Court Says FCC Out-of-Bounds With Digital TV

USA4034 writes "A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday stated that regulators had overstepped their authority by imposing a rule designed to limit the copying of digital television programs." From the article: "The FCC rule aims to limit people from sending copies of digital television programs over the Internet. The FCC has said copyright protections are needed to help speed the adoption of digital television."

Comments

Current

[Anonymous Coward]

Dirty hippy geek thieves 1, FCC 98737.

<cartman>Kick Ass</cartman>

[mohaine]

Kick Ass

But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[winkydink]

But it was unclear whether the judges would strike down the FCC's 2003 rule, since doubts were also raised about whether the American Library Association and other opponents had legal standing to challenge the rule in court. They'll let the FCC slide on a technicality, mark my words.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dark_requiem]

A perfect example of a major problem with our legal system. In order to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional and unjust law, I must first become its victim, because I cannot challenge a law until I have been brought up on charges based on that law. My only other recourse is to convince another victim to challenge it instead. We need a court system wherein one can challenge the constitutionality of any law without first violating it and risking prosecution. Otherwise, there is too great a risk that the victims of unjust laws will remain silent and not challenge the law, for fear that their sentence for violating it will be all the more severe for daring to speak out.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

So who WOULD have the standing to challenge the law? Can I as a customer who wants to buy a product they are making illegal be allowed to challenge the law?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Zeinfeld]

They'll let the FCC slide on a technicality, mark my words.

There is an important issue behind standing, the idea is to avoid wasting court time and to also make sure that a party can't establish a bogus precedent by bringing a case and deliberately putting up a poor case.

There is one set of constituents who are quite obviously directly affected by the broadcast flag issue, hardware manufacturers. They clearly have standing to bring a case since they are being directly required to implement the flag.

I don't think it makes any sense to throw this one out on standing grounds.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[general_re]

In order to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional and unjust law, I must first become its victim, because I cannot challenge a law until I have been brought up on charges based on that law.

False, moderation notwithstanding. The term you're looking for is "facial challenge".

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[gremlins]

Or every wacko in the Country will come out challenging every law on the books. I agree certain laws suck but I don't think it is to much to ask to find someone who actully has been harmed.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Kentsusai]

Yes you are very right.

That is because America has a legal system based on the Common Law. Just like England and Australia.

Countries based on a Civil Law system such as France allow people to get rulings from a court prior to them performing an act. For example, if you were in France you could go to a court and ask "Can I download this file?" You will be given a definite "Yes" or "No" and that statement made by the court will be binding.

In order to solve this problem, Common Law jurisdictions have to develop an "Interpretations Court". What this court would do is allow people to ask whether it is legal to do what they want. Just like France.

The problem with implementing such a system is that it may be unconstitutional. The reason why it would be unconstituional is because the users of the lower court would want a binding affirmation, one that could not be overturned by the Supreme Court. This would be unsound in the terms of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not meant to be bound by lower courts.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Ayaress]

Not true. Anybody can challenge a law. The ACLU does it all the time. Many of the laws they challenge deal with individual freedoms, and the ACLU has no way to become a victim of them, but they can still challenge them and they do succeed. What's screwed up with the legal system is that in order to successfully challenge a law, you need a bigger lobby than the people who pushed it through.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dave1g]

I think the ACLU has to represent someone who has standing already...

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Auckerman]

There is one set of constituents who are quite obviously directly affected by the broadcast flag issue, hardware manufacturers.

Oh, and consumer rights aren't in the picture at all. I see. I feel so enlighted.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU has lawyers that represent the people that have been harmed by a law. They can not arbitrarily challenge a law. Article 3 of the constitution requires a plantiff in a federal cases to be "standing to sue"

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[jolande]

Why bother overturning a law if no body has broken it? That is pointless.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[AstroDrabb]

but I don't think it is to much to ask to find someone who actually has been harmed.

Unless that person is you? Are you married with children? If not, than you will have _no_ clue what I am about to talk about. However, as a husband and a father of two, I personally could not wait to this point. Imagine if this "someone" was _you_ or more importantly, some one you _really_ love. This harm causes them to lose everything they have, money, home, etc. So does it still sound like we should just wait around until someone is harmed by a bad law?

I certainly don't think so. I would hate to have all I have taken away from me because of a bad law. I would hate to see my family suffer because of a bad law.

Most people who make statements like you don't have much to lose. Maybe your XBox will be taken? Oh no. Sorry, I personally think you are _way_ off on this issue. We (The People) shouldn't have to sit around waiting to be taken advantage of and/or destroyed financially until we can/should be allowed to act against our _own_ government.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Grishnakh]

If this is all accurate, it's still screwed up, because then you have to become a criminal in order to challenge a bad law. The function of the Judicial system is to interpret laws; just because there's too many people to have just one court is no excuse. If someone gets a ruling from a lower court affirming they can do something, they should be able to do it until that decision is overturned by a higher court. At that time, they can no longer do that thing, but they also should not be prosecuted for doing it before the higher court made its ruling.

If Roe v Wade were overturned this year, women who had abortions in the 80's and 90's surely couldn't be prosecuted for them.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[pe1rxq]

If the cops are the only thing keeping you from smacking him you are one major asshole.

Jeroen

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[ewhac]

There is an important issue behind standing, the idea is to avoid wasting court time and to also make sure that a party can't establish a bogus precedent by bringing a case and deliberately putting up a poor case.

Really? Word is, they do it in civil suits all the time.

Companies have been known to sue themselves in order to establish a precedent if/when the class action suit finally shows up. In such an instance, rather than go through a lot of wrangling with the plaintiff(s), the company produces the decision already rendered, and sends them on their way.

Schwab

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[michrech]

Because you would be in the wrong just as much as Congress was when they added "Under God" in June 8, 1954, and Eisenhower was wrong to sign it into law on June 14.

I've stated it here before, and I'll state it again. The first 'settlers' from Europe fled here to get AWAY from being forced into a particular religion.

Here is a little info that was found by a friend of mine (I don't have the link anymore, but I do have the email he sent me).

It is a little know fact that the founding fathers of the United States of America were not, as some would lead you to believe, Christians at all. Seeing the word "God" repeated through out the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution may cause you to think that - because, of course, no other religions call their higher power just plain old "God". However, these founding fathers were actually Deists.

To quote dictionary.com, Deism is "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation." Certainly not the God which gave his only son up for martyrdom, or the one which burned the occasional bush to get the attention of some people. Indeed, the God they believed in was the abstract God, and that belief was always secondary to the persuit of rational knowledge.

The reason why the freedom of religion was written into the Constitution is because more wars were fought over bother protecting one's own religion, and also enforcing it upon others. Guarranteeing that freedom, that right, to every citizen was to acknowledge that belief cannot and will not EVER be regulated. The separation of church and state was designed to give no one religion a particular upper hand - so that it could not dominate the country over other religions. It is there so that the free schooling system which all children must attend does not endorse one belief over another. It is there so that laws cannot be made which can be used to allow one religion to dominate this diverse country's varied belief systems. There are those who want prayer in school, but to them I ask, who's prayer? Your's or mine? Would you be offended if your child were forced to pray to Allah before every school event? Stop acting like it's only offensive when other people do it.

Thomas Jefferson would not approve of religion being taught in science class for the simple fact that reason is not the same thing as faith. Reason is about taking the measurable, the observable, and the manipulatable and abstracting the process and system by which they work. Faith is about believing, in the absence of reason or evidence, that something must be true for the simple fact that nobody can say that it isn't. You can use reason to reinforce your faith, but you cannot use faith to reinforce your reason. Science cannot be about faith. We've got other subjects for religion and philosophy. Science is pure reason, pristine and untouchable.

Someone should let David E. Kelley know that if he is going to state on his show, Boston Legal, that if he is going to use the reason that the founding fathers believed in a God as a reason to teach intelligent design in school science classes, he should at least point out that their god is not the Christian god - and if their god was taught in schools, it would still not preclude the science of evolution. It would SUPPORT it.

I promise you that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, there'd be a whole lot of ass kicking going on. I'll leave you with some quotes, lest you doubt the facts on his beliefs, by the red headed rational himself:

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instea

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[einhverfr]

Thanks to him, anyone with standing to bring a suit can go straight to the Supreme Court on merits.

So now anyone who has been harmed can do this. I thank Nudow for this, and were I compelled to this type of speach, I would be the first to sue. After all, I am a polytheist.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[AK Marc]

Why bother overturning a law if no body has broken it? That is pointless.

Yes. It was much more fair to throw Rosa Parks into jail,rather than allowing someone to challenge the legality of separate facilities without having to be arrested and thrown in jail first. If no one ever breaks it, then it shouldn't be a law because it is unnecessary, so it should be challenged. If it is an unjust law, then it should be overturned before someone has to be subjected to it.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

That email blantently contradicts itself. You said God is found in the Declaration because the Founding Fathers were talking about an abstract god, not christianity. God in the pledge is the same exact thing, it doesn't say "Christian God", and thus completely agrees with the founders.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[HeghmoH]

Consumers don't have the right to buy hardware of their choosing even when such hardware does not exist. This mandate does not directly affect consumers at all. It certainly affects them indirectly, but I don't know how much that matters to the court.

Hardware manufacturers, on the other hand, are being explicitly prohibited from manufacturing a certain class of items, and as such are much more directly affected by the law and would therefore have much more cause to challenge it.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[networkBoy]

Nitpicking a small portion of your response:
"Would you be offended if your child were forced to pray to Allah before every school event? Stop acting like it's only offensive when other people do it."
The point is that he (and/or his or anyone's kids) is not forced to say it. The child can stand or sit and stay mute; the parent can ask that their child be allowed to leave the room during the pledge. He brought this suite in poor faith, that being the primary reason I'd like to smack him.

One nation, under God, indivisible is not practicing religion, not teaching religion, not promoting religion. If it were then separation of church and state should extend to our currency and founding documents.
I myself am not largely religious, never the less I am not in favor of his attention seeking suit.
-nB

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because there is this other thing called resonable doubt. If the law has not been broken, how can you sue someone and prove beyond a reasonable doubt what this law will cause to happen in the future?

Can't expect a judge to decide whether the plantiffs lawyers prediction of the future or the defendants lawyers prediction is better.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and consumer rights aren't in the picture at all. I see. I feel so enlighted.

Not directly.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[InThane]

As a junior high student in the mid '80s, I spent more than a few mornings down in the principal's office for refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. I didn't quite understand why at the time, but there was something about an enforced loyalty pledge that included a call to a divine being I did not believe in that just struck me as Wrong.

I chose not to participate. I was punished.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[rgmoore]

Seeing the word "God" repeated through out the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution may cause you to think that - because, of course, no other religions call their higher power just plain old "God".

Actually, I don't see "God" repeated throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The word "God" appears exactly once in the Declaration of Independence (in the phrase "Nature and Nature's God") and zero times in the Constitution. If anything, I'd say that makes "God" conspicuous by its absence.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[michrech]

I can second your experiences, excpet I was punished all through high-school for it. (I didn't realize that I could go against my parents forcing me into religion untill I was aroung 14. They didn't like it. They didn't like the constant phone calls from teachers for how evil I was. They eventually got over it.)

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[drinkypoo]

Want a primer on the issue of the pledge of allegiance? Read The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The "under God" phrase. Note that "Under God" was not added to the pledge until 1954. If you don't believe that phrase endorses Christianity, you don't understand the way the language works. If you don't understand what is wrong with endorsing an individual religion in the national pledge, which schoolchildren have often been forced to recite even in California, then you fail to understand what Thomas Jefferson, himself a religious man, had a firm grasp on. I don't fault you for not being as smart as Jefferson but probably you should read Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The following is the meat of the letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

This makes it pretty clear what was intended - keep government entirely out of everyone's religious affairs, because if you meddle just a little bit you screw everything up. The government covers actions, so you can believe whatever you want but you still can't, for example, perform human sacrifice because it's illegal to kill people even if they want to die. It recognizes that the human mind is somewhat fragile, and so is the conscience.

My mother and father were both raised Catholic. Both recovered; my mother is now either atheist or agnostic (I'm not sure which) and my father is Lutheran. My mother gave me the option to go to church if I wanted to, and I went to a Christian day care because it was inexpensive. Thus I learned the usual children's bible stories. However, I never developed a belief in God and as it was a day care and not a nursery school no one ever tried to force religion on me. In sixth grade I informed my teacher that I intended not to say the pledge due to its religious content and was informed that I would be saying the pledge. Is that at all appropriate? First of all, it really doesn't accomplish anything to say a pledge, and it means even less when you are forced to do it. However, it is nothing less than the shoving of religion down young throats. If there is no Law that respects an establishment of religion, then you simply cannot be forcing people to perform this public worship.

I would have liked to see it written "any establishment of religion" because then we could take the tax-exempt status away from the religions. Why should they get a break? Because they supposedly help people? Religions are a means of control, you can have spirituality without ever visiting a building with stained glass windows.

Anyway aside from snarkiness, it is clear (and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees) that the phrase "under God" promotes a specific group of religions, essentially those religions attached to the specific meaning of the word "heathen": "One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

If you want to smack Newdow around over trying to amend the problem of an unconstitutional change to our pledge of allegiance that occurred in the fifties, then you'll find a whole lot of other people standing in your way.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[mirqry]

" Guarranteeing that freedom, that right, to every citizen was to acknowledge that belief cannot and will not EVER be regulated. " So how it is ok for a court to tell the religous students that they are not allowed to say "under God"?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Slack3r78]

You've just hit exactly on why I agreed with the lawsuit. While you may technically be 'free to disagree', as long as the phrase is a part of the pledge, there's such a stigma around *not* saying it that it may as well be cumpulsory.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[mirqry]

Ok. Thomas Jefferson was in France the entire time the Constitution and the Amendments were written. I don't understand why people use him as the primary source, and treat his opinion more valid then all of the other founders that were actually there.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[FredThompson]

"I've stated it here before, and I'll state it again. The first 'settlers' from Europe fled here to get AWAY from being forced into a particular religion."

Wrong, that's a myth. They came to America from where? The Netherlands. There was no state religion int he Netherlands. They came to America, in large part, to excape what they saw as corrupting decadence in the society of the Netherlands.

You're also wrong about the faith fo the founding fathers. Read their own writings, not those of a so-called modern hisotry book or an email from a friend. Sorry, bud, the majority were Christians.

Interestingly, you've NOT quoted Thomas Jefferson saying the most important book to have in school was the Bible nor have you quoted him caling for opening prayers to God before the governmental meetings.

Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was only one of the founding fathers.

If you're going to chose a founding father to put in the position of sole source, better to go with George Washington. Remember him? The man who could have been king but chose to go back to his farm. Read his diaries and letters, they're full of references to the father God and Christ.

Funny thing about original documents, they have a way of disproving propaganda.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[tepples]

Companies have been known to sue themselves in order to establish a precedent if/when the class action suit finally shows up.

Especially in the case of schizophrenic conglomerates such as Sony Music v. Sony Electronics, right?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[thrillseeker]

They didn't like the constant phone calls from teachers for how evil I was. They eventually got over it.

Damien - is that you?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[FredThompson]

"This makes it pretty clear what was intended - keep government entirely out of everyone's religious affairs"

Uh...no. You've already contradicted yourself with the example of human sacrifice. Preventing "religious" human sacrifice most certainly is the government interfering with religion.

Thomas Jefferson was not founding dictator of the United States. He was only one of the founding fathers and only one president.

But, back to your comment. Are you truly claiming government and religion cannot co-exist? That's not what the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, said. You're quoting from one little letter written as a private citizien, not as a founding father or President. After he wrote that letter he called for opening prayers to God before the various governmental meetings. His own state, Virginia, required a person to be a trinity-believing Christian to hold public office.

For that matter, what does the first amendment to the Constitution state? The WHOLE amendment, that is. It says Congress shall make no law which endorses or prohibits free expressions of faith, right?

The idea that religious expressions are prohibited in any kind of government-funded activity most certainly IS a prohibition of free speech and expression of faith.

There is a huge difference between preventing religious discrimination or enforcing a state religion and preventing relious expression. You're confusing the two.

You're Dowdifying historical fact.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, really?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're also wrong about the faith fo the founding fathers. Read their own writings, not those of a so-called modern hisotry book or an email from a friend. Sorry, bud, the majority were Christians.

presume you are correct for the sake of argument. That they were a majority Christian and did not see fit to establish this as a Christian Nation is even more remarkable.

Dude you lose, even when you think you win!

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

You are free to speak, or to not speak. You are not free to dictate other peoples' opinions of you.

Social stigma does not have the force of law.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[drinkypoo]

Because those founders' decisions were influenced by the strong beliefs of Thomas Jefferson. I like the letter because it is clear, concise, and written by a religious man.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[drinkypoo]

I haven't contradicted myself at all; you are [deliberately?] being obtuse. Preventing people from killing people is a job of the government because it has control over actions, not thoughts. The laws against killing people do not say that it is wrong to kill people. They say that you are not to kill people or you will be punished, because it is inconvenient to have people being killed. Preventing human sacrifice is not about religion - it's about civilization, the ability for lots of people to live together and accomplish things together, sometimes in spite of one another.

I am not claiming that government and religion cannot coexist. I am claiming that if the government favors a religion, other religions are not free to worship or even have their own beliefs. It is not the government's job to tell people how they can worship except where it infringes on the rights of others.

Placing religious expressions in a government-funded activity prohibits freedom of religion by making a religious statement. It is a clear first amendment violation. That kind of shit is not the job of government. Government's job is to govern. That's it. It has far exceeded its purpose.

There is no difference between enforcing a state religion and religious discrimination. You cannot prevent religious discrimination without prohibiting combinations of church and state. If any religion has direct governmental influence, no other religion is safe.

It's one thing for people to make decisions based on religious belief. It's another thing to codify religious belief in law.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good article supporting your point on CBS News.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've stated it here before, and I'll state it again. The first 'settlers' from Europe fled here to get AWAY from being forced into a particular religion.

I rather thought that it wasn't to get away from being forced into a particular religion but freedom to practice what other's thought were odd religions. See the Puritians, Society of Friends (aka Quakers), Amish, and Mennonites.

It was less about getting away from forced religion but about religious freedom. It's easier to tolderate someone who doesn't care much about religion but it's harder to tolerate those who dare to practice in their own way. These founders *cared* enough to be different, and cared enough about God, and continued to worship God in the way they felt was best. The US wasn't founded by agnostics but rather by religious zelots. Is it any shock we are one nation under god?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Slack3r78]

Here's the thing though: When you're a student, the social stigma of the school's administration *IS* law for you. And while it may be against the rules for them to compell you to recite the pledge, it doesn't mean they won't try. I grew up with a school system that took quite a bit of legal pressure to finally realize this.

Given the fact that the "Under God" phrase is borderline unconstitutional in the first place, I fail to see how supporting its removal so school officials will stop bullying children is such a bad thing.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Lord Kano]

Moderation not withstanding, you are incorrect with respect to a few items.

First, if describing the beliefs of deists, why not quote deists themselves?

Deism.org defines deism as "Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority. "

It may be subtle, but that distinction is important.

The separation of church and state was designed to give no one religion a particular upper hand

There is no such separation in the constitution, that was a later construct.

The founding fathers intended there to be no state church because they had seen how a state church becomes a propaganda machine for those in power.

For example, the Church of England was formed primarily because a king wanted a divorce that his church wouldn't grant.

Would you be offended if your child were forced to pray to Allah before every school event?

For his sake, stop it!

It is annoying beyond all explanation when people act as if "Allah" is a proper name. It is not. It's the english spelling of what would best be described as an arabic contraction. "Ah" meaning the and "Illah" meaning God. Allah is a direct translation of "The God".

Thomas Jefferson would not approve of religion being taught in science class for the simple fact that reason is not the same thing as faith. Reason is about taking the measurable, the observable, and the manipulatable and abstracting the process and system by which they work. Faith is about believing, in the absence of reason or evidence, that something must be true for the simple fact that nobody can say that it isn't.

Deism is about reason and observation of nature. As are most other sciences. Don't you think he'd be opposed to it being taught as well?

I suspect that he would. Unanswerable question have no place being taught in school.

Science cannot be about faith. We've got other subjects for religion and philosophy. Science is pure reason, pristine and untouchable.

What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved.

Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing.

Science named the atom. A the prefix meaning "not" and tom meaning "cut", science said that it wasn't possible to cut the atom. In the 1940s science evolved when it was shown that we can split atoms.

I promise you that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, there'd be a whole lot of ass kicking going on.

I'll grant you that there'd be a lot of bitching if Jefferson or any of the founding fathers were alive today. We have negros walking free and intermarrying with whites. We have homosexuals trying to get married. We have women voting, holding public office and owning property.

He was an exceptional man in his day, but that day has long since passed.

LK

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Grax]

The case had nothing to do with that. The case was about whether students are REQUIRED to say "under God" or to be subjected it via peer pressure ("why didn't you say the pledge Johnny? aren't you patriotic?")

Another point to throw in here. Prayer in schools is perfectly legal contrary to some people's thoughts to the contrary. What isn't legal is school-sponsored prayer. Students may pray whenever they like provided they are not disrupting the class.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

It is far more important to learn how to ignore social stigma than it is to learn to multiply.

School officials will find something else to bully children about, I assure you.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Ironsides]

The separation of church and state was designed to give no one religion a particular upper hand - so that it could not dominate the country over other religions. It is there so that the free schooling system which all children must attend does not endorse one belief over another.

Which was started about 100 years after the constitution was written

There are those who want prayer in school, but to them I ask, who's prayer? Your's or mine? Would you be offended if your child were forced to pray to Allah before every school event?

Whoever the kid decides to pray to. Even if it is Lucipher himself for all I care or nobody at all.

Someone should let David E. Kelley know that if he is going to state on his show, Boston Legal, that if he is going to use the reason that the founding fathers believed in a God as a reason to teach intelligent design in school science classes, he should at least point out that their god is not the Christian god - and if their god was taught in schools, it would still not preclude the science of evolution. It would SUPPORT it.

I can't say anything about the protestant founders, but the Catholic Church supports Evolution/Inteligent Design.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Slack3r78]

I'm not disagreeing with that, merely that I fail to see how the acceptance of something that's directly contradictory to what's supposed to be the highest law of the land is a good thing.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[aichpvee]

The function of the Judicial system is to interpret laws

While interpretting laws is definitely part of the purpose of the judiciary it is hardly "the" singular function. A primary function of the judicial system is to make laws. Note Roe v Wade as a prime example.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

I'm not sure it's contradictory to the law of the land. No religion is being established by the government. It could be argued that reverence for a higher power (generically named "God") is part of American civics.

Now, the moment some ignant Bible thumper wants to try to teach Intelligent Design on the same rhetorical footing as the well-established theory of evolution, I will disagree with said Bible thumper most enthusiastically, as I did when I was eight years old, and faced down exactly the kind of social stigmatizing that you mentioned.

That confrontation was key to the genesis of my personal philosophy, and a very positive experience.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[MayonakaHa]

You can still say "under God" if you want to. Only now those who don't believe in "God" can say the pledge without going against what they believe. The courts are telling the schools don't FORCE them to say "under God".

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. They are in school. A place for public education. Not a house of worship. Not the location for a daily prayer service. If this is not religion, as you claim, why are you against the removal of the daily ritual (reciting of a speech with the added words, by legislation, under God)? Bad enought to have the schools force a daily loyalty oath. Worse that it has been twisted to include an homage to one particular faith's God.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Pig Hogger]

That is because America has a legal system based on the Common Law. Just like England and Australia.

Countries based on a Civil Law system such as France allow people to get rulings from a court prior to them performing an act. For example, if you were in France you could go to a court and ask "Can I download this file?" You will be given a definite "Yes" or "No" and that statement made by the court will be binding.

This can be done in common-law countries too. The canadian federal government just has been asking the Supreme Court of Canada if allowing gay marriages would be constitutionnal before submitting a bill to the federal parliament.

And it was not the first time it did that either.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Grishnakh]

A primary function of the judicial system is to make laws. Note Roe v Wade as a prime example.

Oh please. RvW was an interpretation. Recently, a baby with two heads just had the extra head cut off, even though it seemed to have some awareness, blinking its eyes, etc. The head, of course, couldn't survive without the other body it was attached to, so it's dead. Does that constitute murder? Deciding that is an interpretation. Maybe you don't like the decision, but that doesn't mean they're making up new laws.

Of course, getting a religious extremist to argue rationally about anything is an exercise in futility, so I'm sure this argument is lost on you.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[3StrangeAllies]

"One nation, under God, indivisible is not practicing religion, not teaching religion, not promoting religion."

