MPAA Giving Up on Broadcast Flag... For Now?

YetAnotherName writes "The MPAA, which has worked hard to get a broadcast flag into US digital television, is unlikely to push for it, according to the EFF. Previously, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to mandate the flag, and the MPAA began to strike back. Naturally, the fight isn't over yet."

Comments

You keep using that word

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it means what you think it means.

wheee

[th3space]

HUZZAH! For now...

Re:wheee

[databat]

Resistance is not futile! We will not be assimilated! We will not slip away quietly into the night! Our voices will be heard!

Now all we gota do is get the other X-Million Americans to unglue themselves from the Prime-Time propaganda, and educate themselves on the facts. Then, just maybe, we can keep congress from robbing us of the freedoms we have left...

*passes the soap box*

Re:wheee

[th3space]

Dude...you sound like some NOFX song or another...maybe Anti-Flag... ;)

Re:wheee

[terbor]

An "Over the Hedge" fan I see...

Re:wheee

[databat]

Heh, it happens when I have too much coffee. (black, 8 spoons of sugar)

It goes back to something I've been telling everyone for the longest time but few listen. Instead of blindly listening to everything on T.V. or what others tell them, they should go get the facts before they decide which side of the issue they want to take. Then pester your congresscritter. On most issues, the people are the minority, while the **AA are the majority on the issue only because few of the common folk will actually make themselves heard.

However, no matter how much loot those other guys toss in front of the politicians, if enough of us make it clear how we feel on an issue, they won't be able to ignore us without risking unpopularity (political suicide)

After that, it just becomes a question of, "Is the music Industry offering me enough to retire on? Or should I play this safe and collect a few more bribes later on?" :-p

Just something to think about. (oh, and I'm sure we still havn't heard the last of the "black flag" from the music industry)

So which is it?

[Enigma_Man]

Are they "unlikely to push" or "striking back"? The summary is confusing.

-Jesse

Re:So which is it?

[macaulay805]

Hey, its like those Starwars sequels .. "A New Hope" "The MPAA Strikes Back" "Return of the Broadcast Flag" .... hmmmmm .. I wonder ..

Re:So which is it?

[Rei]

They already struck back after the court gave us a new hope. Now we can expect to see the return of the fair use concept, followed much later by some poorly done backgrounders on the whole situation.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Subtle and wonderful. Good show, sir.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is, is that no matter how bad the final result, you'll still pay for it.

Re:So which is it?

[Enigma_Man]

Are they "unlikely to push" or "striking back"? The summary is confusing.

Why TF is this flamebait? This is an honest question. The summary has two distinctly contradictory statements about the MPAA. One statement says that they are unlikely to push, while the other says they are striking back (indicating that they are pushing for it) I was just asking for clarification, you douchebags.

-Jesse

Re:So which is it?

[The Angry Mick]

Well, we now know that the exaggerated figures of lost revenue were a phantom menace to the movie and recording trade federation. All that's needed is an attack on the clown in congress, the disbanding of the Senate, and the MPAA will have its revenge.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, bro, but I think the correct spelling uses a space, i.e., "douche bags".

Re:So which is it?

[Enigma_Man]

Jesus H. Christ, you criticize me with those spelling skills, and "Anonymous Coward"? The sentence does indeed begin with "previously", followed by "began to strike back", which meant that in the past they were starting to strike back, trying to get their way, but it appears that now they aren't trying to get their way; so which is it? The summary completely neglects any description of if they tried and failed, or tried and gave up. If you say something, even in a summary, you should have some quick info about why, or how, so that people aren't confused.

-Jesse

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this "flamebait"? I've gotta be honest, I was a bit confused as well.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot, the first trillogy...
The Napster Menance..
Attack of the P2P Clones..
Revenge of the RIAA...

Re:So which is it?

[suitepotato]

Are they "unlikely to push" or "striking back"? The summary is confusing.

I thought the same thing. If past history is any guide, they'll publicly do the former and quitely behind the scenes do the latter. In the cameras, they will lay lower on this issue. In the offices of senators and representatives in Washington, they will jawbone to get their way.

The fat lady ain't sung yet. The RIAA lawyers threatened her and the MPAA anti-piracy thugs bound and gagged her and tossed her into a closet. We need to hear her belt one out so on goes the fight to make her sing on this issue and lay it to rest.

Re:So which is it?

[BlogPope]

The fat lady ain't sung yet.

But the longer the opera goes on, the less likely any of these "Burden the consumer" options will succeed. The MPAA and TV industries have delayed the whole HDTV thing by making everyone afraid the early solution woul dbe incompatible with the "final" solution, but the failure to resolve the issue means that the existing tech has gained a foothold. Soon it will be like trying to get a broadcast flag added to the VCR...

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that lead to confusion as to whether they are doing one or the other? They obviously began "striking back" and are now "not going to push". How are those two things mutually exclusive so that in the past they could have done differently than they are now?

You're a fucking moron and should be criticized. Though the proper moderation is -1 reading skills or something, not flamebait. Even troll seems a better fit to me.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon it will be like trying to get a broadcast flag added to the VCR...

But that's exactly what Macrovision accomplished years ago. If you try to copy a Macrovision-encumbered video with a really old vcr, there's no problem. But use any modern vcr, and the copy will be useless. That's because these days, all vcr's have to be sold with a crippled AGC unit, specifically so the Macrovision 'protection' would work.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "douchebags" is also valid, when used as a noun. So "They are douchebags." and "They are douche bags." are both correct. However, "I want to douchebags." is incorrect; it should be "I want to douche bags." instead.

In this sense, "douchebag" is like many other compound words, such as "setup" and "backup", that are valid as nouns, but not as verbs. ("Don't forget to make a backup of your system." is correct; "I will backup my system." is incorrect (should be "I will back up my system.").)

I hope that this helps clarify things somewhat, you douchebag.

Re:So which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I want to douche bags."

That sentence is incorrect and makes no sense.

You would say: "I want to use a douche bag, (to rectify my feminine hygiene problems.)"

Re:So which is it?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Just currious, but what do you mean by HAVE to be sold with a agc speced for macrovision.
Did they get a law passed, or is there some sort of industry pressure or perhaps something else added to macro-vision to casue issues on 'non-complient' vcrs.
It's my understanding macrovision worked in the first place because tv's agc's smoothed out brigtness variences at a different rate than vcrs.

In any event I would like to take this chance to point out that ATI's all-in-wonder line of video cards look for macrovision, and if they find it scramble the video so it can't be watched.
Really pisses me off because NO-WHERE on the box did it say that and one of my reasons for buying the damn thing was to watch my older tapes on the computer, and to back some of them because magnetic tape wears out and some of the movies are now out of print. (and not all got re-done as dvd's even if I wanted to buy them twice).

Mycroft

Re:So which is it?

[The name is Dave. Ja]

But what if I have some unhygienic bags that need to be douched?

I would want to douche bags (to rectify their baginine hygiene problems).

The EFF is the authority here?

[plover]

Sorry, but I don't see where the EFF would be the definitive authority on what the MPAA is up to. They're going to see what they want to see, and how they want to see it. Yes, a certain representative may currently be opposed to the provision, but that won't take away any incentive from the MPAA to continue to push Congress for whatever they can get.

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"is unlikely to push for it, according to the EFF."

If you get "The EFF is the definitive authority on what the MPAA is up to" from that, then you need to re-read the summary slowly instead of trolling.

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[Anonymous Coward]

In typical Slashdot fashion, you have neglected to RTFA. If you had you would realize that the EFF is only quoting from Communications Daily.

From TFA...
"Extraordinarily good news from Communications Daily"

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[jspayne]

RTFA: Extraordinarily good news from Communications Daily (behind a pay wall, unfortunately):

This isn't EFF opinion, but an excerpt from another source.

Jeff

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[Dachannien]

The EFF didn't make that claim. They were quoting an online magazine called "Communications Daily".

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[Anonymous Coward]

...And the title from the EFF page is "CommDaily: MPAA May Not Seek Broadcast Flag in DTV Bill" ...And the section of the EFF website is called "Deep Links: Noteworthy news from around the Internet"

But hey, who actually reads the linked articles before bitching about them anyways?

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[JonTurner]

I disagree. The EFF would know the MPAA in the same way a boxer knows his opponent -- through experience in battle and study.

This report is disinformation, at best. The MPAA's not giving up -- they're retreating in preparation for another attack. Recall, this is the group that likened the VHS to Jack The Ripper... they believe that a MythTV Box with a HDTV card and a DVD burner is the moral equivalent of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot all put together. MPAA's not backing down they're simply busy licking their wounds from their recent court defeat.

Look, the MPAA is a dinosaur trying to hold on to an outdated business model. They want to keep information scarcity as the core of their business model. That might have worked thirty years ago, but in the information age it's a recipe for failure.

If you want to know the goals of the MPAA, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. Specificly, watch for their donations of money/travel/gifts to lawmakers. Only when the money stops is it safe to say that they've "given up."

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually the MPAA posing as the EFF making a press release to give us a false sense of security while they lobby behind the scenes. I know that because my tinfoil helmet picks up their satellite transmissions!

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[plover]

I read TFA. They simply claimed the MPAA was backing down because the MPAA hadn't purchased Barton's vote yet. And I don't believe that ends this for a single minute. The MPAA isn't going to risk it all on a single congressman's vote -- they're going to cast their nets (and their lobbyists and their money) far and wide in hopes of finding a few affordable congressmen. They won't wait till 2008 because they're more afraid of entrenched technology, which is much harder to control than future unreleased technology.

Just because the EFF quoted someone else's article doesn't mean they don't believe it, or it's not their point. Rather, they seemed to be rejoicing in the news as if it were the Holy Gospel. And I think that's extraordinarily naive. They're way underestimating the power of the dark side.

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[EvilJoker]

I would disagree, the EFF is usually much more on the Chicken Little side of things (and with good cause). If they thought the MPAA was up to anything, this would be a call to arms.

Disclaimer: I'm a proud member of EFF.

Does it make a difference?

[It doesn't come easy]

It occurs to me that the flag is already in the hardware and the drivers are already updated (anyone know if this is so?). So, whether or not it is mandated by the FCC, they now have the ability to control what you can and cannot record, email, or otherwise share (in new hardware) and there's no law AGAINST using it. Right?

Re:Does it make a difference?

[plover]

No, there are some tuner cards on the market today that don't respect the broadcast flag. As a matter of fact, there was quite a run on them up until the FCC ruling was overturned.

And it has nothing to do with "email" or "share". It's the "broadcast" flag and it would only have interefered with recording, not with subsequent usages.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they weren't required to be built into the hardware until July 2005.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[robertjw]

Here's the thing. It's simple economics. Who buys these high end video cards that are used in PVRs and such? Geeks or manufacturers making PVRs. If the end user can't make recordings using these cards they won't sell very well. It is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to do whatever it takes to keep their sales up. If they are going to lose sales because of the flag they definitely won't enable it unless forced to by law or other means.

The only group that the broadcast flag benefits are the content owners themselves. Unless they can put legal or economic pressure on the broadcasters and hardware manufacturers there is no motivation for anyone to use the broadcast flag.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[Fratz]

It occurs to me that the flag is already in the hardware and the drivers are already updated (anyone know if this is so?).

This depends on what you mean by "the hardware" and "the drivers." The next generation Air2PC card doesn't care about the Flag, nor does the hd-3000 card. But that major-brand HDTV set top box or PVR that you just bought? Yep, it probably sees the Flag and obeys it. Let's hope you never get to test it out.

So, whether or not it is mandated by the FCC, they now have the ability to control what you can and cannot record, email, or otherwise share (in new hardware) and there's no law AGAINST using it. Right?

This is a good point. The Flag compliance was a law regarding reception of HDTV, not broadcast. Even though the technology that receives HDTV no longer _has to_ obey the Flag, this doesn't preclude the Flag being put in there to work on devices that were already made to be Flag compliant.

In fact, this begs the question of whether or not the MPAA is backing down because they've already gotten major players in the PVR market to implement the Flag anyway, regardless of the struck-down law...

Re:Does it make a difference?

[ScrewMaster]

Foot in self shoot. If they have done this, and more importantly gotten the major providers like Dish Network, DirecTV and Comcastoff to go along with it, expect to see sales of PVRs drop sharply. Which would certainly suit the studios ... they don't see any reason why we should want one anyway. Given their past history, I would venture a guess that Dish Network would be the last likely to implement this abomination, but DirecTV and Comcast ... well, the only backbone Comcast has is made of fiber.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[SpecBear]

There's no law against using the broadcast flag, but hardware vendors aren't required to honor it. Some hardware already has it enabled, but the question is hether future hardware will if it's not required. I doubt we'll see continued support for the flag, since it's a feature that makes the hardware less valuable and makes the vendor vulnerable to attacks from competitors, and more expensive to support: "Hey, I can't record the season finale of Survivor, what's wrong with this thing?"

Re:Does it make a difference?

[badasscat]

The Flag compliance was a law regarding reception of HDTV, not broadcast. Even though the technology that receives HDTV no longer _has to_ obey the Flag, this doesn't preclude the Flag being put in there to work on devices that were already made to be Flag compliant.

In fact, some channels are already "flagged", although whether or not it's the "broadcast flag" I'm not sure (I'm specifically thinking of HBO HD, which doesn't do OTA broadcasting, but I can't see why they'd adopt a different flag than everyone else). Trying to record from one of these channels on an STB (such as a DVR) will not work. Oh, it'll obviously work on TiVo or something where you're outputting an analog signal and then recompressing, but the BF was never designed to protect against that - that's the equivalent of ripping music by playing it through a speaker and re-recording it with a microphone. No DRM scheme is designed to stop that.

The funny thing is MS Media Center respects this flag in software, even if your hardware doesn't - so if you run Media Center, flagged content can be recorded but it cannot be transcoded and is not supposed to play on other PC's either (though I've heard varying reports on whether this is always the case with these channels). This is true even if you're using the "analog hole" to record on Media Center - say, by tuning with an HD cable box and then outputting via s-video to Media Center. Of course, this is a good argument for using MythTV instead of MCE... but the Myth guys sure make this a difficult choice, as unpolished as Myth is compared to MCE.

In fact, this begs the question of whether or not the MPAA is backing down because they've already gotten major players in the PVR market to implement the Flag anyway, regardless of the struck-down law...

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the networks are blowing smoke to a large extent, with their statements about withholding their best content from HD if it's not protected. That's simply FUD. There is no way that the networks are going to withhold anything given that most HD watchers are using locked-down cable or satellite STB's to watch their shows... and that those HD users, being as rabid as they (we) are, will simply watch something else in HD versus watching some crappy network TV show in SD. It's hard to watch anything in SD once you've made the jump to HD... (and by the same token, it's pretty easy to watch almost anything in HD, just because it looks so good.) The networks will not give that audience up willingly.

I think they're saying what they think they have to say to get the BF passed... but at the end of the day, I don't think even they think it's the end of the world if it doesn't happen. Most people do not watch HD over the air, and most people do not want to download resized and recompressed HDTV shows that hardly bear any resemblance to the original (though I admit I've done it when trying to catch up on episodes I've missed - but I don't see how this hurts the networks, as it just makes me more likely to watch new episodes once I've caught up. The alternative is just never getting into a show because I've missed too much.)

You know, I don't think even the MPAA are unrealistic enough to think someone is not going to find a way to "pirate" protected shows anyway - I mean we've had OTA HD cards for PC available for years now and none of those already out there will ever support the broadcast flag. The MPAA was too late to start with, and the more time it takes to implement this thing, the more ineffective it's going to be. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't basically resigned to that fact, though that doesn't mean they won't exhaust all of their options before giving up, with the thought being even a late broadcast flag law would be better than nothing.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[mrchaotica]

Some hardware will continue to support it. Sony stuff, for instance will probably do so because Sony is a content provider too.

Re:Does it make a difference?

[Mycroft_VIII]

There is at least one counter example to your pemise.
ATI has been selling all-in-wonder cards since the mid 90's (IIRC) and they 'honor' macrovision. plug in a vcr and try and watch a tape with macrovion on it and it will come out like a scrambled analog cable channel.
I know it's been like this since at least thier first 'radeon' all-in-wonder.

Mycroft

Re:Does it make a difference?

[trezor]

ATI has been selling all-in-wonder cards since the mid 90's (IIRC) and they 'honor' macrovision

Iirc this is a driver-issue, not a hardware issue. You should be able to disable Macrovision using TV-Tool (no I will not google it for you).

Re:Does it make a difference?

[EvilJoker]

From the TVTool website:

System requirements:

* nVidia graphics cards with TV output (TNT-1 or later)

Re:Does it make a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.... If that is the case... My bad. Sorry. (Posted anom to not clutter up the thread more than necassery.)

Re:Does it make a difference?

[Mycroft_VIII]

It is a driver issue in older AIW's, or at least there exists a tool/driver component that turns it off.
Unfortunately the project that does this has only had success with the older tuner-chipset drivers.
With any AIW of the 9xxx series and some 8xxx series (I have the 9600) you are out of luck.
Not that whether it's hardware or software has much to do with my point.

Mycroft

Advantages to having Republicans in power

[SuperKendall]

Note the article says the republican chair is "not interested" in pushing the broadcast flag.

Could that be because by and large the entertainment industry disparages Republicans? Or at least gives more money to Democrats. Either way it's a nice example of how negativity can come back to haunt you.

Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power

[FooWho]

Individual performers/entertainers may bash on Republicans, but the "industry" puts its money on incumbents. The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power

[stlhawkeye]

Could that be because by and large the entertainment industry disparages Republicans? Or at least gives more money to Democrats. Either way it's a nice example of how negativity can come back to haunt you.

I recall reading somewhere that the RIAA and MPAA-type organizations contribute lopsidedly to Democratic congresspeople, by about 140% (for every dollar they contribute to Republicans, they contribute $1.40 to Democrats).

The difference between the parties any more is over whose special interest group is most likely to damages your freedom the least, not whether one party or the other is more free from corporate sponsorship.

The Enlightenment principles of social and economic personal freedom are embraced by almost nobody. They materialize in a spotty faction in each party but both are basically consumed with being in power and embracing whatever platform they must to stay in power. I wonder if any of them really ever stop to think about what's best for America, or if what they believe in is really best for America, or if they're so blinded by the desire to screw over the opposition and solidify their control of the nation that they never stop to wonder what exactly their purpose is.

I can explain away almost all perplexing political behavior as a desire to secure bloc voters, but why do they want to be in power so badly? All of their legislation is intended to either fulfill campaign promises to secure more voters or to please financial backers without whose money they'll struggle to win re-election. It's like the purpose of politics is to stay in politics. It's more of a video game than anything else. And at the end of the day, who really has to live with the decisions being made on our behalf by 650 unethical millionaires?

You and I do.

And this is why I always claim that the less they rape my paycheck to fund this lunacy, the happier I am.-

Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power

[Ironsides]

And at the end of the day, who really has to live with the decisions being made on our behalf by 650 unethical millionaires?

Actually, there are several (not sure how many) members of the house (and possibly some senators) whose only source of income is their money from the congressional paycheck. Those (aye, few) are not millionaires.

And this is why I always claim that the less they rape my paycheck to fund this lunacy, the happier I am.

In other words, you're for lower taxes? Sounds like what the Republicans usually say and the Democrats usually hate.

Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power

[stlhawkeye]

In other words, you're for lower taxes? Sounds like what the Republicans usually say and the Democrats usually hate.

I favor lower taxes, yes. I don't care if Republicans favor this or Democrats oppose it, or vice versa. I also favor decriminalization of most drugs, and I could give two shits which political parties happen to agree with me.

Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power

[bill_mcgonigle]

In other words, you're for lower taxes? Sounds like what the Republicans usually say and the Democrats usually hate.

You're old-school, Ironsides. Nowadays, Democrats want to raise your taxes now and Republicans want to raise your taxes later (deficit spending).

Sign me up for the "Go Away and Leave Me Alone" Party....

I feel so ashamed

[Anonymous Coward]

I see houses burning I'm ashamed
before you close your eyes denyingly
you'd better ask yourself

did I choose something I could regret
did I do something I should regret

Is this the place I used to call - Homeland
Is this the place I used to know - as Homeland

the silence is illusion stay awake
I hear children crying in fear and pain
do cowards ask themselves?

did I choose something I could regret
did I do something I should regret

Re:I feel so ashamed

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now, someone is a Front Line Assembly fan.

Re:I feel so ashamed

[Aggrajag]

That was Die Krupps' song 'Fatherland'.

Your darn right it ain't over!

[Luscious868]

The RIAA and MPAA basically own Congress. How long before a piece of legislation mandating the broadcast flag is attached as a rider to some totally unrelated bill, thus allowing it to slide through and be signed into law before we know what hit us? It'll happen sooner or later, trust me.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[snwcrash]

Difference with the broadcast is who the crack-down would be seen to effect. With P2P and issues like that it only really effects small companies and individuals, basically people removed from the political process. With the broadcast flags it effects all kinds of technology groups (read people with real money and therfore politically significant).

Congress won't be to quick to hurt on major source of cash revenue... ah the politics of money.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[supabeast!]

"It'll happen sooner or later..."

My thoughts exactly. Right now Washington is a mess of power struggles, attacks on the media, and attacks on the court. Buying the broadcast flag right now will cost a lot and create a lot of press, and there's a good chance any right-wing politicians that have to be bought off will go down along with Tom Delay and George Bush's approval ratings. The RIAA/MPAA are much better off to wait until 2006, buy their way in with the new blood, and get the law passed in 2007 when everyone is focusing on the 2008 presidential election.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[JWW]

I think you might be right, it is probably too risky for Congress to attack right now. BTW: if you think the broadcast flag is small beans compared to Social Security reform, remember, the broadcast flag will translate to Joe TV viewer to "you can't record HDTV at all" and that is a big thing.

Now, for the next election cycle. Democrats, while you are pushing hard for regaining majority status, make sure you let your candidates know that the broadcast flag is truly evil, BEFORE, you try to get them elected.

I would hate to see liberals here on /. cheer a victory in the next election only to see their guys become the champions in trying to resurrect the broadcast flag.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[rhizome]

>The RIAA and MPAA basically own Congress.

Well apparently not. They may have backed down as a gambit toward sliding in a rider later on, but what we have here is an opportunity to momentum. This is creating room for people besides the xxAA's to bend the ear of a Congressman and make pertinent points. I can see the anti-bFlag contingent resting on their laurels, but really this is a chance to make sure it never happens. This can work both ways, it's just a question of who wants their side to win more. Vigilance, and stuff.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[DeVilla]

It'll happen sooner or later, trust me.

Well, normally, I'd hold out, but since it's you, I guess I'll believe it. :-)

Seriously though I think we are just seeing what could be a little bit of finess. Where with the RIAA, we would be ready to see a executive level tantrum follow such a situation, the MPAA has a tendency to be much more subtle about what they do. I'm not sure if it the people involve or that fact that modern bandwidth and storage capacities are a more immediate threat to the RIAA where as the MPAA still has some time to act before the average machine can hold hundreds of movies and the average network connection can transfer a movie in under 5 minutes.

Needless to say, I don't believe they are giving either. They are just trying to get this back under the table "where it belongs".

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[lostwanderer147]

Unfortunately, you're right. This is how a lot of bills pass. It's also how a lot of pork barrel expenses get passed. They take either pork or bills that would never pass, and attach them to then end of some really long bill that can't get failed. Unfortunately, this is how our government works. Horse trading, pork, riders...I hate Congress sometimes.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[Zordak]

Be cautious placing your hope in a party. If you or anybody else here thinks that the Democrats are the good guys looking out for your rights, I have two words for you:

Fritz Hollings.

I believe in the democratic process to the extent that it still exists in America, I believe in the Constitutions and I honestly believe that there are still some honest politicians on both sides of the aisle. But the media moguls are careful to cover all their bases. They make substantial contributions to both parties. And despite the partisan bickering, the 500-ish congress persons in Washington are much more homogeneous than they like to admit. The one huge thing that every one of them has in common is that they know that winning an election is expensive, and people like us just don't have the dough to pass around.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[Zordak]

I know it's bad form to reply to my own post and all, but just in case anybody really doubts that the media cartel have the Democrats in their pockets, I took a look over at Open Secrets and lo and behold: More than 70 % of their very substantial contributions usually go to Democrats.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[OmegaBlac]

Right now Washington is a mess of power struggles...

And when has it never been? Politics itself is a struggle for power. Washington, like any political seat-of-power, will always be in a "mess of power struggles". It was 200 years ago. It was 2 decades. It is now. And it will continue to be so in the foreseable future.

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[jafac]

Simple solution:

Take away the power, no struggles.

(unfortunately, when you take that power away, you have to put it somewhere. And there's nobody else who's trustworthy enough. . . )

Re:Your darn right it ain't over!

[castle]

I know someone trustworthy enough!

"The People"

But they'll probably let us all down, eventually.

ERROR

[Stanistani]

This posting cannot be replayed due to Digital Rights Management restrictions.

New concept: Conversation flag

[sigmund lahn]

Now, if I crook my little finger like *this* when I talk, I dont want you remembering anything of it, hear?

Re:New concept: Conversation flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if I crook my little finger like *this* when I talk, I dont want you remembering anything of it, hear?

Hear what? Did you say something?

Re:New concept: Conversation flag

[BillyBlaze]

There should probably also be a punctuation mark for it. Suggestions?

Re:New concept: Conversation flag

[Anonymous Coward]

How bout

,,|,,

Trial Balloon

[Gothmolly]

This isn't over by a long shot. The MPAA took a gamble, based on what they thought they had in Congress, and lost. They won't make the same mistake twice. Look for subtle changes in the "new and improved" DMCA, COPA and its children, and other roundabout ways to implement the same thing. Heck, some US banks are even using the DMCA against phishers now - after all, you're abusing their copyright, aren't you?
It will happen, its only a matter of time, unless the MPAA and RIAA are rendered toothless by a change in consumer habits.

Re:Trial Balloon

[pilgrim23]

Using government to block a competitor is not new. I recall a tale where Ford patented the Steering Wheel as a gambit to drive the Stanley Brothers out of the car business. The Patent didn't stand, but Stanley was such a small company that they could not match the Ford legal machine. We no longer drive steam cars...

Another point though: technology and cool software seem to outpace the legislation. A few posts back was one about a Bit Torrent like p2p thing that has no tracker and you can spoof IP. Another story about from your car music-casts. Tomorrow will bring something else. Locking down any media is just not going to work PERIOD. This genie is firmly out of the bottle and not going back.

Re:Trial Balloon

[tgibbs]

This isn't over by a long shot. The MPAA took a gamble, based on what they thought they had in Congress, and lost. They won't make the same mistake twice. Look for subtle changes in the "new and improved" DMCA, COPA and its children, and other roundabout ways to implement the same thing.

However, it looks like they are going to miss out on the time window for implementing this particular method of making consumer digital video more inconvenient and unreliable. By the time they get their act together, there will likely be too much broadcast flag-free equipment out there.

Re:Trial Balloon

[91degrees]

Actually, I'm starting to think the DMCA was something of an own goal.

Granted, it has given the media cartels a chunk of power to control the market, but it was so overreaching that it means there is considerably opposition to any further stregthening of copyright. Politicians may like the money, but they also like votes, and it takes a lot of money to cover the cost of losing several thousand geek votes.

Re:Trial Balloon

[Husgaard]

By the time they get their act together, there will likely be too much broadcast flag-free equipment out there.

This depends on the market.

If enough consumers refuse to buy equipment that implements the broadcast flag, your prediction may come out true.

But if most consumers don't care, thinking that it doesn't matter since the flag cannot be legally enforced, the manufacturers are unlikely to change the equipment they have already designed.

Re:Trial Balloon

[Lehk228]

it is likely that they will change firmware on currently unshipped units, and possibly release firmware updates, because if word gets out that your DVR won't record the superbowl and your biggest competitor's DVR will record the superbowl, take a guess who will soon be filing for bankruptcy

Re:Trial Balloon

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't understand how the DMCA covers abusing copyright on its own. I thought it was about breaking encryption.

Re:Trial Balloon

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians may like the money, but they also like votes, and it takes a lot of money to cover the cost of losing several thousand geek votes.

or just a few well timed advertisements and soundbites on a divisive issue like gay marriage. Wake up people!

Re:Trial Balloon

[91degrees]

But they've still lost the geek votes. They have the choice of partisan gay marriage votes plus the geek votes, or the partisan gay marriage votes minus the geek votes. They can get both by doing the soundbite and voting against any opposed extension to copyright.

Of course they haven't given up - read the article

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Meanwhile, the MPAA will keep briefing House and Senate members on a broadcast flag bill's importance and seek other ways to get the content protections it wants."

Does that sound like they are giving up? Nope, they are still going to push for what they want, and what they think America (that is, the MPAA) "needs."

Don't get too excited

[jimicus]

This doesn't mean that they're going to stop trying to develop a means of making copying HDTV using impossible/impractical. It just means that the measures they take won't be based on legislating the broadcast flag.

Speaking theoretically, some sort of encryption together with a smartcard supplied to the cable customer which enables decryption would neatly sidestep the issue for cable subscribers. Don't know how feasible it would be to apply similar technology to over the air broadcasts.

Re:Don't get too excited

[Dachannien]

You don't have to speak theoretically. There is already a standard to prevent "secure" media from being transmitted to "insecure" devices.

Re:Don't get too excited

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It is illegal to broadcast encrypted HDTV.

Hence the "need" for the broadcast flag and the associated legally enforced prohibitions that the flag entails.

Re:Don't get too excited

[Jasin Natael]

I think you're making a big assumption that broadcast TV will survive (See "How BattleStar Galactica Killed TV for a rundown). The economic incentive just isn't really there for Broadcast TV like it was 10 years ago. If they find out they can't really make money giving away the content, the gig is up.

If such a service existed, I think a lot of my money would go to an iTunes music store-type portal where I could 'authorize' my device(s) to play downloaded content -- My account would allow, say, 3 computers, a fixed number of physical 'Authorization Cards' (think SIM Cards) for portable and home-theater devices, and allowances to burn one or two DVD's containing a specific item every 30-60 days.

iTunes, despite its faults, has done a pretty good job of giving people what they want -- the ability to buy, own, and keep copies of digital audio content. Restricting further copying is acceptable, as long as it doesn't interfere with the primary goal. Redefining 'Fair Use' doesn't bother me as much as the current legal campaign to abolish it completely.

Jasin Natael

Re:Don't get too excited

[IAmTheDave]

Redefining 'Fair Use' doesn't bother me as much as the current legal campaign to abolish it completely.

And giving up personal freedoms little by little (Patriot Act) instead of all at once is a lot easier for the Amercian public to swallow. However, you've still lost rights in the end.

Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[Coopjust]

A broadcast flag may stop a Tivo-like device from recording, but as long as there is a video and sound output, there will be some device to record on. I personally think a broadcast flag is useless. Maybe for Direct DVD recorders. But anyone with determination will easily pass a broadcast flag.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[robertjw]

But anyone with determination will easily pass a broadcast flag.

Exactly. This is typical political hoopla. They will pass a law about the broadcast flag. The hardware manufacturers will implement it. Five minutes later there will be a firmware hack to disable it and we will be right back where we started.

OTOH, there is always the scenario where the MPAA gets the broadcast flag implemented and TV ratings continue to drop because it's even MORE difficult to watch the decent shows on TV. It's crazy. There is this mentality that we should only be able to watch what they want us to when they want us to. It's becoming continually more obvious that people are not interested in sitting in front of the TV 8 hours a night. TV broadcasters better get with it or they will be left behind.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[stlhawkeye]

A broadcast flag may stop a Tivo-like device from recording, but as long as there is a video and sound output, there will be some device to record on. I personally think a broadcast flag is useless. Maybe for Direct DVD recorders. But anyone with determination will easily pass a broadcast flag.

You're right, but don't forget that our esteemed elected officials have passed legislation to criminalize this behavior. It's called the DMCA.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectTv has had this flag for years. Never been flipped AFAIK. And the original flag was to keep it encoded until it was decoded by the disply circuits inside the tv/monitor. The signal was to be encrypted from the station all the way into the monitor.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[MBGMorden]

Well, if the video/sound is being output digital to a display, then it can have the broadcast flag applied all the way into the TV. This is especially true for plasma and lcd tv's, where the signal can literally stay digital until your eyes see it (ie, to intercept the analog version you'd need to setup a video camera in front of the screen).

Not that any of this means that people won't be able to still hack purely digital information, but to a large degree the old "it has to be an analog signal eventually" addage is becoming less and less true.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[BillyBlaze]

No, we won't be right back where we started - we may be doing the same thing we are now (recording TV), but we will be doing it illegally. For some people this is an important consideration.

Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

put down the pipe and step away from the computer.

"decoded by the disply circuits inside the tv/monitor" to me) know what kind of tv I have? no

how it's connected? (coax,v,,left,right audio, svhs)?

think about what you are saying.

I think the answer is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

The dilemma as I see it: 1. Content owners/producers deserve to be able to make money by selling their content 2. Consumers deserve fair use rights Content providers have taken the position that the only solution is DRM - which, while it protects their rights, screws over the general public. I say that they should introduce watermarking - so that the pirates can be traced. This would keep honest people honest (I doubt the casual user would want to take the risk of being caught if they knew they were leaving an invisible trail), and permit liberal fair-use rights for the consumer. Of course they don't want to go this route because it doesn't give them the stranglehold they would have with DRM.

Color me cynical....

[gt_swagger]

But as long as IP is the latest rage in making money you shouldn't otherwise have, most Americans are too ignorant and/or don't care enough, and people in Washington, DC can be bought... the MPAA and RIAA and all their unsightly relatives will continue to push for crap like this and, in general, get most of what they want. In an ideal world, most Americans would keep abreast of and care about what is going on in DC through a fair news source that just gives you the facts -- and all of them. Just a guess here, but I'm guessing some important things were going on while everybody was at Runaway Bride DefCon 4. In said ideal world, politicians who wanted to keep their jobs wouldn't dare pass crap like the DMCA, Patriot Act, etc.

Dissolve the MPAA

[a3217055]

This is it here is the solution. Every citizen get together chip in for a lobby. And have the MPAA dissolved, or rather just make them a small orginzation that does not have too much power.
They are a headache. They are worried about profits from distribution rather than the quality of the stuff.

And we actually let these guys who make billions of dollars to make social decesions that will affect people through out our society ( and others ).

Re:Dissolve the MPAA

[amliebsch]

You can't just "dissolve" a private organization whose only source of "power" is the contribution and cooperation of its members. Unless, of course, you dissolve the First Amendment first.

Re:Dissolve the MPAA

[Rude Turnip]

That's just silly. There is nothing wrong with having some sort of industry group and surely no one has the right to tell another with whom or whom not they may associate.

However, if "every citizen" in your scenario has enough initiative and energy to get off his fat ass and lobby for such an event, then they should have at least equal initiative and energy to be able to write their congressmen to let them know who's boss. In other words, all that is needed is for the citizens to actively assert their power over the government, as responsible citizens should.

Re:Dissolve the MPAA

[FusionDragon2099]

Under that logic, the Sherman Oil Trust would still exist.

FCC clearly can't read minds

[shogarth]

The goal of the flag was not to impede a consumer's ability to copy or use content lawfully in the home, nor was the policy intended to 'foreclose use of the Internet to send digital broadcast content where it can be adequately protected from indiscriminate redistribution,'

Considering that the FCC heard testimony indicating the flag would do exactly this, it's amazing they would claim it wasn't their intent. It certainly was the intent of the content distributors. The flag's protection wasn't going to stop commercial piracy rings; they were going to 'aquire' digital masters and stamp disks anyway. All it would do is make handling digital content a pain for end-users.

Re:FCC clearly can't read minds

[stlhawkeye]

Whether or not that's their "goal" is irrelevent, it's undistputably what the result will be.

Re:FCC clearly can't read minds

[lheal]

High-ranking bureaucrats are usually astute politicians. They know what to say in order to get their way with the elected officials and with their (the bureaucrats') constituents.

The FCC is beholden to both the MPAA and the hardware industry, and to consumers as well. The commissioners are political appointees, but the bureaucrats who actually run the place are not. They exercise their political wits to accomplish their personal and professional goals.

The FCC as a whole is in it for the FCC. They all want power. Most also want to see the public good enhanced. Without any specific evidence, I suspect that the people who make up the FCC are personally a representative sample of the US population, with similar political and other beliefs.

In other words, what they say and what they believe are not necessarily the same.

My bet

[Dark Paladin]

The MPAA won't go for it right now - their main supporter is out of the loop, and the EFF has links out to its registered members (and why aren't *you* a member?) that the first time someone tries to make one, or sneak it into another bill, we're suppose to be on that congresscritter like white on rice.

But time is running out for them to get the flag in by 2008, so I still expect to see something underhanded put in in the hopes that nobody will see what they're doing. Which is why we need to be eternally vigilant.

What surprises me about the MPAA is that they've learned from history. "What?" They've learned from history?"

Sure. For the last few hundred years of progress, there's been large companies that have a near oligarchy of power on some product (entertainment, in this case). Then some technology comes along, breaks up the big guys, sets up several little guys, and then the conglomeration effect builds again until, like a neutron hitting a uranium atom, the system is split apart, new creative energy is unleashed, and it's back to a maelstrom of competition until the reaction settles down.

The MPAA I think knows this, so they're fighting the technology as hard as they can. If people can time shift and get rid of commercials, big companies will make less money, and with the Internet spreading, people can make their own shows - think podcasting with video. LIke early radio, 99% will be crap, but there will be that 1% of really good stuff that turns people away from traditional TV. When that happens more and more often, the MPAA's contributers will be financially out of it, and the next cycle will begin.

The MPAA is just trying to protect itself. Granted, in a stupid fashion, because history shows that you can be one of the new movers and shakers in a new technological - it's just likely you won't because you'll be fighting the technology instead.

Hm - maybe the MPAA *doesn't* get it after all.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Mpaa will have there way.

[jonfr]

It is just a matter of time until mpaa get's it's way in the U.S regarding locked down hardware, regarding Tv and DVD capable devices. After all, congress is being lobbied by the mpaa and riaa.

Open Source DRM ?

[VonSlatt]

Even Linus has said that DRM is not inconsistant with Linux and Open Source (at least as Linus sees it) So, the OSS comunity needs to develop the killer DRM solution that respects Fair Use but sufficiently protects content owners.

Small publishers will adopt it first, then large media outlets will find themselves having to adopt it or loose share to the small fast moving media companies.

So, who's working on OSS DRM?

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[JohnGalt00]

Be careful with your terms. DRM means *AA and Microsoft trust your computer i.e. they manage your rights, while in the OSS world, trusted computing means you can trust your own machine.

Trusted computing is used for things like making sure malware and rootkits can't take over your own machine, and that trojans haven't been introduced into the software you've downloaded, while DRM is used to make sure you can't rip a copy of a DVD you own.

OSS people already are working on trusted computing, see Trusted Gentoo. There are almost certainly others. OSS trusted computing won't implement a DRM solution that respects fair use, because no one in their right mind would install it. Additionally, the entire concept behind DRM is flawed. Cory Doctorow has an excellent talk on the subject.

A better solution than having a system that "protects content owners", is offering a solution that users want. Most users are honest. iTunes has demonstrated that many people will pay to download their music over the internet. Yet in the years between Napster and iTunes, millions of songs were downloaded off the internet, and CD sales went up. Why does iTunes need DRM? I can already download any music I want for free over the internet, with no DRM, and at higher quality.

Trusted computing is an excellent example of the differences between OSS and proprietary systems. The important question is: who gets to trust the box sitting next to you?

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[emc]

I'd personally contribute some hard-earned $$$ to fund a bounty for this...

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[Will Fisher]

The problem is, all DRM is "security through obscurity", something that doesn't work when you have open source.

Lets take Apples PlayFair DRM system as an example. To crack it (as they did) you need to know a two things:
1) The encryption key (and where it can be found)
2) The encryption algorithm

If iTunes was open source, you could just find this info in the sourcecode. Breaking it would be trivial.

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[BillyBlaze]

If you actually read the post where he said this, it's pretty clear that he's talking about refusing to run unsigned binaries for security reasons, which of course can be assisted by TCPA hardware. In the same post he pointed out that the GPL requires the distribution of everything necessary to make a functional binary - this would include the keys.

This essentially means no remote attestation can be implemented in GPL code, because if you can argue that the binary isn't functional unless remote attestation works (i.e, a modified music player isn't functional unless it can play all the music the unmodified one can, even Disney music that requires remote attestation), then it is being distributed in violation of the GPL.

Also, isn't one of the main goals of open source to free the user? Another driving factor is scratching an itch - and when was the last time you heard someone say, "Man, if only I wasn't able to copy this..."

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[poofyhairguy82]

I'd personally contribute some hard-earned $$$ to fund a bounty for this...

Ok. So you would pay good money to get DRM ON your computer? Quite the opposite for me. Its your money though I guess, and the closest thing is this....

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[KillShill]

and you would be fine if no linux or bsd distributions used even one iota of the DRM code.

so basically you or your "friends" would spend a lot of time writing the code and virtually no one in the real world would even have a copy of the source anywhere on their systems.

sounds good to me.

DRM is no ones friend. and btw DRM is not synonimous with authentication and authorization systems which involve REAL security, so don't play that card.

Re:Open Source DRM ?

[Alsee]

DRM solution that respects Fair Use

Any system that actually supports one is INCAPABLE of meaningfully supporting the other.

The line between infringment and noninfringment often lies in the intent of the user. Nothing short of a mindreading DRM system can distinguish the intent to use something in an educational classroom enviornment. Nothing short of a full blown artificial intellegence can detect humor and parody use. Nothing short of precognition can determine whether some new and never before imagined use will be Fair Use.

So you are asking for the impossible. You are asking for magic handcuffs that only close on guilty people. Well yeah, obviously if these things were possible they'd have been created years ago and we wouldn't be wasting time on these arguments and these battles. We wouln't be wasting time and money on courts and judges either.

Any system that actually supports Fair Use leaves people able to choose to commit infringment.

Any system that making any meaningful attempt to deny the ability to commit infringment inherently infringes Fair Uses.

The problem is idiots who expect legal enforcement of DRM itself. This means imprisoning INNOCENT people who remove or bypass DRM to make NONINFRINGING use.

Your solution of DRM that supports Fair Use is impossible. You pretty much have to choose one of the two sides:

DMCA: You get your DRM and DRM enforcement and you support the holy crusade against copyright infringment. You're also supporting a law that says INNOCENT people go to prison for making NONINFRINGING use.

DMCRA: This bill would amend the DMCA to say that innocent noninfringing people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. However it also means that DRM becomes entirely worthless. It means that you'll be able to walk into Radio Shack and buy a product to strip off pesky DRM. A product you need to be able to make Fair Use, but also a product that enables you to commit infringment if you want.

So which side are you on? Do you insist on the holy crusade against copyright infringment? Or do you say that we cannot imprison innocent noninfringing people? Or do you have some magic pixie dust alternative?

-

HAHAHAAHAHAH

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Sorry I've got to pick myself up off the floor from laughing. They won't give up, they'll just slap it on the end of an Iraq war funding bill by paying the right people off.

Re:HAHAHAAHAHAH

[dgatwood]

And as you might recall from about a year ago, Congress doesn't actually READ the bills they pass, so odds are, no one will notice, including most members of Congress.

Re:HAHAHAAHAHAH

[KillShill]

clearly, they earn their yearly wages.

tomorrow i'm interviewing for a job as a programmer in which i won't use a computer 8 hours a day.

Article Text

[Delta2.0]

Heres the article for the lazy...

The Motion Picture Association of America is unlikely to push for a broadcast flag component in DTV legislation establishing a 2008 hard date because the bill's main author, House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), is against the provision. Meanwhile, the MPAA will keep briefing House and Senate members on a broadcast flag bill's importance and seek other ways to get the content protections it wants. A new Congressional Research Service report raises concerns that the broadcast flag's technological limitations could hinder activities normally deemed "fair use" under copyright law. For instance, students might not be able to email themselves copies of projects incorporating digital video content because no secure system exists for email transmission. "The goal of the flag was not to impede a consumer's ability to copy or use content lawfully in the home, nor was the policy intended to 'foreclose use of the Internet to send digital broadcast content where it can be adequately protected from indiscriminate redistribution,'" the report said, quoting from the FCC order.

Giving up for now

[Nom du Keyboard]

How about, giving up before this gets to the Supreme Court which might re-affirm fair use rights before Congress can figure out how to take them away.

That I can believe.

Re:Giving up for now

[stlhawkeye]

How about, giving up before this gets to the Supreme Court which might re-affirm fair use rights before Congress can figure out how to take them away.

The Fair Use doctrine has been decided by the legal system to be unenforcable in policy, which means that we cannot create a set of clear rules or laws to determine whether or not a given use of intellectual property falls under Fair Use or not. As new situations come up, which side of Fair Use they fall on will be determined, case-by-case, by the court. Some are mentioned specifically in US legal code but the opinion of the court has been that Fair Use is impossible to legally define, except by the results of individual cases. It'd be dangerous to everybody to have a Fair Use case put before the court. It's a major gamble.

It'll be back - in hi-def DVDs

[scotpurl]

The standard for the new high definition DVDs isn't yet done. The MPAA will get their little broadcast flag included in thew new DVD technical specs. When you go to buy a new DVD player, boom, you'll have the new rights management. Want to watch the new high-definition signals? You can, until you buy the next generation of HDTVs.

It's pointless to come up with a scheme that requires everyone to buy all new equipment so that they can do less than before (unless the MPAA is going to provide new, free hardware to everyone). If you're going to deliberately break something, you have to do it before anyone has a chance to buy it.

Or, the MPAA could just pay companies for it. "Here's $10 million if you'll include this in what you sell."

Not over yet

[James McGuigan]

No Broadcast flag but no white flag either

oh no, talkies, I'm out of a job!

[Thud457]

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

(Testimony to the House of Representatives, 1982)

That's typical Hollywood forward thinking and embracing enormous new markets for ya!

Re:My bet

[Anonymous Coward]

take a look at digital imaging for consumers.
the big camera companies noticed that digital cameras were going to be a big thing, so instead of trying to force the local drugstores(and chains) not to supply resources for these new cameras, they worked to develop the technology themselves.
those film camera companies that got in on the ground floor of digital cameras are patting themselves on the back for not doing what the entertainment industry is trying to do.

Another one bites the dust

[wk633]

Mildly related, the aptly named www.piratebay.org (locared in Sweden) has fallen under the internationally long arm of the MPAA. Remember, they were the ones with the great legal threat responses, including invitations to lawyers to sodomize themselves with retractable batons.

No, the MPAA are not 'giving up' anything.

Re:Another one bites the dust

[SirFozzie]

Whoops. Apparently, it's not true about the pirate bay, if you look, apparently it was a hoax (the raid that is) to explain an outage caused by a server upgrade

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=811

Apparently, what's on there now means (babelfished and smoothed out by me)

"Now maybe you are wondering why we did it? We only did it to make you aware on that The Pirate Bay soon is debuting a new version soon."

Re:Another one bites the dust

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke. I wonder if you're using the proprietary garcia trolling system?

1984

[UberGeekEdward]

The MPAA's attemptr to legislate what we are allowed to do to qavoid their advertising reminds me strongly of the "television" in Orwell's 1984 where turning off the set was illegal. I can just see it now, when the show is on you are allowed to turn off the set, when the commercials are on you are required by law to remain in your seat and cannot turn the channel or turn off the set.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of Max Headroom. Now when will THAT be on DVD!

Re:1984

[UberGeekEdward]

Actually I am thinking of George Orwell's 1984, however I had forgotten about MaxHeadroom also having that little problem.

Not evil enough...

[IceRa]

MPAA Logic: If there is Resistance to the Broadcast Flag - we have to come up with something more subtile an more evil!
Bet?

Prove it

[SuperKendall]

The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Really? Then where are they on the contributors list.

When the total combined contributions from media companies is a figure *I* could give if I scraped together some money from the sale of a house, I have a tough time calling it "huge".
Compare and contrast with someone like Barbra Boxer. Time Warner is number two with Viacom close behind. If she were calling the shots do you REALLY think the broadcast flag would be "of no interest"?

Yes the entertainment industry does throw some money to the Republicans. But by and large they throw the bulk of thesupport to the Democrats, who in turn do them favors.

Re:Prove it

[FooWho]

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00009869&cycle=2004 Shows the "TV/Movies/Music" industry as being Hatch's 6th largest "industry" supporter for 2004 at $183,428. That sure looks like a lot to me...

Re:Prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney and viacom at 16 and 17

Re:Prove it

[BillyBlaze]

I think now is the time to ask, if I had the money, how would I go about bribing a senator? Do I just stuff the money in an envelope with a note saying how to vote, or do I have to wine and dine him? Should I call first? Do I use his home or work number? Should I expect a thank-you note, or would that be pretentious? There must be a protocol, and I wish someone would clue me in.

Re:Prove it

[Jherek Carnelian]

There must be a protocol, and I wish someone would clue me in.

You pay for a $10K per plate seat at a fundraiser dinner which gets you about 5 minutes of "personal time" with the senator - just long enough to identify yourself and your issue of interest. Then you get handed off to their secretary who will schedule you in for a regular appointment in the near future where you will be expected to bring a check for the balance of your campaign contributions and depending on the size of the check you will get some amount of time to make your case, and maybe offer to fund a fact-finding trip for the Senator and his family to the Bahamas.

Summary Lies. Bad Taco.

[Valdrax]

The summary isn't confusing. It's outright deceiving. It's like *gasp* the editor on duty didn't even read the linked articles before posting it.

The article clearly states that the MPAA is giving up on getting a broadcast flag mandate in the current bill mandating DTV by 2008 because the bill's sponsor objects to doing so. It then immediately goes onto say that the MPAA is pursuing other means of convincing Congress to mandate the flag. They are backing off on one single bill, not on their entire quest as the title of this article suggests.

Not Forever

[nurb432]

Eventually the non-flag honoring systems will dry up and dissapear due to time.

For an easy example, try buying a black and white TV.. No new ones, and old ones are getting scarce.

Or try getting a 'wax cylinder player'... Even harder. For the common man they dont exist.

Sure this is different as its about raw controlling technology, but the theory is the same.

Re:Not Forever

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that color TV's were what people actually wanted -- whereas the broadcast flag doesn't give consumers any advantages whatsoever.

Goodbye Broadcast Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

... hello "Child Porn Broadcast Prevention Flag"? Who could be against that!?

Re:Goodbye Broadcast Flag

[Captain Sarcastic]

You've almost got it. Try this one:

"Anti-Child-Porn Counter-Terrorist Flag-Burning-Preventive Vitamin-Fortified Broadcast Protective Flag"

(OK, maybe the "Vitamin-Fortified" part is a little over-the-top.)

MPAA bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they are just going to change tactics and have the laws changed to give the FCC to power to mandate the changes they want... for ANYTHING.

We need the BF to fight terrorism - game over

[schwit1]

The MPAA/RIAA will sell copyright violations as a form of terrorism. If you're against the broadcast flag then you must be supporting Osama.

Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution bad?

[pixelcort]

Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution bad?

Look, who ever said that all third party P2P networks are good at merely piracy of content to lost customers? What if the media files distributed via these networks instead gained customers? What if the same third party P2P networks acted as an auxiliary or even primary way of distribution?

It shouldn't be hard. Embedding pointers to remote advertisement/payment service URLs into media files shouldn't be too difficult. Then, when third parties share these media files, each new peer becomes a new customer, as their client automatically connects back to our service URLs for advertising or payment. It's akin to DRM, but it's less proprietary and would work on existing P2P networks and media players such as QuickTime Player and possibly even VLC.

For more information on this idea, check out http://pixelcort.com/2005/05/28/131/

Simpsons Quote

[Avalanch00]

Rep.: "The House will now consider the Flags for Orphans bill."

The MPAA?

[AstroDrabb]

What is up with these punks? I just re-read the second link in the article. I remember this topic from a little while ago. However this quote from the article has just hit me:

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

Huh? Since when did the MPAA become part of the legislative body? Where in the constitution does it grants rights to the MPAA to write legislation? Am I the only one who thinks this if freaking insane? How can our "representatives" just sit back and "pass the ball" to big corps to write their own laws? What the hell happened to the USA?

Re:The MPAA?

[jratcliffe]

You can also work on legislation, and lobby Congress to get it passed. Every special interest group (and you're certainly part of some, we all are) drafts proposed legislation, and tries to get Congress to pass it, or at least use it as a model for what eventually does get passed.

Re:The MPAA?

[Iamthewalrus]

Huh? Since when did the MPAA become part of the legislative body? Where in the constitution does it grants rights to the MPAA to write legislation?

Anyone can write legislation. All the Constitution has to say about legislation is how it gets passed and implemented.

Why?

[interstellar_donkey]

I have admit that when I hear about the broadcast flag, it irks me. I have a single HDTV receiver (integrated radio and satellite), but it's likely I won't really get into digital TV until it's much cheaper and there's more content, meaning I won't start converting the entire house over to HDTV until after this broadcast flag is mandated (if they MPAA and others get their way).

Rather then lambasting the FCC and the MPAA, I have one question I'd like to see someone give an acceptable answer to: Why? Why do they need to stop people from being able to record a high quality digital signal from a broadcast? The easy answer is, they don't want people to be able to copy and distribute the programming they own.

Fine, but they said the same thing in the 1980s when the VCR became popular. "If people are able to make video tapes of movies and programs using a set top box and an inexpensive cassette tape, it will ruin us and take our profits away!" they cried.

Of course, that didn't happen. Yes, there were people with giant video cassette libraries of pirated movies dubbed from rentals or recorded off HBO (I had a neighbor with several hundred of these movies). In the end, we discovered that the ability to easily record programs actually ended up helping the movie and television industry far more then it hurt them.

So why is this different? Because it's a higher quality broadcast? In the 80s the quality of a VHS recording, if done right, was not too much different then the quality you'd find in broadcast or in tapes rented or purchased from the video shop. Today, a digital recording, if done right, is not much different the quality you'd find on an HD broadcast or next generation video discs you'll soon find for sale or rent at the video shop. Considering the quality of VHS recordings back in the 80s were not too much different then the commercially available media, and today's digital recordings aren't too much different then commercially available media, I just don't see that as a valid argument.

The folks at the FCC and MPAA aren't stupid people, and I can't for the life of me understand why they would spend time and resources trying to put in a broadcast flag when history has shown that when end users have versatility available to them, it ultimately helps the MPAA and others. There has to be a good reason, right?

I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what that reason is. The only argument I could come up with is that they don't want people to be able to record high quality television programs which *might* end up hurting the growing DVD market for TV boxed sets where an entire season of a particular program can be purchased. But we're still not sure if that would happen. Heck, on my computer and burned to VCDs I have the entire collection of every episode of a particular TV show, and each of those episodes I downloaded off the Internet. I also purchased the DVD box sets for the entire series. It was not because I wanted better quality, but because I wanted to own something physical, I wanted the liner notes, I wanted the "special features". The recordings I found "illegally" lacked those things.

In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?

Because they want so very badly for people
to pay PER VIEW or PER LISTEN to their products.
This is just another step toward that goal.

As soon as the technology is available to detect
how many eyes are watching a movie, you'll see
the charges added to your credit card.

Re:Why?

[Erpo]

The folks at the FCC and MPAA aren't stupid people, and I can't for the life of me understand why they would spend time and resources trying to put in a broadcast flag when history has shown that when end users have versatility available to them, it ultimately helps the MPAA and others. There has to be a good reason, right?

[...]

In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?

I have two theories. The first is that they want to make people pay per "use" like so many other people have suggested. It gives them more control.

The second is a little more subtle. Listen to an MPAA rep talk about copyright and compare it to the appropriate writings of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution. The difference, in my view, is that copyright is viewed by one party as enforcing a right (in the sense of the words "human rights") of the copyright holder, whereas it is viewed as an essentially flimsy construction by the others. It has a purpose, but it's an ugly hack designed to get the job done without actually reflecting any deep, basic principle. "Sure, we ought to reward people for doing intellectual work, but we'll do it by forbidding people from taking advantage of the essential fact that there can never be a shortage of copies if there is not a shortage of media and copiers."

I think part of the MPAA's stance has to do with convincing the public that their way of thinking is the right one. Perhaps a forced pay-per-use model wouldn't go over very well right now, and poeple would rebel by installing mod chips and continuing to do what they've always done. There's a great quote from the SciFi novel "Brain Wave" that I think fits the situation perfectly. It's something to the effect of, "The strength of the fence is in the animals not comprehending they can push hard enough to knock it over."

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there were people with giant video cassette libraries of pirated movies dubbed from rentals or recorded off HBO (I had a neighbor with several hundred of these movies).

First of all - THESE ARE NOT PIRATED MOVIES!!! - end of rant...

A personal copy that I make from any source is LEGAL FOR ME despite the MPAA copyright warnings - something they forget to include in the english version of the warning - but its there in the french version.

With the new law it is now illegal for me to share movies, but it is not and never was illegal to make and keep a personal copy from a purchase, rental, TV, radio, HBO, pay-per-view, etc. The civil copyright infringment (and now criminal breaking of the law) is always on the side of the distributor.

In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?

As others have said - it's all about pay-per-use. Just like you have to pay each time you go to see a movie at the cinema, MPAA and RIAA want you to pay every time you watch or listen to a recording. Now that they have almost the whole world believing that personal copies are piracy, they will implement DRM and start turning the screws tighter.

As Gene Mosher said:
My great grandfather was born in 1870. He learned to build crystal radio sets to listen to the earliest radio broadcasts in the 1920's. He would invite the whole town of about 500 over to listen to them. My grandfather was born in 1899. He purchased one of the earliest tape recorders to make copies of radio broadcasts for his friends in the late 1950s. My dad was born in 1924. He had a collection of 78's that he passed around for many years until he died last year. And now I am using the Internet to assemble an MP3 collection of all the tunes on all those LPs, cassette tapes and CD's that I've been buying since 1959. I'll be damned in hell before I accept the notion that I and my ancestors who love to listen to the audio arts are in any sense guilty of anything that is illegal, wrong, evil, immoral or improper. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/03/the_real_r iaa_and_other/

Re:Why?

[Tommy_S]

So why is this different?

It's different because in the 70s there was no way to immediately, without cost, without any loss of quality, mass duplicate and distribute a VHS recording you made of last nights episode of Laverne and Shirley to a few thousand of your closest friends.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"Content owners/producers deserve to be able to make money by selling their content"

Do they? Where is that written? Is that in the same place where American programmers deserve to be paid what they want? Or is that in the same place that buggy whip manufacturers deserve to make money selling their whips?

Perhaps the word "deserve" does not mean what you think it means?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, wrong analogy. Copyrights are about selling creative works (performances of songs, films, etc) - not physical things (like CDs or DVDs). The market did decide that it didn't want the physical presentation (CDs & DVDs), but nobody wanted to give up their Justin Timberlake or Star Wars. If new providers want to offer content, there are fewer barriers to them doing so today than ever before (cheap DV cameras, Final Cut Pro, ProTools, GarageBand, etc.).

American programmers (myself included) have a right to be paid for their services - but only if someone wants to buy those services at the price they are offered. The same should hold true for copyright holders.

What I don't like is how the debate has become so polarized - copyright holders seem to want a complete lockdown, where they are in charge of everything individuals can do with their content, and the tech community will only accept a free-for-all, where nobody pays for any content.

Watermarking, if done carefully, could be a win-win - we get the freedom to do anything we want with the media within the bounds of fair use law, and the content owners get protection under that law.

What's with the summary?

[rfunches]

"MPAA began to strike back"

That caught my attention. Will the future of the broadcast flag be told in the form of Star Wars?

A New Hope
The MPAA Strikes Back
Return of the Broadcast Flag

Re:What's with the summary?

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe 'a phantom menace' would be more fitting

Re:What's with the summary?

[PapaBoojum]

Followed by the prequels:

The Fair-Use Menace
Attack of the Illegal Clones
Revenge of the MPAA

Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful

[Doc Ruby]

Without a broadcast flag, how is the consumer to know what rights they have to redistribute the content? Of course, players shouldn't enforce the law (or any other complex law requiring interpretation for accuracy). But without an authoratative database of copyrights, and reliable object authentication, and a whole infrastructure to combine the two into lookups (requiring all players to be networked), how are we to know whether the sender even asserts a copyright, or asserts none, or a limited one that allows limited redistribution, or other terms? The place for such info is embedded in the object itself, where it can always be available. Like the (C) symbol on printed matter.

This is no place for Congress or the law. But recording formats should include this essential metadata. Like the (C) symbol on printed matter - this is not some new practice, just a newly obvious need for the old practice. Like that (C) symbol, the enforcement is up to actual justice system workers, like detectives, police and judges. But of course more easily automated, just as distribution is more easily automated. The key to resolving these copyright problems is not less info, but more info. A copyright flag, and probably a copyright URL pointing to standardized copyright license terms (including "none"), would make that aspect of transactions easy enough that lots more people would comply. Without turning our own devices into snitches, creating havoc (and impeding transactions) when they go wrong.

Re:Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful

[KillShill]

the "evil bit" which you propose would physically degrade on the media loooooooooooong before the copyright "expired".

the players for said media would be ancient antiques.

how about we start wising up and end this copy"knowledge hoarding"right bullshit.

because clearly, anything which remotely resembles something which helps the situation is not going to happen at the legislative level.

Re:Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful

[Doc Ruby]

Media content is transferred to new physical media in the same perpetuity as the copyright you abhor. And it's clear that we've got much more chance to get workable copyright laws, than discard "intellectual property". While making intellectual property needs so widespread, by making freed alternatives and simple tools cheap and ubiquitous (like emailing) will make everyone want to free content from copyright restrictions, so we can use it ourselves. Instead of being a specialty, that we need "experts" like Disney to explain to us - telling only the hoarding version - we'll be familiar enough with it personally to see the wisdom of setting it free. Greed is a stronger motivator for humans than fear, when given enough fair play between the two.

Re:Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a broadcast flag, how is the consumer to know what rights they have to redistribute the content? [...] But without an authoratative database of copyrights, and reliable object authentication, and a whole infrastructure to combine the two into lookups (requiring all players to be networked), how are we to know whether the sender even asserts a copyright[...]?

I've heard of a very sophisticated device called "capital C with a circle around it." You may recognize it from the opening and/or ending credits from movies and television shows. Sometimes it is accompanied by the phrase "all rights reserved," or some other written description of rights granted to or withheld from the viewer.

Re:Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful

[Doc Ruby]

Which bit in the MP3 header is shaped like a ©?

MPAA =

[brickballs]

Or fourse the MPAA is going to try and make things hard.
You cant forget what their name stands for: Motion Picture Ass of America

Beware the "good bill"

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Not to worry, they'll sneak it in later. It'll be watered down, and anyone who fights it will be made to look like a lunatic because the next one is "much more reasonable."

Prooves my point

[SuperKendall]

It looks like a lot - but it's a drop in the bucket compared to someone like Barbra Boxer At well over 700k!

I neevr said he got no money at all. But even in the link you gave you can see that amount is small cmpared to other sectors, again hardly a "flood" of money.

Re:Prooves my point

[FooWho]

Thats an apples to oranges comparison. Orrin Hatch's total campaign contributions were only $6,118,584. So thats what it "costs" to win a senate seat in Utah. Barbra Boxer's total campaign contributions were $16,658,496. So thats what it "costs" to win a senate seat in California. So the entertainment industry paid for 4% of Boxer's campaign and paid for 3% of Hatch's campaing. To me, that would imply they value the two politicians similarly. It just happens that Hatch has a lower pricetag.

Re:Prooves my point

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood vis a vis Salt Lake; Boxer vis a vis Hatch. You're telling me they paid 4% for Boxer and 3% for Hatch? That appears to be a HUGE amount of money for Hatch, whose state's closest connection to Hollywood is the flock of young Mormons that run away to Los Angeles every year.

Re:Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution b

[cdrguru]

Embedding ads is a joke - they would just be removed. Nobody is going to go out of their way to get advertising. Instead, they are going to go out of their way to avoid it.

The "new business model" is pretty clear - there are no customers, just viewers. Viewers don't buy anything and don't want ads. The idea of a "new business model" is that the money will come from somewhere else - tip jars, voluntary contributions, taxes, something - just not pay-per-view or pay-per-use. Unfortunately, nobody has ever figured out how to actually make that work in a large scale. We do have "tip jar" models today, like shareware, and it doesn't work. Maybe if artists and filmmakers were tax-supported (like they are in Canada) we wouldn't have this discussion. Except in Canada the government tells you what your subject matter is going to be. Do we want that? Just think about government-supported boy bands...

Lots of money and then a meeting

[SuperKendall]

Lots of money, recorder of course. Then you get access with meetings and lunches where he (or she) listens to what you have to say.

Then the Senator weighs what you would like against what other donors would like against what the people who voted him in office wants. Then he applies a weighting function unique to that senator, if you are lucky for whatever reason the weighting system favors you. With a lot of money you probably have a good shot.

Broadcast Flag is already overused

[Jherek Carnelian]

This is hearsay, I have not checked any transport streams myself, but it has been reported that broadcasters have already started using the broadcast flag in almost all of their HDTV content. Sure there is not any equipment that obeys the BF, but they are probably thinking that since it is just a bit to flip, they might as well flip it now.

Assuming the reports are true (which is admittedly a fair-sized assumption) this near total use of the BF already puts the lie to the MPAA's statement that it would only be used to "protect" high-value content like live sports and broadcast movie premiers.

Re:Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution b

[Anonymous Coward]

and removing advertisment/payment service in this way be any different then removing a broadcast flag?

That in turn is unfair

[SuperKendall]

If you look at the industries you see that the topmost contributor (to both) is the nebulous "Lawyer/Law firms". The question is who are tehse people representing? I would submit that in California these groups would be far more intersted in enterainment industry issues than in Utah, and so again the balance falls rather heavily toward the entertainment industry supporting Barbra.

But really we should stop looking at individuals, and look at party aggrigates - At the Democrat and Republican industry sectors.

Here TV/Movies/Music is double for the Democrats. But wait, check out 2002 - there the Democrats got a staggering 32 MILLION dollars while the Republicans had only 5 million. WHat you see in the 2004 figures is a reluctant realization that the republicans really are in power and therefore they cannot just ignore them altogether. But even so they just don't have the kind of historical influence the entertainment industry has on Democrats - especially the ones who were gathering some of that money back in 2002.

Re:Of course they haven't given up - read the arti

[Talinom]

So would the TV Consumer Choice Act, which is a bill for clarifying that the FCC does not have the authority to "require, or prescribe any schedule for the implementation of, digital television reception capability in television broadcast reception equipment"

and

"The requirements and schedule established by the Commission for the implementation of digital television reception capability in television broadcast reception equipment as contained in section 15.117(i) of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 15.117(i)) as modified in FCC 02-230 (August 8, 2002), shall not be effective except as expressly hereafter provided by Act of Congress."

help or hinder the FCC broadcast flag agenda?

Re:Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution b

[cmowire]

Ah, but the government *does* try to tax-support artists and filmmakers. All of the scare-stories about what the NEA was paying for, anybody? Much much better than government-supported boy bands.

No, there's no new business model, only changing what parts are free, what parts are pay, and what level of advertising you can get away with before people start removing it. Because people WILL watch trailers. They WILL watch that one really silly advertisement. Stuff like that.

But if the sellers-of-crap wake up tomorrow and realize that no matter how much they advertise, they aren't drumming up a market for their crap, they won't bother with advertisements anymore. Say you pay $20/month less on crap because said crap-merchants aren't advertising. That doesn't mean that broadcast media has to spend $20/month/person less. It just means that they have to figure out another way to get that $20 out of you. Or maybe nobody cares about broadcast media anymore and they'll scale back and the average consumer will spend that $20/month on other things.

But which media is key

[SuperKendall]

Please note that the industry figures are also misleading as various things like christan networks are folded in there with companies like Viacom. So that could mean a lot of mormon TV stations helping him out. That's why I kind of like looking more at specific contributors to get a better idea of money flow.

Re:But which media is key

[plover]

Heh. I read your statement as, "that could mean a lot of moron TV stations helping him out." It works either way.

You should probably capitalize Mormon, as it's a proper noun; or you should spell "mormon" without the second silent "m".

Bullshit!

[trezor]

It makes my content secure. Didn't you read the propaganda?

No one will read this

[ballantrae]

Consider that most of what comes out of hollywood is utter trash, and that the rest is of dubious if any quality. Consider further that the software and computer revolution is of paramount importance both to our freedom of expression and to our economies. Therefore, I'd rather see that entire industry shut down than have them mess with something that is actually useful to humanity. -ron