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."
Yeah, this was a complete legal smackdown all right. The only reason the court could possibly have for not killing the flag is a technicality. If they find that the plaintiffs don't have standing to bring the complaint, all it means is that they have to wait for someone with standing to bring it. Sooner or later, that flag is history. At least until the broadcasting conglomerates can find some other way to require it...
PS: First(ish) post!
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I dont have explicit authority to fine people for looking at me in a funny way, but it isn't outlawed. I'm woindering what mandate the FCC has to go past explicit authority.
Anyone can copy a show for educational purposes - not just librarians (or teachers).
This new chipset might very-well prevent people from recording shows on VCRs - which is allowed per the beta-max ruling that happend over twenty years ago.
IIRC the beta-max ruling applies to recording shows onto dvd (just another medium...hell some people don't even have VCRs anymore - just DVRs and the like).
I hope the judge lays the smack down.
I also find it disconcerting that it has been mentioned that advocate groups cannot contest FCC rules...since when can't the public contest a law/rule by a gov't agency...last I heard gov't agencies (i.e. FCC) work for us.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Now, although they claim
So what is the broadcast flag for? If a certain owner wishes to use a VirtualDVHS program, instead of a rather expensive DVHS deck, what guarantee do the content mafia have that those streams won't be passed around like candy?
I feel as though the consumer electronics people have somehow been encourage to lie, cheat, and cajole their customers into compliance...
This story should be in the interest of nearly everybody who watches TV, yet the USA Today article makes it sound like it's only going to affect pirates, then has some vague reference to libraries being unable to use TV programs as educational tools.
Here's the problem: The broadcast flag can prevent normal people from recording any of their favourite TV shows. People care about that because they record shows all the time so they can view them later. People need to understand that what the FCC wants to do will give them less rights to watch TV how they want.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
> 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.
Actually, this was the back door.
Congress told them to fuck off when they went looking for legislation.
Then, they went to the FCC, and Michael Powell was more than willing to bend over for big business. But, that seems to be standard operating procedure for the current administration. They talk "free markets", but in practice there are way too many gifts to big business. (letting polluters out of environmental enforcements, letting Microsoft out of antitrust enforcements, etc.) Locking the little guys out of the market and perpetuating the market for the big guys.
This may, in fact, work in favor of the corporate media moguls.
If precedent is set that the FCC can't regulate HDTV hardware implementations then they can legitimize their plans to enforce restricted access to media through the HDMI interface. Once the OTA signal is demodulated the FCC can't prevent the transmission of the video over an encrypted link. HDMI implementors are prohibited from providing unencumbered access to the full-res HD signal. Existing HD monitors and tuners will not matter since any new hardware with HDMI will not work with these legacy devices.
My guess is that the proponents of the broadcast flag are willing to lose it because it only serves to strengthen the fortifications for their next attempt at plugging the HDTV hole.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
have they ever said who it's for? I'm assuming at least motion pictures ("Movies. They're worth it.") and sporting events (at last they have a method of enforcing the "This telecast may not be copied..." spiel). But what's to stop the networks from flagging everything with the broadcast flag? About the only thing to stop that is the ATSC DVR market, which would be DOA if absolutely everything was flagged. Or at least it would take consumers a while to realize they wasted money on a boat anchor, and another business fiasco would be brewing, with the DVR manufacturers trying to hold down the lid on the pot.
Of course this does not affect HD satellite systems, since they can use their own system to flag programs as untimeshiftable. Keep in mind that DirecTV is owned by News Corporation, which also owns Fox. There's a whole other powderkeg to deal with.
And as far as DVHS, it's going the way of the dodo. Tape stretching and wear over time is bad for analog tapes, but even worse when a digital stream is on there. I see HD recording devices going to hard disk, since 10 GB per hour of HD isn't as insurmountable as it was three years ago.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Not true. For 200+ years, Congress has just said that 99% of their rules are allowed because they affect interstate commerce in some vague, tertiary way, and they do have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The problem is they have warped that beyond all belief. A cannabis club for terminal patients in California was raided even though they followed state law, raised their own cannabis in california, and sold it to nobody (all donated to the patients). The fed. gov't argued that the fact they grew it at all was sufficient to cause people in other states to want to buy it, hence 'interstate commerce' involving no commerce, and no interstate traffic. Yes, the lunatics are running the asylum.
...the judge owns a VCR. Try explaining to anyone who owns, or has owned a VCR, that they will be no longer be able to record the television shows that they're paing to see, and most people will end up with the correct conclusion: We pay for this service, and it's up to us when, and if we watch the shows.
It's so f'in ludicrous that the FCC thinks it can dictate what you watch, and when, but then still expect vendors to be able to charge us full price for a monthly subscription.
In fact, if something like this passed, I would propose a series of class action suits which would limit our monthly cable/sattelite bill to only that which we've watched! If we can't record shows, and watch them at a later time, then we shouldn't be charged for that which we're unable to watch, due to scheduling, conflicts, or personal choice!
Think about it... How fast will the cable providers be pounding on the FCC's door if they realize that they can only charge us for what we watch, on a per show basis! And if a bill like this passes, than that same logic applies to this: If I can't record and watch my TV at my leisure, then I shouldn't have to pay for something which I'm unable to watch due to federal legislation (and/or scheduling conflicts).
A country of television providers would be calling for the FCC's ass on a stake if this happened, and I don't think it'd be too hard to bring such a suite to court and win, if the FCC gets their way with the proposed limitations.
Yup...basically, you'll NEVER get rich working for someone else. The only way around this...is to incorporate yourself. Go for a subchapter "S" corporation...bill yourself out at a much lower rate than what you charge. Say you bill yourself out at $100K for a year...but, only 'pay' yourself a normal salary of like $30-$40K (it has to be a "reasonable salary" for job description). Then, you pay only SS and medicare on that salary portion...the rest of it falls through the corp as income. You are taxed on it sure, but, you bypass all the SS crap.
Personally...and I've got a good bit of time in the 'system'. If I could quit paying today for SS, I'd give up all benefits they say I have coming to me. Let me invest it all...I'd be far better off, and I'd have something to leave to my family after I'm gone.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, you could do what MOST individuals have to do when they've overcommitted their income - cut back on spending until you've caught up.
Unfortunately, it looks like the government has chosen the other typical route that U.S. individuals take: keep spending yourself into a hole until you have to declare bankruptcy. Except when the U.S. government has to declare bankruptcy, it's going to cause a whole lot more problems than when an individual does.
The court hasn't ruled yet. It's not going to rule for months, most likely. So it's very early to be saying that the broadcast flag is in trouble.
Mostly people seem to be looking at what one of the judges said. This is a big mistake.
Judges routinely will adopt a position opposite to that of what the lawyer before them has. By challenging the lawyer, they force him to make good arguments on behalf of his side, and to answer tough questions that he'd otherwise prefer to avoid. It doesn't mean anything as to the judge's opinion, or how he will rule. It's just a technique for getting information.
It's entirely normal to go in front of a judge, arguing on behalf of A. The judge will be very harsh, point out the flaws of A, and ask why B isn't better. When the other side has their turn, the judge immediately starts praising A and making the other side defend B. The constant is that he's putting whoever is in front of him on the defensive, making him explain his argument and admit to its weaknesses as well as the strengths that would be extolled anyway.
This sort of questioning doesn't mean anything about the eventual outcome.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The market isn't entirely an abstraction. The market could be considered to be the sum of all consumers of goods and services, including producers purchasing their factors of production. Each of these actors places some value on clean air (though you can substitute anything) in their preferences. When purchasing other goods and services, part of the production of those goods and services may be heavy pollution, or child labour, or clubbing baby seals.
;)
If consumers valued clean air (not necessarily monetarily), they would choose alternatives to goods with heavy-pollution as a factor of production. And some consumers do factor in pollution from production into their purchasing decisions. Some people will pay a premium for environmentally friendly goods, or refuse to purchase goods produced by child labour, or cosmetics tested on animals. The sum of these conscientious actors, however, is not significantly large enough to counter the more immediate cost (not necessarily monetary) benefits of cheaper goods and services produced with questionable long term consequences.
Ultimately "the market", free or regulated, does not deter pollution. Either way as long as there exists self-interest, an entirely free market does not very well address issues of public resources. And so there is a purpose for government regulation.
As an aside, where do you draw the line on these big-bad-polluters? At what point does clean air/water/soil as a factor of production, or consumption of clean air/water/soil put someone in the "fraud and extortion" game? Is it when you exhale some CO2? Turn on your computer? Light a cigarette? Start your car?
As another aside, this got a little side-tracked from the original story on the broadcast flag.