Slashdot Log In
NBC Activates Broadcast Flag
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu May 15, 2008 06:57 AM
from the honest-mistake dept.
from the honest-mistake dept.
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."
Related Stories
Submission: NBC Activates Broadcast Flag by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Microsoft Acknowledges NBC's Wish is Its Command 417 comments
theodp writes "Responding to questions about why some users of Windows Vista Media Center were prevented from recording the NBC Universal TV shows 'American Gladiator' and 'Medium,' Microsoft has acknowledged that Windows Media Centers will block users from recording TV shows at the request of a broadcaster. 'Microsoft included technologies in Windows based on rules set forth by the (Federal Communications Commission),' wrote a Microsoft spokeswoman, apparently referring to an FCC proposal that the courts struck down in 2005. 'Microsoft has put the requirements of broadcasters above what consumers want,' said the EFF's Danny O'Brien. 'They've imposed restrictions way beyond what the law requires. Customers need to know who Microsoft is listening to and how that affects their equipment. Right now, the only way customers know what Microsoft has agreed to is when the technology they've bought suddenly stops working. Microsoft needs to come clean and tell its customers what deals it has made.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the flag was set on purpose or not, it indicates that any system paying any attention to it is broken.
Time shifting was ruled many years ago as an allowed privilege. That doesn't change when the broadcaster says they don't want it any more (remember who brought the court case to try and ban it? The broadcasters). It certainly doesn't change when your computer decides to deny you that ability.
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
We still have a vote.
We can vote with our dollars & stop watching NBC. Get your shows from alternate sources like DVDs. When NBC Broadcasting sees its ratings drop to 1.0% of the nation, then maybe it will wake-up (or go out of business). THE PEOPLE hold the power to kill corporations. They just need to learn to exercise that power.
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
if they block the recording
i will admit.. while my wife when she watchs stuff alwasy fastforwards through ads.. personaly the TV is back ground noise to what ever i am doing
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, today NBC and Universal are both owned by General Electric [ge.com], so their interests are now aligned in a way that was legally impossible in 1976. Now that we've abolished the "financial interest [museum.tv]" 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?
Parent
Whatever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're trying to lose even more viewers by not letting these viewers tape their programs. How brilliant. Attract more customers by treating them like crap. Reminds me of RIAA.
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing I use Super VHS VCRs for my recording. Good old analog technology... it just works & says "bah" to digital no-record flags. (Ditto my analog cassettes ignoring digital radio's no-record flags.) I can record whatever I want off NBC or XM or HD Radio.
It's gotta suck though for digital users. You want to tape a show in the middle of the day (say, Oprah) or night (Letterman), but you can't because of that stupid flag. Therefore that show loses time-shifting viewers. NBC == "Stupido" (to borrow from NBC's cousin Telemundo).
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Informative)
There are digital capture cards that predate the broadcast flag, as well. They're just hard to find.
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pchdtv.com/
(if you run Linux!)
Parent
Don't get too smug - remember Macrovision? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The epitome of unbiased summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/04/aacs-key-revocation-future-drm [eff.org]
They did design TVs like that. The technology is in every modern computer processor, every modern television, every set top box. This isn't just about preventing recording. You can use this to revoke playback rights after something has been recorded. Like a news program that leaks information embarrassing to the government, for example.
Oh, and those TVs that you'd rather buy? The ones that don't have this technology? They're illegal to manufacture and illegal to sell. You'll have to build your own or smuggle them into the country if you want one.
Parent
From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well well, another reason NOT to use Vista MCE. If you simply ignore a broadcast flag this only annoys people who pay for commercial software. I, on the other hand, couldbuild a MythTV box without any problems whatsoever
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
It does seem ridiculous when any form of security is built around proprietary software telling you what you can and can't do.
If timeshifting is a court-granted right, then a broadcaster saying you can't do it and a recording system believing them should be plenty of evidence that it's time to change to a system you control.
There have been many cases of this recently, but essentially it's the Alice/Bob/Charlie situation - Alice wants to send Bob some data, without Charlie getting it. The problem with ANY form of DRM is that Bob and Charlie are the same person.
If Vista refuses to record it cos it's told not to by the broadcaster ("Oh, uh, I'm Bob, right? I can watch this! No, hold on, who am I? Charlie? They say I'm Charlie, so I must be! I'm not letting you see it!"), then from the user's perspective it's broken.
Parent
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it's a good thing for broadcasters that time shifting is not a "court-granted right." For that, you'd have to assume A implies B is equivalent to B implies A. The specific case of record television shows to watch later does not violate copyright laws. That does not mean that broadcasters have to make the recording of television shows easy or even possible. Timeshifting is merely a legally valid excuse for what would normally be considered copyright infringement. The court has granted you no rights forcing timeshifting to be made available.
Parent
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Insightful)
US Courts don't grant rights. They only affirm that we do or do not have a right.
The Constitution was written with "implicit allow" rules for citizens and "implicit deny" for government.
Over the years people have lost sight of this fact and that has been seized upon those in a position of power. The average citizen now believes if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, they don't have it aka "implicit deny". Even worst they think the government has an "implicit allow" aka they are without bounds.
Parent
Re:From the site: (Score:5, Informative)
I asked 6 friends that did have those Media Centers and all of them were able to record it just fine.
Sounds like it only affects the DRM special from microsoft.
Parent
Only Vista DRM has a problem (Score:5, Informative)
http://thegreenbutton.com/forums/45/262419/ShowThread.aspx [thegreenbutton.com]
Re:Only Vista DRM has a problem (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Ironic timing (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Parent
Re:Ironic timing (Score:5, Insightful)
- "Banning guns doesn't stop criminals from owning guns."
- Using DRM doesn't stop criminals from owning illegal copies.
Illegal ownerships still continues amongst the criminals who know how to circumvent the law/crack the code, so all you've accomplished is piss-off your legitimate customers.
Parent
Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably wont be a popular thing to say but back in the VCR days the stakes were a lot lower than they are today. It didn't matter so much back then because the tape of the show inherently couldn't travel very far and there was inherent pain in stripping out or fast forwarding through the commercials, to they were mostly for fair use.
In the digital and Internet age, most people might record for fairly benign fair use purposes, but some people are going to record, strip the commercials, put the shows on the Internet and undermine the business model under which TV networks currently function.
Me personally I'm not sure I can think of any content NBC produces I would actually want to watch or record, let alone post on the Internet, its not like they have a Daily Show or Colbert report. To counter my own argument John Stewart and Stephen Colbert seem to do OK encouraging free Internet trafficking in their shows but thats because their shows are A. wildly popular and B. cheap to produce.
Here is a question for all the Slashdot crowd that want all their media freed from the man. Do you want to watch content that actually costs a lot to produce, you know with writers, actors, sets. This would mean pretty much anything beyond game shows and reality TV. If so how do you expect the producers to pay for them? The options are pretty limited. One model depends on you watchings ads, and unfortunately its fairly rare for people to actually want to watch ads outside of the Super Bowl. If you let people strip the ads at a wholesale level the model doesn't work. Are you willing to pay a subscription fee for all content? Some people will pay for some content, its just wont work for most people and most content. What else is there? Shows which sucker you into voting or calling in for prizes and charge you on your phone bill? Do you want to just watch content mostly produced for free on YouTube, kind of entertaining and weird, but not exactly compelling drama?
Free network TV is a business model that is failing so desperation on the part of the networks is understandable. It worked when there were three networks, not many other mass market entertainment options and no digital recordings. Now there are so many channels diluting the market, and people are spending more time on the Internet and games. As a result ads don't produce as much revenue, so the networks counter by loading up shows with more and more of them in more obnoxious ways and try harder to force you to watch them. In turn they are annoying people more and more, causing a snowballing effect that will drive down their ratings and their revenue. If the networks allow people to rip the shows, cut the commercials, and post them on the Internet its inevitable more and more people will watch them there instead and further destroy any motivation to produce content in the first place.
Parent
Re:Mr. Rogers is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
For (almost) everyone else in television, it's about greed.
Hence they hate giving anything away for free (like time-shifting).
If someone asked them to "Donate to the children's orphanage" they'd probably ask, "What's in it for me?"
Sad.
Parent
Stallman calls for freedom. Are we listening? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Don't complain to NBC. (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe me, word will get back to NBC that it's not to their advantage to follow such tactics.
Just how easy is MythTV to install? (Score:4, Informative)
I want a quality flag (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I want a quality flag (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:I want a quality flag (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Same in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
According to company [dwdl.de] which runs the satellite signal, it was just an technical error.
Submarine restrictions: how can they be stopped? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing new about this. You can waste an awful lot of time reading contracts and discovering that you've agreed to obnoxious things... and that there's not an awful lot you can do about it because all the competitors have similar contracts... and that, surprise, surprise, the employee behind the car rental counter is not interested in striking out clauses and negotiating contracts with an individual customer with a line behind him.
What's new is the potential for cheap, automatic, mechanical enforcement at some later date.... and the consumer's inability to know the company's real intentions.
When you buy something with unenforced DRM you are truly buying a pig in a poke.
The free market can't operate in the absence of the buyer having reasonable information on what they're buying. In the case of unenforced DRM, that means not just the theoretical existence of restrictions, it means that companies should be required to disclose a policy on their intentions for future enforcement... a policy that must be included in the contract for the contract to be valid, and one which they can be held to in the future.
It should be use-it-or-lose-it. A company that fails to use automated restrictions for a long period of time, and has failed to disclose clearly its intention of using them in the future, ought to right to enforce them.
Contract law already covers this (Score:5, Informative)
You can waste an awful lot of time reading contracts and discovering that you've agreed to obnoxious things... and that there's not an awful lot you can do about it because all the competitors have similar contracts... and that, surprise, surprise, the employee behind the car rental counter is not interested in striking out clauses and negotiating contracts with an individual customer with a line behind him.
The interesting thing here is that contract law in most places already makes allowances for this sort of thing. There's even a legal term — contract of adhesion — describing standard contracts where there wasn't equal power for each party to negotiate on the details. Also, contracts generally require a meeting of minds, with both sides understanding what they are agreeing to; where this is not the case, courts can (and do) hold that unreasonable conditions are unenforceable.
In other words, it shouldn't be necessary to change the law to achieve what you want. If a contract of adhesion includes deceptive provisions that a typical person would be unlikely to agree to if they understood the implications, then it's already the case that courts might strike those provisions. You just need someone to bring the case.
Parent
History Eraser Button (Score:4, Interesting)
TV accelerating its own decline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Benefit of a doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:NBC? (Score:5, Informative)
It's this place where people watch programs interrupted by commercials at the time least convenient to them, and have to wait a whole week between episodes; instead of downloading them one season at a time and watching them whenever you want...
Parent
Re:NBC? (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that people think that shows are the reason for the existence of TV stations, when really the whole broadcast system depends on hooking in enough people in order to get them to watch the commercials.
Parent
Re:These things are rarely accidental (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on whether you're a cynic like me, or an optimist that thinks corporations really care.
Parent
Re:Do you people really care? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent