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."
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.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
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.
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.)
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?
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.
Whereas:
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:
There. That'll slow down the inexorable grind of government expansion.
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.
InThane
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:
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"