Ex-queeze me? Pledging allegiance to "God" is promoting the fact that there is a god. The First Amendment also protects the freedom not to believe in any god, be it agnotism or atheism...

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Martin Blank]

Despite such references, Washington was not particularly religious by his own admission. He did believe, but not so strongly that the religion itself was that strong a guiding influence on his life. He rarely attended church even when he was where he could conveniently access one.

Most of the Founding Fathers -- those who signed the Declaration and/or Constitution -- were Christians, yes. However, they were from a wide variety of faiths, and did include deists and perhaps even an atheist or two (I don't have my research materials here at work). They recognized that even though most of them shared core beliefs -- divinity of Christ, Christ dying for man's sins, heaven and hell, and all that -- there were enough differences that they felt it best to leave religion largely out of government. Even in the meetings of the Continental Congress, many meetings went without opening prayer, IIRC (need to check this when I get home).

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[jav1231]

I would have to argue against much of what you are saying but I'll stick to one point. "Reason" and "faith" are not mutually exclusive. You're letting the modern idea of "faith" cloud your thinking. As someone who seems to love "going back" and looking at origins, it should be noted that the ancient Greek term for "faith" is more closely translated "believe" or "belief." As such, belief is very much based on reason, logic, and evidence. People don't blindly believe in God with some gut-felt contention. Some do, but most do not. They view everything we see, ancient script, even science itself as evidence of His existence. That takes reason. I know men who are highly regarded scientists and mathematicians who would "reason" that God exists and call "blind faith" as ludicrous as guessing.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[gremlins]

Um... you make it sound like the Laws are comming out the thin air. Any _bad_ law was voted on and passed what ever government body is required to at what ever level of government. So mabey you try to stop it before it becomes law. And in a legal sense you can Sue for your children or spouse.

And your right you shouldn't have to sit around waiting to be taken advantage of. So you should get the law changed in the correct matter.

The courts should only be used in the worst of laws. And if the law is that bad someone must have been hurt by it.

p.s. They can take my Xbox but they can never take my freedom

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Marful]

In highschool, my economics teacher also taught 2 periods of government.

One of things you are required to teach in California in the Government class, is that you DO NOT have to recite or participate in the pledge of allegiance, and you are supposed to learn about the original case that led to the supreme court ruling this unconstitutional.

One day, I was busy putting together my business plan that fell apart in my backpack during the pledge, and the teacher decided to make an example out of me, and gave me a referal for not performing the pledge.

He kept harrasing and gave me a referal every day. The administration also started harrassing me, and the vice principal went on record stating "The school board is going to review this case and see whether or not the supreme court ruling is relevant to this situation."

Despite the fact that several other faculty members (including the other governemnt and a history teacher) protested and lodged complaints with the administration on the actions being taken.

Some people may of heard of my High school; El Modena. They are most known for this:

http://www.asbj.com/2000/07/0700schoollaw.html

So, you do NOT in fact have a right to refuse to participate in the pledge. This is entirely dependant on the whims, ideals and opinion of the school. And if you are in a pro-christian school enviroment, you are either an ally, or an enemy.

The Separation of Church and State is in the constitution for a reason. Not because its a sophisticated peace of dialogue with some words that most have to look up in the dictionary.

But because the founding fathers left a country for the very reason they wished to include that passage.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

RECOVERED? Is Catholicism a disease or something?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The term you're looking for is "facial challenge".

Sounds like some sort of late-night Japanese game show.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[VValdo]

...zero times in the Constitution

Down at the bottom... (bold is mine)

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."

I've seriously seen the above used to argue that God's divinity is recognized in the Constitution. (counter-argument: names of days and months in the Constitution recognize divinity of ancient Greek and Roman gods.)

Today is George Washington's bday.

W

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[aichpvee]

Calm down, son. Did you just call me a "religious extremist"? Because we might need to step outside if you did. I'm not just an abortion supporter, I'm an enthusiast.

By making an interpretation judges are making law. If you can't understand that I surely hope you aren't voting. Though anyone stupid enough to call me a religious extremist probably shouldn't be breathing either.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[MindStalker]

Well you can show standing if you can prove you WILL be affected by this bad law. But the possibility that you will be indirectly affected or have a minor effect is of no consequence to the courts. As such this suit could be brought by manufactures which will be directly affected. While individual consumers will also be directly affected legally your only effect will be loosing your right to copy copyrighted material. Possibly a violation of fair use, but nothing directly putting you in court, especially as this law only makes it illigal to produce and distribute, not to use broadcast ignorning devices.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[falcon5768]

One nation, under God, indivisible is not practicing religion, not teaching religion, not promoting religion. ....hate to break it to you, but god IS religion. Anytime you say god you are speaking of a religion. God cant exist unless religion existed.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[HEXAN]

"However, these founding fathers were actually Deists."

Bzzzt. Factually incorrect. Numerous sources debunked that myth years ago. See the highly referenced work of Michael Novak, "On two wings"

Back of the line for you , youngster.

Quoted from Michael Novak:

The leaders of the American Revolution were not, like the leaders of the French revolution, secularists. They did not set out to erase religion. Quite the opposite." Michael Novak points out in this brilliant book about the birth of the American idea that the very first act of the Continental Congress in September, 1774, was to pray to Divine Providence for insight on how to respond to news of the British bombardment of Boston. In setting a course for republican self-government, the founders not only believed that they were acting reasonably but that they were carrying out God's commandment. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God."

Even your venerable "athiest" Jefferson was ONE PERSON, of a large group, most much more religious than he. Somehow, HIS SINGULAR voice is used, as if he was the sole founder of our country.
I don't care how you believe, just don't try to pervert how our founding fathers did. It's old mythos and all but totally factually debunked.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's very nice that you find comfort in your faith, but the fact remains, reason is not faith is not belief is not religion.

Reason is like this:
There is a block here, it has a volume of 27 cubed units because I measured it with this ruler, and found each side to be 3 units in length. Since the formula for volume is Length times Height times Width, anyone else that can use this ruler and observe this block would come to the same conclusion, so sayeth Reason.

Faith would be:
God spoke to me and told me this block has a volume of 27 units. I believe God, and trust him. If you trust my God, you'd also come to the same conclusion. What's a ruler?

Reasoning through a problem requires no faith. It only requires procedure and logic. You need to make no leaps to come to your conclusion. You can share your findings with anyone, and they can independently verify them.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[freeclimber]

I do not claim to be an expert on Thomas Jefferson or the founding fathers but the quotes you provided as evidence do not seem to back up your claim. Perhaps you should work harder to find quotes from the thousands uttered by TJ in order to more clearly state your argument. Examples: "I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him." This seems to show a belief in a god to which one can be held accountable contrary to your stated definition of a Deist. The last 2 qoutes seem to show Thomas Jefferson as a Christian. Describing Christianity, "brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." Apparently he believes that Christianity when in it's pure form is of all religions the most friendly to many scientific endeavors. Finally he labels Christ as the, "great reformer of the Jewish religion..." It appears that Jefferson pays homage to Christ but also uses the word great to discuss the reformation of the Jewish religion to a Christian one, showing preference for the Christian one as the reform was "great." I do not really care one way or the other I think that if you are going to play fast and loose with the facts you should at least try and take things out of context that actually back up your argument.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Grishnakh]

Usually when people bring up Roe v. Wade as an example of "legislating from the bench", they're an abortion foe and a religious extremist.

There's a difference between writing a law and interpreting it. This is basic Civics class: the legislative branch writes the law, the executive branch enforces it, and the judicial branch interprets it. Laws are just words on paper; applying them to real-world situations is what happens in a courtroom. According to the law, murder is illegal, but self-defense is not. In case A, some guy kills an intruder in his house, but the intruder was not armed. Is this murder or self-defense? The law may not specify exactly how this case is to be classified, so that's where judges come in. (This is just a simplistic example of course; these specific laws are probably better defined than this.)

If you can't understand this basic lesson from high school Civics, then I surely hope you aren't voting.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Novak's work has been debunked many times over. This is primarily why his poorly-researched work is referenced. You can't say something is wrong without referencing it.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[robvs68]

I came here looking for an argument, but this is merely contradiction...

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Intetsu]

Interestingly I am covered this in ConLaw today. The reason the Courts manage to get away with this standing argument is on "prudential" grounds(i.e. the wouldn't be able to handle the number of suits that would arise). The logic being that IF you really wanted the laws changed you would resolve the issue by political means...voting in your Congressman. Congress DOES have the power to grant standing to private citizens to bring suit for violations, and in fact has done so in the past.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[hawk]

The word is bad, then.

A *settled* matter may go through court "canned," but the situation you describe fails to meet the Constitutional standard of "cases and controversies" for federal judicial jurisdiction.

Some states allow "advisory" opinions, but those opinions will not bind a person that isn't a party to the suit.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[EvanED]

Social stigma does not have the force of law.

In some cases, it does. Student-led prayer at high school football games was struck down as unconstitutional because of the stigma attached to not going along with it. There are other cases.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Austerity Empowers]

I suspect that he would. Unanswerable question have no place being taught in school.

I agree with you in spirit, the "answers" to unanswerable questions have no place being taught in school. But fundamentally the purpose of education is to teach you those skills required to logically approach and rationalize unanswered questions, and determine what is unanswerable. More often than not, the most important questions people face in life are unanswerable, either because the facts are not available in time, or because no valid facts can be supplied. Schools should not be shy of examining such questions, and showing systems by which they can be rationalized. They should always fall short of answering them, that is the excersize for the pupil.

Really, in the grand scheme of things, the only questions worth talking about are unanswerable in nature. We should all be prepared to find and support our answers to them, or to evaluate the answers others provide. TJ himself did it a number of times, the Declaration of Independence being the most well known. He held 'certain truths to be self evident' that he surely knew were neither true nor self evident to everyone reading his note. He had a system of reasoning based on the beliefs of his peers that came to the conclusion that the colonies deserved independence. Was it right? That's not a subject for a school to teach, but a student should be well prepared to weigh his arguments and put them in context with known facts from the time.

Parents, governments, MTV and peer pressure will all provide answers to unanswerable questions. Schools should just set the ground rules and ensure that every student has the tools to make decisions on what he believes.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional and unjust law, I must first become its victim, because I cannot challenge a law until I have been brought up on charges based on that law. My only other recourse is to convince another victim to challenge it instead.

The federal courts, under Article III, only have the power to resolve legal questions that arise out of an actual dispute between real parties. Case or Controversy

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[aichpvee]

So two gay men decide to get married in a state that has laws prohibiting it. They are denied a marriage license, sue the state, and the court orders lawmakers to make it legal. The court does not "write" the law, but through interpretting other laws they are making it just as well as if they had.

Either way, let's let this go and return to fighting the good fight against them religious extremist types.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[squiggleslash]

Absolutely. And we must also only have atheists learn to ignore social stigma. Good, God-fearing Christians, need not learn that lesson.

Correct?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

That doesn't mean that social stigma has the force of law, it means that people were addressing the wrong problem.

If I thought that removing "under God" from the pledge, or removing prayer at football games, would stop (or even meaningfully reduce) students from being horrifyingly cruel to one another, I'd be on board in a second.

I don't think talking about God at school. I think the bad feelings about talking about God are a symptom of a much larger problem.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

You don't think being a Christian is stigmatized? I think you live in a fantasy world.

High school is a staggeringly intolerant, cliquish, exclusive place. I think that socializing in that environment is the direct cause of a lot of problems we see in modern society. I don't think that including (or excluding) talking about God is going to make a meaningful dent in that overwhelming problem.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[monkeymanatwork]

There are religious people (Christian and Jewish, probably others) who refuse to say the pledge because one is pledging allegiance to an inanimate object (the flag) which is symbolic of a ruling power and therefore may be considered idolatry. Many religious people extend the concept of idolatry to include the worship of anything other than God: money, power, possessions, etc., and idolatry is expressly prohibited by, for one, the Ten Commandments.

We are so indoctrinated from childhood by the public schools that few so-called religious people in the US ever consider this perspective, and will in fact be ready to haul you before a McCarthy hearing when they catch you NOT saying the pledge along with the rest of the sheep.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when people bring up Roe v. Wade as an example of "legislating from the bench", they're an abortion foe and a religious extremist.

Stop embarrassing yourself and actually read the opinion. There, I've even given you a link. Pay close attention to the summary in Part XI where Justice Blackmun creates the trimester distinctions out of whole cloth. Naked value judgments such as these are to be left to legislatures, not to the men in black. The Court itself recognized this folly in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Grishnakh]

Right, but they're not creating new laws, just pointing out that pre-existing laws conflict (and striking one down). If one of those is the Constitution, then the other law certainly can't stand. It's part of the checks-and-balances system: stupid state legislators write bad law, federal court strikes it down because it violates the Constitution.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[kotfu]

Your claim that the founding fathers were Deists, not Christian's, is simply not correct. Your quotes from Mr. Jefferson seem to indicate that he may have had some qualms with organized religion. Agreed. There are also lots of quotes from early statesmen like this:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" George Washington

It's hard to believe that men who did not believe that God gave revelation to men (according to your definition of deism), would write this in the document that they signed: " and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". If your definition is correct, to what would the "Laws of Nature's God" be referring to?

In fact, John Witherspoon, a delegate from New Jersey, was an ordained minister in the Church of Scotland. I think that would disqualify him as a Deist.

Many early settlers who came to the New World were seeking freedom from religion oppression; many of these groups were seperatists from the Church of England. Their frame of reference was The Act of Supremecy of 1534, which recognized the King of England as "the only supreme head of the Church of England". When these colonists formed their own goverment, they wanted to avoid the pitfalls of this union of church and state.

Regardless of their positions on organized religion, the value systems of the vast majority of colonists was unquestionably Christian. Most had not been exposed to Hinduism, or to the teachings of Muhammad. Yes, they were brilliant thinkers, men of reason and judgement, but they also came from a Christian society, and the system of government they architected reflects those basic values.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[kotfu]

Yes, God only appears once in the Declaration, but any trial lawyer will tell you that your opening argument better be good, and your closing argument even better.

The document opens by stating that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". The closing sentence of the Declaration is "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Those excerpts do not include the word God, but you can hardly say that references to diety are conspicuous by their absence.

It is a great tribute to the founding fathers that references to God are not codified in the constitution. It shows their great desire to create a secular government, which they successfully did.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

And when one Googles "facial challenge" one comes across the transcript of National Endowment for Arts vs. Finley which says, among other things:
"A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid."

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

Argh. My second to last sentence should read:

"I don't think talking about (or to) God at school is the problem."

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[LilMikey]

The term you're looking for is "facial challenge".

Oh come on... that's just to get chuckles from the teenies.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I don't see "God" repeated throughout the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The word "God" appears exactly once in the Declaration of Independence (in the phrase "Nature and Nature's God") and zero times in the Constitution. If anything, I'd say that makes "God" conspicuous by its absence.

Well, He works in mysterious ways.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[vranash]

Y'know that was exactly why I did say it in elementary school, and in fact I think they'd told us we'd get sent to the principals office if we didn't. Don't think I seriously started pondering what I'd been saying until I heard it over again in like junior high or high school and realized what a load of propogandized crap I'd been spewing.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Mycroft_VIII]

Minor nit. Seperation of church in state is not actually in the constitution. The doctrine comes from supreme court rulings on what is actually in there.
I only bring it up because I see so many arguments about the constitutional soundness of things based on interpretations of ruleing about interpretation ad nauseum.
I honestly believe whenever the courts rule on the constitution they should first try to resolve based on the constitution itself before relying on precedent. Elswise it's to easy to drift into some of the problems we have today where laws are considered constitutional that nonetheless say almost the exact opposite of what the founding fathers said, eigther in the constitution itself or in thier public explanations of what they wrote.
Not that I'm saying the behaviour of the school faculty were anything but wrong and complete asses to boot in your case.

The relevant section of Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Mycroft

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Mycroft_VIII]

Can I point out interpreting vs making law assumes a clear line?
It's a bit fuzzy at times if you ask me, this is why I don't like how heavily precedent wieghs relative to the actual law. Rule a bit on a law in a grey area, then rule on grey area in precent, then on that ruling, and nauseum and soon you find your current grey area is actually way out in the no-no zone from the original law.

Mycroft

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the free world looks on astonished as "the most free nation on earth" forces its children to recite a pledge to their country by their system of authority.

Forcing your children to pledge allegiance to your country how, very Soviet Union of you. Do the little angels all speak in a monotone voice as they recite it?

Where i come from it would be called "brainwashing".

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[michrech]

I'm not sure it's contradictory to the law of the land. No religion is being established by the government. It could be argued that reverence for a higher power (generically named "God") is part of American civics.

What the hell do you think the FMA was? It was an attempt to force a part of W's FAITH BASED beliefs onto the entire population of the US.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[michrech]

Well, in THAT case, let's not even bother TRYING to make it any better.

For that matter, lets just roll over and take it in the ass for whatever anyone wants to force on us, then..

Nice attitude.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Alsee]

the court orders lawmakers to make it legal

No, the court cannot order the legislature to do anything. If they strike down some supposed law as being invalid, or some strike down some portion of the law, then what remains is the law and always was the law, and remains that way until the legislature chooses to pass a new law.

So in your example the portion of the marriage law disriminating applicant gender would be stuck down (just as unconstitutional as a law discriminating the color of applicants) and the remaing law would allow marriages to any otherwise qualified applicants. The gay couple could go right ahead and get married under that existing law. Either that or the entire marriage law is struck down as invalid and the existing law of that state cannot issue marriages to anyone at all.

In no case is the legislature ordered to do anything.

-

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Most people suffering from irrational beliefs are usually treated with strong anti psycotic medications, yet for some reason the medical profession seems to ignore an entire class of people suffering from strong delusions.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[uglyduckling]

I'm not just an abortion supporter, I'm an enthusiast.

If that's what you think, then we might need to step outside. I know this is way OT, but you can't surely be enthusiastic about putting people through a medical procedure with risks of mortality (death) and morbidity (serious illness) to the mother, and the premature termination of a (albeit considered by many only potential) life? Even the most pro-abortion people I've come across would consider it a reluctant but occasional neccesity, not something to be enthusiastic about.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[uglyduckling]

We have this problem in the UK - in the Diane Pretty case, her husband wanted to help her committ euthanasia. The courts and Crown Prosecution refused to say, in advance, whether he was likely to be prosecuted for assisting in her suicide.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Alsee]

I'm not sure it's contradictory to the law of the land. No religion is being established by the government.

Sure it is. It establishes an officially supported religious belief. It establishes the position that there is a god, that there is one god, and has directly implies a certain kind of god. It is religious oppression of polytheistic religions such as Native Americans, of atheists, and of religions with an entirely different conception of god - I beleive Buhhdism falls in that last catagory.

Simply because the established government position is compatible with Christianity and Judism and Islam does not change the fact that the government is favoring one set of religious beliefs over others. That is QUITE unconstitutional.

Adding "under God" to the pledge and "in God we trust" to currency is just as unconstitutional as adding "under the many Gods" to the pledge would be, just as unconstitutional as adding "Trust in money because there is no god" to our currency would be.

-

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Alsee]

Like what's-his-name asshole Nudow (Sp?) challenging the pledge of alligence

He did not challenge the pledge of alligiance. He challenged the unconstitutional 1956 law when congress added a governmentally favored religious position to our traditional pledge.

Do you have some objection to our traditional pledge of alligiance?

-

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[hkmwbz]

"Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing."

Your point being?

The fact that science changes as we get new information is a good thing. Unlike religion, science is therefore dynamic, and the more you do science, the closer to the truth you get. We'll never find the full truth about everything, and we can be wrong about things, but as long as science changes as our knowledge changes, that is a good thing, and is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Unlike religion, science is based on what we observe, what we gain knowledge about, not what we believe in. Read the post you are replying to again:

"Reason is about taking the measurable, the observable, and the manipulatable and abstracting the process and system by which they work. Faith is about believing, in the absence of reason or evidence, that something must be true for the simple fact that nobody can say that it isn't."

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Alsee]

Are you truly claiming government and religion cannot co-exist?

As he already replied government and religion co-exist just fine. owever I would like to add that freedom of religion cannot co-exist with the use of the FORCE OF GOVERNMENT for religious purposes. And that is exactly what seperation of church and state says, that the force of government cannot be used for religious purposes. You cannot pass a law prohibiting stores from being open on sunday for the purpose of favoring certain religions. You cannot pass a law prohibiting children from praying in school for the purpose of suppressing certain religions or suppressing religion in general. You equally cannot pass a law encouraging children to pray in school for the purpose of promoting a specific religion or promoting any religion at all. These restriction apply not just to congressional laws, but to any official exercise of government power at all, to anyone acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government.

You are free to pray in school, but the government and any agent of government is forbidden to promote or supress it. You are free to have a copy of the Ten Commandments amongst the personal items on your desk at your job in a court house, but you cannot use your official powers to have a 10-foot-tall copy of the Ten Commandments officially carved into the court house building itself.

It is about the use of government power for religious purposes. The only way to preserve individual religious freedom is to prohibit the use of government power for religious purposes. The only time seperation of church and state in any way resticts a person is when that person is weilding the force of government and when he attempts to abuse that force for religious purposes.

-

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dfj225]

I am a Christian and I agree with most of the things you said. I think in science class you should be taught science, that is material backed by well accepted theories. If parents really feel that strongly about religion, then I think it should be their responsibility to teach it to their children or for them to place them in a private school where they do teach religion. I don't consider science to be blasphemy or anything silly like that. I would imagine that God would use science as his tool to create the world and life in it.

As far as prayer in school, I certainly don't think it should be forced or mandated, but I think religious activities in school should be accepted. For instance, students in my school organized an after school Bible study program. I think something like that is OK to have on school grounds and it doesn't violate the separation of church and state. After all, students are free to do what they please and the students in my former school who didn't care about religion probably didn't even know the group existed.

Even though I am a Christian, I think seperation of church and state is important. While my particular religion seems to be the most popular or at least the most outspoken in America, I don't think it should be forced on people or embraced by the government any more than any other religion. After all, I wouldn't want to be forced into following a different religion if one such became the most popular in America. Seperation of church and state protects my religion...it doesn't take it away. Again, if people really feel strongly about spreading the Word, then they should take it upon themselves to do so and not rely on the government to embrace it.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[jav1231]

I never said reason equals faith. Yet, you still cling to your (though widely popular) notion of faith. To use your example, God told me this block has a volume of 27 units. By my measurement this block contains 27 units. Therefore I can trust God. Again there is a difference betwee "leaps of faith" and "faith." You ignore the truth here and that is faith is belief. Belief is simply a conclusion of evidence. Some require very little evidence, others more. Some project or leap from little evidence to grand conclusions and still others come to wrong conclusions. Applied to science or religion, belief and faith are the same. You can cling to your mistaken interpretation of what faith is but if you truly want to stick to origins, then understand that faith is simply belief. You don't have to believe in God to accept this idea, that's another argument. But understand that you debate skills will be challenged once you accept that fact.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Darren Winsper]

Most people who voted in favour of the PATRIOT Act didn't actually read it. If congressmen are going to be *that* retarded, you have to wonder how you could ever convince them not to vote for a particular law.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[smchris]

They'll let the FCC slide on a technicality, mark my words.

Probably. If not, it can always go to the Supreme Court. It's just taxpayer's money.

The new Commissioner probably won't be able to ask his dad to ask his boss to ask his friends for a ruling but it shouldn't be more than about another degree of separation.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Christopher Cashell]

Really?

Can you point out who it was that "voted" for the broadcast flag?

Oh, wait, that's right. It wasn't voted on. It was mandated by the FCC.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dosius]

If Roe v Wade were overturned this year, women who had abortions in the 80's and 90's surely couldn't be prosecuted for them.

True, because it would be "ex postfacto", which is unconstitutional.

Moll.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Shaper_pmp]

"What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved."

Exactly - "hypothesis" implies verifiability. "God exists" is a belief, because it can't be proved or disproved. "General Relativity" is a hypothesis, because it can (or at least, we can attempt to prove it).

"Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing."

Funny thing, I've never heard a (proper) scientist seriously claim anything was impossible. "Unlikely", yes, "impossible with our current knowledge", yes, but just "impossible"? Never.

As the old saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - a true scientist should and will always keep in mind that he or she could be wrong, and that (outside of pure mathematics) no evidence is perfectly conclusive.

As an aside (and contrary to popular opinion), "Science" never said the bumblebee couldn't fly - merely that the equations we used (for fixed-wing aircraft!) didn't explain how it could. Since bumblebees clearly don't have fixed-wings, "Science" never said a thing about them.

"Science named the atom. A the prefix meaning "not" and tom meaning "cut", science said that it wasn't possible to cut the atom. In the 1940s science evolved when it was shown that we can split atoms."

Ok, first up, Science didn't "name" anything, any more than Religion ever did. People name things, and even thinking of any given person as belonging to either group (religion XOR science) is stupid, since every person on the planet has irrational beliefs and simultaneously uses scientific method (observe, hypothesise, test - it's simply how we learn things).

Aside from that, this shows the benefits of science - "Science" may well be proven wrong, but when new information comes to light, science re-organises itself to accommodate it, thereby moving closer to universal Truth (to skirt the edge of philosophy for a moment).

Religion has its central precepts fixed, and as such can only respond to new information by:

• Rejecting it entirely - self-evidently stupid, when you reject anything that can be proven (ok, "beyond any reasonable doubt") correct.
  
• Ignoring it (stupid, because you can't claim to embrace universal Truth when you ignore bits of it), or
  
• Selectively dropping (unofficially or officially) parts of the religion that contradict it. The key point here is that while "bits of religion" get dropped the whole time (women priests, gay rights, not shaving off the hair on your temples, etc, etc), new testaments (or entire offshoots of religions) happen only very, very rarely.
  
  Hence, science moves closer to universal truth by incorporating new facts, striving to remain relevant and acknowledging it doesn't have the whole picture.
  
  Religion moves further away by ignoring or contradicting inconvenient facts, becoming increasingly irrelevant and simultaneously claiming to embody Truth in its entirety.
  
  Science is phlegmatic, Religion is dogmatic.
  
  And please don't take this as an attack on religion - I have no strong religious beliefs either way, but I respect those of others. What I have no respect for is people erecting strawman arguments to "disprove" science, or insisting that religion and science are in any way connected.
  
  Oh, and as an aside...
  
  Atoms can well be considered indivisible - an atom is the smallest unit of an element. If you split the atom you no longer have any of that element, just some protons, neutrons and electrons. An atom is indivisible, it's just "the smallest indivisible unit of any given element", not "the smallest indivisible unit of anything at all". ;-p

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[RedHat Rocky]

"One nation, under God, indivisible is not practicing religion, not teaching religion, not promoting religion. If it were then separation of church and state should extend to our currency and founding documents."

1. The phrase "under God" does promote religion, unfortunately it is also one that a vast majority take as a matter of fact and can't even fathom that there is an alternative.

2. Yes, the phrase shouldn't be on our currency and other documents. However, the majority is certainly against this and it is a philsophical problem. In reality, I don't stop and read my dollar bills every time I spend them, so for practical reasons it doesn't really matter. That doesn't make it right.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just skipped over the words "under god". I don't think anyone ever noticed, or if they did, they didn't say anything.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[gremlins]

Doesn't matter if they didn't read it, thats their fault and the fault of the people who elected them. The courts shouldn't have to correct things that people failed to read. The point of the courts is to strick down laws that blatantly against the constitution. Now the Patriot act my fall into category but like I said before I don't think it is to much trouble to have someone who WAS actully harmed to be the petitioner. Otherwise your just arguing theory and "what ifs". In a way though I understand your feelings that you think the court needs to help out because you feel that we have lost control of our representatives. To some extent I agree but I always find it odd that the people who say that part of the government (the legislative) isn't working turn right around and want another part of the government that really shouldn't be involed unless absolutely necessary.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Moofie]

Nonsense. I simply think that on our political landscape, there are much bigger problems.

Like suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. THAT is what we should be spending our political energy fighting.

This debate is a distraction: It's a red herring to keep us from addressing the serious problems. Setting up such red herrings is the neo-conservative movement's true genius. They're really, really effective at distracting public opinion from big issues and getting them stuck talking around the water cooler about school prayer and gay marriage.

I think both of those topics are important, and need to be discussed and addressed. However, I'd like to get the right to a trial by jury back first.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[gremlins]

Uh no one did, and the courts ruled correctly. I don't have a problem with this case I have a problem with the Idea stated above that anyone should be able to challange everything even if they are not victim. In this particular case I think it was a valid lawsuit.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Muad'Dave]

I'd go farther and require every law that Congress passes to be subjected to an automatic constitutionality test before it becomes law. If any portion is declared unconstitutional, the whole law gets sent back to congress until they understand their bounds.

This would also help break laws into logical chunks instead of several unrelated laws being lumped together to guarantee passage, and help slow the rate at which Congress spews BS laws.

Automatic review of 10% of all existing laws per year would keep them busy justifying previous laws instead of writing useless new ones.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[KlomDark]

You are sure sounding like a religious extremist. If you want to step outside, that's fine with me, you punk-ass bitch.

Judges are SUPPOSED to make interpretations of law. That is their whole purpose. The creation of law is left to the Legislative branch. It's part of the good old checks and balance system. Maybe you don't understand, or maybe you are just mis-using terminology. If you do not think that judges are supposed to interpret what the wording of a law means, then what exactly do you think they are supposed to be doing?

Typically, people who do not grasp this have been brainwashed by their churches, or have listened to way too much Rush. (The fat guy, not the rock band)

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm... like [when the students are caught] practicing multiplication under the bleachers?

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unanswerable question have no place being taught in school"

Huh?

No one knows if a question is unanswerable.
However, teaching an answer, as fact without qualifying it based on derivation, is nothing more than indoctrination in ritual.

Scienctists observe X and propose Y as an explanation. No contradictory observation has been made, thus far. Every endeavor to find a contradictory case has only resulted in confirming observations. This is how science is taught, along with some experiential affirmation of the process of observing.

Yes, there is belief incorporated into the above. It's the belief that if everyone makes the same observations under the same conditions then they must all be seeing the same thing. The fundamental difference between religion and science is a suspension of this belief in religion.

I feel it's morally wrong to teach something as fact when it's experiential qualities can not be agreed upon. For me, this does not preclude religious faith, but it does make me quite aware that it is not something to be forced upon others by way of false teaching, indoctrination, or threat of bodily harm.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Darren Winsper]

What's wrong with "what ifs?" I'd much rather a law got struck down *before* it did serious damage than after.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being pretty much anything away from the norm is stigmatized in high school (e.g. not watching TV, not swearing, from my personal experience). This discussion isn't about whether talking about God in school should be legal. Everyone knows it should. This is about whether there should be authority-sanctioned, religion-asymmetric activities in school (e.g. "under God" in the pledge). I say religion-asymmetric because having an extracurricular Bible Study club is fine by me, as long as a Koran Study club or an Atheist Discussion Group club is equally allowed.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[gremlins]

We seem to be going in circles. The government is set up in such a way that laws can't be created with out the representation of the people being involed. If these people inact bad laws. We as the people should not elect them again. So the proper time to bring up "what ifs" is only with the legislators. Either when you are trying to get a law passed or get one struck down. Courts deal with facts and should not have to deal with fictional possibilities resulting from the law.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[tkg]

A primary function of the judicial system is to make laws.

Does this mean we can disolve both houses of congress? (at times a real temptation) If the judicial branch of government can make our laws, we have no need for the checks and balances provided by the legislative branch.

Of course you might just be being facetious.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, George Washington was a Christian. Not to put down Thomas Jefferson, he had his opinions, and the grand thing about the USA is that it was formed by consensus.

But George was very much a Christian, and does count as one of those founding fathers as well. There is an account of a battle with gunfire where indians witnessed George on his horse - and none of the bullets hit him. The indians later told George that his god must be a very strong god, because it was obvious to them he had divine protection.

All I'm trying to say is that the Founding Fathers were a group, and their views on religion and government ranged as far as today's views do. The whole anti-religion movement didn't kick into gear until the 1920's.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Darren Winsper]

Well, setting aside the fact that I can't vote in the US (yet that doesn't stop people like the MPAA thinking I'm bound by their country's laws), claiming that legislators shouldn't be elected again is a bit of a crock when the people who elected them don't seem to give a shit and only care about which side of the gay marriage debate they're on.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

no it isn't.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[geoffspear]

To be fair, many of the right wing Christians will also be ready to haul you before a McCarthy hearing for not worshipping money and possessions, too. It's not just the flag.

And if you try to explain that Marxism is a lot closer to the philosophy Jesus taught than capitalism is, they'll probably crucify you.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dark_requiem]

The very existence of the FCC is unconstitutional, and it should be phased out in favor of a homesteading system for broadcast rights. Where in the constitution does it state the government has the authority to regulate the airwaves? The common excuse back in the day was that they needed to regulate a scarce commodity. First, where in the constitution does it say the government has the authority to regulate scarce resources? Second, even if one considers that to be a valid excuse for the government to de-legitimize itself by violating its charter document, one has to consider the fact that, when the FCC was created, radio technology was still in its infancy. Frequency separation wasn't what it is today, and it was much more of a problem for someone to try to broadcast on one frequency, only to have their signal bleed over to another frequency being used by others. Now that's not really a problem much of a problem.

Now imagine that there never was an FCC. How would broadcast rights have evolved in common law? It would work remarkably well to develop a system similar to homesteading. First come, first serve. However, there are a number of factors to consider here. The most important is, who was broadcasting in that frequency in that geographical area first? Second, during what hours are they broadcasting? Third, does my broadcast interfere with theirs?

If I am broadcasting on a particular frequency, during a particular time segment, I've essentially "homesteaded" that bandwidth/time slot. If someone else starts broadcasting a signal that interferes with my broadcast, they have violated my property rights. If, however, they can broadcast a signal on that same frequency and time slot and modulate it in such a way that it doesn't interfere with my broadcast, then they've just homesteaded that same frequency/time slot, but they've done it with a compatible modulation technique, and so my property rights remain intact.

The temporal factor is also very important. Remember, we're not talking about physical property, but rather an abstract. If I broadcast from noon to 5PM, then I have claimed that swath of frequency/modulation technique only from noon to 5PM. Anyone else can begin broadcasting using that same frequency/modulation technique from 5:01PM to 11:59AM, and homestead that time block for myself.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dark_requiem]

I got a substitute teacher banned from the high school for the same thing:). I hadn't stood for the pledge for years, mostly on religious grounds (atheists don't pledge to god), but also out of respect for the dead dream that was America's potential. My regular teachers had come to accept it. This was a sub. She made the mistake of first ordering me to stand for the pledge, then kicking me out of class when I refused. I walked straight to the office, raised holy bloody hell, threatened lawsuits, and that teacher has never been (to my knowledge) allowed to return to that high school.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[dark_requiem]

What we need is simply a system whereby one can challenge the constitutional validity of a law without breaking it. Not to ask if a particular act would be illegal, but to actually say "This law is illegal". There would be no need for a separate court system, and there would be no reason that the usual appeals process couldn't be implemented, all the way up to the Supreme Court, whose ruling would be binding. Otherwise, lower court rulings would be used to set precedent. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Sure, there's the issue of people challenging every law in sight, but you think a judge would do anything with a court challenge to a law prohibiting murder? Of course not, it'd be thrown out of court like a frivolous lawsuit. There's also the issue of there being so many laws to challenge. If Congress wasn't busy legislating everything in sight, we wouldn't have such a convoluted legal system. If the legal code was computer code, some programmer would be fired for writing it.

Re:But they didn't say ,"Stop!"

[general_re]

It's not supposed to be easy for the unelected branch of government to override Congress. Regardless, the fact that is difficult does not bail out the original poster, who claimed it was flat-out impossible to challenge a law without first running afoul of it - in fact, it happens all the time, with varying degrees of success.

Soon, very soon

[Anonymous Coward]

it will be illegal to live in America.

For everyone.

Re:Soon, very soon

[jpetts]

Actually, that's a very good first step to a totalitarian/fascist/police state: make so many seemingly innoccuous offenses that pretty much everybody becomes a transgressor through normal day-to-day activites.

Then when you want to target someone just look at the trivial crimes he has committed and take it from there...

Re:Soon, very soon

[Anonymous Coward]

L. Ron Hubbard's (Scientology aside) character Terl in Battlefield Earth once said, "All you need to do in order to gain power over someone is make a law so rediculous that everyone violates it. Then, select who you want to punish."

Re:Soon, very soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that one of the defining qualities of a corrupt government? That pretty much everybody is guilty of some obscure law or other? It makes it so much easier for the people in power to throw people they don't like in jail - hey, they broke the law, didn't they?

Re:Soon, very soon

[Intetsu]

and since you have the rule of "generality" probably nobody would have standing either...

The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Steve B]

The FCC has said copyright protections are needed to help speed the adoption of digital television.

BS. The government is determined to take back the analog spectrum and move TV to the new digital channels. All they have to do is just do it, and the entertainment industry will have to deal with life in the new reality.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Is it really the job of the government to rip up an existing, heavily used infrastructure and force the providers and users onto a new infrastructure?

I don't think HDTV is worth the price. I'm not about to plunk down $1000 for a new TV $100 for a HDTV converter, when my existing TV works good enough. In the end, I would have the same basic product, but I'd have $100 or $1000 less in savings (or $100 or $1000 more in Credit Card debt). But OOOO there are more pixels on the screen now!

Basically, if the FCC shuts down the analog TV spectrum and insists that I spend money on a new thing, I'll stop watching TV. There are millions of people like me, and somehow I don't think the broadcasters want to lose the business.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Lehk228]

I think the new HDTV mandate should use same as NTSC quality/resolution and use the additional throughput for more channels, give each licensee two adjacent channels and the government takes and reallocates the massive leftovers.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[mog007]

The FCC censors shit to a horrible degree already. If they start telling cable companies how to run things, when they arn't broadcasted over a radio wave, they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing.

As Eric Idle said:
"Fuck you very much The FCC."

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[iowannaski]

Or better yet, the digital TV mandate shouldn't specify a resolution at all. Broadcasters should be allowed to use their alloted bandwidth for either multiple standard def channels or for fewer higher def channels. Of course, that is what the mandate specifies, so I'm not going to get too bent out of shape over it,

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Zeinfeld]

BS. The government is determined to take back the analog spectrum and move TV to the new digital channels. All they have to do is just do it, and the entertainment industry will have to deal with life in the new reality.

And in the process cut off their constituents from watching the political advertising that ensures the 98% incumbent re-election rate. Not very likely.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[kelnos]

Or better yet, the digital TV mandate shouldn't specify a resolution at all.

IIRC, it doesn't, and some DTV broadcasters are indeed sending standard def signals over their allotted frequencies. The mandate from the FCC has nothing to do with broadcast quality, and everything to do with the signal type. The only requirement is that broadcasters use the newly-allocated frequencies, and that they use the digital ATSC standard, and one of the approved modulations. It's digital vs. analog here, not quality.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[networkBoy]

Funny,
As I've been reading this it's all been with the umbrella of _broadcast_ HD content, not cable.

Let me check:
From TFA: The rule requires manufacturers of television sets that receive digital over-the-air broadcast signals to produce sets that can read the digital code by July 1 of this year.
Yup, it's only over-the-air that this relates to. You're nicely off topic.
-nB

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Romeozulu]

I don't think HDTV is worth the price.

That's because you've never seen HDTV. Shit me a brick, it is amazing. It's so good, I won't watch a show unless it's in HDTV anymore.

I run MythTV with a HDTV card and $700 projector.

I'll never go back. I bought 5 HDTV cards, just in case this broadcast flag crap goes into effect. I need backups.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it really the job of the government to rip up an existing, heavily used infrastructure and force the providers and users onto a new infrastructure?

Yes. That's exactly the kind of job you need the government to do. It doesn't make it right or wrong.

This isn't about HDTV anyway. It's about switching from analog to digital.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Steve B]

Is it really the job of the government to rip up an existing, heavily used infrastructure and force the providers and users onto a new infrastructure?

Perhaps not -- but they badly need the money from selling off the old analog spectrum to wage war on terrorists who want to levy the AMT on people's private Social Security accounts, or something. Thus, the government just isn't going to delay the transition much longer than they already have, and they shouldn't be playing these pretty-please games with the incumbent media providers.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[EnronHaliburton2004]

This isn't about HDTV anyway. It's about switching from analog to digital.

Ok, I guess I confused the terms a bit. Not all digital TV is HDTV.

But still, if the FCC forces the broadcasters to switch from analog to digital, I'll need a converter for my old TV. I have no desire to buy a converter unless it's really cheap.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[iowannaski]

Yeah, that was my point.

I should have just said that instead of trying to be cute.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[number11]

>I don't think HDTV is worth the price.

That's because you've never seen HDTV. Shit me a brick, it is amazing. It's so good, I won't watch a show unless it's in HDTV anymore.

Pretty much all the channels I get on my (lo-res) TV have crap for content. How is it better that the crap be hi-res?

HDTV will cost the consumer more. You're bragging about spending close to $1000 for your HDTV setup (with the card, but not counting the rest of the price of your computer), granted that will come down, but will it come down below the $70 I paid for my current TV? HD programming will cost more to produce, which if anything will mean money stolen from the other things that make up content.

Tell me how HDTV is going to mean better programming, programming with fewer commercials, programming with more diverse points of view than the [rightwing | liberal] corporate POV, and maybe there's something to discuss.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[ChairmanMeow]

You may think paying for HDTV is worth it, but I do not, and I'd rather not be forced to pay for it. See, I don't mind it if it's just an option; you can have your HDTV, and I'll stick with my old TV, but if I have to buy a new TV just to continue watching TV, then why bother at all? I barely watch the crap that is on TV anymore anyway. It's certainly not worth it for me.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Jherek Carnelian]

I have no desire to buy a converter unless it's really cheap.

By the time the switchover is enforced, it will be really cheap, I predict less than $25. Right now, today (actually starting about a whole year ago) you can buy a 30" HDTV from wal-mart for $600. That includes two tuners and not only will it tune over the air HDTV it will also tune in digital tv over cable in the clear (not encrypted).

A couple more years and HDTV sets will be at parity with analog and the converter boxes for older TVs will be commonplace and dirt cheap.

It is all a function of volume, the cost difference between digital and analog sets is in the noise when you are building ten million units.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[poopie]

I agree completely. Any switch from analog TV to HDTV will be like trying to force everyone to get rid of their old polluting cars and buy new environmentall friendly cars -- it will take **DECADES**

I'm not going to buy a new TV just to watch HDTV, and I think I'm in the majority

Analog TV broadcasts are good enough for me.

Cable companies will find a huge sustained demand for HTDV to analog converter boxes that people will not be willing to pay extra for - they'll eventually have to give them away and charge more for premium services.

If enough people do not buy new TVs, the whole house of cards starts to fall down.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[westlake]

I don't think HDTV is worth the price. I'm not about to plunk down $1000 for a new TV $100 for a HDTV converter, when my existing TV works good enough.

CRT based wide-screen HDTV receivers with tuners are at $900 and below. There isn't much lacking technically in these sets, and most include every I/O option you could ask for. If you are accustomed to paying for HD resolution in a PC monitor and graphics card, HDTV isn't that big a leap.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it kind of worked. I now wanted to buy a HDTV tuner before they put in the broadcast flag. Whereas, I would have waited longer if the flag wasn't going to be implmented by the deadline.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[rhuntley12]

People watch TV still? Just download episodes of what you would want to watch, they are readily available and easy to get. My $1500 TV is only used to DVD's and Xbox.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Physics Dude]

So... which card are you using? Would you recommend it?

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[Technician]

CRT based wide-screen HDTV receivers with tuners are at $900 and below. There isn't much lacking technically in these sets, and most include every I/O option you could ask for. If you are accustomed to paying for HD resolution in a PC monitor and graphics card, HDTV isn't that big a leap.



Replacing the TV in the kitchen (9"), the bedroom & motorhome (13"), the living room (20") with one TV so we fight over what channel to watch isn't an option. Between Barney for the kids, the news for me and the soap for the wife, buying TV's with a combined cost of more than my car is not in my immediate or extended finiancal plan. No complete Digital TV sold today (that I could find) still won't fit on the nightstand. To qualify as a digital TV, it must include the ditital TV tuner built into the set. Digital ready does not qualify as a complete television. Neither does Digital ready that includes just an NTSC tuner. I work nights. Unless it can be time shifted, I'm not interested.

Not everyone is interested on home theatre. Basement dwelling geeks, Dorm dwelling students, RV'ers, effeciency apartment dwelling newlyweds and retirees simply don't have the space.

A 13 inch set in an RV can run half the night off a deep cycle RV battery. A digital TV isn't that power friendly. Not everyone in the campground wants to hear the generator running late into the night.

In the meantime, I'll keep NTSC for DVD rentals. It's much cheaper to buy or rent a DVD instead of taking the family to a movie.

The local broadcasters are the ones that are going to fold due to lack of advertising dollars. Almost nobody will be watching over the air TV anymore. The ROI for over the air crap programming just isn't worth the entertainment cost. I'd rather buy a couple quads or a boat instead.

Re:The FCC Is Folding With Four Aces

[EnronHaliburton2004]

CRT HDTVs start at $700. $700 will be a crappy model.

Either way, $700 is way to much to pay for Television.

Eventually, the cost may come down to a reasonable level, but I doubt this will happen before the FCC's deadline. This whole process won't work without enough consumer support.

I'm not convinced

[Low2000]

I hate to nay say but I'm not convinced. That is to say does this mean the absolute end of the worrysom evil bit in the near future? The the broadcast flag no more? What other avanues could the FCC possibly legaly persue now? What about content providors?

Re:I'm not convinced

[Anonymous Coward]

Try running your posts through a spell-checker once in a while, you might learn something...

A Victory for Common sense

[Staplerh]

Thank goodness that this fell into the lap of a judge with some common sense. Seems like he made some pretty smart comments:

"Selling televisions is not what the FCC is in the business of," Edwards said, siding with critics who charge the rule dictates how computers and other devices should work.

Edwards and one of the other two judges, David Sentelle, agreed with the critics and told FCC lawyer Jacob Lewis that the law does not give the agency specific authority to dictate how electronic devices must be made.

Good call, in my humble opinion. The FCC quite simply had no jurisdiction, they outstepped their boundaries, and they were called on it.

Re:A Victory for Common sense

[geoffrobinson]

I completely agree with you. Anyway, this belongs in the lap of the legislative branch, not a regulatory agency.

What does this mean for the future of television?

[Sheetrock]

As much as I hate to play devil's advocate, the rampant adoption of PVRs has left television in a sad state. Advertisers are no longer willing to pay top dollar for airtime out of fear that their commercials will not be watched, prompting an exec to compare fast-forwarding to theft of service in a fit of hyperbole.

Theatrics aside, the cost of quality cable or satellite programming has gone up, but the quality has been on a steady decline because of the loss of ad revenue. The FCC decision like most of their actions was made to preserve the standard of service that we've grown accustomed to, and one wonders if it will be worth recording if there is nothing at all to record.

Eyes on the Prize

[Concern]

This article is terribly vague, and it is important to note that this is NOT a ruling but what appears to be a comment (albeit a singificant, loaded one) by a judge during arguments. Still, if I put my legal spectator hat on, it does indeed look like the broadcast flag is in jeopardy.

Frankly I was kind of hoping they would try and implement it. The outcry would have been huge, and good for the larger cause.

The content trust always seems to have a pistol target on their foot, but they miss (or chicken out of their "best" ideas) too often. I was kind of looking forward to watching 300 million Americans simultaneously learn that the VCR was now illegal (metaphorically speaking), and that they now record television only at the whim of the broadcaster.

The big picture is the DMCA and the "information warfare" underpinning it. I have no idea why anybody thinks we should become an Orwellian state just so that copyright can be enforced marginally better, but then again maybe nobody does. This sometimes feels like a negotiating process. Look, we'll threaten this outrageous thing, and then this only awful thing doesn't look as bad. Or, we'll give you this minor victory (broadcast flag) and then you'll be satisfied to live in your cage.

We are actively negotiating our culture at this point. How we think about media is up for grabs. Do we think about it as something a content creator should be allowed to control to the extent of broadcast flags enforced by federal agents? Or is it something more like it's always been. Simple, de-facto free.

Actually, I don't care about a company that wants to try some crazy DRM scheme. I say let them try all they want. But what I care about is when the government and police step in to try to protect it or enforce it, let alone to the extent of chilling or even censoring speech. That's ridiculous. If users break the protection and it fails in the marketplace, OK, it was just a bad idea. It's absurd to use law enforcement to invent and prop up some nutty business model that shouldn't exist.

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absurd to use law enforcement to invent and prop up some nutty business model that shouldn't exist.

Not absurd. It may not be good, but if those corporations are the powerholders when it comes to gvoernment... what is stopping them from using police/etc. to enforce their failing business?

That's why I don't want a corporate government. Corporations should have no say in the functions of government; citizens should. And last time I checked, corporations were not citizens.

