Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broadcast Flag Back in Congress

Posted by Zonk on from the write-call-email-protest dept.

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."

37 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. If something gets shot down once... by Pichu0102 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Why is it legally allowed to try again? I mean, it seems like no matter what, if someone wants something done that people don't like, it's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen.

    1. Re:If something gets shot down once... by advocate_one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you would be pretty upset if it was a piece of crucial legislation you wanted that had been shot down and thus could never be resubmitted now wouldn't you...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:If something gets shot down once... by HikingStick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...Why is it legally allowed to try again?

      The ability to try again with failed legislation is one of the greatest strengths of our political system, but at the same time it is one of the biggest problems.

      The number of other provisions and amendments that make it through in this manner is probably staggering. The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap. Of course, that would require a major change in our our legislative process works...
      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    3. Re:If something gets shot down once... by bedroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the way the system works. For dumb things and good things. Imagine if we didn't allow legislation to be reintroduced. We wouldn't have half the civil rights we do now. Sure, it may force dumb things to die, but it would also mean that one especially poor congressional class could permanently ruin our country.

    4. Re:If something gets shot down once... by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but how bout rules on amendments. Is this amendment in any way related to cost cutting? I doupt it.

    5. Re:If something gets shot down once... by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap"

      Alternatively you could just enforce the Constitution: then 99% of laws would be thrown out immediately... including this one.

    6. Re:If something gets shot down once... by HUADPE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The last attempt wasn't in a law. According to TFA "the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in mandating that all consumer electronic devices capable of receiving digital television signals incorporate support for the flag." That means that an administrative agency, the FCC, did not have authority to do it, Congress still might.

      Either way, it is a bad piece of policy which should be junked.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    7. Re:If something gets shot down once... by msaavedra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where in the Constitution does it say that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to be the official interpreters of the Constitution? IIRC, it never says that explicitly. I suppose it could be interpreted to say that, but by whom? The Supreme Court, of course, since that is their purpose ;^)

      --
      "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
      --Henry David Thoreau
    8. Re:If something gets shot down once... by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Indeed, the most broken thing about the U.S. government is the notion of unrelated riders. These should, IMHO, be found unconstitutional across the board, as they represent a deliberate attempt to subvert the constitutional process of checks and balances.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:If something gets shot down once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I sort of agree, but would like to point out that them being able to tack on legislation anomynously is a large part of the problem. Wouldn't it be nice to know which Congressmen were responsible for trying to force such an unpopular piece of legislation on us? They might like the MPAA's money, but not if it would ruin their career.

  2. Bill riders by lightyear4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Non-germane riders snuck into bills shall be the death of this country.

  3. Not surprising. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only slightly off topic-does anyone else find the fact that Congress is allowed to "bundle" legislation like this distasteful? Shouldn't each up or down vote be on -one- thing, without all these ridiculous "riders" attached?

    Back to the subject-it is indeed also important to contact broadcasters, and possibly the MPAA itself, and make sure they know you won't be watching, and why. And then stick to it. It's not like there's a whole lot worthwhile on TV anyway, and they'll continue to attempt to ram this thing through Congress unless it's made to hit 'em in the wallet.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  4. why is it... by MooseTick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?

    Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?

    --
    Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    1. Re:why is it... by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let me make a comparison. I'm not gay and have no interest whatsoever in homosexual pornography. But I would fight against a law forbidding it.

      Similarly, though I have no real desire to tape shows off TV, I have a very real desire to preserve my right to do so.

  5. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title.

    It would make for some amusing titles, and some great TV on CSPAN.

  6. Totally inappropriate by millennial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the same sort of thing that got the REAL ID act passed. It's totally inappropriate, and it's a hijacking of the true democratic process. Irrelevant riders simply should NOT be allowed on bills.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  7. Re:Dont see why this is needed. by Castar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Broadcast flag isn't for people to block content they don't want to see. It's for companies to mark content they don't want you to be able to record.

