Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Draft of 'Broadcast Flag' Treaty Now Available

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the flag-this dept.

Television 324

The Importance of writes "If you liked the broadcast flag, you're going to love WIPO's proposed 'broadcast flag' treaty (PDF link). The draft treaty will give copyright-like rights to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets its way, webcasters. As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it. The treaty also includes DMCA-like protections, in case you try to circumvent the broadcast flag. The treaty is going to be discussed in Geneva, June 7-9. The draft is discussed over on Corante.com and late last year on the DMCA activists list."

cancel ×

324 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't forget... (-1)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795582)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

First reply (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795619)

First reply to a stupid first post!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

1 4|\/| teh l33t35t!

Technically, you fucking fail it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795697)

While you did accomplish the coveted "First Reply", the grandparent post is, in fact, NOT stupid. If only you hadn't called it stupid, you would not have FUCKING FAILED IT!

while(true)
{
if(yu0 == f4gg0t)
{
fucking.fail(it);
}
else
{
yu0 = f4gg0t;
}
}

Your only chance is to not be a f4gg0t during the first iteration, and even if that is the case yu0 will still fucking fail it on the next iteration, douchebag!

Welcome (-1)

Klerck (213193) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795584)

Welcome to to da moon Batman

Re:Welcome (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795726)

Welcome to Slashdot.

WIPO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795596)

I like WIPO Troll's proposed Troll Polka.

and just wait ... (1, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795597)

... until the UN runs the internet!

No. (1, Flamebait)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795644)

If the USA can ignore the UN and attack Iraq, then they can sure as shit ignore the UN for *any* reason.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795684)

If I were a UN member, I'd have left already.

Re:No. (0, Troll)

retto (668183) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795770)

they can sure as shit ignore the UN for *any* reason

They (er...We...er...The Government of the USA) will ignore the UN if they have something to gain by doing so, or are pressured to do so by someone *cough* big money *cough*.

If it suits the purpose of a bunch of guys in suits, then the Gov will be all for the UN and whatever hairbrained agreement they can pass.

Re:No. (2, Insightful)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795805)

...When you provide a sizeable portion of its support, both with money and enforcement, you should have the ability to dictate policy. Of course, looking at the UN's record, Lybia, The Sudan, and Syria would be at the head of the Internet censorship^W policy control, just like they are on the human rights.

Re:and just wait ... (4, Funny)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795731)

... until the UN runs the internet!

If they UN ran the internet, the committee would probably be headed by a nation like Tongo seeing how the UN's great wisdom lead to Libya heading up the Human Rights committee.

"Fair Use" What's that? (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795598)


but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.

I would assume "old" recording technologies such as VCRs and PVRs would still be able to record the signal? (Current protection, Macrovision, is easily scrubbed from a signal.) These bastards have forgotten what the term "Fair Use" is all about.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (5, Interesting)

Unnngh! (731758) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795640)

Depends...I remember toward the end of the VHS days, many manufacturers started limiting the signal strength on the tape. The tape would then play back to a monitor but any recordings would be unwatchable. You had to use a signal booster to record. They could possibly limit the signal strength and these technologies would not work.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (1, Funny)

jiffah (685832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795734)

what in the hell is a VCR?

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (2, Funny)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795800)

You *really* old dudes know them as VTR's. That ring a bell?

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (2, Informative)

rjelks (635588) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795737)

I just read that Nvidia is now complying with Macrovision. Here's [slashdot.org] the Slashdot story.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (3, Insightful)

maxbang (598632) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795750)

True, but what happens when everything moves to pure digital and they close the analog hole? With "trusted" computing looming on the horizon, stuff like this is very creepy. When they take away our ability to play media on older hardware (e.g., a movie-on-demand whose codec is only available in broadcast flag compatible hardware and whose emulation would be too inefficient to be practical), then we're screwed. I know there will always be ways around this, but it still annoys me. If nothing else, I don't want to see someone be branded "Broadcast Flag Jon" somewhere in Scandinavia.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (5, Insightful)

stephenisu (580105) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795806)

Until I can't see it or hear it, there will alway be an analog hole...

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (2, Funny)

maxbang (598632) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795850)

Heh - Fahrenheit 451 style, we'll soon be memorizing and reciting episodes of "Sister Sister" on a remote island somewhere, far from the prying eyes of the evil broadcast flaggers.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (1)

damiena (263598) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795928)

You fool!! Don't give them any ideas!

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (2, Informative)

bigberk (547360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795838)

True, but what happens when everything moves to pure digital and they close the analog hole?
Not as long as I (and about a million other Engineering graduates) know how to build ADCs and DACs from scratch.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (2, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795917)


Not as long as I (and about a million other Engineering graduates) know how to build ADCs and DACs from scratch.

Just wait... one day you'll have to go to a DMCA accredited school for those courses and sign legal forms saying you'll only use your knowledge for Good (company profits) and not Evil (fair use)

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795855)


We (Average Joes) don't have the millions of dollars the Broadcast Fuckers have. All you can do is not support them. Don't buy a new TV, cancel all forms of TV (satellite, cable) and make sure they know why.

If you see TV elsewhere don't buy from the advertisers you see. Tell your friends and family. People don't like being treated as children and premptively as thieves. Knowledge is your weapon.

Thankfully they can't DRM good ol' paper books.

Re:"Fair Use" What's that? (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795939)

When they take away our ability to play media on older hardware (e.g., a movie-on-demand whose codec is only available in broadcast flag compatible hardware and whose emulation would be too inefficient to be practical), then we're screwed.
When they do that, stop watching. Money talks. This is the only answer.

I don't see how (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795607)

You can prevent people from recording. You can try, but you'll probably fail just as everyone else has prior.

Re:I don't see how (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795895)

How to shoot yourself in the foot, content industry style: Take the fun out of your entertainment product by making consumers jump through hoops. They're lucky that consumers will ignore these laws large scale.

This really won't change a thing (5, Interesting)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795615)

With the hardware that most manufacturers build and work with, the sort which a broadcaster would use to both create and monitor their transport stream, the ability is needed to record and play back at will, thus, such a flag would pretty much be ignored by most systems if implemented. Besides, if you end up modifying the ATSC standard, in order to prevent breaking all previous encoders/decoders on the market, you would need to make such modifications to portions of the stream which are unused, and existing off the shelf parts would ignore such a modification. Thus, the protection starts off ineffective.

Even after the existing non compliant decoders/recorders/etc on the market are retired to due age or death, newer hardware which ignores such protections would still be available, you'd just have to pay a fair amount.

Re:This really won't change a thing (5, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795693)


such a flag would pretty much be ignored by most systems if implemented.

At the moment, sure. However I don't doubt for a moment that there is a concentrated effort to develop and patent a chip which all broadcasts will have to pass through before it hits the TV set. The V-Chip is already in TVs but that's just to keep kids from seeing "bad" TV, the next step is having the broadcasters control what we do with the signals, as if we're all children.

nb: I cancelled my cable months ago

Re:This really won't change a thing (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795749)

True, what is really interesting here is that presently there's not that much of a difference between "studio quality" and "consumer quality" equipment when it comes to recording standards. That is to say, if your camcorder captures something newsworthy, your local TV station doesn't have to do much to get it on the air other than throw it in a playback machine.

What's more, some TV stations actually have the right to republish another station's news content... and that is simply plucked out of the air with no encoding involved. Seriously, CNN has been known to use a Dish Network unit with special permission to view all local stations in order to quickly get access to stations whose breaking news reports they have the right to put on the air. Clearly, that stream is going to need to be produced with the broadcast flag turned off, or devices that ignore the broadcast flag be in existance, in order for the major news networks to continue such content-sharing operations.

Re:This really won't change a thing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795884)

The change to the ATSC standard is trivial. They are adding a single flag to the stream that says "This is protected content". This can be added to existing encoding hardware with a firmware update. But, this is irrelevant to the issue.

The problem is that in early 2005, it will be illegal to sell hardware that does not obey this flag. So, the major changes come at the receiver side, not the broadcaster. It adds complexity and cost to the hundreds of millions of receiving devices. Even though my current PC is completely capable of recording, viewing, and modifying HDTV content, which I've been doing for a couple years now... In order to do that in 2005 and beyond, I need to buy all new hardware, which enforces DRM control as defined by the big media companies.. You want to copy this weeks episode of "The West Wing" to your powerbook to watch on that long flight? No can do.. Not until you buy a new laptop that obeys DRM, and makes sure thieving bastards like you don't have open access to this precious material.

Once it goes into effect, the current ATSC receiver cards will no longer be sold. Eventually, a new breed of receiver cards will come out. They will enforce the flag in hardware, and will not pass the transport stream to your PC, unless it also has hardware support for DRM, and the stream can be saved in an encrypted format.

So, say goodbye to any open source software to modify the transport stream (like I have today, to transcode HDTV to save in DVD format, or edit the streams to remove commercials). Say goodbye to broad innovation in digital TV. This locks the current structure firmly in place.. Disney, Viacom, GE, and Fox have their positions cemented. You'll watch their programs in the way that they allow, you'll watch their commercials, and anyone who tries to circumvent that will have their DRM license revoked and a lawsuit slapped on them.

Yes, there will still be some basic HD receiver cards floating around which do not care about the broadcast flag. But, how does that matter? Any product you want to buy in the future will be crippled, and the flag will give the big media companies an easy way to sue anyone who dares to challenge their stranglehold on digital media.

Ok.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795616)

The more they make TV a pain to own, pay for or operate, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.

er. wait... I mean, eventually I'll get tired of it and stop watching TV altogether.

how dare you misquote our princess! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795862)

The proper quote from on the deathstar is :

"The tighter you squeeze your fingers, the further the jizz squirts from your penis."!!!

Re:Ok.... (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795950)

Heh. I actually stopped watching broadcasts altogether when MTV first started this lame-ass "I wanna get laid so bad" bullshit with beach parties and rap. The only reason I saw the Matrix is because I went to the theater. Haven't seen much since; I get my news from the 'net. And guess what? I don't think I'm missing anything. Same thing goes for the RIAA.

No fair... (4, Insightful)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795617)

As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it.

I say if you don't have the copyright to what you broadcast, you shouldn't have the right to prevent redistribution.

Re:No fair... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795648)

I say if you don't have the copyright to what you broadcast, you shouldn't have the right to prevent redistribution.

The actual copyright owner who's licensing broadcast rights could stand up and demand that no broadcast flag be used during the broadcast of their content as part of the license given to the broadcaster... but I doubt anybody will. Moot point.

Re:No fair... (5, Insightful)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795717)

How about for public domain footage? Not so moot.

Re:No fair... (1)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795857)

Unfortunately, I don't think there's that much footage from before 1927, and nothing since then has slipped into the public domain (at least in the US -- thank you CTEA); nor will it for at least another 15-20 years.

Imagine the implications this could have. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795618)

Michael will no longer be able to record live gay sex shows over the internet and jack off to them later. Oh, the humanity!

Uh. What's wrong with this? (3, Interesting)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795621)

you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast

I don't see what's so outrageous about this.

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (3, Insightful)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795698)

Nothing wrong with the broadcaster sayign "hey, dont record this". There is nothing wrong with recording things (set in law since the time shift case) There is something wrong with them telling you you cant modify your own equipment to ignore their request.

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795769)

There is something wrong with them telling you you cant modify your own equipment to ignore their request.

Ok. As long as you don't consent to such a deal.

"By removing this seal you accept the terms of the terms..."

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (5, Insightful)

Inebrius (715009) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795809)

When your hardware start listening to the Megalocorps and won't permit you to record, pause, skip, change channels, volume, turn off your TV...

Will that make a difference then?

We already can not fast forward through the commercials on several DVDs, even though we purchased the DVD or legitimately rented it, and own the DVD player. This is due to agreements forced upon the hardware manufacturers. It is the law that makes it a crime for you to try and fix this unwanted feature, and that part is entirely wrong.

Also, I don't see how placing additional non-flexible restrictions advances the sciences and useful arts, when your equipment refuses to record clips of various media for debate, parody, discussion, etc.

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (1)

jspayne (98716) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795908)

Say, a local cable operator putting a "no copies" flag on all programming, to disable all compliant recorders.

"Hey, we've got this great new video on-demand feature to sell you..."

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795940)

And you'd have the right to record all those programs because...?

It's already being done. You can't record programs from a subscriber channel unless you pay for it

Re:Uh. What's wrong with this? (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795943)

How about a broadcaster who keeps you from recording movies that are in the public domain? Sure, they say they won't but with this flag, they can.

Too many bosses (3, Interesting)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795622)

I am a citizen of the US, I vote for my "leaders" and one way or another have a say in the laws I must follow. BUT A treaty saying what I can and cannot record.

BAH!

Those who won't follow it can't be forced to and those who will aren't offending anyway.

Taiwan will still be the primary source of bootleg video movie and software and the US will be a primary consumer.

Re:Too many bosses (2, Insightful)

Monsieur Canard (766354) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795694)

Given the US's history of ignoring treaties it doesn't like (Kyoto, etc), I can't imagine the rest of the world would be too keen on having an MPAA-authored treaty shoved down it's collective throat.

Re:Too many bosses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795703)

Well, just as we're free to ignore any and all treaties at our pleasure, so are you.

Don't take the damn paper and ink so seriously.

Re:Too many bosses (1)

BillFarber (641417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795841)

Given the US's history of ignoring treaties it doesn't like (Kyoto, etc)

I don't see how rejecting the Kyoto treaty is ignoring it. The U.S. simply decided not to ratify it and therefore not to follow it. If I make a treaty that you don't like and don't ratify, does that mean that you are ignoring our treaty?

Re:Too many bosses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795847)

The US never ratified Kyoto, and therefore it is not subject to it.

Re:Too many bosses (0, Offtopic)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795885)

Kyoto didn't pass when the dems controlled the US Senate in 01/02, bitch at them if you wanted it passed. The republicans have flat out stated that any air quality standards will have the same as any other nation.
Never mind the questions about CO2 relevance, mankind's real effect on climate , ice age/thaw cycles, etc.

Important things first. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795632)

Imagine if all of these groups spent as much time dealing with dictators, genocide, hunger, slavery, child abuse, rape, privacy, female genital mutilation, government spending and other important issues as they do protecting corporate greed.

Re:Important things first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795659)

I'm glad they aren't.

You advocating imposing our western values on the rest of the world. Give it a rest, we've done enough damage already.

Re:Important things first. (1)

ctxspy (94924) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795792)

>> dictators
Debatable.
>> genocide
I would guess that's pretty universally bad.
>> hunger
Ditto.
>> slavery
Debatable, but currently viewed as bad by most.
>> child abuse
Debatable, given the flexible definition of abuse
>> rape
Debatable, likely less of a 'major world problem' anyway.
>> privacy
I'm sure this is universally desired by the 'lower classes' and universally undesirable by the 'ruling classes'
>> female genital mutilation
Most countries are moving away from this, albeit slowly. But what about male genital mutilation as well?
>> government spending
Only debatable if you believe that a government isn't there to serve its populace, but itself.

The grandparent had some arguable points in there, but i hardly think that they are all purely "western values".

Re:Important things first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795808)

Yeah, let the dictators and their lackeys rape, pillage, mutilate, and kill as much as they like. It's part of their culture. Bah. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Whenever we step into a situation where these kinds of things are going on, people get pissed at us. Whenever we don't step in, people get pissed at us. It's a no-win situation.

Re:Important things first. (1)

jared_hanson (514797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795794)

Well, we'd probably end up with innovations such as the "dictator flag." Saddam can be our first test subject. We will simply tattoo a "D" on his right hand and release him. To conform to standards, no country should allow anyone with said "D" tattoo to run their country. If they do, they will incur UN punishments. Yep, that should be effective.

On second thought, lets let these people stick to doing relatively unimportant tasks.

Re:Important things first. (2, Insightful)

LordK2002 (672528) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795852)

What about male genital mutilation?

Oh yes, it's part of accepted Western culture. Silly me.

K

Re:Important things first. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795916)

Ha-ha.

There is no physical harm (actually sex becomes more pleasurable) and aesthetically nipping off that extra piece of flesh is a real improvement.

Just ask any woman whether she'd rather play with a cut or an un-cut penis. I'm telling you that apart from a few fetishists they all say they prefer the cut one.

It's more hygienic too (less chance of an infection).

DMCA & Such (5, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795638)

I'm starting to believe that this stuff doesn't matter.

I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.

That's not to say that I don't think we'd be better off without this stuff. I'd rather not be a criminal, if it's all the same. OTOH, I'm not going to run Windows just so I can watch DVDs that I've bought.

I guess time will tell.

-Peter

Re:DMCA & Such (2, Insightful)

bfields (66644) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795713)

I hate to sound all Princess Leia, but they keep piling this nonsense on, and we keep ignoring it/circumventing it (and ignoring the laws against circumvention). At some point the whole thing becomes a joke and enforcement becomes impossible.

This is all well and good if you're a consumer who just wants to watch the stuff and maybe keep a personal recording or two.

What if you actually want to use outlawed tools for research or political activism or your own art? Then your violations are public knowledge, and you no longer depend on flying below the radar.

--Bruce Fields

Re:DMCA & Such (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795864)

I'll agree to fight this as a first amendment issue, if you'll agree to support my rights under the second :-P

In all seriousness, you make an excellent point on a philosophical level. Can you cite any concrete examples?

-Peter

Re:DMCA & Such (2, Insightful)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795824)

Can't argue your point. It's an interesting thought experiment to consider the result if 'they' were able to pass every possible copyright restriction. What would the world look like then? How far would they go before their whole system collapsed like a deck of cards?

as in.... (5, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795652)

... this would outlaw such things as time shifting? And they could accomplish that...how?

Yes, I'm waiting for some smart guy who can understand lawspeek to read the PDF and translate it into a paragraph or so of normal english.

Next they'll want to brain scan you and make sure you don't REMEMBER a tune or news story or a video scene, because you would be avoiding some royalty payments...

Taking Bets (1)

NoseSocks (662467) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795657)

And when this new broadcast flag "technology" comes out, how many weeks do you think it will take for some one to find a way to circumvent it?

Meanwhile, to appease this silly laws, extra software/hardware solutions will have to be added to new recording equipment, likely raising prices for a lost cause.

Re:Taking Bets (1)

h4rdc0d3 (724980) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795722)

From what I understand about the way this all works, it's already circumventable (is that a word?). The manufactures of the PVR/etc. devices only need to ignore the flag. And I'm sure many will do this just as many DVD set top manufacturers make region 0 players (or give an "option" to change to region 0).

Re:Taking Bets (1)

jared_hanson (514797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795837)

Here you go:

broadcast_flag & 0;

There is your less that zero day warez. Damn I'm 1337.

Re:Taking Bets (1)

junkgoof (607894) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795909)

1/7

Content (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795664)

Lets see:

Good content sometimes makes money.
Bad content sometimes makes money.
Good content sometimes loses money.
Bad content sometimes loses money.

YET people still make money making content WITHOUT restrictions on "fair use". The question is, does RESTRICTING fair use make MORE money or LESS money?

The various media outlets know that CONTENT is going to be King soon, and that Advertisements are slowly going to lose out.

They are trying to prop up revenue streams with bad ideas that aren't going to work. All technological measures can be twarted, and in the long run, do not work.

People will pay for content worth consuming. Bands will have to play more concerts, poets will have to do more readings etc. Recording is/was just a new form of revenue which has approached the end of its useful life, in regards to generating a profit stream.

Now we are going to have to go back to what worked 200 years ago, before we had TV, Radio and the Internet.

reverse the question (2, Insightful)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795768)

The question is, does RESTRICTING fair use make MORE money or LESS money?



You've got the question backwards. The point of copyright is to further the people's interest by encouraging the creation of new works. So long as copyright is providing enough incentive to entice people to create more art, then the system is working as intended.

It isn't the copyright system's purpose to maximize profits for creators, but merely to ensure that there is just enough - and no more - commercial advantage to keep them producing more art.

Somehow, somewhere along the way popular perception changed to the idea that copyright serves the author. Not so, it always was about the people's interest.

mix tapes/cds (1)

BlewScreen (159261) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795667)

So I'd be able to stop people from "reproducing" my broadcast of a bunch of songs, w/out talk, in the specific order I broadcast them?

This would make it difficult to generate your own mix CD for the car...

First, you'd have to check to make sure no one had ever broadcast the songs you wanted to record in the order you wanted to record them...

-bs

Re:mix tapes/cds (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795854)

First, you'd have to check to make sure no one had ever broadcast the songs you wanted to record in the order you wanted to record them.

FUD.

Copyright protects a specific expression, not a unique order.

If I write a word-for-word duplicate of Harry Potter but with different names (darn trademarks), and I can prove that I had no foreknowledge the book at all, then I'm clean.

Re:mix tapes/cds (1)

mdpye (687533) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795924)

Um, no.

You just wouldn't be able to make a recording of their actual broadcast if they set the flag. It doesn't grant them any rights to the material they are broadcasting or the order of broadcast, it just stops you recording that particular instance.

The problem comes when the only source of the songs / shows you want to mix / timeshift sets the flag. Bye bye fair use and timeshifting...

MP

Re:mix tapes/cds (1)

BlewScreen (159261) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795954)

I guess I'm confused by this then:

but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it

should that be "AND" and not "or"???

I don't disagree with either of you, but how do you stop someone from reproducing something from scratch?

-bs

ah jeez (3, Funny)

maxbang (598632) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795669)

If I read that correctly, this means that even if I release something for free to the public, they can *still* find a way to prevent people from copying it and distributing it? In that case, I throw my full support behind the lo-techs and their falling cars of doom. Get your VCRs ready. I may even start carrying around 80 gigs of divx files in my head, childhood memories be damned.

Re:ah jeez (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795835)

Yep, you're reading it correctly, even public domain programs will be flagged. In other words, broadcasters will have even more rights than the authors! Programs that have absolutely no copyright protection will be ILLEGAL to copy!!!

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engi ne er/f_mo_the_masked_engineer-01.21.04.shtml

If you can play it... (2, Insightful)

smackjer (697558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795672)

The same adage will always be true... If you can play it, you can copy it. No copy protection mechanism will ever escape that simple fact.

States of the broadcast flag? (2, Interesting)

fahrvergnugen (228539) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795674)

This seems like as good a time as any to ask:

In the discussion following a similar article a few months ago, someone posted a list of the different states for the broadcast flag, and their corresponding values (ie. 000 forever, 001 1 hour, 010 2 hours, etc.). However, I've been unable to find it again.

Does anyone have this information that they could re-post here? It's pretty relevant to the current discussion.

not the case in europe (yet) / R.I.P TiVo (1)

dummkopf (538393) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795678)

fortunately the system in europe at the moment makes it hard for such chips to be installed. at least for a while, this will not be an issue over here.

something interesting i notice is that the better the quality of the media (be it music, tv, movies) the harder their are being made to be copied. on one end this makes sense as quality and so resell value is better. on the other hand it becomes more and more a pain in the butt to actually enjoy your rightfully purchased art, be it tv, movies, music.

finally, i guess this will be the end of tivo, huh? after all broadcasters will now be able to block certain shows from being taped. or maybe there will be some deal for them to be taped, but you will be allowed to copy them to hard media only 3 times? we'll see what pain the future will bring...

It'll be cracked (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795692)

there is no way they can lock things down well enough to stop people finding a way of making a copy of the content. Even if everything is 100% locked down, you can still take the DVI-D stream from your video card and capture the co-ordinates on the video stream with the television tuner software playing. I bet people will go out of their way to pirate content just because the powers that be are trying to stop them.

Re:It'll be cracked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795960)

the next step after that is to have display-device-side encryption. There will be no distinction between a television and a computer display, they will become one and the same.

Display information travelling between your computer and the computer monitor will be encrypted while en-route to prevent tampering.

Remember, the powers that be want to lock down every electronic device in existance at any cost.

So much for open source software when you can't use your monitor, or have to use it in a mode that doesn't allow you to view media. Same goes for speakers.

If you don't think they'd be so bold to something totally antisocial without even pretending to not be corrupt, think again:
http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=237 &i=5 97

Call me crazy, but should we worry about a "flag"? (5, Interesting)

JoeShmoe (90109) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795705)

Of course, I'd dearly like to know what exactly this broadcast flag is supposed to be...but I'm willing to bet that this broadcast flag is going to essentially come down to a small sequence of bits (like the "second generation" marker that is used to prevent you from dubbing one MiniDisc digitally to another) or a signal overlay (like Macrovision that causes severe degredation if you copy the content). I don't think there's ever been a time that all the various hardware and content groups have been able to agree on a standard.

So, here's how I think it will shake out. There will be a small bit sequence in a digital broadcast that says "do not copy". It will be trivial to add that support to hardware, and simple to include that in broadcasts.

AND ...simple to remove. Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up, but there will also be a large percentage...the same people who go out and purchase "video enhancers" to remove Macrovision...that find ways to defeat it. That works for me. Sure, we are breaking the law, but it's civil disobedience, just like making backups of your DVDs and, just like the original Betamax case, time shifting your viewing material.

Maybe, eventually, some company somewhere will sue people who bypass this signal, or a company who makes a signal filter. When that happens, hopefully they will have the balls to take it through the court system to try and positively affirm the public's rights the way previous cases have.

- JoeShmoe
.

Re:Call me crazy, but should we worry about a "fla (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795886)

Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up

I dont't think they'll give up, I think they'll get really angry.

I'm beginning to wonder whether all of this crap (broadcast flag, forced HDTV switchover, various flavors of DRM) is all part of some huge experience to see just how much consumers of entertainment will take.

On a personal note, I've already given up on the recording industry and will never buy another CD again. The day my Myth box can no longer timeshift TV shows is the day I take a baseball bat to my TV and throw it out on the curb.

Except (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795942)

AND ...simple to remove. Sure, the majority of the audience will be stymied, seeing the error message on their VCR/PVR/DVR and giving up, but there will also be a large percentage...the same people who go out and purchase "video enhancers" to remove Macrovision...that find ways to defeat it.

Before: A few people did that kind of advanced "hacking", and in small circles
Now: A few people do that kind of advanced "hacking", and everybody gets it over p2p nets.

Where I really don't think they have any idea what they're up against, is their attempts to stop p2p networks. They are nowhere near their full potential yet. This little stunt is irrelevant to that, there'll always be some people that manage to get around it. This will only hurt choice and stifle competition in other markets, such as the OS market.

Kjella

How to kill an industry (4, Insightful)

bludstone (103539) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795723)

through over-regulation.

Theres a massive market for high quality recording off of tv/dvd/hd/whatever. All that legislation like this does is raise the barrier to entry, and thereby cause LESS competition, giving the consumer (fitting word in this example) less of an option.

Besides, if/when it becomes widely known that you cant record your favorite sports game/movie/whatever with these new tools, people simply wont purchase them, and will stick with their old equipment.

And when that happens, theyll blame "piracy."

sue_evil_pirates truth table (2, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795742)

evil_bit broadcast_flag sue_and_kill_evil_pirate's_dog

0 1 0
1 1 1

evil_bit
1 forAll evil_pirates
0 forAll good_guys(TM) = {RIAA, MPAA, political_puppets}

broadcast_flag
1 always 1

The second dark age (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795773)

The last time we saw this kind of monopolistic control of information, it led to the dark ages.

The second dark age will not be caused by organized religion, but by the "content" industries and those politicians that deliberately or unwittingly serve their interests. Their power will come, not from the flawed dogma of authoritarian religion, but from the flawed dogma of intellectual property.

The people pushing this are not creators, in fact, if they really understood creativity they would understand why the whole concept of knowledge as property is so flawed. Walter Elias Disney understood, but those that control today's Disney Corp certainly does not (or just don't care).

The free software movement is a powerful demonstration of why these concepts are flawed, but could be rendered powerless by some of the more potent forms of intellectual property, such as patent law.

We must fight this on the political battlefield, if you haven't contacted your political representatives about this - now is the time.

Right of Reproduction (4, Informative)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795799)

one word: SUX0r

I have only given the treaty a quick scan, and see no fair use provisions

Article 9

Right of Reproduction

Alternative N

Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction, in any manner or form, of fixations of their broadcasts.

Alternative O (1) Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit the reproduction of fixations of their broadcasts. (2) Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of their broadcasts from fixations made pursuant to Article 14 when such reproduction would not be permitted by that Article or otherwise made without their authorization.

[End of Article 9]

Article 16

Obligations concerning Technological Measures

(1) Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by broadcasting organizations in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty and that restrict acts, in respect of their broadcasts, that are not authorized or are prohibited by the broadcasting organizations concerned or permitted by law.

Alternative V

(2) In particular, effective legal remedies shall be provided against those who: (i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal; (ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organization that emitted it; (iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.

Alternative W (2) [No such provision]

Article 15

Term of Protection

The term of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations under this Treaty shall last, at least, until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the year in which the broadcasting took place.

[End of Article 15]

It's nice to know that we are going to pay for thi (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795810)

They want their content displayable on any device but they don't want to pay for the devices.
I paid for the TV set.
I paid for the PC. (The P is for Personal, remember?)
They came up with the DVD player and the Xbox. Fine, make those gadgets able to read DVD and obey *Their* rules. That's implied.
If they want PCs to read them too, well then, they can't have it both ways!

These TV people and Spammers want the same thing: a Free Ride on US.

Aaarrrrrrrh! (1)

rjelks (635588) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795849)

It will just increase piracy. There's going to be old video capture cards out there for years that ignore the broadcast flag. If people can't do what they want with new equipment, they'll just return it. People will eventually migrate to sources on the internet to get their commercial free, already encoded fix for TV. I think this idea will backfire in a bad way for them. Just my $0.02.

Entitlement (2, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795861)

Because you not only get a chance to make money, but you're entitled to it, and if anything changes and you can't adapt, fuck them, change the law so you're still profitable.
We Americans as a whole have become a bunch of self-important, arrogant, whiny twits, who seem to believe that we are owed something simply because we exist.

Slashdot and ASCII (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795876)

Did you ever wonder why Slashdot only supports 7-bit ASCII, i.e. no extended ASCII, Unicode or ISO-9660 characters?

Because Slashdot is a wholly American and Patriot website, that's why.

Think about it! Do you want Slashdot to become a forum for terrorists, where they can freely discuss plans for taking away our freedom and killing our brave soldiers through HORRIBLE ACTS OF TERRORISM in their own language and the heathen Arabic script? Unicode, a system that enables terrorists worldwide to plan terrorist actions and communicate through the Internet. Though most try to cover it up, it is no secret to most IT-savvy Americans that Unicode development is partly funded by Al-Qaeda and partly by the French, dictator-supporting government.

There is none of that anti-social trash here. Slashdot supports only AMERICAN, PATRIOTIC CHARACTERS. Eurotrash, look out, because you can't use your fucking umlauts and ~'s here. We saved your sorry asses in World War II -- the least you can do is show some fucking respect and use our alphabet. Slashdot does not support your anti-American characters. 7-bit ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) is commonly known as US-ASCII. This speaks for itself. The one and only choice for PATRIOTIC AMERICANS is US-ASCII, the STANDARD CODE for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I'm proud to be an American, and I'm PROUD be a member of this patriotic, American Slashdot community. I am not going to let freedom-hating terrorists plot evil plans on an American-owned, FREE SPEECH website.

Do not believe the terrorist propaganda lies.
Boycott Unicode -- it is a the tool of terrorism.
USE ANYTHING OTHER THAN US-ASCII AND THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON.

I know I speak for a lot of people when I say... (2, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795877)

...when amassing a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes is outlawed, only outlaws will amass a huge collection of Ed, Edd, and Eddy episodes.

Gravy!

Typical (0, Troll)

Mr. Certainly (762748) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795890)

*Insert war cry for freedom from corporate control here*

*Insert bitch about how our rights are being trampled upon here*

*Suggest a solution that has pretty much no chance of working due to a lack of practicality*

*Bitch some more*

*Go back playing video games and watching anime*

GPL license for entertainment (2, Interesting)

broothal (186066) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795891)

Man - I can't even watch a movie or listen to music without feeling like a criminal. It's time we invented a new form of entertainment. Open source entertainment with a GPL like license. In the 90's it was "information wants to be free". In the new millenium, entertainment wants to be free. (That's not free as in beer)

Standard disclaimer - I am an entertainer, and I do both "freeware" shows (open mic nite) and paid shows.

wow... (5, Insightful)

Bored Huge Krill (687363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795907)

Gotta love this bit:

Alternative V

(2) In particular, legal remedies shall be provided against those who:

(i) decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal;

(ii) receive and distribute or communicate to the public an encrypted program-carrying signal that has been decrypted without the express authorization of the broadcasting organizatoin that emitted it;

(iii) participate in the manufacture, importation, sale or any other act that makes available a device or system capable of decrypting or helping to decrypt an encrypted program-carrying signal.

so... this means that digital TVs would become illegal. Or, in fact, any device that would allow you to actually watch the encrypted TV, since the proposal is that a device which can decrypt the content under any circumstances (even to watch it) is illegal. Period. No exceptions. Only part (ii) here has an exemption for express authorization by the broadcaster. Part (i) makes it illegal to watch TV if it was encrypted (since you have to decrypt it to watch it) and part (iii) makes it illegal to sell a TV.

Y'know, I'm thinking maybe that isn't what they meant. Isn't overbroad legislation wonderful? :-)

Re:wow... (1)

Doctor7 (669966) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795957)

Y'know, I'm thinking maybe that isn't what they meant. Isn't overbroad legislation wonderful? :-)

Maybe it's exactly what they meant. If whiny broadcasters were lobbying me all the time about such a trivial thing, I think I'd take a lot of satisfaction in passing a law which 'accidentally' made it illegal to watch their product :-)

what rights do we have anymore? (2, Insightful)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795926)

the idea of a broadcast flag is a good one - there should be metadata telling you exactly what is copyrighted material, but it should be your choice if you want to 'break the law' and record it. At most gadgets should simply say 'it is illigal to record this material, are you sure you want to continue?' and let you choose. why should manufactures be forced to cripple their hardware? why should consumers be banned from buying/owning un-crippled hardware from overseas? this is a monopoly in so many ways - why should corporate sponsors have sole ownership of the governments policies? why should we live with this? America simply cannot call itself free or democratic at this time, and europe is just following allong.

This is how I see it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8795936)

If it has been done by human, it can be undone by human.
Human explore, human discover, we are able to understand things like physics, mathematics, we are able do describe nature and are able to make sense of thing that we can't even touch.

How the heck, am I suppose to believe that NOONE can understand what another human being create? We are able to make nuclear weapon because we understood the principle behind fusion/fission. Now, you want me to believe that we will not be able to understand what another person creates. Right...

There is a flaw to all of this. No matter how many thing they put inside the recorder or their box, sounds need speakers to function, and when you have speakers, you have two wire carrying the sounds. This point will ALWAYS be vulnerable. (Unless they invent set of speaker that are sealed with a decoder inside or they make some kind of four speaker thing that would combine the sounds to create one sound)

Anyway, what I am saying is even if they put 20 different flags, use 20 self-changing encryption schemes and whatnot it will still be possible to record the sound because it need to be played. The only thing they do, is make themselves annoying. Of course, this prevents Aunt Tillie from recording her favourite show. However, if she cannot record any, and she misses too much, she will lose interest in it don't you think?

Instead of trying to block people from doing thing, they should try to find what people want to do, help them do it, and figure out a way to make some money from it.

Of course, it seems people do not understand that evolving means going forward, it means changing. Instead, they try to stonewall people in their current model. This might work for now but in a couple of year, it will be evolve or perish. But then again, I would be surprised if many of the people making those decisions are going in retirement in a couple of year. Are they are just trying to prolong the business model until they leave?

Anyway, they either have other agenda, they do not understand the problem or they are too lazy to try to find out other business model (also there is the risk thing). I vote for the lazy/don't want risk option.

My 2cents
MrB

Taking control from the actual Copyright owner! (3, Insightful)

tweakt (325224) | more than 10 years ago | (#8795959)

Of course I know this signal would be turned on only for specific programming (Superbowl, etc). But still the possibility could arise that the broadcaster/distributor is not honoring the actual copyright holder's wishes. What happens when the actual copyright owner grants an open license to freely copy a program, but nobody actually can?

Do we really need this? What will it solve? Television programming is ALREADY copyrighted. By adding this explicity copying restriction then are calling all television viewers CRIMINALS.

Also. This thing needs a new name. Just like DRM's correct name is "Digital Restrictions Management". Calling this a "broadcast flag" isn't descriptive enough to the average person. It needs to be referred to as something else. "Copy prevention flag", etc...

Also, keep in mind, it's really not preventing only copies to be made. It actually prevents you from even making a FIRST GENERATION recording of a live program as well. Guess what, no more timeshifting. TIVO just got a whole lot less useful. No more instant replays of Janet Jackson's boob.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>