Salon reports that the FCC has approved the Broadcast Flag (FCC approves Internet anti-piracy tool):

While all five commissioners supported the order, Jonathan Adelstein, one of two Democrats on the five-member panel, said the decision did not safeguard viewers' privacy.

Great.

What a title for the Salon article! Even worse is this quote from the Viacom/CBS Statement On 'Broadcast Flag':

Today's decision by the FCC is an historic step forward for consumers.

Read the FCC press release (FCC ADOPTS ANTI-PIRACY PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL TV [PDF]). From the "facts" in the press release:

The broadcast flag protects consumers’ use and enjoyment of broadcast video programming. The flag does not restrict copying in any way. [emphasis added]

Technically true, but extremely and exceedingly misleading. Were the definition of "lie" all but emptied of content by politics, I would call this a lie.

Press Statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell [PDF]

Because broadcast TV is transmitted "in the clear, " it is more susceptible than encrypted cable or satellite programming to being captured and retransmitted via the Internet.

And this occurs, how? Plain and pure ignorance on the part of the chairman of the FCC.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY [PDF]

Mindful of our ongoing obligation to speed the digital transition and to promote the viability of free over-the-air broadcasting in the digital age, we have navigated a solution that embraces protection and deters piracy without sacrificing innovation or frustrating consumer expectations.

The wisdom of Solomon in action. I imagine that piracy will plummit very soon.

By protecting against digital piracy, we also encourage entertainment companies to deliver via free over-the-air broadcast its most valuable programs.

What protection would this be? Is it the same strength of protection that is keeping DVDs (some of the most valuable programs) off of the internet?

I am hopeful that any court review of this decision can occur before the effective date of our rules.

Yeah, I would imagine so.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART [PDF]

Commission action here strikes me as warranted because we are fast approaching a situation wherein new technologies will provide arguably too much power to those who would infringe and pirate the rights of digital creativity.

Translation: Damn that new technology! Heaven forbid people should be able to do only what major corporations have been able to do in the past. You just can't trust the public, only corporations must be allowed to make such decisions.

Consumers would be forced to use a technology not because it provides consumer options or preserves fair use, but because they have no choice. Corporate interests would have trumped consumer interests. Reasonable uses of content by viewers could -- probably would -- be restricted, costs would rise and technology innovation would be hindered. I believe that today’s item, although not perfect, creates an opportunity wherein consumers will have a choice of user-friendly digital content protection systems and wherein the reality of competition will encourage content providers and equipment manufacturers to develop technologies that allow reasonable consumer uses of programming such as copying, recording, and sending digital content securely over the Internet. A technology that locks reasonable personal use of digital content will not be chosen by consumers. Nor will a technology that hampers innovation be accepted by the manufacturers of consumer electronics products.

Which is precisely why the FCC has to mandate the use of the technology, because otherwise, people wouldn't accept it.

The broadcast flag should be about protecting digital content, not about tracking Americans’ viewing habits. Protecting personal privacy is too important to leave to chance.

But it is perfectly acceptable to leave to chance protecting First Amendment rights and fair use. After all, as noted above, consumer surely would not adopt a technology that didn't protect privacy, would they?

As a final matter, I note that I vote for today’s Order with the understanding that it will not affect the rights or remedies available under our nation’s copyright laws and cognizant that it is Congress that ultimately sets national policy in this critical and sensitive area.

Yeah, right.

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN,
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

We are undertaking the digital television transition to benefit consumers and usher in opportunities for new and innovative ways consumers can watch, record and enjoy television. A digital world is likely to accommodate more consumer uses of content that do not run afoul of the copyright laws, and as-yet-undetermined innovative features for time and space shifting, excerpting, and transferring content lawfully. We have no way of knowing who or what will be the next TiVo-like innovation to come forward and be enthusiastically embraced by consumers.

But, we will put these mandates in place that will make such innovation extremely costly. Under the regime as promulgated, would we even have TiVo or the VCR? I think not.

With the case-specific and evolutionary nature of fair use, it is a hard concept to define technologically and not impact it legally. Yet the Commission has no authority to do the latter.

So, the FCC just goes with a technological solution ... legal uses be damned.

By providing some basic assurance that the high value content that is broadcast over digital television will not be widely and indiscriminately redistributed online, we give greater incentive for content producers to make that content available on free over-the-air television.

What is this assurance? It is NON-EXISTENT ... the flag will NOT keep content off the internet, it will only impede legitimate users (and pirates too incompetent to be of any concern).

As we take steps to protect free over-the-air digital broadcast television against the powers of the Internet, we must be cautious, for the sake of consumers and the entertainment industry itself, not to trample its lawful use or inadvertently stifle the next innovative distribution model that could revolutionize the entertainment industry.

Too late. You just did exactly that. Would the internet even exist if the devisers had to show how their technology robustly protected television?