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.'"

22 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    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.

    Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.

    1. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by Pichu0102 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

      Anybody got a country CD from Sony with the rootkit still on it? ;)

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    4. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does power corrupt or does power attract the corruptible?

    5. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by autOmato · · Score: 4, Funny

      My fired?

    6. Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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").
  2. Don't they have bigger issues to worry about? by gasmonso · · Score: 4, Funny

    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/
    1. Re:Don't they have bigger issues to worry about? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny
      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!!

      I second that motion!

      More b00b1ez and naughty words are exactly what we need! And we're long overdue for them, I say.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Not really news (fortunately) by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


    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

    1. Re:Not really news (fortunately) by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting
      the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter
      Yet. And the federal government has no authority to raise drinking ages to 21, or to mandate a 70 mph nationwide speed limit, and yet they have done so (albiet indirectly).

      The FCC does have a lot of power, especially for an organization who's original intent was simply to allocate RF spectrum. They could force DRM in other ways, or could decide that DRM was not outside the FCC's authority after all -- or perhaps Congress could decide that it should be under their authority. Who knows? As long as this is a hobby of hers, I won't complain, but I hope it remains so.

      As for her `love of country music' being what led her to this, well, how many cds (probably not copy protected, I might add) and records/tapes (not even digital, so DRM does not apply) did the RIAA have to give her/sell to her to bring her to this conclusion? How many hours of listening to the radio (no DRM, but under the FCC's juristiction) did it take to realize these two loves of country music and DRM?

      Or was it satellite radio that lead her to this? DRMed, and under the FCC's juristiction, but it's that DRM (encryption) that causes the FCC to lighten up on them a bit and allow swearing and such?

    2. Re:Not really news (fortunately) by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  4. Me too! by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. DRM isn't to prevent piracy by Coopjust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. metablogging? by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Extremely unethical by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. I found helpful in the past, with the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:The Market Has The Biggest Bull Pulpit by gowen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right. Because the market has never had a bad idea forced on it by legislation. Did the "market" decide that it wanted the DMCA?

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  10. Pragmatically... by ghostlibrary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Antiquated technologies? by everphilski · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  12. DRM and the US Constitution by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ).

  13. Re:DRM leads to monopolies on... everything. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The result is a complete monopoly for established companies.
    Not quite, because you're talking about multiple companies. The word you're looking for is "cartel," or perhaps "trust" (in the sense of "anti-trust law"). Brings a new meaning to the phrase "trusted computing," doesn't it?
    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz