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?
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."
Given the broad nature of the FCC's attempted power grab, mentioning washing machines is entirely appropriate.
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.
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.
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...
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