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.
We really need to do something about them as they are obviously out of control. Don't they know who pays for their appointers election?!
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
They just set it to 0.
It's about time the courts are on our side for something like this. Now if they can just do something about all the other idiots wanting DRM everywhere...
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
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.
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
Now what am I supposed to do with the warehouse of capture cards I bought to resell after this passed!?
rm -rf
woohoo! that means more HDTV quality stargate episodes!
I've put together a collection of links as well as pulling out various key elements of the case: Victory in Broadcast Flag Case! FCC Has No Authority Says Court
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.
Do you have ESP?
Wow, that's great news, but isn't it coming a little late in the timeline? If sets on sale in July were supposed to have BF support, you'd think that they would already be being manufactured that way. The TV makers would have had to already have designed BF circuitry into their sets and be producing them with that capability, if all the sets in the stores by July were supposed to work that way, as required by the law.
I wonder if there will be a way to disable BF circuitry in sets which get sold that already have it built in? Or will the makers even tell people that they are buying sets that are BF enabled? Maybe some people will buy them without even knowing it.
This is fantastic news for products like http://www.pchdtv.com/ which would have all been destroyed by this. Means a bright future for custom pvrs no less and creativity. When you start limiting what consumers can do with information you start limiting that which is often what leads to greatness.
p2p distribution of video over the Internet is the future. The airwaves are being wasted on obsolete technology. We should figure out what the TV spectrum would best be used for (wireless Internet? Cell Phones?) and then dismantle the whole shebang. Would this exceed the FCC's authority? Maybe. But it would be smart. The "broadcast flag" was dumb.
What's more, they won't take the risk. Now that the BC has become a "standard" feature, building anything without it is almost certain to be attacked by the MPAA under the DMCA.
If you have a BC-free tuner card, treasure it. They ain't making no more, ever again.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
FCC had no business in mandating the broadcast flag at the behest of MPAA and its cronies. This throws the claim out the window, for now, to be picked up by lobbyists for the next run with the congress. I would not be surprised if it aint a breeze convincing the majority of clueless that this helps innovation and protects copyrights.
:). As long as I can still make out the characters, I would continue watching it..bad feed or no feed.
FCC had no right to assist the content creators, pushing them on to the HD realm. The market and the millions of tv viewers should instead spearhead that, and creators who turn a deaf ear will find out finicky eyeballs prefer HD over SD as HD compatible TV's get ever cheaper and between equally bad scripted shows, they pick the better looking one.
Wonder what the Southpark creators would do with HD
Rapid Nirvana
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"
I think that broadcast flags are actually a good idea. Let's start with a "crap flag" that refuses to let me watch shows that are crap.
I'm a big tall mofo.
A judicial ruling that makes sense. I'm scared.
This was originally posted on slashdot when the case started, and it is excellent news to hear that the FCC regulation was indeed overruled. It is important to note that this case was about whether the FCC had the jurisdiction to impose such regulations, not on the legality of the regulations themselves. If congress decided to pass a law requiring the broadcast flag, it would probably stand.
.
As an aside the American Library Association (ALA) has been very active in working to protect our fair-use rights and trying to make copyright law more balanced, even though they might not be as well known here as the EFF and ACLU are. I would highly encourage anyone who cares about these things to help support them
"You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world."
-Judge David Sentelle
When there weren't anything but non-BF devices on the market, the MPAA couldn't use the DMCA against the manufacturers. Now that everything is BF-compliant any device that isn't can easily be painted as a circumvention device under the DMCA and the manufacturer sued out of existence.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
... won't have nobody messin' with his TV.
Seriously, no congressman in his right mind is going to touch legislation that impinges on the general public's right to an unencumbered TV-experience.
DMCA and PATRIOT are no problem, but take away an American's freedom to watch, record and illegally sell for profit and there's going to be trouble. We're talking mobs in the streets here, complete with lynchings and excessive-firing-of-rifles-in-the-air.
Recent events seem to indicate that the U.S. is moving closer and closer to some kind of state mandated censorship. A growing number of states are trying to pass legislation that would outlaw the sale of "violent" video games to minors. So far these laws have been struck down on constitutional grounds, but I don't believe that will be the final word on the matter. Anyway, once video games are censored or otherwise restricted, it is just a short hop to doing the same thing for movies, music and television.
So far the entertainment industry has strongly opposed anything that looks like censorship. But they are also so vigorously pursuing stronger copyright restrictions that they may be willing to deal. If they believe they can make more money by giving up creative freedom in exchange for stronger copyright laws, I believe they'll do it in a heartbeat. To get the broadcast flag now, they'll have to deal with Congress.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
No more donating to the ACLU for me - it's all EFF from now on.
The ACLU was needed in the age of McCarthy, but the work of the EFF seems more beneficial to me right now - in the short as well as the long term.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
This is an amazing victory. But let's remember that this is only an Appeals court. The TV cartel will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if they can. Let's hope that the highest court in the land is on our side.
Let us turn to our computers, and that mecca of intellectual stimulation, slashdot.org!
Because the broadcast flag was so technically feeble, it required "robustness rules" to actually enforce it. In other words, equipment manufactures would have to "weld shut" their devices to prevent user tampering. This would've spelt disaster for GNU Radio, which lets you define an ATSC HDTV receiver in software.
As open source, it fails the robustness rules. Heck, as open source, it even encourages "user tampering." With today's victory the project has some hope, and we can see some future innovations exploiting it.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice on slashdot, you're likely to end up as a "guest" of the government.
This is the stronger of the two main ways that the court could have struck down the ruling. Often, it's the *form* of the rule, in paraticular the way the administrative agency chose to make the rule, that gets struck down. This leaves the agency free to pass the same rule through the proper process. (Similar to the way the appellate court struck down the judge's behavior in the microsoft case--the governmet could have sought another order splitting microsoft.)
In this case, it's the *substance* of the rule that was stricken. The FCC *cannot* regulate in this area, and cannot try again.
However, this didn't adress the question of whether or not Congress could grant the power to regulate in such an area, nor whether Congress could pass such a law itself.
hawk, esq.
...Judge Harry Edwards was found dead today in his Washington home today after being brutally bludgeoned to death. A blood-stained Star Trek:The Next Generation season 2 box-set case was found in bushes outside his home.
A white-faced county coroner appeared with a shady looking man in a black suit behind him at the local morgue announced that Judge Edwards had died from natural causes, before sueeling "I have to go now" and running inside.
FGD 135
all they did was rule the FCC didn't have the authority. It takes 1 act of congress to give them that authority. The only real hope here is this'll delay things long enough that flag free hardware will become the standard, and people'll start to expect it. Then again, if congress forces the flag down everyone's throats, what good is a defacto standard?
If your expecting a public outcry, don't. The content providers will just wait to start flagging their shows until flagged hardware is everwhere and everything. People won't know/care until it's too late.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...said the guy who frequently posts on Slashdot.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
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.
hey, knock that crap off. TV is a medium for informaiton, like a book.
Believe me, there are far more crappy books then good ones, so maybe we should stop reading?
I don't have TV, but I hate people who get on there damn high horse because they think they know whats best for everyone.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
We have stories about the Federal legal decisions almost every day. Yet Slashdotters (and worse, the Slashdot editors) manage to read all these stories without learning anything about how the courts work. Pretty pathetic.
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.
Well I am happy there isn't a broadcasting flag anymore but what about firewire ports on cable boxes?
If you look at the ruling "FCC Eases Digital TV Transition for Consumers."(PDF) it states that all digital cable boxes must have a firewire port. This port is used to control the box and record from it. Now this has been in effect for a while now, although it takes alot of effort and showing your cable company this pdf article to get them to give you a box that has a firewire port and that port is enabled. My concern is the ruling seems to also removes the FCC's power in this area as well.
And the worst part is MythTV just started supporting recording over firewire...
just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
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
That's how I feel after donating to the EEF last year and this happening now. Looks like I'll be sending them another cheque this year
Good work folks! Now, let's make sure this never sees the light of day in any of the law-making branches of the legislature!
Yet another case of activist judges making decisions against the will, values, and mandates of the American people. Decisions like this one are a direct attacking the foundations of Christianity and this country. It should now be clear to absolutely everybody that fillibuster is the tool of the devil. If you can't see that, then you probably can't see the President's new clothes either.
