Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
Be not afraid.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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?)
What?
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.
/greger
Come on people! Just turn the monster off, tv that is. This is our chance to reclaim our minds, lives, families, communities and country.
...well someone had to say this... right?
It is the medium used to controll us, numb us and turn us into the machines the "man" wants.
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!
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.)
Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come to yours.
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!?
"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.
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
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
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.
The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
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".
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.
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?
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!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
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.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.