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[sowth]

... I have no idea why anybody thinks we should become an Orwellian state just so that copyright can be enforced marginally better...

The people who want the Orwellian state think they will be the leaders and therefore not only be immune to it but will also control it.

Then again, you may be right by saying no one wants it. If you look at what the entertainment cartel does, it seems they just want a total monopoly (so all the money flows to them), not an Orwellian state...

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[zordac]

Actually, I don't care about a company that wants to try some crazy DRM scheme.

Actually, you should. You mention the DMCA in your post and then say that you are worried about the government stepping in to protect it. The DMCA explicitly does this.

If a company puts DRM in place on a file and then you remove the DRM you are in violation of the law. It does not matter how crazy the DRM scheme is or how easy it is to break. The DMCA is the legal extension of DRM and is how you and I will be prosecuted if we break the DRM law.

You can find more on this at: http://eff.org/ and http://www.drmblog.com/

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

You have more faith in the US public them me.
I think they would learn from Hitler, the anti-tobacco, ect... if you were to but the broadcast flag all shows then everyone would be screaming foul but if they first put it on the history/ discovery channels. Then worked it down to broadcast and reality TV by the time people got fed up enough with it to do something about it, they would be used to it.
I mean how many people remember commercials like what was in Red Skelton it seemed like a 20min bit with 2min commercial.

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[Mycroft_VIII]

Problem is there would be no outcry over the brodcast flag (/. and simular asside, I mean popular public outcry) as long as you were alowed to make one original recording and no second gen recording, even if it was time limited to a week or two.
I wonder even if an absolutely NO recordings implementation would cause much grumbling.
People are being inundated with the concept that copying is always wrong. It started with the small, brief limits of copywright which were fair enough given the fair use limits thereon.
But incrementally this has erroded, slowly enough that only a minority has spotted the problem.
Two things to consider: How do you boil a live frog in an open pot? And why do people support a rotten empire?
The first is slowly enough he never notices till it's to late, the second is that once 'boiled' people tend to choose a known evil over the unknown wich may be evil.

Mycroft

Re:Eyes on the Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

He's saying that without the DMCA, DRM would be OK, because it would fail.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, just in case...

Finally!

[keno1929]

Wow, something that resembles intellagence comes out of the courts. Maybe this will be a new year full of good court rulings.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, something that resembles intellagence [sic] comes out of the courts.

Ah, irony. :)

(Sorry mate, couldn't resist...)

FCC sends reply

[Crystalmonkey]

In other late breaking news, the FCC has issued the following statement: "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills." Shortly afterwards, the RIAA responded with a subpeona, claiming the FCC stole this trademark speech from a copywrighted artist. The FCC was unavailable for comment.

restrictions slow adoption

[quewhatque]

"The FCC has said copyright protections are needed to help speed the adoption of digital television."

a more free environment of being able to copy and "mess with" digital broadcasts would allow more consumers to do more with what they have bought.

How would restrictions such as the broadcast flag and this about digital TVs speed up adoption amongst the public?
The only way I can see this speeding up adoption is some companies and groups (such as the MPAA) would be more readily accepting of it because their copyrights are more protected, but not to end consumers.

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[coyotecult]

If the groups don't want to produce the content due to lack of copyright protections, there won't be any digital television content to adopt maybe? And what consumer is going to want to adopt it if nobody's making shows on it?

I hate the broadcast flag, but I can see why they're saying it even if I don't really agree.

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[gubbas]

One would also think that if you lifted restrictions for local competition of cable that too would speed the adoption of digital. Look how long it took the FCC to agree that local channels could be broadcast on satilite providers. Maybe the FCC should promote free enterprise instead of limit fair use.

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[peteo]

The funny thing is, if they do not produce any content, they wont have any viewers, and with out viewers they wont have any one for advertisers to sell to, so in the end they wont make money. People have been using VCRS to record shows for the past 20 years. Which has not had a bad effect on content being created (IE. The whole Movie rental, now DVD buying thing)

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[coyotecult]

They'll keep producing content, alright. It just wouldn't be HDTV content, that's all, unless the government somehow forced the matter. Most viewers have the analog technology -- there are far, far many more TVs in homes without HDTV then there are TVs with it -- and what viewer is going to want to specifically go out and buy a HDTV if there's not enough content on that delivery method to watch? I'm with you -- there's gonna be some caterwailing when it's all set in to place, that's for sure, and we've all known the joy of using VCRs to tape stuff off of the TV without much seeming ill effect to the industry. However, I'll give it to them that the landscape has changed somewhat due to the Internet.

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[peteo]

Thats total crap. The FCC has a mandate to force all TV stations to move to HDTV. They don't have a choice. FCC wants the analog spectrum back so they can sell it to wireless companies.

"However, I'll give it to them that the landscape has changed somewhat due to the Internet."

Yes it has, but the broadcast flag with make it Worse for these companies. Heres what will happen:

You get your Super duper awesome 200 inch HDTV Your like AWESOME DUDE, I can watch the Y Files in all its glory.

So you go to your HDTV/PVR electronic guide and you look up the time for the Y files. Then your Like DAM I'm not going to be home, I have that corporate whore rally to go to. So then your like WAIT!!! I can just record it an watch it later dude. So you click on the record this show button, but instead of your PVR going all set to record the Y Files. It goes YOU TOTAL MORON, DID YOU THINK WE WOULD ACTUALLY LET YOU RECORD THIS SHOW!??

Then your like WTF, man this BLOWS! Being a corporate whore SUCKS!!! So then your like F them, I'll go down load it off the Internet with all the commercials removed. (Since there will ALL WAYS be people who will get around what ever they do)

So Instead of having there little Corporate whore record the show and be a good boy and watch all the commercials (No Bathroom breaks!) they Lost a viewer of their commercials. BRILLIANT!!!!!!!

Re:restrictions slow adoption

[coyotecult]

So Instead of having there little Corporate whore record the show and be a good boy and watch all the commercials (No Bathroom breaks!) they Lost a viewer of their commercials. BRILLIANT!!!!!!!

My roommate doesn't watch commercials when he records a show. So I doubt most people do.

It may take another suit to stop the ruling

[MattW]

But it was unclear whether the judges would strike down the FCC's 2003 rule, since doubts were also raised about whether the American Library Association and other opponents had legal standing to challenge the rule in court.

Which means that someone...say, a consumer, aided by the EFF... may need to file a suit to follow up this one in order to stop this land grab of consumer rights to be stopped.

Dream day!

[mboverload]

Once again the judicial branch is the ONLY branch of government with ANY respect for the common citizen. What a PATHETIC display.

Re:Dream day!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never had someone close to you involved in any kind of court proceeding. Judges are people too and have the same prejudices and predilicitions as anybody else.

Re:Dream day!

[xgamer04]

But for how long?

So what.....?

[mjb]

Even if the court strikes it down entirely, it'll
take the big media lobby about 30 seconds to kick
their congress-lackeys in the ass and get a law
passed to state exactly what they want/need.

Re:So what.....?

[gubbas]

I'm sorry, I hit my 30 second skip button... what did you say?

just over the internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can still copy digital TV shows, burn them on CDs and mail 'em to all my friends right? Phhhhew!

Maybe i should burn a CD of episodes of The West Wing and mail it to everyone on the board of the FCC and every member of congress...how do you think that'd go over?

Why?

[glitch0]

Why is every cable company moving to digital tv? In my experience, digital isn't really that much higher quality than analog.

The only reason I can think of is to control the media. If its digital, it allows for things like the Broadcast Flag, whereas with analog thats not possible.

Re:Why?

[Effugas]

Same bandwidth, 4x or more the channels. Not complex.

Re:Why?

[FerretFrottage]

Plus the cable companies have figured out a way to sell/rent you additional receivers in order to watch a different channel in a different room (much like satellite) with digital transmission. Once they go pure digital, you'll no longer be able to run 5+ TVs off an analog cable signal with just a splitter.

Re:Why?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, well, Dish and Direct have been doing that with satellite receivers since day one.

Re:Why?

[Phil Karn]

The obvious answer: because they can cram in far more channels with digital than with analog, and thereby sell more commercial time.

It's amazing how many digital music services still use the line "CD-quality" to describe their programs when the original CD data has been heavily compressed. It may (or may not) sound reasonably good, but by definition it is not "CD quality".

The content cartel has no trouble spooking Congress with this "CD-quality" line when they wring their hands about peer-to-peer filesharing, even though the vast majority of music and movie files on P2P are very heavily compressed. Even the legal, for-pay services like iTunes and eMusic compress heavily. (There are a few notable exceptions, such as Magnatune, which make FLAC files available for download.)

The content cartel even managed a few years back to convince Congress to add "digital transmission" to the list of rights reserved to the copyright holder, over and above those that apply to ordinary analog broadcasting. This has resulted in substantially higher royalty rates for digital music broadcasters. Perhaps somebody should point this out to any Congressmen still wondering why digital broadcasting hasn't taken off yet.

Re:Why?

[pla]

In my experience, digital isn't really that much higher quality than analog.

Then you either had a really high quality TV before the HDTV-era, or only watch NTSC-upsampled-to-HDTV-and-called-digital (actually pretty common, the majority of the broadcast "HDTV" channels do exactly that).

Personally, I went from a typical 29" NTSC TV to a mid-range 720p HDTV, and just watching progressive scan DVDs (aka 480p), I notice a drastic difference in quality. Not just some subtle improvement, but a night-and-day difference. And for console gaming, let me tell you, component-in 720p-capable games make the older generation of consoles look little better than an etch-a-sketch by comparison.

Re:Why?

[glitch0]

When I say digital, I don't mean HDTV. I get a digital signal that is decoded by the set top box on my TV. Basically, as you stated, its really just NTSC upsampled to "digital."

Re:Why?

[Student_Tech]

I think any good quality connection jump can make it obvious, when the source is good to begin with. (Composite -> S-Video, S-Video -> Component, Component -> 480p/720p/1080i )
It is kinda pointless using a component connection, such as running 720p on a NTSC signal as you mentioned. DVDs and most game systems can give you a better source signal than most any analog TV signal.

Case in point: 13" Commodore monitor. Has composite in on the front, and S-Video on the back(actually it was 2 RCAs but they were labeled and could be used for S-Video with the right passive cable).

Using Composite, and then switching to s-video on my original playstation. Night and day difference. I could see somethings looked lower quality, but flipping back and forth, saw that it was because they had intended for the signal to get blurred by the drop down to composite.

Made it kinda hard to view composite on a 27" screen at a relatives because it seemed so blurry.
Even S-Video now seems low because I run component in for everything I can, and progressive for the stuff that supports it (XBox: 480p/720p/1080i, Gamecube: 480p. DVD Player: 480p).
Heck, 1/2 the reason I run progressive is that the rescan @ 480i/NTSC stuff is annoying to me(CRT monitor) (about 15.75 KHz IIRC vs 31.5 KHz for 480p, 33ish for 1080i, and 42(45?) for 720p )

Re:Why?

[vonwilkenstein]

Yeah... Lower costs for the cable providers and higher prices for the consumer under the guise of "Improved Service" and "100% digital Quality".

Meanwhile my cable bill keeps going up and up and up, and my QOS stays the same......

Re:Why?

[Effugas]

4x the channels is bad?

Quite a few fans of Food Network, Animal Planet, Comedy Central, and Cartoon Network out there.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[mboverload]

It doesn't require lots of money to make a good TV show. You have been brainwashed into thinking a good show has to have famous people and a huge budget.

The perfect crime

[kawika]

They say the FCC doesn't have the right, but they won't stop it because the "wrong people" brought the suit? AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!

If the court would just have stopped the imposition of the July deadline we could at least have found the right people to bring this suit. As is, I'm afraid that once "broadcast flag enabled" hardware goes on sale it will be hard to change.

Re:The perfect crime

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they could get a tuner card maker to join in the suit & say what a PITA complying with that law would be, the particular harm being having to do R&D to make a card that listens to that silly thing?

Okay, so most of them probably won't, but wastn't there a group or two who developed some open source type card who might be sympathetic to this position? Or am I just dreaming here?

Re:The perfect crime

[pavera]

They never will because the people making the cards/tv's etc all want to sell more cards and tv's and this a gov't forced upgrade they see it as a boon for profits.

Re:The perfect crime

[maroonhat]

yea .... there was an artical somewhere around hear... oh wait... http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/13 10234&tid=129&tid=198&tid=188&tid=103&tid=4

Re:The perfect crime

[gabebear]

The government is forcing them to redesign their perfectly good cards to make them less atractive to consumers. The cards they have already made will continue to work and people with these older cards will be able to record shows and will not be affected by the flag.

Sooo, profits go WAY down temporarily, as they have to redesign($$) their cards AND people aren't buying the new cards until stock of the older cards is gone. The newer cards won't sell as well once the old cards are gone anyway because they don't let consumers do what they want.

I imagine most HDTV card makers will accidently leave a simple hack to turn this crap off; of course it would be against the DMCA to use it.

Re:The perfect crime

[Fallen Kell]

As is, I'm afraid that once "broadcast flag enabled" hardware goes on sale it will be hard to change.

This already is implemented in some hardware. Others are using encryption to keep the digital media "locked down" and only accessible on "certified" devices (DVI/HDMI with HDCP). These devices are already out there, you just don't hear about it on the news since the news is partly or wholly owned by the media companies already...

except that

[way2trivial]

what about all those rules re; radio interferance and cell phone & wifi antenna/design registrations.

is that not
dictate how electronic devices must be made
I don't want the broadcast flag either.. but I want the judges to make accurate statements as well...

Re:except that

[Reo Strong]

No, it is regulating how they work, not how they are made. They require that devices do not interfere with other devices (except for special cases).

Re:except that

[Gaewyn L Knight]

They still do not dictate how the devices most perform... They simply say "This is the most amount of harm they can do to the spectrum" which is their right as they are the protectors of that area.

You can't broadcast more than Xmw with this device... we don't care how you do it... but that is the limit.

The manufacturer can choose how to "protect" it's emmissions to that level.

Re:except that

[theLOUDroom]

what about all those rules re; radio interferance and cell phone & wifi antenna/design registrations.

is that not dictate how electronic devices must be made

NO IT"S NOT.

The FCC (generally) only has the authority to dictate the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
THEY DON'T TELL MANUFACTURERS HOW TO BUILD THINGS.
They don't tell them how to build Xboxes, cellphones, etc.
They tell they that you device must be designed in such a way that it will meet with their regulations on the EM spectrum.

This is all they are allowed to do, BY LAW.
If "the people" (a term I use very loosely...believe me) decide that the FCC should actually be able to tell manufactures to respect the broadcast flag, the a law must be passed saying they have the authority to do so.
This is what the cellphone industry pushed through for scanners and thing is what the television industry will have to do:
Buy a law.
Isn't democracy grand?

Re:except that

[doormat]

From a functional standpoint. The FCC cant say "all digital TVs must be equiped with CableCard capable slots". They can help out and say "all cable companies must allow end users (customers) to use cablecard capable equipment on their system" a subtile distinction but important nonetheless.

Re:except that

[Anonymous Coward]

My life is too short to read content that hasn't been proofread.

Re:except that

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's not so short that you don't have time to reply?

pitty.

Re:except that

[way2trivial]

who mandates closed captioning in all tv's over 13" screensize and the lovely v-chip?

Re:except that

[way2trivial]

?but they can say?
all screens over 13" must include the V-chip
all tv's must have the ability to decode closed captioning.

How is that different again?

Re:except that

[theLOUDroom]

who mandates closed captioning in all tv's over 13" screensize and the lovely v-chip?

Congress, at least for the v-chip, probably for closed-captioning too.

If the FCC's power's are going to be expanded, then congress must pass a law doing so, otherwise it's like to post office suddenly deciding to liscense people to use the wireless spectrum, they simply don't have the authority to do so.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[The Snowman]

Advertisers are no longer willing to pay top dollar for airtime out of fear that their commercials will not be watched, prompting an exec to compare fast-forwarding to theft of service in a fit of hyperbole.

I pay over $80 a month for cable service. I get analog channels, digital channels, digital music/radio channels, and HDTV. I watch, at most, two hours a week. At $40 per hour, fuck the commercials, I should be able to do what I want with TV as long as I don't disobey copyrights. I.e. time shifting and moving it to a different devices (e.g. my computer) should be perfectly legal, FCC be damned.

First they get upset when Janet shows an ugly boob, nevermind that 99% of the population either has boobs or gets to see them on a regular basis, then they try to make it illegal for me to use content I pay for how I choose. I think the FCC needs to go bye bye. They have long overlived their usefulness. Deregulate!

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[sabat]

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.

This has to be a joke, right? It was Yoda who said that, and Mr. Spock is not a Doctor. Dr. Benjamin Spock was a pediatrician whose books were popular in the last century.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Dalroth]

I pay for HBO. Why? HBO doesn't suck. I also record HBO and watch it later. Why? HBO doesn't suck.

I don't pay for Showtime. Why? Showtime sucks. :)

If Showtime wants to get my business, the first thing they need to do is stop sucking.

Then their problem is solved.

Same applies for all the other networks.

Bryan

Digital implants

[WickedClean]

How long til the FCC requires that we all get digital implants in our eyes with Authorization codes that allow us to look at ANYTHING?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[IANAAC]

Theatrics aside, the cost of quality cable or satellite programming has gone up, but the quality has been on a steady decline because of the loss of ad revenue.

By extension, you could say that the quality has gone down because actors demand sky-high fees, which advertisers are unwilling to pay.

Stardom is ridiculously expensive, it would seem.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 insightful

the fcc rule aims to limit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Truer words were never said, Captain Obvious!

April already?

[IAmTheDave]

Is it April 1? I mean, I just woke up from a nap, but I didn't think I was asleep for that long...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Create an Account]

...the cost of quality cable or satellite programming has gone up, but the quality has been on a steady decline because of the loss of ad revenue.

Another byproduct of this is that we continue to see more advertising per unit of content. I recently discovered that new DVDs have previews at the beginning that I cannot skip. WTF, I already paid them for their content, now I have to have commercials to watch a DVD that I own? Do I really have to rip all of my own DVDs and re-burn them without commercials?

Lame. Very lame.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anne Thwacks]

This is not the case. The quality of TV has gone down because the producers have realised that people will watch any old rubbish.

Realistically, very few people can be bothered with this. Long ago, VHS could be used to record programs and skip the ads. My SO still does this. Personally, I dont watch the box, because aside from a couple of car adverts, its not worth watching anyway.

My teenage kids complained last weekthat daytime TV causes brain damage in their friends and relatives.

Advertisers WILL pay if the adverts result in sales, and wont pay otherwise. If they think TiVo is the problem then they will soon wise up. "Days of our Lives" is the problem.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[SoCalChris]

As much as I hate to play devil's advocate, the rampant adoption of PVRs has left television in a sad state.

PVRs have nothing to do with people watching less commercials. There are more things to do now than there were 20 years ago. TV is now competing directly with console games, computer games and the internet.

the quality has been on a steady decline because of the loss of ad revenue

Originally, cable tv was advertised as being commercial free. Then the providers got greedy, and started sticking ads in. So in reality, their ad revenue is far higher than what they were originally getting.

the cost of quality cable or satellite programming has gone up

Television has NEVER been about quality programming. It's about putting on whatever people will watch. Besides, I'd argue that the tv choices now are far better than they were 20 years ago. Now at least we've got the History Channel, Learning Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc...

That clicking noise you hear...

[14erCleaner]

...is the sound of thousands of geeks cancelling their orders for broadcast-flag-free tuner cards.

Re:That clicking noise you hear...

[IWannaBeAnAC]

..is the sound of thousands of geeks cancelling their orders for broadcast-flag-free tuner cards.

Huh? You mean, if the FCC loses, then thousands of geeks would instead order a tuner card with a broadcast flag?

Re:That clicking noise you hear...

[Capt'n Hector]

I don't know about you, but I stocked up on EyeTV's for the coming nuclear winter that is the broadcast flag...

Re:That clicking noise you hear...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's the sound of Cliff selling his shares in Hauppauge.

Re:That clicking noise you hear...

[Sloppy]

No, it's just that they won't need to order anything nearly as soon. I suspect many people who are ordering these things, are ordering them for use in the distant future. I don't even know if HDTV is available in my area right now, but I was considering buying one of these cards, just in case HDTV becomes available some day.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Crystalmonkey]

And with Hitler in charge the trains were always on time.

" The FCC decision like most of their actions was made to preserve the standard of service that we've grown accustomed to..."

The government is trying to keep the industry the way it was, because the corporations are unwilling to change their business model.

There are plenty of people on /. that say the RIAA is using an archaic business model, and this is the same situation.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Maybe you have a point. But with a sig like that it is not possible to take you seriously ;)

woot

[Anonymous Coward]

(woot)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[wembley]

If that's true, why are most shows now about previously unknown twits who will sell their soul to get on TV eating llama nipples?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[GMFTatsujin]

And yet, I can't bring myself to believe that if the broadcast flag were to become a mandated reality, then studios would suddenly unleash the full potential of their creative entertainment genuis on us at last. "Now at last that piracy has been defeated, we can afford to put quality television on the air once more!" -- I doubt it.

It's in their best interests to present a facade of barely treading water all the time. That means that even if they get their way with the broadcast flag, some new evil will appear that they have to be seen to chase down.

The BF is a DODGE, guys.

say wha?

[MattW]

Prove it.

TV has always been a mixed bag. Quality is not in a decline; the vast majority of TV has always been insipid.

The "good" TV is now found on channels you pay for. HBO and Showtime are producing the cutting edge shows, which is why they tend to dominate the awards for the segment. Meanwhile, they're not showing any ads at all.

The DVD aftermarket, meanwhile, is becoming a driving force for TV development. In the end, the amount that networks pay for shows will be lower - probably down well under their development and production costs - and production companies will make that up on DVD sales. Instead of networks bearing the risk, production companies will bear the risk and reap the rewards of TV development. And we (consumers of entertainment) will reap the rewards, because people may watch bad TV, but they don't buy bad TV on DVD.

The FCC decision, meanwhile, had nothing to do with quality of TV. After all, there's more money in TV than ever - there's just fewer mass markets. The FCC just wants their broadcast bandwidth back, and they're under pressure from entertainment providers who can't handle the evolution occurring in the industry.

Re:say wha?

[ChairmanMeow]

but they don't buy bad TV on DVD.

You've never met my roommate...

Have you ever been forced to watch several DVDs of "Unsolved Mysteries"? Followed by "Frasier"? And then "Cheers"? And "Golden Girls"?

It's enough to give nightmares for weeks...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[rjelks]

All I know is that 10 years ago I paid about 12 bucks for cable. Somehow, my current bill is around $100 bucks. I've got cooler features I don't need and a lot more channels I don't want. Doesn't some of that money go towards cable programming? I don't see how it's different from people taping a show and skipping the commercials.

Okay, I do use the PVR all of the time...and come to think of it, I'll delay watching a program for 10-20 minutes just to avoid commercials. Some of the extra money I'm spending on cable has to make up the difference on the commercials. How much one viewer watching commercials worth per hour? $0.25, $0.50, $1.00??

Yeah but...

[www.sorehands.com]

Mr. Spock is way smarter than Dr. Spock!!!!!

If Dr. Spock learned to mind meld, he'd be a much better child psychiatrist.

The legislators do not have common sense....

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when a judge ruled that the Commerce Department didn't have the authority to set up the Do-Not-Call list? Within a week Congress granted them the authority. The same will happen here if we don't begin to pressure the legislature not to give the FCC the requisite power.

In short, don't breathe a sigh of relief: instead, break out your pen and start writing.

Good news bad news...

[sterno]

The problem here is that, though it appears the court would be favorable to shutting down the broadcast flag, the ALA may not have legal standing. So, the question is: who would?

They are arguing that they are consumers and as consumers they are harmed. They go on the theory that this action will increase costs, etc, which I'm not sure there's a legitimate basis for.

Really where the costs come in is in vendors who develop software/hardware that would be required to implement recognition of this flag. So you'd have to find a hardware manufacturer that was willing to fight it out. The problem is that a lot of the hardware manufacturers have ties to media, so they have a strong disincentive to mess with it.

Re:Good news bad news...

[jonwil]

What about a company like the one that makes those cool HDTV input cards for the PCs that everyone keeps suggesting people should buy whilst they still can?

There must be a company out there making TV reciever hardware that ISNT tied to big media in some way.

Re:Good news bad news...

[tilrman]

So, the question is: who would?

Any citizen of the United States, because no citizen would be exempt from the regulation.

