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."

Comments

If something gets shot down once...

[Pichu0102]

...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.

Re:If something gets shot down once...

[HikingStick]

...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...

Re:If something gets shot down once...

[bedroll]

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.

Re:If something gets shot down once...

[HUADPE]

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.

Re:If something gets shot down once...

[msaavedra]

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 ;^)

Re:If something gets shot down once...

[dgatwood]

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.

Bill riders

[lightyear4]

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

Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge

[ivan256]

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.

Totally inappropriate

[millennial]

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.

Re:Dont see why this is needed.

[Castar]

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.

Re:My solution

[Medevo]

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

Grant me a vent, please.

[abscondment]

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".

Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge

[JBHarris]

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.

Re:why is it...

[arkanes]

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.

Of course its back

[nurb432]

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'.

Re:Line Item Veto

[shmlco]

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.