadcast then that means only rich who control them can decide what can be said. Even PBS can't do everything. I shouldn't need money to conteract the fact that only rich people own networks. Similarly billboards shouldn't be able to not accept an ad just because they don't like the content if the advertiser can afford it which should also be the same for all potential people. And before yo say that I can always hand out leaflets, the big boys don't need to do that adn they can reach a wider audience. Money still comes into play.

Re:Bigger question:

[DunbarTheInept]

Why does the FCC have any jurisdiction over speech in the first place?

For the same reason it always happens - when one has control over who has access to a thing, one ends up having control over what is done with that access (do it our way or we rip away your access rights).

And as to why the FCC has power over who has access to the airwaves, well, that was an idea that started out making sense and then quickly blew out of hand. Basically, if I pay enough money to buy a big radio transmitter, and then decide to be a grade-A number one ass about it, I can set up that transmitter to drown out all broadcasts in the vacinity and render them totally useless, and it's really easy to do. Then if the people running the drowned-out broadcasts still want to be heard, they have to up their power to drown out mine, and thus a transmitting power struggle is begun - one that has NOTHING to do with what the consumer wants and everything to do with who can afford the more powerful transmitter to deny the competitor access to the marketplace.

Imagine if two companies are competing on making widgets, and one decides to try to ruin the other's business by buying a bunch of trucks and parking them on the public road just outside the competitor's factory, blocking up the exit and preventing them from shipping products. The cops would be along pretty quick to bust that up, because it's denying someone access to a public resource.

When the FCC was first set up, that was its purpose. Becuase it is very, very easy to walk all over someone else's use of the airwaves unless everyone plays nice and agrees to stay off each other's frequencies, the FCC licensing system was made to ensure that people stick within their allotted broadcast frequencies and not try to screw their competitors with radio jamming techniques. This even extended to small devices like garage-door openers and handheld remote phones, so that companies making these little devices don't end up accidentally screwing with your neighbor's TV reception every time you use them.

But, as always, once they had the ability to decide who was and wasn't allowed to buy a broadcast license, they started using that to insist upon certain content restrictions as part of the agreement, and that goes outside their original charter.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

What are you talking about? Why does regulating access to the spectrum have anything to do with what is conveyed over the airwaves? You have to have money to to broadcast, anyhow. I'm just saying that while it's okay to regulate distribution of the spectrum, in order to insure that everyone has equal access, it's not okay for the government to censor what is actually broadcast. Money *always* comes in to play, no matter what you're talking about. That's a red herring.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

But, as always, once they had the ability to decide who was and wasn't allowed to buy a broadcast license, they started using that to insist upon certain content restrictions as part of the agreement, and that goes outside their original charter.

Yes, precisely. I sort of meant that question rhetorically, but then I didn't have the specific knowledge you brought to bear. I did know that the FCC was originally set up only to regulate the spectrum, and that it graduated to regulating the content, but I didn't have as much info as you provided. I hope you get modded to +5 insightful.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say.

Re:Bigger question:

[Sinner]

Note: I am not opposed to censorship, only government-backed censorship.

Oh good, for a moment there I thought you might be one of those free-speech loons.

I'm sure I'll be greatly relieved, when they come to take my words from me, that at least it isn't the government doing it. After all, that would be bad.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

Censorship is not inherently bad. For example, if I didn't let someone lecture on the evils of alcohol in my living room, I would be censoring that person. Do you think I have no right to do that? It is completely different when the government tells me what I can and cannot allow to be said in my own forum. If you can't appreciate the difference between censorship in general and governmental censorship, I feel sorry for you. Besides, what agency is going to 'come to take your words from you' other than the government?

Re:Bigger question:

[Sinner]

It's not censorship if you're stopping someone speaking in your living room. Censorship has to involve at least three parties:

1. The party with something to say
2. The party prepared to listen
3. The party hindering 1. from speaking to 2.

If 2. doesn't want to listen to 1., that's not censorship.

I think in this era when we have the BSA running around doing "raids", media outlets completely ignoring presidential candidates, and the RIAA and MPAA sueing everyone in sight, it should be evident to even the densest libertarian that censorship is not just a government perogative.

Re:Bigger question:

[untaken_name]

censor: transitive verb:

To examine and expurgate

Which has nothing to do with anyone who wants to hear the message. That's a red herring. If someone wants to say something, and I prevent them from doing so, I am censoring them. That's the basic definition. Location is immaterial, as is audience. That is why I qualified my statement to condemn censorship practiced by government. Also, your attempt to cloud the issue by mentioning 'BSA raids' is laughable. The BSA does not conduct raids. They sometimes send a person along with police who are conducting raids. There's a major difference, as the police are certainly government agents. Also, the ones I found mention of happened outside the US, so the laws of the US do not apply. Additionally, the BSA does not promote censorship. They oppose software piracy, and there's a gigantic difference there. Taking down websites which offer free downloads of copyrighted software is not the same as jailing the authors of politically incorrect missives. Care to throw out some more misinformation? If you would like some evidence of government censorship, check out the lawsuits filed by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent political ads which are unfavorable. That's an example of the government shutting down free speech.

Please don't fight it

[lightspawn]

The broadcast flag is my only chance to gather up the resolve to stop watching TV. Cold turkey. Please don't take that away.

Re:Please don't fight it

[Anonymous Coward]

You still watch TV? That's like so last millenium, dude.

Re:Please don't fight it

[Rares Marian]

Nah it's easy. Just watch the debates again with a forced ear to ear grin. You will never watch TV again. You may never get a date again, but there's a risk in everything.

Setting Legal Precedent for Howard Stern and Ilk

[reporter]

I applaud the EFF for fighting the FCC. If the EFF can establish that the FCC only has powers specifically prescribed by Congress (as opposed to having any power unless it is specifically circumscribed by Congress), then the EFF will establish an awesome legal precedent that will pave the way for folks like Howard Stern in the digial era. He and others like him need not fear the FCC again -- at least in the domain of digital communication.

Remember that Stern, himself, paved the way for Bill O'Reilly. Before Stern, people like Bill O'Reilly really could not say "outrageous" things like "let's use the national guard to defend the borders from illegal aliens." Stern pushed the limit of being outrageous, and O'Reilly lives within that limit.

The point is not that O'Reilly's comments are outrageous. They are not. Rather, some people who hate O'Reilly are bigots and accuse him of being outrageous. In the past, these bigots would use the "outrageous" label to convince the FCC to shut O'Reilly down. However, thanks to Stern, these bigots can no longer use the "outrageous" label to shut down folks like O'Reilly. After all, even the bigots note that O'Reilly's comments are not more outrageous than Stern's comments about anal sex, transvestites, and heroine addiction.

Let's support the EFF, Howard Stern, and ... Bill O'Reilly.

If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then please the following on the November ballot.

president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce

Mod Chips

[Slim Cognito]

1st our Playstation's, then our X-boxes, then, in the same vein, our TiVo's -- We'll just have to mod-chip our TV's now too.

Re:Mod Chips

[BK425]

Please don't say "mod chip" and "vein" in a thread having to do with government power : ) (I think)

Disolve the FCC

[kevlar]

This is a perfect example of the FCC overstepping its original charter. Its sole purpose was originally to regulate radio spectrum to prevent interference. Now it wants to regulate VoIP, nasty words and whether or not one should be able to use their VCR. This is just getting completely out of hand. I'm sure its one of those govt departments that has an obscenely huge budget.

You suck Michael Powell.

Re:Disolve the FCC

[jb.hl.com]

I do NOT suck Michael Powell, that is merely a vicious rumour intended to discredit me and my family.

(*expects downmods for use of British spelling*)

Re:Disolve the FCC

[kevlar]

Correction:

You suck, Michael Powell.

Re:Disolve the FCC

[tji]

Yes, it is kind of odd for a Republican administration to be moving so strongly into regulation. They have always claimed that they want small government, and that the government should stay out of the way of business.

But, the current administration has a bit of a different idea about business. Rather than just promoting free markets, they have a track record of supporting big business, which in a lot of ways is the opposite of a free market.

Disney, and the other big media corporations lobbied hard for the broadcast flag. They screamed about the "napsterization" of their markets, and claimed that this was needed to stop it. When Congress refused to bite on this, they took it to the FCC, where Mr. Powell went for it.

thank god...

[buhatkj]

all i gotta say is thank god we have the EFF. Without them, i think the internet and largely the USA in many ways would have become a corporate police state LONG ago.....

While we are at it, how about a challege to the existance of the RIAA and MPAA under antitrust law??? Everybody knows they use these organizations for price-fixing.....defeats the purpose of capitalism....

Re:thank god...

[ZX-3]

In fact, there are currently attempts to sue the RIAA under the RICO act.
Search google: riaa "rico act".

As long as Bush is in power...

[JustNiz]

No individuals or (relatively) small groups will ever win any case no matter how valid, if it reduces the control, power or profitability of large companies.

Re:As long as Bush is in power...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the facts first.
the head of the FCC is a democrat. this issue goes way beyond political labels. its primarily about broadcasters wanting to make money, and the FCC wanting to retain as much power as it can.

Re:As long as Bush is in power...

[JustNiz]

The fact that the head of the FCC is a democrat is irrelevant and doesn't contadict what I originally wrote.

This government actively pursues a policy of removing individual rights, especially when those rights are contrary to the benefit of big corporations.

Re:As long as Bush is in power...

[Asic Eng]

No individuals or (relatively) small groups will ever win any case no matter how valid, if it reduces the control, power or profitability of large companies.

I think you are mistaken, have a look at the list of EFF victories for reference.

Re:As long as Bush is in power...

[Rakarra]

Great. So we elect a democrat instead and we'll get the situations where no individual or small groups win cases which would reduce the control, power, or profitability of entertainment companies.

October 14 ?

[l2718]

Follow the link to the legal documents. They are dated "October 14, 2004"!

Re:October 14 ?

[zev1983]

These are their opening briefs, that most probably is the date they are going to present these in court.

