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."

Comments

Not a big deal

[geighaus]

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.

Re:pcHDTV

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Who signed the DMCA again? Oh yes, it was William Jefferson Clinton. Who signed the No Electronic Theft Act? Same guy! The Sonny Bono (may the brimstone sear his skin forever) Copyright Term Extension Act? Yep, Clinton again!

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.

Typo in the article

[raxxerax]

From TFA:

The reason for the ruling [requiring the broadcast flag]: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.

Won't that happen anyway?

Probably.

The last line should read "Definitely."

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts

Sony v. Universal, more commonly known as the Betamax decision. The key points of the Betamax decision are:

1. [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
2. [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
3. 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.
4. [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.