Perhaps the judge should state how many of us it would take before we have legal standing.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Jeff DeMaagd]

What fraction of TV watchers own a PVR? I mean real estimates based on a broad poll, not an informal anecdote of how many people you know has one vs. don't. Another issue is that maybe PVRs are showing advertisers that they don't need to spend top dollar on a prime time slot if what people are watching is from some other time.

There are plenty of great TV shows that don't cost much to make. The problem is that people see fancy FX or well-known actors and they think ths show is good. It's like the blockbuster movies. $200M spent to make the movie, but only $100 spent to write it.

Donate now.

[Grabble]

Novemember 4 made me feel like a hopeless, voiceless shit. EFF makes that feeling go away a little.

Donate now. I just did. I'll wear my t-shirt with pride.

Talk without action is delusion.

Here's an impressive list of their legal victories funded by my/your donations.

This is really huge.

Re:Donate now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Novemember 4 made me feel like a hopeless, voiceless shit.

I joined the ACLU for the same reason. Fuck it, if I can't vote with my votes, I'll vote with my dollars and put some mean lawyers in there.

Re:Donate now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Novemember 4 made me feel like a hopeless, voiceless shit. EFF makes that feeling go away a little.

Not trying to troll here, but I am wondering what could have been different on November 4 so that you wouldn't feel like a voiceless shit.

If you voted for the winner, GWB, (assuming you didn't) would you feel better?

If your candidate was declared the winner, even though he got less votes, would you feel better?

If your candidate only got 1% of the vote, would you feel better?

Not sure what it would take. Seems like none of the above. The election took place, and (presumably) your candidate lost. If you voted for Kerry, well, you should be proud that your candidate had a pretty good showing, but also proud that the system worked as planned (i.e. the candidate with the most electoral votes won).

If you didn't vote, well, that might be why you feel voiceless.

Please help me understand what would have made you feel less voiceless? Even if your candidate won, you only had one vote - that's near voiceless, but there is a big difference between one vote and zero votes.

Re:Donate now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh I think it's kind of obvious why someone would feel hopeless and voiceless in this political environment. I don't think anyone needs to have it explained to them. I don't think it needs to be the subject of endless analysis. Just look around, read the news, and pay attention. Seriously. No offense intended, but if you honestly need it explained to you, then you're in a little over your head to begin with.

Re:Donate now.

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, sorry I don't get it.

As the original A/C.. I still ask.... If you got a vote, why do you feel voiceless? Because you only got one? I spoke to one woman who was working for a campaign, and she was proud to say that she felt that she had gotten many votes, just through her efforts. I thought that was pretty cool.

Not in over my head - I'm not the one who feels voiceless. I read the news. I know more about current events than most everyone that I speak to. It usually seems like a symptom of laziness when people just whine and moan about not having a voice - and then they often don't go out and vote. Go figure!

That said, I AM a supporter of the EFF AND the ACLU. But not because I feel voiceless, but because I see that as one MORE way to influence the world.

Re:Donate now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh??? "I didn't vote, so I want you to donate to EFF" ??????

Not if you vote

[bluGill]

Seriously, money only works in politics so long as you let it. When you inform yourself of the issues and then go vote you start to change that. When you go one more and talk about issues you start scaring politicians. Go one more step and join a party can get your issues on the platform and the money works for you.

Sit on slashdot and whine about congress, corruption, and big money - you loose.

Re:Not if you vote

[gabebear]

join a party can get your issues on the platform and the money works for you.[sic]

I was with you up until this point. Nobody takes anyone but Democrats and Republicans seriously and they both suck. I think the current political party system is one of biggest problems with America; you can either be disenfranchised or exploited. Democrats and Republicans have a vested intrest in seeing that no other party has a chance in any election.

Re:Not if you vote

[Joel from Sydney]

Sit on slashdot and whine about congress, corruption, and big money - you loose.

Oh well, I guess that's better than losing ;)

Re:Not if you vote

[NardofDoom]

Yes, because voting worked so well for us last November...

Re:Not if you vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, when all the parties(alright, both) in the USA support this shit, who the hell are you going to vote for?

This would never, ever be a make or break issue in any federal election in the US.

Re:Not if you vote

[bluGill]

Whats wrong with joining the Democrats or the Republicans? Fact is until you get to the national level both parties are rules by people like you and me who decide to do something.

When my parents moved the local party begged him to be president again even though the rules stated he would have to resign when the moved happened.

Course if you go to a party meeting you will discover something else: people do not agree. Even at the local level where people are self selected to be close to the party already, and there are only 10 people (representing a town of 3000!), arguments are long. Still, our government happens first in those rooms with the locals.

All I can say is good luck.

[My_guzzi]

I know I am older that the majority of /. Readers. What we have here is the last of the court rulings in favor of freedom and the limiting of special interest paid for by cash. Mickey mouse inc will fill the cash trough in Washington DC ( the whole hill will come to feed) and will get what ever copyright legislation passed they want. I am afraid that we are screwed. BTW did you vote in the last election?? I did.

Re:All I can say is good luck.

[gabebear]

What good does voting in America do? Democrats are corrupt, Republicans are corrupt, and everyone else is ignored. I voted for Badnarik in the last election.

Re:All I can say is good luck.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote in every election, but I fail to see how the result of primaries for alderman and superintendent of schools has much of an impact on federal copyright legislation.

Re:All I can say is good luck.

[dheltzel]

Democrats are corrupt, Republicans are corrupt

It seems to me that people are corrupt. The reason you think some people are not is that they are corrupt in a way that you approve of. I might have a different set of people whose corruption I approve of and that would make me think that you also are corrupt since you don't agree with my definition of corrupt.

Confused yet? Me too. I guess it's time to stop typing and click "Submit".

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Tackhead]

> Theatrics aside, the cost of quality cable or satellite programming has gone up, but the quality has been on a steady decline because of the loss of ad revenue. The FCC decision like most of their actions was made to preserve the standard of service that we've grown accustomed to, and one wonders if it will be worth recording if there is nothing at all to record.

I respectfully disagree.

The cost of delivering programming has dropped drastically, but the number of eyeballs on screens (and consequently, total advertising dollars) have remained relatively constant.

Furthermore, the ease of delivering content has meant that there are less advertising dollars available for any given hour of content.

The requirement that shareholders get a return on their investments has consequently to a need to reduce the cost of creating said programming.

We saw this when we went from a 3-channel (ABC, NBC, CBS) universe to a 50-channel (+47 channels of cable) universe. Mainstream "news" programming got the axe; why have a foreign bureau and an investigative team for 2 hours a night when you can do 15 minutes of soundbites, 15 minutes of sports, 15 minutes of weather, and 15 minutes of advertorials made to look like "human interest" or "your health" stories, freeing up the second hour per night for a couple of sitcoms?

Now that we're moving from a 50-channel universe (ABCBSNBCNNESPBSNFOXNickSciFiDiscovery and a whole bunch of other names you'll recognize) to a 500-channel universe ([thumbing through the "D"s... Discovery Homes. Discovery Queer Eye. Discovery Paranormal. Discovery Quadrupeds. Discovery Plants. Discovery Avians ... [flipflip] Disney Ages 0-2...), we have the same problem again.

And we see the same result: Cut the cost of production, shifting to reality shows over stuff that requires expensive scriptwriters, content licenses, and/or (pen/ink/CGI) animators.

You'll get this result regardless of whether you have a PVR or not. You cannot watch more than 24 hours of TV (that is, 8 hours of advertisements) in a day. The value of an ad placed on Disney Nostalgia Channel Males Aged 30-49 is going to be less than "Behind the Wonderful World of Disney: Annette Funicello Does Disneyland" on ABC in a 3-channel universe.)

"Stop!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that apply to something like the death penalty?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[SomePoorSchmuck]

one wonders if it will be worth recording if there is nothing at all to record.

Thank you, you've made my day. I can only pray that your fears come to pass, and one day television will be stripped of the extravagant sorcery which allows it to displace reality.

Kick Ass is right.

[game kid]

I welcome our upcoming legal South Park HDTV episodes with open arms. If there's such a thing as--or need for something like--an HDTV South Park episode. (Maybe we can see the actual food chunks in Mr. Hankey?)

Seriously, I worry this opposition won't get recognized. TFA does say "...it was unclear whether the judges would strike down the FCC's 2003 rule, since doubts were also raised about whether the American Library Association and other opponents had legal standing to challenge the rule in court." and when money is involved rulings like to end up going the way of The Almighty Dollar(R).

Re:Kick Ass is right.

[cayenne8]

"...it was unclear whether the judges would strike down the FCC's 2003 rule, since doubts were also raised about whether the American Library Association and other opponents had legal standing to challenge the rule in court."

So, does this bascially mean that the ruling is ruled bogus but, not stricken? If so, does this allow for people to just ignore it,since if challenged it would refer to this case and actually strike it down?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[dvdeug]

It doesn't require lots of money to make a good TV show. You have been brainwashed into thinking a good show has to have famous people and a huge budget.

It does require a lot of money to make a good sci-fi TV show. I understand Firefly was a million dollars an episode, whereas your game shows and your reality TV shows don't even have to pay for actors or many sets. Hence the popularity of the later among TV networks.

Rant

[rjelks]

One more thing...when did we except the 10 minutes of commercials that happen before a movie?? Remember when it was just some previews and some dancing peanuts? I thought the ticket bought the experience. I can deal with subtle product placement, but how much are the 5-10 commercials worth to the advertisers?

Back to TV: How much would you pay to remove commercials from the broadcast? Everyone will benefit from legal, commercial-free, TV downloads. /rant off

Re:Rant

[mailman-zero]

I rarely go to the movies anymore, and every time I go I'm reminded of why. I had tickets given to me as a gift so my Wife and I went to the movies last night. Here's what happened:

• Arrived 25 minutes early to get our choice of seats.
• As we were sitting down the soft background music stopped and a cartoon started playing. Nothing nefarious about this yet.
• The short was a commercial to watch the full version on Cartoon Network and lasted five minutes.
• I realized that we were stuck watching 20 minutes of commercials wile waiting to the movie. The commercials prevented casual conversation because they were loud and distracting.
• Finally the showtime came and there were another 25 minutes of commercials!
• After 45 minutes of straight commercials I was scolded for taking salaries away from Hollywood set builders because I download movies.

Let's just say that I'll keep watching movies but I'm probably not gonna be doing it in a movie theater again any time soon.

Re:Rant

[schwaang]

One more thing...when did we except [sic] the 10 minutes of commercials that happen before a movie??

Some of us haven't accepted it. For the moment we're "stuck" with independents and Netflix, but see below:

STOP THE PRE-MOVIE ADS!

Re:Rant

[pommiekiwifruit]

My approach is to sit down just as the other commercials end and the movie previews begin.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[double-oh three]

Um... Have you seen/talked to the average (to below average) American? If you havn't that's why you don't know the answer to your question.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, two hours a week equates to $10/hour. Second your $10 wouldn't pay the catering bill for a production company to produce one hour of television for you. Nor does it pay the cost of maintenance on the infrastructure that carries shit to your house. Nor does it pay for the satellite costs. Can you see the point? There's a lot of cost and merely because you're not effectively using your money, doesn't change the fact that it costs a lot to get tv and related services into your home.

Second, I don't think they are changing anything in what you paid for. The content you receive and your limitations on how that is used are much the same as they were (excepting timeshifting.) The difference is that they are developing technologies to enforce their prior conditions.

Finally, fuck deregulation. Deregulation is merely a way to tell the rich fuckers to go ahead and fuck the poor fuckers up the ass. Regulation is critical.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[UWC]

It doesn't require lots of money to make a good TV show. You have been brainwashed into thinking a good show has to have famous people and a huge budget.

If a show is good and gains popularity, it will attract more advertising dollars. If a portion of those extra dollars is not then forwarded to those responsible for the show's quality, there seems to be a bit of unfairness there. Unless some Creative Commons analog of television evolves in which copies of the shows are distributed for free to those who don't wish to pay, the corporate incentive (which is currently the incentive that matters) for producing good shows will always be money, and if you advocate any sort of fairness, those that make (rather than own) the show should be compensated accordingly. Of course, this is assuming that "good" necessarily results in "popular," which I suppose is not an assumption that can seriously be made looking at the current state of most popular television. That situation is an entirely different subject, though. For the purposes of this post, I'll use "good" as functionally synonymous to "having a large viewership," since generally even a great show will not be produced for long without satisfactory ratings, regardless of its production cost--if a more expensive but also more popular show can be aired in its place, it will be.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Snommis]

I agree in part, but I pay for my TV (DirecTV, that is). Advertisements will always be there - in fact, more that ever. They just work them into the shows via product placement. Maybe the age of the "30-second spot" is over, and other advertisement should take it's place.

Ad-blocker fo TVs, anyone? Picture a plain white cylinder with red "X" in the hand of an actor in place of a Pepsi...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Rude Turnip]

OTOH, Showtime shows a lot more late-night soft core pr0n than HBO. HBO would suck in that one regard :)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[tarnin]

Simple, because people are already goaded into thinking that they DO in fact need big names and over priced "stars" for a show to be good. People with real talent who are no names are getting screwed and not even given a real chance most of the time and end up having to shill themselves out to reality shows to get any kind of a break.

Whats really sad though is people with any talent are not signing up for these craptastic things.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[normal_guy]

The industry has not yet caught up with the technology, a common state of affairs. The FCC may have had comsumers in mind when bowing to content industry pressure, but that industry had only one point of view. Surely Sony, Tivo, etc. and the consumers themselves have something else to say about how we really want to watch TV. If the FCC can regulate the broadcast flag or HDTV itself, why couldn't it demand PVR manufacturers to automatically record timeshift-specific ads broadcast in the HD subchannels. Same flagging idea, but with time range and channel stamped.

What are you saying

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a portion of those extra dollars is not then forwarded to those responsible for the show's quality, there seems to be a bit of unfairness there."

Its not clear what you're saying.

Are you claiming that if people copy shows and pass them around, they're depriving somebody of money? Describe how that happens, keeping in mind that the show is broadcast for anyone to tape and watch.

Sorry. I don't see the loss at all. I'm not being devil's advocate here. I just don't see anyone deprived of anything.

Re:What are you saying

[UWC]

I was saying that if a show is profitable, then the fair increase in wages of those involved in its production would make the show more expensive. If a show becomes successful, then it becomes expensive. I was responding to the assertion in the parent of my other post that good shows are not necessarily expensive. While that's often true initially, if a show becomes popular, advertisers invest more, and if previous popular shows are valid precedents (see Seinfeld), then the actors and others involved will be paid more, thus making the show more expensive.

Re:What are you saying

[UWC]

I suppose I should note that I did not intend at all to address recording or distribution of the show after its initial airing. I've no problem with fair use, and my interpretation of such use is reasonably broad.

I'm So Relieved

[SteelV]

I have not watched a commercial since I got my Moxi DVR several months ago. I don't own it, Adelphia does, and I was dreading the day when they would come and take it back, saying that DVRs were no longer allowed!

Hopefully this decision slows down the FCC a bit, and lets me keep watching TV commercial free!

The one downside I've noticed, though, is that I miss some interesting commercials. The new T.V. show coming up, The Contender, looks interesting, but I hadn't heard about it because I didn't see more than the flashed title as I was flying through the blitz of commercials! Wonder how much else I'm missing...
Probably not much?

No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Cryofan]

THey WANT us sheeple to live in America, as many of us as possible. But what they DON'T want is non-consuming sheeple. That is probably why they do whatever they can to stop universal healthcare and to make marijuana as illegal as possible. They don't want us living back in the hills, growing and smoking weed, eschewing the consumer lifestyle, and only coming down out of the hills to get medical care. To them, we are just livestock on the consumer ranch, and every rancher wants his livestock as productive as possible. /conspiracy theorist...

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very close to a full understanding.

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Anonymous Coward]

But what they DON'T want is non-consuming sheeple.

kind of implicit in your statement, but let me hit the nail on the head:

wherever money exchanges hands, there is a profit to be made.

If people do something naturally that denies your company its business and therefore profit, you work to force people to behave otherwise. You demonize that behavior, then lobby government for industry regulation, and then you sell your own version of whatever product or service.

(For example, think multimedia, pharmaceuticals and supplements, communication services, etc. Except for prostitution, heh.)

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[jayed_99]

Didn't I see you on some X-files episode?

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[aichpvee]

But what they DON'T want is non-consuming sheeple. That is probably why they do whatever they can to stop universal healthcare and to make marijuana as illegal as possible.

Maybe if you showed them how many twinkies you can consume while smoking pot they'd change their minds.

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're living back in the hills and eschewing consumer lifestyle, why do you need consumer healthcare? Those ideas seem opposed to me. Let me do what I want but buy my medical care when I hurt myself doing it.

I'm all for legal marijuana. I'm also all for stopping nationalized heathcare. And I don't care if you live in the hills or not.

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're living back in the hills and eschewing consumer lifestyle, why do you need consumer healthcare?

He's clearly advocating socialized healthcare, which is the opposite of consumer healthcare.
We're closer to "consumer healthcare" now. You know all those drug ads that say "ask your doctor about [whatever is being advertised]"...

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[recursiv]

Wow... you really get it. Too bad all those sheeple are too stupid to understand the transcendent brilliance of what you said.

But seriously, there may be some kernel of truth to what you say (I think there is) but you have really over-simplified it and made some inexplicable leaps of logic. For example what does any of that have to do with weed? I don't understand why according to your theory of society, "the man" would want to keep weed illegal. Presumably if they could sell it, they could make a lot of money.

Most of the people I see talking about the "consumer lifestyle" in this country seem to it just as much as the next person. I think your real issue is that you're a pothead (nothing wrong with that) and you wish it was legal, and generally want to stick it to the man. And hey, that's cool too.

I just think the idea that there is any chance of everyone going up in "the hills" and becoming a pot farmer is pretty remote, even if it were encouraged and government subsidized. I doubt they're worried about that.

PS in my opinion, use of the word sheeple makes you sound condescending. Maybe you are, maybe you're not.

Re:No, it will be illegal to NOT consume

[Cryofan]

>>>>>>>>
"Wow... you really get it. Too bad all those sheeple are too stupid to understand the transcendent brilliance of what you said."
>>>>>>>>>>...
Guess I can see where this is going....

>>>>>>>>>
But seriously, there may be some kernel of truth to what you say (I think there is) but you have really over-simplified it and made some inexplicable leaps of logic.
>>>>>>>>>

I wrote a /. post, not a book...

>>>>>>>>>
For example what does any of that have to do with weed? I don't understand why according to your theory of society, "the man" would want to keep weed illegal. Presumably if they could sell it, they could make a lot of money.
>>>>>>>>>

"The Man" already makes a lot of money on weed. He aint changing nothing! Weed makes you philosophical, less ambitious, which in turn makes one less inclined to rat race for as many years as one otherwise might. All drugs are different and have different effects on the person.

>>>>>>>>>>
Most of the people I see talking about the "consumer lifestyle" in this country seem to it just as much as the next person.
>>>>>>>>>

This is too complicated a matter to deal with here....

>>>>>>>>>
I think your real issue is that you're a pothead (nothing wrong with that)
>>>>>>>>>

Haven't smoked it in many years....

>>>>>>>>
and you wish it was legal,
>>>>>

yes

>>>>>>>>>>
I just think the idea that there is any chance of everyone going up in "the hills" and becoming a pot farmer is pretty remote, even if it were encouraged and government subsidized. I doubt they're worried about that.
>>>>>>>>

I didn't say "everyone". America is being run like a business, specifically a ranch where we are the cattle. Every business owner wants to maximize his profits. Now, if there were universal healthcare in America, as there is in just about every other western industrialized nation, SOME people would opt out of the rat race, not all, just more than there are now. Add legal marijuana to the equation, and more would. Not good for profits.

>>>>>>>>
PS in my opinion, use of the word sheeple makes you sound condescending. Maybe you are, maybe you're not.
>>>>>>>>>

Oh, I AM condescending! And I should be......

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Rude Turnip]

I have a JVC region 1 DVD player, which I assume is a typical, mainstream player. Although it won't let me FF through previews, it does let me get around them in a way...perhaps it will work for you:

When the commercials start, press the stop button, taking you to the player's "standby" screen. Pressing play (or is it the menu button) then takes me into the film's main menu.

MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea if this lucid, simple, and surprisingly-understandable explanation is correct, but hey, it sounds all authoritative and stuff.

What a silly argument

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second your $10 wouldn't pay the catering bill for a production company to produce one hour of television for you"

By that silly reasoning, a loaf of bread should cost $10M, because you can't set up a factory, hire workers, and ingredients for $2. And cars should cost $1B each, since you can't build factories, do testing and design, pay workers, advertise for just that $25K.

THe gentleman in question isn't claiming that he's paid for the entire show. He's saying he's paid enough money into the entertianment "system" that he should have the right to do with the programs what he wants, short of selling the copyrighted works to someone else.

That's reasonable and fair.

A copyright isn't about guaranteeing income, its about limiting distribution in a very narrow and specific way.

Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

If I record a show on my old VCR, which is wearing out, and I then download a good copy from the Internet am I doing something illegal?

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If you downloaded the copy without first recording it, that would be legal too. Copyright law addresses distribution, not receiving. And even so, without re-selling a recorded copy or using to attract traffic or in some other way as part of a commercial enterprise, it's still not certain that it's against copyright law.

None of which has the slightest bit to do with the regulation under discussion, by the way.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what little I know from hearing the industry complain about CDs/mp3s and game roms.

Yes. Unless you did it yourself it is illegal.

Otherwise you would (and you do) have people complaining that they should be entitled to a CD quality audio version of the song, just because they have the exact same version on an LP.
Or they own the VHS and try and justify the downloading of a higher quality.
ect.
While I personally don't care, I think the industry (MPAA/RIAA/Game Industry) does.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, watching the show twice from an old VCR tape is illegal. Then you aren't "time-shifting" you are archiving. The only truly legal way to watch your old shows is to buy the DVDs (assuming they came out), or by purchasing a license from the distributor. So you're probably breaking the law anyway.

All of which is insanely stupid, so people break the law all the time.

Chief Judge Harry Edwards

[maotx]

It's nice to see a Judge stand up for what he believes is the best for the people and what he believes is right without allowing the, I'm sure, intense pressure affect his decision. I wish more Judges had his perspective.

Just a little background about the Judge who told the FCC that they "crossed the line":
Chief Judge Harry Edwards
Born: New York, New York-November 3, 1940
His grandfather, a lawyer, had the most influence on him growing up and taught him several lessons for life. A speech by Marian Wright Edelman, as he describes, is fairly similar to his grandfather's lessons.

• LESSON I: No person has a right to feel entitled to anything for which he has not worked. Frederick Douglass once said that "men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get." Even the most talented among us must struggle to achieve. Probably the most important thing that my grandfather ever told me was that I should never have to rely on anyone else to assess my work. What he meant was that, if I kept my standards high enough, I always would be my own most severe critic, and I would never kid myself about the quality or significance of my work.
  
• LESSON II: Never work just for money. In amplifying on this point, my mother used to tell me that money alone does not give satisfaction, nor does it prove personal worth. We see this every day, for we are the richest nation on earth, yet we have among the highest rates of incarceration, drug addiction, and child poverty in the world.
  
• LESSON III: Do not be afraid of taking risks or of being criticized, especially in defense of goodness or in pursuit of justice. And, as my grandfather said, never be afraid of making mistakes; it is the way you learn to do things right. Dr. Benjamin Mays, the former President of Morehouse College, said it best: "It's not failure that is a sin, it's low aim."
  
• LESSON IV: In a decent society, the fellowship of human beings is more important than the fellowship of race and class and gender. This moral precept was a principal teaching of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Pulled from here

Re:Chief Judge Harry Edwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Lesson 1, and 4. And to think the Democrats who supposedly worship MLK absolutely and shamelessly violate both rules and heap scorn on what MLK tried to accomplish. The 'rev' Jackson is a race-baiting poverty pimp whose entire montra is victimology, race, class, and gender warfare. But what do you expect from a bunch of communists, statists, and socialists who despite trying to force their dogma on the rest of the world continue only to show just how bankrupt and worthless their supposed "ideas" are. The Left is not about protecting the people's freedoms. It is about the SUBJUGATION of peoples to the will of the Leftist elite! And unfortunately much of the slashdot morons have been raised on a steady diet of leftist bullshit all their lives and think liberalism is the savior of humanity.

Ironic that the courts, which are APPOINTED by the same branch of gov't (executive) the blow-hard liberals and leftists decry so much is what is protecting the interests of the people. Fancy that.

Movie theaters too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a race to the bottom. As soon as one player lowers their prices by introducing ads, the others must follow suit or go out of business.

That said, why is it that movie tickets used to cost $6 without ads? :)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[AvitarX]

So you propose for the money I spend now on cable a good solution is to get 3 networks (not even)?

