Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Broadcast Flag Struck Down

Posted by Zonk on from the system-works-sometimes dept.

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.

5 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. 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.