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
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!
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.
They agree you should be able to, but they want to be able to monitor it, and charge you for it.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.