Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders 487
mjdroner writes "ZD-Net has the latest on a sweeping telecom bill in the Senate. The bill provides no support for net neutrality. The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts. The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."
you know the drill (Score:5, Insightful)
freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the have the money and the lobbyists (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
The President will veto anything they put together and they'll refuse to pass anything the president tries to put through.
With luck, we won't have any more new laws until 2008.
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)
You're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it hasn't passed so far. All they have to do is keep trying.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was getting a capture card just for composite video I simply gave up on finding one that didn't respect macrovision. I've got some tapes that aren't out on dvd that I'd like to use, and I had to buy a box (I got a time base corrector) to capture them.
So if/when this passes, expect new tuner cards to have broken drivers. There will probably be a way around it, but the casual user will be unable to build/buy a unencumbered dvr.
Hmm... (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh, I know this one... it attempts to strike a balance, but it doesn't try too hard.
Or was it... when you stack fifty blocks on one side of the balance, you only have to stack one block on the other side as long as it's fifty times as far away.
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws don't get repealed. They only need to win once.
If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for this (Score:3, Insightful)
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.
If you don't want this, vote straight Libertarian this election and every election thereafter.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is not much you can do about the future. They keep heaping shit on you until you die. That is just the way it is. The likely hood that they would be able to pass such a thing is minimal. And if they do there is no way they would go door to door searching for such things. And they sure as hell would not REPLACE them, the costs would be to much.
The article itself is not much more than a troll.
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why digital broadcasts failed to catch on in US (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect to see more digital-to-analog converters, more people paying *LESS* to get ANALOG cable TV, more people less willing to pay extra for HDTV, more people happy to have analog-based PVRs and not have their recorded sports games automatically erased, or see messages from pay movie channels that state this content cannot be recorded.
I, for one, am in NO HURRY WHATSOEVER to purchase any digital tv devices.
We need a cool catchy name for Analog TV - something like Fair use TV or unencumbered TV.
We need a crummy name for HDTV - something like Restricted use TV.
The MPAA is ready to fall on their swords for forced digital rights - they seem to not see any way to profit that doesn't involve controlling every device between them and me. I'll be damned if I'm going to give up control of my devices to the MPAA or RIAA.
Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for t (Score:0, Insightful)
Libertarianism, like communism before it, is an ideology that sounds great on paper but is worthless in the real world.
Net Neutrality Law = Unneccesary & Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
What would happen if Congress tried to pass some Net Neutrality Law? Since there isn't any kind of ACTUAL problem now, I'm sure the bill would undoubtedly screw stuff up through the law of unintended consequences.
Congress would insert all kinds of special provisions that would benefit some group at the expense of others, all kinds of new technology would become illegal, and lawsuits would proliferate. Who knows what would happen, the point is that when congress acts on technology (eg. the DMCA) they are likely to create a huge mess and things better be PRETTY DAMN bad before Congress can do more good than harm.
I see what is coming... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just remember;
You voted these bozo's into office in the first place.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
The President will veto anything they put together and they'll refuse to pass anything the president tries to put through.
With luck, we won't have any more new laws until 2008.
I don't know if this was meant to be funny, even though it is and got modded that way, but it is also in fact quite perceptive. This is the way things are supposed to work in the USA. The government is supposed to be bogged down in all kinds of inefficienes so that they are too sluggish to impose any tyranny over the people. Any government naturally attracts the power-hungry. The neat trick here is that we make it hard for them to actually get anything accomplished.
Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but, only on 'blessed' hardware sold to you by the corporations....and should these store bought appliances allow you to do so, under full DRM, then yes you can do it. I would, however, be a bit apprehensive that you would be allowed to do that with your store bought hardware. And do remember, it will be against the DMCA to hack around this.
Of course this completely wipes out the the DIY market....a good MythTV box would be great for what you want to do, but alas....it will be against the law to sell you hardware you could build yourself to do what you want...
