Broadcast flag
The MPAA comments in the broadcast flag proceeding are worth reading.
At p.9, the MPAA asserts that “the focus of attention on unauthorized redistribution should be on whether a proposed technology affirmatively and reasonably constrains unauthorized distribution beyond the local environment. . . ” What the MPAA means by this is that it believes no content protection technology that allows transmission of content online could ever be added to Table A.
What does that mean in humanspeak? Well, it means that if you're using a “compliant” TV and you see a news clip that you'd like to send to your parents (who, let's assume, don't live with you), you won't be able to. Nope, not unless you find a way to make a hard copy and mail it to them in a box (and they have a compliant device in their home that they understand and can use to play the recording). Sounds cumbersome, doesn't it? Sort of puts things in a box.
Focusing on a “tightly defined geographic area” for redistribution allowed by content protection technologies seems odd in the age of the internet. But even stranger is the MPAA's contention that software demodulators (code that “tunes” TV signals so that people can see them) must be covered by the flag rule. So this means that the FCC is now in the business of assuring the “compliance” and “robustness” of code. Software demodulators, the MPAA claims, can only be sold on the market if they are incorporated in a compliant “Demodulation Product.” Again, the box: software “tuners” will have to be sold in a box with approved hardware in order to be legal. And won't be available, separately, for use in PCs (unless the digital outputs of those PCs are adequately robust and protected).
This is shaping up to be quite a battle. Stay tuned (but don't use software to do so).
It would be good to get mainstream computer enthusiasts interested in this proceeding. What's the best way to do that?
Comments
2 Responses to “Broadcast flag”
Got something to say?
It would be good to get mainstream computer enthusiasts interested in this proceeding. What's the best way to do that?
Good question.
Most of the people who you seek to interest, are blithely unaware of this all.
Including hardware manufactures… (I spoke to the CIO of a dvr manufacturer who did not know what the broadcast flag issue was.)
The Broadcast Flag issue is largely a legal debate that is barely understood by lawyers. So what would be a good idea to mainstream it? Dunno. Are the computer enthusiasts inundated by the Napster - Kazaa debate with the RIAA?
Certainly the few people I have mentioned this to have not heard of the broadcast flag. This is nuts considering the effect it will have on consumers all over the country.
The key to grabbing attention for the issue is putting the situation in lay terms (to get people's interest, those who wish to delve into more technical aspects can do so), coming up with a few effective analogies, and getting articles in major newspapers or magazines. You have the knowledge and clout to try and sell an article on the broadcast flag to Wired for instance. I don't recall having seen anything about it there yet. Right now, with the FCC rewriting some major rules, reporters have taken notice and a few articles have appeared in all the major outlets. Perhaps if you tried to interest a reporter who wrote one of those articles to look into this story, interview you, and write somethig, word would get out.
Another possibility would be doing a guest blog article on the topic and posting it on a very widely read blog - then perhaps a writer for a paper or magazine would eventually come to you. This seems like the sort of consumer advocate concern that would generate lots of buzz from techie communities on the internet and then move into the mianstream from there.
It may just be difficult to get people interested in something that is not going to happen for two years or so. Hopefully an anti-broadcast flag group will get moving before it is really too late to stop the cogs.