EFF Goes To Court To Fight The Broadcast Flag 287
Silwenae writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and nine other organizations including Public Knowledge (PK) and the American Library Association (ALA) have gone to court to fight the Broadcast Flag. The press release sums it up: The brief argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress. While the FCC does have jurisdiction over TV transmissions, transmissions are not at issue here. The broadcast flag limits the way digital material can be used after the broadcast has already been received."
What are the odds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, but the EFF is likely to lose if they are fighting it on "digital hardware" jurisdictional grounds. The right way to fight this is to fight it on grounds that the FCC doesn't have the authority to alter th
Re:What are the odds? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't actually know if they have any authority over receiver hardware or not, but it might only be that most receiver hardware is capable of transmitting in some form (if only via interference.)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC has the authority to regulate transmitters and receivers. Not any accompanying hardware, except with respect to interference. I agree with the EFF that this mandate is outside of the authority of the FCC.
I don't understand why you think the EFF is not doing what you claim they should be doing!?
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
right... and that's all. They have to approve the device to not interfere with other transmissions that they govern.
This is an apples and oranges comparision to what the EFF is trying to limit.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Funny)
dgatwood writes "The odds are very low."
Somebody please make up my mind for me.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like regulating transmissions to me. Now, when the FCC tells me that my HDD can only boot an FCC approved OS image, or can only store files that have been signed by a corporate entity, then they get the FINGER.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Informative)
But do they have any authority over what happens to signals after they have ceased to be freely radiating RF?
They have the right to regulate digital hardware, too, as every computer you buy has been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference.
That is only the function of the computer as a radio transmitter. It has nothing to do with the function of the hardware as dig
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Informative)
But do they have any authority over what happens to signals after they have ceased to be freely radiating RF?
Doesn't matter at all. because the FCC DOES have the right to say "you shall make all receiving devices compatible with this (broadcast flag) device..."
This ain't new, and I'm surprised the EFF thinks it has even a slim chance with such a play. Apparently no one at the EFF has read their history books:
The problem was that UHF stations would not be successful unless people had UHF tuners, and people would not voluntarily pay for UHF tuners unless there were UHF broadcasters. Of the 165 UHF stations that went on the air between 1952 and 1959, 55% went off the air. Of the UHF stations on the air, 75% were losing money. UHF's problems were the following:(1) technical inequality of UHF stations as compared with VHF stations; (2) intermixture of UHF and VHF stations in the same market and the millions of VHF only receivers; (3) the lack of confidence in the capabilities of and the need for UHF television. Suggestions of de-intermixture (making some cities VHF only and other cities UHF only) were not adopted, because most existing sets did not have UHF capability. Ultimately the FCC required all TV sets to have UHF tuners. However over four decades later, UHF is still considered inferior to VHF, despite cable television, and ratings on VHF channels are generally higher than on UHF channels.
The allocation between VHF and UHF in the 1950s, and the lack of UHF tuners is entirely analogous to the dilemma facing digital television of high definition television fifty years later.
Even fifty years ago the FCC had the power to (and did) regulate receiving devices. They mandated all sets sold with something larger than (I believe) a 13" screen MUST have both VHF an UHF tuners... and it stood, and it worked... just as this latest move will.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're confused. (Score:3, Interesting)
They can say "Any television receiver must include a v-chip."
They can say "Any television receiver must receive a broadcast flag, and include the broadcast flag with any signal retransmission"
What the FCC can *NOT* say is "Any television signal recording device (VCR/TiVo) must respect the broacast flag", as those devices are not receivers. Once the signal is off the airwaves and into wires, FCC mandate ends.
Now, they *COULD* say that "Any televis
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm very glad you got mod points for this, as it seems both accurate and informative, but it raised another question in my mind.
A while back, there was a legal decision usually referred to as the "Thor Power Tool" case, that involved the IRS and company accounting/amortization methods. The case had a huge impact on the publishing industry
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:2)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
/greger
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think again. From their about us [fcc.gov] page they say, "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.">
Parallel that with the CIA [cia.gov], "The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, an
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people try, maybe.
If people don't try, never.
I.V.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC is obviously outside of its mandate and that fact will be communicated just by the very fact act of taking to the courts.
Be not afraid.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks to an FCC ruling, as of July 2005, it will be illegal to manufacture or import DTV tuners unless they include DRM technologies mandated by the FCC.
The FCC only has power to regulate transmissions. They can require broadcasters to transmit a broadcast flag but they cannot require television makers to pay any attention to it. That would require a bill to be voted into law by congress.
Re:What are the odds? (Score:3, Interesting)
It certainly won't make a difference if they don't. The thing to remember that there are chaotic factors at work. It might be the first person to "sit at the front of the bus" or it might be the thousanth.
Actions speak louder than words. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it? Or does the flag just say that the sender set the broadcast flag? The receiver limits the use of the data, or not.
Re:Actions speak louder than words. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actions speak louder than words. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Actions speak louder than words. (Score:2, Insightful)
It does when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without FCC certification how are you going to sell a receiver?
And of course building anything that does not honr the flag is disallowed by the DMCA. It's basically a form of prohibition all over again.
Re:It does when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think they did that with DAT (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, you or I might be able to build such a device (though with a heavily encrrypted data stream enfolding the flag, it's going to be quite a task!). But why should there be a "technical elite" that have the rights we are supposed to have? Why should we settle for that?
Fighting for rights has always been about fighting for the rights of people at large, not just yourself.
Per
Re:Think they did that with DAT (Score:4, Informative)
DAT has the same kind of no-copy flag, and I think there were devices produced that would strip this flag from the digital stream.
It was congress that passed that law, with an exception for 'professional grade' equipment, which started showing up shortly after. The no-copy flag is believed to be largely responsible for the minimal penetration of audio DAT in the US.
fp? (Score:3, Interesting)
at least top ten....
Once again - this "flag" will be a problem for the Common Ordinary copy maker, but all it takes is a nice little Time Base Corrector to strip the digital crap out to clean up the signal, and then route that signal into your recorder of choice. Done.
RS
Re:fp? (Score:4, Informative)
This is for digital television broadcasts. If you strip the digital information out you'll be left with a blank screen.
Re:fp? (Score:5, Funny)
For most shows, that would be an improvement...
Re:fp? I'm not being flamebait.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the signal route would be:
digital receiver -> monitor -> output -> TBC -> digital recorder.
Yeah - there will be a little loss, but you'll still get a pretty damn good copy. So, no, I was not being flamebait, nor was I off topic. I was just trying to point out that there are ways around all that crap.
If I'm going to flame someone for something, you'll know... and I NEVER post anything as an AC, unlike some AC's here, because I believe what I post is true. When I'm wrong, I appreciate being corrected - it's a little thing called "learning".
RS
The stupid thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
They will not be able to export their technology as other countries are protecting the right of their citizens to make private copies.
Expect the EU to adopt another HDTV standard.
We already did. (Score:2)
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:2, Interesting)
In between shooting propaganda movies for the navy, they could use them to "promote" their point of view abroad...
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
They have. They've chosen their own modulation and encoding standard. They are NOT the same as the US ATSC HD broadcasting standard.
Now, the EU can still be cowed into implementing the same thing, much like the software patent vote was manipulated.
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There's defenetly plenty more (I think pulsediling were different before we got tonediling). Then there's 802.11 and bluetooth, both has had difficulty getting over the pond (in different directions), though it seems like finally they are.
Both parties have been equally bad. It's just as often Europe reinventing some existing american weel we the other way around.
The loosers, as always, are the customers.
Re:The stupid thing is... (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't quite that simple, PAL is a derivative of NTSC. The French then came up with SECAM. The USA actually signed the Treaty of the Metre (pre Noah Webster) yet has never implimented it, the system actually used in the US is called "English" which is not the same as the Imperial system of measurements.
Time to donate!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So dontate [eff.org] whatever you can! Is some small portion of your salary too much to fight for digital rights?
I hope this is overturned, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider if you will this Supreme Court case:
The Court's 1942 decision in Wickard vs. Filburn gave Congress the power to regulate anything. In that case, the Court remarkably held that the interstate commerce clause could be used to regulate an individual farmer's wheat production or his family's consumption. The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.
So, in this case, even though the television sets are not engaging in interstate communication, they are receiving a signal that very likely is, and therefore, the government's resposibility to regulate cannot end at reception... or some other similar crap.
Now I'm depressed...
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Re:I hope this is overturned, but (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope this is overturned, but (Score:5, Interesting)
The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.
That's an ugly travesty of a precedent, deserving to be overturned.
Next thing you know, bands won't be able to do cover songs because the audience might otherwise have purchased recorded music of said songs that were part of interstate commerce.
You can tell that even in the 1940's, people were willing to come up with contorted reasoning to justify a commercial policy based on entirely different premises.
It looks to me as if the EFF has a nice technicality based case.
But it could be "fixed" by legislation mandating the expansion of the FCC's regulatory powers into any electronic device dealing with encryption, probably under some omnibus Patriot Terrorism/Hacker-Prevention Pedophile Spammer Slammer Act. Such legislation would sail through Congress.
Re:I hope this is overturned, but (Score:5, Informative)
Much has been written [google.com] about the interstate commerce decision/clause. Here's an excerpt [factmonster.com]:
Beginning with the Hepburn Act (1906), the ICC's jurisdiction was gradually extended beyond railroads to all common carriers except airplanes by 1940. Its enforcement powers to set rates were also progressively extended, through statute and broadened Supreme Court interpretations of the commerce clause of the Constitution, as were its investigative powers for determining fair rates of return on which to base rates. In addition, the ICC was given the task of consolidating railroad systems and managing labor disputes in interstate transport. In the 1950s and 60s the ICC enforced U.S. Supreme Court rulings that required the desegregation of passenger terminal facilities.
The ICC's safety functions were transferred to the Dept. of Transportation when that department was created in 1966; the ICC retained its rate-making and regulatory functions. However, in consonance with the deregulatory movement, the ICC's powers over rates and routes in rails and trucking were curtailed in 1980 by the Staggers Rail Act and Motor Carriers Act. Most ICC control over interstate trucking was abandoned in 1994, and the agency was terminated at the end of 1995. Many of its remaining functions were transferred to the new National Surface Transportation Board.
Suffice it to say that the ICC has been oft-abused in a search/grab for power, and many activities we take for granted in our daily lives are now subject to continuing jurisdiction of the government under the ICC. Do you check email? That email crossed state lines and someone paid for connectivity at both ends... thus the software, keyboard, mouse and monitor you use with your computer are theoretically subject to ICC regulation. Want to use Linux instead of Windows? Want to install SP2 on your Windows box? Maybe Congress will decide that it needs to regulate software distribution and require you to register your use of any updates with them...
The ICC is a big, dangerous thing in the hands of often overzealous public officials...
Re:I hope this is overturned, but (Score:4, Informative)
You'll be pleased to know that this exact point [indystar.com] is going before the court again this year. The Supreme Court will consider whether Congress can ban medical marijuana in California even if it never leaves the state.
The WWII wheat-quotas-are-OK case (Wickard v Filburn, 1942) is looking pretty weak after the can't-prohibit-guns-near-schools case (US v Lopez, 1995). I can hardly imagine that the Court will force a broad role-back of Congressional authority, but we'll know in a few months or so.
Pardon my pessimism (Score:2, Interesting)
So the MPAA will just send a few more "donations" to congress and suddenly a new law magically appears extending the FCC's powers.
Re:Pardon my pessimism (Score:3, Funny)
'Best Deals: The Courts"
So if you need to go shopping for a judge..
Re:Pardon my pessimism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pardon my pessimism (Score:3, Insightful)
tricky. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:tricky. (Score:3, Informative)
By broadcast, you mean transmit. But read the back of almost any device with the FCC logo you speak of. It seems they have authority over both transmitting and receiving.
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interfe
Re:tricky. (Score:2)
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?
"accept" in what sense. If it does "cause undesired operation", then surely that means it didn't "accept" it? What wound no
Re:tricky. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe this is the FCC's classification of a particular device. They're saying, however you use this thing, it can't cause harmful interference (i.e. you don't have a right to use this device in such a way that will cause harmful interference). They're also saying that you have to deal with whatever interference it receives (i.e. don't complain to the FCC if something is interfering with it).
>"may" not? is it optional? Harmful to who or what?
Required. Anyone tha
You misunderstand Part 15 (Score:5, Informative)
Let's look at the 2 parts in the context of your TV.
This device may not cause harmful interference
This says that your TV cannot interfer with anything else - if it does and somebody complains, you have to turn your TV off. No if, ands, or buts. So if your TV is throwing out a spurious emission at 146.52 MHz and thereby is interfering with my ability to talk on my 2 meter radio, upon my informing you of the interference you have to turn your TV off until you get it fixed. If you cannot get it fixed, you cannot use it. Equally, if your TV is interfering with MY TV, and I so inform you, the same thing happens.
OK, now let's look at the second part:
this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Why is this here? OK, let's look at a scenario. Your TV has a badly designed front-end, and is interfered with by my transmissions on 146.52 MHz. You complain to me. I check my equipment, and determine that I am not generating any spurious emissions outside of the 2 meter amateur band. Your TV is at fault here, in that it is not correctly rejecting my signal.
You can *ask* me to stop transmitting. You cannot *order* me to stop transmitting, even though I am interfering with you - my part 97 amateur gear, operating properly in band, trumps your part 15 TV. (in reality, I am going to do everyting I can to help you resolve the problem, but I am not under any legal obligation to do so).
In short, the second part is to clarify where part 15 stands on the totem pole - at the very bottom.
Re:You misunderstand Part 15 (Score:2)
Televisions and all modern reception devices do lots of filtering to reject noise though. Thin line i suppose.
Re:tricky. (Score:2)
By broadcast, you mean transmit. But read the back of almost any device with the FCC logo you speak of. It seems they have authority over both transmitting and receiving.
Only to the extent that the reciever necessarily radiates some RF in the process of recieving. Unless they can demonstrate that ignoring the broadcast flag necesarily increases RF emissions, they have no authority over that functionality.
What this amounts to is Congress and the Bush administration wanting to fulfill their obligations
Re:tricky. (Score:5, Informative)
That's completely different. That ensures one device is not preventing another device from receiving a transmission. Basically, it ensures one device does not interfere with another. Which means, such restrictions exactly fit with the FCC's charter.
The broadcast flag has nothing to do with it's charter. Never has, and never will, save only by changes in law by Congress. Which is exactly the point.
interpretation.... (Score:2)
But if a TV doesn't respect the broadcast flag, then it's interfering with the station's desire to keep the video private. There we go, everything's hunky-dory again.
How long will it take... (Score:4, Interesting)
How long will it take for someone to figure out how to strip this flag out using a piece of software on a PC (or hardware or firmware mod on a standalone unit) and then be able to record it without caring if this flag is set?
I'd bet within days, the first option, and maybe weeks or months on the second. This is not going to help anyone in the long run, same as Macrovision doesn't help anymore when it comes right down to it.
Re:How long will it take... (Score:2)
That's exactly the problem. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it, news groups are still out there, because you have to know how they work, how to unRAR a file, burn an image file, or just mount it with Daemon tools.
Napster was easy and it's gone. Kazaa is easy so they are trying to sue it out of existence and flood it with spoofs.
They want the average user to only be allowded to do what they choose with content.
In this case I think they have gone too far. This is basically saying you can't use a VCR to record Digital tv broadcast over public airwaves (yes Public, we own them not they FCC, they only manage them).
If they need to be protected then DONT BROADCAST OVER PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Re:That's exactly the problem. . . (Score:2)
Think about it though, the average user is not currently pirating this stuff either. Therefore these measures are aimed at the "advanced user" who will know exactly where to look for info on cracking it...and I can bet they all know how to use newsgroups as well.
My parents and grandparents are not copying material now, nor will they if/when these news flags are in place. The people who are currently doing it, will still be doing it.
Re:That's exactly the problem. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How long will it take... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very similar to watching a DVD on Linux. It takes about 5 seconds to install a piece of software to play a DVD on Linux, but everytime you do that you're breaking the law. It's not that it's IMPOSSIBLE to watch a DVD, it's that it's ILLEGAL to watch a DVD on Linux.
Now illegal in this sense doesn't mean the cops are going to break down your door, it just means that's you have to make a decision to skirt that part of the law.
So it's more important that we be ALLOWED (under the law) to watch that DVD, or that HDTV signal however we want.
Especially since that signal is coming in to my house/business over public airways. If it's coming in to my house, and I have no (reasonable) recourse with which to stop it, I should be able to do whatever I want with the signal once it gets there. But that's another argument.
It's all about rights, not capabilities.
Delaying the inevitable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Delaying the inevitable? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's for our own good, you know, because without those protections the content providers will never let their precious content be broacast in HD and we'll all be looking at blank screens.
Of course, the screens wouldn't be blank for long. Talk about a goldmine for an upstart content producer. The highest resolution out there, populated exclusively by people with disposable income to spare, and all the big fish voluntarily removing themselves from contention. Surely, someone can figure out a way to make money when the red carpet is rolled out like that.
Naturally, Disney and friends would prefer to poison the well and salt the fields.
FCC NEEDS this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FCC NEEDS this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FCC NEEDS this (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Argument (Score:2, Insightful)
The brief argues that the FCC has no authority to regulate digital TV sets and other digital devices unless specifically instructed to do so by Congress.
OK, so if they win this round look for Congress to specifically instruct the FCC to do so.
It is as if they don't see that coming...
Re:Stupid Argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Bigger question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, however, it's okay for Congress to make an agency to do it...
Of course, we accept it as though it's the most natural thing in the world for someone else to be responsible for our speech.
Now, I realize that the FCC does more than censor free speech. However, a lot of what they do is not un-Constitutional. Did they simply regulate access to the airwaves (not based on content of speech), I wouldn't have a problem with them. I do, however, have a large problem with some bureaucrat passing judgement on my words.
Note: I am not opposed to censorship, only government-backed censorship. Network owners should be free to censor whatever they wish. I should be able to censor my own publications. However, the government has no right to do so.