How to tell FCC to E.F.F. off

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of fighting in court against broadcast flag, EFF should just tell people to 'broadcast frag' the FCC.

Stupid. Remember the V-Chip?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a colossal waste of the EFF's money. The FCC has been regulating unrelated-to-broadcasting-ability contents of receiving devices since (at least) 1999 when they first required receivers to include a V-Chip (http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/).

Analog hole

[Gothmolly]

If I can hear or watch it, I can record it. So what if its not digital? Other than instant fast forwarding, I'm not really impressed with DVDs over VHS. If it gets ridiculous, people will just sample off movie screens or TVs, the Gubmint won't be able to stop that. All you've done is created newer, more interesting types of piracy.

Re:Analog hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than instant fast forwarding, I'm not really impressed with DVDs over VHS.

Holy-effin'-moly You are in a very serious need of a upgrade to your twenty year old television.

No difference between DVD's and VHS? Get with the 21st Century, dude.

Re:Analog hole

[Gothmolly]

You are in very serious need of a(sic) upgrade to your twenty year old television

Why? Are you one of those people who buys a new PC every year because your old one is 'obsolete'?

You misunderstand Part 15

[wowbagger]

You misunderstand the reasoning for the wording.

Let's look at the 2 parts in the context of your TV.

This device may not cause harmful interference
This says that your TV cannot interfer with anything else - if it does and somebody complains, you have to turn your TV off. No if, ands, or buts. So if your TV is throwing out a spurious emission at 146.52 MHz and thereby is interfering with my ability to talk on my 2 meter radio, upon my informing you of the interference you have to turn your TV off until you get it fixed. If you cannot get it fixed, you cannot use it. Equally, if your TV is interfering with MY TV, and I so inform you, the same thing happens.

OK, now let's look at the second part:
this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

Why is this here? OK, let's look at a scenario. Your TV has a badly designed front-end, and is interfered with by my transmissions on 146.52 MHz. You complain to me. I check my equipment, and determine that I am not generating any spurious emissions outside of the 2 meter amateur band. Your TV is at fault here, in that it is not correctly rejecting my signal.

You can *ask* me to stop transmitting. You cannot *order* me to stop transmitting, even though I am interfering with you - my part 97 amateur gear, operating properly in band, trumps your part 15 TV. (in reality, I am going to do everyting I can to help you resolve the problem, but I am not under any legal obligation to do so).

In short, the second part is to clarify where part 15 stands on the totem pole - at the very bottom.

Re:You misunderstand Part 15

[dnoyeb]

The second part allows the government to jam your equipment when they feel the need. And you may not employ any anti-jamming equipment.

Televisions and all modern reception devices do lots of filtering to reject noise though. Thin line i suppose.

Re:You misunderstand Part 15

[jdhutchins]

The second part allows the government to jam your equipment when they feel the need. And you may not employ any anti-jamming equipment.

Do you have any evidence to support that? It sounds awfully like a tin-hat theory. I would have thought that most equipment can't really be jammed (ie, you can't do much to jam my computer, wristwatch, etc). Do you have anything to support that claim?

I know you can't transmit anything to jam the jammers, but trying to filter out noise in your equipment is allowed.

Re:You misunderstand Part 15

[Anonymous Coward]

This device may not cause harmful interference

I think you misunderstand the scope of this clause.

For example, if the TV allows the unauthorized recording of a program that is then distributed over the internet then that TV has caused harmful interference with the right of the copyright holder to make money.

I'm not a politician (or a lobbyist) but I know how they think!

Re:Stupid. Remember the V-Chip?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has been regulating unrelated-to-broadcasting-ability contents of receiving devices since (at least) 1999 when they first required receivers to include a V-Chip (http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/).

It is so unbeliveably simple to separate children from adults from adults with children by the simplistic posts on Slashdot.

TV the great mind waster!

[gwn]

Come on people! Just turn the monster off, tv that is. This is our chance to reclaim our minds, lives, families, communities and country.

It is the medium used to controll us, numb us and turn us into the machines the "man" wants. ...well someone had to say this... right?

Re:TV the great mind waster!

[freeze128]

But without beer and TV, what will I drink and watch all day?

Re:TV the great mind waster!

[Anonymous Coward]

"lives, families, communities"

This is slashdot, remember? We don't have lives, our community is virtual, and except for those who raised us we aren't likely to have a family.

Not so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress could give the FCC this authority, but it would be a deeply unpopular move--easy for opponents to spin politically. This is not some esoteric foreign policy issue. People WILL be up in arms if they cannot record their favorite episodes of Regis and Kelly. I tend to think our congresscritters would shy away from this one, even despite their support from big media.

That's exactly the problem. . .

[GoodNicsTken]

Haven't you figured it out by now? The RIAA/MPAA doesn't really care if a few geeks know how to open up a TV/PC and disable the broadcast protection. They only care when it becomes easy for the average user.

Think about it, news groups are still out there, because you have to know how they work, how to unRAR a file, burn an image file, or just mount it with Daemon tools.

Napster was easy and it's gone. Kazaa is easy so they are trying to sue it out of existence and flood it with spoofs.

