FCC Commissioner Wants To Push For DRM 337
RareButSeriousSideEffects writes "Techdirt reports that 'Newest Commissioner Deborah Tate has apparently announced that while she knows its outside the FCC's authority, she's a huge fan of copy protection and hopes to use her new position as a "bully pulpit" on the topic.'"
time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I guess it's her prerogative and privilege to use the bully pulpit to endorse, embrace, and encourage DRM, but it makes me nervous when the government and its actors role play about technology and how it should be meted out. Their original responsibility (at least the FCC's) is to fairly and equitably maintain the distribution of the commodity that is radio spectra.
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.Sometimes government just doesn't seem very representative any more, and sometimes it just doesn't seem just.
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone is corruptible in one way or another... However, it is still a good question. I believe that both are true, but not universal and not always intentional. For many, the desire to help others grows into an arrogance that leads them to believe they must force people into behaving in a way that is acceptable to the corrupted individual. The whole "Politically Correct" bullshit was started with good intentions but led to people trying to curtail free speech. The war in Iraq could very well have been intended as protection from attack, but its actual effect has been a decrease in protection.
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Those who want the leverage to change the world in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
2) Those who want to benefit themselves in a way that they couldn't accomplish without power.
In many cases, the line between the two is very fine since most people believe that what will benefit them will benefit society in general. It's what you do when you know they're in conflict that defines your character and your ability to recognize they're in conflict that defines your wisdom.
Either Way (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, doesn't this lady have a boss (the Chairman of the FCC) or someone in her PR Dept who is supposed to tell her to STFU & stick to doing her job?
As background, there are 5 Commissioners, 1 of which is designated as the Chairperson by the President and only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.
If she actually does follow through on pushing for DRM, it means at least 4 other people + Pres. Bush (actually, whicheve
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, most definitely irrelevant. Can we find someone whose love of country music has brought them to the studied position that "only money-grubbing assholes want DRM"? Just to even up the balance and demonstrate how useless her reasoning is?
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:3, Informative)
You could try finding fans of Van Zant, I suppose since their CD was one of the XCP rootkit CDs. Then again, I don't listen to country music, so I'm not sure if that's a hard or easy task to find Van Zant fans, but given all the other artists affected by the root kit, I'm leaning towards hard.
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's troubling when someone with no apparent business background and understanding of technology to the depth necessary to grasp what DRM has done and will do gets a bully pulpit this high and this visible. I don't know one of the referenced articles is accurate in describing how Ms. Tate love for DRM really is a result of:
Apparently, her love of country music has brought her to this studied position
but, "love of country music" seems anemic justification and mostly a non sequitur in justifying something of magnitude DRM.
To be fair, the quote is based on an article about this on the Technology Liberation Front [techliberation.com] web site:
Last night a FCC commissioner came out in favor of...DRM? Yes, at a reception sponsored by the DC Bar Association in her honor, Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate, the newest addition to the FCC, spoke eloquently on a number of issues but perhaps most remarkable was her advocacy for strong copyright protections. Hailing from The Music City, Nashville, this former Tennessee Regulatory Commissioner proclaimed her love for country music and the artists that wish to use DRM to protect their content.
Of course, this is just her personal opinion. However her position on the FCC lends it credibility it wouldn't ordinarily have. I don't know her tech credentials, but I doubt she's on top of the whole subject and is just espousing a knee-jerk reaction based on the usual political babble. She's probably a frustrated country artist at heart. Anyway, she's so obsucre as government people go, I doubt her promotion of DRM is going to create a groundswell of public support anytime soon.
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:4, Insightful)
she's just misguided. any rational person would examine the pros and cons of anything they decide to champion. All we have to do is wait for some DRM f***up to affect her life before she thinks "hmm, maybe it does more than it claims to do...." it's just too bad that people don't do that in the first place.
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:5, Funny)
Anybody got a country CD from Sony with the rootkit still on it? ;)
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:3, Insightful)
There will never be a groundswell of public support. What there will be is industry telling us why they need DRM, but no one will ever want it. The maddening part is that things like HD-DVD and Blue Ray will be unmitigated failures because of the barriers that DRM puts in the way of them actually being useful.
When DRM blocks the use of products by consumers, or req
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:2)
BTW: Is it legal to burn a CDA out of your iTMS tunes and then rip it to MP3? I know it's horrible in plenty o
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:3, Informative)
Of course it's legal. If you own the track, you are able to make personal copies of it under the Fair Use clause. The only hindrance to that would be if you had to defeat some sort of DRM to get it to MP3 (hence violating the DMCA), but iTunes itself provides a way to burn a CDA, stripping the DRM. Once it's on CD, you can convert it to whatever format you'd like.
The pro
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:3, Insightful)
What's "representative" about the FCC? It's a bunch of unelected beaurocrats with nothing better to do. Seriously, how much effort does it take to manage the radio spectrum for the US, particularly now that it's pretty much all been doled out? A couple of guys with a decent software application?
Re:time for the FCC to get a D I V O R C E! (Score:4, Funny)
I am also a fan of DRM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I am also a fan of DRM (Score:2)
Look it up on http://wikipedia.org/ [wikipedia.org]
What's not to like? (Score:3, Insightful)
And finally, having the freedom to make bad decisions is a very fundamental freedom.
Here's what's not to like (Score:3, Insightful)
And that would be perfectly good and fair, if they did not also demand copyright from society.
By implementing DRM but also copyrighting, they take something extra that wasn't theirs (a collection of copyright-related laws and use of the courts to enforce them), without the exchange: giving the content to the publi
Re:What's not to like? (Score:3, Interesting)
I would go farther than that and say that any copy protection mechanism, including DRM is a laughable exercise in human stupidity. It is what happens when a bunch of executives whose company isn't doing well financially gets sold snake oil by a sleazy copy protection company with the promise that it will help their struggling comp
Re:I am also a fan of DRM (Score:2)
I don't mind the concept of DRM, but it has to work completly transparently. Having 101 different DRM systems that are all incompatitable with each other is what I think is stupid.
Plus I object to having something I have bought having DRM on it (ie, I use emusic instead of itunes).
But I definatly think that DRM has it's uses.
DRM leads to monopolies on... everything. (Score:3, Insightful)
You might s
Re:DRM leads to monopolies on... everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know (Score:2)
The hive mind mentality is so hard to break away from. All the little slashbots lined up in a row. Try thinking independanty sometime... it is really refreshing.
But on topic all DRM is a protection method, a system of permissions. A purveyor of goods has every right to sell merchandise in the way he or she sees fit, if they see fit to restrict their offering
Re:I know (Score:2)
If they have the right to sell it as they see fit, then after I've bought it, why don't *I* have the right to tinker with my property as I see fit?
Most likely because they've got enough lobbyists to ensure that the government's police agencies are put into service as their personal towel boys.
You do (Score:2)
Re:You do (Score:3, Insightful)
Licensing agreement? We ain't got no agreement. We don't need no agreement. I don't have show you any stinkin' agreements!
Re:I know (Score:2)
If it becomes illegal to sell, for instance, non-DRM media equipment, your statement is only true in theory as the market is no longer free to make decisions.
Re:I know (Score:2)
But that does not apply to works of intellect, dispite the fact that some people invented the misleading term "intellectual property" to dupe everyone into believing so.
In reality, works of intellect naturally belong to the people (known in legal-speak as the Public Domain), and the right to distribute them are only temporarily leased to the creators of the works. They pay the lease by creating the work itself, and in
Re:I know (Score:2)
"Indeed, it amazes me how many people on Slashdot (including yourself) fail to understand this."
Re:I know (Score:3, Informative)
Whether or not they choose to exercise the righ
Don't they have bigger issues to worry about? (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't the FCC focus on bigger issues like boobs indiscriminately appearing on the Super Bowl. Or how about shock jocks saying naughty words on the radio. Geez, stay focused FCC!!
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Don't they have bigger issues to worry about? (Score:5, Funny)
I second that motion!
More b00b1ez and naughty words are exactly what we need! And we're long overdue for them, I say.
Make as much noise as you like... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so long as you remember this:
she knows its outside the FCC's authority
In other words, have any hobby you like. Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
Re:Make as much noise as you like... (Score:2)
Just don't confuse your hobby with your job.
Yeah, no-one likes a jobby!
Not really news (fortunately) (Score:5, Informative)
Deb can preach the myriad benefits of DRM from her 'bully pulpit' as much as she likes...the fact is that the FCC has no authority on this matter, so her preaching won't go beyond establishing her personal views on the issue. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals made the limits of the FCC on this issue quite clear when they struck down the Broadcast Flag [uscourts.gov] (PDF warning).
