Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Goes To Court To Fight The Broadcast Flag

Posted by timothy on from the grappling-with-the-angel-of-bureaucracy dept.

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."

20 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. What are the odds? by njfuzzy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    1. Re:What are the odds? by JackL · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

    2. Re:What are the odds? by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

  2. fp? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  3. I hope this is overturned, but by revery · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I hope this is overturned, but by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  4. Pardon my pessimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >>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.

  5. How long will it take... by jmcmunn · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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.

  6. Bigger question: by untaken_name · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    http://xkcd.com/386/
  7. Re:The stupid thing is... by Fred_A · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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...

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  8. Mod Chips by Slim+Cognito · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Slim Cognito
  9. thank god... by buhatkj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....

    --
    sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
    1. Re:thank god... by ZX-3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  10. Re:It does when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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"

  11. security module... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:It does when... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  13. Slipping through clenched fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:Macrovision by Armando_Mcgillicutty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Macrovision by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

  16. I think you're confused. by raehl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    paintball