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."

Comments

freaking MPAA

[kimvette]

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?

Re:freaking MPAA

[enitime]

Because if they lose, they can always try again.

Laws don't get repealed. They only need to win once.

Re:freaking MPAA

[Random Utinni]

The problem as I see it is twofold:

First, the system we have tends to a two-party system. The problem is that there are more than two issues. So in voting for any candidate, you are forced to prioritize the issues, and vote for the candidate that represents your viewpoint on the issues most important to you. The downside is that smaller issues, which may still be *very* important, will often fall by the wayside. With multi-party systems, there is enough choice and variation in candidates, that you can find someone who matches your views and priorities fairly closely, and that candidate will still have a decent chance of getting elected. In the U.S., we don't have that, and it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Second, we have the problem of interest groups. Normally, it's not a problem. The idea behind special interests is that you may have a group of people for whom a particular issue is *very* important. Since the group isn't large enough numerically to influence election outcomes (due to problem #1, above), they lobby the elected official to try and persuade that official of the merits of their cause. The problem is that the only people joining special interest groups are the small special interests. The vast majority of the population got left behind in the program. If you're an elected official, the only people talking to you are the special interest groups... so after awhile you begin to believe them; there's no one out there arguing the other side. It's the joy of what's called "the silent majority".

So, what's to be done? Well, for starters, we need to provide an alternate viewpoint in government. The easiest way to do this is to contact your local representative or senator. They *do* respond. Even if it's only a form letter from a staffer. I know, I used to be one. Don't try email campaigns... they don't get any real respect (too easy to automate). Letters and phone calls do work; what's required is volume. If enough people show an interest, your rep's *will* listen.

Second, we could try to start our own lobbying group. Give a concentrated voice to the technically literate population... someone to say "I represent 10^N voters in your state who all feel very strongly about X". Any takers? Let me know.

Bill again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders

Is there anything Bill wouldn't either outlaw or make compulsory? I'm getting really sick of that guy.

New equipment for free?

[slashname3]

So the FCC is going to replace my mythtv box with a new system? Are they planning to do this just after they confiscate all the firearms from the public?

Re:New equipment for free?

[slashname3]

If/when they come knocking on my door looking for my mythtv box they will wish they had confiscated the guns first. Without doing that first it will be much more dangerous to try and confiscate the electronics.

Re:New equipment for free?

[MasterC]

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.

Re:Simple solution...

[kaufmanmoore]

The **AA pays the dems off too.

Re:Simple solution...

[Wylfing]

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 don't know if this was meant to be funny, even though it is and got modded that way, but it is also in fact quite perceptive. This is the way things are supposed to work in the USA. The government is supposed to be bogged down in all kinds of inefficienes so that they are too sluggish to impose any tyranny over the people. Any government naturally attracts the power-hungry. The neat trick here is that we make it hard for them to actually get anything accomplished.

ridiculous

[UltraAyla]

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.

Preferential Voting

[wall0159]

I think you missed the benefits of 'preferential voting'. Essentially it means:

'I'll vote for this guy, but if he doesn't get in then
I'll vote for her, but if she doesn't get in then
I'll vote for them.. etc'

To use an example from the previous US election, one could vote for (say) Ralph Nader, but preference John Kerry. (Yeah, yeah, so I'm left-of-centre). With preferential voting, you're not wasting your vote, even though Nader will probably not get in. Rather, you're sending Kerry a message that you don't really approve of his policies, but just prefer him to the Other Guy. The crux is, that your vote still goes to Kerry.

Another benefit, is that minor parties can allocate their own preferences. So one could just vote for (say) Nader, and he could negotiate his preferences with the major parties. This would give him leverage in the policy development of the major parties in the lead-up to the election. It also makes people more inclined to vote for minor parties, because they know it's not a 'wasted vote'.

That's the system we have in Australia, and I think it works really well. I think it's absolutely essential if we're to encourage multiple parties (even if they're minor parties).