"broadcast flag" recording limitations struck down by courts

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
to implement it.

http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm

Randy S.

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d5gir8$127i$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
>be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
>to implement it.
>
>http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm
>
>Randy S.
This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV . All
the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass more
restrictive laws.

 

[sinner]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

* GMAN wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> In article <d5gir8$127i$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
>>be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
>>to implement it.

>>http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm

> This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV . All
> the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass more
> restrictive laws.

Well until they do, no reason to piss in our corn flakes

--
David
The judge fined the jaywalker fifty dollars and told him if he was
caught again, he would be thrown in jail. Fine today, cooler tomorrow.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

SINNER wrote:
> * GMAN wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>
>>In article <d5gir8$127i$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
>>>be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
>>>to implement it.
>
>
>>>http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm
>
>
>>This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV . All
>>the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass more
>>restrictive laws.
>
>
> Well until they do, no reason to piss in our corn flakes
>

Yeah, I really don't get his complaint, what sort of guarantee is he
expecting? The courts said the FCC overstepped its bounds (and did it
in a pretty clear manner), closing that avenue of encroachment on our
right to fair use. You've got to be pretty cynical to spin that as a
bad thing. Sure the lobbyists will use their money and influence to try
to end run around it, but the point is it's going to be tougher than it
was before, and that's something to cheer about!

Randy S.

 

[Gman]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d5hh1q$rn2$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>SINNER wrote:
>> * GMAN wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>>
>>>In article <d5gir8$127i$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S."
> <rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
>>>>be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
>>>>to implement it.
>>
>>
>>>>http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm
>>
>>
>>>This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV .
> All
>>>the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass
> more
>>>restrictive laws.
>>
>>
>> Well until they do, no reason to piss in our corn flakes
>>
>
>Yeah, I really don't get his complaint, what sort of guarantee is he
>expecting? The courts said the FCC overstepped its bounds (and did it
>in a pretty clear manner), closing that avenue of encroachment on our
>right to fair use. You've got to be pretty cynical to spin that as a
>bad thing. Sure the lobbyists will use their money and influence to try
>to end run around it, but the point is it's going to be tougher than it
>was before, and that's something to cheer about!
>
>Randy S.
I wasnt saying it was a bad thing, the fact that we wont have to suffer with
broadcast flags and restrictive rules is great. i just meant that all that the
MPAA will do is get congess to pass a law to restrict it just like what
happened with the DMCA..

The ruling just meant that the FCC didnt have built in authority to force
broadcast flags.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 20:25:12 GMT, GMAN wrote:

> In article <d5gir8$127i$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>Wow, this is good news for dvr users! Anti-piracy restrictions will not
>>be required by the FCC. Though, of course, providers can still "elect"
>>to implement it.
>>
>>http/www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-06-fcc-court-ruling_x.htm
>>
>>Randy S.
> This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV . All
> the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass more
> restrictive laws.

Yea, but remember for every technical restriction they put in place there
will be a hacker somewhere that works out a method to defeat it.

IMO, the best way the entertainment industry can fight piracy is to fairly
price their product and distribute it online as well. Paying $15-20 for a
CD worth about $0.10 in materials is the problem. Remember, the artists get
only pennies out of a CD sale - the rest go into the pockets of the industry
fat cats.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>This doesnt solve anything about our rights to time shift or record HDTV . All
>>the MPAA and the RIAA will do is just go to congress and get them to pass more
>>restrictive laws.
>
>
> Yea, but remember for every technical restriction they put in place there
> will be a hacker somewhere that works out a method to defeat it.

I think this is only true because of how clueless the MPAA and RIAA is.
There are secure methods of encrypting things, PGP, 3DES and perhaps
WPA for example. It's only when you get an industry who tries to do
things with too little understanding and too much budget-cutting that
you get ridiculously easy to break encryption schemes like CSS which
they then attempt to shore up by making it illegal to hack it (how
stupid is that? Develop a security scheme that is easy to break, then
make it illegal to break it? That's like putting a lock on your door
that you know anybody can get a key too, but then making it illegal to
open, when it's illegal to open the door in the first place. Why waste
the energy on the faulty lock in the first place then?).

Macromedia makes some fairly clever, though imperfect, anti-piracy
tools, that, while often infringing on fair use rights, at least works
at what it's designed for. And it seems the WMV DRM seems to be gaining
ground and I haven't heard any major weaknesses in it yet. Of course it
has some fair use issues as well, but it seems to have more flexibility
to it than a lot of others.

> IMO, the best way the entertainment industry can fight piracy is to fairly
> price their product and distribute it online as well. Paying $15-20 for a
> CD worth about $0.10 in materials is the problem. Remember, the artists get
> only pennies out of a CD sale - the rest go into the pockets of the industry
> fat cats.

I couldn't agree with you more. Look how quickly the on-line music
stores have caught on now that they're offering single tracks that
aren't *too* outlandishly priced. Though, again, there are fair use
issues with most of them.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > Yea, but remember for every technical restriction they put in place there
> > will be a hacker somewhere that works out a method to defeat it.
>
> I think this is only true because of how clueless the MPAA and RIAA is.
> There are secure methods of encrypting things, PGP, 3DES and perhaps
> WPA for example. It's only when you get an industry who tries to do
> things with too little understanding and too much budget-cutting that
> you get ridiculously easy to break encryption schemes like CSS which
> they then attempt to shore up by making it illegal to hack it (how
> stupid is that? Develop a security scheme that is easy to break, then
> make it illegal to break it?

The broadcast flag is even dumber. Since it is illegal to encrypt the OTA
transmission (which is what the BF is supposed to protect), they are
trying to use a single bit to say "please don't redistribute this
completely unprotected transmission. Every existing HDTV card for the
PC allows the distribution they are trying to prevent (and it only takes
one source).

In addition, Canada uses ATSC for OTA HDTV as well, but they don't have a
broadcast flag law. So, anybody on the border can pick up the unflagged
Canadian transmissions or a Canadian can receive flagged US transmissions
with hardware that ignores the flag.

--
Jeff Rife | "What kind of universe is this where a man can't
| love his fake wife's mother's best friend?"
|
| -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sat, 7 May 2005 13:40:59 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:

> In addition, Canada uses ATSC for OTA HDTV as well, but they don't have a
> broadcast flag law. So, anybody on the border can pick up the unflagged
> Canadian transmissions or a Canadian can receive flagged US transmissions
> with hardware that ignores the flag.

Hmmm. so if I buy my hardware from Canada I don't have to worry about the
flag?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Strongbox wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005 13:40:59 -0400, Jeff Rife wrote:
>
>
>>In addition, Canada uses ATSC for OTA HDTV as well, but they don't have a
>>broadcast flag law. So, anybody on the border can pick up the unflagged
>>Canadian transmissions or a Canadian can receive flagged US transmissions
>>with hardware that ignores the flag.
>
>
> Hmmm. so if I buy my hardware from Canada I don't have to worry about the
> flag?

Well, technically the flag isn't really in use yet, so right now you
don't have to worry about it at all. But the law that was struck down
required all digital (and analog?) recording equipment of broadcasts to
detect and refuse to record a broadcast if the flag is present. If the
device does not detect the flag, or ignores it, then there's nothing
stopping it from recording the broadcast. Units manufactured for sale
in the US would have been in violation of the law if they ignored the
broadcast flag, while units made for sale in Canada would not. However,
some manufacturers don't make different models for different
distribution points, so Candadian models could have broadcast flag
circuitry even though it's not required. Also units manufactured
*before* the law went into effect would be able to record anything
regardless.

All a moot point now, anyway, at least for the moment. All in all, the
broadcast flag was just a horrible idea, both technically and legally.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Strongbox (strongbox@no.mail) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > In addition, Canada uses ATSC for OTA HDTV as well, but they don't have a
> > broadcast flag law. So, anybody on the border can pick up the unflagged
> > Canadian transmissions or a Canadian can receive flagged US transmissions
> > with hardware that ignores the flag.
>
> Hmmm. so if I buy my hardware from Canada I don't have to worry about the
> flag?

Well, if the ruling had not been struck down, you would not be able to
import a non-compliant device that was manufactured after June 1, 2005
without running afoul of the law.

How, exactly, the US Customs Service is going to make a determination over
whether a device is "compliant" or not is a big question, and then they'd
have to decide if it needs to be compliant. Something manufactured last
week but imported in July is fine, whether it is compliant or not.

Do we really want Customs agents wasting time deciding if an HDTV card
is legal, or would we rather they look for drugs and terrorists?

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/OnTheRemote.gif

 

[Howard]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Strongbox <strongbox@no.mail> wrote in news:1rkxcisgw0yud.79oe8rtd3p7f$.dlg@
40tude.net:

> Hmmm. so if I buy my hardware from Canada I don't have to worry about the
> flag?

Sure. Just smuggle it in with the beer and prescription drugs and you're all
set.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On Sun, 8 May 2005 21:41:35 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

>Strongbox (strongbox@no.mail) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> > In addition, Canada uses ATSC for OTA HDTV as well, but they don't have a
>> > broadcast flag law. So, anybody on the border can pick up the unflagged
>> > Canadian transmissions or a Canadian can receive flagged US transmissions
>> > with hardware that ignores the flag.
>>
>> Hmmm. so if I buy my hardware from Canada I don't have to worry about the
>> flag?
>
>Well, if the ruling had not been struck down, you would not be able to
>import a non-compliant device that was manufactured after June 1, 2005
>without running afoul of the law.
>
>How, exactly, the US Customs Service is going to make a determination over
>whether a device is "compliant" or not is a big question, and then they'd
>have to decide if it needs to be compliant. Something manufactured last
>week but imported in July is fine, whether it is compliant or not.
>
>Do we really want Customs agents wasting time deciding if an HDTV card
>is legal, or would we rather they look for drugs and terrorists?

....just terrorists

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> ruminated:
>I think this is only true because of how clueless the MPAA and RIAA is.
> There are secure methods of encrypting things, PGP, 3DES and perhaps
>WPA for example. It's only when you get an industry who tries to do
>things with too little understanding and too much budget-cutting that
>you get ridiculously easy to break encryption schemes like CSS which
>they then attempt to shore up by making it illegal to hack it

On the contrary, it is difficult to build an encryption
system where you can prevent users or unlicensed software
from decrypting the files, while any licensed hardware or
software player can decrypt the file.

PGP works because there is a private key which only the
receiver of the file can access/decrypt. But how do you make
a system where every piece of dvd-playing hardware/software
has that private key, and keep that key from being used
elsewhere aside from the licensed hardware/software? In
PGP, you have a passphrase that you use to decrypt your
private key which can then be used to decrypt the file...it
could be possible to do something similar if your
hardware/software could talk to some central server (i
believe this is how windows media encryption works), but
obviously that adds significant expense.

Andrew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> On the contrary, it is difficult to build an encryption
> system where you can prevent users or unlicensed software
> from decrypting the files, while any licensed hardware or
> software player can decrypt the file.
>
> PGP works because there is a private key which only the
> receiver of the file can access/decrypt. But how do you make
> a system where every piece of dvd-playing hardware/software
> has that private key, and keep that key from being used
> elsewhere aside from the licensed hardware/software? In
> PGP, you have a passphrase that you use to decrypt your
> private key which can then be used to decrypt the file...it
> could be possible to do something similar if your
> hardware/software could talk to some central server (i
> believe this is how windows media encryption works), but
> obviously that adds significant expense.

Sorry if it came across as if I was saying I thought it would be easy,
because I don't. But I also don't think it would be impossible,
especially with the amount of money at stake here. What is more
rankling is that these associations believe, in the face of huge
evidence to the contrary, that unpopular laws passed by heavy handed
lobbying is going to prevent people from trading copyrighted material
on-line when they believe that it is massively overpriced and/or unfair.

The solution may not be technical, it may be as easy as treating
customers as desirable, rather than as criminal, and offering products
at reasonable prices in a value-added way (i.e. perhaps easier to find,
or at higher quality). I think the Music industry is finally getting
closer to the right direction, the on-line services are far better than
anything previously available. If they can clear up some of the
fair-use restrictions I'd say it would be good enough. I'd love to see
the artists come up with a large scale grass-roots direct to consumer
alternative though. Wouldn't you love to be able to buy a CD knowing
that all the proceeds minus the website operating costs went to the artist?

Randy S.