*sigh*
You can only say "who the fuck do they think they are??" so many times.
Let's get to it. Who here thinks Rupert Murdoch needs more control over what we see and hear? Who thinks we need to give him and the government control over what we see and hear inside our own homes???
As we continue walking down the warm and fuzzy path to our Orwellian demise, let's stop and rest and maybe take some pictures at this wonderful scenic vista. Oops, we can't, not anymore at least. Our metaphorical camera has the new government chip, and since NewsCorp owns the land, they are broadcasting the "you can't record or store this information in any way" signal and we are shit out of luck.
If you didn't follow my crazy little story there, let me spell this one out. Technological innovation continues to be lobbied against and crushed at every level of our government. High definition television heralded a new era for mankind. It's the penultimate step in visual entertainment, and it's been a long time coming. There's a new push for digital rights and licenses for all HD programming, which means that even if you wanted to record an episode of your favorite show for personal use, you can't. Kiss your TiVo goodbye, folks.
Allow me to take some highlights.
"Past generations of media activists protested government and industry control of TV content. They battled FCC censorship, denounced market grabs by massive content conglomerates like News Corp., whose bland, mainstream programming turned a diverse media landscape into The O'Reilly Factor and 7th Heaven reruns."
"After the mandate goes into effect July 1, it will be illegal for anyone in the United States to manufacture a device that records high-definition television unless it's built to obey a special signal – the flag – emitted by stations broadcasting HD shows."
"Let's say, for example, that it's a couple of years from now, and your TiVo (bought anytime after July 1 of this year) has recorded the excellent Marx brothers movie Animal Crackers, which was just broadcast on TNT in HD. Tomorrow you're getting on a plane to Australia, and you'd like to save a copy on DVD to watch on your computer during the 15-hour flight.
You're entitled to make a personal copy under federal copyright law, so it should be no problem. And in fact, it was no problem back in the days of analog broadcasts and VCRs. But with the Broadcast Flag in place, TNT can send out a signal that tells your TiVo not to make HD copies of Animal Crackers. So when you burn that DVD and put it into your computer somewhere over the Pacific, you get a bunch of garbage. The FCC has just stolen your rights."
I call bullshit.
Let's get to it. Who here thinks Rupert Murdoch needs more control over what we see and hear? Who thinks we need to give him and the government control over what we see and hear inside our own homes???
As we continue walking down the warm and fuzzy path to our Orwellian demise, let's stop and rest and maybe take some pictures at this wonderful scenic vista. Oops, we can't, not anymore at least. Our metaphorical camera has the new government chip, and since NewsCorp owns the land, they are broadcasting the "you can't record or store this information in any way" signal and we are shit out of luck.
If you didn't follow my crazy little story there, let me spell this one out. Technological innovation continues to be lobbied against and crushed at every level of our government. High definition television heralded a new era for mankind. It's the penultimate step in visual entertainment, and it's been a long time coming. There's a new push for digital rights and licenses for all HD programming, which means that even if you wanted to record an episode of your favorite show for personal use, you can't. Kiss your TiVo goodbye, folks.
Allow me to take some highlights.
"Past generations of media activists protested government and industry control of TV content. They battled FCC censorship, denounced market grabs by massive content conglomerates like News Corp., whose bland, mainstream programming turned a diverse media landscape into The O'Reilly Factor and 7th Heaven reruns."
"After the mandate goes into effect July 1, it will be illegal for anyone in the United States to manufacture a device that records high-definition television unless it's built to obey a special signal – the flag – emitted by stations broadcasting HD shows."
"Let's say, for example, that it's a couple of years from now, and your TiVo (bought anytime after July 1 of this year) has recorded the excellent Marx brothers movie Animal Crackers, which was just broadcast on TNT in HD. Tomorrow you're getting on a plane to Australia, and you'd like to save a copy on DVD to watch on your computer during the 15-hour flight.
You're entitled to make a personal copy under federal copyright law, so it should be no problem. And in fact, it was no problem back in the days of analog broadcasts and VCRs. But with the Broadcast Flag in place, TNT can send out a signal that tells your TiVo not to make HD copies of Animal Crackers. So when you burn that DVD and put it into your computer somewhere over the Pacific, you get a bunch of garbage. The FCC has just stolen your rights."
I call bullshit.
posted by dasfsdf at 11:39 AM
10 Comments:
I remember the RIAA giving the explanation when referring to recording off radios being legal that the sound quality in such a recording is at a major loss, so buying the product still had an advantage.
I don't see how recording some tv program is a right for anyone. I admit it sucks ass when something is broadcast that can't be found on DVD (or sometimes even on VHS), but hey, you can get over it.
Well, AJ, it is a tricky issue legally either way. Both sides can be compelling if argued by the right person. But the catch here is the Betamax decision, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1984 if I remember right. The Betamax decision argued over exactly this: the entertainment lobby argued that VCR's could make presumably-illegal copies of TV shows and movies, while the other side argued that VCR's had legimate uses and therefore should be allowed. The court sided with 'the other guys,' and it's only thanks to that precedent that you've had a VCR or any of its derivatives: a CD burner, a TiVo, an MP3 player, and so on.
From there, the "free use" doctrine developed, which is well documented in the USC. Free use means that I can make copies of my own stuff for my own purposes only: so my mp3 collection can get copied to a burned CD or my iPod so I can listen to my own music using the technology that I own. The same thing applies with networkable TiVos and their coming interaction with home theater PCs.
So it's legally a big deal because this law would effectively overturn the precedent that's given us a lot of technological benefits over the last 20 years.
Logically, it's a big deal because it's a law that intentionally and artificially stifles technological innovation. TiVos, for example, have impacted people's lives for the better - and they're even watching more TV for it, in many cases. If the RIAA, News Corp, or the MPAA had been given a 'veto' law similar to this 5 years ago, Apple would once again be on the brink of bankruptcy, HDTV sales would be down, as would sales of cable/satellite TV systems.
For those two key reasons, bullsh!t's writers take the stance that this bill - which is being repeatedly introduced and shot down - is bad news.
Blake, I agree with you that it the betamax decision was important. However, it is important to note that their is a technical difference between "private use" and "fair use". The second hit on google gives a UT site about the topic:
The four fair use factors:
1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?
The important difference lies in the fourth test. The betamax decision gave that the available techniques for making facsimiles of material from TV broadcasts was so shitty that Test 4 of the Fair Use factors could not be violated. Nowadays, though, the techniques can viably preserve the quality of the original media, so that sharing of such copies could violate 4 easily.
As a note, I think we would have our cd burners despite the betamax decision. It would be difficult, from a judicial perspective, to allow their ban because of possible copying of copyrighted material when important legitimate uses are obvious, e.g. data back-up, allowed copies of copyrighted materials, and fair use of files found on a computer (as fair use is detailed in the contracts for each program/site/set of files).
OK, so we have our burners thanks to the Betamax decision, because they're protected by the same argument that VCRs were in the 80s - they have legitimate uses. We don't have them *despite* the decision. Furthermore, while your distinction between fair use and private use is good, it doesn't actually call digital entertainment devices into question because use of an iPod or TiVo by itself doesn't involve the unlawful copying of copyrighted works. Importing my MP3s onto my iPod falls under private use - it doesn't become a fair use violation until I export the MP3s onto a different computer - a function which Apple explicitly left out of the iPod that comes out of the box.
You're the one that brought your iPod into the discussion. I claim that cd burners and mp3 players would exist even without the betamax decision, it just might have been a bit slower.
It's hard to point out the legitimate uses of VCRs (especially now that I'm out of habit using one), and even harder to point out the need for a TiVo.
When referring to the legitimate uses of a VCR, I mean legitimate uses of its recording functionality (as obviously playing VHS tapes is useful).
That's easy, both VCR's and TiVos record programs that you otherwise wouldn't be able to watch. Suppose you were out at a function during the night and couldn't make it home for 24 at 8:00, but wanted to watch anyway. That's entirely legit.
But that's not a use you're entitled to, necessarily. That's the point.
The betamax case was what I was referring to as far as having our rights stolen. Thanks Blake for clarifying that.
And as far as setting a timer to record a show that you can watch later, how is that not a use we're entitled to? Our presence while watching/recording a show has no bearing on our rights and personal use.
Granted, I haven't read any contracts for any sort of broadcasting, however it doesn't seem to me that recording a show is a right.
As far as free tv (standard broadcast), not paying for the service automatically gives you no rights for satisfaction, so why fair use? I'm not planning to look up the official stance on that (but maybe someday if I have nothing to do).
For other broadcast methods, I would like to hear a legal opinion of why you should be allowed to record the next Futurama. For one, you're paying for the service of having the channels piped/beamed into your house, and not for the shows themselves. It does matter if you record things you aren't present for. I could have long ago recorded the recycled Adult Swim line-up and now wouldn't have much use for it (since they rarely play new shows).
Post a Comment
<< Home