Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MPAA Giving Up on Broadcast Flag... For Now?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Jun 01, 2005 02:57 PM
from the fight-for-your-right-to-time-shift dept.
Media Television
YetAnotherName writes "The MPAA, which has worked hard to get a broadcast flag into US digital television, is unlikely to push for it, according to the EFF. Previously, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority to mandate the flag, and the MPAA began to strike back. Naturally, the fight isn't over yet."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

MPAA Giving Up on Broadcast Flag... For Now? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • So which is it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enigma_Man (756516) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @02:59PM (#12697730) Homepage
    Are they "unlikely to push" or "striking back"? The summary is confusing.

    -Jesse
    • Hey, its like those Starwars sequels .. "A New Hope" "The MPAA Strikes Back" "Return of the Broadcast Flag" .... hmmmmm .. I wonder ..
    • They already struck back after the court gave us a new hope. Now we can expect to see the return of the fair use concept, followed much later by some poorly done backgrounders on the whole situation.
    • Are they "unlikely to push" or "striking back"? The summary is confusing.

      Why TF is this flamebait? This is an honest question. The summary has two distinctly contradictory statements about the MPAA. One statement says that they are unlikely to push, while the other says they are striking back (indicating that they are pushing for it) I was just asking for clarification, you douchebags.

      -Jesse
        • Jesus H. Christ, you criticize me with those spelling skills, and "Anonymous Coward"? The sentence does indeed begin with "previously", followed by "began to strike back", which meant that in the past they were starting to strike back, trying to get their way, but it appears that now they aren't trying to get their way; so which is it? The summary completely neglects any description of if they tried and failed, or tried and gave up. If you say something, even in a summary, you should have some quick info ab

    • Summary Lies. Bad Taco. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:55PM (#12698274)
      The summary isn't confusing. It's outright deceiving. It's like *gasp* the editor on duty didn't even read the linked articles before posting it.

      The article clearly states that the MPAA is giving up on getting a broadcast flag mandate in the current bill mandating DTV by 2008 because the bill's sponsor objects to doing so. It then immediately goes onto say that the MPAA is pursuing other means of convincing Congress to mandate the flag. They are backing off on one single bill, not on their entire quest as the title of this article suggests.
      • The fat lady ain't sung yet.

        But the longer the opera goes on, the less likely any of these "Burden the consumer" options will succeed. The MPAA and TV industries have delayed the whole HDTV thing by making everyone afraid the early solution woul dbe incompatible with the "final" solution, but the failure to resolve the issue means that the existing tech has gained a foothold. Soon it will be like trying to get a broadcast flag added to the VCR...

  • The EFF is the authority here? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by plover (150551) * on Wednesday June 01 2005, @02:59PM (#12697742) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, but I don't see where the EFF would be the definitive authority on what the MPAA is up to. They're going to see what they want to see, and how they want to see it. Yes, a certain representative may currently be opposed to the provision, but that won't take away any incentive from the MPAA to continue to push Congress for whatever they can get.
    • RTFA: Extraordinarily good news from Communications Daily (behind a pay wall, unfortunately):

      This isn't EFF opinion, but an excerpt from another source.

      Jeff

      • I read TFA. They simply claimed the MPAA was backing down because the MPAA hadn't purchased Barton's vote yet. And I don't believe that ends this for a single minute. The MPAA isn't going to risk it all on a single congressman's vote -- they're going to cast their nets (and their lobbyists and their money) far and wide in hopes of finding a few affordable congressmen. They won't wait till 2008 because they're more afraid of entrenched technology, which is much harder to control than future unreleased te
    • The EFF didn't make that claim. They were quoting an online magazine called "Communications Daily".
    • I disagree. The EFF would know the MPAA in the same way a boxer knows his opponent -- through experience in battle and study.

      This report is disinformation, at best. The MPAA's not giving up -- they're retreating in preparation for another attack. Recall, this is the group that likened the VHS to Jack The Ripper... they believe that a MythTV Box with a HDTV card and a DVD burner is the moral equivalent of Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot all put together. MPAA's not backing down they're simply busy licking t
  • It occurs to me that the flag is already in the hardware and the drivers are already updated (anyone know if this is so?). So, whether or not it is mandated by the FCC, they now have the ability to control what you can and cannot record, email, or otherwise share (in new hardware) and there's no law AGAINST using it. Right?
    • No, there are some tuner cards on the market today that don't respect the broadcast flag. As a matter of fact, there was quite a run on them up until the FCC ruling was overturned.

      And it has nothing to do with "email" or "share". It's the "broadcast" flag and it would only have interefered with recording, not with subsequent usages.

    • Here's the thing. It's simple economics. Who buys these high end video cards that are used in PVRs and such? Geeks or manufacturers making PVRs. If the end user can't make recordings using these cards they won't sell very well. It is in the hardware manufacturer's best interest to do whatever it takes to keep their sales up. If they are going to lose sales because of the flag they definitely won't enable it unless forced to by law or other means.

      The only group that the broadcast flag benefits are

  • Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Luscious868 (679143) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:03PM (#12697781)
    The RIAA and MPAA basically own Congress. How long before a piece of legislation mandating the broadcast flag is attached as a rider to some totally unrelated bill, thus allowing it to slide through and be signed into law before we know what hit us? It'll happen sooner or later, trust me.

    • Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by supabeast! (84658) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:18PM (#12697949)
      "It'll happen sooner or later..."

      My thoughts exactly. Right now Washington is a mess of power struggles, attacks on the media, and attacks on the court. Buying the broadcast flag right now will cost a lot and create a lot of press, and there's a good chance any right-wing politicians that have to be bought off will go down along with Tom Delay and George Bush's approval ratings. The RIAA/MPAA are much better off to wait until 2006, buy their way in with the new blood, and get the law passed in 2007 when everyone is focusing on the 2008 presidential election.
      • I think you might be right, it is probably too risky for Congress to attack right now. BTW: if you think the broadcast flag is small beans compared to Social Security reform, remember, the broadcast flag will translate to Joe TV viewer to "you can't record HDTV at all" and that is a big thing.

        Now, for the next election cycle. Democrats, while you are pushing hard for regaining majority status, make sure you let your candidates know that the broadcast flag is truly evil, BEFORE, you try to get them electe

    • It'll happen sooner or later, trust me.

      Well, normally, I'd hold out, but since it's you, I guess I'll believe it. :-)

      Seriously though I think we are just seeing what could be a little bit of finess. Where with the RIAA, we would be ready to see a executive level tantrum follow such a situation, the MPAA has a tendency to be much more subtle about what they do. I'm not sure if it the people involve or that fact that modern bandwidth and storage capacities are a more immediate threat to the RIAA wher

  • This posting cannot be replayed due to Digital Rights Management restrictions.
  • Now, if I crook my little finger like *this* when I talk, I dont want you remembering anything of it, hear?

  • Trial Balloon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:03PM (#12697792)
    This isn't over by a long shot. The MPAA took a gamble, based on what they thought they had in Congress, and lost. They won't make the same mistake twice. Look for subtle changes in the "new and improved" DMCA, COPA and its children, and other roundabout ways to implement the same thing. Heck, some US banks are even using the DMCA against phishers now - after all, you're abusing their copyright, aren't you?
    It will happen, its only a matter of time, unless the MPAA and RIAA are rendered toothless by a change in consumer habits.
    • Using government to block a competitor is not new. I recall a tale where Ford patented the Steering Wheel as a gambit to drive the Stanley Brothers out of the car business. The Patent didn't stand, but Stanley was such a small company that they could not match the Ford legal machine. We no longer drive steam cars...

      Another point though: technology and cool software seem to outpace the legislation. A few posts back was one about a Bit Torrent like p2p thing that has no tracker and you can spoof IP. An
  • "Meanwhile, the MPAA will keep briefing House and Senate members on a broadcast flag bill's importance and seek other ways to get the content protections it wants."

    Does that sound like they are giving up? Nope, they are still going to push for what they want, and what they think America (that is, the MPAA) "needs."

  • Don't get too excited (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:06PM (#12697824) Homepage
    This doesn't mean that they're going to stop trying to develop a means of making copying HDTV using impossible/impractical. It just means that the measures they take won't be based on legislating the broadcast flag.

    Speaking theoretically, some sort of encryption together with a smartcard supplied to the cable customer which enables decryption would neatly sidestep the issue for cable subscribers. Don't know how feasible it would be to apply similar technology to over the air broadcasts.
    • You don't have to speak theoretically. There is already a standard [dtcp.com] to prevent "secure" media from being transmitted to "insecure" devices.

    • I think you're making a big assumption that broadcast TV will survive (See "How BattleStar Galactica Killed TV [slashdot.org] for a rundown). The economic incentive just isn't really there for Broadcast TV like it was 10 years ago. If they find out they can't really make money giving away the content, the gig is up.

      If such a service existed, I think a lot of my money would go to an iTunes music store-type portal where I could 'authorize' my device(s) to play downloaded content -- My account would allow, say, 3 computer

  • This is it here is the solution. Every citizen get together chip in for a lobby. And have the MPAA dissolved, or rather just make them a small orginzation that does not have too much power.
    They are a headache. They are worried about profits from distribution rather than the quality of the stuff.

    And we actually let these guys who make billions of dollars to make social decesions that will affect people through out our society ( and others ).

    • You can't just "dissolve" a private organization whose only source of "power" is the contribution and cooperation of its members. Unless, of course, you dissolve the First Amendment first.
    • That's just silly. There is nothing wrong with having some sort of industry group and surely no one has the right to tell another with whom or whom not they may associate.

      However, if "every citizen" in your scenario has enough initiative and energy to get off his fat ass and lobby for such an event, then they should have at least equal initiative and energy to be able to write their congressmen to let them know who's boss. In other words, all that is needed is for the citizens to actively assert their po

  • FCC clearly can't read minds (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shogarth (668598) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:13PM (#12697900)
    The goal of the flag was not to impede a consumer's ability to copy or use content lawfully in the home, nor was the policy intended to 'foreclose use of the Internet to send digital broadcast content where it can be adequately protected from indiscriminate redistribution,'
    Considering that the FCC heard testimony indicating the flag would do exactly this, it's amazing they would claim it wasn't their intent. It certainly was the intent of the content distributors. The flag's protection wasn't going to stop commercial piracy rings; they were going to 'aquire' digital masters and stamp disks anyway. All it would do is make handling digital content a pain for end-users.
    • Whether or not that's their "goal" is irrelevent, it's undistputably what the result will be.
    • High-ranking bureaucrats are usually astute politicians. They know what to say in order to get their way with the elected officials and with their (the bureaucrats') constituents.

      The FCC is beholden to both the MPAA and the hardware industry, and to consumers as well. The commissioners are political appointees, but the bureaucrats who actually run the place are not. They exercise their political wits to accomplish their personal and professional goals.

      The FCC as a whole is in it for the FCC. They all

  • My bet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin (116525) * <jhummel@johnhummel. n e t> on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:15PM (#12697924) Homepage
    The MPAA won't go for it right now - their main supporter is out of the loop, and the EFF has links out to its registered members (and why aren't *you* a member?) that the first time someone tries to make one, or sneak it into another bill, we're suppose to be on that congresscritter like white on rice.

    But time is running out for them to get the flag in by 2008, so I still expect to see something underhanded put in in the hopes that nobody will see what they're doing. Which is why we need to be eternally vigilant.

    What surprises me about the MPAA is that they've learned from history. "What?" They've learned from history?"

    Sure. For the last few hundred years of progress, there's been large companies that have a near oligarchy of power on some product (entertainment, in this case). Then some technology comes along, breaks up the big guys, sets up several little guys, and then the conglomeration effect builds again until, like a neutron hitting a uranium atom, the system is split apart, new creative energy is unleashed, and it's back to a maelstrom of competition until the reaction settles down.

    The MPAA I think knows this, so they're fighting the technology as hard as they can. If people can time shift and get rid of commercials, big companies will make less money, and with the Internet spreading, people can make their own shows - think podcasting with video. LIke early radio, 99% will be crap, but there will be that 1% of really good stuff that turns people away from traditional TV. When that happens more and more often, the MPAA's contributers will be financially out of it, and the next cycle will begin.

    The MPAA is just trying to protect itself. Granted, in a stupid fashion, because history shows that you can be one of the new movers and shakers in a new technological - it's just likely you won't because you'll be fighting the technology instead.

    Hm - maybe the MPAA *doesn't* get it after all.

    Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.

  • Open Source DRM ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VonSlatt (16207) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:19PM (#12697967) Homepage

    Even Linus has said that DRM is not inconsistant with Linux and Open Source (at least as Linus sees it) So, the OSS comunity needs to develop the killer DRM solution that respects Fair Use but sufficiently protects content owners.

    Small publishers will adopt it first, then large media outlets will find themselves having to adopt it or loose share to the small fast moving media companies.

    So, who's working on OSS DRM?

  • How about, giving up before this gets to the Supreme Court which might re-affirm fair use rights before Congress can figure out how to take them away.

    That I can believe.

    • How about, giving up before this gets to the Supreme Court which might re-affirm fair use rights before Congress can figure out how to take them away.

      The Fair Use doctrine has been decided by the legal system to be unenforcable in policy, which means that we cannot create a set of clear rules or laws to determine whether or not a given use of intellectual property falls under Fair Use or not. As new situations come up, which side of Fair Use they fall on will be determined, case-by-case, by the court.

  • The standard for the new high definition DVDs isn't yet done. The MPAA will get their little broadcast flag included in thew new DVD technical specs. When you go to buy a new DVD player, boom, you'll have the new rights management. Want to watch the new high-definition signals? You can, until you buy the next generation of HDTVs.

    It's pointless to come up with a scheme that requires everyone to buy all new equipment so that they can do less than before (unless the MPAA is going to provide new, free hard
  • I have admit that when I hear about the broadcast flag, it irks me. I have a single HDTV receiver (integrated radio and satellite), but it's likely I won't really get into digital TV until it's much cheaper and there's more content, meaning I won't start converting the entire house over to HDTV until after this broadcast flag is mandated (if they MPAA and others get their way).

    Rather then lambasting the FCC and the MPAA, I have one question I'd like to see someone give an acceptable answer to: Why? Why do they need to stop people from being able to record a high quality digital signal from a broadcast? The easy answer is, they don't want people to be able to copy and distribute the programming they own.

    Fine, but they said the same thing in the 1980s when the VCR became popular. "If people are able to make video tapes of movies and programs using a set top box and an inexpensive cassette tape, it will ruin us and take our profits away!" they cried.

    Of course, that didn't happen. Yes, there were people with giant video cassette libraries of pirated movies dubbed from rentals or recorded off HBO (I had a neighbor with several hundred of these movies). In the end, we discovered that the ability to easily record programs actually ended up helping the movie and television industry far more then it hurt them.

    So why is this different? Because it's a higher quality broadcast? In the 80s the quality of a VHS recording, if done right, was not too much different then the quality you'd find in broadcast or in tapes rented or purchased from the video shop. Today, a digital recording, if done right, is not much different the quality you'd find on an HD broadcast or next generation video discs you'll soon find for sale or rent at the video shop. Considering the quality of VHS recordings back in the 80s were not too much different then the commercially available media, and today's digital recordings aren't too much different then commercially available media, I just don't see that as a valid argument.

    The folks at the FCC and MPAA aren't stupid people, and I can't for the life of me understand why they would spend time and resources trying to put in a broadcast flag when history has shown that when end users have versatility available to them, it ultimately helps the MPAA and others. There has to be a good reason, right?

    I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what that reason is. The only argument I could come up with is that they don't want people to be able to record high quality television programs which *might* end up hurting the growing DVD market for TV boxed sets where an entire season of a particular program can be purchased. But we're still not sure if that would happen. Heck, on my computer and burned to VCDs I have the entire collection of every episode of a particular TV show, and each of those episodes I downloaded off the Internet. I also purchased the DVD box sets for the entire series. It was not because I wanted better quality, but because I wanted to own something physical, I wanted the liner notes, I wanted the "special features". The recordings I found "illegally" lacked those things.

    In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?

  • Broadcast Flag is already overused (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Wednesday June 01 2005, @05:20PM (#12699311)
    This is hearsay, I have not checked any transport streams myself, but it has been reported that broadcasters have already started using the broadcast flag in almost all of their HDTV content. Sure there is not any equipment that obeys the BF, but they are probably thinking that since it is just a bit to flip, they might as well flip it now.

    Assuming the reports are true (which is admittedly a fair-sized assumption) this near total use of the BF already puts the lie to the MPAA's statement that it would only be used to "protect" high-value content like live sports and broadcast movie premiers.
    • But anyone with determination will easily pass a broadcast flag.

      Exactly. This is typical political hoopla. They will pass a law about the broadcast flag. The hardware manufacturers will implement it. Five minutes later there will be a firmware hack to disable it and we will be right back where we started.

      OTOH, there is always the scenario where the MPAA gets the broadcast flag implemented and TV ratings continue to drop because it's even MORE difficult to watch the decent shows on TV. It's crazy.
    • A broadcast flag may stop a Tivo-like device from recording, but as long as there is a video and sound output, there will be some device to record on. I personally think a broadcast flag is useless. Maybe for Direct DVD recorders. But anyone with determination will easily pass a broadcast flag.

      You're right, but don't forget that our esteemed elected officials have passed legislation to criminalize this behavior. It's called the DMCA.

    • Well, if the video/sound is being output digital to a display, then it can have the broadcast flag applied all the way into the TV. This is especially true for plasma and lcd tv's, where the signal can literally stay digital until your eyes see it (ie, to intercept the analog version you'd need to setup a video camera in front of the screen).

      Not that any of this means that people won't be able to still hack purely digital information, but to a large degree the old "it has to be an analog signal eventually
    • Individual performers/entertainers may bash on Republicans, but the "industry" puts its money on incumbents. The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

      • Prove it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall (25149) * on Wednesday June 01 2005, @03:45PM (#12698209)
        The RIAA/MPAA are HUGE contributors to Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

        Really? Then where are they on the contributors list [opensecrets.org].

        When the total combined contributions from media companies is a figure *I* could give if I scraped together some money from the sale of a house, I have a tough time calling it "huge".
        Compare and contrast with someone like Barbra Boxer [opensecrets.org]. Time Warner is number two with Viacom close behind. If she were calling the shots do you REALLY think the broadcast flag would be "of no interest"?

        Yes the entertainment industry does throw some money to the Republicans. But by and large they throw the bulk of thesupport to the Democrats, who in turn do them favors.
    • Could that be because by and large the entertainment industry disparages Republicans? Or at least gives more money to Democrats. Either way it's a nice example of how negativity can come back to haunt you.

      I recall reading somewhere that the RIAA and MPAA-type organizations contribute lopsidedly to Democratic congresspeople, by about 140% (for every dollar they contribute to Republicans, they contribute $1.40 to Democrats).

      The difference between the parties any more is over whose special interest group

      • And at the end of the day, who really has to live with the decisions being made on our behalf by 650 unethical millionaires?

        Actually, there are several (not sure how many) members of the house (and possibly some senators) whose only source of income is their money from the congressional paycheck. Those (aye, few) are not millionaires.

        And this is why I always claim that the less they rape my paycheck to fund this lunacy, the happier I am.

        In other words, you're for lower taxes? Sounds like what the Re
    • And as you might recall from about a year ago, Congress doesn't actually READ the bills they pass, so odds are, no one will notice, including most members of Congress.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.