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)
Re:you know the drill (Score:2)
May it die the death of Divx, or whatever that lobotomized thing Circuit City was pushing was called.
It's not all bad actually (Score:5, Funny)
Holy Crap! They actualy agree that I should be able to share recorded TV shows over my home networks? That has got to be the most reasonable thing I've seen from the gov't in AGES. It's got to be a mistake on their part right?
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:3, Funny)
loophole.
Re:It's not all bad actually (Score:3, Funny)
I believe they call that BitTorrent.
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:you know the drill (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you know the drill (Score:2)
My Rep's web page implies the opposite: he suggests that your snail mail may be substantially delayed due to increased mail "security".
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:you know the drill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you know the drill (Score:3, Insightful)
freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:2)
I don't follow the sport but even I know that's not true in baseball. The batter cannot leave his box, but the pitcher doesn't have to pitch to the box.
Now cricket, I admit to having no idea about whether the bowler has bowl anywhere near the batter or wicket.
Because the have the money and the lobbyists (Score:2, Insightful)
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:freaking MPAA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws don't get repealed. They only need to win once.
Re:freaking MPAA (Score:2, Interesting)
Last I checked, corporate lawyers are bottom-feeders known for filing lawsuits especially against those who beat their respective organization to the latest
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:freaking MPAA (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need to do that. It exists [eff.org].
Preferential Voting (Score:5, Informative)
'I'll vote for this guy, but if he doesn't get in then
I'll vote for her, but if she doesn't get in then
I'll vote for them.. etc'
To use an example from the previous US election, one could vote for (say) Ralph Nader, but preference John Kerry. (Yeah, yeah, so I'm left-of-centre). With preferential voting, you're not wasting your vote, even though Nader will probably not get in. Rather, you're sending Kerry a message that you don't really approve of his policies, but just prefer him to the Other Guy. The crux is, that your vote still goes to Kerry.
Another benefit, is that minor parties can allocate their own preferences. So one could just vote for (say) Nader, and he could negotiate his preferences with the major parties. This would give him leverage in the policy development of the major parties in the lead-up to the election. It also makes people more inclined to vote for minor parties, because they know it's not a 'wasted vote'.
That's the system we have in Australia, and I think it works really well. I think it's absolutely essential if we're to encourage multiple parties (even if they're minor parties).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gerrymandering (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you should read up a little bit more. This is a good primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represen tation [wikipedia.org]
Of
Re:Gerrymandering (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you Uncle Tito. (Score:2)
Bill again! (Score:5, Funny)
Is there anything Bill wouldn't either outlaw or make compulsory? I'm getting really sick of that guy.
Re:Bill again! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bill again! (Score:2, Funny)
New equipment for free? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2)
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:New equipment for free? (Score:2)
I'm tempted to make that my sig
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2)
"I'm tempted to make that my sig ;)."
Pile on many more layers.....
--with apolgies to "Old Pink"
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2, Insightful)
Our government can't perform a mass seizure because the people are armed. Instead, they will ban the sale of the recorders and perform a few minor spot arrests to keep people on their toes. What's with the GW quote? I thought it was cool!
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.
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: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.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2)
The ultimate "You can't touch this gadget Mr. Congressman!"
A combination "Fuzzy kitten/Solar cell/Colt 45/Digital Receiver & Recorder/Bible (insert your own holy book here)".
There's something for everyone...And who says a do-it-all gadget cannot be successful.
Re:New equipment for free? (Score:2)
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: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
Comments on the 1996 CDA (Score:3, Interesting)
"These measures will help assure that the information superhighway does not turn into a red light district," Exon said at the time. "It will help protect children from being exposed to obscene, lewd, or indecent messages."
Yeah, that worked out so well.
Sing along! (Score:5, Funny)
Peter: They will clean up all your talking in a matter such as this
Brian: They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a p*ss
Stewie: And they'll make you call fellatio a trouser-friendly kiss
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: It's the plain situation!
There's no negiotiation!
Peter: With the fellows at the freakin FCC!
Brian: They're as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups...
Peter: Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Stewie: Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: Take a tip, take a lesson!
You'll never win by messin'
Peter: With the fellas at the freakin' FCC
And if you find yourself with some you sexy thing
You're gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling
Cause you can't say penis!
So they sent this little warning they're prepared to do the worst
Brian: And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be co-erced
Stewie: I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: They may just be neurotic
Or possible psychotic
They're the fellas at the freakin FCC!
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:Simple solution... (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Simple solution... (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:2)
(hint: it was signed into law by clinton)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know...I don't think that will work either. Best solution, is to wipe the slate clean with both houses and executive branch...no one in office can be re-elected....start from scratch.
Not only would it get rid of the status quo of corruption and non-representation of the people, but, alternate competing parties would stand a chance.
Of course as long as we are making 'wishes'....I'd like to have a pony.
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:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then change the declared stream format (Score:2)
What it is redefined as could be as vague as "scientific data" or "random text"
Just a thought.
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:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for t (Score:2)
All of that looks like anti-libertarian propaganda that is mostly illogical.
Here is a better suggestion; read some descriptions of libertarianism (neither from libertarian evangelists nor libertarian haters), and think for yourself.
Re:You don't even understand your own party platfo (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian, or libertarian party (Score:3, Informative)
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 fo
Sticking babies on pikes (Score:5, Funny)
When some clever corporation figures out a way to turn a profit by sticking babies on pikes, a pliant US Congress stands ready to make it legal -- and to keep private citizens from doing it themselves.
All the actual baby piking will be done overseas by non-union workers, of course.
Re:Sticking babies on pikes (Score:3, Insightful)
Kosher Entertainment: Thou shalt consume no Flags (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's time to start enjoying live plays and musical performances again. Seriously, my digital entertainment is video games and documentaries. I am starting to think the unthinkable: maybe I can live without TV and Movies.
People will continue to create entertainment and education for download right? Oh, right...Unless network neutrality is abolished and my provider decides that I can't access this freely created content.
I wonder, is it time that I start figuring out how to set up a HAM-based Internet connection?
Re:Kosher Entertainment: Thou shalt consume no Fla (Score:3, Insightful)
music might get 'better' (Score:3, Interesting)
"Unplug the jukebox, do us all a favor
That music's lost its taste
Try another flavor
Live music"
What do they plan to do about the huge number... (Score:2)
Just askin', is all.
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.
We might want to call this: (Score:2)
It's interesting that illegal immigrants have better organizational skills than US citizens. Actually, it's more pathetic than interesting. We have lost our republic.
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.
Challenge: Define "Digital Receiver" (Score:5, Interesting)
Would that be like, "a computer"?
Newsflash: There's no hardware unique to a TiVo.
They'd have to outlaw PC's for this bill to work.
Let them try. It will be a death sentence for every commercially manufactured, dedicated PVR. And the birth of some truly wonderful opensource software.
Sounds good to me.
Re:Challenge: Define "Digital Receiver" (Score:2)
Re:Challenge: Define "Digital Receiver" (Score:2)
A "Digital Receiver" is a device used to capture video and audio broadcasted over cable and/or air, and is not provided by a company that is providing hookers, booze and/or kickbacks for the members of Congress.
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.
Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I see what is coming... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, ok. (Score:2)
we were warned, but nobody listened (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmph, I had this great joke... (Score:2)
Hrrrmrmmm..... (Score:2, Funny)
Right to the Freedom of Speech (Score:2)
Congress needs to get a backbone and know the difference. If people are speaking out on public broadcasting network, and FCC blocks out the ability to spread the content in any form or shape regardless it's copyrighted or not, it's discarding the freedom of speech.
Nobody owns your words and your mouth, so shall nobody own your ear.
Is DRM the future? It's certainly the present... (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who doesn't illegally steal material, I'm starting to find all this DRM stuff annoying.
For example: I bought the latest Nine Inch Nails album With Teeth, only to discover that you can only play it on a PC through a proprietary software player (assuming your OS can run it, of course). That player sucks, and does annoying things like messing up my computer's volume levels. I haven't tried personally, but I'm reliably informed that it won't work in some car CD players as well.
The point here is t
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.
We have the best government..... (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this happen? Why with money of course!
It's proof positive that EVERY law written in this country needs to have a sunset date of one or two years when it's reconsidered for renewal.
What I would suggest is for you to find ways to use these laws for your benefit. It's not just for corporations.
Here's an example, it's illegal for travel agents to get together and collude, it's against the Sherman Anti-Trust act. They should be able to band together and do whatever the hell they want. I started a travel agents mailing list that after a year had been infiltrated by members of the airline industry. The solution? Start a new one, this time started with a core group of trusted people and any new agents would have to be recommended by a current member and seconded by another. Next, protect the list under provisions of the DMCA, so if a travel vendor happened to get their hands on a transmission, they would be in violation because of the DMCA.
Here's the payoff: Delta gives 10% off their fares to a particular mega agency in Chicago and American gives 10% off their fares to another large regional agency in Atlanta (one of several ticketing deals that agencies have around the country). This wonderful set up allows the agency in Chicago and Atlanta to talk and they ticket each other's discounts helping each other to not only give cheaper deals but to meet their requirements for a nice big fat override check from the airline every year.
Is this fair? No, but then again paying travel agents no comission isn't either. You CAN make a difference folks, stop bitching and be creative. These laws are written for you, bit e back.
Why are we wasting time with this? (Score:2)
Why waste time with this garbage when there are so many better uses of State time? I really don't understand - besides the "low hanging fruit" or "government-as-mouthpiece-of-businesses" arguments - why this country is afraid to face issues and problems that are meaningful and need resolution. Instead, what we do over here is run around under the banner of intellectual property while the labor pool is vanishing, the economy's sluggish, and the citizenry aren't liking the actions taken by the government.
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:ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, that's exactly what they want to do. Their reasoning being that a digital copy is (or at least can be (with lossless compression)) as good as the original whereas an analog copy is inherently lossy. With a perfect digital copy there's no need for us to re-consume the original (for additional cost), because once we have initial access to it, we can access it just as well any time we'd like. They feel threatened by this.
Re:I am so sick (Score:2)
Hi. I like the anger. Try the correct branch of the government next time. Why not throw Scalia on there too.. that guy... a real motherfucker.
Have a nice day.
Re:I am so sick (Score:2)
Re:I am so sick (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am so sick (Score:2)
Re:I am so sick (Score:2)
Oh, it sure strikes the balance (Score:2)