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."
The broadcast flag isn't quite dead yet, but at least it's in trouble
This is by no means dead. When the entertainment industry can't foist something on you by the backdoor they use plan B: Ask the senate for a nice bit of special interest legislation.
You can tell the quality of your opponent by the cunning of their plan B, in this case their plan B is just as good as their plan A. In a way, I kinda admire the cunts.. :)
Simon.
Social security allows you to leach off of other people's kids.
He's not saying the libraries aren't affected, just that they aren't affected more than anyone else. Ie., nobody can bring a lawsuit saying the government exceeded its bounds, as long as we're all getting screwed equally....if they throw the case out on that grounds, I'm gonna be really worried.
"Clinton may have lied like Pinochio, but he balanced our checkbook."
Yeah, sure, you just keep believing that...
Maybe you should try reading a book like "Running on Empty", then maybe you will learn how BOTH parties put us in this mess.
If the appeals panel decides that the consumers groups can't contest the FCC requirements, it would dismiss the case regardless of any concerns about the anti-piracy technology
This may be a naive question, but if not the people affected by the FCC cannot challenge them, who the hell can?
Or what the manufacturers might do is simply support the broadcast flag through software. The more I think about it, a software solution for supporting the flag is the most cost effective option. Companies don't have to go and redesign any chips and boards all they need to do is have some code monkey do a check for the flag in the software and the job is done no expensive retooling, plus all your exsisting cards can be "upgraded" to support the flag.
Granted I'm most likey oversimplfying the whole deal here, but this is how I would do it because it's the cheaper option.
This sig has no nutritional value...
This rocked me back on my heels:
"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."
Especially since the 10th amendment to the US Constitution says:
"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."
Got that, FCC boy? If you're not explicitly given the power, you can't exercise it.
Lawyers! Damn their oily hides!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
It doesn't matter if the FCC is forced to repeal the broadcast flag. Manufacturers have already spent money to implement it, and the consumers probably won't force them to change it. Manufacturer's wallets are probably influenced more by the MPAA than by their customers. (As evidenced by PC manufacturers embracing DRM technologies and trusted computing.)
I bet that the flag will be repealed but manufacturers will continue to see the crippled hardware. Consumers will whine and complain but that will change nothing. The best we can hope is that it will become an excuse to sell you new hardware that is identical to what you just bought, except with a solder connection removed somewhere. The manufacturers then stand to double their money. Still, the consumer loses.
Gee, I don't know - you can wash (real) flags in one, and using a href="http://www.altvetmed.com/face/47304-semaphor e-flags.html" semaphor flags is certainly communications so of course the FCC has jurisdiction over washing machines.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Cute, but to the extent you're serious, you're missing the point. The FCC has no authority to regulate communications equipment in this way. Congress did not authorize them to do so. The FCC admits that. The FCC argues that since Congress did not prohibit them from making this kind of regulation, they are allowed to do it. The judge is pointing out that if they are allowed to regulate something as long as it's not explicitly prohibited to them, then logically they can regulate almost everything. They can regulate washing machines, as long as there's no law stating "The FCC may not regulate washing machines."
and it works fine even then. There is no social security "crisis", just like there were no WMD's. In 40 years, if nothing else changes, SS will be able to pay 80% of promised benifits, which will still be a larger benifit, both in absolute and adjusted dollars, than today. Don't fall for the propaganda, the republican "fix" doesn't even address the problems that they're carping about...
Given the broad nature of the FCC's attempted power grab, mentioning washing machines is entirely appropriate.
Ah, but it doesn't seem to disallow me making a copy of the material for my own use!
I still don't get this logic....
A spike in a generation (baby boomers) means a bigger spike (geometric growth, everyone has at least 2.5 kids, right?) in following generations.
That means there are more workers NOW (children of baby boomers) than there are baby boomers. So where's the problem?
The only problem I can see is if a generation was SMALLER than its parent generation.
no comment
From TFA: "But another appeals judge on the panel questioned whether consumers can challenge the FCC's rules in the courtroom."
If consumers have to abide by FCC rulings and can be taken to court if they don't follow them then why would consumers not be allowed to take their rulings to court?