They want the average user to only be allowded to do what they choose with content.

In this case I think they have gone too far. This is basically saying you can't use a VCR to record Digital tv broadcast over public airwaves (yes Public, we own them not they FCC, they only manage them).

If they need to be protected then DONT BROADCAST OVER PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Re:That's exactly the problem. . .

[jmcmunn]

Think about it though, the average user is not currently pirating this stuff either. Therefore these measures are aimed at the "advanced user" who will know exactly where to look for info on cracking it...and I can bet they all know how to use newsgroups as well.

My parents and grandparents are not copying material now, nor will they if/when these news flags are in place. The people who are currently doing it, will still be doing it.

Re:That's exactly the problem. . .

[BillyBlaze]

Be careful with your nomenclature. Even accepting pirating=copyright infringement, not all copying of TV is copyright infringement. A big part of the reason we're all so pissed is because the broadcast will stop us from using our homebrew PVRs with HDTV for most shows. Yes we're copying, but we're only timeshifting, and the Betamax case says that's legal. And even though with the broadcast flag, most of us would still figure out how to do it, I prefer it when the things I do are legal.

security module...

[Anonymous Coward]

What really scares me about this, is that not only do you have to buy the device, but now you "need to obtain a security module from the service provider" and you are only required to be told this "post-sale." I could be wrong, but I didn't even notice a standard for one of these "security module[s]" in the FCC ruling. This brings to mind other questions about who is going to manufacture them, and ensure compatabiltiy between different manufacturers.

Re:fp? I'm not being flamebait....

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Sure: a TBC won't do diddley to a digital signal in digital form: however: once it is in a form you can route to a monitor, you use a TBC to clean out the flags and macrovision and all the other crap they use to cripple people from making copies.

So the signal route would be:
digital receiver -> monitor -> output -> TBC -> digital recorder.

Yeah - there will be a little loss, but you'll still get a pretty damn good copy. So, no, I was not being flamebait, nor was I off topic. I was just trying to point out that there are ways around all that crap.

If I'm going to flame someone for something, you'll know... and I NEVER post anything as an AC, unlike some AC's here, because I believe what I post is true. When I'm wrong, I appreciate being corrected - it's a little thing called "learning".

RS

interpretation....

[mblase]

Basically, it ensures one device does not interfere with another. Which means, such restrictions exactly fit with the FCC's charter. The broadcast flag has nothing to do with it's charter.

But if a TV doesn't respect the broadcast flag, then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private. There we go, everything's hunky-dory again.

Re:interpretation....

[GooberToo]

then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private.

Then they shouldn't transmit it. The fact that they are transmitting it, means they do not wish to keep it private. As is, the FCC does not have a legal voice to enforce the broadcast flag.

Re:interpretation....

[bob beta]

Cellphone conversations are regularly transmitted, and third parties are prohibited from intercepting them.

Re:interpretation....

[GooberToo]

That's a question of privacy. Things broadcast on for television are NOT designed for private consumption.

Re:interpretation....

[Alsee]

Your entire logic and post are no better than taking a free trade treaty with Poland and about Polish goods and attempting to say it applies to shoe polish. It's a really lame attempt to play word games.

But if a TV doesn't respect the broadcast flag, then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private.

The FCC mandate and legal authority is to regulate radio-interference. They have no legal authority over desires, beyond the totally incidental desire to be free from illegal radio-interference.

-

Hey leave the broadcast flag, I'm watching it!

[Morgaine]

The broadcast flag is the only TV content worth watching these days, for crissakes leave it in! :-)

This is like FedEx...

[johnashby]

...telling you what you can do with your package once you have received it. It just doesn't follow.

Think they did that with DAT

[SuperKendall]

DAT has the same kind of no-copy flag, and I think there were devices produced that would strip this flag from the digital stream.

Yes, you or I might be able to build such a device (though with a heavily encrrypted data stream enfolding the flag, it's going to be quite a task!). But why should there be a "technical elite" that have the rights we are supposed to have? Why should we settle for that?

Fighting for rights has always been about fighting for the rights of people at large, not just yourself.

Personally, I think that the no-copy flag is going to raise such a stink in the populace at large that I'm not sure it's going to fly anyway in mass production. But why not cut the problem off as close to the source as possible, is my motto.

Re:Think they did that with DAT

[Fulcrum of Evil]

DAT has the same kind of no-copy flag, and I think there were devices produced that would strip this flag from the digital stream.

It was congress that passed that law, with an exception for 'professional grade' equipment, which started showing up shortly after. The no-copy flag is believed to be largely responsible for the minimal penetration of audio DAT in the US.

Re:Think they did that with DAT

[theLOUDroom]

The no-copy flag is believed to be largely responsible for the minimal penetration of audio DAT in the US.

And Minidisc...

If I was a hardware vendor, I would be fighting this "broadcast flag" tooth and nail. I think current estimates of how much the average joe wants HDTV are already massively overstated, add in the inability to record monday night football and forget about it.