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the system we have tends to a two-party system [wikipedia.org]. The problem is that there are more than two issues. So in voting for any candidate, you are forced to prioritize the issues, and vote for the candidate that represents your viewpoint on the issues most important to you. The downside is that smaller issues, which may still be *very* important, will often fall by the wayside. With multi-party systems [wikipedia.org], there is enough choice and variation in candidates, that you can find someone who matches your views and priorities fairly closely, and that candidate will still have a decent chance of getting elected. In the U.S., we don't have that, and it's unlikely to change anytime soon.
Second, we have the problem of interest groups. Normally, it's not a problem. The idea behind special interests is that you may have a group of people for whom a particular issue is *very* important. Since the group isn't large enough numerically to influence election outcomes (due to problem #1, above), they lobby the elected official to try and persuade that official of the merits of their cause. The problem is that the only people joining special interest groups are the small special interests. The vast majority of the population got left behind in the program. If you're an elected official, the only people talking to you are the special interest groups... so after awhile you begin to believe them; there's no one out there arguing the other side. It's the joy of what's called "the silent majority".
So, what's to be done? Well, for starters, we need to provide an alternate viewpoint in government. The easiest way to do this is to contact your local representative or senator. They *do* respond. Even if it's only a form letter from a staffer. I know, I used to be one. Don't try email campaigns... they don't get any real respect (too easy to automate). Letters and phone calls do work; what's required is volume. If enough people show an interest, your rep's *will* listen.
Second, we could try to start our own lobbying group. Give a concentrated voice to the technically literate population... someone to say "I represent 10^N voters in your state who all feel very strongly about X". Any takers? Let me know [mailto].
Re:you know the drill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution is not an inclusive list of our rights. It's an allow,deny policy in that unless it denies you something then you have the right to it. Digital recording devices and privacy are NOT in the constitution or amendments therefore no one has the right to restrict your usage of it.
Your thinking is precisely why the likes of Alexander Hamilton rejected the bill of rights (Federalist #84):
"Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."
Since you're obviously not alone and there have been countless instances of the constitution being understood to be inclusive (see the whole civil rights movement and women's suffrage for two examples) then it is clear to me that Hamilton was entirely correct, and that saddens me so.
Congratulations, it's people like you and people that think like you, that are continually eroding our freedoms & rights. Not just unstated freedoms & rights, but even the named ones. Pretty much pick an amendment that deals with rights and you can easily find governmental erosion of it.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Note to those who don't get it: you don't get it. That's fine, but you're wrong.
Is tv still relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to troll, but it seems to me that if the MPAA and RIAA had their way, we wouldn't listen to music or watch tv at all. At least not in the manner to which we've become accustomed.
Why would I bother buying an expensive recorder if it couldn't record all of the content I might like to record? Why would I watch tv or listen to the radio if I couldn't later share the experience with friends and family?
And I'm less likely to watch tv in the first place if I can't share a funny clip with friends later. Take the Simpsons, for example. Often times I'll want to replay a clip of Homer doing something stupid for a friend. But if the MPAA has their way, I wouldn't be able to do this.
Or take talk radio. My wife and I were riding along listening to talk radio when a traffic situation caused her to focus on the road. So naturally, she's lost a little bit of context and remarked that she'd like to rewind the radio to catch what she missed. Of course, you can't do this now with a car stereo, nor will you ever if the RIAA has their way.
I've noticed that my media consumption habits have changed. It used to be that I would buy several CD's a year; I don't think I've bought one in the last two years. Yes, I suppose I could easily bypass the copy protection, but why bother. If the record label is such a jerk that they attempt to keep control of what I now rightfully own, then they can keep their shiny plastic and I'll keep my money. No sense in encouraging scumbags anyway.
And why would I bother paying Hollywood for movies that I won't be able to enjoy in the future? My uncle has a few thousand decaying VHS tapes which he won't be able to play 10 years from now. And of course, with the DRM on DVDs and thanks to the DMCA, when DVDs are obsolete, you will lose your investment. At least my uncle could copy VHS to DVD. But how long would that last when the next generation players enforce DRM?
So I've kind of given up on Hollywood and Big Music. It seems that they've become to wrapped up in their own hubris to realize that crippling content doesn't add to the value of the product. And yet, their stockholders continue to buy the old mantra, "Piracy is killing our business..." It's not piracy - it's lack of value. Why would a consumer buy something they legally can't own? The **AAs haven't figured out the American vision of entertainment is much different from their own. Americans:
By contrast, the RIAA and MPAA envision this model of consumer enjoyment:
So, even those of us who would be otherwise honest must face a decision:
So, is tv relevant anymore? Not when I can't enjoy it. Same for music and video - I'm enjoying public domain works now and independent stuff that I glean from the Net. Yes, I can afford to pay for my content, but why would I pay if I can't own it anyway?
The RIAA/MPAA can't seem to understand that individual ownership and the rights that come with it are a fundamental part of selling content. If you don't want to give up control, don't sell the content.
Re:What do they plan to do about the huge number.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the new cards being sold are compliant the MPAA will be happy. The old ones will break or become obsolete soon enough. If they're smart they'll make it a felony to buy or sell these and troll on ebay.
I'm sure there will be a way around it. Driver mods or offshore software. That doesn't mean it isn't evil.
Re:Kosher Entertainment: Thou shalt consume no Fla (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:you know the drill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:2, Insightful)
so much for independent artists, eh?! =( (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet has made the Independent music production market a level-playing field.
It has also made the Commercial music production industry work that much harder to produce music that doesn't suck. *obviously they are not up for such a challenge*
The commercial music industry (along with the movie industry) wants EVERYONE to think that piracy is KILLING them (like, physically, whhhhhaaaa), when in fact, it has nothing to do with piracy, it has to do with the quality of their product(s) *or lack thereof* that is killing them.
Since independent artists can't really afford to lobby these brain/heart-less politicians, we will now fall victim to the Commercial Industry's cut-throat lobbyist tactics.
This has nothing to do w/ preventing piracy, this has everything to do with preventing independent artists from continuing to compete with commercial artists.
Yet another reason to stop lobbyism in America!
ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that copy protection schemes are overwhelmingly proving the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies by pushing more people into illegality. It seems like a great premise of the whole freedom thing is trusting people to do what's right in a situation, and not forcing them to do what is right by removing access to legitimate resources. Just my two cents.
Re:Libertarian, or libertarian party (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, if I want to claim that I own all the air on the planet and suck it up into some kind of space hoover and charge all you poor suckers for breathing it, that's my right. And if you try to stop me you'll be commiting the cardinal sin of "initiating force."
RIAA is really becoming the Dark Lord on and on (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a total joke. Almost ALL of the legislations that are proposed or pass the U.S. congress has something to do with 'copyright'. This is a total outrage. It seems like U.S. consists of nothing but copyright olders and the serfs who has to pay for their 'copy' 'rights'.
Somebody has to stop this.
Why, they also voted to increase FCC powers (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean the same ones who tried to blokc a bill recently because it did not grant the FCC enough power to regulate telecom net neutrality issues? The same FCC that wants the broadcast flag (as evidenced by this bill).
The FCC should not have any more power, period. Vote for Senators who do not want to give the FCC power, REGARDLESS of what party they hail from.
Vote based on the individual, not the party.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, even with the right to own guns, our situation shows that we are already at the whims of the feds.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest, all the
(1) poorer quality of analog recordings
(2) no possibility of easy sharing (aka Internet)
The free-copying of the digital material lead to their actions. Actions were inadequate (dumb, rude, anti-liberal, fascist...), but they did not start the war.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just that most people, even those who think this is important, don't think it's important enough to start a revolution over.
