Slashdot Mirror
NBC Activates Broadcast Flag
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "NBC activated the 'broadcast flag' on a number of shows this week, ranging from American Gladiator to Medium, which prevented compliant programs like Windows Media Center from recording them. The matter is being 'looked into,' but that doesn't tell us whether it was an accident or a ploy to see how outraged viewers would be at being stripped of the time-shifting rights they've enjoyed ever since Sony v. Universal. Just in case it's the latter, it wouldn't hurt to let them know what you think."
Suppose an assassination happened on live TV but the coverage was flagged no-record. All 'official' copies at the networks could be easily altered to hide evidence, and no one with a proper recording to step up and challenge the subterfuge.
And, I'll take a regular analog tv that can be watched at my leisure over the clearest signal possible if the price is that I have no control of the content... thank you very much.
P.S. I have IPTV (in rural northern Minnesota... go figure). Myth records directly from the network, digital all the way.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Furthermore, if you can record a flagged broadcast with XP or TiVo you should probably file a complaint that this software is circumventing the DRM and failing to manage your digital rights properly.
Priceless. :-)
Ironically, here in the UK, the front of today's Guardian Technology section has a full-page story on how pretty much anyone who is anyone is dropping DRM as fast as they can open their fingers. Among other things, it cites research showing that shows DRM has no impact on piracy levels (and makes the obvious but rarely stated observation that this means DRM is just annoying legitimate customers), and mentions several major on-line music distributors who are already offering DRM-free tracks or have definite plans to do so later this year. Apparently the market has a different view on how it would like its digital rights managed than Microsoft do...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The broadcasters didn't sue Sony in the Betamax case; the studios did. (The original suit is Universal, et. al. v Sony.) It was their product that was allegedly being infringed by taping. The broadcasters either didn't care, or quietly supported taping since it would ultimately expand their audience reach.
Of course, today NBC and Universal are both owned by General Electric, so their interests are now aligned in a way that was legally impossible in 1976. Now that we've abolished the "financial interest" rules, the sharp divisions between content and conduit in US television have dissolved.
How do someone a get a "+4, Informative" when the information being presented is wrong?
I was kinda pumped for the new American Gladiators, but I stopped watching after the first few episodes.
The fun game atmosphere is gone, and now it's all hyper-competition and 'roid-fueled trashtalking. I would never have expected that basic sportsmanship was actually so integral to my enjoyment of this whimsical game. It's like going from little league softball to halo 3 team deathmatch teabagging.
If people stop watching, they'll use the standard RIAA-style defense: "We're losing viewers because everyone is recording/pirating/stealing our shows! Quick, implement more restrictions!" Then they will slowly, ever so slowly, die off.
This is one of those situations where it actually makes sense to root for free-market capitalism.
Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
At least, that's what the law used to say, before the DMCA case against DeCSS confirmed that software for decoding someone's video obfuscation scheme is an illegal "circumvention device". I'd like to know whether a court thinks that "removes or ignores broadcast flag" would be a similarly illegal property for a consumer device to have, but I suspect that the threat alone will persuade many PVR manufacturers to avoid pushing the issue.
OT, but in the same vein...
Back in the days of Napster, I attended a "satellite" senate hearing on campus. Orrin Hatch, Sean Fanning, and two musicians were there. One musician was a local independent artist who said he had no problem with Napster, but had huge problems with the record companies. The other musician was the lead singer for the Byrds, and he testified that his concert attendance was up and a "whole new generation of fans" learned about his music through Napster.
Also there were a few small tech firms who gave overviews of how they intended to use P2P technologies and expressed their concern that legislation that targeted Napster would interfere with their business.
Orrin Hatch seemed to agree, nodded, smiled, even presented Fanning with a hat from the college bookstore. He closed with remarks like, "This is a complicated issue that needs more attention." And then promptly furthered his work to kill P2P and consumer rights.
Your anecdote about Mr. Rogers just contributes further evidence that what's happening here is not what the artists want and definitely not what the consumers want. It's the middlemen forcing something on both parties, limiting the reach of the artists and what consumers can do with the artists' work.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
What's also sad is how people who similarly campaign for higher causes (Richard Stallman on free software is a prime example) are maligned until situations like this come along and show us how right he is to insist on framing the debate in terms of a user's freedom to control their lives, relish social solidarity, and cooperate in a society of peers where you're limited largely by the restrictions you impose on yourself. Slashdotters cite Stallman's "The Right to Read" as we quickly head toward a culture that denies how everything we do is built on the past (Lawrence Lessig frequently reminded us of this) but how many read the dystopic short story and take it to heart?
Stallman can be hard to get along with at times, to be sure, but understanding his message doesn't require you to be his buddy and it should be harder than it is (judging by posts I've seen on so many discussion websites) to convince people to throw away their freedom in pursuit of some agenda set by business.
Digital Citizen
No, now is the time to piss in your knickers, clean up then write some letters to congress and to NBC.
It is easier to stop the sooner people react.
Like it or not, many people will be running media center.
To just quit watching as an answer is to stick your head in the sand. How about you DO something?
It's really not your palce to tell other people what they like is bad. It might not be bad to you, but they seem to enjoy it. TV is just a medium, like books. PBS and NOVA is on TV do you honestly think those are worse then reading fan fiction?
It's not the medium that matters.
A lot of people liked Buffy. I didn't, but that doesn't really matter.
No, I don't watch any broadcast TV. I don't like my kids being exposed to those damn commercials.
However we will probably get it soon. My son is having troubles relating to other kids when they talk about shark week. Initially you would think it wasn't a big deal, but the social aspects of communicating with your peers in grade school is not something that should be overlooked.
"It seems highly unlikely that content providers will absolutely block digital time shifting of THEIR property,"
They've wanted to to that for years, why should it being digital matter. Now that they realize that after market DVDs can be a huge money maker they ahve even MORE reason to block them.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on