Slashdot Mirror
Regulators Lose Piracy Battle
asok_g33k writes "The US broadcast regulators were told today by a court of appeal that it 'crossed the line' in trying to dictate how devices functioned. This was after the regulators tried to ban a device which allowed TV shows to be pirated.
This comes after studies revealing that massive amounts of TV shows are beign illegaly downloaded from the internet and the regulators want a way to stop these shows being pirated and copied."
what is this a competition ?
yesterday
This article appeared yesterday.
And the day before yesterday.
Tomorrow, I intend to hold an opinion, so if you could post it then too, that'd be great.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Can we expect each of them to repost this? It's important stuff though. We need to hear it again and again.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
As long as the stream can be recorded on at least a decent quality analog medium, broadcast tv or even dvds will be "reproducable"
I just think i had a flashback.. Or its just such a good story that every editor wants to post it..
5 46244&tid=129&tid=17 1 33250&tid=123&tid=129
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/1
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/2
Tried to mail the editors, but apparently they dont check their email
From TFA:
"Selling televisions is not what the FCC is in the business of."
Amazing they needed a three-judge panel to tell them that. It's obviously not over yet with the appeals court still yet to rule whether the consumer groups that brought the suit have standing, but it's a fantastic sign! Both for this decision as well as upcoming decisions on whether the government can force PC makers to implement DRM and "Trusted Computing" initiatives.
I'm a big tall mofo.
There is no way to stop
Sometimes, it is feasible to "invent" a DRM solution as if not all, but MOST users will obey it, and sometimes (in this case) it is not. What should be right or wrong, is a totally different question though.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It's not the first time and it won't be the last time that retailers had to follow pirates into a distribution model.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
Hammers are being massivly abused to kill people. They need to be equipped with a fingerprint sensor and a homing beacon and a rubber head so they can't be abused! END THE MADNESS NOW!
Beep beep.
samzenpus changes his name to dupesTacosPosts here
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
Maybe if /. had a broadcast flag, it would be able to recognize stories which had been broadcast and avoid copying them?
Ok, a bit lame, but I'm having a hard time trying to come up with anything which wasn't posted the first two times...
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
How about a little truth: "Regulators tried to ban a device that would allow for personal copying, and went against a previous Supreme Court ruling (Sony vs Betamax)."
There once was a time when I respected Slashdot for it's common-sense + Left'ish wing viewpoints. Now it looks like nothing more then an elementary school whine-fest. Poor spelling, grammer and an uncanny nack for re-posting stuff other peoples' work.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
The economics of distribution have changed, and they're trying to maintain their income stream while looking for alternate means. What google has taught us is that advertising can support freely copy-able content if done right.
I paid $5.00 to see 1,000 dupes before everyone else. It seems the only added value subscribers have now-a-days is to be the first ones to be disappointed by another dupe.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
"massive amounts of TV shows are beign illegaly downloaded from the internet" .
Is this really illegal , I am not aware of any case in which someone has been prosecuted for downloading TV shows
IANAL , though wouldnt this classify as Potential copyright infringment, as it is yet to be tested in court.
Does anyone know if this is definantly illegal ?
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
When the MSs, the RIAAS, the MPAAs, the Disneys etc finally admit that there is no agressive tactic that will work. The world has moved on now. People have access to broadband to download tons of data, people have means of backing up loads of data (soon TBs we hear). P2P and similar stuff is rampant. People want to copy stuff from their TV. People don't want to be forced into shitty exploitative DRMed and constrictive nonsense. They want to transfer their music to CD, to play it in a range of devices, they want to make backups of their DVDs.
They are all fighting a loosing battle. Start listening to what people want instead of what they don't want.
As far as is my understanding (I'm not from the US, so correct me if I'm wrong) the FCC is supposed to be regulating the electromagnetic spectrum.
DRM is not a matter which the FCC should be concerned with, since it is not related to the EM spectrum which they are supposed to be regulating.