Re:Bigger question: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not necessarily akin to standing inside someone's home yelling obscenities in their ear, where they have no choice but to listen to you; but there is plenty of room for argument in cases of broadcast communications as opposed to subscription based ones.
The FCC has very limited power over subscription based communications. (Anyone else notice Comedy Central started airing completely uncensored movies late at night?)
Re:Bigger question: (Score:2)
Why? Where do they get the right to tell Americans what they can and can't broadcast?
Please don't fight it (Score:5, Funny)
Setting Legal Precedent for Howard Stern and Ilk (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember that Stern, himself, paved the way for Bill O'Reilly. B
Mod Chips (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mod Chips (Score:2)
Disolve the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
You suck Michael Powell.
Re:Disolve the FCC (Score:2)
(*expects downmods for use of British spelling*)
Re:Disolve the FCC (Score:2)
You suck, Michael Powell.
thank god... (Score:3, Interesting)
While we are at it, how about a challege to the existance of the RIAA and MPAA under antitrust law??? Everybody knows they use these organizations for price-fixing.....defeats the purpose of capitalism....
Re:thank god... (Score:2, Interesting)
Search google: riaa "rico act".
October 14 ? (Score:2, Informative)
Analog hole (Score:4, Informative)
TV the great mind waster! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the medium used to controll us, numb us and turn us into the machines the "man" wants.
It is also the medium of news (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality it will mostly be used for football and broadcast movies to start with (both of which I can do without), but it is a slippery slope.
I only watch a few hours of TV a week, but I am still trying to help fight this. If the technical people who do not undrestand the dangers now do not, then it will be much worse for everyone later!
No post about our rights or copyright usage. (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright holder has the right not to put his copyrighted work on our public airwaves without the broadcast flag. But under a free market, someone else will step up and fill that role.
We let the content providers dictate what usage we must agree too, when in reality we should force them to our regulations. If they don't like the regulations, they can still protect their copyrights and not release. But its a true free market, someone else will step up and do business. Copyright is the smokescreen to total control of distribution.
You can have 100% open distribution and protect Copyrights, the copyright owner just doesn't participate.
Example.
Sony: We won't show our new movie on HDTV if it doesn't support the broadcast flag.
Cable CO: You have that right, we will go with someone else's movie then.
And you just opened the market and have no regulation, in fact that's de-regulation, and people still have copyrights over their content.
Our society has it backwards, we allow businesses to dictate the ways and means of how they do business with the public. This is what creates mono or duopolies. We over-regulate the protection of the businesses, and the consumers pay for it. Why should business's have special interests? It's a free market, well, in theory.
BTW, FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell wants the market de-regulated, he understands it. He showed it in the non-regulation on WiFi, he should use it for HDTV also. Wish I could ask him, humm.
-
USA [idea.int] ranked 114 worst voter participation by country.
A friend of mine likes to say.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that the same is true for the broadcast flag. If you beam it to my house, I can do with it what I want.
Re:Macrovision (Score:4, Informative)
Hitachi can put whatever "features" they want in their TVs, the EFF is saying the government can't mandate what goes in and doesn't.
Ie; V-Chip is optional, TV and Movie ratings are all completely voluntary, there are no US laws that have to do with PG-13.
Re:Macrovision (Score:5, Informative)
From the FCC's V-chip page [fcc.gov]:
Of course, it's up to you whether you want to use the V-chip that the gov't forces you to buy.
Re:Macrovision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Macrovision (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like they are going to push congress for a law after the EFF wins. However, it's a much harder sell, and we can speak up about it to our represenatives.
Re:Macrovision (Score:3, Interesting)
The broadcast flag is pretty much a done deal. CBS said they would never move to digital broadcasts unless the broadcast flag was mandated. Since moving all television broadc
Re:Macrovision (Score:3, Insightful)
An obvious bluff. What are they going to when analog goes away, not broadcast over the air at all?
Basically, the only way to get rid of the broadcast flag is to (a) convince the broadcasters they should give up their copyright to digital broadcasts
That doesn't follow. I can record non-HD shows today, but that doesn't mean that the producers have to give up their copyright. All they have to give up their fantasy
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
All they do is to keep a record of all the houses that *don't* have TV licenses (very few) and then check them randomly.
Re:As long as Bush is in power... (Score:4, Informative)
I think you are mistaken, have a look at the list of EFF victories [eff.org] for reference.
Re:Public Airways (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a "bill." Congress passes bills. This is simply a ruling by the FCC. That is the EFF's argument in this case. They are saying the FCC has taken on matters which should only be under the jurisdiction of Congress.