U.S. appeals court debates anti-piracy TV technology
It's being dubbed 'AntiPiracy' . Not Digital Rights Management or any other Politically Correct term. It's being shock valued, to bias the interpretation by the regular Consumers, and Average Mom & Pops. Mom & Pop VCR User doesn't want to consider themselves in the same light as the wiley Video Pirate. Seems to me an attempt to make it a little more palatable to the masses, and smooth the adoption via other means.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
The problem with the social security system is that there is NO fair way to stop it. Once set in motion, it has to continue to churn forever or else someone gets screwed by it. The current generation of old people drawing social security checks have already paid their dues into the system. In order for them to get what what they rightly say the government owes them, money has to come out of MY income to do it, and later on in order for me to get what's owed me, money will have to come out of the next generation's income to do it. So there just is no way to STOP the system without giving a big "Ha Ha! sucks to be you!" to whatever generation happens to be drawing on it at the time you turn the system off.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
When Social Security was instituted, there were 10 workers for every retiree. Yes, the current average is 2.5 kids, which when you take into account that some folks will not retire, or will die before retirement, will leave us with about 3 workers to support each retiree in a few years.
The privatized accounts that you keep hearing about are not a fix for social sucurity and are not meant to be, what they are is an attemt by the governement to pass some of the burden of in the future and make you partially responsible for yourself. The rest of the plan is to lock adjustments to the benefit to inflation instead of the rate of wage increases (currently, increases in benefits are based on the increase in average wages, which is greater than inflation, so each successive generation has greater buying power from their benefit)
Another way to possibly "fix" social security is raising the retirement age. When SS was institued, the average life span was only about 65. You worked until the average person died, and if you were still alive, you could retire and get a pension from the gov't. The average lifespan today is 72+ (I believe 72 for men, 74 for women) I am not saying to raise the age that far, but 68 or 69 would make a big dent.
Currently a large portion of the national income is not taxed for Social Security purposes. If you make $100k per year, on the first $90k gets taxes for FICA (SocSec), the remaining $10k does not. The cap has traditionally been high enough that 10% of the income was untaxed for SS purposed. It is currently > 15% (as wages have increased greatly in the last few years, but the cap has not). I personally think that if you are goingto tax any income, it should all be taxed. If I make 90k and you make 180k, then you are in effect only paying half the percentage that I do in FICA. This shuld be fixed, perhaps even making it a progressive tax , since the benefit is progressive (if you make more in your workign years, you get more back, why not pay more too).
Finally, you could always raise the Social Security tax by one percent Its not enuogh that it would hurt terribly, but when taken over the course fo the 37 years until Social security becomes insolvent under the current system, it would help.
These fixes (without locking benefits increases to inflation instead of wages) would make Social Security solvent for the 75 year project period.
I've paid into social security my whole life and it will be gone by the time I qualify, who is leaching off of who(m)? I never get to leach off of anyone, except an occasional fserve...
And of course this is only one circuit, others could hold differently if multiple challenges were filed around the country.
So judicially, this could play out for a long time.
And of course, Congress could just pass a bill mandating the broadcast flag or expanding the FCC's authority so that they can readopt this rule.
Armchairgenius.com - Where everyone is a genius.
The FCC is a department of the executive branch, having no power to propose laws, yet alone create and approve their own.
Video Production Support
Well you see the FCC trusts that networks wont abuse this power - for example, they could potentially put the broadcast flag on absolutely everything but the FCC has absolute faith that they won't, they have infact so much trust in the networks that they're relaxing the ownership laws. - of course when it comes to saying fuck, the FCC doesn't trust them any further than they can throw the book at them, because thats so much more important.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It makes me cry in my beer to think that Reagan may have been the best president of the last 40 years or so. What's really scary is the amount of US Treasury securities that Asian banks (especially China) hold. That's the real benifit of Social Security privatization. Americans owning more of the world. The arms race of the 21st century is going to be about the accumulation of assets.
But to get back on topic here, at least there's a court that's made an intelligent decision for a change. The likely outcome, is that even if this broadcast flag eventually goes through, it'll be tied up in court and probably not implemented for several years. Or so we can hope.
bance.net
Man that must be nice ehh? To loose in one court and be able to say: 'Nah, I don't like that outcome, let's try another one...'
No Comment.
Sounds like a ponzi scheme to me...
So what you're saying is that this is going to hurt and annoy the Joe Average tv-watcher while just being another pylon to run around for the guys who rip the TV shows for P2P distribution. And the P2P downloaders won't even feel a ripple. Yay!
