Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Wants To Push For DRM
RareButSeriousSideEffects writes "Techdirt reports that 'Newest Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
We insist.
Thank you.
Power corrupts. That's all there is to it. Add money from corrupt companies in (I'm looking at you RIAA), and it's a recipe for disaster to everyone but those with power and money. Even then, those people may find themselves regretting their decisions.
When all is said and done, it is the market that will ultimately decide whether DRM is a "good" idea.
If, for example, the record companies leave the installed base of CD players unable to play the latest and greatest CD they are pimping, it will not sell.
Yes, I know it is not so simple, but really - think of it this way - if the next gen of DVD players is too cumbersome to use because of DRM, the whole platform will fail. Think of DiVX, the old rental DVD scheme that Circuit City and other sold for a time. You might have a hard time finding it today.
How can you be a huge fan of DRM? I guess she's never bought a "CD*" only to find it wouldn't play on her CD player. * "Disc does not comply with CD specifications and may not play on some players due to DRM implementation" /actual text printed on Sony "music disc" I got as a gift. Was able to listen on the multi-format DVD player in my home entertainment system. Unfortunately I mostly listen to music at work, where I can't play this disc...
include $sig;
1;
It's an interesting exercise in encryption, for one. For another, it allows media outlets to protect their content as they see fit. If they don't want you to be watching something more than once, that's up to them. It allows the consumer to differentiate between media outlets that are consumer-friendly and consumer-hostile.
And finally, having the freedom to make bad decisions is a very fundamental freedom.
DRM doesn't prevent piracy. It just takes our rights.
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
This is a link to a story on a blog that consists of a link to a story on another blog that doesn't cite any sources. This is an interesting way to create a news story, but I can't figure out how to tag it. "metablogging" came to mind, but that doesn't really seem to sum it up very well. Can anybody think of something better?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
That's completely different from federally-mandated DRM, which gives us no choice in what we buy, and forces upon us the business whims of the content cartels. That is not a characteristic of a free market, nor of a liberal democracy. I understand the need of the business to protect itself from people whose illegal activities threaten their botton line. I seriously do completely understand that. But I do not think that enacting federal laws that impact all customers negatively in the effort to mitigate the behavior of a minority of customers is asinine.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
Apparently, her love of country music has brought her to this studied position
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.
To be fair, the quote is based on an article about this on the Technology Liberation Front web site:
Last night a FCC commissioner came out in favor of...DRM? Yes, at a reception sponsored by the DC Bar Association in her honor, Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, the newest addition to the FCC, spoke eloquently on a number of issues but perhaps most remarkable was her advocacy for strong copyright protections. Hailing from The Music City, Nashville, this former Tennessee Regulatory Commissioner proclaimed her love for country music and the artists that wish to use DRM to protect their content.
Of course, this is just her personal opinion. However her position on the FCC lends it credibility it wouldn't ordinarily have. I don't know her tech credentials, but I doubt she's on top of the whole subject and is just espousing a knee-jerk reaction based on the usual political babble. She's probably a frustrated country artist at heart. Anyway, she's so obsucre as government people go, I doubt her promotion of DRM is going to create a groundswell of public support anytime soon.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Oh god no. That is exactly how they want you to think. She will act as a powerful persuasion tool on the senate and house and be looked upon as an "expert" by the braindead morons running our country.
She is highly dangerous and only public outrage, and many MANY calls for her resignation will be an acceptable solution.
Unfortunately getting tech people as a group to do anything is like herding cats. It's just not possible.
If the FCC recieved tens of thousands of angry letters about it as well as the senate and house represenatives recieve angry letters as to her views to tear down fair use and americans rights they will stand back and take notice.
But nothing will happen which is a giant signal to them that amercians and Tech people want DRM desperately.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
she's just misguided. any rational person would examine the pros and cons of anything they decide to champion. All we have to do is wait for some DRM f***up to affect her life before she thinks "hmm, maybe it does more than it claims to do...." it's just too bad that people don't do that in the first place.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
The FCC actually runs itself more like a private corporation than a government entity; or rather, it has some of the worst of both worlds, it seems to be almost entirely profit-driven, but retains all the inefficiencies and bureaucratia common to a large and basically unaccountable government operation.
If you look at the proposals and rulemaking that they spend the most time on, it's perfectly clear that they spend their time on whatever is going to get them the most revenue. When it comes to auctioning off some radio spectrum to the highest bidder, I'll bet the Commissioner has a red phone on her nightstand just to clear up any 11th hour problems as they're pushing things through. But try to get something relatively simple done (like the relatively uncontroversial changes to Amateur Radio) and you'd better be teaching your kids about it, because you may not live that long.
Somewhere, something went very wrong inside that organization, their mission changed from being the electronic and radio equivalent of the Parks Service, to a division of Internal Revenue.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If there is a single DRM system, who decides who is "in it" and who is "out of it"? You cannot simply allow anyone to write software (eg. media player software) for DRM content because as soon as someone obtains access to the raw data (necessary for playback of music/video, in the absence of DRM-compatible hardware) they can just write that raw data to a non-DRM file, and all of a sudden the DRM isn't very useful because everyone can convert their files to unrestricted formats with this software.
