Slashdot Mirror
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.
doesn't mean you're paranoid.
Sigh.
The only flag I want is the one sewn on my old uniform.
Will in Seattle
They are not, but Orrin Hatch is.
He is also the lapdog of the entertainment industry.
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.
Welcome to Corporatized America. If you can afford it, you're a legislative body.
My little site.
Look up the phrase "iron triangle".
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.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
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.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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)
Otherwise known, by that definition actually, as facism.
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.
My don't we just put the MPAA directly in charge of broadcast television technical standards?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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!"
Forget the whales - save the babies.
And he'll just append it to the next bill to fund the troops or fight terrorism and it'll go through for sure.
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.
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 little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
what?? and waste valuable time that could be spent issuing press releases and whining???
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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
Save a life, sign your organ donor card.
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
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?
TODO: 753) write sig.
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
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.
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.
That's pre 7-11 thinking....
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.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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?
I don't know, everytime I see something with Ashcroft's name attached it can't be good.