>In fact, if something like this passed, I would propose a series of class action suits
... BushCo is already way ahead of you. We have to stop clogging the court system with these class action suits which do nothing but steal money from the companies which support us and our way of life. By definition, any lawsuits brought by citizens against corporations are just attempts to gain outragous payouts - there can be no merit to these suits - if there were, the FCC would act on behalf of the citizens ...
...
Sorry
So it goes in bizarro-world
I am a lawyer (although litigation is not my area). The general rule is that standing to bring a case requires more than the generalized injury that all citizens suffer (The thinking goes that congress is charged with addressing that sort of generalized injury). If the courts find that consumer groups (weak - because we are all consumers - thus the injury is generalized) and libraries (stronger) don't have standing, then the most likely plaintiffs will be hardware manufacturers - who can point to added costs. Are there any manufacturers who have voiced opposition to the flag? If not a good plaintiff may be hard to find. Courts have held that in some cases - bascially no one has standing.
Taxes don't have to go up. They could even go down. Just drastically reduce government "services" until we have paid off our debts. Of course neither republicans nor democrats have any intention of doing this. I find it amusing when tax and spenders see our overspending as a justification for taxing more. That is an endless feedback loop which will result in nearly 100% income taxes eventually. Then you will get your wish. The government should not be allowed to borrow money. Period. If they cannot raise enough money through taxes, then they need to lower their spending. When are you going to realize that the only real difference between democrats and republicans is their speeches. Everything else is just marketing and spin. They choose to sell themselves in different ways. That's all.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
No government is without corruption. Is there anyone truly immune to an offer of a sufficiently large amount of money?
Satan.
-kgj
-kgj
...neither of which have any redeeming social value...
Businesses will sell anything that someone will buy. The more people are willing to buy a certain product (cigarettes, guns, pornography, drugs etc.) the more businesses there will be trying to sell such items. Even if the Governemt outlaws certain products, (drugs, porn, certain weapons) there will still be some business that will sell these, if people exist who will buy such stuff. All that outlawing an item does in dramatically raise its price making it unaffordable to most. Social value has nothing to do with this unfortunately.
All theory is gray
The market on its own would disagree with you.
Since when did abstract concepts have opinions?
People don't value clean air, water, soil, etc. enough for their purchasing decisions to force polluters out of business, or to even change their production methods.
A clean environment, has NO MARKET VALUE. That does not mean it has no value whatsoever.
It is a myth spread by polluters that that EVERYTHING can be (and would by some magical process, automatically be) reduced to a monetary value. This myth is convenient, because it means that everything is available to those who have the money. (And the biggest polluters have most of they money). Even things which can not be sold or bought become available for cash if this myth is widely accepted.
Can I sell you your clean environment? I don't own it. But if you value it so much, then perhaps you should pay me so that I don't burn toxic chemicals?
Polluters want to be paid for something they dont own. It is quite simply: FRAUD and EXTORTION.
mere criminal acts which even Free Marketers usually look to a government entity to prohibit.
To allow FRAUD and EXTORTION to go unpunished, is to encourage and reward it.
The strongest advocates of a FREE MARKET sit on trillions of dollars of wealth which was originally aquired by acts of violence and military power, at far less than MARKET value, under the guise of divine right/will, manifest destiny or the justification of "spreading justice and civilization".
Now polluters want to be paid lest they will destroy the environment which they dont own.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
That and Republicans have always tended to favor smaller government by reducing programs, and Democrats have tended to favor large government supported by taxes. Balance things, but by vastly different ways. Unfortunately, more programs and lower taxes are popular, so both get passed and budgets sink. The one area the Republicans love spending money is defense. Watch all social services disappear, but we'll send more money to defense contractors (not the men and women who are on the front lines).
I'm one of those rare people who would gladly pay higher taxes if it meant we could have universal health care (and get rid of this horrid HMO and insurance industry), decently paid teachers and well-funded schools, etc. Tax the hell out of me if it means the basic standard of life is raised for all citizens.
Please recall that for decades the top tax bracket was much higher - above 60%. Only during the Reagan era did it drop to 30-ish percent. So all we did was give the truly rich a big tax cut.
People always talk about taxes funding their private needs and throw a fit when it might fund something that doesn't directly benefit them. Folks, government exists to serve the basic needs of all its citizens. Your taxes are paid to provide services from schools, emergency services, roads, etc. Some people will pay a bit more than the services they get in return - usually people in wealthy areas, since they have a large tax base but less needs. People in poorer, rural areas receive far more from the government than they pay in taxes. Taxes do not support "me and mine". They support us all, and are deeply important.