About this Author

Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme
Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations: The Importance Of ... Law and IT.
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
|

Category Archives
July 03, 2005
Blink ›
No News is Good News
Seth David Schoen finds news in something that didn't happen (Broadcast Flag). I just wanted to point out that it's July 2005 and the broadcast flag is not the law in the United States.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
July 02, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
That's what a column in Communications Engineering & Design Magazine claims (Fallout from the Broadcast Flag Decision). Some folks are rejoicing that the Court overturned the FCCs Broadcast Flag rules. But it seriously constrains the usefulness of the flexible digital broadcasting technology now rolling out in this country. The FCC has a lot of authority over cable set-top boxes, but very little authority over TV receivers. Consequently, improvements to the broadcast Emergency Alert System (EAS) that take advantage of the capabilities of digital broadcasting cannot be implemented. The argument is that without the authority to mandate how television receivers are built then the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce an advanced emergency alert systems in digital broadcast. Well, maybe they don't, but does this mean that the EAS "cannot" be implemented? Where does the "cannot" come from? Why can't there be voluntary agreement to implement? The FCC has a proceeding underway to modernize the EAS. The Association of Public Television Stations proposed a data broadcasting approach like the cable industry adopted to deliver Emergency Alert messages to the public. The NAB supported a Common Alerting Protocol to be carried within digital TV bitstreams. Good idea! But too bad. Digital TV sets dont have to decode those messages. And the FCC has no authority to require digital TVs to comply. Thats the fallout from the Courts decision. Okay, so the FCC doesn't have this authority. Therefore, it would have been better for the FCC to simply assume an arbitrary authority for making this and any other number of mandates with regard to everything that might have to deal with a television signal at some point in the future? Um, yeah, right.
First, it is entirely unclear that this is a necessary government intervention. Sounds like something that the market can agree on and it makes a great selling point. "You want to buy this new digital receiver; it will get you better information in emergencies! Don't go with that cheap one that doesn't have this feature." Who is opposing adding this capability to their systems and why are they opposing it? Is there really a problem here? If so, what is it?
Second, if enforcing this standard requires government intervention, why wouldn't this be easily resolved by Congress? They have time for an anti-flag-desecration amendment, but they don't have time to pass a law to ensure our televisions have the best emergency alert system capabilities? Who is going to vote against that? And why would it be better for the FCC to have an arbitrary grant of authority for all sorts of things, and not simply a specific grant of authority for emergency alert systems?
Third, what the heck does the Broadcast Flag have to do with emergency alert systems anyway? Seriously, this is the biggest stretch in an argument on behalf of the Broadcast Flag I've seen. It shouldn't surprise anyone to note that the author of this piece is a supporter of the Broadcast Flag. The FCC adopted the Broadcast Flag rules because broadcasters said there was a need to control the redistribution of broadcast programming over the Internet. This wasnt about copy protection, because TV programs can legally be copied to your hearts content. It was about controlling where a program (or portion of a program) can be viewed. It was about viewing a New York City news program in Miami. Or adding part of a TV soap opera to your blog. Or adding short clips of Univisions Spanish language TV programming to a distance-learning course in the Spanish language. And the author thinks this is a good thing. Heaven forbid you take advantage of your First Amendment rights to add a part of a TV soap opera to your blog for purposes of commentary and critique.
When the Broadcast Flag returns, and you know it will, expect this "the emergency alert system needs it" argument to rear its head. Watch for proposed grants of authority to the FCC to "fix" this emergency alert systems "problem" that, by coincidence of course, also grants the FCC authority to mandate the Broadcast Flag.
via Mark's Monday Memo
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
June 24, 2005
Blink ›
Doctorow on Feinstein on the Broadcast Flag
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Broadcast Flag Threat Greatly Diminished, For Now
As previously feared, the Broadcast Flag was not introduced as an amendment to an otherwise-unrelated appropriations bill. (C|Net News | Senate Punts on Broadcast Flag Option). EFF has more and thanks their supporters (The Flag Dies -- Again). Will there be other sneaky attempts to get the Flag into law? Of course. That's what lobbyists are paid to do. As a friend in Washington said, "It's that whole eternal vigilance thing, I'm afraid." But the hotter the topic becomes, the harder it becomes for Hollywood to push. And as time goes on, and more and more Americans have digital televisions and other media devices, the angrier they'll become if what they're accustomed to -- time-shifting, open-source media software, and fair use -- is threatened. Dan Gillmor also applauds the demise (for now) of the broadcast flag ( Broadcast Flag Not in Federal Legislation).
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 22, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
On Monday I noted that EFF was warning the public about Hollywood trying to sneak the Broadcast Flag through the Senate as part of an appropriations bill (Broadcast Flag to Sneak Through Senate Tomorrow?!?).
We now have an update from EFF: Flag Day At the beginning of this week, we learned that a Broadcast Flag amendment might slip past the gates in an appropriations bill. It's easy to see how this could happen. Despite strong opposition to the flag in the Internet community, in many circles it's still considered "non-controversial."
But that was Monday evening.
Within the space of a few hours, the committee was Slashdotted, BoingBoinged and Instalanched.
By 6 p.m. on Tuesday, the 27 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee received more than 11,000 emails and faxes. That's nearly 500 faxes an hour. Dianne Feinstein alone received more than 2,600 messages in her inbox. Kay Hutchison, the senior senator for Texas, received 1,441 letters. [emphasis, links in original] However, it ain't over til it's over. Read the whole thing ... and if you haven't already, TAKE ACTION.
crossposted from Copyfight
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
Blink ›
Broadcast Flag Hasn't Snuck In Yet - Danger Hasn't Passed Though
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 20, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
June 17, 2005
Blink ›
Letter Sent to Congress Opposing Broadcast Flag
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 15, 2005
Blink ›
Public Knowledge: Set Hard Date for Transfer of DTV Spectrum
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 14, 2005
Blink ›
Balance the Broadcast Flag with DMCA Reform?
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has a provocative op-ed in C|Net News today, offering a compromise with the MPAA: they get the broadcast flag and consumers get DMCA reform (A Deal Made in Washington?). If the MPAA expects Congress to ratify a rule that would limit the ability of ordinary consumers to share lawfully acquired digital broadcast television programs with one another, then it shouldn't be surprised if Congress insists that the MPAA accept in return a restoration of the fair use rights taken from consumers through the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 07, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a report today arguing on behalf of a balanced approach to copyright enforcement, a carrot and stick (CDT Proposes Balanced Framework for Online Copyright Protection). via Constitutional Code, which has many worthwhile comments
Read the 14-page report: Protecting Copyright and Internet Values: A Balanced Path Forward: Version 1.0 Spring 2005 [PDF].
Note: I've long favored the carrot and stick approach. See this interview with GrepLaw in September, 2003 (Ernest Miller on DRM, Privacy and Hemingway). (You know, I think my answers stand up to the test of time pretty well.)
However, I think the CDT report favors the stick a bit much, treats citizen/creators as mere consumers, doesn't consider structural reform of copyright law, and doesn't provide much in the way of a carrot, among other flaws.
Read on for a more detailed take on the report...
...continue reading.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Copyright | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management | File Sharing | Freedom of Expression | INDUCE Act
June 01, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Over on Copyfight, Donna Wentworth cites a report that the main author of the mandatory DTV switchover bill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), opposes adding the Broadcast Flag to the bill (CommDaily: MPAA May Not Seek Broadcast Flag in DTV Bill). Quoting Communications Daily, which is not freely available: The Motion Picture Association of America is unlikely to push for a broadcast flag component in DTV legislation establishing a 2008 hard date because the bill's main author, House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), is against the provision. Meanwhile, the MPAA will keep briefing House and Senate members on a broadcast flag bill's importance and seek other ways to get the content protections it wants. Given that I reported earlier that no committee members were known to oppose the inclusion of the Broadcast Flag in the bill, this is very good news ( Broadcast Flag Rears Its Ugly Head in DTV Transition Hearings). However, as noted, the MPAA is still pushing a separate bill on the matter.
Apparently there is also a new Congressional Research Service report on the Broadcast Flag. More when the report is available.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
May 29, 2005
Blink ›
No Cable HDTV for Microsoft for Now
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 27, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
As I predicted (New Bill to Mandate DTV Transition by Jan 2009), there are several Congressmembers pushing for the Broadcast Flag in the DTV transition bill that is being debated in Congress. According to TVTechnology.com, "Three particular points emerged at the hearing--set-top subsidies, the broadcast flag and predicating a deadline on the budget deficit" (Subsidies Are Sticky Point in DTV Draft Bill): Several members indicated they'd seek a broadcast flag in any final DTV transition bill, including Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). No one actually came out against the flag. [emphasis added] There is a lot of talk about the subsidy, but who cares? Subsidies will only matter for a couple of years, the changes the Broadcast Flag will implement will last essentially forever. Doesn't any of these representatives realize what a major change they would be making in our technology/innovation environment? Rep. Elliot Engel, (D-N.Y.): "This is really a budget bill, not a telecom policy bill." If you add the Broadcast Flag, it becomes a copyright/innovation/technology policy bill.
Now is not the time to give up on the Broadcast Flag! We need to explain to these Congressmembers that people aren't going to appreciate the change to DTV when they can't record a video for a friend who is out of town, or take copies of the kid's favorite shows to Grandma's when she babysits.
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
May 26, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
C|Net News has dueling articles on the Broadcast Flag. Dan Glickman, CEO of the MPAA, argues in favor of (Why the Broadcast Flag Should Go Forward). Tech attorney Jim Burger is in opposition (Why the Broadcast Flag Won't Work).
I'm biased, of course, but I do think Burger gets the best of this one, though I'm not terribly impressed with his implicit support for the DMCA. Glickman certainly has some odd things to say: Without proper protections, it will be increasingly difficult to show movies, television shows or even baseball games on free television. No television shows? Then it won't really be television anymore will it? What will we have? 24/7 static? Baseball games? Why the heck would Major League Baseball care very much about the Broadcast Flag? It is hard to believe that there is a major market in baseball game filesharing. As for the movies, sure there are lots of people who want "edited for broadcast with commercial interruptions" movies, instead of a $15 DVD with all sorts of bonus features, especially when they have to wait years after the DVD is available in order to record the broadcast. And, it isn't as if the DVD won't be ripped onto filesharing networks long before the movie is broadcast, thus completely destroying the market, presumably. I guess the MPAA's members will turn down money from television broadcasters because their movies are already being infringed on filesharing networks. The irony, of course, is that modern cable and satellite delivery systems already have imbedded technical means that maintain the value of digital programming by preventing its redistribution over digital networks. The irony, of course, is that absolutely all this content is available on filesharing networks anyway. Explain to me how this content has been "prevented" from being redistributed, given evidence that is being redistributed? The MPAA ought to be able to figure out better arguments than ones that are obviously factually challenged.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
May 24, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx) has released a copy of a draft bill that would force the digital television (DTV) transition to occur by Jan 1, 2009. I've been trying to get ahold of a copy, but haven't had any success yet. The bill is supposedly very fluid at this point, so expect Hollywood interests to push to get the Broadcast Flag into it. There are also a number of other interesting aspects regarding the draft bill and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
Broadcasting & Cable reports that one of the major issues in the draft is the size of subsidies so that people can purchase the necessary converters (DTV Draft Bill Sets 2008 Date). They also report on some of the other parts of the draft (DTV Bill Covers Many Bases): - DTV channel assignments: By Dec. 31, 2006 the FCC must allocate final assignments between chs. 2 and 51. Appeals of those assignments must be resolved by July 31, 2007.
- Cable carriage: Cable operators may continue providing all local must-carry TV stations' signals to customers in an analog format, but only if they also make a digital version available. Any high-definition programming broadcast by the stations must be carried without any degradation in signal quality. [Cable companies aren't going to like this]
- Spectrum auction: Chs. 52-69, which are slated to be reclaimed by the government, would be auctioned by the FCC on April 1, 2008.
- Consumer education: 45 days after the the bill's enactment, TV set makers must place warning labels on analog-only sets explaining that those sets won't receive TV signals after Dec. 31, 2008 unless hooked up to a converter box or a pay-TV service. From July 1 to Dec. 31 of 2008, TV stations must air a minimum of two 60-second PSAs providing the same information. During the same time frame, cable operators and satellite TV providers shall include that information in monthly bills. The FCC also would be required to engage in a public outreach campaign.
- DTV tuner mandate: Beginning July 1, 2006, all sets 13 inches and larger that have analog tuners must also contain tuners capable of receiving digital over-the-air broadcasts.
The National Journal's Insider Update discusses the "must-carry" provision and notes that the draft drops public interest standards for DTV, a good thing in my book, although I must say that there is still plenty wrong in our telecommunications regulatory structure (Digital TV Draft Legislation Includes Controversial 'Must-Carry' Language).
Broadcast & Cable has much more on the public interest issue here: Legal Center Lambastes DTV Public Interest.
Read a 19-page report on the issue from Campaign Legal Center: Broken Promises: How Digital Broadcasters are Failing to Serve the Public Interest [PDF].
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
Blink ›
"Compatibility is Not a Goal" - Hollywood Execs
Ed Felten points to a conversation concerning the Broadcast Flag between Mike Godwin and Hollywood execs recounted in the National Journal Tech Daily, which is, unfortunately, unavailable to non-subscribers (Broadcast Flag and Compatibility). "Compatibility is not a goal," he [Rick Lane, vice president of government affairs at News Corp] said, pointing out that there are currently a plethora of consumer electronics and entertainment products that are not interoperable. Lane was seconded by NBC Universal's Senior Counsel for Government Relations Alec French, who also was in the audience. There is only one goal for Hollywood, and all other values must fall before it.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 18, 2005
Blink ›
Cory, Cory, Cory
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 14, 2005
Blink ›
Godwin: Pyhrric Victory? I Don't Think So
Over on Godwin's Law, Mike Godwin responds to criticism of Public Knowledge's attack on the Broadcast Flag as well as its tactics (Unflagging Energy). I would simply add that, in the end, the Broadcast Flag would have done far more to impeded fair use then it would have done to impede infringement; definitely the sign of bad copyright policy.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 13, 2005
Blink ›
Doctorow on Proposed Broadcast Flag Legislation
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 12, 2005
Blink ›
Translation of French Decision Making DVD DRM Illegal
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Public Knowledge has what they believe to be draft language from the MPAA to give the FCC the authority to implement the broadcast flag: An Act
To ratify the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to implement a Broadcast Flag.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BROADCAST FLAG
(a) AUTHORITY.-- 47 USC Section 303 is amended to add a new subsection (z) to read as follows:
(z) Have authority to adopt regulations governing digital television apparatus necessary to control the indiscriminate redistribution of digital television broadcast content over digital networks.
(b) RATIFICATION.-- The Report and Order in the matter of Digital Broadcast Content Protection (__ C.F.R. ___) which was adopted by the Commission on November 4, 2003, effective January 20, 2004, and the Order in the matter of Digital Output Protection Technology and Recording Method Certifications (__ FCC Rcd ___) which was adopted by the Commission on August 4, 2004, is ratified. PK's reaction?: Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn said, "This language is more sweeping than even the FCC contemplated. It would give the Commission unparalleled new power over the development and use of digital and analog consumer electronics technology. It empowers the FCC to approve technologies that prevent currently used video cassette recorders (VCRs) from working, and would allow the FCC to shut off every TiVo in every home today. Clearly, we hope Congress will reject this big-government, anti-consumer approach." Perhaps the name of this proposed act will be "The Federal Personal Computers Regulation Commission Act of 2005." One also wonders why the RIAA hasn't gotten into the act, since it applies only to digital television and not digital radio.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
May 10, 2005
Blink ›
The FCC, Up-to-Date As Usual
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 09, 2005
Blink ›
There Is More Than One Way to Achieve the Broadcast Flag
The Broadcast Flag is dead (for now), but that does not mean that user-friendly, pro-consumer television is in the future. Wannabe gatekeepers will continue to push their wares with every trick in the book as this C|Net News story shows (Time Warner Cable DVRs near a million): The number of Time Warner Cable customers with digital video recorders is closing in on the one million mark. During its announcement of first-quarter results last Wednesday, the cable division's parent company Time Warner said DVR subscribers were up 136,000 to 998,000. Subscriptions to video-on-demand service were up 108,000 to more than 1.6 million.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 06, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Civil and consumer rights groups have won in the Broadcast Flag case!
Read the 34-page decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals: American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission [PDF].
UPDATE For those who are unfamiliar with the Broadcast Flag, it was ... it was a regulation promulgated by the FCC at the request of Hollywood that would have required all HDTV receivers to incorporate certain copy controls. Starting this July, all HDTV receivers sold in the US would be required to enforce restrictions on copying HDTV broadcasts that were tagged with the "Broadcast Flag." Although you might be able to record HDTV shows, you wouldn't be able to make additional copies for personal use (such as watching in another room) without a lot of hassle, if it was possible at all, not to mention taking a copy to watch at a friend's house. The ramifications of this authority grab by the FCC were enormous, since it would have, among other things, essentially given them the power to control significant aspects of the design of anything capable of using HDTV signals, i.e., modern PCs.
The conclusion: The FCC argues that the Commission has "discretion to exercise broad authority over equipment used in connection with radio and wire transmissions, when the need arises, even if it has not previously regulated in a particular area. FCC Br. at 17. This is an extraordinary proposition. The [Commissions] position in this case amounts to the bare suggestion that it possesses plenary authority to act within a given area simply because Congress has endowed it with some authority to act in that area. We categorically reject that suggestion. Agencies owe their capacity to act to the delegation of authority from Congress. See Ry. Labor Executives Assn, 29 F.3d at 670. The FCC, like other federal agencies, literally has no power to act . . . unless and until Congress confers power upon it. La. Pub. Serv. Commn v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). In this case, all relevant materials concerning the FCCs jurisdiction including the words of the Communications Act of 1934, its legislative history, subsequent legislation, relevant case law, and Commission practice confirm that the FCC has no authority to regulate consumer electronic devices that can be used for receipt of wire or radio communication when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission.
Because the Commission exceeded the scope of its delegated authority, we grant the petition for review, and reverse and vacate the Flag Order insofar as it requires demodulator products manufactured on or after July 1, 2005 to recognize and give effect to the broadcast flag. [emphasis in original] Congrats to everyone involved! Expect press releases from various interested parties soon.
UPDATE 0910; 0940 (more links); 1005 (more links); 1040 (more links, intro); 1120 (more links)
Read on for News and More Highlights from the decision...
...continue reading.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
October 04, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Today, the FCC announced a new initiative to inform the public about digital television (DTV). Read the press release: Chairman Powell Announces Major DTV Consumer Education Initiative - DTV Get It! [PDF].
The FCC has also set up a website for the "education" campaign: http://www.dtv.gov/. Warning, the website renders fine on IE, but does not render well on the latest version of Firefox. Geez, they must actively work on being clueless.
Unsurprisingly, the website and announcement fail to mention the broadcast flag. There are some links to info about the broadcast flag if you click on "regulatory info" which takes you to a different FCC page, but you have to scroll down on the secondary page.
I guess the broadcast flag isn't something the FCC wants to educate people about.
Spokespeople for the FCC were not immediately available for comment.
UPDATE 1410 PT
A spokesperson for the FCC has told me "At this point what we are working on is getting the consumer to understand what goes one when they buy a TV ... .Educating consumers on what the DTV transition is and why it is important for them." The broadcast flag is not part of that education process now, but may (or may not) be in the future.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
August 30, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
This past weekend WIRED published an article updating the status of WIPO's Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Broadcast Treaty Battle Rages On). I'm glad that WIRED is keeping this atrocious bit of international dreck in the news.
However, I have to take issue with a few statements in the article. For example, The idea that broadcasters should have rights enabling them to combat signal piracy is relatively uncontentious. Uncontentious among who? Frankly, I find the entire idea of the treaty absurd. We already have an entire category of law devoted to protecting against "piracy." It is called "copyright."
So, let's look at the example in the article of the terrible consequences of not passing this absurd treaty: The treaty's primary importance, he said, is to give broadcasters a way of protecting against signal piracy. If a broadcaster in, say, Belize has paid for the right to broadcast the Olympics and takes its feed from NBC, it needs broadcast rights to be able to get an injunction against other stations that might copy the feed and send it out. Well, gee, if I were to copy Belize's Olympic broadcasts and put them on the internet, could I do so without legal consequence? Would I be able to destroy Belize's fragile broadcast industry with impunity? Hmmmm ... let me think .... hell no.
And what would be the law, supported by international treaties, that would keep me from taking bread from the mouth of Belize's broadcasters? That would be copyright law. If I were to rebroadcast the Olympics on the internet, NBC's lawyers would set world records sprinting to the courthouse with lawsuits and requests for preliminary injunction.
And if Belizian broadcasters can't bring a copyright lawsuit, then maybe what we need is Belizian copyright reform and not a new international treaty.
So, explain to me again why we need this new law to protect broadcasters? I haven't figured out why it is uncontentious yet.
Teleread believes that "WIPO" stands for "WIPe Out individual rights" (Hollywood-bought broadcast treaty: No noises from 'populist' Sen. Edwards, presumably).
Read the current draft of the treaty here: Consolidated Text for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations [PDF].
My take here: The Broadcast Flag Treaty - Draft Available.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
August 12, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
What is Hatch's Hit List? Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) in the Senate. The bill would make it illegal to "intentionally induce" copyright infringement, but is worded so broadly that it would have all sorts of unintended consequences, one of which is to severely limit, cripple or kill innovation in many different fields. Hatch's Hit List is a daily exploration of some of the technologies and fields that the bill would likely affect. See also, Introducing Hatch's Hit List and the Hatch's Hit List Archives. Send list suggestions to ernest.miller 8T aya.yale.edu.
Today on Hatch's Hit List: EFF's Digital Front of Television Liberation
The FCC's broadcast flag mandate doesn't go into effect for another 10.5 months or so. Until then, one is permitted to distribute non-broadcast flag compliant devices. Such non-broadcast flag-compliant devices will clearly be capable of aiding and abetting copyright infringement to a very high degree. And what organization is promoting the use of such devices? Why, the EFF, of course.
EFF is busy promoting the development and distribution of non-broadcast flag-compliant devices until the FCC makes it illegal through the Digital Front of Television Liberation, which is not to be confused with Television Liberation's Digital Front (splitters!): Since machines you've already built will still work in high-def next year, we'd like to make HDTV tuner cards easy to use now, while they can still be manufactured. We want to help the MythTV project work seamlessly with the pcHDTV card so less technical users can beat the broadcast flag. We'll also use these systems as benchmarks against which to compare the capabilities of post-flag HDTV devices. We also want to hear about Windows and Macintosh HDTV tuner cards, with an eye toward helping people make the most of existing pre-flag products. Once again, EFF claims that they only want to preserve existing fair use rights. Yet their program would preserve the right to infringe as well! You can't protect fair use without also protecting the crime of infringement.
EFF knows that if you preserve fair use rights some people will inevitably abuse those rights to infringe. The worst part is, some people will infringe accidentally if the tools are available. For example, some people might record a show for a friend who is going to be out of town and then give them a copy. Without a broadcast flag to prevent such "friendliness," some people will innocently be seduced into depraved lives of indifference to copyright. Clearly, the EFF's entire digital television project is a not-so-subtle inducement to infringement.
Want to know more about the INDUCE Act?
Please see LawMeme's well-organized index to everything I've written on the topic, including Hatch's Hit List: The LawMeme Reader's Guide to Ernie Miller's Guide to the INDUCE Act.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Hatch's Hit List | INDUCE Act
August 05, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
As has been widely noted, yesterday, the FCC blessed 13 technologies as compliant with the broadcast flag. Including, TiVo to Go. Oh, heavenly joy! Oh, fortunate day! Our wonderful technological masters, those geniuses of centralized planning, have deigned to bestow on the public the ability to move video files between 10 separate devices with the use of a registered dongle. What visionaries! What prophets, who can see what is appropriate use of technology and what is not!
If only we had had the FCC's sage advice when Sony developed the Betamax. The Supreme Court, in its ignorance, allowed the technology to develop unhindered. What a mistake! Could they not see that there must be regulation to channel and guide the foolish technologists who don't understand how markets function? How dare they create without approval? We must only permit innovation that has been properly considered by government regulators, without which markets would not function efficiently.
Only the FCC has the wisdom to see what is necessary for copyright law to function properly. Courts should certainly not be permitted to interpret copyright law, they might decide that a device without DRM had substantial non-infringing uses and thus be free of regulation. The FCC sees through this ridiculous test and knows copyright needs stronger protection than that. Do the courts not see the devastation the VCR has wrought on Hollywood?
Can not the technology companies see that free and incredibly valuable bandwidth is not enough of a subsidy for broadcasters? Why, that spectrum would go to waste without the FCC's wise guidance on the devices that could receive communication on that spectrum.
All hail the FCC! Let us give thanks for the boons they permit!
Read their glorious words: FCC Approves Digital Output Protection Technologies and Recording Method Certifications [PDF].
Comments (6)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
July 27, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the MPAA and NFL seeking to block TiVo's broadcast flag submission. The basic idea is that TiVo wants to give people the ability to share video files among ten registered devices, so that you could record something on your TiVo in the living room and then transfer it to the TiVo in the bedroom or perhaps your car or vacation home. It is a restricted circle of distribution. But this isn't good enough for the MPAA and NFL, because you might share the programming with a friend in a football blackout zone or something. Thus, they are opposing TiVo's request to the FCC to build something that provides consumer value. I'm sure glad that there wasn't a broadcast flag when the TiVo was initially developed. Good coverage and commentary from Wendy Seltzer (TiVo, Whipsawed by the Broadcast Flag) and Donna Wentworth (You Bought It. They Own It and Hollywood (Finally) Turns on TiVo, Part II), among others. Follow the links.
This is, of course, an excellent example of how the broadcast flag is absurd. However, it is also an object lesson on one of the ways that the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) could similarly be abused.
Originally, the only way to transfer files from a TiVo was to make an analog recording. Although it would have been simple to provide a digital transfer output for TiVo, the company didn't do it out of fear of triggering an MPAA lawsuit, as ReplayTV did (EFF Archives: Paramount v. ReplayTV). TiVo was successful, they didn't get sued (probably because their system was too similar to the clearly protected VCR). However, now that TiVo is trying to add additional functionality (even severely restricted functionality), the MPAA and NFL are trying to stop them. In a world without a broadcast flag, but an INDUCE Act, TiVo would get sued.
In fact, even if TiVo survived the original lawsuit, further INDUCE Act lawsuits could be filed every time there is a significant upgrade in capabilities or additional new feature. Under INDUCE, intent is "based upon all relevant information." New features and capabilities would be relevant information that a previous lawsuit didn't consider. If the copyright industry really didn't like a new technology, and it somehow survived the first lawsuit, further lawsuits are merely a question of waiting for v2.0 (or even v1.2, or similar) of the technology.
What small, innovative companies could survive under such conditions?
Want to know more about the INDUCE Act?
Please see LawMeme's well-organized index to everything I've written on the topic: The LawMeme Reader's Guide to Ernie Miller's Guide to the INDUCE Act.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | INDUCE Act
July 11, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Robert Greenwald, an honored (and innovative) director and producer of films, has a new documentary coming out that critiqes Fox News, called OutFOXed. The New York Times Magazine has a lengthy article on many of the issues facing the making of this documentary, most prominently the copyright clearance issues (which are particularly difficult for films) (How to Make a Guerrilla Documentary).
Obviously, the documentary will feature many clips from Fox News, often showing them in a less than flattering light. Fox News famously sued over the title of Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. The case was laughed out of court, but it shows how litigous Fox News is willing to be. So, Greenwald is rightfully afraid that he will be sued, despite the merits of his case. Fortunately, it seems that perhaps Fox News has learned its lesson (their lawsuit helped publicize Franken's book better than anything). According to the Washington Post (annoying reg. req.) Fox News may ignore this documentary (though the statement certainly isn't a promise not to sue) (Too Late to Comment?): "People steal our footage all the time," says Dianne Brandi, Fox News's vice president for legal affairs. "We generally sort of look the other way."
Nevertheless, there have already been other significant copyright problems, according to the NY Times Magazine article: Then there was the fact that several major news organizations were unexpectedly refusing to license their clips. (Such licensing is ordinarily pro forma.) CBS wouldn't sell Greenwald the clip of Richard Clarke's appearance on ''60 Minutes,'' explaining that it didn't want to be associated with a controversial documentary about Murdoch. WGBH, the Boston PBS station, wouldn't let Greenwald use excerpts from ''Frontline'' for fear of looking too ''political,'' it said.
An aside: Of course, why use copyright law if there are other means to prevent the making of these sorts of films. Take, for example, the process Greenwald used to make the film: ''Outfoxed'' was made in an unusually collaborative fashion. In January, Greenwald rigged up a dozen DVD recorders and programmed them to record Fox News 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for about six months. Fortunately, Greenwald didn't have to deal with the broadcast flag, which would make using such clips significantly more difficult (and expensive).
Another critical aspect to note about Greenwald's film is the innovative distribution methods he uses, bypassing traditional gatekeepers: Last year, Greenwald followed up that effort with ''Uncovered,'' his critique of the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq, which featured interviews with former intelligence analysts, weapons inspectors and Foreign Service officers. Once the film wrapped, Greenwald turned the traditional distribution model on its head. Rather than taking the time-consuming route of entering film festivals or courting theater distributors, he sold the DVD of ''Uncovered'' through the Web sites of various left-liberal organizations: MoveOn, The Nation magazine, the Center for American Progress and the alternative-news Web sites AlterNet and BuzzFlash. Through such means he has sold tens of thousands of DVDs. This is no mean feat and it shows the power of alternative distribution. After all, what conventional distributor would be willing to publish such an obvious lawsuit target?
Another aside: The people behind the film recognize the potential for even more innovative distribution. Jim Gilliam, a 26-year-old former dot-com executive and a producer of ''Outfoxed,'' is enthusiastic about the way Greenwald's projects meld grass-roots politics with the culture of the Internet. He predicts a future -- augured by events like MoveOn's competition for the best 30-second anti-Bush advertisement -- in which young political filmmakers will be as likely to wield a camera phone as a digital camera. ''It won't be long before people will be shooting and editing short documentaries that they'll stream from their blogs,'' he says. Yep. Sounds like broadcatching.
Luckily, given all the major legal issues involved, Greenwald has Ubercyberlaw Prof Larry Lessig and others working with him on the copyright issues (outfoxed). Says Lessig, As the Times article describes, Greenwald’s style for distributing documentaries may be the beginning of something new — political criticism, using interviews and clips, making a strong political point, distributed through DVDs and political action groups. (See some other examples here). On what theory does he, and others, have the right to use such material without permission? On the free culture theory we call the First Amendment: Copyright law must, the Court told us in Eldred, embed “fair use”; “fair use” is informed by First Amendment values; the values of the First Amendment most relevant here are those expressed in New York Times v. Sullivan. As with news-gathering, critical political filmmaking needs a buffer zone of protection against the overreaching of the law. And if the potential of this medium — now liberated by digital technology — is to be realized, we need clear precedents that establish that critics have the freedom to criticize without having to hire a lawyer first. [links in original] Indeed. Lessig's right: Watch the movie. Celebrate the freedom it represents. It is a particularly American freedom that we should celebrate and practice more often.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Broadcatching/Podcasting | Copyright
July 09, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has launched a blog [As Dave Barry would say: I'm not making this up] (Michael Powell Joins the Blogosphere). So what does the chairman have to say in his first post? Well, he reiterates his commitment to deregulation, that is, when it doesn't upset entrenched interests too much. Our struggle to define appropriate regulatory regimes to promote innovation is not limited to the telephone sector. The Commission's digital television transition is yet another example of how difficult the struggle can be. Yeah, the broadcast flag is really going to promote innovation. Why, just think of the useless technology developed because television was an open platform! To borrow some concepts from Prof. Frink, "I predict that, if the FCC were in charge of developing the VCR, that within 100 years a VCR will record twice as much programming, be 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest moguls in Hollywood will own them." For example, I need to hear from the tech community as we transition to digital television. It may be possible to deploy innovative wireless services in the unused spectrum between broadcast stations (for example, there is no channel 3 or channel 6 here in San Francisco)...Broadcasters, however, claim these unused channels as "their" spectrum. Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open these unused channels to develop new wireless services
just look at how much value has been created in the sliver of spectrum that has become Wi-Fi! If the high-tech community believes that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of spectrum, then I need to know that. *ahem* Chairman Powell, it may be possible to deploy innovative television services based upon an open television platform. Broadcasters, however, claim that they must control and direct development of a closed platform, that the platform is "theirs" and requires a "broadcast flag." Yet a public policy that favors innovation and experimentation would seek to open the platform to develop new services
just look at how much value has been created in the open analog television platform! Many in the high-tech community believe that new digital technologies will enable this kind of new thinking about and use of an open television platform. *ahem* Regulated interests have about an 80 year head start on the entrepreneurial tech community when it comes to informing regulators what they want and need, but if anyone can make up for that, Silicon Valley can. This is important not just for Silicon Valleyit's essential to insure that America has the best, most innovate communications infrastructure. You know, unless it upsets Hollywood. Because Hollywood will ensure that America has the best, most innovative communications infrastructure.
via JD Lasica
UPDATE
Jeff Jarvis has some harsh words for Powell's "blog" (Daily Stern - July 9, 2004).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Blogging and Journalism | Broadcast Flag | News | Telecomm
July 07, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
A couple of weeks ago Eric Harrison wrote a head-to-head comparison of Windows Media Center Edition and TiVo. (TiVo versus Media Center Edition PC's - finally!). TiVo won, partly because the original Windows machine had all sorts of defects, but mostly because TiVo is a more solid performer. Paul Robichaux's comparison goes into more depth about the MCE (Media Center Eye for the TiVo Guy).
Jupiter Research analyst Michael Gartenberg looks at Harrison's comparison and adds some thoughts of his own, as JR is working on a report on standalone DVRs (Tivo comparison to Windows Media Center): First, the PC is more flexible. If I want to store and view my pictures, music and other video content, burn to DVD, copy to a portable media player and stream that content to other devices in my home, I can do that with the PC and not with the TiVo. The MCE EPG is also more flexible. Try and record the West Wing on TiVO, just the 7pm episodes shown on channel 44, not the other boradcasts. You can't do it. It's a snap on MCE. (why would you want to? to record a series according to airdates so you can watch the episodes in order). On the other hand, my TiVO never crashed, locked up, missed a scheduled record or any other annoying issue. Clearly the dedicated funcitonality makes for a more stable platform. Part of the MCE experience issue is that it's still a PC. You still need to exit to the shell to get some things done. You need to re-boot from time to time. If MCE is going to make inroads in the next year it needs to be able to shed the PC experience and live 24/7 as a consume electronics device. Here are my thoughts. I already have a TiVo. I already have a PC. Most of the people who are considering buying a TiVo already have a PC as well. If the TiVo could simply talk to the PC, then they (and I) could get the benefits of consumer electronics reliability and the flexibility of a PC without having to buy a whole new, rather expensive PC.
So why don't DVRs offer this flexibility? They get sued into oblivion: EFF Archives: Newmark v. Turner Broadcasting System. Need I mention that the IICA (née INDUCE Act) will make bringing such company-resource-draining lawsuits easier? Or that, in a little less than a year, the government will burden such capability with mandatory DRM: Digital Television Liberation Front?
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Broadcatching/Podcasting | Copyright | Digital Rights Management | INDUCE Act
July 06, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
A little over a week ago, I discussed how the IICA (née INDUCE Act) might end up extending the already overbroad Broadcast Flag Treaty (INDUCE Act + Broadcast Flag Treaty = ???). Today I continue my series on how various aspects of the copyright law may interact with the INDUCE Act by discussing the FCC's domestic broadcast flag regulation. Read on...
...continue reading.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | INDUCE Act
June 28, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
The WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations would basically give copyright protections (fixation, reproduction, distribution, DMCA) to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets it way, webcasters (whatever that means). Read more about this dangerous draft treaty here: The Broadcast Flag Treaty - Draft Available.
The WIPO treaty doesn't call for anything like the INDUCE Act, but to implement it, the US would basically have to extend most basic copyright law (and the DMCA) to cover broadcasts. What do you think? Will Congress revisit and change copyright law to apply it to broadcasters, or will Congress basically port over everything in copyright law to the new broadcast rights law? If the US signs the Broadcast Flag treaty, you don't think that broadcasters would get less protection do you?
Yep, yet another reason to make sure the INDUCE Act doesn't pass.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | INDUCE Act
June 02, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
May 26, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Broadcatching/Podcasting
May 06, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
The main justification for the broadcast flag is that without some form of protection broadcasters won't provide high value content on HDTV. See, In the Matter of: Digital Broadcast Content Protection [PDF]:
Content owners and broadcasters uniformly assert that DTV broadcast content must be protected and that, in the absence of some protection mechanism, high value content will be withheld from broadcast television and migrate to pay services.
Okay, let's skip for the moment the fact that this assertion doesn't make a lot of business sense for the broadcasters, that the broadcast flag won't stop HDTV distribution on the internet anyway, that the content producers haven't withheld content from other distribution channels (DVDs) that allow for massive internet redistribution, there is no definition of what is "high value content" (Average Joe Millionaire's Apprentice Big Brother Marries an Extreme Makeover Survivor on Temptation Island?), that the broadcasters make no promises to provide such content even if there is a broadcast flag, and simply note that the FCC has rather gullibly accepted this assertion. If the broadcasters said it, it must be true.
Now, some CBS News stations are claiming that they will stop covering live news outside the so-called safe harbor for indecency Some CBS Affils Could Drop Live News:
CBS affiliates are telling the Federal Communications Commission that unless it changes its ruling about profanities on-air, many will have to stop doing news outside of the 10 p.m.-6 a.m. safe harbor for indecent speech.
The affiliates said, it must be true. The FCC must therefore relax it standards for indecency, unless they want to destroy local, live news.
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Freedom of Expression
April 28, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
So, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the FCC's indecency enforcement lately, and it just struck me how the broadcast flag will inhibit enforcement of the prohibition on obscene, indecent, or profane depictions on broadcast.
According to the FCC's page for indecency complaints (Obscene, Profane & Indecent Broadcasts), complainants are asked to provide the following:
Information regarding the details of what was actually said (or depicted) during the allegedly indecent, profane or obscene broadcast. There is flexibility on how a complainant may provide this information. The complainant may submit a significant excerpt of the program describing what was actually said (or depicted) or a full or partial recording (e.g., tape) or transcript of the material.
In whatever form the complainant decides to provide the information, it must be sufficiently detailed so the FCC can determine the words and language actually used during the broadcast and the context of those words or language. Subject matter alone is not a determining factor of whether material is obscene, profane, or indecent. For example, stating only that the broadcast station discussed sex or had a disgusting discussion of sex during a program is not sufficient. Moreover, the FCC must know the context when analyzing whether specific, isolated words are indecent or profane. The FCC does not require complainants to provide recordings or transcripts in support of their complaints. Consequently, failure to provide a recording or transcript of a broadcast, in and of itself, will not lead to automatic dismissal or denial of a complaint. [emphasis in original]
Although a recording is not strictly required, obviously it would be very useful to have one when making a complaint. "Did I just hear/see what I thought I heard/saw? Let's go to the tape (or more likely, the hard drive)." However, if copying the broadcast is prohibited (as enforced by the FCC itself), it will be very difficult for average citizens to make recordings to make transcripts and to bolster their complaints about indecency.
I can imagine broadcasters inhibiting copying of "racy" shows in order to reduce the possibility of being fined for indecency violations. Heck, I can imagine broadcasters having "do not record buttons" in place of "bleeping." That way, when someone displays something on broadcast the FCC might think they shouldn't, the broadcaster can ensure that no copy is made by the average citizen.
Of course, who expects the FCC to be consistent and have coherent policies?
Comments (5)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Freedom of Expression
April 15, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Well, the official NOI isn't available publicly yet - a spokesperson for the FCC said it would be available on the internet in a couple of days. Of course, that doesn't stop them from putting out a press release: FCC Explores Rules for Digital Audio Broadcasting [PDF].
As rumored, the FCC is going to start the process for considering a broadcast flag rule for digital radio (among a lot of other changes as well):
Subjects raised for comment in the Notice of Inquiry include digital audio content control and international issues.
The subtitle of the press release is: "Goal is to Promote the Introduction of Digital Radio Services for Americans."
That sounds awfully similar to what they said about the television broadcast flag. I'll provide full details on the NOI when it is available.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag
April 13, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Public Knowledge's President, Gigi Sohn, has an op-ed in C|Net News today on the FCC's digital media/broadcast flag powergrab (FCC is taking wrong turn on digital media). She points out a couple of the dumb things the FCC plans to do with their claimed power to regulate digital media. However, if the FCC gets away with the broadcast flag, imagine all the dumb ideas content providers will try to foist upon us.
Read on...
...continue reading.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Telecomm
April 07, 2004
 |