Why should the FCC be allowed to regulate what parts of the signal recieved are acted upon, after it has left the tuner?
Yes the FCC is tasked with providing technical direction to the broadcast community.
The FCC is not (and should not) be tasked with providing technical direction to the consumer manufacturing community.
Lets create "Meta Slashdot", a site where we solicit news items. We'll have some real editors that actually weed out the dupes and check the facts. Then we submit the news to Slashdot where Cowboy Neal can rubberstamp it.
With some luck we can even bribe Slashdot's ISP to reroute their mail to us, to make sure all submissions are properly vetted. :)
So, what do you say folks? Instead of this endles bitching about how the Slashdot editors suck, let's get together and do something about it!
/greger
Yesterday's article was spun towards the EFF side so this article spins more toward the "regulators" side. While they are regulators of broadcasts, the issue here is whether they are legitimate regulators of non-broadcast functions of devices. To call them regulators here gives them what I consider an undeserved legitimacy.
As far as TV piracy being a growing problem. It probably will continue to be a problem until someone important catches on that all they need to do is come up with a downloadable program package that contains some forms of advertising that people will view.
One possible downloadable tv program package would feature small corner ads or something. They need to make the ads useable but not so intrusive that people feel the need to try and hack them out of there.
Coding Blog
from the FCC web page;
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
I believe the broadcast flag can certainly fit withint the definition of 'communications', as does any technical makeup of the signal being transmitted or received.
Besides, if radio spectrum was all they were about, we (the US) would see a lot more tits in half time shows!
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
This time the news is from the bbc. That is not america this time. So in this article all non americans can discuss the consequences for europe. Because sometimes the laws in europe try to follow the laws in the other parts of the world. Just look at the DCMA and recent discussions of patent law.
By the way, why don't the editors read their own site?
Here in Australia they stick watermarks on every program now. Even funnier - if you're watching widescreen you can see the regular 4:3 station logo, then another one to the right of it, then another watermark with an HDTV logo. Then they stick flashing banners across the bottom telling you about this really great program coming up.
You know, watching a decent movie on free to air in this country it's like viewing the Mona Lisa on a web site. I don't bother any more, I just pick up boxed sets of old UK TV shows off ebay. Faves so far - 7 years of Minder and 54 episodes of The Professionals
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
There's no reason they shouldn't specify the format of the broadcast flag. Or even that stations should use it. This is part fo the broadcast, and part of the standard. But once it has been received and demodulated, the FCC should have no power to require that recording equipment honours the flag.
A digital video recorder typically consists of two parts - A digital tuner and a digital recorder. The FCC is there only to regulate the tuner aspects of it (and even this may be a stretch). The recorder aspect does not do anything with a broadcast signal, so is out of their jurisdiction.
Sure, we had Broadcast Flag in Trouble and Court Says FCC Out-of-Bounds With Digital TV ...but you also missed Preparing for the Broadcast Flag?, where these this court ruling was already mentioned
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
It was only rejected 7 times though ;)
Actually, the verbage in this reference is slanted the other way. The FCC wasn't requiring that hardware works a certain way, they were attempting to ban devices that could be used to pirate video. That's quite a spin wouldn't you say?
And people sharing TV shows on the net is somehow piracy... I wonder if it would be okay with them as long as they left the commercials in?
There once was a time when I respected Slashdot for it's common-sense + Left'ish wing viewpoints. Now it looks like nothing more then an elementary school whine-fest.
The editorial board of slashdot is degenerating Fast. Not that its ever been particularly good at checking articles and correcting grammar, but in recent weeks there has been a significant increase in pro-microsoft, and now pro-cartel postings. This may only be a symptom of a misguided notion that a free software/open source forum and newssite should somehow be "unbiased" and give the enemies of their movement equal time and equal legitimacy (much like the misguided notion that Jewish leaders should debate whether or not the holocaust happened with right-wing revisionists, something the US media has actually tried to engineer, despite the inherent destructive effect of legitimizing very fring and demonstrably nonsensical notions in order to create an appearance of "balance").