What we really need is aeverything to be PPV and have On demand.

Free cable pay for the few shows I want to watch, of course that won't work eith because people will watch much less TV driving up the price.

I really wish they would just not let me FF the commercials and get rid of the loud banner adds (FX) and let me time shift however I pleased.

I didn't get Tivo to skip adds, it is a perk, but I got it to watch my TV when I wanted.

I want to know why the FCC thinks it is OK to broadcast degenerate worthless trash into my house (trading spouses) but not let me see a tit at 3 AM or heaven forbid someone say "fuck".

What we need is more subsidized media for adults (look at what the BBC puts out, it's awsome).

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[jpetts]

the first thing they need to do is stop sucking.

Isn't there a well known and very profitable business model built on sucking? (Of course, the sucking has to stop sometime...)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[modecx]

Because it's kind of like a car crash on the other side of the highway. Morons can't help but to slow down and look. Even if they cost more to make, it would simply be a bigger and more spectacular crash... There's a point of diminishing returns. Presumably because as IQ goes to infinity, it requires a bigger and bigger fireball (or llama nipples, or whatever) to facinate the subject. They're content to captivate only the lowest common denominator.

Personally, I'd probably sit down and watch a bit if they were eating giant mutant llama nipples... Especially if they were at least the size one's head.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Tripster]

I recently discovered that new DVDs have previews at the beginning that I cannot skip. WTF, I already paid them for their content, now I have to have commercials to watch a DVD that I own?

Oh it gets better for us in Canada, I purchased Deadwood Season 1 yesterday from Future Shop (Canadian chain now owned by Best Buy), I come home and stick in disc 1, up comes a 2 minute long HBO promo saying how great HBO is and look at all these shows we have waiting for you ... Thing is ... HBO is NOT available in Canada, at least not legally, it is actually illegal to subscribe to it here.

Not that it stops some subscribing mind you, funny how satellite footprints don't honour the borders :)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[jokell82]

If Showtime wants to get my business, the first thing they need to do is stop sucking.

I see your "showtime sucks" and I raise you "Huff." See it.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Hate to tell you this, but TV sucks now, and TV sucked then. TV has always sucked. 99% of all TV is crap, and was crap. Except for "The Golden Girls." God they were hot.

Nothing is new. The invention that was supposed to bring culture, arts, and knowlege into the living rooms of the average people hasn't done anything like that. It has turned out just like everything else - you have to sift through a lot of chaff to find the wheat. It's there, but it's hard to find.

North Korea resemblance

[kevinmf]

I don't know if anyone else will agree with me, but this whole requiring manufacturers to make new TVs with this copyright bit reminds me of an article I read in NY Times magazine a couple years ago.

In North Korea, all TV / Radio communications are controlled by the government and all TVs and radios brought into the country are only allowed to receive the state channels, and not any broadcasts being made from South Korea or elsewhere. Even TVs brought form China are rewired / have their wires cut as they enter the country. Granted some people can fix that, most do not from what I understand.

This copyright bit thing - forcing manufactures to incorporate it into their new sets -at least from an abstract point of view, reminds me of that.

Anyone else agree?

Re:North Korea resemblance

[Detritus]

The Germans did something similar during World War II. They tried to replace all of the normal radios with crippled radios that could only receive broadcasts from the official government radio network. They didn't want their citizens listening to the BBC and other "subversive" sources of information.

Re:North Korea resemblance

[gabebear]

I haven't heard about this before, but I know it's illegal to listen/watch anything but the state's broadcasts

links:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/24/nk orea.tv/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.st m
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/north_korea_tv_ nation.htm
http://nkfreedom.org/important_nk_topics.html
http://web.amnesty.org/

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[iowannaski]

The rampant adoption of PVRs? They are attatched to what, 5% of TV's in the country?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[pboyd2004]

No what we really need is ala carte programing where we can actually pick exactly which channels we want and the networks get money from the providers based on the number of subscribers to that channel.

Hopefully that will force networks into actually trying to produce good shows in order to get subsribers

Of course that would cut into almighty Time Warner's bottom line...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

> quality has been on a steady decline

Steady decline? Quality has been near-zero across the board for 30 years, except for a few sparsely-distributed bright spots. They've been scraping the bottom of the barrel for most of my lifetime.

The problem isn't budgets; the problem is writing. Good writers can make a great show, regardless of budget. Bad writers (or good writers who are out of ideas) can make bad shows regardless of budget. Budget doesn't determine quality, writing does.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[ksheff]

who says that anyone was watching them before? It's not like you couldn't switch channels or go to another room.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[MrWa]

If Showtime wants to get my business, the first thing they need to do is stop sucking.

That is strange. The amount of sucking involved is what gets Cinemax my business.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[kelnos]

Boo hoo. So the old ad-supported business model is failing. They need to find another model. That's the same thing everyone on here tells the music industry. Technology changes how people do business. Things like the broadcast flag and DRM are merely feeble efforts made by the content industry to prop up their dying business models.

Notes from an information law student.

[cmclean]

This morning's oral arguments (along with a bunch of other stuff) were blogged by an "informal law student" here. Some useful insight into what's happening behind the news reports.

Re:Notes from an information law student.

[Anonymous Coward]

Informal? thanks a bunch!

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[tlmatters]

Huh? I find that reasoning hard to apply to my experience.

Ever since we bought our Tivo 3+ years ago, I watch far more T.V. than I used to, plus I find the quality of the shows going up in many areas. I don't care for all of the immoral crap that can be found on T.V. these days, but there are plenty of other quality programs:

Lots of SciFi (well, I am a nerd), History Channel, Discovery Channel, series such as 24, E.R., etc.

Advertisers need to stop whining about commercial skipping PVRs and instead spend that energy innovating... banner ads during shows, small animated bugs during shows much like the channel logos that advertise upcoming programs, etc.

I would say that on average I probably watch about five times as much T.V. now as I used to. Although I fast forward through commercials, I do 'watch' them as I am scanning for the resumption of my program. Quite often I will backup and dip into a commercial for something that I am interested in... a new card model, something my wife might like, etc.

You could say that the PVR is the advertiser's best friend with a consumer like me... I can't be alone in this type of behaviour.

That is false

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even sue the government except in specific cases where Congress passed a law saying that you could. So your only choice is to ask for a declaratory judgement... but you can't do that unless there is an actual controversy. Unless the government has threatened to do something to you there are no grounds. So the ACLU and crew go out and find victims and convince them to fight the law in return for free legal representation.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[porcupine8]

Yeah, but what percentage of TV shows have actors these days? Networks are saving loads with reality TV.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Zangief]

Yes, but only if you are doing a futuristic scifi show. If you set your show in the actual time, and use just the necessary effects, you can have a good show for not so many money.

Examples: X-Files, The Twilight Zone, etc.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

GOD, this attitude pisses me off.

Sorry. I do theater semi-professionally. Semi-professionally because I can't afford to do it full time (that's a little thing I call foreshadowing).

There are some tremendous actors out there in theater, in film, that you've never heard of. I can name 50 people I've worked with who are more talented than all but the very upper echelon of Hollywood types. I know directors who can do REALLY amazing things, and writers who can write gripping dialogue. And none of them make it.

Why? Because NOBODY'S F#CKING WATCHING!!!! When is the last time you went looking for an independent film, rather than seeing the latest well-marketed film from MGM, Mirimax, or Disney? Sure, there are occasional exceptions, but even those turn on one really catchy, marketable idea (frankly, the acting in Blair Witch Project was subpar--it was the premise and cinematography that was interesting).

Yeah, on a technical level, it's not all that hard to throw something together. As I said, there are some tremendously talented people out there who will work cheap. I could probably put together something better written, better acted, and more interesting than the average sitcom on a tenth the budget. But who will watch it?

"Oh, the networks will have the incentive to pick it up!" Yeah, right. Like I said, when was the last time YOU saw an indy film?

Marketing is a big deal. Getting sponsorship (even cheap shows will have some costs) is a big deal. Getting airtime is a big deal. Most importantly, getting an AUDIENCE is a big deal. Noticible stars make a big difference. "From the producers of" makes a big difference. People are largely sheep--they want something familiar before they tune in. Like it, hate it, but the "free marketplace of ideas" still rewards well funded mediocrity over poorly marketed genius. Watch the Oscars this weekend if you don't agree. Titanic, you may recall, took home 11. Heck, Arrested Development is on the verge of being canceled, despite being arguably the best comedy on network television and actually being on a big network in a decent timeslot.

The Shield on FX is a better show than NYPD Blue has been for the last 3 years, but it doesn't make nearly the same audience. And The Shield is THE success story for independent TV.

It may be a myth that it takes huge amounts of money to make a good show. But it's assuredly NOT a myth that it requires lots of money to make a show people will watch.

The side of the road is littered with better shows than most of the crap that's on your TV in primetime. You want to do something about it? SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENTS. Watch TV shows that TV giude doesn't put on the covers. See what's on networks that aren't top of the line ("Pilot Season" on Treo was tremendous). Do your own research on what's good instead of checking out what you see in the paper as "the thing to see".

When you're willing to do that--when you're ACTUALLY OUT THERE supporting (with your eyeballs, your time, and your dollars) the independents, kindly refrain from kvetching about "other people" being brainwashed.

Timing is everything

[flinxmeister]

So let's say the FCC is allowed to enforce this rule on a technicality or whatever.

Doesn't mean it won't come up again. And it doesn't mean that it won't eventually be struck down. And if it takes a couple years to do such a thing, all these HDTVs will be out on the market using the older technology. The 'content producers' will have shot themselves in another foot. They can't try any new tricks due to the large installed base. And by then the average consumer might be savvy enough to start demanding flag unaware televisions.

They'll really have no choice but to remove broadcast flags altogether. Sure, it's alot of ifs, but they could have royally blundered their diabolical plan for eeevil world domination through their own over reliance on lobbying the FCC.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Leroy_Brown242]

"I want to know why the FCC thinks it is OK to broadcast degenerate worthless trash into my house (trading spouses) but not let me see a tit at 3 AM or heaven forbid someone say "fuck"."

I hate it when I see someone's head getting blown off on a show, then watch the news and see piles of dead bodies, but I can't see a nipple, or someone's middle finger flipping someone off.

So angering.

If I were a parent, I don't think this logic would hold up for me. I'd rather have my kids looking at tits, than thinking it's okay to kill people.

decide urself

[Anonymous Coward]

today, a news talked about broadcast flag here @ /.

now, we are talking about court appeal.

tommorow, we will talk about another thing that could limit our freedom

Re:decide urself

[Anonymous Coward]

day after tomorrow, we are to be talking in english

Re:Kick Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess now it's going to be worth the money to keep my old VCRs running...Now might be a good time to stock up on drive belts!

not so sure...

[sum.zero]

i feel that people were willing to put up with a certain amount of advertising on their tv at one point. the networks and cable operators realized how much money was to be made and started to place too much emphasis on the advertising [eg shows that are actually commercials, annoying animated logos and ads disrupting portions of the screen, fast forwarding of credits and split screens, ad nauseum]. eventually people staretd to fight back.

the networks abused their position and people are voting with their wallets. they are buying technology that allows them to express their disgust in the only way they really can.

the situation is similar on the internet, but without the legacy of corporate control. should we hate pop-up blockers? no? good.

sum.zero

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[bnenning]

As much as I hate to play devil's advocate, the rampant adoption of PVRs has left television in a sad state. Advertisers are no longer willing to pay top dollar for airtime out of fear that their commercials will not be watched

One word: tough. More words:

There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

- Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Copyright protection my ass....

[gillrock]

The FCC has said copyright protections are needed to help speed the adoption of digital television.

Copyright protection will CERTAINLY NOT help speed adoption to DTV. Ceasing production of analog 4:3 sets and only selling DTV sets and thus lowering costs for DTV sets will though.

Some people, myself included, just can't see spending that amount of money on a TV set that doesn't provide long term dollar investment like an analog set does. Maybe if they only manufactured the DTV sets, the consumer would get better quality goods for their hard earned dollar???

I was hopeing they'd wait

[DarkOx]

If we wait to bring our major suit against the FCC and the media companies and perhaps even the hardware manufacturers, hell might as well name them all and the court sort it out. We'd potentially have a class action that almost everyone in the USA could participate in. The outcome of such a huge suit would have landmark legal implications that would hard to over turn and sare future executive organizations from attempting to userp(sp?) authority that only congress and by extention the voters have. It would scare hardware vendors away form getting on board with DRM standards that might abrige fair use. It would economicly tie the hands of the media giants for at least a little while as they dished out the settlement.

I really feel that 90% of America's problems today are directly attributed to the total lack of independant media. I know I know anybody can get a web blog seen by millions. Trouble is the only people who read such blogs mostly already subscribe to that way of thinking and you don't get the reenfocement from others because you all ready different blogs and can't talk about them with your friends for that reason. Blogs and the internet are just a wisper in a thunder storm compared with the message the select few who control the papers, big lable music, movies, televison, magazines, raido, mass marketed books, video games, general software, etc, can proffer. That message is a pretty f***ed up and scary one too the more you start to disect it. This is the source of most of the money in politics too, look at opensecrets.org to see how much big media has pumped into your candidate. Then there is the matter of endorsements and exposer that are held as carrots for politicians as well. We NEED TO TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF MEDIA and by extension politics if we are ever going to get back a sane America. The Judiciary is the best branch to start the work from sense the media has the least control of them.

Re:I was hopeing they'd wait

[Anonymous Coward]

U-S-U-R-P-ed.

Your Welcome.

If digital TVs were cheaper, I'd adopt faster.

[purduephotog]

Therefore, the FCC should convince the rest of the government to subsidize the cost of a 7000$ plasma 70" TV to about 299$. Then I'll buy it, and I won't give a rats ass (gnats-ass?) about the broadcast flag.

Yep, I can be bought.

(There's always my precioussssssss StarGate DvDs...)

Re:If digital TVs were cheaper, I'd adopt faster.

[wiredlogic]

We can call it the HDTV divide... Surely we can't let millions of middle-class Americans be priced out of their Right to watch HD television for an affordably small investment. The Government needs to start a new entitlement program right away.

Re:If digital TVs were cheaper, I'd adopt faster.

[tepples]

So what happens when the analog TV broadcasts cease in 22 months? Will you get your ATSC tuner that can output Macrovisioned composite video?

Re:If digital TVs were cheaper, I'd adopt faster.

[SlimFastForYou]

$7,000 non-essential device...
$6,700 in government subsidies per each $7000 non-essential device...
300,000,000 Americans who want said non-essential device...
equals.. $2,010,000,000,000 (that's two-trillion and 10 billion dollars)

Well, considering the budget for Fiscal Year 2006 is $2,130,000,000,000 , we would only need to cut governmental spending in all other areas by, oh, only about 95%. I hope you don't happen to work for the Fed govt, because you can expect a pay cut or two =).

Pretty good idea. No wonder it was modded insightful heh.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[HiredMan]

the rampant adoption of PVRs has left television in a sad state

The state of TV has left TV in a sad state.
Do you really think the long slow sad decline of television is because of PVRs that have just gained in popularity in the last few years? If you look up a primetime TV schedule from a couple years ago is it really going to look SO much better than this year's schedule?

It started with cable, and then the addition of additional neworks (FOX, WB, UPN) diluting the brand power of the bg three and PVRs are just the latest thing to which the big networks have ignored for too long and then reacted to poorly. When there are more places for money to go there is less money to go around.

Is forbidding people to record crappy shows going to make those shows better? No, it will drive people to DVDs, movies on demand (why do you think your cable company really wants you to have a PVR?), video games, computer content and maybe, just maybe, watching less TV.
If there is an effect that PVRs have on TV habits is that (at least for everyone I know) chnages the way you relate to TV. You watch when you want to - schedules, which show follows what slot, "Must See TV" mean very little anymore. As much as networks might not like this I think freeing the grip TV has on Americans is a good thing.

Despite what they seem to think nothing guarantees networks a profit or even viewers. Just because you are a three letter network doesn't mean you can't become obsolete.

=tkk

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Grishnakh]

If you don't want the features or the channels, why are you paying $100/month for it?

I have basic analog cable (around 70-80 channels), and I pay $5/month. I also pay $50/month for my cable internet (which is why my cable TV is $5 instead of $15). I don't watch it all that much either, but $5 isn't too hard to afford, and is a lot better than putting up a rooftop antenna.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[pla]

why are most shows now about previously unknown twits who will sell their soul to get on TV eating llama nipples?

Because, pathetically enough, a lot of people (who fit a niche demographic, which while considerably smaller than "everyone", can still bring in big bucks) will watch unknown twits eating llama nipples.

TV stations don't just make crap to avoid dead-air. They take a few risks per season, and stick with 99% formulaic crap-that-sells. If that means selling llama-nipple-eating, as stupid as it sounds, you can bet some station will carry it... In some cases, changing their entire format to carry it (MTV abandoning actual videos to turn itself into the all "real life"/"road rules" channel a few years back as an example).

What a catch 22...

[doormat]

The FCC stepped over the line.

But consumers might not be able to challenge the FCC in the court system (since they have to prove they were damaged or harmed somehow).

Perhaps I should start a company that will make HDTV capture cards, and the broadcast flag implementation is costing me money, then I'll sue the FCC and claim they're harming my copmany.

Re:What a catch 22...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about starting a company that makes HDTV capture cards but decided not to because of the broadcast flag. Looks like the FCC owes me some cash...

Re:What a catch 22...

[stinerman]

Actually putting a "small business owner" spin on this might be just the kick in the pants that congress needs to get off their duffs and fix this.

I'm sure you've seen them trip over each other trying to "help small business". They don't give two shits about your fair use rights, but invoke small business and they'll start in on their fire and brimstone rhetoric. Indeed, frame the debate in terms of hurting small business instead of terms of civil rights and you might just get their attention.

Legislative Malfeasance

[gmcraff]

I propose that the crime of legislative malfeasance be codified into law.

Whereas:

• The passage of laws, rules or regulations in direct contravention of the limitations of government codified in a written constitution violates the contract between the governed and the government;
• The passage of laws, rules or regulations in excess of the granted authority of a government body is an offense against the liberty of every citizen;
• The passage or implementation of offending laws, rules or regulations requires the complicity of numerous private citizens, independantly or in collusion, exercising governmental powers in excess of their granted authority;
• The passage and/or implementation of offending laws, rules or regulations requires manhours, funds, materiel, etceteras, that would have better been lawfully employed in pursuit of the legitimate powers of government;

...and furthermore...

• The government possesses no independant funds or means, but rather holds taxpayer money, and therefore cannot recompense the whole of the citizenry but by giving back their own money;
• The government cannot provide compensation in the form of extra services to the whole of the citizenry because this would require taxpayer funding;
• The cessation of offending activities on the part of the government in no way recompenses the citizenry for the offense committed against it;

...the crime of Legislative Malfeasance shall apply to

• members of legislative bodies that vote for the offending laws, rules, or regulations in excess of the authority and powers enumerated in a constitution;
• members of executive branches of government that have signatory or veto authority on the offending laws;
• civil servants in managerial positions that were complicit in the implementation of the offending rules or regulations.

Any citizen that is subject to, must comply with, or is otherwise compelled by a unconsitutional law may bring suit in any superior court. The defendents (necessarily all complicit persons, no subsets) may appeal to higher superior courts. The remedies specified if the suit is upheld are as follows:

• County superior court or federal court: The court costs of the plaintiff shall be borne equally by the defendants.
• State superior court or federal appeals court: The court costs of the plaintiff shall be borne equally by the defendants, and the defendants governmental positions shall be openned for re-election at the next general election.
• Supreme Court: The court costs of the plaintiff shall be borne equally by the defendants, and the defendants positions are immediately vacated and openned for special election.

There. That'll slow down the inexorable grind of government expansion.

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[TGK]

You need to run for congress. That said, I'm fairly sure that voting for this law would, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the bill in question.

You're talking about passing a law which gives the judicial brance the ability to impeach (allbeit once a charge has been brought) AND convict. As is the court's only role is to provide a presiding officer in the event of an impeachment trial.

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

If you really want to to stop the inexorable grind of government expansion, start a constitutional convention in your state and try to fix the damned commerce clause.

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[dmforcier]

Meta-laws to regulate the making of laws?

What do you think the Second Amendment is really all about?

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[mlilback]

That would seem to work very well with my proposed solution to government expansion. All laws should have a 5 year expiration date. Then congress would be too busy renewing the important laws to bother with the stupid shit.

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[Anonymous Coward]

there wouldn't be any stability in the country, because the next government can pass completely different laws from the previous one, and everybody will have to incur costs to comply with the laws.

Imagine the costs to electronic industry if they have to change their compliance every 5 years when FCC changes over. (that's just an example, I know FCC doesn't create laws)

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but it'd be nice to have better nonviolent solutions...the 2nd is kinda the nuclear option.

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[mwa]

... I know FCC doesn't create laws ...

Well, we won't really know that until this decision is rendered, will we?

Re:Legislative Malfeasance

[dark_requiem]

Ah, if only you (or myself) had been at the constitutional convention to work that one in. Would've saved us a lot of problems. Not too many people would promise to lower taxes and fund more programs if they knew they could be jailed for bullshiting people out of billions (not that they should have the power to tax anyway, but that's another post...).

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[uhlume]

I pay over $80 a month for cable service ... I watch, at most, two hours a week.

[...]

What's wrong with this picture?

Some of your points are well-taken, but here's a thought: before you complain at paying $80/month for two hours a week of television, perhaps you should give some consideration to the question of why the fuck you feel compelled to pay that much money for services you apparently don't even use. Last I looked, nobody required you to pay for every available premium channel when you only want to watch one or two.

Maybe it's time to renegotiate that contract...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[AvitarX]

I can't think of any show I saw a graphic head blowing of on broadcast TV though.

And I have not seen anything but the Daily show as far as TV news latly. I didn't even realise they still covered international events though, last time I saw a preview for the news it was:

"eating 7 carrots, find out the news that could save your life" (no that wasn't the daily show).

That is an amazingly deceptive post

[cpt kangarooski]

All that happened was that the oral argument was held. The court has not issued a ruling; that'll probably take months.

Nor should anything be read into the statements of the judges, by and large. It's entirely common for judges to ask questions that make it sound as though he's already friendly to the other side. It results in hard questions that elicit strong answers from whichever side is arguing at the time. It's merely a method of holding the argument, and doesn't generally indicate anything as to what the judge thinks.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rant. I have an idea that could help independents. Have you heard of the streaming radio program peercast? It is a streaming p2p internet radio service. Why can't someone make a streaming p2p video service. It coud cause the birth of internet TV, without a huge investment in bandwith.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

"TV is now competing directly with console games, computer games and the internet."

That's literally true. If I'm watching something live, I tend to play gameboy during the ad breaks. And indeed the boring parts of the program.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[robyannetta]

Would all this really matter if TV shows DIDN'T suck?

SCMS

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the political climate just wasn't right for contesting it back then, but this "flag" reminds me a lot of SCMS (follow the link there to AHRA too)

basically consumer cd recorders could not digital 1 to 1 copy audio sources that were flagged with scms. industry (ie. music studio) gear ignored it. i think it was around a few years, but eventually disappeared, but i don't remember much of an uproar about it.

The first settlers

[aristus]

Came to America looking for food. 25,000 years ago.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[drinkypoo]

Or, if you are willing to have special effects that are not state of the art, you can do a scifi show for not much money. Examples: Star Trek TOS, Babylon 5.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Surt]

Buy a better dvd player. There are a lot out there that will skip any content regardless of the flags set on it by the manufacturer.

Re:Kick Ass

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I say

[iminplaya]

The FCC is Out-of-Bounds in anything that's not related to technical standards. That is supposed to be their only function. Content is none of their business, and this is a content issue. The only person deiciding what content is to be seen on the TV is the person with the remote control(or for geriatric among us, the first guy to get their hand on the tuner knob).

Re:I say

[wiredlogic]

Content is none of their business, and this is a content issue.

Tell that to Viacom.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[david614]

Of course, this might also give you a number of WWE and NASCAR channels.... Way to go Jeff Gordon!

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Family Guy is about 1 million per episode. I don't think that sci-fi shows are particularly more expensive than other shows...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Drawkcab]

Did you happen to miss the last 5 years or so when the dot com bubble burst? Lots of companies wanted to make money being "content portals" doing things like this. The fact is that not enough people will watch any one service for advertising to amount to all that much (not even taking into account bandwidth). And only a fraction of viewers will be willing to put up any cash.