I was in Walmart today and there was a display trying to explain that images are made of "pixels"....it really made me laugh at the kind of uphill battle these guys are creating for themselves.
people aren't going to want HTDV unless it makes their experience better and the broadcast flag isn't going to do that.
Color TV vs. B&W TV was a no-brainer. It was just better, the only issue was money. These guys are screwiing themselves HARD.


Especially since in my view of they world, these guys only have a limited time in which they're going to be able to sell HDTVs in the first place.
Eventually the segmentation between internet and TV is going to get blown away and so will the difference between a TV and a computer.
(Look at what PCs have already done to blur the line WRT music playback.)
If they don't watch it, many of US may skip HDTV entirely and just wait for TV over IP.

It is also the medium of news

[SuperKendall]

Like it or not, it's also the medium by which the populace at large gets most information to base decisions for things like voting on. There is some fear (though I admit it seem farfetched) that a broadcast flag could be used to limit what is reocrded... imagine not being able to record and analyse the state of the union, or debates for example.

In reality it will mostly be used for football and broadcast movies to start with (both of which I can do without), but it is a slippery slope.

I only watch a few hours of TV a week, but I am still trying to help fight this. If the technical people who do not undrestand the dangers now do not, then it will be much worse for everyone later!

Slipping through clenched fingers

[Anonymous Coward]

And more avenues to invoke fair use rights. If one of the fair use justifications is use for educational purposes, well, I have learned more about technology while figuring out ways to circumvent crippleware than I have learned in any other manner. :-)

Seriously, they just don't get it. People don't want crippleware. The other poster criticized analog in response to your post and said you should give up your 20 year old VHS or whatever. Why? I happily keep using my multiple 20-year old television sets, and VCRs. I have spent thousands of dollars on new computer equipment to be able to use new technologies without crippleware, and will continue to do so.

They just don't get it. I would rather spend $4000 for a new state of the art computer through which I can make copies of "protected" content, or heck, even tens of thousands of dollars on content-duplicating devices, than spend five dollars for a crippled DVD which I can't copy. In fact, I HAVE DONE SO. Thankfully I have the money, and given the choice, I will always select the non-crippleware path.

The enjoyment of content for me bears a direct relationship to my ability to make copies of that content to my heart's content. If I can't make a copy, I don't want it. The further they tighten their grip, the more I will gravitate to sources of non-crippleware.

Heck, maybe this is what the corporate interests really want. It really is quite a devious little scheme, isn't it?

The scheme: Make copying very difficult, but not impossible. Force people to spend more money on electronic equipment which will allow them to retain the enjoyable ability to make copies that they previously enjoyed with less crippled hardware and media. It's diabolical, really.

So, I'm a sucker. But so what? To me, the content is not the end result. My ultimate goal as a consumer of content is the copy-ability and the share-ability of the content, the whole cultural exchange which it makes possible. ("Hey, didja see that episode of XYZ popular video progrm yet? You didn't? Here, let me burn ya a copy...")

The content of the content is secondary. By attacking the copy-ability, they are attacking the content. Think about it.

Two words for the Republican-basher

[TrollBridge]

Fritz Hollings

Re:Two words for the Republican-basher

[haruchai]

Whoopee - one counter-example? So what? A party is made up of more than one person, be they saints or sinners.

Public Airways

[Muerte2]

My problem with this bill is that the HDTV signal that comes in to my house/business (and includes the broadcast flag) is using the public airways. So unless I decide to wrap my entire house in aluminum foil that signal is coming in to my house whether I like it or not. I don't have any real control if I choose to not receive that signal.

Assuming that it is coming into my house univited (say I don't have an HDTV and thus can't use the signal) shouldn't I be able to do whatever I want with that signal when it gets in my house/business? As long as I'm not profitting off that signal that's coming in to my house I really think that should fall under fair-use.

Legally that's probably not the case, but it SHOULD be. How many wireless signals are "beamed" into our houses everyday that we have no control of? Cell phones, HAM Radio, wireless internet, GPS signals, etc.

If it's coming on to my property, that I pay taxes for I *should* be able to use it however I want.

Re:Public Airways

[ravenspear]

My problem with this bill

This is not a "bill." Congress passes bills. This is simply a ruling by the FCC. That is the EFF's argument in this case. They are saying the FCC has taken on matters which should only be under the jurisdiction of Congress.

No post about our rights or copyright usage.

[BrookHarty]

I find it funny that the copyright issue is forced usage not applied usage. The angle everyone attacks the copyright issue is from the "Copyright holder" not the public.

The copyright holder has the right not to put his copyrighted work on our public airwaves without the broadcast flag. But under a free market, someone else will step up and fill that role.

We let the content providers dictate what usage we must agree too, when in reality we should force them to our regulations. If they don't like the regulations, they can still protect their copyrights and not release. But its a true free market, someone else will step up and do business. Copyright is the smokescreen to total control of distribution.
You can have 100% open distribution and protect Copyrights, the copyright owner just doesn't participate.

Example.
Sony: We won't show our new movie on HDTV if it doesn't support the broadcast flag.
Cable CO: You have that right, we will go with someone else's movie then.

And you just opened the market and have no regulation, in fact that's de-regulation, and people still have copyrights over their content.