Whether this is a symptom of misguided "appearance of balance at any cost," a gradual sellout of slashdot to its advertisers (Microsoft does advertise here, and who knows how much of its bottom line is being threatened if it doesn't post stories along certain political/philosophical grounds), or a shift in slashdot's targetting (moving away from us free software/opensource geeks to a more staid, corporate, proprietary audience) is hard to know. But there has definitely been a change in the tone of the site, and as someone who has been reading slashdot for many years, I can say that it is not a good change.
Spinning the banning of technology that makes recording a TV program a la a VCR as a "piracy device" takes the cake, that's for sure.
What's next, spinning the banning of general purpose computers as an attempt at banning a "piracy device" since computers can (and have been) used to violate the copyright of proprietary software (most commonly MS Windows, alas), music, or even *gasp* TV programs that were broadcast for free on television anyway?
Whoever did that writeup and/or vetted it for slashdot (if slashdot's laxidasical editing can be described as "vetting", a real stretch I grant you) should be fired.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
But how is downloading television episodes illegal? They're on the tube for free, for heaven's sake! As long as the content is not for profit, I don't see where they have a leg to stand on.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
it's a re-run.
A pirated rerun at that.
The real story is that there WAS NO RULING YET, damn it! The question that the judges can't even decide on is whether the suing parties are in position to sue, so it's still very, very likely that nothing will come out of this. Check your facts before posting, will you?
I've dealt with the FCC for a while. My understanding of their responsbility is that... 1. They regulate the Electromagnetic spectrum within the United States. 2. As a result they require electronic devices to not interfere with that spectrum. 3. They regulate how that spectrum is used. i.e. Mode of transmissision and format and in some cases content. A consumer electronics company's job is to build devices that receive those communications, then decode them for the consumer's use. I don't believe the FCC should be regulating what happens to the data once it is received. That is between the consumer and their data. I also believe the FCC overstepped their bounds when they only allow licensed amateur radio operators to own receivers that can receive the cell phone spectrum. The airwaves are free and what we do with the data trvelling through the electomagnetic spectrum in our personal space is our business. My $.02
Here's a point I haven't seen, though I've not read all 100-gabillion replies...
Broadcasters put up shows for people to watch. They pay for it through advertising revenue. Advertisers pay for air time based on how many people watch it. The more people are watching, the more they pay and the more the broadcaster makes. That's what ratings are for. So...
If you download and watch the show, you are not watching it on broadcast which means you aren't counted in the ratings. The ratings for the show go down, the advertisers pay less, the broadcasters pay less. (this assumes the ratings industry is accurate...)
So.... here's the solution. Broadcasters package shows with the advertisements. Put the shows up for free download. Count how often its downloaded, apply a factor to determine how many people actually watch a downloaded show (like newspapers counting readers from borrowed copies) and include those numbers in the ratings. Ratings go up, advertising rates go up. all are happy. You'll still get a portion of the population that doesn't watch the ads, but I bet you'd discover that many people still would. Frankly, I wouldn't mind watching ads if I new it was part of the price for watching the show when I wanted... plus its nice to have the time to duck out to the kitchen or the can.
Or... even easier solution... Ratings industry is already in place, they simply have to make provision for counting those shows that are watched from download. simple.
The point is, it doesn't matter when a show is watched or on what media, just that the producers/broadcasters/advertisers know that its being watched and how often.
man, I feel like mold.
I don't mean to be insensitive in this, but here goes.
Since we can't seem to get rid of the piracy and theft memes with respect to copyright, I propose we consider adding the rape meme.
As in those price fixing, for example, the selling price of CDs, are raping the public. They are copyright rapists. That company is a convicted rapist. Along those lines.
As in those taking undue advantage of artists are rapists as well?
See if they like such pejorative terms when applied to them. They seem to like such terms when applied to those they consider to be their opponents.
all the best,
drew
btw - three tabs open in firefox right now. slashdot, freshmeat and dictionary.com and I just got a popunder add for wall street advisor.