Re:Not really news (fortunately) (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC does have a lot of power, especially for an organization who's original intent was simply to allocate RF spectrum. They could force DRM in other ways, or could decide that DRM was not outside the FCC's authority after all -- or perhaps Congress could decide that it should be under their authority. Who knows? As long as this is a hobby of hers, I won't complain, but I hope it remains so.
As for her `love of country music' being what led her to this, well, how many cds (probably not copy protected, I might add) and records/tapes (not even digital, so DRM does not apply) did the RIAA have to give her/sell to her to bring her to this conclusion? How many hours of listening to the radio (no DRM, but under the FCC's juristiction) did it take to realize these two loves of country music and DRM?
Or was it satellite radio that lead her to this? DRMed, and under the FCC's juristiction, but it's that DRM (encryption) that causes the FCC to lighten up on them a bit and allow swearing and such?
Re:Not really news (fortunately) (Score:2)
Re:Not really news (fortunately) (Score:5, Insightful)
She is highly dangerous and only public outrage, and many MANY calls for her resignation will be an acceptable solution.
Unfortunately getting tech people as a group to do anything is like herding cats. It's just not possible.
If the FCC recieved tens of thousands of angry letters about it as well as the senate and house represenatives recieve angry letters as to her views to tear down fair use and americans rights they will stand back and take notice.
But nothing will happen which is a giant signal to them that amercians and Tech people want DRM desperately.
Re:Not really news (fortunately) (Score:2)
Re:Not really news (fortunately) (Score:2)
There are technical measures that could be used not to restrict use or access, such as to monitor use in order to record rights of a content consumer
so DRM should be used by theaters, radio stations, and re-broadcasters of all sorts to track the exact counts back to the rights holder, and eliminate the guess work now done to pay out royalties.
So I completly support the development, and implementation within the music/video world of DRM. However I agree with most of slashdot, the DRM need
The Market Has The Biggest Bull Pulpit (Score:3, Insightful)
If, for example, the record companies leave the installed base of CD players unable to play the latest and greatest CD they are pimping, it will not sell.
Yes, I know it is not so simple, but really - think of it this way - if the next gen of DVD players is too cumbersome to use because of DRM, the whole platform will fail. Think of DiVX, the old rental DVD scheme that Circuit City and other sold for a time. You might have a hard time finding it today.
Re:The Market Has The Biggest Bull Pulpit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Market Has The Biggest Bull Pulpit (Score:2)
That's only true when the market's allowed to decide. When the government (men with guns) steps in to mandate DRM, outlaw non-DRM technologies, and criminalize circumvention (as with the DMCA), people have no choice.
What does that mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
"The market will decide what is good" is false; the market makes dumb, short-sighted decisions all the time. The market doesn't care about "good" the market cares about "profitable", in the very short term.
"The market" is just the collective decisions of lots of people, deciding things for various reasons, presumably including the FCC commisioners endorsement of an
Jumpin' jesus on a pogo stick (Score:4, Insightful)
FCC (Score:2)
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Largely what they were supposed to do is make sure standards of broadcast technology were adhered to. E.g. licensing spectrum, making sure TV signals are in their respective bands, etc, etc.
This whole "policing morality" bullshit is not new but it's also a lot different now than say 30 years ago. Nobody would have given two shits about a nipple showing off at a superbowl in 1978. That it happened in 2004 [or 2005?] is a crying shame and we must fight this
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Fine. Get the fu.. outta the content, bit..es!
A short note (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Commissioner Tate,
I have read that you are in favor of DRM. I do not like having my freedom to tinker with technology and enjoy media I have purchased hampered by government intervention and paternalism.
Please let DRM succeed or die on its own merits -- on market forces alone.
From a concerned citizen who both authors and enjoys media.
Re:A short note (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, what you can do with this copy is often restricted in certain ways by copyright law. For there to be a license, there would have to be elements of a contract:
Well, with CDs and DVDs, we're missing at least two elements. Firstly, most CDs don't have any sort of agreement printed in them. Secondly, if there were, what would be the consideration? You already purchased the CD! This is the fundemental problem with click-through licenses (even if courts haven't recognized this yet).
