Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Build Your Own TV Without Broadcast Flags

Posted by Zonk on from the conscientious-objector dept.

doom writes "An account of an event sponsored by the EFF, a "roll your own television" build-in. The San Francisco Bay Guardian has coverage in an article entitled Build Your TV!". From the article: "According to the FCC, the flag is going to ease the nation's transition from today's analog televisions to tomorrow's high-definition televisions. What exactly does it mean for a government agency to "ease" the transition from one kind of TV signal to another? In this case, it seems to mean making the entertainment industry feel very warm and fuzzy inside." The EFF's efforts against the flag have been covered before on Slashdot.

11 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. surely this is unnecessary? by dhbiker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I thought that judges told the broadcast regulator that the flag was unlawful? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4290315.stm

    Hence rolling your own tv would be entirely redundant?

    1. Re:surely this is unnecessary? by kinema · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The way I understand it is that the broadcast flag isn't illegal but the way it came to be mandated. The court said that the FCC doesn't have the authority to require it's implementation. This doesn't mean that Congress can't pass a bill making it law. Disclaimer: IANAL

    2. Re:surely this is unnecessary? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They didn't say that. Slashdot managed to misreport what happened several times.

      What happened was that the lawyer challenging the FCC went before the panel of judges, and they asked questions attacking his position. Then his time was up, and the FCC lawyer went before the panel, and the judges askwed questions attacking the FCC's position.

      Judges do this all the time. It forces the lawyer in front of them to respond to questions he wishes no one was asking. If he has a good argument, he can provide good answers to the hard questions. It's just a technique to elicit information. It doesn't indicate anything about the judge's actual position.

      Plus the court won't issue their ruling on the matter for several months still.

      So the big hubbub was over nothing.

      --
      -- 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.
  2. Kit TVs by necrodeep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems to me that this could be the begining of a Kit TV era. Kits that would include a broadcast flag 'chip' that could be mistakenly left out by the user. At least that would be one way to skirt the system - albiet legal ramifications would likely exist with this model - I'm sure others will be fourthcomming.

  3. Courts by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If things keep going the way they did on that last court opinion, we may not have to deal with this sillyness.

    Seriously though, I predict broadcastless recievers will become as common as regionless DVD players, and that it'd be another enormous flop.

  4. Any Canadians know... by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... if we can buy non-BF ready TVs in .ca after they become illegal in the US? It's ~10% the size of the US market but it'd be nice to have HTDV for watching DVDs etc.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  5. Mod Chips by mkraft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So when do we start seeing mod chips for TVs?

  6. Grape-juice bricks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I applaud this as a demonstration and hope it will have some effect in educating the public, the mere fact that hobbyists can evade a technical protection measure is not, in itself, of much social importance.

    During Prohibition, Californian vineyards openly marketed bricks of compressed, dried Zinfandel grapes, together with a strongly worded warning to the consumer explaining that they should not any circumstances mix the grapes to five gallons of water, five pounds of sugar, and yeast.

    If the **AA's can create a climate of fear and create the impression that legitimate fair use is illegal, they win--even if devices that circumvent the broadcast flag become as available as marijuana.

  7. I wonder by rbanffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long before the broadcast flag is used to avoid recording news? This government seems more than a little bit inclined to consider images of, say, Guantanamo bay or prisioner torture sensitive information...

    I only hope this idea doesn't catch.

    --
    http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
  8. Mass system integration on chip by awfar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To be economical, HDTVs must shoot for massive integration on chip. Digital TV means exactly that.

    Unless you have access to xray machine, the ability to open a chip and identify and inspect traces, and just generally reverse engineer the chipset, and then reprogram it, it is a sealed component and will be very difficult to circumvent.

    Not saying it couldn't be done, but a frontal assault would be extremely difficult, so as always, a backdoor located would be the approach.
    But they know that.

  9. Re:Tuner, not the TV- Broadcast flag misunderstood by crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm hurt here. I use MythTV to record HDTV, much like you use your HDTiVo. However, because MythTV is open source, it is impossible to have it encrypt the outgoing signal using HDCP, even if I'm using a DVI connection to my HDTV.

    Further, I have a CRT-based HDTV, and when using the DVI input, it has far too much overscan. If I use component output, then I can adjust the overscan, but I can't with DVI, so going digital isn't the best option.

    And even further, my TV has only one DVI input, so if I have multiple HD sources, then I have to recable my TV to change sources (like, say, a HDTiVo, satellite receiver, and broadcast ATSC tuner).