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."
it will be illegal to live in America.
For everyone.
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
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!
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.
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.
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...
...is the sound of thousands of geeks cancelling their orders for broadcast-flag-free tuner cards.
Have you read my blog lately?
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.
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
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.)
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 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?
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.
"Any similarity between the hooting of a million eager monkeys and Slashdot is purely coincidental." -THEFLASHMAN
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.
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."
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.'"