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.'"
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes me nervous when the government and its actors role play about technology and how it should be meted out. Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is radio spectra.
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:
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
But it should be up to the companies themselves whether to use it or not. Having a government-defined standard is also a good idea and adds to the competitiveness of the DRM provider marketplace.
Shouldn't the FCC focus on bigger issues like boobs indiscriminately appearing on the Super Bowl. Or how about shock jocks saying naughty words on the radio. Geez, stay focused FCC!!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Just so long as you remember this:
she knows its outside the FCC's authority
In other words, have any hobby you like. Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag (PDF warning).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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;
I just sent an email to Commissioner Tate:
Dear Commissioner Tate,
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
I've just gotten a job with the Department of Motor Vehicles, and while I know it's normally outside the DMV's jurisdiction, I'm a big fan of the death penalty for grouse hunters, hockey players, and Girl Scouts, and will use all my resources my new job to bully others into furthering my agenda.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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
Publicly admitting an intention to abuse a relatively high-ranking public position to further a personal agenda should be ground for dismissal.
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
The FCC periodically appears to do bad things. The best solution I've found is to write Congress and protest the FCC's BUDGET. Congress won't address individual issues, or FCC decisions. However, Congress controls the FCC budget. I and others have made complaints to Congress, in that the FCC has too large a budget, as their people have time/resources to do bad things, and a LARGE budget reduction is in order. Furthermore, the monies from the reduction can be redirected elsewhere. Congress has been previously persuaded by this type or argument. Therefore, if Ms. Tate is so over-paid and under-worked that she can be on a "Bully Pulpit" for DRM, then the FCC's budget is in serious need of reduction! I know, that Congress little regards it's constituants, but, constituant supported reasons to reduce agency budgets and use the money else where appears to resonate.
Technology has completely replaced EVERYTHING that the FCC is mandated to regulate
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?
HAM and CB are both still useful technologies. Look no further than your favorite natural disaster to see HAMs at work helping organize efforts when all your high-tech technological solutions have broken down. They ARE pushing to force a change to all-digital TV, but there are still a whole lot of analog TV's out there. You propose forcing the entire population to go out and buy new sets to fit with your idiotic view of how the spectrum should be used. Don't you think THAT would be benefitting the manufacturers of TVs more than anyone else?
If you don't regulate the spectrum, all that will happen is companies will build devices to stomp all over each others' devices. 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.
(1) - not that I believe their monitoring is right, but it's what they do, and technology sure hasn't changed that in any way.
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.
Dear Madame,
The FCC was originally set up to regulate the Radio airwaves. Then you took it upon yourselves to regulate the TV broadcast spectrum. Following that, you decided that censoring programs was within your mandate as well. (Lets ignore all the 1st amendment issues right now).
Now you have decided to enter the fray on the side of DRM. Either pro or Con, this should be a completely business decision. There is nothing that needs regulating via the FCC with regards to DRM.
I respectfully request that you and your fellow commissioners keep your noses out of this. The majority of us are quite sick and tired of the FCC trying to expand your mandate coverage. It is and has not been welcome.
Sincerely,
The government is the real danger of DRM... any kind of Digital Rights Management will be easily circumvented. Sometimes it is only a matter of days before hobbiests are able to break DRM on a product.
The danger comes from when the government starts arresting people who post DRM circumventing software on their website... or mandates that DRM must be built into hardware (it is very easy for hobbiests to distribute software to the people, but not hardware)... Or prohibits public libraries from circumventing protection.
If companies want to use DRM, so be it. That should not be where we focus our attention... because DRM is a joke. We need to stop the government from enforcing DRM at all costs!
DRM is a noose around the neck of anyone who believes in freedom.
Why is that the case? DRM is merely the practice of an individual business creating a product with limitations. Freedom doesn't mean pro-consumer.
In a free market, DRM is acceptable as long as the laws aren't preferential for those who create content over those who buy content.
No DRM is acceptable in a free market so long as it is not mandatory and it is clearly communicated to the public. A big "DRM" sticker with an explaination of the restrictions is more aligned with the free market than banning the use of DRM features. Let the mega corps put all the rootkits and spyware on their CDs and DVDs, but include a clear explaination of how it limits the rights of the consumer, so that the free market can decide. If people still want to buy the latest pop CD even though they can't run it on their computer, then that is their perogative in a free market.
I'm a firm anti-copyright believer, I see no reason for copyright anymore now that information is so readily available (high supply, low demand, zero price).
You are talking about information distribution, not the generation of information. Information is actually high demand and high price for the first copy. The problem we face today is that in the digital age we have been able to seperate information from media. We are still trying to find ways to reconcile the high investment price for information creation, with the low distribution price.
Copyright is not the answer as it has become outdated, but at the same time there is no good answer yet. In fact, DRM is a short term "answer" by the free market as an alternative to suing all copyright infringers.
Repeal of copyright would accelerate businesses finding a solution, however, the destabilizing effect on the economy short-term would be devastating. Copyrights should be becoming more restrictive for the content creation (eg require registration, shorter protection times in line with faster distribution in the modern era, etc.), to encourage an evolutionary change to a different strategy rather than something revolutionary.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
They did side with the consumer, when they fined Janet Jackson for exposing her crusty 50 year old boob on public tv.
analog TV, radio, HAM, CB, and other ancient/antiquated technologies
You have no idea how much the airwaves actually are used by mission critical systems, do you? Wireless is the future, not the past. Analog TV is still in full force in many areas where cable still isn't available (including my childhood home). HAM and CB are far from antiquated and are still used in full force. I'm sorry if you don't use them. HAM's pay for licenses which goes to the FCC and CB's are low power transmitters operating on a very small frequency range.
The point is there needs to be designated ranges, otherwise you will have Joe Ham who will stick his 1KW transmitter too close to the operating range of something important - say the transponder of a cell tower (900 MHz) and disrupt cell service. For example. There needs to be regulated bandwidths.
You have it all wrong anyways - they are actually generating money for the government. About 1 penny of your taxes goes to fund them, but then they turn around and generate multi-billion dollars of revenue. reference. Their budget for 2006 is $304M, all but $4.8M comes from regulatory fees. And they generate $26.8B for uncle Sam through auctioning off freed up frequencies.
It confuses (but does not surprise) me that the FCC has turned into what it is today. 25 years ago, the FCC was there to allow an equal opportunity for all voices to be heard. They promoted diversified holdings of news publications and broadcasting stations. Most of this media is now concentrated in the hands of 7 or so major companies. Who would have though that having a multitude of voices heard would mean the revealing of scandal, criticism of the government, and questioning of special interests. If the FCC is so concerned with keeping the airwaves clean for the populous, they could start by revoking Pat Robertson's non-profit status for the Christian Broadcasting Network. The personal views of an individual shouldn't influence the job they are trusted and expected to perform. If they have a conflict of interest, they should resign. DRM is a fact, and its future will be determined by the companies who implement it and the users who will accept it. In the mean time, our friends at the FCC should realize that citizens don't pay taxes with the intention of it being used for them to shoot-the-$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."
I just sent a professional - but also nasty gram over to her @
:)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/mail.html
Feel free to do the same
The protection of DRM by the goverment (From FCC regulation or DMCA type laws) is at odds with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
This clause lets the government assign exclusive rights of a work for a limited amount of time (to encourage science and art).
Currently, No DRM has an expiration or time limits of any kind, so by protecting or mandating DRM, the government is in effect allowing exclusive rights of a work and unlimited amount of time ( with no regard to the effect of this on art and science ).
"The market will decide what succeeds or fails" is a silly tautology, "the market" is just a personification of such decisions after the fact.
"The market will decide what is good" is false; the market makes dumb, short-sighted decisions all the time. The market doesn't care about "good" the market cares about "profitable", in the very short term.
"The market" is just the collective decisions of lots of people, deciding things for various reasons, presumably including the FCC commisioners endorsement of an idea. So implying it doesn't matter if the FCC commisioner steps outside her authority to push a particular idea because "The market will decide", is crazy. The market is deciding; Government officials using their offices to push something, and others calling them on it is part of that process.
DRM will succeed if it is profitable for device/content creators in the very short term. If the next gen of DVD players is the only way to watch movies for even a short period, people will take it's cumbersomeness as unavoidable and we'll be stuck with it forever.
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's referencing a Techdirt rumor article, which in turn only cites a random blogger who appears to have made the claim without any attribution at all. My BS detector is going off big-time. It *is* /. though: should I have that fixed?
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!
Humm... dubya appoints another well meaning but totally unqualified hack. If I support family vlaues can I haev a cushy goberment job tu.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
In this case, I totally agree with the FCC Commissioner.
Everyone should get DRM set up as soon as possible.
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".
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
As background, there are 5 Commissioners, 1 of which is designated as the Chairperson by the President and only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.
If she actually does follow through on pushing for DRM, it means at least 4 other people + Pres. Bush (actually, whichever people he has advising him on the matter) don't care if she spouts off.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
No, what it says is that even though you have the right to keep this work secret, you don't own it. Under current copyright laws, you have been granted (by the government, and by extension the public) the sole right to duplicate the work, but you still don't own the work. Once your government provided duplication right has expired, then everyone receives duplication rights (note that the ownership of the work has never changed, merely the right to duplicate).
Whether or not they choose to exercise the right to duplicate is up to them (just as it would be up to you for your hidden work). If they ever gave someone a copy though, then they would have no way of preventing that person from further copying the work.
There is no "intellectual property". You can't "own" a creative work(because property is inheritly tangible in nature).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
it's always a fine result when politically driven beaurocrats decide what's best for us.
there should be at least 5 incompatable standards for DRM, so the consumer can choose how they get maximumly screwed out of what they bought.
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
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.