Broadcast Flag Back in Congress 417
Tyler Too writes "When the broadcast flag was smacked down in court, it was only a matter of time before the MPAA tried to ram it through Congress. The first attempt in June failed, but the EFF reports that they are gearing up for another try. From Ars Technica's write-up: 'This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented, nor can it be filibustered.' Looks like it's a good time to call your congressman."
if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:5, Interesting)
From the post: This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented...
So, the MPAA is now taking the route on total non-representation. Their initial approach obviously was non-representational/non populist and of course they have their own greedy self-motivation. That's okay, you can petition the government for legislation, and for protection. But they lost that battle and now look to win the war with their own Trojan Horse, a virus if you will (how ironic). The thing I find MOST egregious and offensive about this is they are sneaking their agenda in under the radar in a bill totally unrelated to their issue and likely to be passed. Normally this is a technique to snag pork for legislators and representatives, a sleezy technique for allocating money. But this is more pernicious and evil -- where the intent is to screw the entire entertainment consuming public (virtually everyone). What a crock.
Open Ended (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, all consumer devices capable of receiving digital television signals? That is very open ended legislation. I hope this only applies to over-the-air signals? Even so, I think it's too much.
The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* (Score:5, Interesting)
These laws, when combined with the DMCA, take power away from congress and give it to anybody. Corporations, and individuals alike. Even if they're not US citizens or US based. Congress should reserve the power to grant rights for intellectual property creators for themselves, instead of giving a blank law-making check to content industries.
Make sure you tell your congresspeople that they are giving power reserved for them by the Constitution to whomever wants to wield it.
but what can we do (Score:0, Interesting)
but more importantly, how can we help stop it? does sending an email from a web form to your congressman do anything? i feel like i'm sending my requests into a black hole deeper than a hotmail feature request form.
does anyone know what the best way to get our views out is? should we call/email/write?
My solution (Score:5, Interesting)
So who should we call? (Score:1, Interesting)
How can (Score:2, Interesting)
And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....
It's too painful to defend these guys (Score:4, Interesting)
I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).
I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.
Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying it wasn't bad- and I've got my own wishes for persecution of government officials, both local and federal, for their crimes against the people during this disaster. But it doesn't help very much claiming that it happened today or 20,000 people died.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:4, Interesting)
Disney got a law ORDERING the FAA to impose a no fly zone over Disneyland and Disney World into the Omnibus spending bill - the national budget. When the budget came up for renewal the two years thereafter Disney made sure this order stayed in it. Actually it came from Senator Hollings, "The Senator from Disney."
The ORDER was necessary because the FAA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security said there was no threat to Mickey. No matter. Disney always wanted a way to keep banner tow planes away.
Re:How long... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:3, Interesting)
Solving the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously. Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US? DMCA is only valid in US, until now, and a passthrough to ignore broadcast-flag is very easy to implement.
Even if US enforces DMCA to other countries (in CAFTA, for example), I have serious doubts that third-world countries will be able to have a serious fiscalization.
Re:It's too painful to defend these guys (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because people ignored the eroison of rights all along. It won't be until it's too late that the public will come to their senses and realize the Constitutional attrocities that have been committed under their noses all these years.
Just wait, when TVs no longer work because the media conglomorates can't determine if you are using a computer or an old TV to watch the content then people will finally get pissed off enough to care.
Until then, everyone will just stare at their TVs and laugh and cry when told to.
What about HDCP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pork Delivery System (Score:3, Interesting)
It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.
No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.
Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:5, Interesting)
Trojan Legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
How is it even possible or legal that this type of legislation can be appended to a bill who's purpose doesn't even come close to the flag proposal? It's not much of a stretch to view this as trojan legislation.
I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK? Does it stand on precedent alone (others have done it)? We see it all the time. It doesn't make sense that something as non-topical to cutting spending as the broadcast flag could be introduced this way...
Re:If something gets shot down once... (Score:2, Interesting)
In congress, if your request is denied and you bring the same request again, it will require more contributions.
The practical question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been thinking of a pending hdtv card, planning to buy before the broadcast flag came into effect. Last spring when the courts threw out the FCC's ability to impose the broadcast flag, I shelved my plans. Keep in mind that I have no other hdtv hardware or services, and this is just a hedge against the future. Even without the other hardware, I want the non-broadcast-flag hdtv card while I can still get it, because someday I will have hdtv hardware/services.
So does anyone have a clue when Son of Broadcast Flag will rear it's ugly head?
What's the new deadline to buy an hdtv card?
Can anyone comment on preferences between pchdtv-3000 and air2pc (or any others) for use with MythTV?
Honestly, this is about rights of corporations vs rights of people. With this congress and this administration, I expect to lose. I'll fight in the meantime, but I also plan to make preparations to lose.
My letter, FWIW (Score:4, Interesting)
Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.
It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.
I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.
And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bill riders (Score:3, Interesting)
The term "snuck into bills" is misleading. After a bill is reported out of committee, amendments must be offered on the floor during the Committee of the Whole. There's nothing secret or sneaky about it.
On Demand Content (Score:2, Interesting)
1) digital cable weren't so overpriced.
2) more stations provided on demand content. 3) content available on demand is available for longer periods (not just a month)
I think the problem goes deeper than just wanting people to buy dvds and watch shows in syndication. Eventually we will see more of #2 as broadband speeds increase and make it possible because most people would rather pick what AND when they consume content rather than have schedules dictated by television stations. The problem with DVRs is that they prevent stations from being able to charge for "on demand". Its silly to pay an extra X dollars PER month when they can pay a 1-time cost of the DVR.
Now as for DVRs needing to wait for the show to air before being able to deliver you the content, shows that are aired on a weekly basis are only available on demand AFTER thier original showing. "On demand" will only get you access to shows your DVR missed or are being rebroadcast.
Re:What about HDCP? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* (Score:3, Interesting)
---
September 27,
2005
[My home address edited out]
Dear Mr. Baboval:
Thank you for contacting me. I
appreciate that you took the time to write
and am glad to hear your concerns. Your
message has been forwarded to the
appropriate staff in my Senate office. I
take into account the correspondence my
office receives. However, due to the amount
of email we receive we are unable to respond
individually to each message.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
United States Senator
----
Thank you for your message. Hearing from people like you is important because it allows me to better understand the constituents that I serve in the United States Senate.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues - this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website http://kennedy.senate.gov/ [senate.gov] to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards
Ted Kennedy
----
That's why I typically both e-mail, and then send a hard copy through the USPS. I never use the canned text from some form letter (though I may use bits and pieces of it).
Re:Please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
It required amendments to make the Constitution's intent explicit, but fortunately they [wikipedia.org] both [wikipedia.org] were passed two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, Amendment IX is practically unenforceable because while everyone can agree that there are human rights not explicitly protected by the Consitution, nobody entirely agrees on which rights those are. Amendment X is theoretically enforceable, but hasn't been enforced in so long that it's probably too late to start now; no Supreme Court Justice wants to be the guy who says "Hey, did you guys notice that most of the federal laws on the books are unconstitutional?"
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a "must pass" bill (such as is typically used for the slimiest of these tricks) and the President says "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork", it is then up to Congress to 'justify' the pork. The same circumstances that make it difficult for the President to reject such bills now then gets turned back around on Congress. They might be willing to pull 'routine' bills with attached pork, but it would be hard to stall e.g. disaster relief just because their toys got taken away.
Where is the EFF getting this information from? (Score:2, Interesting)
The MPAA has nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course its back (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of his reasoning being right, or wrong, he felt that his country was at risk and took action. In the process laying his life on the line, for his country.
That would qualify him as a patriot.
Re:Line Item Veto (Score:2, Interesting)
A number of presidents have vetoed relief/aid bills in the past. I used to have a number of them collected in my quotations list, but I lost that when I reformatted my machine and the backup failed. I believe one was Teddy Roosevelt, concerning a draught in Texas - but that's purely from memory so I may be wrong. Personally I like Col. David Crockett's "Not Yours To Give" speech [house.gov] on the floor of the House.
Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:1, Interesting)