With online services like iTMS, this is probably a little different. But the fact remains that for most purchases, you are in fact purchasing a copy of the content. Common law recognizes exceptions from the restrictions in copyright statute, exceptions that are lost when other statutes enforce digital restrictions.
-Paul
Me too! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Me too! (Score:2)
Re:Me too! (Score:2)
Re:Me too! (Score:2)
DRM isn't to prevent piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is easier:
A) Buying a copy of a song on iTunes with a mediocre bitrate, many limits, and incompatible with most players, or
B) Downloading a copy in an extremely high bitrate, in a format that many players use?
DRM drives people to piracy, it doesn't prevent it. Songs I buy in iTunes can't be played, for example, when I plug my iPod in my Xbox 360. MP3s can. Burning it to CD and ripping is lossy, and the bitrate is so-so. If I buy the song, shouldn't I be entitled to a copy I can play on many devices?
People download MP3's because their versatile, not free.
Re:DRM isn't to prevent piracy (Score:2, Insightful)
You make the same mistake as all the other slashbots, by framing the actions of others in what you think to be true.
People, as a rule, will take anything not nailed down. This is why people download stuff. Not because it's "more versatile," which doesn't even register for most people, but because they can get it for $0. Zero Dollars. Free.
Anyone who wants something easy will just buy an iPod and get songs off iTunes.
Re:DRM isn't to prevent piracy (Score:2)
You really have to smile at this... :)
You're missing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
metablogging? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:metablogging? (Score:2)
Gossip?
Speculation?
Rumour?
US intelligence on WMDs in Iraq?
Cowboy Neal?
Re:metablogging? (Score:2)
Rumor spreading.
Whatever, facing two mirrors at each other may give the illusion of infinite depth but won't give you any more information. Same result here.
I hope they do get working DRM (Score:2)
Every time I hear more stories about DRM I keep thinking of the Star Wars line about tightening grip = more people escaping and
Re:I hope they do get working DRM (Score:2)
OK, I'm a pretty staunch opponent of DRM and I did write to our beloved FCC member and ask her how I'm supposed to get my DRM'ed music onto my MP3 player. But still, I have to ask (based on your statement above about free music and movies) how it is that the artists who produce the works are supposed to make a living. I personally think that the system we had in place 15 years ago worked just fine. Pre-DRM
DRM vs Copy Protection (Score:4, Insightful)
That's completely different from federally-mandated DRM, which gives us no choice in what we buy, and forces upon us the business whims of the content cartels. That is not a characteristic of a free market, nor of a liberal democracy. I understand the need of the business to protect itself from people whose illegal activities threaten their botton line. I seriously do completely understand that. But I do not think that enacting federal laws that impact all customers negatively in the effort to mitigate the behavior of a minority of customers is asinine.
Re:DRM vs Copy Protection (Score:2)
Think of it as a preemptive strike. If you're not with the pirates/hackers, then you're a terrorist.
Re:DRM vs Copy Protection (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, encrypted DVDs allow full copying of content after expiry of Copyright period, allow for easy copying of individual snippets for use in other media presentations and for fair use, etc.
If my rights were being managed properly, I'd be a lot happier.
Bully Pulpit on a Sinking Ship (Score:2)
P.S. If you just read the above post, it is pending protection by DRM in the near future. So, in order to avoid a lawsuit, please send your 2 cents right away.
Extremely unethical (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if the head of the Electoral Commission announced that he "was a fan" of a particular political movement, and was going to try to use his "bully pulpit" to promote it. That would be utterly intolerable.
I think that, although less serious, this is an equivalent situation - a public official announcing an intention to promote a corporate movement, possibly even hinting at using her department's sway with private companies to further her agenda. Even if it was something less controversial than DRM, it would still be completely out of order.
Pragmatically... (Score:5, Insightful)
When in doubt, keep the noisy idiot over the cunning schemer.
I found helpful in the past, with the FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
A response email (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC was originally set up to regulate the Radio airwaves. Then you took it upon yourselves to regulate the TV broadcast spectrum. Following that, you decided that censoring programs was within your mandate as well. (Lets ignore all the 1st amendment issues right now).
Now you have decided to enter the fray on the side of DRM. Either pro or Con, this should be a completely business decision. There is nothing that needs regulating via the FCC with regards to DRM.
I respectfully request that you
Keep the government out! (Score:3, Interesting)
The danger comes from when the government starts arresting people who post DRM circumventing software on their website... or mandates that DRM must be built into hardware (it is very easy for hobbiests to distribute software to the people, but not hardware)... Or prohibits public libraries from circumventing protection.
If companies want to use DRM, so be it. That should not be where we focus our attention... because DRM is a joke. We need to stop the government from enforcing DRM at all costs!
Gov not on our side this time (Score:2)
The difference was that back then there was a clearly divided north and south. Today we are all mixed in together. Then the government was on the side of the industrial interests over the plantation interests. Today the government is on the side of the media i
Let the DRM-Bashing begin... (Score:2)
Welcome to America? (Score:2)
New in the country? Looking for a good tutorial on how our government works, but not enough days to burn walking around the capital and digging up the dirt? Here's a quick guide to the underpinnings of our system:
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0, 8599,1109304,00.html [time.com]
CRONYISM. Study it, discuss it, live it, learn it. We don't hire competent people, we hire OUR FRIENDS and any other greedy lamprey that has attached themselves to us and looks good in a suit.
So remember this folks. If you decid
uh, where does it say that? (Score:2)
I walked TFA and TFA's TFA looking for the exact quote, but the TFA's parent seems to say the exact opposite.
If she really said this, I am prepared to express outrage to anyone who will listen, but would like to make sure this is what it is purported to be. Does anyone have more information on this?
180 degree turn (Score:2, Insightful)
Does she even have one? (Score:2)
I don't mean a brain, that's a no-brainer.
As the 'Newest Commissioner', does Deborah Tate even have a "bully pulpit"?
Howto contact her... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/mail.html [fcc.gov]
Feel free to do the same
DRM and the US Constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
This clause lets the government assign exclusive rights of a work for a limited amount of time (to encourage science and art).
Currently, No DRM has an expiration or time limits of any kind, so by protecting or mandating DRM, the government is in effect allowing exclusive rights of a work and unlimited amount of time ( with no regard to the effect of this on art and science ).
This whole article may be baloney (Score:3, Interesting)
More Handwringing and Outrage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, in the corridors of power, the party line remains intact. "Corporations know what is best for the consumer. It's in their best interest." And the other party line, "Anyone against DRM only wants to steal copyrighted material."
And what exactly are *you* doing to change that opinion? Nothing.
Defrock Her (Score:3, Insightful)
I want a cushy Federal gig where I can blow off my work to use it as a bully pulpit for ponies!
Where's the evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
TV still exists, Hollywood exists and Disney etc are larger than ever. So there is no need to restrict people left right and center. In fact it's all theory that people who have "pirate" media would have purchased it had they not been able to pirate it. The pirate market is seen at possible growth and revenue when in fact many people pirate it either because they can't afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money on the media in the first place.
Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
MjM
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:2)
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:2)
Interesting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh... huh? How has technology replaced, say, monitoring content on public broadcasts?(1) How has technology eliminated the need to regulate the radio spectrum so devices dont stomp all over each other? How has technology ensured that every manufacturer will somehow produce devices which accept interference?
HAM and CB are both still useful technologies. Look no further than your favorite natural disaster to see HAMs at work
Re:Interesting? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no need to monitor content on public broadcasts -- the government is not a parent. Let the parents return to monitoring their children. That's the reason for a parent to stay home and parent rather than both working to overspend and live beyond their means. When government parents, I have to pay even though I have no kids. No thanks.
As for interference, we have coding hopping software radios that can pick the right spectrum. It is financially impossible to shred the entire spectrum with one antenna -- the costs to transmit are huge (power, antenna, labor, etc). If you sent random bursts across various specturms, software radios that freqhop can adjust and get around it -- you'll MAYBE intrude on 1% of the spectrum at a given time, and they'll just retransmit on a freq that you won't know until its too late.
If you don't regulate the spectrum, there will be nothing stopping someone using the same frequencies as air traffic controllers. Disbanding the FCC has got to be one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever read on slashdot. Restructure it, sure. Fire everyone working there, fine. Try to remove the corruption, absolutely. But to suggest we don't need any regulation of the radio spectrum is absolutely ludicrous.
The FAA already has ways around the interference that is already generated in their spectrum. If you study the systems they use, they already have enough processes in place to punch through the "problems." With software-freq-hopping, it won't be a concern. In fact, I've been on two airplanes already that allow WiFi and have Internet access and they're great -- my bandwidth was excellent. This wasn't due to FCC regulation, this was due to the free market providing what we want.