Doesn't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, both parties are on the side of increasingly stringent "intellectual property" legisation. They are both in favor of continually increasing penalties in general, to appear "tough on crime", without concern for making the punishment match the crime, or the diminishing returns on decreasing crime. They both are in favor of throwing our rights away to "protect us from terrorism". They are both in favor of huge pork spending that benifits the industries in the area.
I am not saying that both parties are the same - they are vastly different in many of their views. But in the areas where they do differ, there is rarely enough support to bring those ideas to fruition, so the differences have less practical effect then you would think. It is the areas that they agree that have the biggest effects on our lives, and their views in those areas are frightening.
The answer is to get more third party candidates that have respect for our rights elected into congress. Speaking of which, Michael Badnarik is running for congress and has a decent chance of winning. Who is elected to congress effects us all, and he could certainly use some help letting the people of his district know what he stands for.
Now I'll be the first to tell you that I don't agree with the libertarians on everthing, and the idea of a government controlled entirely by libertarians is almost as frightening to me as the one we have now. But I also know that's not going to happen overnight. What matters in a candidate is not thier idea of the perfect government - what matters is what direction they are going to take us in over the next 4 years. I may not like the libertarian's final destination, but compared to the major parties, I love the direction they're going, and I have no problem riding that train till it's time to jump off.
From now on I'm voting for every third party candidate I can find that supports my rights, regardless of thier views on social spending, regulation or anything else, because if we loose our rights then none of that other stuff will matter.
Re:You don't even understand your own party platfo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Crippled Capture Conundrums (Score:1, Insightful)
Targa 2000 Pro, 2000 DTX, 2000 RTX, and even the Targa 3000 *even better but not cheep. full edit, and has mpeg2 and dv codecs on board*
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sticking babies on pikes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
- Oklahoma.
- Waco.
- Montana.
- Colorado bombs.
- Utah bombs.
- Anthrax Attacks (via our own military personel).
- doubtful, but possible, with the D.C. sniper.
In light of the above, and what the patriot act is about as well as what not about, I would suggest that at least one revolution by patriots, is underway.Re:Is tv still relevant? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is the problem : I don't care about inexpensive content (which is crap most of the times anyway) I want my electronic devices good for a copy, good to produce, good to reproduce without paying royalties or asking permission to parasitic rentiers ; I don't want anybody means of control inside my devices.
Imagine the following : Guthenberg didn't have control over the content of the bible, but he had means to reproduce other books. Suddendly, the bible wasn't the only and most copied piece of "knowledge" , much to the detriment of oscurantist who would have liked some "sacred text" to become sort of universal reference manual for everything.
The revolution wasn't much into producing more copies of valuable content, but in making means of reproduction avaiable, literally creating a media that can be enjoyed by many and produced by many.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, if it really came down to it, assuming all of the military/police sided with the government, the people could lose 10 to 1 and still win. And if you think that all of the military/police would stay on board when they were attacking the whole of the American populace, you don't know the military guys that I know.
Nope, to take over America, the first thing that will have to be done is to disarm them, but that's going to be harder today than it was 10 years ago.
Re:you know the drill (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because he/she really doesn't want to hear from you.
1. Send an e-mail because a letter in the mail will be slow
2. Send a letter by mail because we'll ignore an e-mail
It's a win-win because they've effectively stopped two channels of communication.
Re:Commerce and copyright clauses (Score:3, Insightful)
No, my friend, copyright has an unknown duration with a theoretical maximum of about two hundred years. Now _that's_ a monopoly guaranteed to make me get out there and produce! Why, if I knew that my as-yet unborn children's children's children might find themselves unable to live off of my work, I daresay I'd be heartbroken and unable to write a single line of code. But security in the knowledge that my descendants out to six generations or so will be able to collect the non-existent royalties off my outdated work is truly inspiring!
Re:ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
You are doing the same thing you did before but what they tolerated before as harmless and harlmess it was indeed they are not going to tolerate now. The harm done by illegal copyright infringement to the industry became very real.
So, they did not start it, did they?
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:1, Insightful)