Slashdot Mirror
Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders
mjdroner writes "ZD-Net has the latest on a sweeping telecom bill in the Senate. The bill provides no support for net neutrality. The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts. The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."
send rational letters and email to your reps; not that they will listen, but so they know folks are paying attention. -dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Every time this legislation comes up it gets thrown out. Why doesn't the MPAA embrace technology rather than buying off Congressmen and sneaking this line item into every damn piece of proposed legislation?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
to keep buying congresspeople off. If they keep trying one day they will win.
Vote in a Democratic Congress this fall.
The President will veto anything they put together and they'll refuse to pass anything the president tries to put through.
With luck, we won't have any more new laws until 2008.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
My question to you would be: why would the MPAA embrace technology, when instead they can just buy off Congressmen and sneak this line item into every damn piece of proposed legislation?
Sure, it hasn't passed so far. All they have to do is keep trying.
When I was getting a capture card just for composite video I simply gave up on finding one that didn't respect macrovision. I've got some tapes that aren't out on dvd that I'd like to use, and I had to buy a box (I got a time base corrector) to capture them.
So if/when this passes, expect new tuner cards to have broken drivers. There will probably be a way around it, but the casual user will be unable to build/buy a unencumbered dvr.
Man, you really need that seminar!
"It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, consumer groups and local government," [Senator Stevens] said.
Oh, I know this one... it attempts to strike a balance, but it doesn't try too hard.
Or was it... when you stack fifty blocks on one side of the balance, you only have to stack one block on the other side as long as it's fifty times as far away.
Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.
If you don't want this, vote straight Libertarian this election and every election thereafter.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
You don't worry about the future much, do you?
There is not much you can do about the future. They keep heaping shit on you until you die. That is just the way it is. The likely hood that they would be able to pass such a thing is minimal. And if they do there is no way they would go door to door searching for such things. And they sure as hell would not REPLACE them, the costs would be to much.
The article itself is not much more than a troll.
They agree you should be able to, but they want to be able to monitor it, and charge you for it.
That's what the history books will record. Corporate interests stifled freedom and creativity so much that the companies pushing this CRIPPLED new technology actually were not able to find buyers and more and more ANALOG-based innovation continued.
... UNLESS THEY GIVE ME AN EXTRA DEVICE FOR FREE. WHEN THE MPAA PROVIDES MY FLATSCREEN, TUNER, AND PVR AND ALL SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE, I'LL GLADLY ACCEPT THEIR CONTENT UNDER THEIR TERMS.
Expect to see more digital-to-analog converters, more people paying *LESS* to get ANALOG cable TV, more people less willing to pay extra for HDTV, more people happy to have analog-based PVRs and not have their recorded sports games automatically erased, or see messages from pay movie channels that state this content cannot be recorded.
I, for one, am in NO HURRY WHATSOEVER to purchase any digital tv devices.
We need a cool catchy name for Analog TV - something like Fair use TV or unencumbered TV.
We need a crummy name for HDTV - something like Restricted use TV.
The MPAA is ready to fall on their swords for forced digital rights - they seem to not see any way to profit that doesn't involve controlling every device between them and me. I'll be damned if I'm going to give up control of my devices to the MPAA or RIAA.
Libertarianism, like communism before it, is an ideology that sounds great on paper but is worthless in the real world.
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would insert all kinds of special provisions that would benefit some group at the expense of others, all kinds of new technology would become illegal, and lawsuits would proliferate. Who knows what would happen, the point is that when congress acts on technology (eg. the DMCA) they are likely to create a huge mess and things better be PRETTY DAMN bad before Congress can do more good than harm.
I hate to say this, But the end is near for media as we know it. This will eventually pass. And when it does pass, then it gives ground for breakage of the Sony vs Paramount law that allowed us to have a Betamax or VHS deck in our homes. Once they can successfully get that law overturned, then anyone caught with contraband such as recorded movies on tapes, or disks that are not commerially produced, will be subject to jail time and a substantial monitary damage award. If you think things are bad now, wait until they mandate that all "grandfathered" commercially produced media is now illegal to own or posess, and that you are required to deliver that material to a drop off site for recycling. Oh; and you don't get reimbersed for the money you spent on it either.
Just remember;
You voted these bozo's into office in the first place.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Thinking about voting Libertarian? Check out Critiques of Libertarianism before you drink the cool-aide
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, but, only on 'blessed' hardware sold to you by the corporations....and should these store bought appliances allow you to do so, under full DRM, then yes you can do it. I would, however, be a bit apprehensive that you would be allowed to do that with your store bought hardware. And do remember, it will be against the DMCA to hack around this.
Of course this completely wipes out the the DIY market....a good MythTV box would be great for what you want to do, but alas....it will be against the law to sell you hardware you could build yourself to do what you want...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I haven't been able to find any constitutional right to bear digital recording devices, but I'm still looking... I'll get back to you if I find anything.
The constitution is not an inclusive list of our rights. It's an allow,deny policy in that unless it denies you something then you have the right to it. Digital recording devices and privacy are NOT in the constitution or amendments therefore no one has the right to restrict your usage of it.
Your thinking is precisely why the likes of Alexander Hamilton rejected the bill of rights (Federalist #84):
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
Since you're obviously not alone and there have been countless instances of the constitution being understood to be inclusive (see the whole civil rights movement and women's suffrage for two examples) then it is clear to me that Hamilton was entirely correct, and that saddens me so.
Congratulations, it's people like you and people that think like you, that are continually eroding our freedoms & rights. Not just unstated freedoms & rights, but even the named ones. Pretty much pick an amendment that deals with rights and you can easily find governmental erosion of it.
:wq
No idea why this was modded "funny", the guy makes a very insightful point. Without basic protections, we'd be free at the whim of the government. When the people have those basic protections however, the government governs at the whim of the people. The difference is profound.
Note to those who don't get it: you don't get it. That's fine, but you're wrong.
I don't mean to troll, but it seems to me that if the MPAA and RIAA had their way, we wouldn't listen to music or watch tv at all. At least not in the manner to which we've become accustomed.
Why would I bother buying an expensive recorder if it couldn't record all of the content I might like to record? Why would I watch tv or listen to the radio if I couldn't later share the experience with friends and family?
And I'm less likely to watch tv in the first place if I can't share a funny clip with friends later. Take the Simpsons, for example. Often times I'll want to replay a clip of Homer doing something stupid for a friend. But if the MPAA has their way, I wouldn't be able to do this.
Or take talk radio. My wife and I were riding along listening to talk radio when a traffic situation caused her to focus on the road. So naturally, she's lost a little bit of context and remarked that she'd like to rewind the radio to catch what she missed. Of course, you can't do this now with a car stereo, nor will you ever if the RIAA has their way.
I've noticed that my media consumption habits have changed. It used to be that I would buy several CD's a year; I don't think I've bought one in the last two years. Yes, I suppose I could easily bypass the copy protection, but why bother. If the record label is such a jerk that they attempt to keep control of what I now rightfully own, then they can keep their shiny plastic and I'll keep my money. No sense in encouraging scumbags anyway.
And why would I bother paying Hollywood for movies that I won't be able to enjoy in the future? My uncle has a few thousand decaying VHS tapes which he won't be able to play 10 years from now. And of course, with the DRM on DVDs and thanks to the DMCA, when DVDs are obsolete, you will lose your investment. At least my uncle could copy VHS to DVD. But how long would that last when the next generation players enforce DRM?
So I've kind of given up on Hollywood and Big Music. It seems that they've become to wrapped up in their own hubris to realize that crippling content doesn't add to the value of the product. And yet, their stockholders continue to buy the old mantra, "Piracy is killing our business..." It's not piracy - it's lack of value. Why would a consumer buy something they legally can't own? The **AAs haven't figured out the American vision of entertainment is much different from their own. Americans:
By contrast, the RIAA and MPAA envision this model of consumer enjoyment:
So, even those of us who would be otherwise honest must face a decision:
So, is tv relevant anymore? Not when I can't enjoy it. Same for music and video - I'm enjoying public domain works now and independent stuff that I glean from the Net. Yes, I can afford to pay for my content, but why would I pay if I can't own it anyway?
The RIAA/MPAA can't seem to understand that individual ownership and the rights that come with it are a fundamental part of selling content. If you don't want to give up control, don't sell the content.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As long as the new cards being sold are compliant the MPAA will be happy. The old ones will break or become obsolete soon enough. If they're smart they'll make it a felony to buy or sell these and troll on ebay.
I'm sure there will be a way around it. Driver mods or offshore software. That doesn't mean it isn't evil.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I recently went 3 years with no tv / movies. It was fine. Now I watch some tv, but mostly just in the background while I read or play games. It's pretty easy to live without TV. The wierdest part was not knowing any of the common cultural references. People would talk about shows or commercials and I'd not seen any of them.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Well they'll probably drop that part before final passage of the bill. That's the usual way they work.
Who needs'em anyhow, right? *sigh*
The internet has made the Independent music production market a level-playing field.
It has also made the Commercial music production industry work that much harder to produce music that doesn't suck. *obviously they are not up for such a challenge*
The commercial music industry (along with the movie industry) wants EVERYONE to think that piracy is KILLING them (like, physically, whhhhhaaaa), when in fact, it has nothing to do with piracy, it has to do with the quality of their product(s) *or lack thereof* that is killing them.
Since independent artists can't really afford to lobby these brain/heart-less politicians, we will now fall victim to the Commercial Industry's cut-throat lobbyist tactics.
This has nothing to do w/ preventing piracy, this has everything to do with preventing independent artists from continuing to compete with commercial artists.
Yet another reason to stop lobbyism in America!
#SGVLUG (irc.freenode.net)
so, even though people have been recording things on audio cassettes for decades, now that people are doing it digitally in smaller numbers (it takes some technical knowhow), all of a sudden they want to outlaw the recorders?
I think that copy protection schemes are overwhelmingly proving the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies by pushing more people into illegality. It seems like a great premise of the whole freedom thing is trusting people to do what's right in a situation, and not forcing them to do what is right by removing access to legitimate resources. Just my two cents.
You see, that's because fencing something off and keeping others from using it is not "initiation of force." It's a natural right to keep others from using something you own. So any force you use to protect your property is automatically "retaliatory force."
Hey, if I want to claim that I own all the air on the planet and suck it up into some kind of space hoover and charge all you poor suckers for breathing it, that's my right. And if you try to stop me you'll be commiting the cardinal sin of "initiating force."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A few more steps, and they will be on the dark side ...
This is a total joke. Almost ALL of the legislations that are proposed or pass the U.S. congress has something to do with 'copyright'. This is a total outrage. It seems like U.S. consists of nothing but copyright olders and the serfs who has to pay for their 'copy' 'rights'.
Somebody has to stop this.
Read radical news here
Vote in a Democratic Congress this fall.
You mean the same ones who tried to blokc a bill recently because it did not grant the FCC enough power to regulate telecom net neutrality issues? The same FCC that wants the broadcast flag (as evidenced by this bill).
The FCC should not have any more power, period. Vote for Senators who do not want to give the FCC power, REGARDLESS of what party they hail from.
Vote based on the individual, not the party.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And yet, even with the right to own guns, our situation shows that we are already at the whims of the feds.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No.
It's just that most people, even those who think this is important, don't think it's important enough to start a revolution over.
A while back I read a study reported on in the economist, that looked at what the effects of the legislative branch being controlled by one party and the executive branch by another. The only legislation that it curtailed were big controversial changes (say socialisation of health care). However, it was also noticed that pork spending increased dramatically, apparently because it was used as a bargaining chip to get one side to agree to the others legislation. I'll post a link to the study later if I can find it.
Furthermore, both parties are on the side of increasingly stringent "intellectual property" legisation. They are both in favor of continually increasing penalties in general, to appear "tough on crime", without concern for making the punishment match the crime, or the diminishing returns on decreasing crime. They both are in favor of throwing our rights away to "protect us from terrorism". They are both in favor of huge pork spending that benifits the industries in the area.
I am not saying that both parties are the same - they are vastly different in many of their views. But in the areas where they do differ, there is rarely enough support to bring those ideas to fruition, so the differences have less practical effect then you would think. It is the areas that they agree that have the biggest effects on our lives, and their views in those areas are frightening.
The answer is to get more third party candidates that have respect for our rights elected into congress. Speaking of which, Michael Badnarik is running for congress and has a decent chance of winning. Who is elected to congress effects us all, and he could certainly use some help letting the people of his district know what he stands for.
Now I'll be the first to tell you that I don't agree with the libertarians on everthing, and the idea of a government controlled entirely by libertarians is almost as frightening to me as the one we have now. But I also know that's not going to happen overnight. What matters in a candidate is not thier idea of the perfect government - what matters is what direction they are going to take us in over the next 4 years. I may not like the libertarian's final destination, but compared to the major parties, I love the direction they're going, and I have no problem riding that train till it's time to jump off.
From now on I'm voting for every third party candidate I can find that supports my rights, regardless of thier views on social spending, regulation or anything else, because if we loose our rights then none of that other stuff will matter.
Sigh. Except that imbalances of power are not addressed in the libertarian ideology. So market forces would lead to the concentration of power, which would skew market forces and raise barriers of entry in all markets, which would lead to more concentration of power and so forth. Content owners have a right under libertarian philosophy to protect their content. They have a right to collude with content distributors and electronics manufacturers however they like. And those rights, unregulated by government, would lead to a situation where all the most popular content is protected.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Look on ebay for the Truevision Targa cards, :D
Targa 2000 Pro, 2000 DTX, 2000 RTX, and even the Targa 3000 *even better but not cheep. full edit, and has mpeg2 and dv codecs on board*
At the risk of veering off topic, YOU don't get it. Your electronics have a life of about 3 years. In a consumer society it doesn't matter what bizarre protections gun nuts have rigged up to protect stop the feds they have to venture out once in a while. Unless you stand up for free speech, and free information (as in beer) you will find your choices severely limited when you do leave your compound.
cogito ergo oro
They already did it: Abortion
- Oklahoma.
- Waco.
- Montana.
- Colorado bombs.
- Utah bombs.
- Anthrax Attacks (via our own military personel).
- doubtful, but possible, with the D.C. sniper.
In light of the above, and what the patriot act is about as well as what not about, I would suggest that at least one revolution by patriots, is underway.I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think that you're severely underestimating the power of an armed populace. I'm going from memory, but I believe that the number of actual guns in circulation is around 200-250 million, with only about 25% of the US population owning them. If you add all military and police enlistments, you'll come up with no more than 4 million.
Now, if it really came down to it, assuming all of the military/police sided with the government, the people could lose 10 to 1 and still win. And if you think that all of the military/police would stay on board when they were attacking the whole of the American populace, you don't know the military guys that I know.
Nope, to take over America, the first thing that will have to be done is to disarm them, but that's going to be harder today than it was 10 years ago.
Where do you get this peculiar notion that copyright lasts one hundred years? Are you daft? That would be ridiculous! No self-respecting artist would allow their work to be held for that long.
No, my friend, copyright has an unknown duration with a theoretical maximum of about two hundred years. Now _that's_ a monopoly guaranteed to make me get out there and produce! Why, if I knew that my as-yet unborn children's children's children might find themselves unable to live off of my work, I daresay I'd be heartbroken and unable to write a single line of code. But security in the knowledge that my descendants out to six generations or so will be able to collect the non-existent royalties off my outdated work is truly inspiring!
Dyolf Knip