Slashdot Mirror
Broadcast Flag in Trouble
pdqlamb writes "USA Today reports an appeals court was not amused at the FCC's broadcast flag rule. Sounds like the judge bought into the argument that the FCC does not have the authority to dictate device design. The broadcast flag isn't quite dead yet, but at least it's in trouble."
We start with: "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world...You've gone too far. Are washing machines next?" (Edwards)
Followed by: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world." (Sentelle)
Tag team attack! Now if only we could get one of them to hear the lokitorrent.com case or, better yet, outlaw the RIAA...
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
The flag isn't dead *yet*... IANAL but my understanding is there's another step to stop it's implmentation. i.e. the judges (2 of them anyways) agreed that it was a ludicrous overreach by the FCC to be enforcing copyright laws and outside their mandate. Unfortunately that revelation won't stop the courts from screwing up the final decision and letting the Broadcast Flag come to fruition.
Also as noted by previous posters, even if FCC gets the full smackdown, they seem confident they can go to congress and get them to pass the mandate they didn't have to begin with =(
I posted a bunch of Broadcast Flag related links here
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
When saying that the jugde didn't buy that the FCC has the right to pass this rule, it should be noted that here was no actual ruling, and that the court might even decide that the case can't be brought by the parties that filed it (which leads to the crazy logic that the judge outright says that the FCC has no right to make this rule but he'll do nothing about it). Worse, with no rule set by the courts and the deadline fast approaching, manufacturers who want to stay in business have little option but to supprt the damn flag. They are less likely to spend more money later to redesign new hardware to omit support for it again, and if they do that will only drive the price of HDTV even higher.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
You don't have authority to require people to pay fines, and that is enshrined in law. The government does, and unless you're part of the government, even by extension (deputized, for example), you don't have such a power, and you are explicitly barred from collecting such fines.
Congress is usually pretty specific on the powers it grants to the FCC. There have been several occasions when the FCC has found a loophole, and Congress has closed it rapidly. If they don't have legal authority here, Congress will have to explicitly give them such authority, which will probably get bogged down in debate. Many members of Congress are not particularly keen on these kinds of powers.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Just like previous laws, that affect retail products, companies will be allowed to sell their current stock; new stock has to be produced with the new technology.
I know you were being funny (i thought you were going another route with the joke though), but just in case some people actually thought on it for a moment and wondered "what does happen to all of the tv's without this technology?"
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I know the whole thread is a joke, so I probably shouldn't bother with a serious reply, but here it is anyway...
Social security was never setup (or even advertised to be) like that. It's always been you pay for the current crop of retirees. And the next crop of worker bees will pay for you when you retire. Works fine unless there are sudden spikes in retirees (damn baby boomers).
The FCC's lawyer, Jacob Lewis, acknowledged the agency never had exercised such ancillary power but maintained it was permitted by Congress since lawmakers didn't explicitly outlaw it.
Hmmm... according to the Tenth Ratified Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. -- The FCC should not be able to impose sanctions on anything, yet alone private trade (the devices).
Video Production Support
The 10th Amendment has been a dead letter for a looong time. If it were strictly applied, most of what the Federal government does would necessarily be judged unconstitutional. Not that I'm saying that would be a bad thing, but don't expect it any time soon -- 200+ years of precedent are against you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Not to nit-pick, but removing environmental enforcement provisions and letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements are both actions that make the market more free. Consumer protection and corporate protection are both regulated influence on the markets, something with a free market is supposed to avoid.
Why does nobody understand the social security trust fund?
The increase in payments caused by the retirement of the Baby Boom generation was predicted in the 70s. The Reagan administration got a payroll tax increase enacted, to build up the trust fund and make sure that we could cover the costs.
We have been paying this tax since 1983. We have collectively paid $1.7 TRILLION dollars in extra taxes, to build up the system so that the Boomers can retire. Mostly, these taxes have been paid by the Boomers themselves, during their peak wage-earning years.
Social Security was carefully designed so that nobody leeches off anyone but themselves. You pay in for your entire working life, then you draw during your retirement.
Reducing benefits (which is what "privatization" or "personalization" really means) is nothing more or less than stealing from the $1.7 TRILLION that we have ALREADY PAID in taxes.
Why anyone considers this acceptable is beyond me.
-Graham
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you can somehow construe this as legal advice, the circus wants you as a contortionist.
The 10th would only affect whether or not Congress had the power, not whether or not htey delegated it.