    Which, when you look at their public attitudes, has to be "everything". The only thing I can see them allowing is sports events and news. I'm sure they don't want to miss out on possible revenue from DVD versions of TV shows.

    --
    I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
  8. Why are they allowed to do this? by junster2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is an ammendment allowed on a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill?

    I wish we had line item veto at the national level. It would keep crap like this from ever seeing the light of day.

    If you can't pass a law without being sneeking behind peoples backs, you should really rethink your usefulness within society.

    1. Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by ebrandsberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I think there should be an ammendment to the constitution that would disallow that, one vote by congress, ONE fundamental thing they are voting on--if they can't summarize what the vote is about in spirit completely in a single page document, then chances are there is pork and hidden provisions tucked away in stuff like this. If a court finds that a provision in a bill is not at least summarized in the one page summary, then that provision should be struck down.

  9. Re:My solution by Medevo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like your idea, but only if there is some way to make me NOT PAY for the content.

    Currently, the bundles that cable/satellite offer smack similar to how CD's work, there is a couple good channels in each price increase, along with lots of stuff I don't want (one hit wonder songs and filler).

    TV is still trying to hold onto the fact that unless you buy a outrageously priced DVD of LAST SEASON, you are forced to pay for content you don't want. The BBC is going to start moving to a simultaneous release model (online and on air, but people think the online will either have DRM, have commercials, or just be some fancy streaming) for some of its bigger downloaded shows like Dr Who.

    Medevo

  10. Grant me a vent, please. by abscondment · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone seriously needs to organize a giant, demonstrative protest.

    We could all crap in tupperware and ship our excrement straight to the MPAA/RIAA, with a signed note saying "Thank you for shitting on the law making system in America".

  11. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Intron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We already know how well titles reflect the content:

    "Patriot Act"
    "Clear Skies"
    "Medical Privacy Act"

    The best-named recent bill was probably

    "Can Spam"

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  12. Re:Dont see why this is needed. by garcia · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The only thing I can see them allowing is sports events and news.

    Oh, the NFL and MLB will find a way to block those too I'm sure. "No NFL broadcast may be reproduced without the express written permission of the NFL" If they could, they would make that extend to Tivo and other DVR units as well.

  13. Line Item Veto by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because God forbid the President be allow to send individual parts of the bill back to congress and tell them to grow the hell up.

    --
    Never confuse volume with power.
    1. Re:Line Item Veto by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not a problem with this congress. The line item veto was introduced because the Republicans kept tacking stupid amendments on to necessary legislation so they could dare Clinton to veto it (and then use it against him in the next legislation; "Clinton vetoed the Feed All Starving Children bill! He hates children!" when he vetoed it because there was a rider that assigned a $10 billion construction contract to Halliburton.)

      It's a constant cycle though, notice how the economy tanks after the Republicans have been in power for 6-8 years? Our national debt perfectly reflects the money management skills of most americans...

    2. Re:Line Item Veto by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, but I have no control over, say, the Senator from the Commonwealth of Virgina. If he slides a pork appropriation onto a bill meant for something else, there's nothing I, as a citizen of the State of Colorado, can do about it. I can't vote against him. I can't replace him. He is not accountable to me.

      And HIS citizens are going to be happy he brought home the bacon, so they're not going to do anything about it either.

      So the only thing I can do is make sure my senator does the same thing, which benefits no one, and subverts the system.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Line Item Veto by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator"

      And neither the power to veto nor to introduce legislation make him a "de facto legislator?" And let's not forget the fact that the other named member of the executive has an occasional vote. Ever wonder why there's no admonishment in the federal constitution that the three branches of the federal government shall be separate even though such a provision was in most state constitutions at the time?

      After all, look at all the executive power given to the Senate, such as oversight on all executive appointments and treaties. Heck, they even have judicial powers during impeachments.

      "they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill "

      Can't work so long as we have a Twelfth Amendment. Separate tickets for president and vice president means that you don't get to run for president unless you have very strong connections with the people who decides who runs for which office: the political parties. If you complain about your own party's pork you may not make the ballot next year. Complain about the other party's pork and you come off as needlessly partisan.

      And the bully pulpit has its limits. With the Twelfth Amendment and winner-takes-all on the exeuctive's side, and the Seventeenth Amendment and single-seat-districts on the legislature's side, both sides have the illusion of a public mandate, each saying "The majority of the people like us, therefore the majority of the people must like what I'm about to do." With both branches operating under something vaguely resembling direct elections, everybody has equal claim to "working for the people."

      And then there's the matter of vote buying. Pork not only helps get legislators get re-elected, but the president can take equal credit and get a few more votes to swing his way (or at least toward the incumbent's party).

      Using the "bully pulpit" is ultimately damaging for all the politicians ("Can't they all just get along and run the country already?"). The line item veto allows for pork to disappear as quietly as it was inserted.

  14. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by JBHarris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article is extremely short on details. What senator (from what state?) introduced this bill?
    What is the bill's title? Number?
    How can I verify this article?
    I will not write an email to my Senators unless I can present myself as an informed citizen.


    This article is lite on 'information', therefore doesn't really inform me of anything.

  15. Of course its back by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And it will keep coming back until its passed.

    They have the money, and the will. So its just a matter of time before its passed into a law.

    Then good luck ever getting it repealed. In another generation or so, it will just be accepted as ' its always been that way'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Of course its back by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You did consider the fact that it's very possible for people to do unexpected (for the cause they claim to support) things that do in fact support that cause, even if at first glance that doesn't seem to be so, don't you? Do you even know why he acted the way he did? He did, you know, have plans in mind that didn't involve blasting someone away at a theater. It's actually a rather interesting story, and it does make you think about the motivations of people like Booth, but most people don't know it.

      --
      i am a soviet space shuttle
  16. Your Kongress-Kritter could care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why waste your time contacting them?

    If the broadcast flag happens, just walk away from using the broken media.

    www.technocracy.ca says:

    "Vote With Meaning

    The only real vote is purchasing power. What we buy we vote for. With an abundance of purchasing power we can vote as often as we like, every day of the year, and always win our vote. "

  17. First they came for the Jews by woodsrunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller

  18. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real problem is that the good guys play too fair. If the big media lobbies can get provisions into bills for things like the broadcast flag, why can't the other side get things in with the opposite effect? Just slip in an amendment requiring any station that uses a technological measure to restrict the use of content transmitted over the public airwaves to lose its license to the spectrum. Outlaw the sale of anything which includes technology that would block the recipient's right of first sale. There are plenty of measures which would effectively stop the **AA's ability to cause trouble, and it evidentally doesn't take much to get bills passed without general support.

  19. Re:My letter, FWIW by Jordan+Catalano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want a pre-emptive measure. I want some senator with the balls to say "Fuck the media companies. They're not my constituents." I want a bill that reiterates that the airwaves are public, that exclusive broadcast rights to a piece of the spectrum are a priveledged gift not given lightly by the people. I want a guarantee that anything broadcast via this public medium have certain rights over it, those being to view, edit, and permanently archive content, at full broadcast resolution, so long as it is not retransmitted or distributed, except as allowed by copyright law. If a company can't agree to that, it shouldn't be using public airwaves in the first place.

  20. If you didn't vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you ASKED for this!
    ___________________________________
    A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
    a vote to abolish the Constitution itself!

  21. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    because there isn't any 'other side'. ALL members of congress are on the take from special interests and nobody is going to seriously propose stopping it. And even if they did, the rest come down HARD on anyone who even speaks out of line


    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  22. You give the **AA the power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...by thinking their products are essential. They aren't - it's all just entertainment.

    Until you change your behavior, they'll continue to have that power.

    Learn to play an instrument and kill your TV. You'll be better for it.