Even with really top notch programming, how much would such a service really stand to make in today's market. Possibly in the single digit millions per year if they were quite successful, but more likely an order of magnitude or two less than that. Not nearly enough to fund a full lineup of toch notch programming, so they'd wouldn't actually be as successful as they would with better programming, which basically means they'd broadcast crap and make no money at it. Even with some starting capital it would be a terrible investment that wouldn't become profitable.

Could people broadcast interesting independent programs over the internet? Yes. Could they make money at it now or in the near future? No. Are a lot of people in a rush to put out such programs for the fun of it? Apparently not. There are a few people who produce the equivalent of quality short films, but not many who produce the equivalent of watchable television programs for the internet.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this man. I as well have to scream at you
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU SPENDING $80/month FOR FUCKING CABLE YOU DON'T EVEN WATCH? Go spend it on something nice, like more ram or whatever you want, but not cable. Seriously, they need to start teaching people financial skills these days.

You are feeding the corporations that are lambasting free use and the public domain. That makes you one of them. You don't want that.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[mboverload]

Yeah, Stargate and Atlantis, with their treking-all-over-for-the-different-planet-look deserves a big budget because it needs it.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you have to find a motel that charges by the hour, which can be expensive.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the ratings indicate that people like those shows more than movies or serials. More people, at least the ones with Nielson boxes seem to tune into them. So lack of funding is not the problem there. It's lack of intelligent life on our planet.

Re:Eyes on the Prize - Public Outcry?

[voidstin]

Frankly I was kind of hoping they would try and implement it. The outcry would have been huge, and good for the larger cause.

Yeah, I'm so glad everyone stopped watching American Idol because of the Broadcast Flag...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Slack3r78]

One of my all-time favorite shows, Boomtown (which I've been rewatching on DVD thanks to Netflix) had just this happen in at least one episode. An officer reaches an hand through a car window, puts it to the back of a man's head and pulls the trigger. While the impact itself isn't shown, they do show blood splattering on the windshield. The show actually 'got away with' rather graphic violence quite a few times.

Great show, definitely envelope pushing in content and story terms, and it was originally broadcast on NBC, though granted, in the 9:30 or so timeslot.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[MemoryAid]

First they get upset when Janet shows an ugly boob

Actually, the ugly boob was Justin Timberlake.

We the people

[Perl-Pusher]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is the basis for the American revolution. Note the generic use of the word god (Nature's God) or creator. It was written that way to be all encompassing of religion. The term "God" was never in the pledge or the US Constition was meant to insult Jews, Muslims or Pagans.

That being said, if our rights our not god given or that then violates a separation of church and state, then rights are not unalienable. Or as a athiest you are firmly convinced no divine spark or intellegent design or creator exists. Then you have no rights because no god exists to give them, and the revolutionary war was an illegal war and you should go kiss Prince Charles ass and beg his forgiveness.

Re:We the people

[tehdaemon]

"Then you have no rights because no god exists to give them"

I think you are missing something here. An unalienable right is one that you can't give or sell away. I have an unalienable right to think what thoughts I choose, because I can't give that away. I can't not choose what I think about, (psycologists may disagree here, but the point is I have more choice about what I think about than anyone else, and I can't change that.) I do not have an unalienable right to my paycheck. I can give or sell away those rights. (and do, I sell my rights to the money when I buy stuff with it)

Now, if god created man, he created man the way that he is. (except the fall, but that obviously did not change all aspects, besides, he let those changes remain...) This means that we have god given unalienable rights. We have those rights because we do not have the ability to give them away. And we do not have that ability because god made us that way.

However, the existance or not of god does not change the way we are. We are the way we are regardless of how we became that way. Hence we still have these unalienable rights even if we are nothing less than evolved animals.

Re:We the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Or as a athiest you are firmly convinced no divine spark or intellegent design or creator exists. Then you have no rights because no god exists to give them

I could hear the gears screech and grind all the way across the Atlantic when you made that ridiculous logical fallacy.

Bollocks

[Pig Hogger]

The FCC rule aims to limit people from sending copies of digital television programs over the Internet. The FCC has said copyright protections are needed to help speed the adoption of digital television.

Total bollocks. The only thing that's necessary to "help speed" the adoption of digital TV is the FCC to say "Ok, now everything's digital, analog is outlawed". Nothing more.

Re:Bollocks

[Teancum]

And who says that digital TV is any better than analog television?

Frankly, from what I've been seeing lately (and I'm a multimedia software engineer very familiar with digital media formats), there has been a very serious degradation of television reception due to the conversion to digital formats rather than an all analog system.

If you have a high-end cable TV system you don't see it all the time, but try some time to get ordinary broadcast television. When analog systems are used, they degrade gracefully, where the signal gets weaker and weaker depending on the environmental conditions. Yes, you get some snow and static, but the human brain can filter out a surprisingly large amount of that.

With digital broadcasts, on the other hand, it either works or it doesn't. When the signal starts to go bad you start losing packets or even entire groups of frames. Personally, I hate the "Max Headroom" effect where the video image is "frozen" for about 1-2 seconds while the video equipment is trying to reacquire a new frame. Worse yet when the MPEG-Video frame is incompletely sent, or has a bunch of data errors you see these weird-looking pixel blocks and bizzare colors show up. You would never see this with analog systems. MPEG is particularly awful with this, especially when you have a corrupted I-frame that propogates through the whole GOP.

The fact that the FCC is playing games with the conversion deadline also shows that the industry is not ready for the switch. I will have to agree that if the FCC forced the switch to digital TV, it would simply happen.

Premature celebration

[1ucius]

I wouldn't put too much faith in statements made during a hearing. Judges are supposed to challenge the attorneys' positions. We'll all find out what they really think in a few months. . .

Idiots...

[SteveXE]

Why do they think copy protection will make people adopt new standards faster...lets think.

Ok i can download something on the net and watch it on one of those new "device name here" maybe i should go buy one. Or....

Hmmm This thing is locked up tighter then Bush's sense of moral duty maybe i should skip it and buy something that has the user in mind.

Allah?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Would you be offended if your child were forced to pray to Allah before every school event?"

Which Allah?

Allah McBeal or Allah Oop?

I think either work just as well.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

"He was only one of the founding fathers."

And the smartest.

You dont' think Franklin thought the same way?

YOu're naive. At best.

These are great sources.

[Anonymous Coward]

They show the founding fathers to be reasonable,intelligent men, who knew how to separate public life from private belief.

Thank you.

MOD UP!

[gwiner]

Good advice for any young person! Mod this parent up!

Leave the science to scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

"What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved."

Lets look in the dictionary:

Hypothesis - theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
(Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005.)

In other words, its not a guess. Its a set of explanations to explain an observation. Thus, it requires some observations to begin with, and is only used in the context of scientific inquiry.

So this is not a hypothesis:
"The Moon Is Made Of Green Cheese"

"100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon"

Really? I've read a lot of history and science and I've never heard anyone (of scientific credibility) claim this.

"We have negros walking free and intermarrying with whites. We have homosexuals trying to get married. We have women voting, holding public office and owning property."

That's absurd. The founding fathers were typical of their day in terms attitudes, but they were not as extreme as you paint them. Furthermore, the beliefs they espoused were timeless. Separation of church and state was based on their study of history of several thousand years which showed that religion and authority don't mix well. The freedoms they espoused were universal and timeless. And while they made some mistakes (the slavery compromise was ultimately proven to be bad), overall, their work was and is timeless.

Re:Leave the science to scientists

[Lord Kano]

In other words, its not a guess. Its a set of explanations to explain an observation. Thus, it requires some observations to begin with, and is only used in the context of scientific inquiry.

I never claimed that a hypothesis was a guess. Until it's proved or disproved, it's a belief.

Religion also requires observation. Religions didn't spring forth out of a vacuum.

That's absurd. The founding fathers were typical of their day in terms attitudes, but they were not as extreme as you paint them.

Washington owned slaves. Jefferson owned slaves. Jefferson even carried on a sexual relationship with one of his slaves. It's not absurd. It's historical fact.

The freedoms they espoused were universal and timeless.

Excapt for negros and women.

And while they made some mistakes (the slavery compromise was ultimately proven to be bad), overall, their work was and is timeless.

Several of them were slave owners. Where's the compromise?

LK

Re:Leave the science to scientists

[stanmann]

The freedoms they espoused were universal and timeless. Excapt for negros and women.

Well, except that black men and white women have voted in almost every election since 1776. Granted Universal Suffrage didn't come till later, but several of the various states allowed both women and black men to vote. The rules varied between states and localities, but contrary to popular myth women have never been univerally refused the right to vote in the US.

MOD PARENT UP

[Bodysurf]

Who is the idiot who moderated this as a TROLL??

It's INFORMATIVE.

Isn't that weird?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the Catholic Church supports Evolution/Inteligent Design."

They can go along with that, but the Condom makes them crazy?

I mean, really.

Losing battle

[Rai]

Sorry, but when you argue anything in favor of Christianity (or any other religion) to the slashdot community, you're fighting a losing battle. Hence, your "troll" score as compared to the opposing "insightful" posts.

Now if you had said something like "Christians dumb, Linux good." Then you'd have +5 insightful for sure. Better luck next time.

Re:Losing battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun straw man. The opposition is to your using the Congress to legislate your particular religious viewpoint onto others. Please stop.

Re:Losing battle

[Rai]

I nevered started. Sure, I'm a religious person and unashamedly so, but that doesn't mean I feel the urge to convert everyone else to my particular belief system. Quite the opposite actually. I hate it when fanatics aggressively campaign for their religion to be forced on other people, especially thru something like legislature which should be completely objective to matters of faith. Who the hell am I or anyone else to say "I'm right, you're wrong" when it comes to spiritual matters. Nobody can really prove their religion is the correct one. If we had proof, the whole idea of faith would be invalid and I think that would undermind one of the more significant aspects of spirituality.

Then again, that's just my belief. You are free and well-supported by me to form your own, heathen. ;)

Re:Losing battle

[Anonymous Coward]

>>"Christians dumb, Linux good."

Sorry but I'm not going to mod you up just for that. You need to assert it a bit more forcefully and you have to say that not only are they dumb but pure unadulterated evil as well.

Would you be offended if...?

[IBitOBear]

Let's see, the sect of Christianity least likely to lose its members is Satinism. Would you be offended if your child, while not having to say the prayer, were forced to stand or sit and listen to an invocation of Satan once a week?

After all, your children _aren't_ being forced to say the invocation, they can sit it out just fine, as long as they listen respectfully and don't offer a disrespect to the beliefs of others.

How about a quick chicken-blood splash of Vodun?

Five minutes of Scientology "Confront Technology" (e.g. getting yelled and at and threatened, and then getting punished if you react in the slightest)? Even if they "only" have to watch it happening to other students?

Hindus outnumber Jews and Christians combined, so how about this schedule: Genesh on Mondays, Wicca on tuesdays, Yaweh (Jewish) on Wednsday, Kali on Thursdays, Yaweh (Christian) on Fridays, and Satan on special event Saturdays, Allah Field Trips and pre-game prayers; and a reading from Dianetics the first day back from summer vacation each year. Nobody has to join in, but they can all have to sit respectfully quiet while it is going on.

After all, but spreading it out

===

It's like second hand smoke and getting shot. "Rights" exist in competition, and the right "not to" do/participate ALWAYS trumps the right to do something.

e.g.

-- I have the right to smoke. You have the right not to be forced to breathe my leftovers.

-- I have the right to keep and bare (and so shoot) arms. You have the right not to be gunned down at the Circle-K.

-- I have the right to preach that (your ethnic/spritiual group) is sinful or sub-human and deserves (some negative end). You have the right to demand that I not force your child to listen to my crap; and your child has the right to make that demand even if you wont; either of which means that I am not allowed to do it in your childs school.

The "they don't have to participate as long as the sit there and take it" isn't a reasonable position once my shoe is on your foot.

===

"Freedom of religion" means freedom _FROM_ religion.

Imagine the hue and cry that would result if someone were to buy a mountain top and erect a giant pentagram-on-a-stick or Goat-Head or Horned-God to stare down beautifically on your township. There is no dogma provided, and nobody is being forced to even look at the thing. But it is there, and someone will be botherd by it, I garantee. And someone who probably woudn't know the first thing about the variant meanings of the symbols because both the message sent and the message perceived count.

===

But I agree the separation of church and state should extend to our money and our documents. That "natural god" and "all men are endowed by their creator" are historical legacies, but the "under god" that was revised into the pledge (and which breaks the scansion) and the "in god we trust" should be expunged from the money too.

Fix the Name, its the "Prior Restraint Flag"

[IBitOBear]

This isn't a "broadcast flag" its a "prior restraint flag."

Make it a selling point. "Now you crooks can't steal(*) from us innocent corporations!" and "Now with less confusing features!" "No more Blinking VCR clock!".

Have a big splashy logo with "Prior Restraint -- Now we are all Safe" emblazoned on its paraphry and handcufs bound by antena wire in the center (all nicely designed by a good marketing firm).

As long as each television set and "protected" broadcast has to have the big "Prior Restraint Flag" logo splashed on it, go ahead. See how it sells _then_.

That would, after all, be required under the truth-in-advertising and disclosure laws.

8-)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[tepples]

See what's on networks that aren't top of the line ("Pilot Season" on Treo was tremendous).

Assuming that by "Treo" you mean "Trio", then how can I see what's on networks that I don't get? Or are you asking us all to spend $$$ extra to upgrade from OTA or analog cable to digital cable just to watch channels that show more independent programming?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[gwiner]

This is just market leveling. Everyone seems to forget that IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE that the entertainment industry is OVERVALUED. The democratization of technology has merely commodatized what was once a monopoly on distribution. Now all of the overhead inherent in supporting the massive distribution infrastructure of traditional media, is waste for an industry struggling to keep the numbers working.

The revenue is declining because market forces (enabled by technology) are working around the inefficient and costly traditional distribution infrastructure. Unfortunally, the entertainment conglomerates have not realized they are in the CREATIVE business, not the distribution business, and have still failed to adopt radical and cost efficient models (for instance, http://www.allofmp3.com/) to transform themselves to a new business model.

Instead, they burrow in like ticks, protecting old and unsustainable busness models through litigation.

I believe in the short term, there will be pain as the market transitions to new driving forces. That means yes, some networks and congolmerates will put out crap, in the form of content, or ads, or whatever. But there are alternatives. If not now, they will develop. That's the beauty of free markets. The only ones that will lose in this game, are the media that refuse to adopt.

So I come to my point: Media companies are losing money because they SHOULD. Their products are overvalued and overpriced because they are saddled with overhead of a distribution system that is virtually obsolete in this new digital age.

Product tying

[tepples]

perhaps you should give some consideration to the question of why the fuck you feel compelled to pay that much money for services you apparently don't even use.

For one thing, under virtually all cable television systems, subscriptions to desirable TV channels are tied (in the antitrust sense) to subscriptions to less-desirable channels.

Nothing sucks like Electrolux

[tepples]

Isn't there a well known and very profitable business model built on sucking?

Yes.

Re:Nothing sucks like Electrolux

[Svartalf]

Don't forget this business based off of really, really sucking.

Not Challenged based on fair use?

[HeelToe]

From my read of TFA this doesn't look like it was challenged based on the issue of fair use, but rather, based on its detriment to citizens in the form of higher prices for equipment and content.

What? Why not tackle this for its effect on fair use?

Re:Not Challenged based on fair use?

[mc sd]

This is an excellent question. Fair use however perhaps ought not to be confused with the Sony ruling which was about Time shifting (not saying you're doing that, but they often get conflated).

Fair use, you may recall, only allows partial copying of a work for certain uses (social comment, research), not the making of complete copies for personal use, which is what most people want with their TiVo's.

I could be wrong, but my understanding of fair use is that it would not be helpful in such a case because of the strict rules about how much of an artefact can actually be copied.

The Sony case was more about personal use, with the likely understanding that copies would be temporary for convenience, not for long term archiving or sharing.

But you forgot...

[game kid]

the SO ORDERED part. (Here's an example where Microsoft is--or seemingly should be--owned by the US.)

That aside, Daddy likes. I think we should^Wmust have this law and put the government back in par with us so we can be (at least feel) free again; otherwise we'll soon be in Soviet America where legislative malfeasance codifies us and the FBI spies y--oh wait...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[freeclimber]

There are plenty of ways to get advertising in programming that is not fast forwarded through. The recent I Robot movie with Will Smith (dreadful movie by the way) was replete with examples of exactly this. How many times did he show of his vintage 2004 model converse all stars. How about the Audi throughout the movie. If television wants the ad revenue they will just have to get creative. I won't except pop-ups during my web browsing and I also do not watch television if I have to be interupted every 3 minutes for a commercial.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[The Snowman]

...before you complain at paying $80/month for two hours a week of television, perhaps you should give some consideration to the question of why the fuck you feel compelled to pay that much money for services you apparently don't even use. Last I looked, nobody required you to pay for every available premium channel when you only want to watch one or two.

Apparently you are not married. If you were you might understand. Also, due to channel tie-ins, I am unable to unsubscribe from worthless shit like Animal Planet, HGTV, Oxygen, et al. If it were up to me I would have a couple news channels, the weather channel, and Discovery HD Theater. However, I cannot get Discovery HD without all the HD channels. I cannot get HD service without digital service. I cannot get digital service without analog. Get the idea?

Anyway, my gripe is that with digital and HDTV channels increasing by at least one per month with my cable provider, I find more stuff worth watching (not much, but it is there). Eventually I want to put together a MythTV box with HD capability. I want to be able to record shows and watch them when it is convenient for me. I work full time, go to college full time, and have a family to take care of. TV time is very restricted, not to mention that 99% of the stuff on TV is worthless crap. However, the FCC and broadcast industry are working as hard as they can to remove this potential convenience from me. Fuck 'em all.

Small Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been to a movie recently, or maybe I've just had a run of bad luck. The last several movies I've been to have had commercials that ran easily over 15 minutes. And one, while this may seem like a joke, literally ran about 28 minutes of commercials (I pulled my watch out after sitting through so much)...

The fact that the theaters have the nerve to charge for tickets after this amount of commercials and overpriced food items makes me sick.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[The Snowman]

Finally, fuck deregulation. Deregulation is merely a way to tell the rich fuckers to go ahead and fuck the poor fuckers up the ass. Regulation is critical.

Regulation has its place. You are correct, the top 2% elite rich in this country use deregulation to fuck us "normal" people. However, regulation can be bad, too. Regulation, through the FCC, is the reason why me, a 26 year old adult, am unable to hear the words "fuck," "shit," etc. on TV, nor am I permitted to see naked people unless I go buy porn. Why the "fucking shit" is the government protecting me against bad language and naked girls, while I can cuss up a storm and look at my wife naked?

Oh, I get it, it must be the children. Oh yeah? Well, parents need to keep tabs on their children and what they watch. The V-chip is a great idea, even if its execution was severely flawed. One of the great potentials of digital TV is metadata. Each show could come with multiple ratings for language, violence, sex, etc. Parents could then restrict what is visible on the TV without needing the FCC to protect their children. I know we have channel locks now, but nothing like it should be.

Technology could make the FCC irrelevant. Yes, I was a bit blunt. We need the FCC. But we only need about 5% of what it is today: a big, bloated bureaucracy that protect consenting adults from the word "fuck."

lawyerly observations

[hawk]

I am a lawayer, but this is not legal advice. If you get legal advice on slashdot, your flag bit is wrong.

I'm not surprised at all by the ruling that the FCC overstepped, we've been seeing quite a lot of rulings recently that agencies have overstepped their authority. Broadly speaking, administrative agencies cannot make choices *about* policy, but ponly about how to *implement* the policy given by Congress (or state legislatures). To significantly deviate from what can be done with other technologies is a policy choice, not an implementation choice, and would require a charge from Congress.

What i find odd is that the court ruled on these merits while still "concerned" about jurisdiction.

And that's when I looked closer.

The court didn't *say* anything today. Judges ask questions during oral arguments, some of which suggest a position. Often, the same judge will ask questions which make it sound like he holds conflicting positions. That's normal.

That said, the statement "You crossed the line," is a bit strong even for oral arguments, and does suggest that *that judge* is strongly leaning in thhat direction.

Still, though, the court has done *nothing* at this time.

I would be surprised, though, if the ruling doesn't come out before July 1. With two judges apparently leaning in a direction, the usual standards for a restraining order against enforcement of the law would seem to have been met.

As far as standing, I would expect (but certainly wouldn't bet my house on it!) that a single actual consumer as a petitioner would have standing to sue--the inability to buy devices currently on the market should be a sufficient real harm. An "assoiacion" is a much larger stretch. The courts are frequently hostile to such standing. That said, I can't tell from the slipshod reporting who the other petitioneers are. I'd be surprised if the lawyers for petitioners didn't bother to include at least one real person as a named plaintiff.

hawk, esq.

Re:lawyerly observations

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Sentelle loves the jurisdiction issue, I can't believe the ALA's lawyer was not prepared for it(this could be bad reporting, he may have just been slow in getting it out...hell I don't even know if he was raising Con standing or prudential standing). Not to be a backseat attorney, but the ALA is directly harmed because each member will have to bear the cost of buying enabled hardware.

Post on the next insane admin power grab and we can talk Chevron ;)

I knew oral argument was today, and I'm tickled pink that they called out the FCC in a way that made the news before the opinion was written.

Re:lawyerly observations

[mwa]

Can you provide another lawyerly observation, please?

How can anyone, individual or business, existing with the jurisdiction of a government not have standing to challenge the legality of a government action?

Isn't this a fundamental exercise of consitutional rights (as in "that power was not enumerated to you, therefor you don't have it")?

Re:lawyerly observations

[Zeinfeld]

As far as standing, I would expect (but certainly wouldn't bet my house on it!) that a single actual consumer as a petitioner would have standing to sue--the inability to buy devices currently on the market should be a sufficient real harm. An "assoiacion" is a much larger stretch. The courts are frequently hostile to such standing

With good reason, remember the bogus 'email marketing USA' cover that the Florida spam gang put together to bring a bunch of nuisance suits?

I would also be surprised if the plaintif group did not include at least one manufacturer and at least one individual.

Re:lawyerly observations

[hawk]

Chaos, to start with :)

This would enable you, for example, to appeal the criminal convictions of anyone. It would allow you to sue over any license the government granted anyone.

You only have standing in a matter, whether the other party is a person or the government, when you are *directly* affected.

I'll also toss in an observation that whil the library *association* likely doesn't have standing, the individual libraries probably would have standing on their own. The courts rejected association and taxpayer standing a long time ago.

However, if you can't find someone that is *actually* affected that is willing to litigate if you pay the bills, it also says something about the importance of what you're doing . . .

hawk

For crying out loud . . .

[hawk]

Folks, the parent is not "insightful": It's just plain wrong. That might indeed be a problem with a legal system that acted that way, but we don't have to worry about that, because ours doesn't work that way.

You can file a complaint for "declaratory relief" to settle a *real* dispute between parties (but not hypothetical ones.

That your product is about to become illegal due to a regulation is a real real and justicable dispute, while the possiblity that an agency *might* issue such a rule given a Congressional law is not.

However, the party suing still must have standing. If the imminent law affects farmers, city-dwellers won't have standing to sue, but farmers would.

But aside from having the facts and law all wrong, you would have a point :)

hawk, esq.

Re:For crying out loud . . .

[dark_requiem]

That's not the point. To take your example, suppose Congress passes a law that impacts farmers, and I live in a city. You don't think that I should be able to sue to address the unconstitutionality of the law because it does not, at present, directly affect me. Well, part of being free is having all options available to you. Part of being free would be the knowledge that, should I choose to change occupation to farming, I wouldn't have to sacrifice my natural liberties to do so. The probability of my doing so is irrelevant. Perhaps I simply want to ensure that my children would be able to enter agriculture at some point in the future without being subject to unconstitutional regulations. And then there's simply general principle. Just because it doesn't directly impact me at the time, I live in this country, and any laws the government creates are there, looming over my head, should I ever choose to violate them, so having unconstitutional laws in place limits my liberty by unconstitutionally and imorally limiting my options for how I will run my own life. So I should have the right to challenge any law, because whether it has an immediate impact on my day-to-day life, or if it simply limits the potential of my freedom, it is my business.

Re:For crying out loud . . .

[hawk]

1) That's an entirely different issue than you painted above, in which you risked prosecution.

2) Yes, it is a much bett system this way. We have an "adversary system," the principle of which is that if both sides are argued to the best of their ability, the truth will come out. Other basic principles are "stare decisis"--once a legal issue is decided, it should remain so, and "res judicata"--once a factual issue has been detrmined, it should remain so.