Even assuming that Congress *does* have it, it would have to explicitly grant authority for this function to the FCC (or any other administrative agency). OTOH, if Congress doesn't have it, there is no way, whether it granted it or not, that the FCC could excercise it.
hawk
I would simply respond with a look at budget surpluses and deficits from the 60's through today. Try out my untrustworthy biased liberal sources.
Stays pretty decent until *shock* 1983! Then it gets better in *shock* the mid 90's! It drops off a cliff again in *shock* 2002!
No, no pattern at all there. Nope. [AHEM...Tax Cuts, Iraq Wars, Arms Race...AHEM]
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
No way man. Some Taiwanese factory will crank out no-bit HDTV cards and they will sell like hotcakes. Any card with the bit will be DOA. Who wants to buy crippled hardware when non-crippled is available?
At least 2 out of the 3 judges were skeptical of the FCC's arguments, though some of them were also skeptical of some of the claims of hte challengers. I attended the hearings and blogged a play-by-play of the argument.
Umm the EFF is then plantiff in this case along with the ALA.
I am a lawyer - and that's not the way it works. The legal concept of Res Judicata (Litterally - the thing is judged). Prevents parties who are unhappy with the results of a legal suit from refiling the case between the same parties based on facts arising out of the same events. So if they lose in the D.C. Circuit (which, unlike most circuits, has nationwide jurisdiction) they can't just try again in another circuit. They can, of course, apply for an en banc rehearing and after that to the US Supreme Court.
Sorry, I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative. Actually I have done the research on S-corps and C-corps and am currently putting together my own paperwork for my own incorporation, and I plan on filing as an S-corp.
The problem is, you cannot avoid the "SS monster." At some point you have to take the money out of your corporation if you want to enjoy it and there's really only two ways to do that:
1) Dividends - taxed at Self Employment rate (which is the FICA tax, doubled)
2) Employee Compensation - where FICA taxes are withheld by the corporation
Sure, you can have the corporation buy your house and lease your car and all sorts of other things like that, but that bring up a host of other tax issues. It can be done, but it's a pain in the arse and you do risk "piercing the vail" of liability. If you have millions of dollars in revenues, OK, but that's a totally different situation.
I believe you are confusing S-Corps with C-Corps. Don't forget that as an S-Corp, all the income from the corporation is poured directly into your 1040 - which will push you up into a higher tax bracket. Everyone's situation is different, so everyone must figure if the higher tax bracket is better for them, mainly related to being able to write off business losses (which you probably don't have in your computer consultant example). When you are referring to an "S" corpororation, you really mean "C" corp, which is taxed at it's own tax rate.
All corporations have certain benefits such as providing liablility protection and some tax benefits, just not for the reason you're referring to.
You'll get taxed in other ways one way or another and you just can't avoid it. You can delay it, but you can't avoid being taxed. You can probably avoid paying some of your FICA, but that money will be taxed another way in the end, so you're not really gaining anything.
There are a great many other benefits of having one's own corporation, but by all means, consult with a tax advisor and a CPA! This stuff is slightly complicated, especially if you're starting out confused over S-corps and C-corps!
Unfortunately, there are millions of destitute people in our history that makes our society realize that not everyone is able to take care of themselves in their old age, and for the betterment of society as a whole, we have this social security thing. It appears that in your own situation, you don't feel like it benefits you and you're probably right, but that's part of the responsibility you bare as being a member of this society. The nice thing is, once you reach retirement age, you'll have a nice benefit check coming to you (assuming the Republicans don't kill SS as they would like to). I don't like paying taxes to finance the killing of Iraqi children, or being lied to by my government, but I still have to pay the taxes. At least with SS, I'll get something back in the end.
Oh, and for the record, there is no SS crisis and SS was absolutely, definately, intended as a retirement benefit, and it isn't any different than it was in it's original form. I wonder where you got the idea that it was changed in any significant fashion? Do a little research on that site, before you respond (but please do respond).
Did anyone bother to notice that the article only referred to the oral arguments in the case? This was not a decision. These were only statements and questions from two of the judges sitting on the panel hearing the case.
This isn't totally accurate. Yes, corporations are legal entities, but in the absence of corporate law, you'd just have a regime of interlocking indemnifications - generating a consruct very similar to a corporation ...
Your next step would be to say that contract law is just a construct regulating free markets - well maybe so, but contract law is at base determined between the two actors voluntarily binding themselves together... and hence is not an external regulation.
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos