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."

9 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by dada21 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  2. Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Dont see why this is needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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/

  4. Links to more easily contact your representatives by ghee22 · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    "Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
  5. Contact your represntative by sp00 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The EFF has setup a contact form here.

  6. Re:If something gets shot down once... by ReverendLoki · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  7. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Politburo · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Marbury vs. Madison by clem.dickey · · Score: 4, Informative
    Where in the Constitution does it say that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to be the official interpreters of the Constitution? ... I suppose it could be interpreted to say that, but by whom? The Supreme Court, of course

    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.
    1. Re:Marbury vs. Madison by Jelanen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual first instance of interpretational SCOTUS opinion, or, reading into the Constitution crap that ain't there, was Scott vs. Stanford. (Ref: Justice Antonin Scalia, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2005-03-15) Marbury vs. Madison just cemented the Court's recognized authority of judicial review; considering whether a law is Constitutional or not.