The idea that someone would spend trillions a year to block transmissions is a straw-man style argument. We only THINK we need the FCC, but look at Somalia, a country without a government, and they have a ton of communications infrastructure -- cell phone companies running in anarchy, satellite comm, satellite broadcasts, digital radio. They have ZERO regulation in their broadcasts and it works very well. They don't even have publicly regulated power distribution, so the telcom companies put generators on every tower, and they're working just fine. Somailia has a ton of other problems, but they're growing in leaps and bounds without a problem, considering they've been in a government-induced civil war for decades.
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:3)
Why is that the case? DRM is merely the practice of an individual business creating a product with limitations. Freedom doesn't mean pro-consumer.
In a free market, DRM is acceptable as long as the laws aren't preferential for those who create content over those who buy content.
No DRM is acceptable in a free market so long as it is not mandatory and it is clearly communicated to the public. A big "DRM" sticker with an explaination of t
Antiquated technologies? (Score:5, Informative)
You have no idea how much the airwaves actually are used by mission critical systems, do you? Wireless is the future, not the past. Analog TV is still in full force in many areas where cable still isn't available (including my childhood home). HAM and CB are far from antiquated and are still used in full force. I'm sorry if you don't use them. HAM's pay for licenses which goes to the FCC and CB's are low power transmitters operating on a very small frequency range.
The point is there needs to be designated ranges, otherwise you will have Joe Ham who will stick his 1KW transmitter too close to the operating range of something important - say the transponder of a cell tower (900 MHz) and disrupt cell service. For example. There needs to be regulated bandwidths.
You have it all wrong anyways - they are actually generating money for the government. About 1 penny of your taxes goes to fund them, but then they turn around and generate multi-billion dollars of revenue. reference [broadcastengineering.com]. Their budget for 2006 is $304M, all but $4.8M comes from regulatory fees. And they generate $26.8B for uncle Sam through auctioning off freed up frequencies.
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, it's going to suck pretty bad for you, if I go and decide it would be cool to set up a 25KW spark-gap transmitter in my garage; that's a transmitter that emits on all EM frequencies simultaneously, limited only by the characteristics of the antenna I use. Using a good high-gain antenna pointed at your house, I don't care what kind of spread spectrum, frequency-hopping systems your cellphone tries to use, it's not going to work when there's enough EMF flying around to make your toaster run without being plugged in. That's pretty much the situation you'd have without some form of coordination; it's the communications equivalent of getting rid of traffic laws because you don't like waiting at lights.
And you could forget about radio telescopes--right now we have mandated "holes" in the spectrum for research use, so that the full gain of a receiver can be used to focus on far-away sources; without interference regulation, you'd raise the noise floor by so much that (given that your receiver can only discriminate between so much signal and noise) you're going to lose a great deal of signal.
The original purpose of the FCC--to coordinate spectrum allocation to maximize public utility--is still a valid one. In fact, I think it's more valid today, with more uses for the spectrum, than ever. Though they're worse than useless in their current state, on their knees with the collective cock of industry in their mouths, that doesn't mean they have to be.
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:2)
Copyright is now about the control of distribution, not control of information. If you can't distribute, you couldn't profit. The web has destroyed the distribution avenues (or soon will).
I write, I write
Re:How about a noose instead? (Score:2)
You mean monetary value?
How?
If what you do is produce information, it doesnt matter how widely you become 'known' for giving away free information, that will not pay the rent. We already have a free market system for people increasing their value, its called free demos, free services, ad-supported services. Google gives you a search engine for free, but it charges for the ads. Thats fine.
If the web truly makes copying media ubiquitous and free, then
Forgotten their mission. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at the proposals and rulemaking that they spend the most time on, it's perfectly clear that they spend their time on whatever is going to get them the most revenue. When it comes to auctioning off some radio spectrum to the highest bidder, I'll bet the Commissioner has a red phone on her nightstand just to clear up any 11th hour problems as they're pushing things through. But try to get something relatively simple done (like the relatively uncontroversial changes to Amateur Radio) and you'd better be teaching your kids about it, because you may not live that long.
Somewhere, something went very wrong inside that organization, their mission changed from being the electronic and radio equivalent of the Parks Service, to a division of Internal Revenue.
Re:This doesn't surprise me at all! (Score:2, Funny)