FCC Broadcast Flag

[anedjf]

Not sure where this should go, but thought I'd ask about what folks thought about the FCC Broadcast flag? This only affects users in the USA, but the FCC has a new policy to stop recording of HD content at HD levels.

Anyone have an opinion? I'm not sure if this only affects broadcast HD, or Satellite/Cable HD.

Anyone familiar with it?

Not sure on rules for posting links here, but the EFF site has some info regarding it, and a copy of the FCC ruling.

-anedjf

[daphatty]

Personally, I think it's BS. We can record with a VCR but not a computer. Clearly our legislators haven't a clue about technology.

As far as GB-PVR is concerned, I thought GB-PVR doesn't support HD capture cards?

[capone]

Heh...oh yes. I'm sure it's no one will figure out how to get around that.

[jorm]

I am waiting for
1. us hd cards to come out in numbers and lower the price.
2. gbpvr to support one of them
3. a new mvp that supports the hidef format.

[groover km]

Interesting thread, anedjf.

I do think those of us here are in a somewhat 'technophile' minority (I don't work in 'computers', it's just a hobby for me). Not everyone likes fiddling around in the wee small hours trying to get 'a' to work with 'b' or reading articles about bitrates, codecs, networks, etc. Most people want it turn it on and it to just work (and I can't blame them, either).

With regard to the broadcast flag, It's ironic that as 'our' data/ information/ media becomes more portable and accessible, artificial measures will be implemented to control and limit that portability. Yesterday, I read a bill was passed in the US making it a federal (!) crime to record a movie at a cinema with a camcorder (!!), punishable by 3 years (!!!) in nick; irregardless of the legality of this, where's the appropriateness? 3 YEARS?? Thin end of the wedge, people.... what will be the punishment for building a homebrew box that strips the broadcast flag, allowing you to copy/ move/ edit recordings?

What I think will be interesting is when in a couple of years Mr Average spends $$$$$ on HDTV, DVRs, and STBs (because he's been 'told' to) and sits down to watch the Superbowl that he taped a week before.... and finds out that it has 'expired' because he it was flagged as only valid for 48hrs. Or Ms Average wants to watch her soaps and finds that she can't 'FF' the commercials. Or their offspring can't watch their recording of Shrek IV (or whatever) in their den because the recording can't be moved from the STB in the lounge.

Once this starts happening and affecting the - not 'rights' (debatable), but lives - of average ('normal'?) people, I think we will see long lines at the returns counter of <insert consumer electronics store here> and there will be a backlash against DRM in general; and of course, the import (legal or otherwise) of non-crippled equipment will grow.

(sorry, I'm rambling....)

However, I'm not too worried about the broadcast flag at the moment as it has been proven all too frequently that 'if it can be played, it can be copied; if it can be copied, it can be moved' - sooner or later (usually sooner) someone comes up with a way around it and we all start over; It's a zero sum game, until my cable provider decides to forcibly 'upgrade' my STBs free of charge to accomodate HD and the Broadcast Flag, which in my guess would probably be under the guise of giving me DVR 'capability'.

Well, whoop-de-doo.

I've got that now.

[groover km]

Link to the '3 years' story...

http://news.com.com/Prison+terms+on+tap+...ag=st.prev

[Atomike]

You can trace this whole thing to one man: Orrin Hatch from Utah. He is single handedly trying to destroy the ability to timeshift, or fast forward through commercials. I can't imagine what is going through his head. How could a good man suggest such legislation?

[sash]

humm, the US and their copy right laws.. you know what I think the rest of the world should go the route that canada took . when it comes to piracy.. when the the americain first started charging people with these outragous fine and jail terms for having peer to peer copyright material . they ,the canadian goverment, added a I believe a 25 cent surtax to all recordable media. cdr cdrw dvdr and dvdrw.. plus a surcharge on all mp3 players and other portable media capable stuff .of about 20 dollars on any thing over a certain gig of of size.. that increments bigger as the storage capacity gets bigger ( one of the reasons why ipods and other media players are a bout fifty dollar more expensive in canada then in the states..) this "tax" goes directly to the media industry.. in return there is nothing they can do to canadians it is total legal for canadains to download music and other media ( still illegal to upload -- but there is contiginecy plan for that too.. if pressure gets to hot a 1-5 dollar "surtax" will be added to the internet connection making it legal for canadians to upload too- which the media industry wants canada to do, but the canadian goverment at the moment thinks the price too high since most intenet connections are not used for downloading copyright material. and would be an unfair tax to the average user...

as afoot note: one of the reason why our local sat company , Bell expressvu< encrypted their music channels, ( which is relatively un heard off in the rest of the world) because we could mass download music in cd quality. at a rate of 1000 - 2000 songs aday, using a dvb sat card.

[wfooshee]

There have been attempts to levy such a fee on blank media in the US, and I'm not sure there aren't such fees, but then you get into "presumption of guilt" issues, which any student of our constitution will tell you is a VERY BIG no-no. By purchasing the media and paying the fee, you are willingly participating, or at least supporting others' participation, in an illegal act. That's the admission you are making. Besides, who calculates the "loss" or "liability" and how? How do you argue against it if you really don't do this? What if you're a production company of some kind and need blank media for your work, obviously not for copying? Why should you be liable for this fee? It goes on and on.

Nevertheless, the Home Recording Act of 1992 levies just such a fee on digital recorders and media. The intent was to protect people against prosecution for taping their CDs to play in the car, or copying them into MP3s for their portable players. The music industry actually wanted you to have to buy a tape, a CD, and an MP3 to have it all three ways. What dolts! So we give them money for (them) doing nothing, so we can do what we want privately with the product we purchased, adding to our enjoyment.

The earlier observation about how media being more portable means it needs to be more legislated is interesting. And sad.

BTW, this is nothing new. . . I found this while searching for fees levied on media: Article on copyrights in music

[Atomike]

This discussion of music, while interesting, could not be more different than the Broadcast Flag. Uploading or downloading music has always been, and will always be illegal no matter where you live. Music swappers are immoral punks -put warez guys in jail forever for all I care. That would be great. The example of Canada is flawed too - the Canadian Governement does not own the copyright on those tunes. They are simply doing what the Canadian Governement does - socialize everything, breaking the law left and right -as usual. Laughable Country.
Broadcast Flag on the other hand - this takes a LEGAL action, and criminalizes it - AFTER we have all bought our equipment while it was legal. This is bait and switch at it's worst. This is like the goverment saying you can't use computers anymore that use Win98.