...and the FCC too.

Troubleshooter · 02-22-2005, 03:36 PM

Responding to pressure from Hollywood, the FCC has adopted a rule requiring future digital television (DTV) tuners to include "content protection" (aka DRM) technologies. Starting next year, all makers of HDTV receivers must build their devices to watch for a broadcast "flag" embedded in programs by copyright holders. When it comes to digital recording, it'll be Hollywood's DRM way or the highway. Want to burn that recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lock-box won't allow it. How about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out your existing network and replace it with DRMd routers. Kind of defeats the purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn't it?

http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

Troubleshooter · 02-22-2005, 05:14 PM

Follow up:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...3&pageNumber=0

By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said that regulators had overstepped their authority by imposing a rule designed to limit the copying of digital television programs.

"You crossed the line," Judge Harry Edwards told a lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission during arguments before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"Selling televisions is not what the FCC is in the business of," Edwards said, siding with critics who charge the rule dictates how computers and other devices should work.

russotto · 02-23-2005, 09:52 AM

Looks like the courts are going to cop out again. After all this effort, they're going to decide that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue, and therefore let the FCC run wild. It's not clear who WOULD have standing to sue.

*spits in FCC's general direction*

Kitsune · 02-23-2005, 10:09 AM

I've always found it strange and creepy that any device that essentially deals with media has to be licensed and approved by this government organization.

I'm really surprised we haven't seen DRM speakers, yet, for full control of audio playback. Sigh.

iamthewalrus109 · 02-23-2005, 11:00 AM

In essence the FCC has long since stepped out of its orginal intention of managing the airwaves. Aside from inciting a riot over the air waves, this level of censorship and control is appauling and unecessary. Really when it comes down to it there are two issues at work here. To have a device that filters all programming on a device, and have it be cleared by the FCC is just a bit much. The FCC was intedened to protect the public from overtly graphic material, and to protect government protected airwaves for defense purposes, from being missused, thats it. This now represents a way to protect purveoyors of programming from so called "unwarranted" copying, its a gross misuse of the department and a misreading of its charter.

-Walrus

Kitsune · 02-28-2005, 12:35 PM

Foul language might soon be worth $500,000!

The FCC: Protecting your eyes and ears since 1934.

02-22-2005, 03:36 PM	#1
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	...and the FCC too. Responding to pressure from Hollywood, the FCC has adopted a rule requiring future digital television (DTV) tuners to include "content protection" (aka DRM) technologies. Starting next year, all makers of HDTV receivers must build their devices to watch for a broadcast "flag" embedded in programs by copyright holders. When it comes to digital recording, it'll be Hollywood's DRM way or the highway. Want to burn that recording digitally to a DVD to save hard drive space? Sorry, the DRM lock-box won't allow it. How about sending it over your home network to another TV? Not unless you rip out your existing network and replace it with DRMd routers. Kind of defeats the purpose of getting a high definition digital signal, doesn't it? http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/ __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

02-22-2005, 05:14 PM	#2
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	Follow up: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...3&pageNumber=0 By Peter Kaplan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said that regulators had overstepped their authority by imposing a rule designed to limit the copying of digital television programs. "You crossed the line," Judge Harry Edwards told a lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission during arguments before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "Selling televisions is not what the FCC is in the business of," Edwards said, siding with critics who charge the rule dictates how computers and other devices should work. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

02-23-2005, 11:00 AM	#5
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	FCC stepped out of its mandate years ago In essence the FCC has long since stepped out of its orginal intention of managing the airwaves. Aside from inciting a riot over the air waves, this level of censorship and control is appauling and unecessary. Really when it comes down to it there are two issues at work here. To have a device that filters all programming on a device, and have it be cleared by the FCC is just a bit much. The FCC was intedened to protect the public from overtly graphic material, and to protect government protected airwaves for defense purposes, from being missused, thats it. This now represents a way to protect purveoyors of programming from so called "unwarranted" copying, its a gross misuse of the department and a misreading of its charter. -Walrus

02-23-2005, 09:52 AM	#3
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Looks like the courts are going to cop out again. After all this effort, they're going to decide that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue, and therefore let the FCC run wild. It's not clear who WOULD have standing to sue. spits in FCC's general direction

02-23-2005, 10:09 AM	#4
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	I've always found it strange and creepy that any device that essentially deals with media has to be licensed and approved by this government organization. I'm really surprised we haven't seen DRM speakers, yet, for full control of audio playback. Sigh.

02-28-2005, 12:35 PM	#6
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Foul language might soon be worth $500,000! The FCC: Protecting your eyes and ears since 1934.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)