Slashdot Mirror


FCC Broadcast Flag Struck Down

An anonymous reader writes "CNet is reporting that the courts have struck down the FCC's broadcast flag requirement! 'In a stunning victory for hardware makers and television buffs, a federal appeals court has tossed out government rules that would have outlawed many digital TV receivers and tuner cards starting July 1.'" The EFF has details on the flag, the official ruling is online for examination, and commentary is available from BoingBoing and Ars Technica.

19 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome! by stlhawkeye · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is great news. I don't doubt that illegal distribution of copyrighted materials is a problem that costs content-owners money, but this flag is not the solution. It's going to mostly penalize and restrict the rights of legitimate and honest viewers who don't do anything criminal with their recordings, they just re-watch them.

    The onus is on the industry to find a solution within technology and capitalism, not within politics and law.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:Awesome! by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...It's going to mostly penalize and restrict the rights of legitimate and honest viewers ...

      But hasn't that always been the issue with such nonsense laws?

      • They make it illegal to redistribute DeCSS code so people can't copy DVDs, when most people being hurt by it are the opensource people who just want to watch their damned DVDs in Linux.
      • They've suggested charging small amounts of money per e-mail to curb spammers, when the people most hurt by it will be those of us who e-mail a lot for legitimate, useful reasons.
      • They run those obnoxious commercials before movies at the theatres telling us why pirating is bad, and wasting our time, despite the people guilty of these acts are the ones at home watching the movies on their computers, not the ones who paid $11 so they can sit through the movie.

      One bad apple spoils the bunch.
      Either that, or the people passing these laws desperately need to give their heads a shake.

      At last, a win for you poor Americans.

  2. Won this battle but not the war by flanksteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it's nice that this lost, but it lost because the court said the FCC has no jurisdiction. This wasn't a victory for fair use, nor is it the end of the discussion. The MPAA will return to hammering Congress to either make the rule itself or grant the FCC the authority to do so (which the article clearly states at the end). This just gives us more time to get the word out about why the flag is a bad idea.

    1. Re:Won this battle but not the war by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good to see skepticism, but you missed what is significant here.

      The FCC has been extending its power significantly, with the broadcast flag being just a small piece of that. The courts telling the FCC that they do not have this power is huge. It eliminates the possibility of the FCC taking away citizen's rights without the democratic process being involved. At least Congress persons are answerable to their constituents. The FCC is not. (This is the whole problem with Congress creating agencies. It's a way to extend government power without making it answerable to the other branches.)

      Now is the time to start sending positive letters to justices and congress persons to prevent Congress from trying to enact the broadcast flag themselves.

  3. Temporary until Congress acts by hirschma · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the entire American government is owned by corporate interests, it'll take about 5 minutes for this to get passed by Congress.

    I'd hope that the consumer electronics lobby is stronger than the MPAA, but I fear it isn't so.

    jh

    1. Re:Temporary until Congress acts by SacredNaCl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is, now everyone is mobilized & knows about it. Which is far more profitable for congressmen as each of the lobbyist can contribute money under the dual threats of "protect my business model" and "protect my business model" from both sides. Works out well if you are a senator.

      The fact that this might piss off the handful of voters who actually pay attention probably doesn't even enter into the equasion for most of them, sad to say.

      I just watched my own state legislature give away the farm to SBC under a similar model. He who paid the most won, only 3 votes against. It's not like the bribes aren't mostly out in the open, it's just no one pays enough attention for it to matter to them.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  4. It's not over yet by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And it never will be until the slimeballs behind this (movie industry) get what they want. They are willing to pay more and wield more influence than the electronics makers. Watch for some legislation to be bought soon.

  5. Unfortunately, this will not stand by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What are the odds that Congress which is openly in bed with RIAA and MPAA will wait longer than a few months to tack on a rider to some wildly popular (or arcane and unreadable) piece of legislation allowing this sort of restriction to proceed as planned?

    So long as the following tweaks to the system are not implemented Congress will be able to ignore the wishes of the people and grant any and all favors to their lobbyists.

    No representative or senator should ever be allowed to vote on any piece of legislation which they personally have not read

    Any vote on anything that involves de facto laws, rules, regulations or monetary impact of any kind must be by roll call vote

    The name of the legislator who introduced or modified each line of text in each and every bill must be fully disclosed

    The 17th amendment must be repealed

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  6. Yes and No. by Qwerpafw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The courts struck down the broadcast flag because the FCC was getting too big for their britches. They got all up in there, and the Judge was like "no you didn't." Judges do that a lot--watch Judge Mathis to see what I mean.

    The courts didn't say that the broadcast flag was illegal because it interfered with fair use rights. While the effects of this ruling are to encourage consumer rights, that hardly seems to be the intent of the judgement. The fact is, the FCC was never supposed to make these kinds of rules--and someone finally called their bluff.

