Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
"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.
Once again the judicial branch is the ONLY branch of government with ANY respect for the common citizen. What a PATHETIC display.
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.
There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
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.
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.
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...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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!
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
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
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.
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.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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...
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
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.
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?
/rant off
Back to TV: How much would you pay to remove commercials from the broadcast? Everyone will benefit from legal, commercial-free, TV downloads.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
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.
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...
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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.
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.
Pulled from here
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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
bork bork bork!
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???
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
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.
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.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
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
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
" 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"?
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.
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).
What?
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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".
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!