Slashdot Mirror


Broadcast Flag Sneaking in the Back Door

ZeissIcon writes "Public Knowledge.org is reporting that the oft-defeated broadcast flag DRM scheme is being sneaked into Senator Steven's Telecommunications bill. Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill, and making no exceptions for fair use, this particular version calls for an Audio Broadcast Flag that would affect digital and satellite radio as well. The bill goes to committee on Thursday, so there is still time for public comment."

29 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously... by demongeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aside from the fact that it has no business being in that bill

    Obviously you must be new here...

    1. Re:Obviously... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Obviously you must be new here...

      Because I'm not - and I hope no one else is - surprised in the least. I'm actually surprised it's attached to a telecommunications bill at all. I expected that the oft-defeated broadcast flag would be snuck through in a farm bill, or a bill that feeds homeless children (you wouldn't vote against a bill that feeds homeless children!!)

      Washington sucks. Once an idea is shot down, it shouldn't be legal to attach it to another bill. Why did line-item veto's fail again?

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    2. Re:Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Why did line-item veto's fail again?

      Because in a "Feeding Homeless Children Act," the broadcast flag provision wouldn't be the line veto'd.
    3. Re:Obviously... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well what would be better was if the Constitution just specified that all legislation on a bill had to contribute to a single core purpose, and that the purpose couldn't be overly vague (to keep the purpose of every bill from being "Making the United States a Better Place"). That way the Supreme Court would have the ability to just delete anything that got attached to a bill that it wasn't supposed to have been attached to. It wouldn't solve the problem altogether (and might make it worse -- politicians would just take lots of crap on and let the courts figure it out), but it wouldn't hand that much extra power to the Executive.

      I guess at the end of the day it just depends: would you rather give more power to the President or to the Justices? Historically, the latter seems to have made a lot less total boners, but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

      I also think that the USSC should have automatic review of all new laws passed, without having to wait for a challenge case, but that's a separate issue.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    4. Re:Obviously... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why did line-item veto's fail again?
      Well, it's actually a pretty funny story.

      Remember, the line-item veto was part of the Republican "Contract with America" back in '94, I think. It was going to control spending by giving the Executive branch some control over congressional spending. Personally, I thought this was funny. It was essentially the Republicans playing the pitiful role of the serial killer pleading with the cops to make him stop. "Please! Stop us before we spend again!"

      It passed easily, once Republicans had control of the House and Senate. It was signed into law by President Clinton. However, the first time he used it, the Republicans whose spending additions got dinged immediately ran to the Supreme Court to petition that the line-item veto--that they voted for--was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed and struck it down.

      This is why I laughed when President Bush mentioned the line-item veto recently, since it was his party that brought it up initially, passed it into law, and had it struck down.
    5. Re:Obviously... by trickonion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Okay, here is something like this in action. I live in WA state, and I love to read constitutions (yes yes my state is the one that make online poker illegal, regardless).
      Refer to our constitution here, specifically section 19
      http://www.courts.wa.gov/education/constitution/in dex.cfm?fa=education_constitution.display&displayi d=Article-02

      SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

      that's the good shit maynard, some congressman with some balls needs to make that Amendment 28 (after pinning some stupid shit to the proposed amendment, cause Washington appretiates irony)

      --
      I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
  2. According to this article... by GonzoTech · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... As DC Circuit Judge pointed out at oral argument, the broadcast flag regulation would give the FCC the authority to regulate washing machines, if they were connected to a home network.

    So I won't have to do laundry anymore? Why is this a bad thing?

    I'm all about pushing this bill through now!

    --
    "Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."
    1. Re:According to this article... by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're unduly optimistic. They would mandate laundry, and if the far-lefties got in charge, they'd mandate that we all do China's laundry in a poorly thought out effort to reverse past stereotypes.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:According to this article... by GonzoTech · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm very optimistic. Laundry would be mandated, yes.. but, once the liberals get us to the point of doing China's laundry, the conservatives will outsource it to India. Now that my friend, is optimism! I can see it now: India, home of the home network controlled laundr-o-mats!

      --
      "Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."
  3. How to tell when there is a problem... by dubmun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with our legal system: When random crap like this DRM can get implanted in the middle or a totally unrelated bill.

    Has anyone contemplated legislation to stop this from happening?

    --
    (end of post)
    1. Re:How to tell when there is a problem... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, because then they'd just sneak DRM into that bill too!

  4. Sneaking? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it was being snuck in how'd you all find out about it?

    " I would like to add an amendment to the bill, 100 million dollars for the perverted arts. ..."

    I say so what, let them pass it into law. Not letting people watch TV or listen to Radio can only server to raise the average national IQ. They should tack it into the next education bill, "No Child Left To Sit On His Behind"

    I don't give a fuck anymore if I can or can't Tivo "CSI: Des Moines" in 1080p resolution.

    But that's just one little bear's opinion.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  5. You know... by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, it would be nice, just once, for those we entrust with ensuring the country is run for the good of it's people actually worked for the people who vote for them, rather than constantly trying to sneak pieces of legislation into any bill they can in a bid to force it through because it is clearly so unpalatable to everyone else that every time anyone spots it in the wild they beat it to death and chuck it to the kerb?

    What must happen before the people we elect realise that when a piece of legislation is slapped down as often as this one has been, that the people don't want it, and that if the people don't want it, it shouldn't be a "tough shit, we'll just try again when you look the other way" thing? (and before you answer, I already know the answer - campaign 'donations' matching those the media companies chuck at them - when did democracy turning into 'the rule of those who can buy the elected rulers the biggest, most expensive lunch'?

    --
    Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    1. Re:You know... by wish+bot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Some of us - you know - need or expect some uninterrupted sleep after 11pm or before 7am without some random jock sawing up bits of steel outside our windows.

      It's because of inconsiderate yobs like you that these laws are passed in the first place. If you had an ounce of respect for anyone other than yourself, and maybe discussed or negotiated with your neighbours for the few days you felt possessed like a madman to be working on 'projects' in your yard before 7-fucking-am, then the world would be a better place with LESS restrictions.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  6. Mod parent up! by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As for legislation being introduced, the ruling party has no interest in introducing measures to curb it's own power, so I can't see how you'd get such a thing to pass.
    So, Party A passes a law to curb this ... and abides by that law.

    Eventually, Party B becomes the majority ... and they pass a law allowing it again.

    So ... because Party A was "good", they don't get all the benefits (attaching riders to unrelated bills to make campaign contributors happy) but they do get all the responsiblity.

    A two party system sucks. This will, eventually, always happen.
    1. Re:Mod parent up! by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, you need a supermajority, but not necessarily at the federal level. If you can get two thirds of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention, you can bring in an amendment in that way. This probably just requires a simple majority in at least 34 state houses. It would probably be a lot easier to conveince the state government to rein in the feds than to convince the feds to do it themselves....

      Just because it hasn't ever been done doesn't mean it can't or won't be done if the federal government takes things too far....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  7. Please Do Something About This Right Now! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Committee markup of this bill is on Thursday, and your
    Senator is on the Commerce Committee. One last push from
    you could get Congress to remove the entertainment industry
    mandates from the bill.

    IF YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES

    Please call your Senator (numbers below). Here's a sample
    script:

    STAFFER:
    Hello, Senator Lastname's office.

    YOU:
    Hi, I'm a constituent, and I'd like to let the Senator know
    that I don't think the broadcast and audio flag provisions
    belong in S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers Choice and
    Broadband Deployment Act. These are anti-consumer
    provisions, which would give the FCC far-reaching powers,
    and give the entertainment industry a dangerous veto over
    new technologies. I hope the Senator will insist on
    excluding these provisions on Thursday.

    STAFFER:
    Okay, I'll let the Senator know. Thanks.

    Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004
    John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235
    Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644
    Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253
    Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922
    Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
    John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244
    George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024
    John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841
    Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121
    David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623
    Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934
    John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472
    John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742
    Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553
    Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274
    Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441
    Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224
    E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551
    Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353

    IF YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE:

    Go to our Action Center, and send a letter to your Senator
    explaining why he or she should insist on the removal of the
    flags:
    <http://action.eff.org/site/Advocacy?id=223>

    Text of the Bill:
    <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s10 9-2686>

    To learn more about the broadcast flag:
    <http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag>

    To learn more about the audio flag:
    <http://www.eff.org/IP/digitalradio>

    From EFF

  8. Nothing short of a revolution by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing short of a revolution can change the status quo.

    The revolution must be then used to dump the current laws and remove those, who are currently in power, and update the constitution to include the new realities and possibilities and to prevent as much as possible of this degradation of human rights and of this invasion into individual freedoms.

    Of-course it is the most important job of the corrupt government to prevent such a shakeup by all possible means including dumbing down the population, removal of all individual rights and even responsibilities (those who understand their responsibilities also insist on their rights,) introduction of laws that take away all freedoms that really matter and nurturing the environment of conspicuous consumption, which is enough to satisfy the current bodily needs and to substitute any mental needs/activities.

    As it is right now television is great for mass control and the Internet is terrible at it. What the US government doesn't understand is that by creating tight regulations around usage of the TV programs, they are just pushing people to use more of what the Internet offers. If I was the government, who wanted to keep tight control over population, I would promote more cheap and accessible TV for everyone and would discourage usage of the Internet.

    Maybe the equation will balance itself out, or maybe those in power will try to control the Internet in the same manner as the TV (this will be much harder.)

    The Internet can lead to organization of opposition and may even be able to provide the means to conduct something of a revolution for the future generations.

  9. Re:You know what? by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, the public outnumbers congressmen around 525,000 to 1.

    Time for some civil disobedience. The jails can't hold all of us if we break this crap. Courts would be tied up for eons, putting precious patent cases on the back burner even if they DID start waving jail time. Citizens that actually have clout would get burned eventually.

    I'm getting very comfortable with the idea of letting Congress passing whatever crap the corporate culture pushes under their noses because eventually a substantial portion of the public will get pissed off and force them to change.

    To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."

  10. Re:Worst Congress Ever by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reform the process:

    1. Politicians salaries capped at the AVERAGE income of their consitituents. This way, its in their best interests to make sure that people have decent jobs, with decent incomes. Also, when a recession hits, they'll also feel some of the pain, instead of being insulated from it.
    2. Spending of $0.50/voter maximum for any election.
    3. No contributions from business.
    4. Maximum contribution of $1k/year from any voter, to be split among ALL contributions they make to all politicians.
    5. No more voter registration along party lines. Either you're elligible to vote, or not. Who you vote for, what party you want to be aligned with, etc., are all your own bloody business.
    6. Designate certain bills as "government confidence" votes. If the bill (budgets are good for this) isn't passed, the government falls, and a new election is held.
  11. You have your problems mixed up. by Stickerboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is that legislators work for only the people that vote for them, not the other way around. Are you the Senator from California, home of Hollywood? Gee, I wonder how you stand on extending copyright terms. The representative from Iowa? Please, don't surprise me on your position on increasing farm subsidies. A Congressman from Texas? What, you voted for tax breaks for energy companies? Shocking.

    You may find it absurd that anybody would support the oil companies (THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BRIBED!), but then have you lived in an oil-rich state? Some Representatives have the fortunes of large portions of their constituency revolve around those of the oil companies.

    It's called Bringing Home The Bacon. And that's exactly what most of those legislators were elected to do, and they are very, very good at it. Bring money to your district; keep money in your district; punish competitors in other districts/states/nations.

    The quid pro quo game, which allows everybody to Bring Home The Bacon, is why you get stupid crap like the broadcast flag inserted everywhere. If Senator Stevens can promise an appropriate number of other Senators that he'll vote for their own Bacon, eventually it'll get passed.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  12. Re:doesn't feel like it by Karl+J.+Smith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You may be kidding. I'm not. I've got lots of (legally purchased) games, movies, cds, etc. I looked at all the money I could be spending on a new HDTV, PS3, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD player, etc. They're all more hassle (due to DRM, crippled HDMI outputs, not-working-on-Linux, etc.) than fun for me at this point. After the Sony CD rootkit fiasco, I stopped buying Sony products. Even people I know with new Macs (that they like) are starting to complain that they're on machine #4 of 5 for their iTunes limit, and it seems like they didn't really buy any songs after all.

    My solution: I bought a skin-on-aluminum frame folding kayak instead. Geek factor - high. DRM factor -low. No monthly upgrades to keep track of. I can do anything I want to modify it without any silly broadcast flags. All fun.

    Congratulations media companies - you declared war on your paying customers and I surrendered. I won't buy your products any more, I'll do something else instead.

  13. Re:doesn't feel like it by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    And let that be a lesson to everyone to make sure you've checked the Post Anonymously box before you click submit.

  14. HOWTO: Call your Senator by Wylfing · · Score: 5, Informative
    I just did it. Here is the HOWTO:

    Step 1: Go to www.senate.gov and look up your 2 senators. There are 2, and you need to contact both of them.

    Step 2: I like to prepare for an important call by taking 3 deep breaths and reminding myself that I am in control. Sometimes I drink a shot of vodka, because I know I am little more loudmouthed that way, and in this case that is a good thing. (Trust me, my brother was a Senatorial aid for a long time. Loudmouths get attention.) These calls are actually extremely easy to make -- the aids get these kinds of calls all the time -- so there is really nothing to worry about, but I prepare anyway to make sure I am a calmer and/or prepared to be loudmouthed.

    Step 3: Make a note of the bill. In this case, it is S.2686. This is very important.

    Step 4: Make a note of why you are objecting/agreeing to the bill. In this case, you are objecting because there is a rider regarding the broadcast flag. That is all you need to say: "I object to this bill because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag." The good Senator will do the rest.

    Step 5: Dial the number of each Senator and an aid will answer, e.g., "Hello! Senator Kohl's office!" they will say in an alert-sounding voice. Your immediate response should be: "I am a long-time supporter of Senator X, but I would like to voice my objection to a bill that is before the Senate." It doesn't matter whether you have supported this Senator or not, just say that you did. Nobody knows -- it's an anonymous system.

    Step 6: State the name of the bill you are objecting to: "I am opposed to bill S.2686, because there is a rider having to do with the broadcast flag. I am very much opposed to that."

    Step 7: The aid will ask you for your name and address. The reason they do that is to verify whether you can actually vote for the good Senator or not (oddly Senate offices from, say, Texas get calls from Idaho, so they want to filter that). Give them accurate information. It's not a harm in this case.

    Step 8: Thank the aid for their help. They will probably thank you too.*

    Step 9: Bask in the knowledge that you helped democracy.

    *Despite the fact that the aids get 2,000 calls per day voicing all kinds of f'd up opinions, as long as yours is stated clearly and has specifically to do with a certain bill and this specific Senator, the aid will form an opinion about that bill, and will communicate that opinion to the Senator. I kid you not, this system works, just pick up the phone and call.

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
  15. Re:You know what? by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    To paraphrase Gandhi, "535 Congressmen and assorted CEOs cannot control 280 million Americans if those Americans refuse to cooperate."

    They can if they have control over a modern military with a few hundred thousand troops and lots of big guns.

    And don't give me that bullshit about how the military won't be willing to fire on its own civilians. Thousands of years of history have shown otherwise, and there's no reason at all to believe that the U.S. military is so special that it's an exception.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  16. Already There? by nurbles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I regularly use XP/MCE to record StarGate and DrWho on SciFi channel with no problem. A few weeks ago, Media Center stopped recording the first half of the DrWho season finale about 30 minutes into the episode. XP/MCE logged a reason of:

    Doctor Who was not recorded.
    Recording of this content is prohibited by the content provider.

    So far, that was the only episode this has happened with, but XP/MCE flatly refused to record the episode on any of its repeat airings, citing the same reason. Since then, XP/MCE has recorded the second half episode and some repeats without a problem. I'm wondering if this might've been a test of the infamous broadcast flag or if there's something worse afoot in the part of Microsoft that is beholden to the Hollywood Nazis.

  17. Bought and paid for by doodlebumm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Congress will never enact a line-item-veto, nor get rid of these attachments to bills. That is because they cannot guarantee to the corporations that buy them (the congressmen and senators) that they can get something passed. You can't line your pockets if you can't get elected. You can't get elected if you don't have campaign contributions. You can't get campaign funding if you can't guarantee getting a bill passed for some group/corporation. You can't guarantee if you can't deliver crap through the back door. Evil men have taken a well designed system (what the founding fathers created) and perverted it into a sickening mess.

    The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform, line-item-veto, Congressional term limits, and (my one of my personal favorites) no salary raises for congressmen currently in office (they only go into effect for the next guy to take the office - nobody in government should be in charge of their own salary). Then if they don't follow through, recall or vote them out in the next election.

    1. Re:Bought and paid for by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The only way to get rid of the current corrupted system is to vote out EVERYONE in Congress, and vote in just about anyone who's platform promotes campaign reform


      Hm, you forgot (or at least didn't mention explicitly enough for my taste ;^)) the most important thing: public campaign financing. Seriously -- running for elections is a required part of any politician's job, and any system that requires candidates to campaign but doesn't give them the resources to do so is doomed to corruption. It's like a 3rd world country hiring policemen but then not paying them enough to be able to buy food or equipment -- the honest people will quit because they aren't able to do their jobs, and the dishonest people will find "creative" ways to get the money, and we are back where we started.


      And just to head it off the "why should taxpayers have to pay for lousy elections?" response ... the answer because someone is going to pay for the elections, and the candidates who win the elections are going to be serving the interests of that party. So that party ought to be us, the taxpayers.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Bought and paid for by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A line item veto doesn't give the President any more direct control over the contents of bills than a total veto does. Congress retains the power to legislate that line item in another bill. When invoked, the line item veto simply forces a majority in congress to explicitly validate what some legislator wanted to have quietly enacted on the merits of another issue.

      By the same note, the way riders are currently used in practice essentially gives congress an end run around the Presidential veto, by holding important or popular legislation hostage to distasteful items that are completely unrelated to the main issue a bill addresses.

      A fair compromise would be to limit the line item veto's power with a test of how integral the item is to the purpose of the bill. A President shouldn't use such power to redesign the main provisions of a bill, but given today's congress, I would take that defect over the current situation.