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
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.
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.