Court blocks FCC broadcast flags rule [NA]

Yes that is good news. I regularly tivo -> dvd our favorite shows for our own use and this broadclast flag business was clearly stepping on our fair use rights as consumers.
 
Greebo said:
Yes that is good news. I regularly tivo -> dvd our favorite shows for our own use and this broadclast flag business was clearly stepping on our fair use rights as consumers.
Click to expand...

Yep, would have made the DVR part of our cable package pretty useless. Bet the cable company was planning on making some coin licensing shows to be recorded.
 
http://news.com.com/Court+says+FCCs+broadcast+flag+is+toast/2100-1030_3-5697719.html

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?...d=188&tid=155&tid=158&tid=126&tid=129&tid=219

The flag will be back. There's a loud noise in DC right now which is the MPAA calling up the congresscritters and reminding them who is in charge.

Look for the broadcast flag to be quietly placed in a popular law the way Disney got the Mickey Mouse TFR into the NATIONAL BUDGET.

Stay tuned at http://www.eff.org

We're going to need to write, fax, or call to our congress reps to let them know the VOTERS are watching and sneaking this one in will be a "no vote" offense.

How much do you like it when you get the little "No can do" circle/line when your try to FF on your DVD player? The same folks who brought you that are behind this.
 
Last edited:
GREAT NEWS

But Joe, Keep in mind the cable companies have cut separate deals with the studios that honor the broadcast flags. So to truly avoid the restrictions you would need a system outside the cable companies. Either a Tivo or a system built from a PC or Mac.
 
What's so hard to understand about copyright ?
When people choose to steal by way of copying material illegally (-and haven't we all ?) to any extent, they should have the kahonnes to admit it, and not be a whuss and use denial to rationalize that the approval of others that have done the same makes it not stealing.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
What's so hard to understand about copyright ?
When people choose to steal by way of copying material illegally (-and haven't we all ?) to any extent, they should have the kahonnes to admit it, and not be a whuss and use denial to rationalize that the approval of others that have done the same makes it not stealing.
Click to expand...
This doesn't have one iota of impact on "stealing."

Those who want to make copies, will, regardless of the technology you try to put in the way.

This is to extract the maximum number of dollars the maximum number of times from the paying public. The MPAA wants you pay the $11 for the movie in the theater , then pay $5.99 for EACH TIME you watch it on pay TV, then pay $24.99 for the DVD, then pay $59.99 for the special edition, them pay $79.99 for the extended edition trilogy, then pay $34.99 for the HD version. If they could get people meters in the house so you had to pay the $5.99 per person watching they would do that.

As one of the slashdot posters aid. They make the movie theater audience sit through the "Don't pirate movies!" commercial when those who are there are the very people who AREN'T stealing. They paid the $11. The guy who steals the movie is watching it at home without the commercial.

Ditto with having to have everyone in the house from 3 year old Timmy to Grandma stare at the FBI WARNING on the DVD for one full minute (no FF) when those are the folks who BOUGHT the movie! The pirated version doesn't have the warning.

The folks behind this think you will steal because THEY would.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
What's so hard to understand about copyright ?
When people choose to steal by way of copying material illegally (-and haven't we all ?) to any extent, they should have the kahonnes to admit it, and not be a whuss and use denial to rationalize that the approval of others that have done the same makes it not stealing.
Click to expand...

Beg pardon, but the topic isn't stealing copyrighted material. It's about our government not prohibiting us from engaging in activities the courts have held legal. The courts have NOT legalized theft.
 
Joe Williams said:
Beg pardon, but the topic isn't stealing copyrighted material. It's about our government not prohibiting us from engaging in activities the courts have held legal. The courts have NOT legalized theft.
Click to expand...

"Under the FCC rule, programers could attach a code, or flag, to digital broadcasts that would, in most cases, bar consumers from sending unauthorized copies over the Web."

Sure seems to me it's about copyright infringement...
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
"Under the FCC rule, programers could attach a code, or flag, to digital broadcasts that would, in most cases, bar consumers from sending unauthorized copies over the Web."

Sure seems to me it's about copyright infringement...
Click to expand...

If that's what it did, that would be fine. But what the rule really does is keep us from making legal copies in our house. I've never used a pirated program, never sent a movie over the web, never downloaded music illegally, and feel no urge to give up my rights to fair use of materials I've paid for.
 
Joe Williams said:
If that's what it did, that would be fine. But what the rule really does is keep us from making legal copies in our house. I've never used a pirated program, never sent a movie over the web, never downloaded music illegally, and feel no urge to give up my rights to fair use of materials I've paid for.
Click to expand...

I'm with you Joe, but the bad thing is that "Fair use" is not a constitutional right, its a legal right. Legal rights can be taken away, and it appears that the MPAA and the RIAA are fighting for just that to happen.

Its a shame.
 
Joe Williams said:
If that's what it did, that would be fine. But what the rule really does is keep us from making legal copies in our house. I've never used a pirated program, never sent a movie over the web, never downloaded music illegally, and feel no urge to give up my rights to fair use of materials I've paid for.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the contract for these materials you paid for but typically, unless written permission is given, they may not be legally copied in any way for any reason without that written permission.

In other words typically, one pays for ones viewing, not to copy.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I haven't read the contract for these materials you paid for but typically, unless written permission is given, they may not be legally copied in any way for any reason without that written permission.

In other words typically, one pays for ones viewing, not to copy.
Click to expand...

The courts disagree with you. We do have the right to make copies for our own use.
 
Joe Williams said:
The courts disagree with you. We do have the right to make copies for our own use.
Click to expand...

Is that right embodied in law or is it judicial activism that granted the right? :yes: :no: :dunno:
 
Joe Williams said:
The courts disagree with you. We do have the right to make copies for our own use.
Click to expand...

edit: Sorry, Joe, I thought you were disagreeing with me. I misread your quote...

The courts say we have the right. The Supreme Court has never actually said that we do, and in fact, they said:

Supreme Court in Universal v. Reimerdes said:
Preliminarily, we note that the Supreme Court has never held that fair use is constitutionally required, although some isolated statements in its opinions might arguably be enlisted for such a requirement
Click to expand...

Legal rights can be changed, and that's why the FCC flags could actually happen. Constitutional rights cannot be changed without an amendment. The Supreme Court has never interpreted anything in the Constitution that gives fair use rights over copyrighted materials.

I hope that someday they do, so that we can stop companies from requiring a viewer to watch an advertisement before a movie.
 
Last edited:
Joe Williams said:
The courts disagree with you. We do have the right to make copies for our own use.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those courts do disagree with me from time to time.
 
wsuffa said:
Is that right embodied in law or is it judicial activism that granted the right? :yes: :no: :dunno:
Click to expand...

I buy a movie, it's my property. I can do with what I wish. The courts did not engage in judicial activism in this case, they properly protected the rights of individual property owners.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
"Under the FCC rule, programers could attach a code, or flag, to digital broadcasts that would, in most cases, bar consumers from sending unauthorized copies over the Web."

Sure seems to me it's about copyright infringement...
Click to expand...

It would keep consumers from sending copies across their living rooms.

Right now, With TiVo Multiroom Viewing you can watch a show in the bedroom that was and is stored on the TiVo next to the living room TV. With TiVo to Go you can make a copy of the show and put it on your laptop PC and watch it on the commuter train ride into work. BTW, TiVo limits the number of copies you can make that way so the copy is locked to the client and is worthless anywhere else.

Which of those now SHIPPING features is "stealing?" Which is copyright infringement?

Now read how the broadcast flag was intended to work. It has modes called copy once and copy never. With "copy never" which of the above, MRV and TiVo to Go would you imagine work?
 
Joe Williams said:
I buy a movie, it's my property. I can do with what I wish. The courts did not engage in judicial activism in this case, they properly protected the rights of individual property owners.
Click to expand...

I think if you look at the copyrights, you will see that the copyright holders grant you a non-exclusive license to use the content (look/listen to the rights notice after a major league ballgame). What you purchase and own, technically under copyright law, is the actual media (e.g. the CD, the video tape, etc.). You can use the content as permitted by the actual license and copyright law. It is within copyright law where the concept of "fair use" resides. And where the concept of "public performance" resides (that concept requires payment of a separate license fee). Copyright law carries certain compulsory licenses for broadcasters that do not apply for online media (for example). The latter is why a number of radio stations stopped streaming their audio on the internet until there was revenue to cover the added licensing costs. Incidentally, the broadcast compulsory license does not cover satellite radio/TV, meaning that those companies pay-per-play for all their content.

With a book or magazine the content and physical media are combined - you can't readily separate the words from the paper. To destroy the words, you destroy the paper. With CDs and video tape, you can effectively destroy the content without destroying the media. Reuse the blank video tape; hang the damaged CD on your Christmas Tree.

Part of the problem is that the basic copyright laws were established before we had electronic transmission.

Now that I've set all that up, it is my belief that the purchaser of the license to use content should have the right copy it for archive purposes or to display it on a separate device (e.g. copy the DVD to video tape to play on a machine that doesn't have a DVD player). Somehow we need Congress to reconcile the dispute between protecting the contentholder's rights (no illegal distribution without payment to the rightholder) while permitting technology innovation and the ability of the consumer to use the content where they want to. Perhaps we need to throw it to the open market.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top