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

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."

Re:So which is it?

[Rei]

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.

Your darn right it ain't over!

[Luscious868]

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.

Trial Balloon

[Gothmolly]

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.

Of course they haven't given up - read the article

[FunWithHeadlines]

"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."

My bet

[Dark Paladin]

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 ?

[VonSlatt]

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:The EFF is the authority here?

[JonTurner]

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 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."

It'll be back - in hi-def DVDs

[scotpurl]

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 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."

Re:Dissolve the MPAA

[Rude Turnip]

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 power over the government, as responsible citizens should.

Broadcast Flag is already overused

[Jherek Carnelian]

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.

Re:Don't get too excited

[Jasin Natael]

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 Natael

Re:The EFF is the authority here?

[plover]

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 technology.

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.