Kill the Broadcast Flag

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000893032857/' target='_blank'>http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000893032857/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"A U.S. appeals panel on Tuesday challenged new federal rules requiring certain video devices to have technology to prevent copying digital television programs and distributing them over the Internet. U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards told the Federal Communications Commission it "crossed the line" requiring the new anti-piracy technology in next-generation television devices. But another appeals judge on the panel questioned whether consumers can challenge the FCC's rules in the courtroom. "</i><br /><br />Well lets see what happens over the next few months. I expect the FCC to drop the requirement, but what will the industry try and replace it with? Could something be worse the the broadcast flag?<br /><br />Also, Mark Cuban <a href="http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000893032857/">has some thoughts</a> about the broadcast flag, the FCC and consumers.

[Filip Norrgard]

I expect the FCC to drop the requirement, but what will the industry try and replace it with? Could something be worse the the broadcast flag?
Oh yeah, Macrovision can be even worse! :pukeface:

EDIT: Wohoo! My 222:nd post! Now, time to go to sleep... ;)

[Felix Torres]

But another appeals judge on the panel questioned whether consumers can challenge the FCC's rules in the courtroom. "



To be precise, the third judge questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue in the first place because organizations, to sue, must show damage specific to their operations distinct from that to the general public.

Translation: there's a greater chance that the case gets thrown out altogether than the broadcast flag rules.

And yes, macrovision's "solution" would be worse.
(Gotta be careful not to get served a double dose of medicine for complaining...)

The thing about the broadcast flag, is that like like all forms of DRM, it can be abused.
But it can also be implemented fairly.
And the opponents only focus on hypothetical worst case scenarios--since their fight is with the *concept* of DRM rather than on any specific implementation--instead of looking for reasonable compromises that the technology allows.

I see nothing wrong, for example, with a flag setting that disallows recording of live pay-per-view events, although I would have a problem with blanket prohibitions on free, advertiser-supported, broadcast content. Counterproductive to limit the access to something you're being paid to disseminate, no?

Similarly, I see no problem with a flag setting that allows a choice between HD recording at full res but no reproduction anywhere else or watermarked ED recording with full archiving/transmission options, since neither is any less than we currently enjoy.

Of course, I'm not a european trying to watch a hot show not available there or a big enough anime fan of the sort that needs to watch bootleg japanese material. ;-)

Generally, I believe that if its worth my time, its worth my money and, conversely, if its not worth my money, its not worth wasting time on it.

Ultimately, I think all the ongoing broadcast debates will just go away as the current, broken, advertiser-supported broadcast-content model is replaced by a rational content publishing model.

Fortunately, the first steps in that direction are already happening...