Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

OT: Broadcast Flag, things are getting interesting

860 Views 16 Replies 12 Participants Last post by scochran666, Mar 1, 2005

BaysideBas

Discussion Starter · Feb 25, 2005

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) overstepped its authority by requiring devices capable of receiving digital TV broadcasts to recognize data called a 'broadcast flag' that can prevent copying, a federal judge has said.

US Circuit Judge Harry Edwards told the FCC that it had "crossed the line" when it required DRM technology to be included in all DTV devices on sale in the USA from 1 July. This would include TVs, set top boxes, PC tuner cards, VCRs, DVD players, and similar devices.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...ag_in_trouble/

Status: Not open for further replies.

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

sfhub

· #2 · Feb 25, 2005

"Unfortunately, there is a legal detail here that might moot the whole issue. Judge Sentelle noted that the plaintiffs, largely consumer and library groups, might not have standing to make a complaint against FCC unless they can show how the regulation causes them specific harm.

So it is entirely possible that the complaint will be shut down on a technicality."

joesc1

· #3 · Feb 25, 2005

How the heck can he say that consumers don't have standing to make a complaint! This directly affects us. Totally bogus.

nded

· #4 · Feb 25, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by joesc1
How the heck can he say that consumers don't have standing to make a complaint! This directly affects us. Totally bogus.

There is no denying that the Broadcast Flag is designed to affect television viewing habits. This doesn't mean that the consumer has been harmed in any tangible way. How are you going to be specifically harmed by the effect this technology will have on your new equipment's capabilities?

If you can't show true harm, you have no grounds for a complaint.

scochran666

· #5 · Feb 25, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by joesc1
How the heck can he say that consumers don't have standing to make a complaint! This directly affects us. Totally bogus.

The standing issue is tricky. Legally, the courts address specific and individualized harm. If the harm is generalized (all citizens), then it is up to Congress to redress the problem.

So a manufacturer of HDTV decoders could have standing, but it is unlikely that the EFF would. The ALA made an interesting argument that may or may not qualify for standing.

It would have been nice to have a better response ready for this issue when the judge raised it. There's no way that ALA/EFF/etc. couldn't have seen a standing challenge coming.

oldyellow

· #6 · Feb 25, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by nded
This doesn't mean that the consumer has been harmed in any tangible way. How are you going to be specifically harmed by the effect this technology will have on your new equipment's capabilities?

Here's how:

1) Under fair use, I have the legal right to make recordings of my favorite TV programs for personal use.

2) Without DRM technology, I built up a huge library of personal use recordings for my enjoyment. While I cannot sell or disribute these recordings their market value can be estimated by the cost of buying the DVD's that are available.

3) The FCC requires all hardware vendors to implement DRM technology

3) This DRM technlogy prevents me from recording my favorite programs, which prevents me from unlimited viewing that I previously enjoyed.

4) In order to get to the same level of unlimited viewing that I previously had, I have to purchase the content.

5) Therefore, I am owed financial relief from the FCC in the amount of $$$. This amount represents the retail cost of buying all of the necessary content to get me back to the level of unlimited viewing that I would enjoy if not for the FCC requiring DRM technology to be implemented by hardware vendors.

A lawyer could make it sound more legal-like.

See less See more

PhilB

· #7 · Feb 26, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by oldyellow
Here's how:

A lawyer could make it sound more legal-like.

The broadcast flag would not infringe on your ability to make those copies. Thus, no harm no foul.

-phil

tluxon

· #8 · Feb 26, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by PhilB
The broadcast flag would not infringe on your ability to make those copies. Thus, no harm no foul.

-phil

I guess I must be missing something here.

I've yet to see a requirement handed down from a government agency that ended up reducing the composite cost of a product. If manufacturers are being mandated to add DRM technology to any products, it very definitely has an adverse affect on the price of TV viewing technologies I buy in the future? How is that no harm or foul?

Tim

See less See more

icecow

· #9 · Feb 26, 2005

---------------------------

"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world," judge Edwards observed.

Judge David Sentelle wondered if FCC thought it could regulate washing machines, since Congress didn't expressly forbid that, either.

---------------------------

I read the above to mean if hardware manufacturers were the ones that had brought this case to court it would have been an open and shut case.

Clearly adding the hardware to bring TV tuners up to FCC codes is both an expense and affects how well the product will sell.

I'm not completely chipper about these turns of events because it may mean that everyone involved my have to mount for yet another battle that will take place after the July 1 deadline, which means the law may go in to effect, gaining some credence awhile congressman are lobbied. If the end result is that 'the broadcast flag is allowable, but with strict stipulations...' I'll be pissed.

Things look good at this moment, but I find this stuff agrivating. It's like being on the back seat of a motorcycle. I know how to lean, but being on a motorcycle that I'm not controling breaches every instinct.

See less See more

Snarler

· #10 · Feb 27, 2005

Grabbing from a site that did an analysis about 2 years ago. I hope things have changed since then, otherwise we're looking at most-likely lower quality recordings, and DVD players that may or may not work with newer recordings. Combine that with higher cost of devices, and the higher prices for the broadcasts themselves (combination of claiming higher costs of including the technology such as encryption and the fact that since they are limiting piracy they become a larger percentage of the provider and can charge higher fees to make more profit), and that sounds like harm to me.

New DTV equipment, "Demodulator Products" sold after 1 July, 2005 in the US must comply with the ruling;

"If the flag is present, the content can be sent in one of several permissible ways, including (1) over an analog output, e.g. to existing analog equipment; or (2) over a digital output associated with an approved content protection or recording technology"

It is not clear if the quality that the digital broadcast brings will remain in the analogue output, or if it will be forcefully degraded to discourage the digital distribution of possible analogue recordings.[\\QUOTE]

Quote:

Changes to DVD

While it has been stated that current TV equipment will remain useable, the future for current DVD players is far less secure. Hidden in footnote 47 the FCC states:

"We recognize that currently, content recorded onto a DVD with a flag-compliant device will only be able to be viewed on other flag compliant devices and not on legacy DVD players. While we are sensitive to any potential incompatibilities between new and legacy devices, we believe that this single, narrow example presented to us is not unique to a flag system and is outweighed by the overall benefits gained in terms of consumer access to high value content. Changes in DVD technology, such as the transition to high definition DVD devices, will present other unrelated format incompatibilities."

The briefly translates to DVD players currently on the market will not be able to play DVDs which have been marked with a Broadcast Flag.

jconawa

· #11 · Feb 27, 2005

I guess it could be worse and we could be paying a TV tax like the

people in Britain. Its something like $200/yr for a color TV license.

blabber

· #12 · Feb 27, 2005

Yup, how'd ya like to pay money just receive over-the-air TV?

Anyway, looks like my DVD player and discs will soon end up next to my Atari 2600 game system in my Room Of Obsolete Technologies That Still Work Well, plugged into my old analog TV/VCR combo, with the lava lamp and rotary dial phone. Gosh, I like that room!

scochran666

· #13 · Feb 28, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by blabber
Yup, how'd ya like to pay money just receive over-the-air TV?

Many of us already do. It's called Cable, and for a number of years I had to have it, because I just couldn't pull in OTA without setting up an antenna farm (big ones, too) pointed in 4 different directions.

BaysideBas

Discussion Starter · #14 · Feb 28, 2005

Or pay the "hidden" tax for OTA broadcasts. Which every consumer pays, whether they ever watch TV or not.

icecow

· #15 · Mar 1, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by scochran666
Many of us already do. It's called Cable, and for a number of years I had to have it, because I just couldn't pull in OTA without setting up an antenna farm (big ones, too) pointed in 4 different directions.

Yes, that is the history of cable companies. They started out merely taking OTA signal and pumping through wire to areas who couldn't get OTA signal. It was all pirated signal.

There is a book (forgot title) that argues piracy is a given step in the advancement of technology. The event of Radio Stations was another example in the book.

Now that I think of it 'the history of the oscars' article (I made a thread and dropped a link) said the movie studios really didn't like TV poping up. They didn't want to show the oscars on TV. At least one movie studio would not allow footage of a TV set be seen in any part of their movies.

See less See more

blabber

· #16 · Mar 1, 2005

Well, of course I meant paying for OTA using just an antenna. Duhr!

But if you can't receive that way, yep.. you're pretty much at the mercy of cable or satellite providers, or no TV... hmm, no TV... an interesting concept.

I worked with a guy who had a pretty nice home theater setup with piles of movies, but no antenna and no cable. When a movie ended, the screen went dark and there was nothing to watch until you loaded another flick. It's how he wanted it. He hated TV but loved movies.

The old thinking of Hollywood hating TV has certainly changed. Now we have TV stars becoming movie stars, and sometimes vice-versa. The awards shows now generate a lot of business for the movie industry. Hard to believe they ever hated each other.

scochran666

· #17 · Mar 1, 2005

Quote:

Originally posted by icecow
Yes, that is the history of cable companies. They started out merely taking OTA signal and pumping through wire to areas who couldn't get OTA signal. It was all pirated signal.

There is a book (forgot title) that argues piracy is a given step in the advancement of technology. The event of Radio Stations was another example in the book.

You are right, this is a common thread that goes back to the original tension between creators and publishers.

One of the first big cases was the piano roll industry, who was publishing roll music without paying license fees to the copyright holders. After much legal back-and-forth, congress stepped in an enforced compulsary licenses - the piano roll industry had to pay a fixed price per song, per roll. It eliminated the uncertainty of publishing music - the composer/copyright holder knew what they would get, and the piano roll makers knew what it would cost them.

This scene replayed itself in radio (stations pay a compulsary license fee per song played) and in CATV. It is what _should_ be happening with digital distribution of music, movies and other content.

Anytime a transformative technology is applied to an industry, that industry changes. It is inevitable [Mr. Anderson]. And the industry always fights.

See less See more

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

Status: Not open for further replies.