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
This question was settled over twenty years ago! Recording TV is not bloody piracy. The broadcasters are trotting out the same stupid arguments they made before the bench then, but this time the semantic war redefining basic terminology is making the fight unwinnable by the sane.
Copying TV is not piracy. Passing copies around is not piracy. I know, I know, HBO is pay per view. But guess what? We've been recording the shows on VCR's for years. Passing them out to friends without cable. AND NO ONE CARED. Because it's not piracy, ie SELLING the tapes, and two, it didn't hurt HBO, it only made it more popular and made more people want to subscribe. As for satellite TV and similar, they've already bought laws making recordings almost impossible anyway.
But broadcast TV is being shot through my body right now. The idea is to have as many people watch as possible. At least for the last 65 years or so. We've been recording for almost thirty years, we've beaten back the loons who tried to make it a felony, and now they're back and winning, for God's sake.
The court system is stacked with extremely business friendly judges now, thanks to twenty five years of pro-free market Presidents, and there's no way of stopping them, especially since the regulators Bush appointed were lobbyists for the very industries they now regulate. It's a looting party for corporations. The legal precedents and semantic nastiness will be with us for the rest of our lives. Technology is being roped and tied by greedy gamers of the system, so it may not save us in the end. There won't be a place in the world you can manufacture tech not approved of by the powers in the U.S. God, they're raiding in Russia! The advance of corporate government is relentless, and largely ignored by the very people it locks into its worldview.
TV? Recording? PIRACY? Why not just call it rape or murder? The penalties would be less severe.
Checking Google news, I see another 100 or so news sites that covered this.
Are we going to see a Slashdot story a day for the next 100 days on this, or what?
I don't know about others here, but I pay my cable bill every month, which in my view authorizes me to watch those TV shows. Frankly, the idea that downloading a show rather than taping it is immoral and illegal is insulting.
It's been a long time.
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." Quoted from the FCC web site. The broadcast flag battle isn't about piracy anymore than the lawsuits against P2P filesharing systems are about piracy. Piracy is the excuse given to make these battles seem legitimate. Piracy, in all its forms, is already illegal and we have fine laws and law enforcement to battle piracy. The issue with the broadcast flag and P2P networks is control of consumer access to technology. The RIAA and MPAA want to prevent access to technologies that they don't like. If my daughter wants to watch her favorite show 4 times this month why should it be piracy for me to make a recording of that show for her? If I want to listen to 4 songs from one album and 3 songs from another one, why should it be piracy for me to rip those songs to CD/MP3 and listen to them in my car (bike, on a hike, etc)? The only reason is that the RIAA/MPAA wants to force us to buy multiple copies of everything we own. They are moving towards DRM that will tie a purchased recording to a single device and force us to buy it again to play it on another device. Ultimately, they want us to accept a pay-per-use model for literally everything they produce. This is their "holy grail" and they are eagerly pursuing that goal in the courts, in trade groups and in standard committees. The RIAA and MPAA should use existing laws to combat actual piracy and leave consumers alone in their own homes.
"copyright infringement" 1.610.000 pages
"copyright infringement" -piracy 1.480.000 pages
"copyright infringement case" 15.900
"copyright infringement case" -piracy 12.300
Exactly, that's what I am talking about.
I believe that it's common that people that want to talk about "copyright infringement" like to always say the word "piracy" because it aggravates the issue.
What I mean is that the word "piracy" attached to copyright infringement is used as a tool to make it look worse that it already is.
"Piracy", even in the copyright sense, means ripping of someone else, to say the least, and "copyright infringement" only means that at the worse.
The problem is that "piracy" is also used to describe DVD-ripping, and I don't understand how that can be described by a word used to describe for example airplane hijackers. Maybe that's the idea, you can make laws against copyright infringement, to stop "terrorists" that perform "piracy".
I get the slashdotters do not understand the distinction, but the reporters should be more clear about it.