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."
...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.
Hey! I saw that match! The Rock crushed the MPAA with the People's Elbow.
From the post: 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...
So, the MPAA is now taking the route on total non-representation. Their initial approach obviously was non-representational/non populist and of course they have their own greedy self-motivation. That's okay, you can petition the government for legislation, and for protection. But they lost that battle and now look to win the war with their own Trojan Horse, a virus if you will (how ironic). The thing I find MOST egregious and offensive about this is they are sneaking their agenda in under the radar in a bill totally unrelated to their issue and likely to be passed. Normally this is a technique to snag pork for legislators and representatives, a sleezy technique for allocating money. But this is more pernicious and evil -- where the intent is to screw the entire entertainment consuming public (virtually everyone). What a crock.
...Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in mandating that all consumer electronic devices capable of receiving digital television signals incorporate support for the flag, the media industry has been working on getting Congress to enact the flag.
Wow, all consumer devices capable of receiving digital television signals? That is very open ended legislation. I hope this only applies to over-the-air signals? Even so, I think it's too much.
Bradley Holt
Non-germane riders snuck into bills shall be the death of this country.
When you write to your representatives and senators, be sure to include the key point that the EFF leaves out:
These laws, when combined with the DMCA, take power away from congress and give it to anybody. Corporations, and individuals alike. Even if they're not US citizens or US based. Congress should reserve the power to grant rights for intellectual property creators for themselves, instead of giving a blank law-making check to content industries.
Make sure you tell your congresspeople that they are giving power reserved for them by the Constitution to whomever wants to wield it.
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.
Now's the time to tack it onto a Katrina spending bill. Republican and Democrat alike will be _forced_ to vote for it "for the children," blah, blah.
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
Per the RFC
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!
...I think that whenever a device includes broadcast flag support, there should be the option to block any program that includes it. If they don't want me to watch their show, then I don't want to watch it.
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.
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 know, I'm a believer in copyright, and the rights of the copyright owners to make a living from their works - and I've been in more than a few debates in the on-line world where my opinion has been decidedly unpopular.
I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).
I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.
The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
What the hell are you talking about? CNN.Com is still on Katrina- and word is that *maybe* the dead will hit 2000 once they find them all, certainly NOT the 20,000 many feared. Rita had a death toll in the hundreds. Certainly not the worst natural disaster in history- or even this year, as the Indian Ocean Tsunami took 100,000 lives.
I'm not saying it wasn't bad- and I've got my own wishes for persecution of government officials, both local and federal, for their crimes against the people during this disaster. But it doesn't help very much claiming that it happened today or 20,000 people died.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
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.
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/
This has already happened, witness the "Real ID Act". Ostensibly to streamline drivers' licenses, this act is described as "To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.' It was attached to HR 1268, which was a nescessary spending bill to fund troops in Iraq. No one has woke up yet it apears.
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".
Seriously. Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US? DMCA is only valid in US, until now, and a passthrough to ignore broadcast-flag is very easy to implement.
Even if US enforces DMCA to other countries (in CAFTA, for example), I have serious doubts that third-world countries will be able to have a serious fiscalization.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
As far as I can tell HDCP already prevents you from recording a pure digital source. While the broadcast flag could be ignored, HDCP continuously negotiates between the input and output device to decode realtime picture display. Without an HDCP compliant output device using HDMI or DVI the output is not usuable, which effectively makes it a very hard nut to crack. It will be a very effective form of High Definition DRM once component output is done away with.
link from DownsizeDC.org
link from EFF
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
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.
The EFF has setup a contact form here.
as King George would say: "Bring it on!"
If they are going to make television less appealing
I'm prepared to ditch my TV and spend the rest of my
life reading and writing.
Try applying DRM to paperbound books I already own, SUCKAS!
I invite everyone else to do the same - If we do, free TV will reappear.
but no one will want it. Indeed, they will have to pay people to
watch it.
3) Profit!!!
If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz!
It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.
No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.
Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?
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 ----
How is it even possible or legal that this type of legislation can be appended to a bill who's purpose doesn't even come close to the flag proposal? It's not much of a stretch to view this as trojan legislation.
I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK? Does it stand on precedent alone (others have done it)? We see it all the time. It doesn't make sense that something as non-topical to cutting spending as the broadcast flag could be introduced this way...
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
Call it the Bend over and Take it Flag.
Beyond writing to Rep. Sanders and Sen. Jeffords, since I suspect Sen. Leahy is one of those backing this MESS, I need to think about practical considerations.
I've been thinking of a pending hdtv card, planning to buy before the broadcast flag came into effect. Last spring when the courts threw out the FCC's ability to impose the broadcast flag, I shelved my plans. Keep in mind that I have no other hdtv hardware or services, and this is just a hedge against the future. Even without the other hardware, I want the non-broadcast-flag hdtv card while I can still get it, because someday I will have hdtv hardware/services.
So does anyone have a clue when Son of Broadcast Flag will rear it's ugly head?
What's the new deadline to buy an hdtv card?
Can anyone comment on preferences between pchdtv-3000 and air2pc (or any others) for use with MythTV?
Honestly, this is about rights of corporations vs rights of people. With this congress and this administration, I expect to lose. I'll fight in the meantime, but I also plan to make preparations to lose.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
This was my letter to my congresscritters, for all the good it will do.
Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.
It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.
I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.
And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
From Bart's Comet:
KENT BROCKMAN
With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.
KENT BROCKMAN
I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work...
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
1) digital cable weren't so overpriced.
2) more stations provided on demand content. 3) content available on demand is available for longer periods (not just a month)
I think the problem goes deeper than just wanting people to buy dvds and watch shows in syndication. Eventually we will see more of #2 as broadband speeds increase and make it possible because most people would rather pick what AND when they consume content rather than have schedules dictated by television stations. The problem with DVRs is that they prevent stations from being able to charge for "on demand". Its silly to pay an extra X dollars PER month when they can pay a 1-time cost of the DVR.
Now as for DVRs needing to wait for the show to air before being able to deliver you the content, shows that are aired on a weekly basis are only available on demand AFTER thier original showing. "On demand" will only get you access to shows your DVR missed or are being rebroadcast.
Not that I disagree with you, but if you could explain how the consitiution, if enforced, would be adequate (with or without extra "law(s)" or (an) "amendment(s)"
It required amendments to make the Constitution's intent explicit, but fortunately they both were passed two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, Amendment IX is practically unenforceable because while everyone can agree that there are human rights not explicitly protected by the Consitution, nobody entirely agrees on which rights those are. Amendment X is theoretically enforceable, but hasn't been enforced in so long that it's probably too late to start now; no Supreme Court Justice wants to be the guy who says "Hey, did you guys notice that most of the federal laws on the books are unconstitutional?"
You could send them a Fecalgram. Why won't they ship worldwide? Read their testimonials. :)
I suggest the following method of rating amendments on a bill:
Every couple of weeks, certain legislatures will get "moderator access"
Then, they get to mod any 5 amendments as the following:
-Insightful
-Informative
-Funny
-Troll
etc.
Only amendments modded +5 make it into the final bill.
Sounds good to me!!!
I got nothin'
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.
I shouldn't have to call my Congress-critter every single fsking time about this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
In the not too distant future, this is how this scenario is going to play out. The broadcast flag is bad technology piled on top of an obsolete distribution mechanism. Podcasting and other distribution is going to change the formula. The middlement who would benefit from the broadcast flag are going to be cut out.
Broadcast? WTF is that?
Why would that affect me?
Do they mean podcast?
No?
OK, Bye. (puts headphones back on)
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I've always found that breaking into your representative's office, stripping, and then waiting on their desk for them to arrive is a very effective way to get their attention. As for getting them to see my point... Well, I've never been an effective public speaker.
They dont list any sources other than a vague reference to a "reconciliations bill" due in October, and none of my googling and searching http://thomas.loc.gov/ can find the bill in question. I'd like to see a source for this concern, and until then it's all just smoke and mirrors or whatever the phrase is...
All this stuff is very useless. I have hundreds of gigs of mp3 files and cd's are really cheap nowadays. So after I burn and listen to a CD a while and get bored of it I leave it in a friendly spot like a bus stop or on a mailbox, etc. They can try and try and try to force this broadcast flag but one hacked piece of hardware is enough to unlock the entire thing. As digital TV quality goes up the ability to tape right off the screen gets better and better (analog hole), not so many years ago in the telecine room film motion pictures were projected onto screens and recorded with a video camera to port movies to television. The quality might be a few percentages below the "digital realm" but who really cares? MP3's sound a little off but obviously the millions of itunes users aren't total audiophiles. I mean, they are today paying for a non-digitally-perfect representation of a song, and for some reason the recording industry feels that people would not be willing to trade non digitally perfect copies of movies or songs. It really doesn't make a lot of sense.
...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.