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."

34 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 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...
    2. 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.

    3. Re:If something gets shot down once... by ThaFooz · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

      Why not just tack your proposal onto some popular bill?

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

  2. Say what? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 5, Funny
    smacked down in court

    Hey! I saw that match! The Rock crushed the MPAA with the People's Elbow.

  3. if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The MPAA knows it works. One of their members already not only got a law this way, they get it re-approved with every new budget.

      Disney got a law ORDERING the FAA to impose a no fly zone over Disneyland and Disney World into the Omnibus spending bill - the national budget. When the budget came up for renewal the two years thereafter Disney made sure this order stayed in it. Actually it came from Senator Hollings, "The Senator from Disney."

      The ORDER was necessary because the FAA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security said there was no threat to Mickey. No matter. Disney always wanted a way to keep banner tow planes away.

    3. 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.

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

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

  5. The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. So are they going to set the "evil bit" also? by Hulkster · · Score: 4, Funny
  7. "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!

  8. My solution by vanyel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. 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

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. It's too painful to defend these guys by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  12. 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.
  13. Re:How long... by gcatullus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. 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".

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

    The EFF has setup a contact form here.

  17. 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.

  18. 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 ----
  19. Re:Line Item Veto by bofkentucky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've come to the conclusion that the president should personally call out the offending pork loader when he vetoes the bill. Post on the white house website what a moron senator X is for ruining a good bill. If we've got 50 24 hour news channels, why not put them to use for ridculing politicians.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  20. Ouch by PacketScan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Call it the Bend over and Take it Flag.

  21. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by cmburns69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  22. 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.
  23. 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.