Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Boogaloo

blamanj wrote to mention that, a week after we reported on the court rejection of the broadcast flag, the MPAA is working on new legislation to broaden the FCC's power. From the article: "The draft bill says, simply, that the FCC will 'have authority to adopt regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks.' The DC Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up." Update: 05/13 19:20 GMT by Z : Title amended with apologies to the Bugaloos.

Comments

harder this time

[Harbinjer]

I think this will be harder to get passed than the DMCS was.

Re:harder this time

[Harbinjer]

Or as some know it the DMCA.

Cory Doctorow has some comments on this at http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/13/broadcast_fla g_back_.html/

Re:harder this time

[freedom_india]

You are wrong. DMCA was passed BECAUSE courts refused to extend copyright.

This is another attempt to bypass courts and surreptitously impose a law that tramples upon a citizen's rights.

If the courts strike down a law passed by Congress, then MPAA may realize its futile. But with many of our beloved congressmen being stooges of big business... they may as well replace the judges.

Re:harder this time

[ramam]

Umm. Rfused to extend copyright. So the 17 year rule is still in effect and it's not the 80 years beyond the life of artist that the US Fed thinks it is?

Re:harder this time

[Anonymous Coward]

But with many of our beloved congressmen being stooges of big business... they may as well replace the judges.

I wish they were stooges of big business in this case -- big hardware manufacturers, in particular. If they were, they'd tell the MPAA to go get bent.

If representatives from companies like Apple, Dell, Intel, and yes, Microsoft would come out strongly against hardware-design-by-legislation -- and cough up the requisite campaign contributions to make themselves heard -- the RIAA and MPAA would not be able to compete with their resulting Capitol Hill mindshare. Instead, the hardware companies stand around with their thumbs up their asses while a few Luddites in the content industry write laws that will ultimately take away our freedom and their revenue.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense on any scale.

Re:harder this time

[freedom_india]

No, when Disney initially panicked over the expiry of copyright on Mickey Mouse, remember how the courts struck down an extension.

Re:harder this time

[Ruzty]

Your link is broken, it has a trailing '/'.

Re:harder this time

[globaljustin]

I think this will be harder to get passed than the DMCS was

I disagree...it seems the Bush Whitehouse is content to regulate digital media at will regardless of how it effects the first amendment.
All the corporations need to do is convince lawmakers and citizens that *not* passing a bill like this will result in tremendous loss of revenue and thereby cause job loss (it's the economy stupid).
Until Congress decides to really take copyright law into the 'digital millenium' we will be at the mercy of tv news, corporations, and our own computer skills.

Re:harder this time

[poot_rootbeer]

No, when Disney initially panicked over the expiry of copyright on Mickey Mouse, remember how the courts struck down an extension.

No, I don't remember that.

I remember how the courts said "Yes, you can have an extension this time, and possibly more extensions after that, so long as copyright EVENTUALLY expires."

Sure, that exiration date may not come until after the end of the universe, but as long as it's technically not PERPETUAL the courts said it's OK.

Re:harder this time

[cpt kangarooski]

No.

First, the DMCA doesn't extend copyright terms. You're thinking of the Copyright Term Extension Act, also known as the Sonny Bono Act. They're different things.

Second, the DMCA was passed in 1998. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled -- just as the lower courts that had heard the issue had -- that Congress could retroactively extend copyrights. (No one has AFAIK challenged prospective extensions) That case, Eldred, hadn't been a factor leading up to the DMCA or the CTEA.

So you might want to know what the hell you're talking about before you post the next time.

Re:harder this time

[alienw]

Hardware manufacturers are in China. They don't have much of an influence on US policies. Microsoft, Apple, and Intel don't manufacture TVs or VCRs, and ultimately don't care all that much.

Re:harder this time

[AvitarX]

It does extend copyright scope though, doesn't it?

Re:harder this time

[HTH NE1]

First, the DMCA doesn't extend copyright terms.

Not even in the sense that, if you use a technological measure to protect your work, no one can ever legally publish how to defeat it, thereby enjoying indefinite protection?

Re:harder this time

[bofkentucky]

Hardware manufacturers are in China. They don't have much of an influence on US policies

Tell that to Wen Ho Lee and Al Gore.

Re:harder this time

[samkass]

In particular, here's the case to which I think he's referring. Disney^H^H^H^H^H^HThe US Government won every round, including the Supreme Court. The materials in question, in some cases ones that had already entered the public domain, are now under copyright.

http://eldred.cc/eldredvashcroft.html

And the obligatory Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

Re:harder this time

[cpt kangarooski]

DMCA really does a whole lot of different things.

As far as classical copyright goes, I'd say its overall effect was to limit its scope very slightly.

The WIPO and Design portions of the act do increase the rights of artists, but are probably more accurately described as being paracopyright provisions, rather than real copyright provisions.

Re:harder this time

[cpt kangarooski]

That's not technically true, just practically true.

1201 et seq only apply to works protected under Title 17. Once a work hits the public domain, it's okay to circumvent with regards to it.

However, when this argument was tried with regards to DeCSS in conjunction with CSS-encrypted public domain movies on DVD, it flopped, since the courts that looked at the issue didn't think that this was a real impediment to getting those works generally, and that it would make these provisions pretty useless if that argument were accepted.

Once most movies on DVD are in the public domain, something currently scheduled for the mid to late 21st century, perhaps it will find a more receptive audience. Personally I'd like to think we'll come to our senses and get rid of the DMCA and generally fix copyright law, long before then.

Re:harder this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe, mod parent funny. The DMCA was near unanimous wasn't it? Not that we have more than reports to go on since the bastard politicians made it anonymous as well.

Re:harder this time

[javamann]

I don't know, everytime I see something with Ashcroft's name attached it can't be good.

Re:harder this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly. Ironically it seems that the DMCA was so draconian that it created a movement that seriously cripples any further attempts to expand copyright law.

Re:harder this time

[ramam]

The current state of affairs is along the lines of 80 years plus a lifetime. The original tit-for-tat was 17 years. The argument for 17 years of copyright protection is substantially weakened by the progress of distribution technologies like the internet. The time for industries dependant on those limited (theoretically only apparently) society granted monopolies to eveolve is long since overdue.

Re:harder this time

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Once a work hits the public domain, it's okay to circumvent with regards to it.

If only that were true. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent access controls protecting a copyrighted work, and forbids the distribution of tools to do so. So, even if a Mickey Mouse DVD one day falls into the public domain, all Disney need to do is release a new movie with the same 'access controls' and no one can traffic in the circumvention tool that would let them play the public domain DVD either.

Working by yourself, you would be entitled to crack the encryption on the public domain DVD, but as soon as you tried to distribute the decrption method to someone else you would be guilty of trafficking in circumvention tools.

So yes, the DMCA does effectively give perpetual copyrights.

Re:harder this time

[cpt kangarooski]

If only that were true. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent access controls protecting a copyrighted work, and forbids the distribution of tools to do so. So, even if a Mickey Mouse DVD one day falls into the public domain, all Disney need to do is release a new movie with the same 'access controls' and no one can traffic in the circumvention tool that would let them play the public domain DVD either.

This is why it is technically true, but not practically true. But as I said, numbers might be convincing.

So yes, the DMCA does effectively give perpetual copyrights.

Well, perpetual anti-circumvention rights anyway. This is part of the problem -- they're technically not copyrights. In fact, there's even dispute as to whether it's constitutional for Congress to do this, given the contours of the copyright power.

Re:harder this time

[samkass]

I agree. However, it started out as Eldred v Reno, so it's an equal-opportunity sell-out by our government to Disney.

Re:harder this time

[HTH NE1]

Once most movies on DVD are in the public domain, something currently scheduled for the mid to late 21st century, perhaps it will find a more receptive audience.

What's to prevent forcing the issue now by encoding material which is in the public domain right now onto an encrypted DVD? There are materials that have lapsed into the public domain that do not enjoy copyright extention. There are commercial DVDs out there right now that contain video that was created by the government which, by their nature was funded by taxpayer dollars, was immediately public domain. And can't an author now relinquish his copyright and put his work in the public domain? Not GPL, total relinquishment to the public domain.

The volume of PD titles on CSS-encrypted DVDs should not matter. There should need be only one to have a standing case.

Re:harder this time

[cpt kangarooski]

created by the government which, by their nature was funded by taxpayer dollars, was immediately public domain

This isn't correct. Only US government works are uncopyrightable, and that's due to a statute saying so. State works are copyrightable, and frequently are copyrighted. Due process may prevent states from using copyright to impede public access to laws, but that's not the whole of their output. Plus, even the federal government can fund projects by others, which are still copyrighted by the person who did the work at taxpayer expense.

Still, it would be nice for one reform in copyright law to be making works created by or at government expense public domain works. The public shouldn't have to pay twice.

The volume of PD titles on CSS-encrypted DVDs should not matter. There should need be only one to have a standing case.

Setting aside certain issues regarding what standing means, and what you'd actually need to have it, I didn't say that the point couldn't be raised in a case. In fact, it has been, several times, IIRC. It just isn't likely to work until there are a lot of public domain works on DVD, or whatever.

Obligatory

[Tx]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

How appropriate.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was the parent modded off topic? It's true that there is nothing for you to see if the FCC/MPAA can restrict you from seeing it.

Legislative body

[zoward]

"... the MPAA is working on new legislation to broaden the FCC's power"

I didn't know the MPAA was a legislative body ...

Re:Legislative body

[emc]

They are not, but Orrin Hatch is.

He is also the lapdog of the entertainment industry.

Re:Legislative body

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Welcome to Corporatized America. If you can afford it, you're a legislative body.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the phrase "iron triangle".

Re:Legislative body

[eviloverlordx]

It's the next logical step, of course. I mean people have been able to buy congresspeople for years now.

Re:Legislative body

[MagicDude]

Anybody with enough money to sponsor a politican's campaign for office becomes an indirect legislative body. It goes something like...

Politician - "I don't like this bill"

Evil Corp. - "Do it or find your own money for re-election next year"

Politician - "Of course Master. Please forgive my vile tounge"

(Thunder and Lightning)
Evil Corp. - Mwa ha ha ha. MWA HA HA HA
(Organ Music)

Re:Legislative body

[Mille Mots]

That's probably because most people are only familiar with their west coast operations. In fact, most of their (very well compensated) employees work out of the MPAA offices in Washington, D.C. You can see them, hard at work in the Capitol Building, located at the east end of the National Mall on Capitol Hill.

Re:Legislative body

[eln]

You would be surprised at how much legislation is actually written by corporations, and given to "friendly" Congressmen who sponsor it as their own. Many large businesses and businesses organizations have lobbying groups whose job it is to craft legislation friendly to them, and sell it to members of Congress.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

"Welcome to Corporatized America"

Otherwise known, by that definition actually, as facism.

Re:Legislative body

[DirePickle]

You must be new here.

Re:Legislative body

[Heliologue]

That's OK: the FCC's basically unconstitutional, so if they have so much power, why not let corporations and interests groups have just as much?

Re:Legislative body

[M.C. Hampster]

Yeah, that's it exactly.

"Oh no, the RIAA isn't going to give me their maximum donation of $3,000 (or whatever the hell it is now)! I might lose my re-election!"

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

...the FCC's basically unconstitutional...

Yeah, like the IRS, gun control laws and any court that has a flag with a gold fringe around it!

Damn right!

Re:Legislative body

[gr8_phk]

And he'll just append it to the next bill to fund the troops or fight terrorism and it'll go through for sure.

Re:Legislative body

[toad3k]

Wonder what would happen if non-corporation drafted legislation and then lobbied for it.

You know, like say the EFF drafted one protecting this or that right, gunned for support from various sympathizing blogs around the net, attempting to draw support.

Bleh, probably just a fantasy.

Re:Legislative body

[erroneus]

Wasn't the DMCA evidence enough of this? But there are plenty of other examples.

No, they aren't a legislative body, but they do seem to own several members of the legislative branch such as Orin Hatch, for example, who seems to do the bidding if his dark lord and master, "MPAA" frequently and regularly.

I don't have a high opinion of him at all.

If someone came to me and said, "For several million dollars, would you be willing to sell out the constitutional ideals of our nation?" I'd have to say absolutely not. Those ideals mean something to me because the effect of the removal of those ideals have an impact on my life. They don't impact him or those with a lot of money and stuff so it seems to matter not at all to him and people like him. It's a sad thing really.

It can be spinned (spun doesn't seem appropriate here) any way you like but I think this emerging situation indicates the lengths these people are willing to go in order to get their interests served while they clearly aren't thinking the long-term repercussions through on this.

I only wish we could have laws put into place to prevent this sort of unfair money-driven interest from taking place to begin with. It is unfair that we presently have a system in which politicians, laws and ultimately the entire government can be bought in this way. Money should NOT be allowed to influence any judiciary, executive or legislative governmental body in any way. It's immoral, unethical and unfair to "we the people."

Re:Legislative body

[kin_korn_karn]

what?? and waste valuable time that could be spent issuing press releases and whining???

Re:Legislative body

[isa-kuruption]

Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace) [note: pun may or may not have been intended]

Re:Legislative body

[Lord Kano]

This is all possible because of the people who do not vote. The few of us who do vote mean so much, that legislators need as much money as possible to woo us. Campaign contributions buy influence. The best way to counter this is for people to get out and vote.

LK

Re:Legislative body

[eddiegee]

Its $2000 actually....to the individual congressperson. The limits are $25000 a year to the national party, $10000 a year to the state party and $5000 to a PAC. And it will not just be the RIAA but the MPAA, Sony, Universal/Vivendi, Viacom, AOL/TW, plus the individual executives who go to the $1000 a plate dinners. Soon it adds up to real money.

But our high holy Courts have decided that money equals speech, so don't you dare trample on the rights of massive conglomerates to brib....I mean "contribute" to the politicians of their choice.

Re:Legislative body

[loraksus]

Yup. How true. How sad.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

right now, it's armsdealers/warmongers, and fundies (fundamentalist religious zealots).

The RIAA/MPAA/entertainment peddlers are the least of our concern... ...it's the warmongering jesus freaks that keep me awake at night...

Re:Legislative body

[thisissilly]

You forget, this is the MPAA -- they own television stations. They can show the polition in a negative light on news programs, give cheap air time to his opponent, etc. The dollars are only a small part of it.

Re:Legislative body

[Total_Wimp]

Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace)

I don't understand why people are against "special interests" asking for legislation. After all, isn't the Slashdot crowd a special interest asking for change? Isn't the FOSS community a special interest asking for change?

If congress doesn't listen to "special interests" then who exactly do they listen to? Is it "the common people"? Are "the common people" asking for anything resebling a common goal?

I personally think "special interests" are just fine, provided they don't buy themselves into special status. I don't, for example, think Microsoft and Apple should have any special status in government just because they happen to have a lot of money and the FOSS community doesn't. But we're a special interest and I do hope the government listens to us. After all, we have some pretty good ideas.

TW

Re:Legislative body

[nate nice]

I was thinking the exact same thing. I guess I missed the vote when they were elected.

Oh well, at least they're completely flagrant about it.

Re:Legislative body

[Khyber]

Lapdog??

You mean lapdancer, right? Complete with lip-service?

Re:Legislative body

[MindStalker]

Techinally facism is any government resembling Mussolinis. His government system generally (to quote wikipedia)
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation
* engages in corporatism
* implements totalitarianism

Latly though the term has some to simply mean corporatism. Though this may be a stretch as we might have a good bit of corporatism we are far from a totalitarianism. (Though I'm sure many would claim one will lead to the other, this is not nessesary true).

Also technically Corporatism isn't simply rule by buisness corporations, it is rule by unelected groups. Labor Unions are one example, as well as ACLU and other groups that lobby for changed in government. None of these are nessessary bad. But there is obviously a tipping point where groups gain a significant amount of traction and elected officially are allowing them to make their decisions.

Re:Legislative body

[emc]

Just wait...

word is, this champion of the poor artist wants to be your next Justice on the Supreme Court.

Re:Legislative body

[91degrees]

Do be aware it's probably a lot more political than that. Orrin Hatch is sympathetic towards copyright anyway. The ??AA's know this which is why they invest a lot of money to get him elected. If they didn't give him a penny he probably still would see their side. He just wouldn't be a politician.

I say "probably" because for all I know, he is a sellout. But there will always be someone who will see their side of it. I'll bet it hasn't even occured to Orrin Hatch that consumers have any rights in this sort of matter.

Re:Legislative body

[mjh]

I don't think this is a problem with corporate america. The problem is with the elected legislative bodies: congress and the president. They *allow* this kind of manipulation. The problem with government, as opposed to a capitalist corporation, is that for the entire period of election, the elected are no longer servant to those who elected them. This is not true with a corporation whose customers can leave them at any time.

The problem here isn't with corporate america. It's with the corruption that follows from putting too much power into government.

Re:Legislative body

[thephotoman]

You're fooling yourselves! We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

(gets cut off by female companion)

Re:Legislative body

[d34thm0nk3y]

Yeah, that's it exactly. "Oh no, the RIAA isn't going to give me their maximum donation of $3,000 (or whatever the hell it is now)! I might lose my re-election!"

The RIAA is an association of companies (the second A). Each member company can give individually to whatever the max limit is. That is a lot of cash my friend.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete with lip-service?

More like escort service ;-)

Re:Legislative body

[TGK]

Special Interests are fundamentaly necessary to the functioning of our government. Look at what your typical congressman has to spend on staff. Look at the sheer volume of legislation he's expected to have an opinion on. Those numbers won't line up.

Special Interests provide a necessary service, namely they distil information and give their point of view. Take two opposing points of view and, idealy, you'll be able to make an informed decision.

Money buys access in Washington because there's only so many hours in a day. Access buys power because it takes time and energy to do things like write legislation.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

they know those people that do vote will vote for a party and a hairstyle rather than what the person has actually factually done.

"oh he is for the environment"
nevermind he clubs baby seals in his free time, but he is "for" soemthing so its good

Re:Legislative body

[AstroDrabb]

So you get Sony, Universal, AOL, as "companies" giving their bribes. Then you can have all the big execs giving bribes at the expenisve "dinner" parties.

Have you ever looked at www.opensecrets.org? If congress critters and senate idiots could "only" get $2,000, how do you have all these corrupted bumbs getting millions every year like Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi. Go take a look at the Politicians page to see just how many millions in bribes they are getting. Oh, and then go look at the Industry page to see who is giving. Notice how the TV/Movies/Music industry gave $31,931,262 in 2004 with 69% of that going to the Dems.

Do you really think there is any democracy left in our political process with hundreds of millions in bribes going around to our "politicians"? I know I don't.

Re:Legislative body

[Dachannien]

I think you mean a lapdog.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:+1,Virtual Mod Point)

Very funny!

Re:Legislative body

[Bingo Foo]

Technically, it's spelled "fascism."

Before the Fascists held power anywhere, there was a tremendous amount of intellectual effort by artists and academics put into defining fascism and explaining why it was better than other philosophies of man and government. It borrows heavily from existentialism and could not exist if the people ever held on to transcendent standards outside of societal power structures. Hence, the hatred for "Jewishness" because the Jews were said to have invented a monotheism with laws which transcend human rulers and immanent human desires.

You're right that lately its definition has been twisted to mean corporatism. That's because the current crop of academics and artists hate transcendence just as much, love arbitrary power just as much, want to throw off individual moral constraints just as much, and allow race to define character just as much as the early fascists. They don't want to let out the dirty little secret that they want to tread the same path as early 20th century Europe, only somehow "do it right" this time.

Instead, they act as historical revisionists, saying that European fascism was about corporate ties to the government, that Hitler was a Christian, (Actually there was a deliberate government program in the third Reich to replace Christian doctrine with a state-imposed religion of immanence without transcendence) etc.

Watch carefully for the "fascist" slur coming as psychological projection from those who fit Heidegger's own definition of a fascist.

Re:Legislative body

[MindStalker]

I was going to quote the monty python holy grail skit with the woman blabbing about her government explaining why there is no lord in the castle where they live. But my female companion is telling me to get off the computer.

Re:Legislative body

[kin_korn_karn]

hey, what do you know, the EFF has mod points today.

Re:Legislative body

[Koiu Lpoi]

Becuase God knows a corporation would only create ONE PAC. I mean, seriously.

Wait...

Re:Legislative body

[Johnny5000]

That's because the current crop of academics and artists hate transcendence just as much, love arbitrary power just as much, want to throw off individual moral constraints just as much, and allow race to define character just as much as the early fascists

Who are these academics and artists?

Re:Legislative body

[Some_Llama]

copied and pasted from
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/peasant.asp

Title: The Peasants
From: Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Transcribed By: Malcolm Dickinson ( CLARINET@YALEVM.BITNET )

Arthur and his trusty servant Patsy "ride" into a field where peasants are
working. They come up behind a cart which is being dragged by a hunched-over
peasant in ragged clothing. Patsy slows as they near the cart.

Arthur: Old Woman!

The peasant turns around, revealing that he is in fact a man.

Man: Man!
Arthur: Man, sorry.... What knight lives in that castle over there?
Man: I'm thirty-seven!
Arthur: (suprised) What?
Man: I'm thirty-seven! I'm not old--
Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man"...
Man: Well you could say "Dennis"--
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis!
Man: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?!
Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind, you looked--
Man: Well I object to your...you automatically treat me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well I *am* king...
Man: Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh?
(he reaches his destination and stops, dropping the cart)
By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
If there's ever going to be any progress,--
Woman: Dennis! There's some lovely filth down 'ere!
(noticing Arthur) Oh! 'Ow'd'ja do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose
castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Man: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A
self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that
castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord!
Arthur: (spurised) What??
Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking
turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why
I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical
aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some
moistened bink had

Re:Legislative body

[iminplaya]

So, when you vote, are you influenced by all that money when you re-elect all those politicians? That money goes to the politicians. Why is that affecting your vote? Or maybe a better question is, why isn't affecting your vote?? When a crooked politician is voted into office, that says more about the (crooked)voter than any politician. In this age of easy info, ignorance is no excuse. I'm beginning to find the voters to be more despicable than the politicians. Gore Vidal has a very good take on this, but I can't find the article. Help?

Re:Legislative body

[g0hare]

Actually, I don't think I would be surprised anymore.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the drug war.

Re:Legislative body

[data1]

If someone came to me and said, "For several million dollars, would you be willing to sell out the constitutional ideals of our nation?" I'd have to say absolutely not.

What about a few hundred million?
That seems to be the magic number.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

So you mean the ideal situation is a powerless government?

Re:Legislative body

[lgw]

Don't forget that all politics is local. A representative can be incredibly corrupt and generally despised, but if the folks in his district like him, he stays.

Re:Legislative body

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/
Welcome to paradise! The world is run by American corporations (except for a few deluded holdouts like the French); taxes are illegal; employees take the last names of the companies they work for; the Police and the NRA are publicly-traded security firms; and the U.S. government only investigates crimes it can bill for.

Hack Nike is a Merchandising Officer who discovers an all-new way to sell sneakers. Buy Mitsui is a stockbroker with a death-wish. Billy NRA is finding out that life in a private army isn't all snappy uniforms and code names. And Jennifer Government, a legendary agent with a barcode tattoo, is the consumer watchdog from hell.

Re:Legislative body

[Dun Malg]

That's because the current crop of academics and artists hate transcendence just as much, love arbitrary power just as much, want to throw off individual moral constraints just as much, and allow race to define character just as much as the early fascists

Who are these academics and artists?

He probably means college educated white liberal democrats who attack any public display of religion as violation of the separation of church and state, think the answer to most problems is a fresh new government bureaucracy, believe all morality os relative, and think the only way the negro will ever achieve parity is via enforced reverse discrimination.

(please note: I hold neither this view nor the reverse. I'm rephrasing what it seemed he was getting at)

Re:Legislative body

[Silkejr]

If that's true it doesn't say much for the long-term viability of our country.

Re:Legislative body

[Moofie]

Two words:

Soft money.

Re:Legislative body

[AstroDrabb]

And whom should one vote for? Politician A who took in 1.2 million in campaign bribes or politician B who "only" took in 1 million in campaign bribes? All politicians are accepting campaign bribes and their vote is being influenced by that. So as a voter I have no ability to curb the corruption since all the congress critters/senators are accepting bribes.

I'm beginning to find the voters to be more despicable than the politicians

Well, I think it is wrong to blame the voters, however I do agree with you to some extent. The American voters are becoming more and more lazy and tend to only want to get off their @ss and vote if it is an issue that affects them directly.

Campaign bribes should not be allowed. It is not free speech. If giving someone money is free speech, then I should be allowed to give $10,000 to a judge and $10,000 to every member of the jury right before they start deliberation.

Re:Legislative body

[mjh]

Well, I didn't say that, and I don't think it follows from my comments. Just because too much of something is bad, doesn't mean the only way out is to have none of that thing. For example, you can spend too much time in the sun - it results in sunburn or other problems. But that doesn't mean that the only good thing for you is to hole yourself up in a dark closet.

Re:Legislative body

[Volkov137]

Don't forget -- congress gets all the Napster creds and iTunes they want, if they make the correct "choice".

Re:Legislative body

[quarkscat]

Netcraft HAS confirmed it -- democracy IS dead
in America. The government of, by, and for the
people as envisioned by the US Constitution and
the Bill of Rights WAS a "republican" "democracy".

It is no mere coincidence that Dubya's grandfather
(Prescott) was a closet Nazi, and they say that
the genetic imprint passes most closely between
children and grandparents. Shortly after 9-11,
Dubya claimed "If you are not for me, you are
for the terrorists." The current regime in power
has propagandized to take us to war, intimidated
the press and his political opposition, has propagandized
to dismantle the social safety net, and is working
on turning the USA into a theocracy. It is becoming
difficult to discern real differences between the
religious fundamentalist fascist terrorists and
the religious fundamentalist Dubya neo-cons.
Saudi Arabian Wahhabists/Royals must feel like
proud parents at the birth of their new American
offspring.

The USA has gone from being a democratic republic
to being a Democratic Republic. After Dubya is
finished renaming the Department of Defense to
the Department of Peace, the USA will more appropriately
be called the Peoples Democratic Republic of the
United States of North America, but it will have
fully adopted (Corporate) National Socialism.

The ironies abound.

Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dillinger

[Anonymous Coward]

the official sequel joke is now "The Secret of Curley's Gold"

As you were

Just because they're out to get you

[WillAffleck]

doesn't mean you're paranoid.

Sigh.

The only flag I want is the one sewn on my old uniform.

Re:Just because they're out to get you

[lawpoop]

Citizen, the State thanks you for voluntarily reporting desecration of the flag. Please report to the nearest vaporization facility immediately.

Re:Just because they're out to get you

[WillAffleck]

Citizen, the State thanks you for voluntarily reporting desecration of the flag. Please report to the nearest vaporization facility immediately.

Yes, comrade. All hail the People's Republic of Bush!

Buy your own laws, here

[FunWithHeadlines]

Get yer laws, here! Nice fresh laws for sale!

Whatsa matter, sport? Courts got you down? They say you have no legal leg to stand on? Don't listen to them! Get your own laws! You write 'em. You pay for 'em. You benefit from 'em.

Re:Buy your own laws, here

[_Sprocket_]

If you don't have a legal leg to stand on... buy another leg!

Re:Buy your own laws, here

[The Importance of]

You can actually read the full text of the proposed law here: MPAA Shopping Draft Broadcast Flag Legislation

Re:Buy your own laws, here

[SacredNaCl]

It may not be as grim. If we each write our reps and tell them, do you really want to be known as the guy who broke TV and made it impossible for all of the rabid sports fans to use their digital recording setups and big screen plasma HDTVs? Me, my xerox machine, stack of sports jerseys, and one hour of free time during every >insert local sports teams names home game doesn't think so.

In my home town we have MLB, NHL, NFL, and a NASCAR circuit. The fans wont take kindly to that being passed if they know who to blame. Even the threat of calling into every sports radio show to name those responsible holds weight.

Hockey fans in particular wont tolerate not being able to see the Stanley Cup Playoffs in high quality. Not with the "all-sports-packages" going for $60-80 a pop in most places.

The politicians need to know it is a hot button issue if someone is willing to hold their feet to the fire, and doing so isn't particularily expensive. We have a natural set of allies in this, and it's never too early to start making phone calls and flyers even if the votes are not in.

Sporting events if one of the specifically mentioned items that the broadcast flag is targeting, so we can even use their own words against them, just put it in bold...

And the sad thing is. . .

[Talondel]

This is going to get passed.

Re:And the sad thing is. . .

[pilgrim23]

When laws are written by outlaws, only outlaws will be lawful.

What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[silentbozo]

Hell, if all Congress is good for is to write laws to restrict your competition and use the might of the US Government as your own private police force, we might as well act preemtively and ban the MPAA. Turnabout is fair play, in my opinion.

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dangit, that should have read, preemptively.

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[kin_korn_karn]

That is the most refreshing idea I've seen on here in a long time. The MPAA is a group of businesses that works together to protect their right to the business. Know who else does that? The mafia. RICO, anyone?

Now I await the inevitable "No, suave" post...

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

dont they have a monopoly that needs to be split up?

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[Usaflt2003]

Yeah but where are you going to get the money to buy or atleast rent a congressman to help you with that?

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[slipstick]

I have always thought that this type of thing isn't as far fetched as it seems. While you may have been trying to be a bit facetious if you consider that the MPAA and RIAA act in ways that in other contexts may be called "collusion" I don't see how it is they get away with some of the things they do.

For instance the CSS encryption on DVD's is "approved" by the MPAA and adopted for use by it's members. How is that not collusion? While it may seem that having many different "standards" would be bad for consumers that's just the way it is. But they didn't give the consumer a choice. They simply acted as an oligopoly and agreed not to release any DVD's without the use of this encryption scheme. I would have thought this kind of thing would be against the rules.

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[jimicus]

A few years back Mohammed al Fayed (Egyptian millionaire, owns Harrods) was mad because the UK government had stopped a previous agreement that he would be allowed to pay a fixed sum every year regardless of how much he made as it was "too difficult" to do all the sums.

I considered writing to my local tax office saying "I had no idea tax was negotiable. I find the sums difficult, may I suggest I pay you £100 in full and final settlement for all my taxes this year?".

Perhaps you folks in the US should write to your congressmen with a similar question regarding getting laws passed.

Re:What about legislation to ban the MPAA?

[silentbozo]

The MPAA is a group of businesses that works together to protect their right to the business. Know who else does that? The mafia. RICO, anyone?

Good call. I propose that from now on, we should refer to the MPAA/RIAA as the "Media Mafia". Who's with me?

Routers

[KrackHouse]

I get the feeling that a gigantic black market will emerge if this passes. If the internet routes around censorship as if it's damage then technological progress will route around hardware restrictions as if it's censorship.

Re:Routers

[freedom_india]

The internet routes around censorship because it was specification that was speifically MEANT to overcome blockages. Technological progress here is limited to camera phones and car GPS.

A black market for running tapes will not arise because people are too busy working 50 hours a week to put food on their tables.

Corporatization of this country is complete.

Re:Routers

[_Sprocket_]

A black market for running tapes will not arise because people are too busy working 50 hours a week to put food on their tables.

And yet... people still watch TV, movies, selecting new ringtones and backgrounds for their phone, finding music for their iPod, burning DvDs of their wedding. They're working 50 hour weeks to put food on the table. And they're also buying nifty gadgets that had been cool little projects only available to tech-heads a few years back.

This country has been run on consumerism for quite a while. Corporate influence is nothing new. It's the flow of data that's new to average lives. And as specific interests try to tighten control on that flow, it will generate a market for more transportable data. That means either turning to alternative markets that are willing to offer data in acceptable formats, or turning to a black market that strips restrictions from mainstream market data.

Re:Routers

[utexaspunk]

right... and drug smuggling routes around government bans- that doesn't mean there aren't serious (and seriously unjust) consequences for getting caught

Re:Routers

[Anonymous Coward]

The impact of this legislation has limited technological impact (see why below). It is, however, going to have a market impact (economic) as well as a regulatory/policy impact (future restrictions easier to put in place without due oversight).

Technologically, imnsho, this legislation isn't going to stop anything. Zip, zilch, nada. This is just muscle flexing. This is to stop general idiotic consumers from recording their shows on their own so that they have to buy the Season 1 DVD when it comes out. How great is our Fascist state--federal airwaves and they are putting in regulations limiting the utility to end consumers.

Remember, this was prompted by a flag, not a DRM, although such legislation would likely make DRM of broadcasts easier. That's the policy/regulatory problem that we should be scared of.

But technologically, there are many cards on the market presently in use that ignore the broadcast flag. Those are legal.

Cards that in the future will not ignore the flag will likely be easily hacked, since the flag will likely be a little firmware or software routine that hackers will just gut and list their accomplishment online for all to see.

Further, projects such as the GNU Radio HDTV decoder (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/images/hdtv- samples.html) already exist. So unless they are going to start screwing people from buying off the shelf lab equipment, even more documentation will arise online for people to roll their own tuner.

Go after this legislation because it's a bad idea. Not because of a black market, but because (1) it opens the door to future restrictions, particularly DRM, and (2) is indicative of future restrictions on free or open media and hardware, similar to how attacks on the GPL have come from proprietary software companies (DRM backing companies may/will try to outlaw non-DRM'd digital media).

Re:Routers

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anybody get the name of that guy who had a bunch of non-DRM tuner cards to sell after the court decision? I'd like to buy them...

Re:Routers

[Anonymous Coward]

the internet will in fact interpret censorship as blocked communications, time out, and resist all attempts to anthropomorphize it.

Government Logic

[Tackhead]

> The DC Circuit nixed the flag on the grounds that the FCC didn't have the authority. This language would clear that up.

1. Anything not nailed down is mine.
2. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
3. If the only tool you have is a crowbar, every problem looks like hours and hours of fun!

Of course we can get along just fine with the software industry. TCPA, DRM, Steam, Valve, Half-Life, Crowbar. It all makes sense now!

Re:Government Logic

[Golias]

1. Anything not nailed down is mine.
2. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.

Damn, that's funny. I gotta put that on a T-Shirt.

Re:Government Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more like P2P users' logic.

Re:Government Logic

[HerbieStone]

TCPA, DRM, Steam, Valve, Half-Life, Crowbar. It all makes sense now!

ROFL. This gave me a good laugh. I shall name this the analogie-ladder. :)

Please note the difference:

[tverbeek]

A bugaloo is not the same thing as a boogaloo.

Re:Please note the difference:

[justforaday]

Hehehehe...I'll take an electric Joy anyday...

Re:Please note the difference:

[smooth wombat]

Don't you mean buggalo?

Re:Please note the difference:

[Divide By Zero]

Yeah, but wouldn't "Electric Bugaboo" fit a lot better?

Re:Please note the difference:

[blamanj]

OT: FYI, neither were in my original submission. which was a zombie reference rather than a musical reference.

2005-05-13 14:41:28 Broadcast Flag 2: Return from the Dead (Index,Media) (accepted)

Land of the Free (except where prohibited)

[Gopal.V]

It's a path of self destruction - there's a price people are willing to pay for entertainment. Cross the line and they'll become pirates. The real challenge of capitalism is to make sure that it works out fine for EVERYONE. For socialism the challenge is induvidual incentive. Neither works, if they don't try to address these challenges.

Scott Adams: If the capitalists don't like capitalism, they shouldn't have named it after themselves.

Re:Land of the Free (except where prohibited)

[khrtt]

The real challenge of capitalism is to make sure that it works out fine for EVERYONE.

This is why civilized countries tax their capitalism half-way to socialism, to try and make sure that it does.

Legislative bodies selling out to corporations can be a problem with any political system, though. Just think - if the US was a monarchy, wouldn't MPAA try and buy him too?

Whatever...

Wow, didn't see THAT coming

[smchris]

I still think they would rather hold off until fall of '08 to blame Clinton and the Democrats for requiring a new TV in every trailer.

Re:Wow, didn't see THAT coming

[TheGratefulNet]

I still think they would rather hold off until fall of '08 to blame Clinton and the Democrats for requiring a new TV in every trailer.

but hopefully, not long after '08, we'll all be able to afford new tv's again.

Electric Boogaloo?

[BillsPetMonkey]

Broadcast Flag 2 - Electric Bugaloo

What's an 80's break-dancing craze got to do with ... oh I geddit.

Down witha FCCee ... in DCeee. Rock down to electric avenue ... we's goin' digitaaal.

Re:Electric Boogaloo?

[BCW2]

Besides, wasn't it spelled "boogaloo"?

Re:Electric Boogaloo?

[angle_slam]

Yes.

"Hi I'm from the MPAA!"

[Anonymous Coward]

And under no circumstances will our agenda take no for an answer.

Short of

[milimetric]

unplugging the internet, I don't think they can do any real damage to anything. I personally believe that it's only a matter of time until something gets set up to put the consumer in better contact with the artists and cut out things like the MPAA and RIAA. MiddleMan ~ 1/Technology

isn't it boogaloo???

[Anonymous Coward]

/not a breakdancer, so not 100% sure..

Re:Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dilling

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be modded "insightful". It's only funny because it's true.

Eliminate the middleman!

[Locke2005]

My don't we just put the MPAA directly in charge of broadcast television technical standards?

Re:Eliminate the middleman!

[powerlord]

Don't give them any ideas, that'll be in the next draft.

MPAA was elected?

[twl1973]

I love it how the MPAA can draft legislation for the Congress now. I thought that we elected people to actually draft legislation but I guess I was wrong. Now all you need to draft legislation is a billion dollars and the knowledge of where to deposit some of the money.

Re:MPAA was elected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...that's the way that it's been for, oh, about 200 years. You don't really think that those congressmen and senators draft the bills themselves, do you?

Want to draft a bill? Write it up and send it to your legislator.

No news here.

Re:MPAA was elected?

[BCW2]

It's all about saving money. It costs much less to bribe the FCC than to bribe all those Congresscritters, on a regular basis.

Re:MPAA was elected?

[Draknor]

Welcome to the new United Corporations of America!

Our elected representatives can't be bothered with the details of reading & writing the legislation their party has decided to pass - they've got to focus on campaign funding for the next election and slamming the other, evil party!

Re:MPAA was elected?

[brontus3927]

No, no, no. Any one can draft legislation. All you need is to know how to write, and a way to write it down. We elect people to sponsor legislation, debate legislation, and vote on legislation. Further, I'd hazzard a bet that there hasn't been a bill on the table in many years that was actually WRITTEN (i.e. drafted) by a Congressperson. Most were written by their staff.

Re:MPAA was elected?

[YrWrstNtmr]

You think this is new? Where exactly do you think all the regulations surrounding the oil industry came from? Or logging? Or (NameYourIssue)?

The trick is to write a counter legislation and convince Congress that yours is better.

Re:MPAA was elected?

[Alsee]

(1) No, no, no. Any one can draft legislation. All you need is to know how to write

Actually as you just pointed out *not* everyone can draft legislation

(2) We elect people to sponsor legislation, debate legislation, and vote on legislation.

Yes, and in their boundless wisdom the general public elects... shall we say some very..... special .....people for the job.

(3) I'd hazzard a bet that there hasn't been a bill on the table in many years that was actually WRITTEN (i.e. drafted) by a Congressperson.

See point (1).

-

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[hisstory student]

that your comment will be archived here on Slashdot.

Think about it. Do you really think something as blatant as this has any chance of even making it into committee? No way.

Re:Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dilling

[WareW01f]

You mean The Legend of Curley's Gold

Sheesh, it's all in the delivery. (I'll take my -1 grammer Nazi now.)

Wow - appropriate fortune at the bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Because we're going to get legislation passed that says that we are the cops...

Tinfoil hat time

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or does that vague wording 'digital television apparatus' mean they can somehow weasel in PCs as a 'digital television apparatus'?
Double tinfoil hat... If you really stretch it would VCRs somehow be now included in this too?
Triple tinfoil hat... Could the MPAA be in bed with Microsoft and their 'trusted' computing environment???? Secured O/S and H/Ware that only MS & MPAA will certify.

haha

[pocketfullofshells]

"The main thing holding Congress back right now is that everyone's waiting for what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the Grokster case."

If the US supreme court jumped off a bridge would Congress follow?

sorry that was horrible

//my other font is 'wingdings'\\

Re:haha

[brontus3927]

No, but if the US Supreme Court decided that Congress should jump off a bridge, Congress would.

The Supreme Court's decisions have the weight of the Constitution. If Congress doesn't like something the Supreme Court decides, the Constitution has to be amended, or wait and hope the Court reverses direction in a future case.

Now in the Grokster case, if the court were to decide to extend Fair Use in a certain manner, any proposed legislation of the broadcast flag would be unconstitutional. If the court were to roll the other way the legislation would be considered timely and expedient in implementing corrollary measures.

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US supreme court jumped off a bridge would Congress follow?

Well we can always hope :P

Re:haha

[Anonymous Coward]

> If the US supreme court jumped off a bridge would Congress follow?

> sorry that was horrible

Its only horrible if they don't follow :)

Bare with me...

[bhsx]

I'm going for a new meme here:
My mom washed the broadcast flag, and it BLEW UP!

Re:Bare with me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blowed up REAL GOOD!

Re:Bare with me...

[GIL_Dude]

right, but is it legal to burn broadcast flags?

Be real

[StreetChip]

Why don't they just cut all the BS and make a bill giving themselves (MPAA) all of the power. That way they can stop bribing the government and will no longer need a middle man to serve as their lapdog.

Better copyright provisions:

[rice_burners_suck]

Perhaps it would be wisest if the government would rule as follows: Any information broadcast in such a manner as to distribute it widely shall be deemed protected under copyright law, but only to the extent that you cannot sell copies of the information; that is, you may record it in any medium you want; you may display the information in any manner you want, even in a public performance; the only thing you cannot do is charge for it; only the copyright holder may do that. Therefore, you cannot charge others to watch a public performance of the same, nor can you charge for copies on, say, DVD.

This would solve a variety of problems: Fair use would not be destroyed. And because information broadcast is, to all practical extents, available for consumption by "the public", then there should be no restriction on time- or format-shifting of the same. This law would be much more fair to both sides of the issue, as the bottom line is that our country is meant to be free, not governed by the will of corporations, though corporations should still have a fair chance at profits, even big profits, because corporations are the ones that pay us, feed us, drive our economy, and give us a better standard of living through the channeling of funds and efforts that would otherwise not take place.

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[arkhan_jg]

You're assuming the companies the MPAA represents, and the congressmen they own, want a fair deal.

To them, it won't be a fair setup until everything we watch is
a) produced by a MPAA member
b) paid for* by every watcher, every time they view it. Yes, that means you pay twice as much if two people watch one show simultaneously.
c) even better, paid for by potential viewers, whether you watch it or not.
d) uncopyable, unless they're doing the copying
e) Chargable like b) every time you change format or viewer, in addition to the per-viewing fee.
f) only viewable when the MPAA producer wants you to watch it, especially if you're in a different country
g) eternal copyright, so that all of the above applies to all content, forever.
h) all fair use of any kind is eliminated.

* paid for to include a flat rate fee, per-viewing fee, or unskippable commercials. Ideally, they'd like all three at once.

"[Skipping ads with a PVR or VCR] is theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."

This beautiful piece of logic was bruited about as part of the Big Media blitz against ReplayTV's model 4000 personal video recorder.

This is what we're dealing with.

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is copying, not charging for copies. The existence of easily-obtained, free-as-in-beer pirate copies (say, on a P2P network) eliminates the possibility of legitmate, licensed copies being sold. You won't pay for a copy when you can get it for free.

Fair use can be permitted without also having to permit unlimited redistribution by anyone to anyone, even when they're not charging a fee.

The problem with the "information wants to be free" crowd is that they're costing us our fair use rights by abusing the system. The only methods developed so far that can block pirate distribution also kill fair use as collateral damage. We need a way to eliminate the free riders without harming the honest users. But that way isn't necessarily to sucumb to their demands for free stuff and thereby eliminate most of the content creators instead.

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Kaenneth]

But, what's the distiction between Broadcast and Cable?

with Broadcast, you have the public airwaves argument, not so with Cable; however, you can't always stick your own antenna on the roof of an apartment building, and I'm sure some homeowners association somewhere forbids them as well... So you might have a situation where your ability to receive public broadcasts is reduced...

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Doesn't the FCC and Federal law override and prohibit homeowner's associations, etc from infringe on people's ability to receive signals?

Wasn't that decided in a lawsuit involving satellite dishes?

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the "produced by them" part is entirely optional. It's fine by them as long as you pay them, even better if you agree with whatever they say. This is the horrid situation we have in Sweden with casette fees - there's a tax on CD-Rs, casettes, etc, which supposedly goes to MPAA-like entities. The assumption is that you *will* use them to make copies of *their* work, and therefore have to pay them. If you can *prove* that you're using your CD-Rs or whatever for other material, you might be able to get a tax return, but certainly not if you're an individual... Oh, and just because you paid for it (whether you wanted to or not) doesn't mean you're *allowed* to make those copies!!

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[anethema]

Doh i guess here in canada we have it a bit better. For music anywyas, we pay the levvy, and because of this we ARE allowd to make those copies :D

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Alsee]

"[Skipping ads with a PVR or VCR] is theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial . . . you're actually stealing the programming."

Awww, how can you end the quote there? The very next line is the best part!

I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.

Yes, skipping a commercial by going to the bathroom is obviously still criminal, but they will generously not prosecute those petty criminals. Just don't try to steal an *entire* show by going to the bathroom during *all* of its commercial breaks. They simply aren't going to tolerate that sort of hardened criminal activity.

-

Re:Better copyright provisions:

[Pendersempai]

So under your law it's legal to digitize any movie broadcast over cable, rip the ads out, and post them on a peer-to-peer network? Somehow I don't see the MPAA going for that.

Because, you know, the RIAA has a problem with their broadcast music being traded freely on P2P.

Who do you think writes the bills?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really think that congressmen and senators write all of that legislation, do you? Somebody with a vested interest proposes a bill, it gets introduced in a committee and...wait a second, didn't this all get covered in Schoolhouse Rock? C'mon, you guys are all about cartoons and comic books - didn't you ever watch Saturday morning TV?

The mind boggles...you do know that this is what's been going on for the past, oh, 200 years, right?

No such thing as "digital"

[Khyber]

Nothing is digital, once going to the pure nature of electronics and electricity. Even information transmitted over a fiber optic cable is an analog wave of light. Anything transmitted over a copper wire is an analog electrical waveform. When it comes down to all of it, Digital does not exist. We cannot look at a digital signal thru an oscilloscope and see 1's and 0's shooting across our screen.

Digital phone network? Nope, it's still an analog wave carrying all of the information. No matter how anything goes or is transmitted, there's no true such thing as digital.

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tank'yaverymuch! T-T-T-Thats all folks...

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[mjh]

In one sense, you're right. Digital is an abstraction of a wave. But that's like saying that there's no such thing as red, just an EM wavelength. The reality is that we call a particular wavelength red because that's the name we've given it. Digital is the same way. There are lots of different naming conventions, but they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM wavelength.

That being said, I know what you mean, but we abstract all kinds of things and give them names. Take cars for example. That's just an abstract name for an engine, a control system, a cabin, and wheels. But because cars are really composed of all of those things, doesn't mean that cars don't exist as things themselves.

$.02

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Kaenneth]

well, there are true 'digital' signals...

\\// Live long and prosper. ..\/ Peace man.

\../ Wicked. ..I.. (Guess)

plus sign language.

but anyway, a 'digital' signal is one that has a fixed number of reproducable states; such that the states can be reconstructed, relayed, and retransmitted with all the intented data intact by a predefined system.

that is, a 1.1 is a 1, and a -0.05 is a 0.

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Sigl]

they all come down to this: this particular waveform is a 0 and this other one is a 1. 0 and 1 are names for the wave form in exactly the same way that red is the name for a particular EM wavelength.

Let's try to be even more abstract. Let's say a given set of analog information has infinite data. (for our purposes) The digital representation of that data is a reduction to a finite set of data. The lost data is used to ensure the integrity of the saved portion.

What do you think?

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Belial6]

You mean like the alphabet?

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[LesPaul75]

This is completely unrelated to the MPAA issue, but anyway...

I'd argue that nothing is analog. Electrons and photons are finite things. When you look at a piece of copper wire, you'll never see some fractional number of electrons zipping by -- there ether is an electron or there isn't. Some scientists and mathematicians are leaning more and more towards the possibility that nothing in the universe is truly "analog." Wolfram's "A New Kind Of Science" suggests that the whole universe (physics, time, etc...) is a digital computer of sorts. The "Digital Philosophy" crowd (website) makes a similar argument. Chaitin even argued that real numbers don't exist in his most excellent book. The book was available for free online for a long time, but it looks like it's gone now. It's well worth whatever he's asking for it, though.

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[jacksonj04]

All correct, except for the "fixed number of reproducable states". Digital is, dy definition, only allowed two possible states.

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Khyber]

In a secondary thought to this, this type of semantics (which lawyers use all the time) could be used to fight against the RIAA/MPAA. And since nobody has any legal control of how our universe works, they could (by my thoughts) NOT control how things are sent or received. I bet you (much like the Random monkey shakespeare theory) that some pulsar or neutron star out there in the universe is probably emitting the exact same waves to reproduce some cartoon or TV or Movie. You just cannot control nature, period. Don't make me get into how by our own laws of thermodynamics that the universe is just one BIG perpetual motion machine. That'll be guaranteed to blow your mind. I've already gotten a scholarship for that theory. (I'm not gonna use it, most people are just too based upon reality to understand it)

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Kaenneth]

I think any finite number of states counts as digital and since any integer can be expressed in binary, which only requires two states, any digital information can be expressed using only 2 states.

Dictionary.com says:

1. Of, relating to, or resembling a digit, especially a finger.
2. Operated or done with the fingers: a digital switch.
3. Having digits.
4. Expressed in numerical form, especially for use by a computer.
5. Computer Science. Of or relating to a device that can read, write, or store information that is represented in numerical form. See Usage Note at virtual.
6. Using or giving a reading in digits: a digital clock.

Re:No such thing as "digital"

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the links, I'd been wondering about some of those issues for a while now in the back of my head

Interesting Implication

[Bob(TM)]

You know, it's interesting that the MPAA is taking the approach of giving additional regulatory power of the FCC rather than lobbying congress to mandate the flag.

Laying groundwork for easier actions in the future, perhaps ...

Re:Interesting Implication

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's interesting that the MPAA is taking the approach of giving additional regulatory power of the FCC rather than lobbying congress to mandate the flag.

Laying groundwork for easier actions in the future, perhaps ...

The MPAA apparently learns by example well from the current US administration.

Re:Interesting Implication

[sconeu]

Your sig says it all...

The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?

Actually, he is... right up the ass.

Re:Interesting Implication

[rsilvergun]

That's because it's easier to get a regulatory body to do what you want than to wait for Congress to do it. Cheaper too, since when loopholes pop up you don't need to buy a revision to the law to close 'em. The only downside is a judge can rule the regulatory body isn't vested with the necessary power. But you cross that bridge when you get there.

Well...

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Can someone please tell me why we are letting the MPAA (or any **aa for that matter) draft legislation? Isn't this a step beyond lobbying?

I understand that it doesn't mean it gets passed, but I don't think coporations should be drafting legislation that would extend the power of a Org. like the FCC that will benefit themselves.

Re:Well...

[brontus3927]

Anyone can write a bill, you don't have to be in congress for that. Private citizens can write a bill on any topic they want. What a private citizen can't do is sponsor legislation. A congressman/senator has to sponsor a bill before it will be "debated" and voted on. I'm not naive enough to think there isn't at least 1 congressman whose campaign wasn't paid for by the MPAA and has a cushy $200,000 job waiting for them after they leave office, which is actual the issue that who are so, rightly, indignat about.

Re:Well...

[Sheetrock]

Can someone please tell me why we are letting the MPAA (or any **aa for that matter) draft legislation?

Because voters do no research beyond attack advertisements and puff pieces on news channels, reelect lousy incumbents because they're afraid of the other party getting in, and care only about one or two issues rather than integrity.

As it is, a congressman is more likely to get raked over the coals for voting with integrity because this stuff always gets attached to patriotic or must-pass legislation (and voters never seem to go after the guys that sneak this stuff in.)

Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with industry giving input to legislation that will affect them, but there's clearly no balance here. You'd be surprised too by how many articles are written and segments are produced by PR firms and basically passed on as news by the media. We let them get away with it for the same reason they do it -- it's easier than the alternative.

Re:Well...

[ACNiel]

This was discussed earlier, but just in case you are only watching your own post, they aren't actually drafting legislation in the more general sense.

They may or may not be writing the words, but it is still just lobbying. They author it, give it to a Congressman, and the Congressman "drafts" it, by submitting it. This is a very effective way to lobby.

"Sure I might agree with you, but writing a law, making sure it is worded real good, and everything else takes soooo much time, I think I'll have to pass... What's that you say, you already wrote it, printed it, and bound 100 copies? Ok, sounds good, I will take a look. On a different note my daughter needs a pool built in her (adjoining) backyard, and I think I would like to read your bill while swimming in a new pool for my daughter, but I don't know when she'd have the where-with-all to build such a pool..."

Re:Well...

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Ah, OK. Makes a bit more sense now.

Still...I think we can all agree that the **AAs are all evil bastards. ;)

Wait, Wait!

[bhsx]

This one's better:
My mom washed my Electic Bugaloo, and it BLEW UP!
That'll do pig, that'll do.

Quick Robin! - The EFF-Signal !

[kulakovich]

/a lot funier if you pronounce "EFF".

kulakovich

Follow the money

[sterno]

This won't be difficult to get passed at all. It's giving the FCC a very specific mandate to regulate something. So there should be minimal concern about broader implications. Furthermore, all the media companies will be pumping the election funds full of cash to get it passed.

It'll pass with ease.

Re:Follow the money

[Almost-Retired]

Thats what I'm afraid of.

OTOH, I wonder what took them so long. This campaign should have been ready to roll out the instant the SCOTUS made the ruleing (in their view that is, in mine they can bend over, its time the people had some fun.)

In any event, my congress critter is in town today, so I'm going to stop by the senior center and lay a few words on him.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Follow the money

[michael_cain]

It'll pass with ease.

I was going to say exactly the opposite thing. Once there's some testimony -- and the computer companies are certainly going to insist that they get a chance to air their views in public -- that the only ways the FCC can handle this is to either (a) outlaw copying outright, which takes away constituents' ability to continue time-shifting, or (b) micromanage all kinds of different technologies like hard disks and software decoders in order to ensure that the flags are honored, I figure that Congress is going to want nothing to do with it.

Re:Follow the money

[cpt kangarooski]

What Supreme Court opinion are you talking about?

Re:Follow the money

[bar-agent]

...micromanage all kinds of different technologies like hard disks and software decoders in order to ensure that the flags are honored, I figure that Congress is going to want nothing to do with it.

What does Congress care? They just say, "make it so!," and the FCC has the headaches. Now, that said, the FCC should oppose this.

Re:Follow the money

[Maestro4k]

I was going to say exactly the opposite thing. Once there's some testimony -- and the computer companies are certainly going to insist that they get a chance to air their views in public Unless they do what they did with the RealID legislation and sneak it onto some spending bill that no congresscritter dare opposes or ask for hearings on because they'll be accused of not supporting our military/etc.

So yeah, I'd say it'll pass with ease. Enough money will grease hands to insure it.

Re:Follow the money

[mrchaotica]

Huh? Bureaucrats never, ever oppose giving themselves more power.

Re:Follow the money

[Almost-Retired]

The one that set aside the broadcast flag, based on the lack of congressionally given authority on the part of the FCC to issue such a rule.

And of course, given enough money from Disney et all, it will be tacked onto another totally unrelated bill thats sure to get a 100/0 passage in the senate, and 475/23 in the house. Just like this RFID thing was attached to the war budget.

Either way we're fscked, and its about time for Ed Howdershelts rule # 4. By now I'm sure you've seen the quotation, including in my own .sigs from time to time when I feel like pasteing it in.

What we, the voters want should be what we get if we had a true democracy. By and large, if the sheeple weren't being lied to at every turn of the wheel, I think we could make pretty good decisions about how we treat our neighbors and tradeing partners.

But of late, the last 60 years, it seems as if its all robbing peter to pay paul, with the public playing the part of peter.

FWIW, my name sure as hell isn't peter & I object to paying for all the play toys & bloodletting that goes with the shrubs idea of nation building.

In Iraq, for what? Are we gonna do it all over again in about 120 days when they build a constitution thats says they are permanently at war with us, and there are no rules? If they want to make all that rubble with their car bombs, maybe we ought to show a few of them in a position of leadership, just exactly how high we can make the rubble bounce. Right where they are sitting & watching CNN for more clues as to how to hurt us even more efficiently. I can't believe for a minute that they don't have a pretty good idea, say within 1/2 square mile, where Zarqawi(sp) is sitting in relative comfort. Make it all bounce. Then do it again.

In Afganistan, I think we may have a snowballs chance in hell, but Iraq seems to be a lost cause regardless of the public face they are putting on it day after day. Prove me wrong, Rumsfeld, and do it quick. We vote again in 2006 you know.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Follow the money

[cpt kangarooski]

The one that set aside the broadcast flag, based on the lack of congressionally given authority on the part of the FCC to issue such a rule.

The Supreme Court did no such thing. They haven't even heard the case.

The court that did that was the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Basically, you see, there are three levels of federal Art. III courts in the US: District Courts, which are trial-level courts in which cases are first heard; Circuit Courts, which are the courts to which one appeals if unsuccessful at trial; and the Supreme Court, which may hear appellate-level cases if it chooses, and to which one petitions if unsuccessful previously (almost always at the Circuit level).

I'm sure the 12 judges on the DC Circuit are very smart, and certainly it's such an eminent court that it's often viewed as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court (e.g. Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, and Thomas are all former DC Cir. judges), but any of them would tell you that it's not the Supreme Court.

For starters, it's like 10 blocks away. ;)

Re:Follow the money

[Almost-Retired]

Ah, my mistake then.

Does this mean that its settled and back to congress, or will the Supremes have to hear and rule too before the setaside is final?

Generally, I think the Supremes wouldn't bother to look at it very carefully as the Court of Appeals for DC usually has a reasonably firm grip on sanity.

Anyway, most of the rest of my rant is still valid. It sure would be nice if we actualy had a democracy...

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Follow the money

[cpt kangarooski]

Does this mean that its settled and back to congress, or will the Supremes have to hear and rule too before the setaside is final?

If the FCC petitions the Supreme Court for cert., and Supreme Court decides to hear the case (which is totally up to them), then the case isn't over. But this doesn't prevent Congress from acting in the meantime to clarify the law, even were the Supreme Court to reverse the DC Circuit.

Re:Follow the money

[DavidTC]

If Congress grants authority to the FCC, that won't magically make the FCC's previous order legal. They'll have to issue a new one.

Why is that important? Well, the deadline was in two weeks to require broadcast flag support. I don't know what kind of rules the FCC has to follow, but considering they gave us like a six month ramp up last time, I doubt they can make a manufacturing rule that takes effect in less than two weeks.

So even if Congress betrays the American people again by siding with...sorry...so when Congress betrays the American people by siding with the media companies, we'll still get a bit more time.

Audio Interview

[xstonedogx]

Make magazine has an audio interview with him about the broadcast flag here:

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2005/05/make_ audio_show.html

Basically, he explains what's happened so far, and makes the observation that legislation of this type will be difficult to pass because no one wants to be the one to break American's television sets.

Re:harder this time Huh???

[kclittle]

This is another attempt to bypass courts and surreptitously impose a law that tramples upon a citizen's rights.

Let's not lose sight of how the U.S. Government works here...

Congress *makes the rule*, and the courts *enforce* them. So, the media, having been told by the courts, "this is not what Congress intended", are going to the source of the rules and requesting a change -- as any group of citizens in the country have a right to do. You may not agree with the request, and it is your right to oppose and argue against the change, but there is no "bypassing" to rant an rail against.

with apologies to Mel Brooks...

[Foobar of Borg]

"Fellow members of the American Senate, hear me! Shall we continue to give hand-out after hand-out to the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and draft decent legislation for the poor? How does the Senate vote?"

[in unison] "F**k the poor!"

"Good!"

The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA...

[sehlat]

is, in fact, to give them exactly what they want. Broadcast flags, DRM-crippled video/audio, the whole nine yards. By the time they wake up to the fact that they've made their customers so miserable that their customers don't want any more of the crap they're trying to sell, they'll be in Chapter 7.

And the rest of us can sit back and watch them and their lackeys go bungee-jumping out of their fancy offices without the bungees.

Re:The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA...

[Bobobob314]

Yes, but we'll still have to deal with all this shit legislation they've passed. Doesn't seem like a good solution.

Re:The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA...

[goldspider]

The sad thing is that most people will accept whatever restrictions they're slapped with, as long as they are allowed to suckle at the electronic teat. The rest of us are an inconsequential minority that the MPAA isn't trying to please.

Re:The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Look at the volume of posts here for Star Trek/Star Wars/DVRs/etc.

And /. is supposed to be the more intelligent crowd.

Re:The best way to destroy the MPAA/RIAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

People will crave entretainment as addicts crave crack.

Legislation

[blueadept1]

Why can the MPAA push for legislation? Are they a government body now? haha... America is being so messed up by these punks.

Problem with it is...

[snwcrash]

The device makers will put up a pretty strong resistance to this. MPAA isn't the only industry group that would be lobbying over this.

The FCC regulations were politically convenient, since the elected officals could distance themselves from it, claim to support or oppose it depending on the direction of the political winds.

Republicans would probably find it hard to increase the amount of regulation on high-tech industries. Not saying it's impossible, but it's hardly going to zip right on through. Unlike the DMCA which was generally pro-business this bill pits several intrests against one another. If the bill directly attacked consumers it would pass in a hearbeat :)

Re:Problem with it is...

[Stavr0]

The device makers will put up a pretty strong resistance to this. MPAA isn't the only industry group that would be lobbying over this.
"My lobby group can beat up your lobby group."

Whichever special interest group with the deeper pockets will win this one. Plain as that.

Re:Problem with it is...

[the eric conspiracy]

Whichever special interest group with the deeper pockets will win this one. Plain as that.

The good news is that the electronics industry is MUCH bigger than the entertainment industry.

Whether they will want to fight this is another question.

Re:Problem with it is...

[Dachannien]

I hope they do, but I don't have much faith. Intel, Hitachi, and other companies are already in bed with the entertainment industry (such as Sony) in terms of devising content control schemes to forbid transmission of flagged content over firewire to noncompliant devices (read: your PC-based PVR).

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[ReverendLoki]

Do you really think something as blatant as this has any chance of even making it into committee?

It's almost, but not quite, as blatant as the current Nominee for UN Delegate's contempt for the UN, and we all see how quickly that was struck down...

Never underestimate the power of:
(a) Money
(b) Ignorance
(c) Stupid people in large groups
(d) All of the above.

Not Really Government Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is MPAA Logic. The top-dogs at the FCC (Paid politicians all) pushed for this at the behest of their parties and the MPAA/RIAA/Devil Inc. The thinking here is not that the government should control everything but that, in the event of an existing buseness not doing as well as the greedy execs would like (a far far different thing from it being under attack/etc). then the government can be used as a club to beat their customers (prisoners) into submission.

It's imperative that we distinguish between petty beureucrats run amok and greedy swine run rampant. Different enemies call for different solutions.

Think again

[seven5]

in 1866 pretty much. vs town, Network Buffy the Vampire Slayer Thanksgiving let's shake hands

Re:Think again

[Jurph]

Dude, I think your bot is broken.

I hope not...

[Stop Error]

Is it really the Federal Governments job to mandate technologies who's sole purpose is to restrict what I do with media in my home?

I hope this gets crushed. I hate the idea of the Fed's in my home dictating whe I can do with my stuff by means of Technology that I will simply have to work around which will probobly make me a criminal at that point.

How depressing.

Re:I hope not...

[Limburgher]

The Fed's what?

The result of a Litigous Society

[PenguinBoyDave]

Welcome to America. When in doubt, Sue 'em and let the courts sort it out. Pretty soon we're going to see the "record" button disappear from VCR's and DVR's because it will all be under some rediculous rule brought about by those with the check books.

err, indescriminate *and* broadcast flag? can't be

[tota]

Am I the only one to find the words "indiscriminate redistribution" and "broadcast flag" difficult to use in the same sentence.

Are they being ironic or what?

No such thing as "analog"

[Anonymous Coward]

It may look like analog waves, but it's all electrons and quanta underneath. No matter how infinitely-variable something looks, there's no true such thing as analog.

Sure, it's not a meaningful argument, but neither was yours.

Yay regulation.

[Telastyn]

I am not a lawyer and might be mistaken, but...

Someone wake me when the regulation actually has legal consiquence if someone disobeys it. To my knowledge, the FCC can fine people or companies all they like, but have questionable legal standing to actually make them pay up.

Re:Yay regulation.

[Kookus]

You're thinking about yourself
Think about.... Sony, their product will be pulled from stores if they don't abide by the standards the fcc imposes.
That means, sure, you will be fine to do what you please still, but good luck trying to get the device to do what you want without having to buy something from another country first.

Why create a whole new bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Going by recent example, if they really want this passed they should find a friendly senator to add it as an ammendment to a military spending bill...

Re:harder this time Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, the courts review laws, and the executive enforces them, but whatever.

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[hisstory student]

Oh? And what commercial enterprise does he represent?

Silly

[teh_dg]

Am I right in thinking that all you need is one person to figure out how to bypass it (I also assume this is highly likely to happen sooner rather than later) and then there's nothing to prevent "indiscriminate redistribution ... over digital networks"? Also, likely many countries wont support the broadcast flag, yet the studios will still want to sell shows.

I'd have thought all this would do is prevent Joe recording a programme for Jane. If anything "digital networks" get more users because it becomes the only alternative to recording at home, alternatives even Joe Public is used to, so maybe he becomes more comfortable with the idea of downloading the show missed because he had to work late.

Nah, they'll just tack it on another bill

[johnny cashed]

Like a supplemental spending bill for Bush's Iraqi adventure. After all, who would not want to support the troops?

Apparently they aren't discouraged.

[qmaqdk]

They've shut down ShunTV, and other TV BitTorrent sites.

See the press release.

Re:Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dilling

[Fiver-]

I think "The Empire Strikes Back" would have worked equally well.

I have serious questions

[DigitalWarrior]

I know: Timeshifting is completely legal. I may program my VCR to record shows that are sent to me. The questions: 1. May I have my neighbor come into my house and press record on my VCR to record the show I can get? 2. May I have him tape a show that I can get for me, then have him give me his tape? 3. What if he uses two VCRs and keeps one copy for himself and gives one to me? I am sure that at some point it becomes illegal, but I am not sure where, since it really seems related to the BetaMax decision. 2. May I give my neighbor a video cassette and ask him to record it

Re:I have serious questions

[twifosp]

I am not a lawyer, but here is my understanding.

You may do all of the things you wrote without it being illegal. The only time it starts becoming illegal is when you start making copies of those tapes and supplying them to people or rebroadcasting them without the permission of the copyright owners and the original broadcasting channel.

So if your neighbor gave you a tape, you are ok. If your neighbor sells you a tape, you're not. If neighbor records a tape, and you make a copy of it, then I think that's where the grey areas start.

Re:I have serious questions

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL. TINLA. The key question is not "what did you do with the copy" so much as "is the copy a lawfully created copy?"

"1. May I have my neighbor come into my house and press record on my VCR to record the show I can get?"

Yes. You are authorizing an agent to act on your behalf; he is doing this as though your yourself are doing it, therefore it is legal.

"2. May I have him tape a show that I can get for me, then have him give me his tape? "

Yes. He has the right to record the show. The copy on his tape is, then, a lawfully obtained copy. There are certain things you are allowed to do with a lawfully obtained copy, including lending it to another without expectation of direct or indirect commercial gain -- See US Copyright Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109 (a).

"3. What if he uses two VCRs and keeps one copy for himself and gives one to me?"

Assuming he is using both VCRs to simultaneously tape the same broadcast, still legal, for the same reasons as above. Each copy is a lawfully obtained copy, and can therefore be disposed of as your neighbor sees fit. He cannot use 2 VCRs to "make a copy of a copy," however (that is an unauthorized reporduction).

"I am sure that at some point it becomes illegal, but I am not sure where, since it really seems related to the BetaMax decision. "

Betamax has nothing to do with it; betamax simply said that just because VCRs can be used to infringe (by making copy after copy), we can't ban them outright because they also serve legal functions (time-shifting is identified as an extension of Fair Use).

It only becomes illegal when your friend (a) starts making copies of his copies (rather than giving you a recording of the actual broadcast, not a recording of a recording of that broadcast) or (b) starts doing the lending, rental, etc. for financial gain (per paragraph b of the US code cited above) -- though the law does not prohibit sale of such works (however, in this case, I do not know if the "Fair Use"/"timeshifting" doctrine applies)!!! In theory, if you operate 50 VCRs, you could use all 50 to simultaneously record a broadcast and could lend those 50 tapes (for free) to your friends... but you couldn't then make copies of one of the tapes to "re-seed" another 50 copies once you gave/lent out 49.

Again, IANAL, TINLA. Clear? Or muddled?

Discriminate

[verloren]

control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content

So if I promise to be discriminating in the way I redistribute things, that would be OK? Would releasing a Mac-only client count?

Good for Congresspeople!

[spiritraveller]

So we've got an unelected commission of five people here. And we're going to give them broad power to make whatever rules they want...

I think this is great. In fact, Congress should delegate ALL rule-making authority to independent agencies. That way, they can play more golf and spend more time shopping for nice suits.

These people REPRESENT us. Let's make sure that they look good, feel good, and don't have to do any work at all.

Re:Good for Congresspeople!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want to eliminate all of the hundreds of federal agencies created by congress and let congressmen deal with things like regulating nuclear power plants, certifying whether drugs are safe or not, and inspecting meat?

Sorry, its not practical.

This project explained in 11 words.

[KC7GR]

When Fair Use is outlawed, only outlaws will have Fair Use.

Anyone else up for a shopping trip to pick out bandanas, gunbelts and spurs? ;-)

Re:This project explained in 11 words.

[AussieVamp2]

You going to have to save up for the horse then? :)

The MPAA is back....

[lupinstel]

The MPAA is back...and this time, its personal!!

did anyone else see...

[JThundley]

"The daft bill says, simply,..."

Short term bad, long term good?

[twifosp]

I think this is actually a good thing. Even without extra legislation, in my opinion, we're too far gone. Therefore you can file this under the "as you tighten your grip, the more that will fall through your fingers" section.

If passed, the broadcast flag will likely slow down piracy just as much as Compact Discs that won't work in CD-ROMs. While solution, ahem work-around, might not be as simple as a magic marker, rest assured that people will continue to make up their own free use policies so long as the laws aren't enforced.

If anything, a broadcast flag will give the MPAA a false sense of security and create a rift between hardware manfactures and these self imposed unofficial regulatory bodies. By that I mean, it is very likely that by putting a broadcast flag into new hardware, sales will decline as people will hang on to thier own unregulated hardware. New media formats will never gain a market niche, and it'll be like laser disc vs vcr all over again. Hardware companies will eventually cry foul and either release more friendly devices that comply with the law, but are very easy to get around, or they will do some brib... I mean... drafting legisla... I mean suggesting legislation of their own.

Hardware sales fall, media sales fall, publishing companies go under, TV stagnates and America will finally realize that the entertainment industry really is a parasite on our economy. Slowly people will stop being able to afford the newest pop culture diva's CD, and they will be upset at first. But they will find out they don't even miss it. The media industry will die and be replaced by a new rennesaince period. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

Either way, everytime these imperialistic corperations get these types of laws passed, I look at it as one step closer to massive fall out. After all, the only way they can enforce most of these laws would be if we lived in a police state.

Oh shit.

Re:Short term bad, long term good?

[kidgenius]

Well, you are assuming that the masses realize the wool is being pulled over their eyes. If the broadcast flag had been allowed to happen, it would've been turned on rather quietly. Most people out there would go about their lives never knowing the difference. Their new Tivo they bought would still record and playback at a later time/date. Now, if one time they try to make a copy, they will see it doesn't work. Many people, not understanding what is going on, will assume that it just is something that is not possible to do, and will accept it as such and go on with their lives.

Loss of respect for the law.

[Harry Coin]

Nothing is more harmful to the rule of law than measures such as these. Blatantly obvious purchase of legislation, the ever-expanding scope of "criminal" behavior, and plainly selective enforcement of the law is combining to create an entire generation of people who will simply ignore the increasingly broad and self-contradictory stack of rules.

People truly follow the small subset of the law that they understand, and nothing more.

I can't see this becoming too popular

[91degrees]

Can congress delegate powers explicitely granted to it by the constitution?

Essentially, this bill would have Congress abdicate its responsibility for copyright to the FCC. Any congressman who understands the need for balance in copyright legislation (I assume there is one) will see it as a bad idea to give this level of authority to a non-elected organisation.

Re:I can't see this becoming too popular

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope so..

Can you imagine what would happen if Congress had to issue broadcast licenses, administrate the space program, regulate and inspect nuclear power (How many congressmen/women are qualified to do this?), certify airplace pilots, test the quality of new prescription drugs, etc?

That would be a disaster and would never happen. For the sake of practicality, powers HAVE to be delegated to congressionaly created agencies.

Well of course

[nurb432]

You don't think they will just lay down and admit defeat do you?

They will fight as long as people continue to fund them by buying their garbage at the stores. ( or they win total control over all content and violators are executed on suspicion )

True enuf, but.... .

[jimbro2k]

Most US voters either don't care about the U.N. at all or are positively against that corrupt clique of furriners.

Messing around with their T.V., on the other hand is something they care about very deeply. (Judging by the size of US couch potato(e)s, more than anything else.)
IF the word gets out to the spuds, this is one of the few things that will motivate them to get off their butts to express their displeasure.

Which is not to say, of course, that the congresscritters won't take the gamble, if the money is right.

Bread and Circuses!

Re:True enuf, but.... .

[ReverendLoki]

this is one of the few things that will motivate them to get off their butts to express their displeasure.

Man, this is one of those double edged sentences, where I don't know if I want to believe this is true or false. I like to think there are other, less selfish and sedentary things to motivate us to do so...

What bothers me, lately whenever I've been talking with someone outside of the tech/slashdot crowd and bring up the matter of the (then) impending broadcast flag, almost everyone was oblivious to what it was, and it often took way to much time to explain how it might effect them. Though we've been ranting about it for some time now, it's managed to slip under the mainstream's radar rather effectively. I'm afraid it would be all to easy for any such legislation to receive equally indifferent coverage, especially if it was tacked on as part of another bill.

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[mjh]

Never underestimate the power of:
...
(c) Stupid people in large groups

Don't overestimate it, either. See Don't The Wisdom of Crowds.

Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

The FCC mission is to prohibit interference among signals, by enforcing the assignment of segregated communications channels. Some of those channels travel over "airwaves" owned by the public: the space between points in the US which carries light in frequencies invisible to humans. That trusteeship of the airwaves justifies another role: publicly receivable signals transmitted over those airwaves must meet acceptable standards for public consumption, as agreed by transmitters in the terms of their license for spectrum leased from the FCC. Those standards are limited to offensive criteria, like sexual representations, some politics, and (minimally) violence. That is the FCC's entire mission, which excludes private transmissions (including subscriptions like cable and satellite), and transmissions in media other than the airwaves (including telephone and data networks).

This "broadcast flag" rule is not just "technically illegal". Content policing is the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress' Copyright Office. That office is already complicated (and often contradictory) enough, with its own overreaches (eg. copyright perpetuation). This rule is not so much the FCC filling a gap, or even augmenting LoC oversight. It is really a recognition by a bureaucracy that its main source of power, administering the airwaves, is becoming a tiny area of activity. As other media dwarf the airwaves in traffic, and tech like phased arrays undermine even the necessity for segregation of channels by frequency, the FCC is becoming merely a 20th Century office, as obsolete as the 19th Century offices governing horsedrawn carriages. But its ability to influence Congress, while it still controls the still popular airwaves (which carry most news broadcasts), offers a way to change its mission to one with more power than it ever had. If it jumps beyond the airwaves domain, to define its mission as censor (rather than guarantor of signal integrity), it will not only have power over otherwise free American activities, but need never again be threatened with obsolescence.

The FCC's creeping power grabs are completely predictable, given the increasing irrelevance of the underlying problem it is chartered to solve. But Congress should see this as a chance to phase out a dangerous and unnecessary bureaucracy. Preserving only its technically necessary functions, while they still exist. Then let it die, not reanimate it as a monster censor we'll never banish.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let it die, not reanimate it as a monster censor we'll never banish.

But if the Republicans did that, how would they ever trick the Christians into thinking they had anything to do with their religion at all and convince them to vote Republican?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

By making the US a theocracy which didn't conflict with their corporate agenda. Getting Christians to hunger for war, death penalty, an end to public support of the poor ("charity") would help the Republicans avoid "compromise". Defining "faith" as "anything goes, without questions" would be a basic ideology. And it all seems to be working. Converting the FCC into a hand of the Inquisition seems to be working within that plan, too.

Re:Jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC does regulate telephones. Ever hear of 47 CFR 68?

Re:Jurisdiction

[Doc Ruby]

OK - they regulate telephones, but not telephony. Of course we're all familiar with all kinds of equipment connected to the "Public Switched Telephone Network", that must meet FCC specs. Again, the FCC is regulating devices which could interfere with the public telephone network's ability to transmit signals (eg. by frying it). The FCC has other regulations for equipment attached to the public cable network, too. 47 CFR 68 says nothing about content, which is what we're talking about, and what the FCC is trying to regulate.

Re:Jurisdiction

[chihowa]

Pfft. Getting Christians to hunger for war is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Just give in and they can watch the industry die.

[crovira]

And then, when the players are bitchin about the lost revenues and how they can't pay their xxAA membership dues, you can watch the xxAAs die.

It'll be televised ;-)

Re:harder this time Huh???

[klui]

Not quite. Congress, the legislative branch makes the laws; police/armed forces, the executive branch enforces the laws; courts, the judicial branch interprets the laws.

It's nothing new

[portwojc]

It's nothing new that commercial groups are writing legislation. It happens all the time.

Legislative Responsibility

[Col. Klink (retired)]

At least if Congress passes this, we can tell people that their congressman voted to make it illegal for them to tape Desperate Housewives. With the FCC's unilateral move, congress critters would have just blamed the bureacrats...

Congress delegating laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes,

That is how we got the Federal Reserve System,
and worthless paper currency.

Congress is also supposed to write the budget,
but now the executive writes it and gives it to congress.

Sad....

Re:Congress delegating laws?

[Big_Breaker]

Pick your poison.

Back in the good ol' days of silver or gold backed currency the government placed controls on personal holdings and transport of those metals. It used to be ILLEGAL to stash physical gold ( see the Gold Confiscation Act of 1933). That law only changed in 1975, not that long ago.

We may have "worthless" paper currency now but you are not restricted from holding silver and gold in your home or transporting it within and outside the US. You can always cash in your paycheck every week and buy ingots. I'd recommend holding some cash though for things like groceries and utility bills. You might be able to find a bank that will let you check against a balance held in gold though. That would solve your problem wouldn't it?

Gold bugs sure are silly.

Be nice if it backfired...

[slapout]

regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks

Wonder what would happen if for some reason the FCC decided it was OK to redistribute content over digital networks.....:-)

Re:harder this time Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. Congress, the legislative branch makes the laws; police/armed forces, the executive branch enforces the laws; courts, the judicial branch interprets the laws.

Are you being sarcastic? Because if you were, you could do better. The armed forces enforcing the law? Not in this country, fella.

Every branch of government has an enforcement arm, but the primary function of the police in most cases is to haul people in front of the judiciary, who ultimately disposes of the law.

Do they not teach civics class in school anymore?

Oh get over yourself

[headbulb]

In all honesty what does voting really do when all choices suck? really. So all those people on their high horses thinking that since they voted that they can then tell other people that they don't have a right to complain about the government. Don't they seem to realize that people have a full choice of not voting if they don't like who's running. Besides most people are just proactive about their government once every four years. They don't even seem to realize that writing a letter to a legislator would gain them so much more power then a vote ever could. So is it that we didn't vote or that we arn't proactive in the workings of our government?

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Lord Kano]

If you don't like the choices that are put up by the parties, write someone in. Write yourself in.

The statement made by going to the polls and voting can not be ignored.

So is it that we didn't vote or that we arn't proactive in the workings of our government?

Voting is central. When you write a letter to a legislator, if you were to open it with "I don't vote, but I think..." the rest of your letter will be ignored.

LK

Re:Oh get over yourself

[lgw]

The important election for the presidential race is the primary. You have many choices and veiwpoints there, and a coalition is built that is thought to appeal to the majority of Americans. That thought is then tested in the general election. The general election is a great check on the parlamentary process in the primaries - very oddball candidates can sometimes emerge though coalition building.

Sure, choice is limited in the general election, but all the real politics is over by that point, and all that's left is the show.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Moofie]

In many states, the only way to vote in a primary is to join a Party.

I will never join the Republicans or the Democrats. They are the crux of problem, and they're going to make sure that that never changes.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Lord Kano]

In many states, the only way to vote in a primary is to join a Party.

Well, yeah. Why should you get to choose a party's candidate if you're not a member of that party?

That would be akin to management choosing who gets to run for union president.

LK

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Moofie]

So those who disapprove of the Parties' lock on national politics are neatly disenfranchised, and that's just "too bad" in your book?

Yes, I agree with you, that's exactly what happens. That is precisely the problem.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Lord Kano]

So those who disapprove of the Parties' lock on national politics are neatly disenfranchised, and that's just "too bad" in your book?

Their decision to abstain does not equate to disenfranchisement. It's a conscious decision to remain on the outside. If they don't like the way things are working, they can start their own party. That what the Greens, Libertarians and Reformers did.

LK

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Moofie]

And as long as the Republicans and the Democrats control the ballot, the Greens, Libertarians, and Reformers will continue to be non-issues in American political life.

The two-party system isn't much better than a one-party system, and I think it's totally unacceptable.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[lgw]

You refusal to participate (as some sort of protest I assume) is not evidence that the process is not open for participation. One cool thing about primaries is that they're done differently in every state. Some states even use non-first-past-the-post vote counting, and other systems /.ers like to advocate.

My point remains: the real politics in a presidential election happens in the primary for the out-of-power party. If your views are more in line with that party than the incumbant, that's your chance for your views to gain political traction.

It's possible that your views are so far out of the mainstream that they'll never pass the balance that "we want an electable candidate" puts on coalition building. This is a feature, not a bug, as it keeps the likes of David Duke out of the running. But if your views are that different, *any* candidate that represents them will be "thowing away your vote", no matter the party, so I don't see your beef.

It's also possible that the big party closest to your views is so broken and deluded that they only represent a few specil interests. Don't worry, this is self correcting, either the party will fix itself, or we'll flop to a different 2 parties in power (as happened to the Whigs, and came close to happening to the Republicans once before).

What specifically is your objection anyway?

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Moofie]

"What specifically is your objection anyway?"

The fact that I cannot vote in a national election without tacitly approving the removal of my civil liberties.

I can vote Republican. They oppose a big whack of the Constitution.

Or I can vote Democrat, who although they only outright oppose the 2nd amendment, they seem pretty willing to roll over for the Republicans on the rest of them.

Neither of these scenarios are acceptable. Third parties are not viable (by design). Hence, my objection.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[lgw]

So you don't like your choices in one election, and therefore the whole system is bad? I suspect you have a more structural complaint.

Representational democracy is the least bad system anyone has tried, but it comes with a specific downside: you need a coalition to govern. There are very few issues which enough people care about to influence an election, and those tend not to be politically interesting (either everyone agrees or no one wants to touch it). For all the interesting issues, a group of people care a lot, and most people are oblivious.

Because (almost) no interesting issue has a majority behind it (or who even know about the issue), a coalition has to form to get anything done. "You vote for my minimum wage law, and I'll vote for your law banning trees. What? Oh, banning logging? OK, fine, the tree thing though." A politician who doesn't compromise gets nowhere, so your representative has to prioritize and compromise on the issues he doesn't care so much about to win on the issues he does. With or without parties, a coalition will form with a collective majority and govern based on a set of positions on issues reached through compromise.

Still with me? Here's the thing: you don't get to choose the composition of coalition in *any* system. You can pick an issue you really care about, but if you care about more than a couple, the chances of a coalition lining up with you on each one are quite slim. You might also discover that no one really finds your key issue important, and no serious coalition embraces it.

Now, in typical parlamentary system, the coalition building happens after the election, and you don't get much say in it. In order to forward the issue you care about, your selected representative might partner with the likes of the Nazis or PETA, enabling them to pass legislation you find reprehensible. In our system, the coalition building happens in the primaries (generally in only 1 party, as the other is the incumbant and isn't going to change what's working), then you get to choose *between* coalitions in the general election. That's better if you ask me - it limits the badness of a new coalition to not much worse than the other party, which is not the case without parties as was demonstrated in Austria recently IIRC.

How could this possibly be improved, and still be a representative democracy? You're never going to have a coalition that matches your views exactly (even if a given politician does line up, he'll have to compromise a lot). If your issue isn't important to many people, chances are it will be lost in forming any successful coalition. How does having parties or not change *any* of this?

Re:Oh get over yourself

[Moofie]

No, I don't like the choices I've had in any election since I started paying attention to them, so I'm thinking that something might need some work.

I could write for days on the problems with the current system, but it wouldn't do any good.

The solution is a new nation with a new Constitution, incorporating the best ideas we've developed over the last 200 years and discarding the ones that didn't work.

And that is why I want to get off this rock.

Re:Oh get over yourself

[lgw]

Well, my fundamental point was: the problem you face is inherant in represtative democracy. There's really no way around it - perhaps you can shift the burden of choosing between two coalitions, both of which suck, to your representative, but really, what's the point?

We Have The Beat Politicians That Money Can Buy

[Junior Samples]

The MPAA will probably get their way, simply because "We Have The Best Politicians That Money Can Buy". What you and I want really doesn't matter. It's the free vacations, gifts and contributions that count $$$.

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, does President Bush support it?

I bet he does, because it's favored by bug business. If the president supports it, then his party will because they have to show unity. He is more than happy with 51 senate votes, because that means he wins.

This also extends the power of the federal government, specifically the executive branch. I'd bet this will pass.

Breakin' 2...?

[bmalnad]

If you read that title the way I did, you might be looking for this.

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

[lou2ser]

Come on people, how is it possible that we have gone this far into a thread without someone mentioning Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086999/)

U.S. Court of Appeals decision is final

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Court of Appeals is the final authority to make a decision so there is no way the RIAA or MPAA can circumvent the law.

SCOTUS decides non-constitutional cases

[A8bbNjwk]

You are incorrect. Many cases the Supreme Court considers do not involve Constitutional questions, but questions of federal law, which Congress has the power to change. In the MGM v. Grokster case, the issue is whether Grokster (et al.) is engaging in contributory copyright infringement by creating P2P software that allows its users to commit copyright infringement. This question must be decided based on copyright law as it currently stands, not based on the Constitution. Neither side made any Constitutional arguments in their briefs. Furthur, Fair Use Doctrine is not Constitutional, it is common law and statutory. Congress can change it.

If Grokster is decided against the interests of the MPAA, they could lobby Congress to change copyright law in their favor. The Supreme Court's decision would not preclude this.

Congress also has the power to give the FCC the authority to implement the Broadcast Flag. I'm not aware of any Constitutional issues there.

Re:harder this time Huh???

[citabjockey]

Lets update how govt really works here,

Congress members spend big $$$ to get elected. Large $$$ interests help make that happen. Big $$$ interests expect payback for their assistance. These are not dumb people -- they put money where they think it will do their busness/organization some good. The Congress member is bound to "dance with them what brung ya".

It would take a MAJOR campaign reform would put government back in the hands of the people (as in by and for).

serial copy protection

[scharkalvin]

Remember that? What SHOULD happen is that any LEGAL digital recorder must NOT record from a COPY, but MAY record an off the air signal. As for cable vs broadcast, it's the original source that counts. Cable re-transmissions of broadcast material count as if they were received over the air. Cable programs COULD be protected by DRM, but the serial copy protection should apply to allow for time shifting.

Tell Congress how you feel HOWTO

[HavokDevNull]

http://commonsmusic.com/blog/?p=21

Website detailing how to write in and tell Congress not to allow the broadcast flag and how the MPAA is using their lobbying ability to make Congress bow to their demands.

Quit your bitching and do something about it!

Re:Tell Congress how you feel HOWTO

[Loonacy]

What are you, some kind of commonist?

Re:Tell Congress how you feel HOWTO

[What me a Coward]

What are you some kind of facist?

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[ReverendLoki]

None at all.

That means there are no (that I know of) large corporate campaign fund donators sponsoring this, and though this is highly publicized, still went through as the committe voted along party lines.

I'm not saying that this will definitely become a law now, just that it's possible, and we shouldn't let it sneak up on us.

Correction.

[Civil_Disobedient]

I believe what you meant to say was:

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

Re:harder this time Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently they didn't teach YOU civics very well... the Executive branch is absolutely the enforcement/enactment arm of the government. Furthermore, I'm reasonably certain that you didn't mean that the Judicial branch "disposes of the law". Perhaps you meant "dispenses the law"... which would still be inaccurate.

Specific provision for deep space

[noidentity]

They are adding a specific provision to outlaw the existence of deep space, since the broadcasts could be picked up at a date much later than the original air date, so-called "time-shifting".

Correction

[serutan]

They are not, but Orrin Hatch is.

Correction: They are. Orrin Hatch is just their bitch.

Government intervention in technology

[darjen]

I just don't understand how some slashdotters will line up behind the government when they legislate such things as technology spending (like WiFi) in cities. Then, in their next breath, they get all upset when the Gov tries to regulate broadcasting, downloads, or anything else. So, basically these types of people only want government intervention when it suits them, just like the organizations that are trying to pass these laws. Really they are no better than the RIAA they are always railing against. Of course, I am speaking about my perception of slashdot as a whole, not really individual people.

Parent is not a troll.

[shmlco]

That's exactly what occured with the "national id card" bill.

So has "jumped the shark" now that I think abou it

[skryche]

I think referring to a sequel as "Electric Boogaloo" (along with, for instance, "[that was so funny] I think I peed a little" and "[that was so disgusting] I think I threw up at little in my mouth") has now officially jumped the shark.

Who now...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so now that the pimps at the xxAA have shut down the good torrent sites - who do we go to now? Torrent is the only way I've been able to watch Dr. Who's new season (and it's actually pretty decent - remenescent of the Tom Baker days)...

Hell, I'd pay BBC to download it, but ummm, as far as I know it's not available...

Liars should be honest

[Urusai]

"Capitalist" refers to their preference for capital punishment, i.e., kill the working class.

I can only hope I make it into Canada before they close their borders.

politicians are people, too

[Anonymous Coward]

When a crooked politician is voted into office

Not to be cynical or anything, but there aren't very many of the other kind around. Even people that go in with shiny happy ideals, determined to DO RIGHT, the political process of compromise (also known as horse-trading here in America) quickly dulls the shiny surface. In order to do thing A (which is right), one must agree to thing B (which is not right, but not so bad). Rinse, repeat dozens or hundreds of times, and the amount of right in A versus the amount of wrong in B is a declining ratio. It can quickly become quite murky as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. And if all the "experts" say THIS is right, I am not sure one way or the other, and it just so happens that I'll benefit greatly from agreeing with the experts...

Basically, Congress critters are only human; their moral fiber becomes quite soggy in milk.

Sounds great!

[Mac Degger]

Yeah, lets get an organisation whose members aren't elected in any way to write legislation! Cool...and for the next trick, lets hjave the oil companies write environmental legislation! Oh...nevermind...

oh, this might just work...

[EvilStein]

In Soviet Russia, MPAA strengthens you!

Oh wait, that might be cool.. uh.. maybe not. :D

Re:Electric Boogaloo Jokes are Deader than Dilling

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean The Legend of Curly's Gold.

If you're gonna correct someone, at least make sure you don't need correction as well.

must be cool

[SQLz]

...to just hang out with the US Government in your pocket, making laws n stuff. I mean, the MPAA, a private organization buying a law to give another government agency more power to constitutionalize their original law. Genious!

Re:harder this time Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the way it's supposed to work is Congress passes laws, the President signs or vetoes them. The Attorney-General (and its minions) enforce the law (or not), and the Courts pass judgement on the enforcement of the law for specific cases or determine whether the law is legal [sic] or not, by way of the appeal process.

What Congress can also do with Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) is pass legislation removing jurisdiction for the courts over a certain body of law. Yes, it's been done a couple of times before, but thankfully not very often.

Much like the law recently signed into law that moved product liability class action lawsuits solely into the Federal Court domain away from state court systems...

I don't know what is worse. A President and Congress who are beholden to each other, or a corrupt court system.

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

He represents a nebulous group of Americans who despise, fear and loathe the UN, or at least the US' involvement in it.

For some things, I can't blame them. But when it comes to "black UN helicopters and jackbooted thugs", I wish there was a way surreptitiously put Haldol into their drinking water.

It's as much of a commercial entity as Al Quesadilla is, in that it collects $$$ from people, feeds into fears etc, and uses that $$$ to help influence the political process to further its goals and propaganda machine (why fear the UN when their elected stoogies are happily handing so-called US sovereignty over to extragovernmental entities all over like WIPO, WTO, NAFTA and soon to be CAFTA, all in the name of "free trade"?).

He may not be an official "member" of this group, but he sure does spew a lot of their views, and he sounds like a complete napoleonic asshole. And US' world image is going to be improved how?

Oh well.

Re:And the really sad thing is. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't take into account when a small group of persistant, loud, obnoxious and self-righteous people overwhelming the rest of the crowd.

Or self-fulfilling prophecies, and how if people fear an outcome, they sometimes have a tendancy to create the environment that ensures what they fear to have a high probability of happening.

hmm

[mattyrobinson69]

isn't the broadcast flag unconstitutional because it infringes on fair rights. hopefully, this wont stand up in court.

i wonder why the hardware manufacturers aren't standing up to the mpaa though.

Re:hmm

[What me a Coward]

Well thats one way of looking at it but here's another.

The FCC lost in court over the broadcast flag (BF) because it excedes their authority. The FCC has authority over Radio and TV signals transmited over the airwaves as well as telephony (wire). What they were trying to do with the BF was to take without the authority to do so control over what happens to tv signals once they leave the airwaves when they enter the home device IE your TV tuner or TV tuner card.

This is outside of their mandate (their authority to act on). Without Congress voting to extend their authority to such devices (effectively giving the FCC control over TV's (scary)) the FCC couldn't introduce regulations like the broadcast flag without congress giving them extended authority to do so hence why the courts overturned the broadcast flag regulation.

What the FCC was trying to do i have heard of as being called a grab for power over electronic devices in the home IE judge's question of the FCC trying to control washing machines and how they might be used you'd have to read the quote on that as i don't recall how it went but the judge's statment sounded all 1984ish. Iv'e also heard it being called the FCC trying to extend it's power to censorship of TV or playing piracy cop.

Im sure their are others but however you look at it the FCC was way outta line with what it was trying to do or should be allowed to do. They weren't created to play content cop over what is and isn't recorded on tv's or other devices once the content leaves the airwaves. It wasn't isn't nor should it ever be the FCC's place to do so.

So why'd they do it?

To appease the MPAA and the interest's they serve who threatened to not produce/broadcast HD content over the air (OTA) for HD tv's (basicly like spoilt children on the playground saying play our way or we take our ball and go home) unless the HD content could be locked down to devices or reduced in quality to standard definition (SD) when a home owner decides to move BF content off their flaged devices. Without HD content for public consumption OTA their would be a big roadblock to public adoption of HD (if you ask me the prices for the TV's tuners and or HD recorders is a big roadblock in itself) so the FCC agreed to the flag with some alterations to appease the MPAA and their handlers as well as to be acceptable to the FCC. But this had to be done quickly as times running out as SD TV's are supposed to be abandoned by 06 and no longer be produced and VHF being surrendered back to the FCC by 2011 or 2012 it think it was or as soon as HD saturation reaches 80%. So with the speed of congress on such matters and the timeframes needed to allow manufactures to make new BF enabled devices they had to get the regulation in place quickly so they tried to make a regulation themselves i guess hoping it wouldn't be challanged.

But that is just a guess on my part. They could have done it thinking they had the authority for all i know heck they may have thought it was a grey area that they could win if challenged but i stick with my orriginal guess.

Congress *makes the rule*, and the courts *enforce

[falconwolf]

Courts also have the responsibility to determine whether a law is constitutional.

Falcon

It's fair use.

[/dev/trash]

And this is not fair use. Fair use, is quoting a passage in your thesis.

Re:It's fair use.

[What me a Coward]

If you ask me what the MPAA and RIAA has been doing isn't fair either. Were better off without TV and music at this rate. Heck i wish fair use wasn't created to prop up an otherwise unconstitutional law to begin with.

Make the rich richer and screw the poor back into serfdom were we all belong right!

Re:It's fair use.

[/dev/trash]

No where does it say companies have to be fair. Don't like em, don't buy from em.

time to change

[jishu1972]

when the state doesn't serve you, but you serve the state is time to change http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

congress and the Supreme Court

[falconwolf]

What Congress can also do with Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) is pass legislation removing jurisdiction for the courts over a certain body of law. Yes, it's been done a couple of times before, but thankfully not very often.

Can you show me where the US Constitution grants congress the ability to determine juridiction of the Supreme Court? The only authority I can find of congress' authority over courts is Article I. - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, where it says "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;". Nowhere else in Section 8 are courts mentioned. How about Article III - The Judicial Branch? Nope. Let's see if there's an amendment, ah there's Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits which says "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Any other amendments??? Nope, now I may of missed it so can you tell me where congress is granted the power to determine whether courts have juridiction? Fact is congress doesn't have that responsibility, the constitution created three branchs specifically for stability so each may keep a check on the others, much like a stool with two legs, government having only two legs isn't stable.

Falcon

Supreme Court's decisions have the weight ....

[glrotate]

The SC makes rullings on things that have nothing to do with the Constitution. They take tax, probate, environmental, ERISA, contractual, and even bankrupty cases. They are the court of final appeal in just about every area.

Communications Act of 1934: as ammended in 1996

[glrotate]

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1. [47 U.S.C. 151] PURPOSES OF ACT, CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission,'' which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.