Slashdot Mirror
pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now
corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."
I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force. It's not like we live in pre-Internet days after all..
Besides, look at DVD players. There are plenty of players on the market, which ignore regional settings despite DMCA and other bullshit regulations.
Dang article is slashdotted. How much does this card cost?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Possibly a joke, but I'm guessing the law doesn't have any post facto clauses. Just the same as how cars before manufactured before 1967 don't need seatbelts.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
There will always be opportunities to break the law. If a mere law could actually stop crime, we'd be crime free. In case you haven't noticed, we're not.
But whether you'll be able to break the law is not the point. The point is that it shouldn't be against the law in the first place.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Every local television syndicate has to broadcast OTA in the USA.
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
Taping things off the TV to watch at a later date constitutes theft now? On what planet do you live?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
A better analogy than DeCSS is the copyright flag on CDDA. This flag is set when a copy is made of a copyright track, and compliant copiers are not allowed to duplicate the copy of the copy. I don't think I've seen a compliant copier for quite a while...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Two parties can be different, yet just as "bad". Just bad in different ways.
I agree both parties would consider themselves different. And to some extent I would agree. I believe that what most people who state that the parties are too similar are concentrating on different issues. In particular both parties are beholden to the rich and powerful. People in office (generally) have one primary goal -- getting re-elected. With that as your primary motivation you are going to behave in a certain manner -- play the game, increase your influence, gather large benefactors, etc. It is these primary activities that both parties share.
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
What are breader reactors? Are they like these things you toss chickens into and they come out the other end nice and breaded, ready to cook?
Or perhpaps, wait a minute, maybe you meant breeder reactor?
If someone doesn't want their work recorded....don't "broadcast" it.
Damn, why does America let it's elected officials stomp all over everything.
Just to clear this up a bit, because the article is misleading and I didn't see any posts clarifying this. It will not be illegal to own or possess these cards (HDTV receivers that ignore the broadcast flag). It will simply be illegal to sell them in the U.S.
I suggest people stock up on them. I don't even have an HDTV at this point, but I'm going to grab a card just so I'm covered...
The Broadcast flag does not prevent copying. TiVo, VHS, even (God forbid) Windows Media will be happy to record, copy, and whatever your content. The only catch is that it can't be "indiscriminately redistributed." Most Broadcast Flag compliant stuff just ties content to an account or through "proximity" to a local network. If people would quit over-reacting (I know, I know, this is Slashdot), everything would be much better.
This is how any free movies will be shown, in order to give the consumer more incentive to subscribe to a premium channel or to order the movie through pay per view. It's all about squeezing the maximum amount of money out of people willing to pay for movies. That being said, this plan won't be very successful if movies don't get better. People probably won't be willing to pay for most of the crap out there once its shown in the theater and everyone realizes it sucks.
Citing a huge majority that could override a veto and trying to imply that Clinton didn't want those laws is the sort of revisionist history that would make even Orwell blush.
If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house.
Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?
- [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
- [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
- The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
- [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use
The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
What happens when the broadcasters change the data format they broadcast, to get everyone to upgrade ($) and to shake these legacy freedom devices? This thing needs open, pluggable firmware.
--
make install -not war
The Republican party consistantly panders to far-right Theocratic causes and attempts to ram the tenents of a particular religion down everyone's throat in violation of the First Amendment. They also consistantly support legislation which erodes the protections granted under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments. The only part of the Constitution which the Republicans consistantly defend is the Second Amendment.
The Democratic party, on the other hand, typically attacks an entirely different set of freedoms. In particular, they consistantly give their support to legislation which erodes the protections of the Second amendment.
Both parties also routinely ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments and assume powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government.
Chosing between the Democrats and the Republicans is chosing which part of the Constitution you want to gut.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Although the activities of credit card fraud are still illegal, I actually agree with you that people can use signals they receive in the air however they want, and if my AP is responding to your signals in a way that is harmful to me, then it is my fault for not securing my equipment.
First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.
Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.
Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Your ideas are good, if a bit malformed.
Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.
People are not entitled to fair use - you are correct. However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law. In other words, a specific provision under which the resitrction does not apply. If you were looking for something that is "merely" a defense, you should look at patent law's "prior art" or something more along those lines. But "fair use" and "prior art" are different in their natures.
Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.
You bring up one very good point thought that I rarely see here: even though its entirely LEGAL for you to make copies as a paying user of [digital cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, whatever], there is no law saying that the broadcasters cannot make it difficult or [relatively] impossible for you to do so. I think this is a legal loophole for providers that needs to be closed to protect consumer's rights. (As you pointed out, fair use is not a right, but I think it should be.) As it stands now, we are in a situation where we are legally allowed to copy something, but the providers are also legally allowed to take every measure to stop us from doing so, including outlawing devices that would permit such an action. Circumvention of those restriction on the device would then fall under a legal exclusion, but you have to ask yourself at some point if we're being honest with ourselves...you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision. This is a sort of legislative dishonestly - you're saying one thing while allowing something completely different to actually occur. We need to decide what we really want and then put laws into place that [protect/prohibit] those actions.
If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge "schooling" people in copyright law, its true purpose, and how it needs to be revamped when new technologies emerge. We're approaching that time, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like the outcome.
The movie's PRODUCER, the one who dictates how it will be shown, has plenty of incentive to drive people to premium channels. They will certainly make more money this way. The pay per view model is considered ideal for them, but that will only work for better movies. You might pay $6 to buy "Night at the Roxbury" from the WalMart DVD Bin of Shame, but you won't pay $3.95 a couple of times to watch it on pay per view, even though you might do this for a better quality movie. Basic consumer psychology.
Please stop defending the copyright holders -- they're just looking at a gift horse in the mouth, and I hope it kicks them!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.
I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.
Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.
BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.
*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
The real reason to buy this may be simply because it's an open-source solution. Virtually any protection mechanisms can only be enforced by inhibiting the users ability to customize the gear as they see fit. Consumers of all electronic gear should patently refuse to buy hardware by companies that withold sufficient specifications in an attempt to thwart a user's ability to repurpose the equipment.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of such customization, and will no doubt be taken in by the marketing engines of companies who sell closed equipment. User cluelessness is thereby costing all of us money and taking away our freedoms. But like the greedy sheep such users are, they will gleefully parade right into the slaughterhouse, chasing after a sparkly trinket and blissfully unaware of the ultimate consequences of their ignorance.
Let us all pause to curse the accuracy of P. T. Barnum's insight.