Our society has it backwards, we allow businesses to dictate the ways and means of how they do business with the public. This is what creates mono or duopolies. We over-regulate the protection of the businesses, and the consumers pay for it. Why should business's have special interests? It's a free market, well, in theory.

BTW, FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell wants the market de-regulated, he understands it. He showed it in the non-regulation on WiFi, he should use it for HDTV also. Wish I could ask him, humm.

-
USA ranked 114 worst voter participation by country.

Re:No post about our rights or copyright usage.

[aaarrrgggh]

Every few months I send a love letter to Senator Feinstien regarding copyright issues. Every time, I get the same letter back, praising her efforts to strengthen Copyrights to support the California economy, citing specifically the DMCA.

After the first letter, I started asking her to use a different form letter, as the DMCA was exactly why I was critical of her efforts.

The reaction leads me to believe that congress just doesn't realize that there is anybody out there but the copyright holders. She even refers to her constituents as "consumers!"

Too bad there isn't a better choice...

Re:No post about our rights or copyright usage.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only copyright holders pay her PAC money.

Re:Setting Legal Precedent for Howard Stern and Il

[The_Whole_Fn_Show]

I'm not sure if Stern and O'Reilly is a fair comparison.

As far as I know, most people who dislike O'Reilly do so not because of his "outrageousness", but because of all of the spin that goes on in the "No Spin Zone." They dislike the fact that he claims to be objective and unbiased, but is clearly hardcore Republican, as is the "fair and balanced" station that his show is on. If I watch Fox News, my entertainment center leans so far to the right that everything on it falls off. And this is coming from an independent that has alot of problems with both major parties.

Stern's show, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be politically motivated, which is why I question the validity of that comparison. O'Reilly's "outrageousness" may have been the stated reason, but his agenda is why most take issue with him.

Also, I noticed that you used "bigot" a few times, and that makes me think of how the war on terror "is hard work." Sorry, I couldn't resist.

TV licenses?

[uberdave]

Are you trying to tell us that the British need to have a license to have a television?

Re:TV licenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it's slightly more broad than that: you need a television receiver licence; the technical difference being that you need it for VCRs, etc that can receive broadcast TV. Tho' having said this, I do know someone who has got a "special TV licence" as they have a VCR but do not watch any broadcast TV.

And if you go back far enough, you'll find that we also needed a Radio licence (a licence to own and operate a radio broadcast receiver, aka wireless) - somewhere I've still got one of my grandad's that we found lying around. When the TV licence was introduced, I believe that the radio licence was [eventually] absorbed into it.

Re:TV licenses?

[91degrees]

Yes. The idea is that an annual fee for use of a television is used for funding the BBC. Since the BBC gets the whole of the licence fee, and is not paid for by the government, this gives them a certain degree of autonomy and freedom from government interference.

The argument against it is that it's an extortion racket, since you have to pay the fee even if you never watch a BBC channel. The argument in favour is that the BBC is a world recognised institution, and the funding mechanism is neccesary to enable it to function.

More than it appears

[robertjw]

This is much more than a simple issue of consumers not being able to record their favorite shows, not being able to use a homemade PVR or any basic consumer rights. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but we are walking a very dangerous path with government regulation of this type. Our government is telling private companies that they cannot create a particular product not because it's dangerous and not because it interferes with areas in the public domain (e.g. transmitting on unauthorized frequencies). Government is regulating production of equipment by private companies only because another private organization doesn't like it and may lose money without it.

How long is our government is burning books that tell how to circumvent this technology and locking up the authors. The US Government is starting to remind me of the Inquisition and Gallileo - persecuting anyone that might innovate or discover anything new just to keep the status quo.

I believe that anyone should be able to build any type of Television (or any other machine or electronic device) and sell it as long as it meets some reasonable guidelines of public safety, and traditionally this has ben the case. If the MPAA has a problem with the way any item is manufactured, what it does and what it's used for they are free to pursue the case under a civil suit.

A friend of mine likes to say....

[jhines0042]

On the topic of listening to cell phone transmissions a friend of mine likes to say "If it passess through my body, I have a right to listen to it".

I would argue that the same is true for the broadcast flag. If you beam it to my house, I can do with it what I want.

Holy Shit!

[Deagol]

That's one serious case! I just started reading it on the Cornell archives.

Sheesh! -- they sure stretched a bit on that one, eh? A little more nudging, and I'd be breaking the law by raising my own chickens. That would be interferring with Tyson's business, you know. Can't have that.

You know, when you hear of cases like that and the one that gave corporations the rights of real people, one has to wonder if the tinfoil hats really are justified. I know that the Justices are men and women, and like all people, are prone to bad days. But I can't see how anything but concerted effort to curtail the rights of individuals could result in some of these SCOTUS decisions. Yeah, that may seem to fly in the face of the huge number of cases where the common man was vindicated and his rights upheld, but one can't help but be suspect of the Court's motives sometimes.

a real stretch

[poptones]

OK, let's look at a scenario. Your TV has a badly designed front-end, and is interfered with by my transmissions on 146.52 MHz. You complain to me. I check my equipment, and determine that I am not generating any spurious emissions outside of the 2 meter amateur band. Your TV is at fault here, in that it is not correctly rejecting my signal.

Mmm.. that's quite a stretch of the rules. If you are a professionally licensed broadcaster and I complain that your signal is blanketing my reception, and I am in close vicinity to you, you damn well better do something about it. Keep in mind this is a rule regulating licensed broadcast operators - you really think your "part 97" device is going to be exempt from such regulations?

Re:a real stretch

[w9ofa]

Not only are all Part 97 devices licensed (Part 97 is the Amateur Radio Service regulations), but they have first class privledges on many of the bands they operate on. If there is a broadcaster anywhere near the frequency of a ham station (except on secondary bands like 40 meters), it is the broadcaster who will be shut down and fined.

Re:a real stretch

[wowbagger]

No, sorry, but no.

IF my equipment is operating per spec, and
IF I am licensed to operate, and
IF your equipment is unable to correctly filter out my signal, then
YOU are the one who has a problem, not I.

That's the WHOLE POINT of a part 15 device.

Re:a real stretch

[Buelldozer]

Yup, dems da rules sweetheart. :-)

You step up and take the Amatuer Radio Exam and when you pass you are a LICENSED operator and any transmissions you make from Part 97 gear DEFINETLY trump any intereference to your Part 15 device.

Now the Commercial entities are a differenent animal and I'm not at all sure how the rules apply to them. Still, I would have to say that if their licensed equipment is operating within regulations and design specs any intererference to your Part 15 devices is YOUR problem, not theirs.

In practice MOST Amatuer Radio operators will go tremendously far out of their way to assist a non "Ham" in resolving any interference issues. We are supposed to be amabassadors of good will afterall!

I myself have "upgraded" many a poorly built or designed piece of home electronics gear so that it will reject my Amatuer Radio signals, and done so for free.

In the end though I don't HAVE to do it, I do it as a courtesy and to help maintain neighborly relations.

EFF, FCC, MPAA, RIAA

[milatchi]

WHOEVER WINS... WE LOSE

or

HD this, Broadcast that, Michael Powell hit me with a whiffle ball bat!

Political Ads and the Broadcast Flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not read in detail what types of content are allowed to use the broadcast flags. However the thing that worries me is the implications of the broadcast flag used in political ads. Think of what people running for office could get away with. Saying things far beyound the current crop of ads without fear of their opponents showing clips of the ads with responses.

Distant cousin...

[SuperKendall]

...of Don Quixote

If I were on a Mac, I would have spell checked that. Is there no end to the evil of Windows?

DVI

[soft_guy]

The FCC also recently mandated that consumer electronics devices come with a DVI connector. The justification is to make things work together better. If the broadcast flag is overstepping their authority, then forcing DVI would also exceed their authority (I would think.)

Re:DVI

[technopinion]

Hmmm, but isn't one of the reasons for DVI so that they can actually do things like have a broadcast flag, that they couldn't do on regular component video connections?

A little loss?

[SuperKendall]

Yeah - there will be a little loss, but you'll still get a pretty damn good copy.

Not really. If you're talking about an HDTV signal, your loosing quite a bit of information if you are capturing a composite or even SVideo signal.

For all high resolution display, the channel between the receiver and display will be encrypted - for instance, there is a 720p upscaling DVD player out now, but that requires a HDCP connection to your favorite high-resolution output device.

I want to record HDTV around native resultion, not a quarter of the signal compressed into NTSC.

tv as a public service?

[kardar]

It seems to me, with at least with ABC, NBC, CBS, and perhaps PBS, maybe other local stations, maybe more in the future, that it should be as easy as possible for citizens to get the broadcasts.

I know that I personally tend to associate cable or satellite services with TV programs, but the idea that an individual could tune in to a publically available broadcast that is broadcast for the public good, as a public service - I think that this is a good idea.

To complicate the process, to put up roadblocks can't be a good idea. People should be able to tune into to TV programming, or HDTV programming, and it shouldn't be bogged down with unnecessary things.

Maybe there is some way to watermark things like movies and other "premium" content, but still find a way to keep news and other important public-service type content as easy as possible for as many people as possible to tune in to. Educational programs, informational programs, news and other programs - all of these are in the public interest, and it really goes against the whole concept to place all kinds of barriers in the way of individuals being able to access those programs.

I think you're confused.

[raehl]

The FCC can say "Any VHF receiver must also receive UHF."

They can say "Any television receiver must include a v-chip."

They can say "Any television receiver must receive a broadcast flag, and include the broadcast flag with any signal retransmission"

What the FCC can *NOT* say is "Any television signal recording device (VCR/TiVo) must respect the broacast flag", as those devices are not receivers. Once the signal is off the airwaves and into wires, FCC mandate ends.

Now, they *COULD* say that "Any television receiver may not externally transmit any signal with a broadcast flag", but, well, that'd be dumb.

Harmful Interference

[bill_mcgonigle]

every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.

Exactly - the PVR without a broadcast flag causes harmful interference to the future profits of the media creators who wish to rent everything to you for a per-use fee.

Talk about RTFA....

[raehl]

Most ICC control over interstate trucking was abandoned in 1994, and the agency was terminated at the end of 1995.

I'm pretty sure my software, keyboard, mouse and monitor are not regulated by an agency that *NO LONGER EXISTS!*

de Broglie Extended FCC Mandate

[4of12]

The FCC only has power to regulate transmissions.

That's enough for the whole ball of wax.

What with wave particle duality, the FCC has regularity oversight over all matter.

FYI (for the confused)

[IndependentVik]

DAT = Digital Audio Tape

modded

[poptones]

Yours needs to be modded up. The other replies on this split hairs and speak authoritatively when it's apparent the posters are just guessing, but you actually made a point I cannot redress. I've been involved with radio and tv most of my life, but I cannot recall which came first. I'm pretty sure the FCC "said so" first, but I don't have my radio-electronics library anymore and I'm an hour from the campus microfilms.

Interesting point I'll remember to look into this weekend...

Now THAT'S a real stretch

[poptones]

You step up and take the Amatuer Radio Exam and when you pass you are a LICENSED operator and any transmissions you make from Part 97 gear DEFINETLY trump any intereference to your Part 15 device.

Actually, I "stepped up" for a first class license many years ago. And, while I've not used it in a long time my name IS on a few station logs and, as I recall, that "part 15" device may take a back seat to your "part 97" device but if YOUR "part 97 device" is blanketing a neighborhood and interfering with reception within my broadcast station's fully licensed coverage area, it's gonna be you who steps up to fix the problem - this is not an "option" or a "courtesy" - it's the law. If that means installing traps for everyone in the neighborhood, so be it. If it means limiting your hours of operation or abstaining operation on certain bands... guess who loses? It's not the guy who spent all the money getting a station on the air.

Re:Now THAT'S a real stretch

[kb7oeb]

Only if my licensed amateur station is causing emissions on your licensed frequencies would I have to stop. If the amateur station is causing interference because the tv is not rejecting signals outside the band it supposed to tune its the tv owners job to install a filter.

If you have seen a law that says otherwise please cite your source.

Re:Setting Legal Precedent for Howard Stern and Il

[raytracer]

The point is not that O'Reilly's comments are outrageous. They are not.

Yes, they are. Perhaps even more so than Howard Stern.

Aha!

[Sunlighter]

This insightful series of posts reveals the argument the FCC is going to use in court.

• The broadcast flag is a deliberately introduced form of interference.
• This interference is designed to cause undesired operation, i.e., prevent recording.
• The FCC can require the device to accept this interference.

You laugh now, but the courts might just accept such a line of argument...

Cartel

[tepples]

Cable CO: You have that right, we will go with someone else's movie then.

Disney, Warner, Fox, Paramount, Universal: We won't show our new movie on HDTV either if it doesn't support the broadcast flag.

look it up

[poptones]

There's hundreds of regulations surrounding this, and they're all online. The FCC regulations, part by part, are available to anyone who can use google. Note especially that even other broadcasters are forbidden from interfering upon one another, and spacing to prevent this sort of problem goes up into seventh and ninth images in many cases.

Every commercial broadcaster spends a fortune preparing for a license. One of the first of these steps is deciding where to put the tower, then preparing a detailed map (one that takes into account geology, terrain mapping, buildings - everything) of their expected primary and secondary coverage areas. If your signal at 50MHz is overloading receiver front ends in the neighborhood to the point the primary coverage area for my FM station at 100MHz is being affected, it's you who will take the steps needed to correct the issue. Again, this is not "optional" or "a courtesy" - it's mandated in order for you to retain your license and/or avoid a nice fine.

All it takes is a tiny percentage of the folks in your neighborhood to complain about the problem (1% is just fine - basically that means just one of the neighbors on your block), and a visit by a qualified radio engineer to verify the cause. My partner and I spent many an evening driving around neighborhoods with a $10,000 spectrum analyzer crammed between us looking for just such infractions. You're welcome not to believe it - but just hope you never find out for yourself. The FCC isn't known for being lenient with fines.

Re:look it up

[Buelldozer]

Yes but I've never seen a "part 15" BROADCAST device that required a license to operate. I'm thinking that those two things are mutually exclusive.

So we are back to where we started, if your part 15 device is recieving interference from my part 97 transmitter and that part 97 transmitter is operating within it's design specifications, and it's control operator is duly licensed, the problem is with the part 15 device.

The broadcaster is in no way legally obligated to "fix" the part 15 device.

Since there are "hundreds" of regulations surrounding this, and they are all readily available on google, why don't you humour me and pull some up?

I spent quite a little time re-reading the Part 15 and Part 97 in their entirety before I made my first post and I'm standing by what I say unless you can prove otherwise.

People always complain that other peopel have closed minds, I'm giving you a chance to prove your case so step up or step off! :-)

I like it!

[leonbrooks]

without those protections the content providers will never let their precious content be broa[d]cast in HD and we'll all be looking at blank screens.

The long-term effects of this have to be good for society. Looks like a good time to donate to the EFF. (-: