MPAA Giving Up on Broadcast Flag... For Now? 186
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."
So which is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Jesse
Re:So which is it? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So which is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So which is it? (Score:2)
oh no, talkies, I'm out of a job! (Score:2, Insightful)
(Testimony to the House of Representatives, 1982)
That's typical Hollywood forward thinking and embracing enormous new markets for ya!
Re:So which is it? (Score:2)
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
Re:So which is it? (Score:2)
-Jesse
Summary Lies. Bad Taco. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So which is it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the same thing. If past history is any guide, they'll publicly do the former and quitely behind the scenes do the latter. In the cameras, they will lay lower on this issue. In the offices of senators and representatives in Washington, they will jawbone to get their way.
The fat lady ain't sung yet. The RIAA lawyers threatened her and the MPAA anti-piracy thugs bound and gagged her and tossed her into a closet. We need to hear her belt one out so on goes the fight to make her sing on this issue and lay it to rest.
Re:So which is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:So which is it? (Score:2)
Did they get a law passed, or is there some sort of industry pressure or perhaps something else added to macro-vision to casue issues on 'non-complient' vcrs.
It's my understanding macrovision worked in the first place because tv's agc's smoothed out brigtness variences at a different rate than vcrs.
In any event I would like to take this chance to point out that ATI's all-in-wonder line of video cards look for macrovision, and if they find it scramble the video so it can't be watched.
Really pisses me off because NO-WHERE on the box did it say that and one of my reasons for buying the damn thing was to watch my older tapes on the computer, and to back some of them because magnetic tape wears out and some of the movies are now out of print. (and not all got re-done as dvd's even if I wanted to buy them twice).
Mycroft
The EFF is the authority here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The EFF is the authority here? (Score:2)
This isn't EFF opinion, but an excerpt from another source.
Jeff
Re:The EFF is the authority here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because the EFF quoted someone else's article doesn't mean they don't believe it, or it's not their point. Rather, they seemed to be rejoicing in the news as if it were the Holy Gospel. And I think that's extraordinarily naive. They're way underestimating the power of the dark side.
Re:The EFF is the authority here? (Score:2)
Re:The EFF is the authority here? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 their wounds from their recent court defeat.
Look, the MPAA is a dinosaur trying to hold on to an outdated business model. They want to keep information scarcity as the core of their business model. That might have worked thirty years ago, but in the information age it's a recipe for failure.
If you want to know the goals of the MPAA, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. Specificly, watch for their donations of money/travel/gifts to lawmakers. Only when the money stops is it safe to say that they've "given up."
Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
The only group that the broadcast flag benefits are the content owners themselves. Unless they can put legal or economic pressure on the broadcasters and hardware manufacturers there is no motivation for anyone to use the broadcast flag.
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
This depends on what you mean by "the hardware" and "the drivers." The next generation Air2PC card doesn't care about the Flag, nor does the hd-3000 card. But that major-brand HDTV set top box or PVR that you just bought? Yep, it probably sees the Flag and obeys it. Let's hope you never get to test it out.
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?
This is a good point. The Flag compliance was a law regarding reception of HDTV, not broadcast. Even though the technology that receives HDTV no longer _has to_ obey the Flag, this doesn't preclude the Flag being put in there to work on devices that were already made to be Flag compliant.
In fact, this begs the question of whether or not the MPAA is backing down because they've already gotten major players in the PVR market to implement the Flag anyway, regardless of the struck-down law...
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
In fact, some channels are already "flagged", although whether or not it's the "broadcast flag" I'm not sure (I'm specifically thinking of HBO HD, which doesn't do OTA broadcasting, but I can't see why they'd adopt a different flag than everyone else). Trying to record from one of these channels on an STB (such as a DVR) will not work. Oh, it'll obviously work on TiVo or something where you're outputting an analog signal and then recompressing, but the BF was never designed to protect against that - that's the equivalent of ripping music by playing it through a speaker and re-recording it with a microphone. No DRM scheme is designed to stop that.
The funny thing is MS Media Center respects this flag in software, even if your hardware doesn't - so if you run Media Center, flagged content can be recorded but it cannot be transcoded and is not supposed to play on other PC's either (though I've heard varying reports on whether this is always the case with these channels). This is true even if you're using the "analog hole" to record on Media Center - say, by tuning with an HD cable box and then outputting via s-video to Media Center. Of course, this is a good argument for using MythTV instead of MCE... but the Myth guys sure make this a difficult choice, as unpolished as Myth is compared to MCE.
In fact, this begs the question of whether or not the MPAA is backing down because they've already gotten major players in the PVR market to implement the Flag anyway, regardless of the struck-down law...
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the networks are blowing smoke to a large extent, with their statements about withholding their best content from HD if it's not protected. That's simply FUD. There is no way that the networks are going to withhold anything given that most HD watchers are using locked-down cable or satellite STB's to watch their shows... and that those HD users, being as rabid as they (we) are, will simply watch something else in HD versus watching some crappy network TV show in SD. It's hard to watch anything in SD once you've made the jump to HD... (and by the same token, it's pretty easy to watch almost anything in HD, just because it looks so good.) The networks will not give that audience up willingly.
I think they're saying what they think they have to say to get the BF passed... but at the end of the day, I don't think even they think it's the end of the world if it doesn't happen. Most people do not watch HD over the air, and most people do not want to download resized and recompressed HDTV shows that hardly bear any resemblance to the original (though I admit I've done it when trying to catch up on episodes I've missed - but I don't see how this hurts the networks, as it just makes me more likely to watch new episodes once I've caught up. The alternative is just never getting into a show because I've missed too much.)
You know, I don't think even the MPAA are unrealistic enough to think someone is not going to find a way to "pirate" protected shows anyway - I mean we've had OTA HD cards for PC available for years now and none of those already out there will ever support the broadcast flag. The MPAA was too late to start with, and the more time it takes to implement this thing, the more ineffective it's going to be. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't basically resigned to that fact, though that doesn't mean they won't exhaust all of their options before giving up, with the thought being even a late broadcast flag law would be better than nothing.
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
ATI has been selling all-in-wonder cards since the mid 90's (IIRC) and they 'honor' macrovision. plug in a vcr and try and watch a tape with macrovion on it and it will come out like a scrambled analog cable channel.
I know it's been like this since at least thier first 'radeon' all-in-wonder.
Mycroft
Re:Does it make a difference? (Score:2)
ATI has been selling all-in-wonder cards since the mid 90's (IIRC) and they 'honor' macrovision
Iirc this is a driver-issue, not a hardware issue. You should be able to disable Macrovision using TV-Tool (no I will not google it for you).
Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:2)
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 elected.
I would hate to see liberals here on
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:2)
Fritz Hollings.
I believe in the democratic process to the extent that it still exists in America, I believe in the Constitutions and I honestly believe that there are still some honest politicians on both sides of the aisle. But the media moguls are careful to cover all their bases. They make substantial contributions to both parties. And despite the partisan bickering, the 500-ish congress persons in Washington are much more homogeneous than they like to admit. The one huge thing that every one of them has in common is that they know that winning an election is expensive, and people like us just don't have the dough to pass around.
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:2)
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:2)
Take away the power, no struggles.
(unfortunately, when you take that power away, you have to put it somewhere. And there's nobody else who's trustworthy enough. . . )
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:2)
Well apparently not. They may have backed down as a gambit toward sliding in a rider later on, but what we have here is an opportunity to momentum. This is creating room for people besides the xxAA's to bend the ear of a Congressman and make pertinent points. I can see the anti-bFlag contingent resting on their laurels, but really this is a chance to make sure it never happens. This can work both ways, it's just a question of who wants their side to win more. Vigilance, and stuff.
Re:Your darn right it ain't over! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 where as the MPAA still has some time to act before the average machine can hold hundreds of movies and the average network connection can transfer a movie in under 5 minutes.
Needless to say, I don't believe they are giving either. They are just trying to get this back under the table "where it belongs".
ERROR (Score:2, Funny)
New concept: Conversation flag (Score:2, Funny)
Re:New concept: Conversation flag (Score:2)
Trial Balloon (Score:3, Interesting)
It will happen, its only a matter of time, unless the MPAA and RIAA are rendered toothless by a change in consumer habits.
Re:Trial Balloon (Score:2)
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. Another story about from your car music-casts. Tomorrow will bring something else. Locking down any media is just not going to work PERIOD. This genie is firmly out of the bottle and not going back.
Re:Trial Balloon (Score:2)
However, it looks like they are going to miss out on the time window for implementing this particular method of making consumer digital video more inconvenient and unreliable. By the time they get their act together, there will likely be too much broadcast flag-free equipment out there.
Re:Trial Balloon (Score:2)
If enough consumers refuse to buy equipment that implements the broadcast flag, your prediction may come out true.
But if most consumers don't care, thinking that it doesn't matter since the flag cannot be legally enforced, the manufacturers are unlikely to change the equipment they have already designed.
Re:Trial Balloon (Score:2)
Re:Trial Balloon (Score:2)
Of course they haven't given up - read the article (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re:Of course they haven't given up - read the arti (Score:2)
and
"The requirements and schedule established by the Commission for the implementation of digital television reception capability in television broadcast reception equipment as contained in section 15.117(i) of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 15.117(i)) as modified in FCC 02-230 (August 8, 2002), shall not be effective except as expressly hereafter provided by Act of Congress."
help or hinder the FCC broadcast flag agenda?
Don't get too excited (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't get too excited (Score:2)
Re:Don't get too excited (Score:2)
Hence the "need" for the broadcast flag and the associated legally enforced prohibitions that the flag entails.
Re:Don't get too excited (Score:3, Interesting)
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 computers, a fixed number of physical 'Authorization Cards' (think SIM Cards) for portable and home-theater devices, and allowances to burn one or two DVD's containing a specific item every 30-60 days.
iTunes, despite its faults, has done a pretty good job of giving people what they want -- the ability to buy, own, and keep copies of digital audio content. Restricting further copying is acceptable, as long as it doesn't interfere with the primary goal. Redefining 'Fair Use' doesn't bother me as much as the current legal campaign to abolish it completely.
Jasin NataelRe:Don't get too excited (Score:2)
And giving up personal freedoms little by little (Patriot Act) instead of all at once is a lot easier for the Amercian public to swallow. However, you've still lost rights in the end.
Dissolve the MPAA (Score:2)
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 ).
Re:Dissolve the MPAA (Score:2)
Re:Dissolve the MPAA (Score:2, Interesting)
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 power over the government, as responsible citizens should.
FCC clearly can't read minds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FCC clearly can't read minds (Score:2)
Re:FCC clearly can't read minds (Score:2)
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 want power. Most also want to see the public good enhanced. Without any specific evidence, I suspect that the people who make up the FCC are personally a representative sample of the US population, with similar political and other beliefs.
In other words, what they say and what they believe are not necessarily the same.
Re:Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution b (Score:2)
The "new business model" is pretty clear - there are no customers, just viewers. Viewers don't buy anything and don't want ads. The idea of a "new business model" is that the money will come from somewhere else - tip jars, voluntary contributions, taxes, something - just not pay-per-view or pay-per-use. Unfortunately, nobody has ever figured out how to actually make that work in a large scale. We do have "tip jar" models today, like shareware, and it doesn't work. Maybe if artists and filmmakers were tax-supported (like they are in Canada) we wouldn't have this discussion. Except in Canada the government tells you what your subject matter is going to be. Do we want that? Just think about government-supported boy bands...
Re:Why is Internet Indiscriminate Redistribution b (Score:2)
No, there's no new business model, only changing what parts are free, what parts are pay, and what level of advertising you can get away with before people start removing it. Because people WILL watch trailers. They WILL watch that one really silly advertisement. Stuff like that.
But if the sellers-of-crap wake up tomorrow and realize that no matter how much they advertise, they aren't drumming up a market for their crap, they won't bother with advertisements anymore. Say you pay $20/month less on crap because said crap-merchants aren't advertising. That doesn't mean that broadcast media has to spend $20/month/person less. It just means that they have to figure out another way to get that $20 out of you. Or maybe nobody cares about broadcast media anymore and they'll scale back and the average consumer will spend that $20/month on other things.
My bet (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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?
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2, Informative)
Trusted computing is used for things like making sure malware and rootkits can't take over your own machine, and that trojans haven't been introduced into the software you've downloaded, while DRM is used to make sure you can't rip a copy of a DVD you own.
OSS people already are working on trusted computing, see Trusted Gentoo. There are almost certainly others. OSS trusted computing won't implement a DRM solution that respects fair use, because no one in their right mind would install it. Additionally, the entire concept behind DRM is flawed. Cory Doctorow has an excellent talk on the subject [craphound.com].
A better solution than having a system that "protects content owners", is offering a solution that users want. Most users are honest. iTunes has demonstrated that many people will pay to download their music over the internet. Yet in the years between Napster and iTunes, millions of songs were downloaded off the internet, and CD sales went up. Why does iTunes need DRM? I can already download any music I want for free over the internet, with no DRM, and at higher quality.
Trusted computing is an excellent example of the differences between OSS and proprietary systems. The important question is: who gets to trust the box sitting next to you?
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2)
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2)
Ok. So you would pay good money to get DRM ON your computer? Quite the opposite for me. Its your money though I guess, and the closest thing is this.... [gentoo.org]
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2)
Lets take Apples PlayFair DRM system as an example. To crack it (as they did) you need to know a two things:
1) The encryption key (and where it can be found)
2) The encryption algorithm
If iTunes was open source, you could just find this info in the sourcecode. Breaking it would be trivial.
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2)
This essentially means no remote attestation can be implemented in GPL code, because if you can argue that the binary isn't functional unless remote attestation works (i.e, a modified music player isn't functional unless it can play all the music the unmodified one can, even Disney music that requires remote attestation), then it is being distributed in violation of the GPL.
Also, isn't one of the main goals of open source to free the user? Another driving factor is scratching an itch - and when was the last time you heard someone say, "Man, if only I wasn't able to copy this..."
Re:Open Source DRM ? (Score:2)
Any system that actually supports one is INCAPABLE of meaningfully supporting the other.
The line between infringment and noninfringment often lies in the intent of the user. Nothing short of a mindreading DRM system can distinguish the intent to use something in an educational classroom enviornment. Nothing short of a full blown artificial intellegence can detect humor and parody use. Nothing short of precognition can determine whether some new and never before imagined use will be Fair Use.
So you are asking for the impossible. You are asking for magic handcuffs that only close on guilty people. Well yeah, obviously if these things were possible they'd have been created years ago and we wouldn't be wasting time on these arguments and these battles. We wouln't be wasting time and money on courts and judges either.
Any system that actually supports Fair Use leaves people able to choose to commit infringment.
Any system that making any meaningful attempt to deny the ability to commit infringment inherently infringes Fair Uses.
The problem is idiots who expect legal enforcement of DRM itself. This means imprisoning INNOCENT people who remove or bypass DRM to make NONINFRINGING use.
Your solution of DRM that supports Fair Use is impossible. You pretty much have to choose one of the two sides:
DMCA: You get your DRM and DRM enforcement and you support the holy crusade against copyright infringment. You're also supporting a law that says INNOCENT people go to prison for making NONINFRINGING use.
DMCRA: [house.gov] This bill would amend the DMCA to say that innocent noninfringing people do not go to prison. Pretty simple really. However it also means that DRM becomes entirely worthless. It means that you'll be able to walk into Radio Shack and buy a product to strip off pesky DRM. A product you need to be able to make Fair Use, but also a product that enables you to commit infringment if you want.
So which side are you on? Do you insist on the holy crusade against copyright infringment? Or do you say that we cannot imprison innocent noninfringing people? Or do you have some magic pixie dust alternative?
-
Giving up for now (Score:2)
That I can believe.
Re:Giving up for now (Score:2)
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. Some are mentioned specifically in US legal code but the opinion of the court has been that Fair Use is impossible to legally define, except by the results of individual cases. It'd be dangerous to everybody to have a Fair Use case put before the court. It's a major gamble.
It'll be back - in hi-def DVDs (Score:2, Interesting)
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 hardware to everyone). If you're going to deliberately break something, you have to do it before anyone has a chance to buy it.
Or, the MPAA could just pay companies for it. "Here's $10 million if you'll include this in what you sell."
The MPAA? (Score:2)
Re:The MPAA? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why? (Score:2)
[...]
In light of all this, does anyone know why they're putting up such a fight?
I have two theories. The first is that they want to make people pay per "use" like so many other people have suggested. It gives them more control.
The second is a little more subtle. Listen to an MPAA rep talk about copyright and compare it to the appropriate writings of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution. The difference, in my view, is that copyright is viewed by one party as enforcing a right (in the sense of the words "human rights") of the copyright holder, whereas it is viewed as an essentially flimsy construction by the others. It has a purpose, but it's an ugly hack designed to get the job done without actually reflecting any deep, basic principle. "Sure, we ought to reward people for doing intellectual work, but we'll do it by forbidding people from taking advantage of the essential fact that there can never be a shortage of copies if there is not a shortage of media and copiers."
I think part of the MPAA's stance has to do with convincing the public that their way of thinking is the right one. Perhaps a forced pay-per-use model wouldn't go over very well right now, and poeple would rebel by installing mod chips and continuing to do what they've always done. There's a great quote from the SciFi novel "Brain Wave" that I think fits the situation perfectly. It's something to the effect of, "The strength of the fence is in the animals not comprehending they can push hard enough to knock it over."
Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful (Score:2)
This is no place for Congress or the law. But recording formats should include this essential metadata. Like the (C) symbol on printed matter - this is not some new practice, just a newly obvious need for the old practice. Like that (C) symbol, the enforcement is up to actual justice system workers, like detectives, police and judges. But of course more easily automated, just as distribution is more easily automated. The key to resolving these copyright problems is not less info, but more info. A copyright flag, and probably a copyright URL pointing to standardized copyright license terms (including "none"), would make that aspect of transactions easy enough that lots more people would comply. Without turning our own devices into snitches, creating havoc (and impeding transactions) when they go wrong.
Re:Broadcast Flag Considered Helpful (Score:2)
Beware the "good bill" (Score:2)
Broadcast Flag is already overused (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway (Score:2)
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. There is this mentality that we should only be able to watch what they want us to when they want us to. It's becoming continually more obvious that people are not interested in sitting in front of the TV 8 hours a night. TV broadcasters better get with it or they will be left behind.
Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway (Score:2)
Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway (Score:2)
You're right, but don't forget that our esteemed elected officials have passed legislation to criminalize this behavior. It's called the DMCA.
Re:Broadcast flag is useless anyway (Score:2)
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" addage is becoming less and less true.
Not Forever (Score:2)
For an easy example, try buying a black and white TV.. No new ones, and old ones are getting scarce.
Or try getting a 'wax cylinder player'... Even harder. For the common man they dont exist.
Sure this is different as its about raw controlling technology, but the theory is the same.
Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power (Score:2, Informative)
Prove it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Prove it (Score:2, Informative)
Prooves my point (Score:2)
I neevr said he got no money at all. But even in the link you gave you can see that amount is small cmpared to other sectors, again hardly a "flood" of money.
Re:Prooves my point (Score:2, Insightful)
That in turn is unfair (Score:2)
But really we should stop looking at individuals, and look at party aggrigates - At the Democrat [opensecrets.org] and Republican [opensecrets.org] industry sectors.
Here TV/Movies/Music is double for the Democrats. But wait, check out 2002 - there the Democrats got a staggering 32 MILLION dollars while the Republicans had only 5 million. WHat you see in the 2004 figures is a reluctant realization that the republicans really are in power and therefore they cannot just ignore them altogether. But even so they just don't have the kind of historical influence the entertainment industry has on Democrats - especially the ones who were gathering some of that money back in 2002.
But which media is key (Score:2)
Re:But which media is key (Score:2)
You should probably capitalize Mormon, as it's a proper noun; or you should spell "mormon" without the second silent "m".
Re:Prove it (Score:2)
Re:Prove it (Score:2)
You pay for a $10K per plate seat at a fundraiser dinner which gets you about 5 minutes of "personal time" with the senator - just long enough to identify yourself and your issue of interest. Then you get handed off to their secretary who will schedule you in for a regular appointment in the near future where you will be expected to bring a check for the balance of your campaign contributions and depending on the size of the check you will get some amount of time to make your case, and maybe offer to fund a fact-finding trip for the Senator and his family to the Bahamas.
Lots of money and then a meeting (Score:2)
Then the Senator weighs what you would like against what other donors would like against what the people who voted him in office wants. Then he applies a weighting function unique to that senator, if you are lucky for whatever reason the weighting system favors you. With a lot of money you probably have a good shot.
Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power (Score:2)
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 is most likely to damages your freedom the least, not whether one party or the other is more free from corporate sponsorship.
The Enlightenment principles of social and economic personal freedom are embraced by almost nobody. They materialize in a spotty faction in each party but both are basically consumed with being in power and embracing whatever platform they must to stay in power. I wonder if any of them really ever stop to think about what's best for America, or if what they believe in is really best for America, or if they're so blinded by the desire to screw over the opposition and solidify their control of the nation that they never stop to wonder what exactly their purpose is.
I can explain away almost all perplexing political behavior as a desire to secure bloc voters, but why do they want to be in power so badly? All of their legislation is intended to either fulfill campaign promises to secure more voters or to please financial backers without whose money they'll struggle to win re-election. It's like the purpose of politics is to stay in politics. It's more of a video game than anything else. And at the end of the day, who really has to live with the decisions being made on our behalf by 650 unethical millionaires?
You and I do.
And this is why I always claim that the less they rape my paycheck to fund this lunacy, the happier I am.-
Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power (Score:2)
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 Republicans usually say and the Democrats usually hate.
Re:Advantages to having Republicans in power (Score:2)
I favor lower taxes, yes. I don't care if Republicans favor this or Democrats oppose it, or vice versa. I also favor decriminalization of most drugs, and I could give two shits which political parties happen to agree with me.
Re:HAHAHAAHAHAH (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another one bites the dust (Score:2)
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=811 [slyck.com]
Apparently, what's on there now means (babelfished and smoothed out by me)
"Now maybe you are wondering why we did it? We only did it to make you aware on that The Pirate Bay soon is debuting a new version soon."
Re:Goodbye Broadcast Flag (Score:2)
"Anti-Child-Porn Counter-Terrorist Flag-Burning-Preventive Vitamin-Fortified Broadcast Protective Flag"
(OK, maybe the "Vitamin-Fortified" part is a little over-the-top.)
Re:I feel so ashamed (Score:2)