You might say "okay, well, what if there is DRM-compatible hardware?"
In the case of DRM-compatible hardware (aka "Trusted Computing" hardware) you have the same problem. Who are you going to allow to create this hardware? If you allow anyone to do it, they can create hardware that circumvents the DRM system, resulting in media converted to unrestricted formats, or even users finding out the encryption keys embedded in the other DRM hardware.
Eventually you get into a situation where you can't let just anyone make hardware that is compatible with the DRM hardware, and you can't let just anyone write software that is compatible with your DRM system, or else the DRM system is broken. The side-effects of this scenario are extremely beneficial to established hardware and software companies, but make it practically impossible for new companies to create software or hardware that works with the DRM group of hardware and software. The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
Uh... huh? How has technology replaced, say, monitoring content on public broadcasts?(1) How has technology eliminated the need to regulate the radio spectrum so devices dont stomp all over each other? How has technology ensured that every manufacturer will somehow produce devices which accept interference?
There is no need to monitor content on public broadcasts -- the government is not a parent. Let the parents return to monitoring their children. That's the reason for a parent to stay home and parent rather than both working to overspend and live beyond their means. When government parents, I have to pay even though I have no kids. No thanks.
As for interference, we have coding hopping software radios that can pick the right spectrum. It is financially impossible to shred the entire spectrum with one antenna -- the costs to transmit are huge (power, antenna, labor, etc). If you sent random bursts across various specturms, software radios that freqhop can adjust and get around it -- you'll MAYBE intrude on 1% of the spectrum at a given time, and they'll just retransmit on a freq that you won't know until its too late.
If you don't regulate the spectrum, there will be nothing stopping someone using the same frequencies as air traffic controllers. Disbanding the FCC has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever read on slashdot. Restructure it, sure. Fire everyone working there, fine. Try to remove the corruption, absolutely. But to suggest we don't need any regulation of the radio spectrum is absolutely ludicrous.
The FAA already has ways around the interference that is already generated in their spectrum. If you study the systems they use, they already have enough processes in place to punch through the "problems." With software-freq-hopping, it won't be a concern. In fact, I've been on two airplanes already that allow WiFi and have Internet access and they're great -- my bandwidth was excellent. This wasn't due to FCC regulation, this was due to the free market providing what we want.
The idea that someone would spend trillions a year to block transmissions is a straw-man style argument. We only THINK we need the FCC, but look at Somalia, a country without a government, and they have a ton of communications infrastructure -- cell phone companies running in anarchy, satellite comm, satellite broadcasts, digital radio. They have ZERO regulation in their broadcasts and it works very well. They don't even have publicly regulated power distribution, so the telcom companies put generators on every tower, and they're working just fine. Somailia has a ton of other problems, but they're growing in leaps and bounds without a problem, considering they've been in a government-induced civil war for decades.
I think she should be kept in office precisely for her ill-advised comment. Anyone who makes such an assertion is better than their replacement-- who will likely have the same opinion but not be foolish as to state it. Heck, she just gave opponents of DRM ammunition to lobby against any bullying she does, and she's forewarned them of her agenda.
When in doubt, keep the noisy idiot over the cunning schemer.
A.
Anyway, she's so obsucre as government people go, I doubt her promotion of DRM is going to create a groundswell of public support anytime soon.
There will never be a groundswell of public support. What there will be is industry telling us why they need DRM, but no one will ever want it. The maddening part is that things like HD-DVD and Blue Ray will be unmitigated failures because of the barriers that DRM puts in the way of them actually being useful.
When DRM blocks the use of products by consumers, or requires them to buy extra items (including whole new HDTV's sometimes), they will just plain stay away. Of course then the industry will scratch its head and wonder why their new hideously crippled formats aren't selling, and point the finger at "Pirates". It never ceases to amaze me how absoultely befuddled and stupid their greed makes the entertainment industry.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$hit about DRM.
"Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
I agree with some of what you say, the FCC has certainly exceeded its purpose and mission, and I think a radical cutting-back (along with a complete decapitation and replacement of its leadership) is necessary. However I think you're mistaken to think that we have enough technology to completely replace any form of spectrum management.
I mean, it's going to suck pretty bad for you, if I go and decide it would be cool to set up a 25KW spark-gap transmitter in my garage; that's a transmitter that emits on all EM frequencies simultaneously, limited only by the characteristics of the antenna I use. Using a good high-gain antenna pointed at your house, I don't care what kind of spread spectrum, frequency-hopping systems your cellphone tries to use, it's not going to work when there's enough EMF flying around to make your toaster run without being plugged in. That's pretty much the situation you'd have without some form of coordination; it's the communications equivalent of getting rid of traffic laws because you don't like waiting at lights.
And you could forget about radio telescopes--right now we have mandated "holes" in the spectrum for research use, so that the full gain of a receiver can be used to focus on far-away sources; without interference regulation, you'd raise the noise floor by so much that (given that your receiver can only discriminate between so much signal and noise) you're going to lose a great deal of signal.
The original purpose of the FCC--to coordinate spectrum allocation to maximize public utility--is still a valid one. In fact, I think it's more valid today, with more uses for the spectrum, than ever. Though they're worse than useless in their current state, on their knees with the collective cock of industry in their mouths, that doesn't mean they have to be.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Does power corrupt or does power attract the corruptible?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They certainly should. It is their establishment.
Certainly they should not. The problem is that no one establishment will ban smoking, for fear of pushing customers elsewhere. You quickly end up with there being zero establishments that put limits on smoking.
Those of us that do not wish to inhale any second hand smoke are left with the option of staying inside with the windows shut, 24/7. That's exactly the situation we were in before states or cities started banning smoking at certain establishments.
It seems to me that the ties of the "Christian Taliban", and the big 4 record lables have decided to co-rule the FCC; Unfortunitly, we the great unwashed, appear to be NOT represented in the needs and strides of those who deepest lust is for power over others.
And nothing else is done. Get that righteous indignation off your chest and go about your business.
Meanwhile, in the corridors of power, the party line remains intact. "Corporations know what is best for the consumer. It's in their best interest." And the other party line, "Anyone against DRM only wants to steal copyrighted material."
And what exactly are *you* doing to change that opinion? Nothing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Licensing agreement? We ain't got no agreement. We don't need no agreement. I don't have show you any stinkin' agreements!
What's "representative" about the FCC? It's a bunch of unelected beaurocrats with nothing better to do. Seriously, how much effort does it take to manage the radio spectrum for the US, particularly now that it's pretty much all been doled out? A couple of guys with a decent software application?
Do you have ESP?
> Does power corrupt or does power attract the corruptible?
Everyone is corruptible in one way or another... However, it is still a good question. I believe that both are true, but not universal and not always intentional. For many, the desire to help others grows into an arrogance that leads them to believe they must force people into behaving in a way that is acceptable to the corrupted individual. The whole "Politically Correct" bullshit was started with good intentions but led to people trying to curtail free speech. The war in Iraq could very well have been intended as protection from attack, but its actual effect has been a decrease in protection.
It stops the people who buy on iTunes from creating mash-ups of the songs they purchased, and it prevents "just anyone" from selling their music on the accepted marketplace. (the iTunes Music Store) ... those are the features of DRM that the music industry is truly interested in, despite their claims about it "preventing piracy".
I don't have a problem with DRM, I buy tones of music online legally using Itunes. What I have a problem with is the government being more concerned about inititaives that help corperations than they are about things like public saftey, education, and healthcare. Why does the government waste time and money endorsing and legislating DRM and other crap when they could be acctually be helping the PEOPLE they were ellected to represent. Let corporations use all the DRM they want, customers will either accept it or stop buying there crap, but don't waste taxpayer money trying to force feed us DRM.
How about firing her for abusing her position of public trust? She's not busy enough regulating porn, stopping municipal WiFi, dropping barriers to media monopolies, breaking up the Internet into multiple telco fiefdom "tiers"...
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
--
make install -not war
That's sort of a "chicken and the egg" question, but I think that those who actively seek power are of two casts generally:
1) Those who want the leverage to change the world in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
2) Those who want to benefit themselves in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
In many cases, the line between the two is very fine since most people believe that what will benefit them will benefit society in general. It's what you do when you know they're in conflict that defines your character and your ability to recognize they're in conflict that defines your wisdom.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So where is the evidence that TV broadcasts and people videoing TV shows ever ruined the media giants?
TV still exists, Hollywood exists and Disney etc are larger than ever. So there is no need to restrict people left right and center. In fact it's all theory that people who have "pirate" media would have purchased it had they not been able to pirate it. The pirate market is seen at possible growth and revenue when in fact many people pirate it either because they can't afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money on the media in the first place.
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
When was the last time Congress allowed itself to be bound by Article I, Section 8? 95% of the US Code and nearly all of the Federal Register is in violation of that section. Thanks, FDR!
By implementing DRM but also copyrighting, they take something extra that wasn't theirs (a collection of copyright-related laws and use of the courts to enforce them), without the exchange: giving the content to the public domain in 90 years. It's something for nothing, taken from us at our expense, without us having the option to opt out of subsidizing copyright enforcement.
That's what's not to like.
If a content producer doesn't like the quid-pro-quo deal that copyright offers, then they are free to keep their content a secret and not distribute it. Or they're free to negotiate whatever non-disclosure contract (and technical enforcement mechanisms (DRM)) with their customers that they want to. But the flip side is that they shouldn't be granted copyright, shouldn't have Senator Disney trying to create criminal penalties or other special laws governing that contract, etc. They shouldn't be able to fraudulently misrepresent a shadowy "license" transaction -- where the customer doesn't even know he's entering into an implicit contract where the terms are not even disclosed to him -- as a sale of goods.
When the retail transaction of buying a non-DRM paper book, versus "buying"(?) DRMed media, becomes different so that the customers can see what their getting into (e.g. he is asked to sign a contract before walking out of the store), then perhaps DRM will no longer look like fraud or a desperate attempt to avoid market forces.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Can't have that. That would be free market capitalism. That's un-American.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.