There's a variety of factors in place, but if you posit that the average voter is intellectually curious and able to form opinions not based on sound bites I'd tend to agree with you.
However, this simply isn't the case. Congressional elections are viewed with much less interest than the Presidential election (which is ironic in itself) and voters as a whole don't tend to be intellectually curious OR well informed. So it truly does become a matter of money, which is where the corporations CAN influence policy.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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.
Friday's ruling represents a sizable setback for the Motion Picture Association of America, which had lobbied for the broadcast flag rules and had intervened in the lawsuit to defend them.
http://www.busyweather.com/
Elected legislators like to avoid responsibility for hard decisions.
In addition to the broadcast flag, politicians would like to avoid responsibility for voting for or against abortion or gay marriage, so they hide in the weeds and let unelected judges or bureaucrats take the heat.
Laws are often written in a vague enough way that responsibility for unpopular consequences can be dumped onto the bureaucrasy and sorted out by the judiciary.
If elected officials abdicate their responsibility, a tyranny of the judiciary or of the bureaucrasy is possible.
The bad thing about this broadcast flag matter is that neither the villains in the bureaucrasy nor the heroes in the judiciary were elected officials directly accountable to the electorate.
but corporations aren't electing these people into Congress. Other people in your community are.
Yes they are. Other people in my community are so apathetic that they'll vote for whomever they recognize from TV, and all major TV outlets are owned by corporations.
If you don't like that ... Go out and tell people why they should vote the way that you want them to.
Both major U.S. political parties support expansion of the scope of copyright. The problem here is the first-past-the-post system, which rewards voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate, such that a vote for Nader instead of Gore or Kerry is equivalent to half a vote for Bush. Besides, how can I tell people to vote Libertarian if there's no Libertarian running in my congressional district and I have neither the age nor the money nor the political science background to run for office myself?
So does the MPAA consider its loss "time-shifted"? Or was victory stolen from them?
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
I'm tired of all the /.'ers who think this is insignificant. The fact is that these judges said that this would infringe on a consumers ability to time-shift HDTV.
Don't be stupid and talk about DRM on DVDs because this isn't the same. I can watch a DVD over and over but with this flag I wouldn't be able to record 'Lost' and watch it later.
You may think that the average american, namely my father who was born in 1945 (yes, he's 59), wouldn't care about copying a DVD and you're right - he doesn't. But he sure as hell won't let anyone mess with his time-shifting ability, via TiVo (which he doesn't have but wants) or a VCR.
And when HDTV drops a little more he will get it and if he can't control it 100% like he wants he'll sick the AARP on them. And old people actually write their congressmen and complain until things get done.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
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)
Why?
* They're as owned by special interests as the Republicans. The bankruptacy bill? Everyone voted for it, even very liberal, Hero Of The People Democrats. I mean, SCHUMER voted for that turd, and dude really wants to be a liberal working-class savior. That's insane behavior.
* They are becoming Republican Lite. Look at Hillary. She's starting to get awful cozy with the right-to-lifers. The goal of the Dems is to actually become ok with the Fundies. And that is totally insane, because it can never happen.
They need to grow a spine, start leading, and actually stand up for something. Sure, they may take some hits for a while, but the tide will turn. Kerry lost because he was a flip-flopper, much as I hated the Republicans using the stupid term.
I mean, isn't a defintion of insanity to perform the same acts and behavior over and over again, and believe that there will be a new outcome?
jh
Since the entire American government is owned by corporate interests, it'll take about 5 minutes for this to get passed by Congress.
Well when you stop taking the mushrooms for a little while, try reading the article where it talks abotu how the whole COMPUTER INDUSTRY and CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY does not want it!
Is THAT a big enough corperate interest for you?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The EFF lost my support when they failed to spot the issue in the Apple vs. ThinkSecret case. They can suck my balls -- they're not getting another dime from me.
I guess AC must stand for Arrogant & Clueless. Because the Apple thing was about getting the NAME of the guy who leaked info. They didn't want any money from the guy at all.
The EFF is a great organization who deserves all the money they can get.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The EFF is fighting battles now that will affect our daily lives for years to come on a very fundamental level, I really think the EFF is a far better organization to support now than just about any other human rights org.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley