Slashdot Mirror
Broadcast Flag Back in Congress
Tyler Too writes "When the broadcast flag was smacked down in court, it was only a matter of time before the MPAA tried to ram it through Congress. The first attempt in June failed, but the EFF reports that they are gearing up for another try. From Ars Technica's write-up: 'This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented, nor can it be filibustered.' Looks like it's a good time to call your congressman."
Because last time it was shot down was on a technicality, basically the FCC was found not to have the power to enforce the Broadcast Flag.. There was no ruling on the Constitutionality of the flag itself..
When you call your representative, you should be aware of the following:
Congress has made a law that allows a certain increase in budgetary line items per year without calling it an increase. I'm not sure what that allowed percentage is, but if they allow 7% and only raise an item 6%, they can legally say they LOWERED that item's budget!
Our budget includes Social Security receipts but not complete payments. We've never had a truly balanced budget in decades.
Our budget is allowed emergency appropriations that can include money for any pork project as long as "emergency" is in the bill's title.
108th Congress Analysis what a scam!
This isn't to let you block "Debbie Does Backdoor Prison Slut Vixxxens 7", it's to let the people broadcasting the SuperBowl enforce their "right" to prevent you from rewinding to rewatch a play, or CBS to enforce their "right" for you to watch CSI only once and then find it in syndicate or buy the DVD if you want to watch the episode again. It's HBO enforcing their "right" to prevent you from taping "Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy" off HBO, or Comcast preventing you from recording something off pay per view.
This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything with broadcasters trying to sell the same content more than once, and preventing you from keeping what they've broadcast.
Never confuse volume with power.
You got it all wrong. This flag has nothing to do with filtering shows that you can/can't watch. What this flag does it prevents you from copying shows. If this went into effect you couldn't tivo a show, then burn it to a dvd to take with you on a trip, or transfer shows from your tivo to your computer to watch later but free up space on your tivo. You won't able to make your own pvr out of your computer that can bypass this stuff. Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal. This has nothing to do with weither or not you can watch a show, but is about what you can do with the content that you watch.
read here for more information about the flag. http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/
link from DownsizeDC.org
link from EFF
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
The EFF has setup a contact form here.
Actually, the FIRST attempt was by an act of the FCC, which was smacked down by the courts. The LAST attempt was indeed by law, in a piece of appropriation legislation, according to TFA. It too was smacked down. The LATEST attempt is also by law, in a budget reconciliation bill.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Sibling poster incorrectly points out that you have the Germane rule switched around. In any case, if I remember my Congressional Politics class correctly, the Chair gets to rule on the germaness of amendments. In effect, the germaneness rule only limits the minority party (typical of the House). The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the Congress is free to set and interpret its own rules, so this action is not unconstitutional or illegal, just annoying.
There is a limited germaness rule in the Senate. My recollection is that amendments to appropriations bills must be germane.
You could send them a Fecalgram. Why won't they ship worldwide? Read their testimonials. :)
The Federal does not have authority under the Constitution to do most of what it is doing today. The Constitution lists a number of function which the Federal is limited to doing. Our government has made use of the inter-state commerce clause and the general welfare clause to enact all sorts of legislation. If you read those clauses, however, you realize that they do not allow the Federal to expand their powers past those enumerated in the Constitution.
If you properly enforced the Constitution, any power the Federal has created that is not enumerated in the Constitution would have to be removed.
One mention of general welfare allows the Federal to use monies they have collected to pay for things that in the general welfare of the country. The other mention of it, which is in the preamble, states that one of the purposes for the Constitution is to promote the general welfare of the country.
One mention of commerce allows the Federal to regulate commerce that takes places across a State border. The other mention says that the Federal may not regulate commerce in an unequal fashion; if they regulate, they must regulate every party the same.
You guessed it. (Or maybe you already knew that, having remained awake for the first day of your US History class.) The case was Marbury vs. Madison.
The reason is that they don't actually have a "right to control the distribution of their works". Please site the part of copyright law that says so if that's what you think.
You mean 17 USC 106(3)?
They also don't have a legal right to stop me from recording broadcasts.
You mean 17 USC 106(1)?
The Sony case confirms my right to record shows for later viewing.
No it doesn't. It basically says that it's ok sometimes, and it indicates that it's difficult for copyright holders to demonstrate instances where it's not ok.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Broadcasting is like distribution.
No, broadcasting is a transmission of a performance or display. Distribution can't be done by broadcast alone.
The industry does not have a right to stop my recording (they are not law enforcement, much as they'd like to be).
First, what's law enforcement got to do with anything? Copyright is more a civil matter than a criminal one. Second, they do have that right; the question is whether you have a defense that allows you to do so anyway.
And if it's hard for them to "demonstrate instances where it's not ok" then why should we put them in charge of making that decision?
They aren't; the courts make the decision.
Personally, I oppose this, but it does no good to misunderstand just how bad the law is right now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
More like: They said "We aren't saying whether or not the Broadcast Flag has merit, we are merely saying that the FCC overstepped it's congressionally recognized powers by attempting to mandate such a flag to hardware manufacturers. The FCC's original position is that since it wasn't clearly defined that it DIDN'T have the power to makeup such mandates, that it was perfectly ok for it to do so.
It was a Good Thing (tm) in that it put the FCC in it's place and better defined what the FCC can not go out and arbitrarily decide, but the ruling did NOT make a determination on whether or not the Broadcast Flag itself was constitutional.