discuss-gnuradio
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss-gnuradio] [PK Action] The Broadcast Flag is back. Please consid


From: Eric Blossom
Subject: [Discuss-gnuradio] [PK Action] The Broadcast Flag is back. Please consider action
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:25:41 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

FYI,

>From Public Knowledge.  "They" are trying to slip the "Broadcast Flag"
in through the back door.  As proposed it would cover both DTV and
digital radio.

Eric
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PK Action] URGENT: Support Amendment to Strike Flags from Telecom Bill Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:06:21 -0400 (EDT)
Just yesterday we wrote you to call your Senators to oppose the
broadcast flag on the Telecom bill:
<http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/475>

Today, we have some hope.  Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire
will be proposing an amendment to strike both the broadcast and
radio flags!  But he needs other Senators to support the
amendment, or it's not going to happen.

This is where you come in.  Below is the same list of Senators
from yesterday.  If you're from one of those states, call your
Senator today with this simple message: "Support the Sununu
Amendment to strike the broadcast and radio flags."  If you're
from New Hampshire, you might want to express your gratitude to
Senator Sununu, and let him know you're a supportive constituent.

We need you to call NOW as the markup is tomorrow.  Senators need
to know they have constituent pressure to vote for the Sununu
Amendment.

If you need it, all the same talking points from yesterday are
below as well.

Once again, thank you for your effort!

The Public Knowledge Team
<http://www.publicknowledge.org>


Contact Info and Talking points
===============================

Commerce Committee Members
--------------------------

Senator George Felix Allen (Virginia)
202-224-4024

Senator Barbara Boxer (California)
202-224-3553

Senator Conrad R. Burns (Montana)
202-224-2644

Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington)
202-224-3441

Senator Jim W. DeMint (South Carolina)
202-224-6121

Senator Byron L. Dorgan (North Dakota)
202-224-2551

Senator John Eric Ensign (Nevada)
202-224-6244

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas)
202-224-5922

Senator Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii)
202-224-3934

Senator John Forbes Kerry (Massachusetts)
202-224-2742

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (New Jersey)
202-224-3224

Senator Trent Lott (Mississippi)
202-224-6253

Senator John S. McCain (Arizona)
202-224-2235

Senator E. Benjamin 'Ben' Nelson (Nebraska)
202-224-6551

Senator Bill Nelson (Florida)
202-224-5274

Senator Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
202-224-2353

Senator John D. 'Jay' Rockefeller IV (West Virginia)
202-224-6472

Senator Gordon Harold Smith (Oregon)
202-224-3753

Senator Olympia J. Snowe (Maine)
202-224-5344

Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska)
202-224-3004

Senator John E. Sununu (New Hampshire)
202-224-2841

Senator David B. Vitter (Louisiana)
202-224-4623


General and Specific Talking Points
-----------------------------------

* No Government Mandated DRM *

The flag makes the FCC in the role of gatekeeper for new
technologies: any device that might receive DTV, or connect to a
device that receives DTV must first be approved by the FCC. This
includes computers, and anything that might then connect to the
computer over a home network, or the Internet. As DC Circuit
Judge pointed out at oral argument, the broadcast flag regulation
would give the FCC the authority to regulate washing machines, if
they were connected to a home network. If the Flag passes, the
FCC will control innovation in the consumer electronics market.
There are other options for protecting content, and the
marketplace should sort them out.

* Consumers Will Bear the Burden *

The 2009 digital television transition will make millions of
television sets obsolete, unable to receive broadcast television
signals without a costly conversion box. The flag makes this
problem even worse,  as many commonly used devices like VCRs and
DVRs won't work with new government mandated equipment. Consumers
will be forced to buy new equipment--a boon to the consumer
electronics industry, but a boondoggle for everyone else.

Even those who figure out why they can't connect their old VCR to
their new TV might still be in trouble, since the bill approves
thirteen different copy control specifications. These aren't
necessarily interoperable, so even if you buy a flag-compliant
DVR, it may not work with your flag-compliant TV! Consumers will
bear the burden of this regulation in both costs and confusion.

* Limits Fair Use *

As the May 11, 2005 Congressional Research Service report noted,
the flag will prevent important fair uses, like the ability of
teachers to engage in distance learning and the ability of
individuals to email fair use portions of works to themselves and
others. The most recent draft's "expedited process" to approve
new technology for distance learning is no solution at all.
Expedited process or no, few such programs have the funding to
replace all of their existing technology, which the broadcast
flag will render instantly obsolete.

News excerpts are crucial to an increasingly multimedia political
discourse. This legislation cripples this right by leaving the
decision as to whether news content should be covered by the flag
to broadcasters, who have every incentive to lock down their
exclusive content, fair use or no. Both the audio and video flags
gut the copyright protections that protected home taping and time
shifting. No more mix tapes off the radio!

* No Evidence the Flags are Needed *

The flag is about protecting free over the air digital
television, but HD content is already broadcast in a Flag-free
world, with no evidence of the predicted widespread piracy. While
some content providers threatened to withhold content if the flag
was not implemented, they never followed through. Evidence of
digital radio piracy is even thinner: the RIAA has provided zero
convincing evidence that recording off the radio has lead to
Internet piracy. The vast majority of music on P2P networks comes
from songs ripped--legally--from CDs. This is about stifling
innovation, limiting the consumers' rights, and forcing them to
pay over and over for the same content, not piracy.

* Specific Problems with this Bill (S. 2686) *

It reinstates the FCC's previous version of the broadcast flag,
except it says that the FCC can amend it in any way it sees
fit--meaning it could throw out the 13 approved technologies, it
could allow the MPAA a greater say in the approval process (as
was originally contemplated), and it could again say that it
doesn't have to permit fair use.

Congress is mandating the use of DRM, plain and simple.  Although
one part of the bill seems to give a nod to fair use,  it's done
in the same way as it was under the DMCA. Meaning, the bill
ignores fair use.  It reads that the FCC's regulation won't
affect fair use rights--well, it won't. Those fair use
limitations still exist under the copyright law--but as we know
well, DRM legally trumps fair use thanks to the DMCA.

It pretends to prevent the flag recording/copying function from
being used for "news and public affairs programming the primary
commercial value of which depends on timeliness," however, it
leaves it up to the broadcasters to decide what falls into that
limitation.  Broadcasters would use the broadcast flag to
"protect" their content when broadcast over television, by
claiming it doesn't fall into the "timeliness" limitation.
_______________________________________________
PK's Action Mailing List address@hidden
You are receiving this note because you signed up to receive Action
Alerts from Public Knowledge.  If you wish to stop receiving action
alerts just let us know by replying to this e-mail and we'll promptly
remove you from the list.  Thank you!

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]