    1. Re:Yes and No. by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The courts didn't say that the broadcast flag was illegal because it interfered with fair use rights.

      And this is important because what the court in essence did was throw the issue back to Congress - where copyright issues constitutionally belong. If you think the broadcast flag is dead, think again - all the court said was "this is unenforceable as an FCC rule - only Congress can make such a rule."

      So you can bet the MPAA is on the horn right about now to every senator and representative they've ever donated money to trying to call in a favor. And you can bet they'll get that favor, probably sooner rather than later. There are still almost two months before that July 1 deadline - it is not just possible, but probable that the broadcast flag will still take effect on that date, this time enacted by congress and signed into law by Bush himself.

    2. Re:Yes and No. by bnenning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you can bet the MPAA is on the horn right about now to every senator and representative they've ever donated money to trying to call in a favor. And you can bet they'll get that favor, probably sooner rather than later.

      I'm not so sure about that. Certainly we should continue to be vigilant, but FCC commissioners don't have to explain to voters why they made it illegal to record Survivor.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  7. Re:Makes no difference by jbstafford · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a massive amount of interest in Broadcast Flag-free equipment. The market loves a vacuum, so even if we don't see equipment from major producers, somebody will manufacture or continue to manufacture this type of equipment. It just may be an outfit like Elgato rather than a Motorola.

  8. Re:To all those "activist judges" out there by lax-goalie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ermmm, these judges actually took a "strict constructionist" approach. Congress didn't give the Executive Branch the authority to regulate, so the Court properly slapped the FCC down.

    Ain't nothin' "activist" about this.

  9. Corporations can't vote by notcreative · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can be unhappy with the way your fellow citizens vote, but corporations aren't electing these people into Congress. Other people in your community are. If you don't like that, don't sit on your beanbag and complain about how corporations are destroying the country. Go out and tell people why they should vote the way that you want them to. Money is just a megaphone. If you're spouting garbage, it will just make the garbage stinkier.

    It's funny how the things that are beyond our control are the things that we'd otherwise have to get off our buns and do something about.

  10. this gives us more opportunity by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as citizens. We have more power with congress then the FCC.

    AS always write, fax, email. Maintaining freedom takes regular work, few hours per week.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Hiding the goose that lays the golden egg by crovira · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In effect the xxAAs are trying to rope the FCC into making all broadcasting a synchonous pay-for-view service without any recourse for pay-per-view-later (that would kill ALL recording, nevermind TIVO)

    They are essentially trying to rewind the calendar to before they xxAAs lost the 'fair use' trials against those pesky player pianos. (And radio and TV and restaurant juke boxes and sheet music.)

    They are against anything that makes a noise and they aren't getting paid. And fair use doesn't enter into their vocabulaty.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  12. Re:These Activist Judges by rjh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Check the United States Constitution, wherein all executive power is vested in the President. Like it or not, all executive power is vested in the Oval Office. If the president wasn't ultimately responsible for the actions of the FCC, the FCC would have no authority whatsoever.

    You could just as easily say that the powers of the United States Treasury are delegated to it by the Treasury Act. That doesn't mean the Secret Service is a Congressional authority.

  13. Re:Sliding my donation over to the EFF by Little+Pink+Bunny · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I appreciate the fact that we now have enough powerful rights organizations that you can reasonably hand-select the ones that defend the rights most important to you. The EFF covers the free speech cases that I support, and the NRA fights for the amendment that the ACLU hasn't heard of. I'm a proud member of both, and am reasonably sure that neither will take positions that I personally oppose.

    I suppose the ACLU had its place back in the day, but I much prefer the Unix-style "each tool does one thing" approach of the EFF and NRA.

    --
    I am a
  14. Joe Wal-mart by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe the Broadcast flag would have killed HDTV adoption in the US; If my brother-in-law couldn't record his NASCAR to watch after work, what good would HDTV do him?

    HDTV equipment couldn't be made in the US for export, because no other country would want broadcast flag equipped products, ensuring the ongoing death of manufacturing in America.

    It would raise the cost of, and decrease the desirability of better HDTV, increasing the time until we can turn off the old signals.

    The airwaves belong to the Public, and private interests should not be allowed to run rampant over the limited useful spectrum, all of the FCC's decisions should have a statement explaining exactly how it is expected to benifit the public, with respect to the spectrum used; just as with the EPA and Environmental Impact statements.

    private encrypted tranmissions have a place (cell phones, military, wireless networking), and it other areas a balance can be struck (TV networks using satillites to send shows to affiliates should be protected) but government angencies should not profit from, or pander to business interests. (except from taxing their profits)