Generally speaking, people who do not have a direct interest in a matter will not devote the same level of time and effort into a matter as those who do. This leaves the possiblities that the farmers are permanently hurt because some yahoo launched a half-baked challenge, or that the issue must be relitigated repeatedly.

Also, what you might conceivably want to due in the future is irrelevant. For the same reasons, the jurisdiction of the federal (and most state) courts is limited to *actual* cases and controversies.

hawk

AD=Anno Domino="In the year of our Lord"

[cfalcon]

AD is a Latin abbreviation meaning "In the Year of Our Lord", IIRC. That's why it's there, certainly not any other reason.

Like your counterargument, by the way. I'm posting this on the day of Tyr, one armed god of justice.

Re:AD=Anno Domino="In the year of our Lord"

[Anonymous Coward]

Domini actually, but yes - its as if they wrote AD which people do without regard to its historical meaning. Wasn't there an alternative non-religious meaning for AD?

Re:AD=Anno Domino="In the year of our Lord"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is no non religious meaning for AD, for the simple fact that the holy roman empire forced the modern calendar on everyone as one of it's final gasps of power.

Re:AD=Anno Domino="In the year of our Lord"

[stanmann]

Yeah, CE or "Common Era" aka AD. Just like BCE or before common era. or in plain english I'm going to use the same calendar, but ignore it's source.

"Creator" is in the Declaration

[cfalcon]

Jefferson, generally recognized as the most deistic, wrote the word "Creator"- this follows his belief of a neutral and distant "clockwork" God. "Nature's God" also goes along with this line of thought. There were Christians among the founding fathers, but Jefferson wasn't one.

The Declaration is not a legal document, of course- the Constitution is, and so it doesn't mention deities at all.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Darthmalt]

New Buisness model. TV on demand available by bit torrent. trackers located at the studios website. Files playable only in a program you d/l from the company so you cant fast forward through commercials. Sub DVD but better than analog quality.

For me recording tv is more to record shows that I would otherwise miss. While I dislike commercials I can live with them just like I live with banner ads.

Concern at the Quads

[Anonymous Coward]

With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that night;
The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
With Cooney busted for possestion, and Barrows, the riot laws;
A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human breast;"
They thought, If only Gay Concern could be rallying that mob,
We'd put up even money now, with Concern at the quads.

But Flynn preceded Concern, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
For there seemed but little chance of Concern's getting to the quads.

But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
And Concern, Gay Concern, was advancing through the quads.

There was ease in Concern's manner as he wheeled into his place;
There was pride in Concern's bearing and a smile on Concern's face,
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Gay Concern at the quads.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
Defiance gleamed in Concern's eye, a sneer curled Concern's lip.

And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
And Concern stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
Close by the haughty Concern, the can unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Concern. "Break it up!" the coppers said.

From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
And Concern guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.

With a fist of protest shaking, Concern's visage shone;
He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious bump;
And Concern sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

"Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!"
"If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you dig?"
They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Gay Concern wouldn't lose that bike again!

The sneer is gone from Concern's lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.

Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
They protest for the rain forest, and demand the wart-hog's rights.
And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Concern has Wiped Out!

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[uhlume]

I truly sympathize with your frustration, but if someone in your household is actually utilizing the service such that you find it necessary to continue paying for it, you can't really claim that you're paying $80/month for two hours a week of television...

Audio CD's

[Creepy Crawler]

Have a "Copyright flag". Why is it no program supports it?

Re:Audio CD's

[pommiekiwifruit]

Since it's a "1" flag it is completely meaningless. IIRC Even sample CDs which are meant to be copied have it set, let alone recordings of stuff that is in the public domain.

Consider all indie media

[Psychochild]

GOD, this attitude pisses me off.

Yes. It's not just TV and movies, either. My personal soapbox is for indie computer games, being an indie online RPG developer. People complain about the crap put out by the big companies, but they still buy that crap so it continues to be profitable. People complain about all sorts of things in games, especially online games. Yet, most people won't even go try out a game and give it an honest chance. They fear games that don't have the most prettiest graphics, just as they shun programs or movies without big-name actors. Unfortunately, this means that a lot of great stuff gets overlooked. In all honesty, the indie developer is usually much more interesting and willing to please. When WoW had server troubles, they gave people a few extra days of playtime. When Meridian 59 had a weekend of downtime, we gave everyone a full month free. Since we don't have box sales to counteract this, this really impacted our bottom line. But, we wanted to make it up to our players and show that we were willing to take responsibility for the downtime; let me tell you, there hasn't been significant downtime since then.

The answer is not to say, "Fuck the man!" and download content on the internet. The answer is to find someone that is honestly willing to entertain you and make a good product and support them. Only then will you see the end of bullshit legislation, "broadcast flags", and all that stupidity. Only then will you see real entertainment being done.

Have fun,

What does this mean for ME? Please advise!

[J_Omega]

Does this mean that the broadcast flag will be no more?? Or will it just give us more time?

I'm in a bad financial situation atm, but I've still been thinking about things like the pcHDTV HD-3000. ( http://www.pchdtv.com/hd_3000.html )

Ok, its a cool toy as is, and I'd like one regardless. But should I really be stretching my already-stretched budget in order to get one of these now, before it is illeagle to do so?

Any advice very welcome and encouraged!

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

but I can't see a nipple

Get in line. Join the rest of us. I haven't seen one since the Carter administration. Which is why I watch TV.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[jrockway]

Do you really want late-night soft core pr0n or whenever-you-want hard core pr0n? If you want the second, get a 'net connection :)

Copyright Protections Vital Consideration

[lifespan]

I was considering adopting digital television but without appropriate copyright protections I find myself experiencing fear, uncertainty.... and a little doubt.

I completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[LilMikey]

Regulation, through the FCC, is the reason why me, a 26 year old adult, am unable to hear the words "fuck," "shit," etc. on TV

You must've missed Richard Pryor on Comedy Central the other night... plenty of fucks and shits to get your jollys off though. Nudity is still a no-no though and with the religious right on the march I wouldn't hold your breath. Honestly, the regulations are easing as the will of the people is heard. They're a bit slow but this is one front where I'd say they're doing on 'ok' job.

Screw it... what am I saying. Fucks and shits are becoming legal 'cause it'll pull in 5% more views in the non-prime slots. If they all weren't so afraid nudity would backfire on them and their sponsers would sell 7 less widgets because of it they'd happily say 'screw the kids' and show all kinds of pierced saggy boobies. Damn execs.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you'll be paying $160/month for cable service.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[xgamer04]

All the problems you describe can (arguably) be solved if we could get out from under the insanity that is corporate media in the US. I find it so frustrating that these dinosaur companies are buying protection for their failing business model that needs to evolve into this millenium.

With things like video-on-demand and internet distribution, small teams of not-well-funded people can make amazing art. Consider Homestar Runner and Red vs Blue. HR has allowed the two brothers who make it to make a living off of selling T-Shirts. This shows that an independent body can create something wildly popular. The Rise Of Blogging (tm) also shows that new content can become an instant phenomenon.

I think that the solution to this is to boycott our cable/satellite companies, MPAA movie theaters and RIAA record labels and be vocal about it. Write to our elected officials and tell them that local and independent media is important, and remind them that free expression on a local level is what will make or break them, as well as being the lifeblood of democracy.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Technician]

The side of the road is littered with better shows than most of the crap that's on your TV in primetime. You want to do something about it? SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENTS.

Sounds good, but having a limited amount of time (dont' we all), wasting a bunch of time on unknown shows in hopes of finding a gem is a waste of time. I'd rather miss the original season and then pick up a good series on DVD. I've heard enough about The Saprano's to check it out. I haven't bought it yet, but I'm considering it.

For many people, including myself, there isn't time to waste on real time TV and it's overload of commercials and poor programming. Searching out the good stuff on the internet has replaced TV. Unless an Indy film gets good grass roots support and chatter, it simply doesn't get noticed in the background noise.

The truth of the matter is I spend less than an hour a week on live TV. Spending over $400 on a set to replace my $150 set just isn't in the budget.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Technician]

Now at least we've got the History Channel, Learning Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc...


None of which are on over the air broadcasting. Name one incentive to buy a Digital TV that can pick up my local over the air broadcast.

My point exactly.. Over the air TV dies when the transition to Digital happens. Nobody is spending big bucks to catch the 6:00 news or Days of our lives.

I'd argue that the tv choices now are far better than they were 20 years ago.

Unless you are talking about what you get on over the air TV.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Technician]

It's in their best interests to present a facade of barely treading water all the time. That means that even if they get their way with the broadcast flag, some new evil will appear that they have to be seen to chase down.


It's not in their best interest to bite the hand that feeds them. When analog goes dark, so will most local studios. Nobody watching over the air broadcasts means no advertising dollars. Adding a broadcast flag simply provides less value to the consumer, more cost to the set, and less reason to get a set to watch over the air broadcasting. Local TV commercials are going to become history. There won't be any more local broadcasts to advertise on. Even PBS won't be able to reach enough people with their pledge drive. They will just reach the few on local cable. Otherwise they will fold.

The FCC may mandate the broadcast flag, but they are not Alan Greenspan. They can't fix the over the air TV's money problems.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Mycroft_VIII]

Thanks, I've been trying to remember that quote of Heinlein's and which story it was in.
Not remembering is bit embarrising considering my nick.

Mycroft

somewhat off subject.

[Mycroft_VIII]

I didn't find I robot all that bad. Who the badguy was and why they did what they did was suitable to Asimov's universe. Admitedly the whole thing was a little light and short on debth and one of buddies secrets was counter to Asimove's 'cannon'. But it wasn't terrible, just wasn't great.
Now what they did to Starship Troopers on the other hand pisses me off. It would have been o.k. if it was advertised as a spoof, but I went in expecting SOME attempt to follow the story.

Mycroft

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[TheRaven64]

All of the CGI for Babylon 5 was done on a small network of (as I recall, feel free to correct me) Atari STs running Lightwave. A $500 computer these days has far more CPU power than they used, and modern consumer video editing and modelling packages are getting really good. Something like B5 could be filmed with a small number of sets and some blue / green screen space without too much difficulty. You'd probably still need to pay the actors and the support guys, and the argument about how much their time is worth is one I don't propose to get into (although, no doubt, someone else will).

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Alsee]

99% of the population either has boobs or gets to see them on a regular basis

The other 1% are here on Slashdot.

-

It would have to be a constitutional amendment

[MarkusQ]

That said, I'm fairly sure that voting for this law would, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the bill in question.

The idea is nice, but (as the poster pointed out, there are deep logical problems with passing it as a law). It would have to be reworked as a constitutional amendment and tweeked cairfully if it was to be effective without bizzare unintended consequences.

--MarkusQ

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Alsee]

Advertisers are no longer willing to pay top dollar for airtime...
loss of ad revenue.

Of COURSE advertizers are paying less for each channel-ad-minute. There are LESS VIEWERS of any given minute of channel-programming. There used to be what, maybe a half dozen nation wide network channels available to a viewer? And what, maybe 1 regional channel in each area? So each channel had at most 1/7th of the viewing public? And how many channels are there NOW? A few HUNDRED? I think I have around 200 channels available on my cable conenction, and if I were to switch to satallite I would get a signifigant number of different channels, and if I got cable in another part of the country I'd again get a signifigant number of different channels.

Any given bit of channel programming is only going to be watched a tiny fraction as many viewers.

-

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Alsee]

I can't bring myself to believe that if the broadcast flag were to become a mandated reality, then studios would suddenly unleash the full potential of their creative entertainment genuis on us at last.

I believe the studios have unleashed the full potential of their creative entertainment genuis on us all along.

-

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell DVDs. I've bought several independent documentaries lately. DVD is all I watch...no antenna, no cable. A couple of my friends do the same thing....I'll bet a lot of independent-minded people do, and those are the people more likely to watch offbeat stuff.

The rest is getting the word out...get everybody blogging, all through production, and you'll be off to a good start. Other bloggers'll spread the word.

Try Again

[Guuge]

There is no such separation in the constitution, that was a later construct.

This is a misconception. The term 'separation of church and state' describes the spirit of the constitution aptly. Indeed, the founders wanted the government to act based on personal values, not church doctrine.

It is annoying beyond all explanation when people act as if "Allah" is a proper name.

Nearly all proper names are actually derived from ordinary words, but they're still proper names. By your logic, Christians should not object to saying "Under Allah" in the pledge, but they would most certainly object.

What then is a hypothesis? It's a belief, one that will either be proved or disproved.

No one needs to believe a hypothesis. It is simply a falsifiable assumption. Show me a religion that operates purely on falsifiable assumptions.

Science is far from untouchable. 100 years ago science said that it wasn't possible for mankind to visit the moon. Science is in a state of flux, it is always changing.

Science does not tell us what is impossible.

Science named the atom. A the prefix meaning "not" and tom meaning "cut", science said that it wasn't possible to cut the atom. In the 1940s science evolved when it was shown that we can split atoms.

Now you've earned your 'Flamebait' moderation. Next you'll be telling us that Special Relativity isn't Special enough for you.

He was an exceptional man in his day, but that day has long since passed.

Jefferson was a man of ideas, not dogma. If Jefferson were alive today I have no doubt that he would still support the individual's right to find his own Truth, even if it would really be 'her' own Truth.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[JaxGator75]

Bite your tongue. There's nothing wrong with "Days" that more close-ups of John Black's eyebrow can't solve...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

> they get upset when Janet shows an ugly boob, nevermind that 99% of the population either has boobs or gets to see them on a regular basis

99% of the population? Approximately 51% of the nation appears to be heavily against gay marriage. You don't think these people have sex with the lights on where they can actually see these foul "breasts" do you? No, they have sex in the dark so they can't see the evil, dirty things they are doing...

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

> What we really need is aeverything to be PPV and have On demand.

We already had that. It was called Suprnova. Those bastards at the MPAA took it away from us.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[dcowart]

What kinds? I'm looking to get a new one (the old one was my PS2 and it's starting to die) and so am in the market.

The Present of Television

[virg_mattes]

> There are some tremendous actors out there in theater, in film, that you've never heard of. I can name 50 people I've worked with who are more talented than all but the very upper echelon of Hollywood types. I know directors who can do REALLY amazing things, and writers who can write gripping dialogue. And none of them make it.

This is because success in any field of endeavor requires some parcel of luck, and the entertainment industry is no different. On top of that, the entertainment industry is awash in talent, and so you need to be really good and really lucky to get to the big leagues.

> When is the last time you went looking for an independent film, rather than seeing the latest well-marketed film from MGM, Mirimax, or Disney? Sure, there are occasional exceptions, but even those turn on one really catchy, marketable idea

I do this constantly, myself. There's something that this has shown me, and that is quite simply that (much like big studio productions) most independent movies suck. I've seen hundreds of indies in the last few years, and even going only for films that have gotten some good word of mouth and what sounds interesting I've found that a lot of them are not the greatest. The problem is that, much like the big studio movies, it takes a lot of wading through crap to get to the stuff that's really good, and the big productions have the advantage of getting a lot more press, good or bad. It's easier to tell if I'll like a Miramax film because I can find a dozen reviews for it, where some independents only turn up one review done by a fawning college girl who wouldn't pan the film if you put a gun to her head, even though fifteen minutes of it are out of focus.

> The side of the road is littered with better shows than most of the crap that's on your TV in primetime. You want to do something about it? SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENTS. Watch TV shows that TV giude doesn't put on the covers. See what's on networks that aren't top of the line ("Pilot Season" on Treo was tremendous). Do your own research on what's good instead of checking out what you see in the paper as "the thing to see".

This is a great thought, but I have little enough time to watch any television, much less sit through dozens of shows hoping to find gold in the stream. The biggest problem with your suggestion is that you don't seem willing to admit that most of the shows you'll find on TV, top-of-the-line or not, are not worth the time to watch. Frankly, I'd love to support the independents, but there are simply not enough hours in the day to give everyone a fair shot. I do my own research, but if part of that is checking the paper to see what's playing, then you shouldn't simply decide that's wrong.

Virg

Re:The Present of Television

[Darby]

most independent movies suck.

Yeah, they're all about gay cowboys eating pudding and crap.

Cable Bill

[rjelks]

My bill actually creeps up to $145 with broadband, but I don't mind the $45 for the internet connection.

In my area (at least my house) the only real options are Comcast Cable or Direct TV. Comcast has been trying to phase out the analog cable for a few years, in place of digital. :

Here's what I pay now:

$60.00 for standard digital cable
$10.00 for HBO (Girlfriend needs her HBO)
$10.00 for cable boxes (required by digital)
$10.00 for DVR (my best value for the money)
$10.00 for various taxes, franchise and FCC fees
$45.00 internet
$145.00 Total

From my $145.00 bill, the $45 for the internet and the $10.00 for the DVR are gladly paid (relatively speaking). That leaves $95.00 a month on cable costs. Like I said before, Comcast is making the anaolog option less desirable. They knock down the price to $45.00 (instead of the $55.00) in my area. The problem I have is that if I want HBO, analog isn't a good option. I still pay the $10.00 a month...and then I still need a cable box (to descramble the HBO signal). So with HBO, I can pay $95.00 for digital, 300 channels, HBO or $80-85.00 for analog with 45 channels, HBO and some old cable boxes. I'm not saying that any of this is neccessary at all (I think it's kind of excessive) but my options aren't great for dropping to analog. I'd gladly drop all of it, get tivo, for a basic $15/month service...HBO be damned. :)

From what I've read, Direct TV isn't any better on price. Where do you live? I want $15 cable too.

Re:Cable Bill

[Grishnakh]

I live in Phoenix, AZ, and my service is through Cox. The price for regular analog is $35 I think, maybe more. This is the full analog range (~75 channels), with no premium stuff. What I ordered is the "basic analog", which is only the first 22 channels or so, and costs $15.

However, I get the full ~75 channels, because I also got cable internet (which costs $50, and gives me a $10 discount for having multiple services). My theory is that, in order to give someone the "basic" service, they have to install a low-pass filter on the line to restrict them to those channels. However, because cable internet occupies the bandwidth of one of the upper channels (80-something maybe?), they can't put that filter on my line or else the internet service wouldn't work, so they just have to leave it off and only bill me for basic cable while giving me the full thing. I actually didn't plan this; I was just too cheap to subscribe to the full service at the time, and didn't think I'd watch that much TV.

Of course, I get letters in the mail every month from them trying to convince me to "upgrade" to digital cable. Also, I'm also now wondering if I could save $5/month by cancelling the cable TV altogether. I don't see how they'd be able to put any filters at all on the line to block TV without screwing up the internet service.

I really have a hard time imagining "upgrading" to digital cable or DirecTV, however. I have plans to build a MythTV box in the near future (I've already bought the PVR-250 tuner/MPEG2 card), and that doesn't seem like it'd work too well with the proprietary boxes required by those services. I'm not about to rent a DVR either; I want my DVR to work the way I want it to (i.e., skips commercials automatically), not the way some huge company wants it to.

Re:Cable Bill

[rjelks]

I've played around with a lot of HTPC software. It can be pretty fun, but I've found it becomes a constant project. I've had a small bookpc under my TV for a couple of years. I use it to stream DivX and Xvid movies along with mp3s from various peers. I love it for that stuff. I never wanted to upgrade my hardware ($$) to get a decent system working for the TV capture. I know the $10.00/month is expensive for the DVR, but it works great. Dual tuner, girlfriend can use, seems to work. My biggest gripe is that it's almost impossible (without violating some warranties :) )to pull the video off the box.

Good luck with MythTV...I've mostly used windows software (due to my crappy ATI video card), but MythTV always looked cool. If you're looking at windows solutions (probably not?), Snapstream and Meedio are two commercial programs that seem pretty good. You could also go free with myHTPC (the 1st free version of Meedio). It takes a little more customization, but it's pretty useful and the support forums are great.

Re:Cable Bill

[Grishnakh]

I'm planning to use MythTV; I'd rather not deal with Windows if I can help it.

I've got a Hauppauge PVR-250 capture card; this card has a built-in MPEG2 encoder, so the hardware requirements are extremely minimal to support this card. You just have to copy MPEG2 data to the hard drive. Also, most Via EPIA motherboards have built-in MPEG2 decoders, so if I were to use one of those, the CPU requirements should be very small overall. I was planning to put the PVR-250 in my main computer, and just use a diskless EPIA box to play back the video from the network. However, I'd also like to be able to play XVID movies, and I'm not sure how well that'll work with an EPIA system. Maybe the faster ones can handle it (M10000, Nemeniah)?

I'd really have no desire to use a pre-built DVR, mainly because I want to do more than simply time-shift TV shows. That just simply isn't enough. I want to play MP3s from my main computer over the network, I want to play Divx/Xvid, I want to be able to save recordings, and I want to be able to skip commercials, either with a single button-press (30-second skip), or better yet automatically as MythTV claims to do. Supposedly the MythTV interface is also fairly simple to use, but I haven't tried it yet.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Surt]

My $50 WalMart Apex 1100W (I think that's the model) will do it. There are a number that will, but I believe they can't advertise it as a feature (part of their DVD consortium agreement). So you have to find models that do it via word of mouth.

I'd start by looking here:

http://directory.google.com/Top/Home/Consumer_In fo rmation/Electronics/Video/DVD_Players/

In particular when I was looking I found epinions helpful, but that was long enough ago things may have changed by now.

Title 18, Section 241: Conspiracy against rights

[rush22]

IANAL, but this comes to mind, seems somewhat similar:

US Code, Title 18, Section 241.


241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

also see 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

(Guatanamo Bay comes to mind)

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[StarWreck]

I call BS. Originally, there were just 3 channels: ABC, NBC, and CBS = (All the people in America)/3 = Lots and Lots for each channel. Then add Fox and PBS. (All the people in America)/5 = quite a damn lot of people for each channel.

Now in comes Cable TV. When I first got cable, the highest channel available was 50 (including HBO and Showtime, but not the 2 porno channels on 98 and 99). (All the people in America)/50 = A significant number of people per channel. Regular cable maxed out at around 80 channels in my area. (All the people in America)/80 = Still a significant number of people per channel.

Today, I have digital cable which goes up to channel 999, including multiple movie channels without commercials PLUS hundreds of "On-Demand" movies and TV shows commercial free which change on a regular basis. (All the people in America)/(999+Hundreds of on Demand Products) = Not all that many people per channel.

Passion of the Christ was an indy film...

[kpp_kpp]

...and I seem to recall it doing fairly well. Regardless of you who are, you have to make things people want to see - and be able to market it. I suppose if we were in a less free country we could all be force to watch crap. But instead we are in a free country where it is perfectly acceptable for marketers to use the ploys of their trade to make you watch their crap.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Darby]

I pay for HBO. Why? HBO doesn't suck. I also record HBO and watch it later. Why? HBO doesn't suck.

How much other crap that does suck are you required to pay for before you're even given the option of paying for HBO that doesn't suck, though?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[lokedhs]

I believe this is what people would call a "strawman argument".

The grandparent poster claimed that it's not expensive to make a good tv show. You yourself agreed with this. The reason it's so expensive to make your voice heard is because you need to may more money than the others to cut through their marketing. With less money in the business, there will be less money for marketing, which will level the playing field a bit for the independents.

For you, as an independent media maker, do you really find the current situation better than what we'd have with a more "flexible" media distribution system?

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

Approximately 51% of the nation appears to be heavily against gay marriage. You don't think these people have sex with the lights on where they can actually see these foul "breasts" do you? No, they have sex in the dark so they can't see the evil, dirty things they are doing.

These same people probably do it in the dark, missionary style only. Any other way is against what the Bible says, so it needs to be illegal.

really?

[way2trivial]

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/vchip.html

As of January 1, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all new television sets 13 inches or larger to contain the V-chip technology

Re:really?

[theLOUDroom]

As of January 1, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all new television sets 13 inches or larger to contain the V-chip technology

WHICH THEY DID AFTER CONGRESS PASSED A LAW ALLOWING THEM TO.

You really missed the point.
If the FCC is going to have expanded powers, they have to be given them by congress.

If congress passed a law requiring all TVs to be broadcast flag compliant, then the FCC would have a mandate to enforce it. The FCC cannot, on their own, decide to place arbitrary requirements on electronic devices.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[Anonymous Coward]

As posted, that is NOT the FCC's job. Maybe the cause is a supply/demand imbalance. Let the market sort it, without passing laws that tilt the scales.

It's not about GOD

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thread isn't about God, at all. It's about who sets the rules and who has to submit to them.

Re:What does this mean for the future of televisio

[dvdeug]

Family Guy is about 1 million per episode. I don't think that sci-fi shows are particularly more expensive than other shows...

Or rather, animation isn't particularly cheap either. Low budget shows are usually completely live action.