Bill Would Outlaw Digital Receiver Recorders

[BJ_M]

ZD-Net has the latest on a sweeping telecom bill in the Senate. The bill provides no support for net neutrality. The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts. The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an video/audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."


http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6067153.html

[Bullworth]

Another completely pro-business bill. To be fair I can understand how large companies who spent a lot of money installing the infrastructure want to get more out of their investment. On the flip side I see this becoming a threat and a way of discriminating against certain services. Large businesses would probably get the best deals for bandwidth while small startups and joe average sites get stuck with passable speeds.
It's going to be interesting to tell our kids or grandkids about the time when the internet was the same for all and you could record any program you wanted provided it was for private use. I wonder how DVR manufacturers are going to respond to this?
With this broadcast flag then would older DVRs record regardless of the flag just like some older VCRs can record movies despite Macrovision?

[adam]

With this broadcast flag then would older DVRs record regardless of the flag just like some older VCRs can record movies despite Macrovision?

None of the laws passed or proposed regarding copyright protection have been retroactive so it doesn't affect hardware sold prior to the passing of the law. There's actually a grace period after a law like this is passed to allow manufacturers to retool their product line. So anything in the marketplace up until that deadline should continue to work the same as when you buy it.

[whitejremiah]

so, basically this is like the proposed broadcast flag, all over again, but this time including both audio and video (since video includes audio, generally speaking)

[MOVIEGEEK]

"These measures will help assure that the information superhighway does not turn into a red light district," Exon said at the time. "It will help protect children from being exposed to obscene, lewd, or indecent messages."

I like how politicians use phrases such as these or "supporting terrorist organizations" to justify getting rid of fair-use.I believe in protecting copyrights but punishing the majority of law abiding consumers for the acts of a few pirates is rediculous.
Sorry if this is too political.

[Wile_E]

Please wake me up when a law is passed promoting fair use is legal and may not be underminded by any means. I don't like this nightmare of a world I'm living in! These stupid-ass bills are as bad as corrupt governments consorting to book burning, to "erase" history.

Anyone who creates another bill like this, should be shot on-site! I sometimes wonder if there is a "foreign" power, (Martians/E.T's), that want to change our history and way of thinking. There have been too many stupid-ass bills and laws passed recently and too many stupid-ass lawsuits for any and everything. This has got to end. Where is their common sense? Someone get Ted Stevens out of the senate fast. We should have the right to vote people out of office very quickly, if they even think of passing laws like what this idiot Ted Stevens has done. How many wasted tax dollars was spent revising this telecom bill? Old ass man...I hope he has a heart attack.

[Zen of Encoding]

ZD-Net has the latest on a sweeping telecom bill in the Senate. The bill provides no support for net neutrality. The bill does, however, include a provision to authorize the FCC to outlaw digital receivers that record broadcasts. The article states that those receivers would be replaced with devices that treat anything with an video/audio broadcast flag as copy-protected."

These bills are the foolish fantasies of money mad media corporations.
You simply cannot put the Genie back into the bottle after 20 years of
VCR use. The American consumer has long ago grown used to using their VCRs
and Tivos. "Joe Average" doesn't understand the difference between an analog
VCR recording and a disc created on a digital DVD recorder, both devices just
record the shows he likes so he can watch them again later. If you suddenly tell
him he's no longer allowed to do what he's been doing every week for 20 years,
he's going to FREAK OUT and there will be a political backlash like nothing you've
seen before. The media corporations can dream their dumb-ass dreams and pay
for lots of well worded legislation, but the law makers who smile and take their money
today will instantly flip to a "consumer advocate" when the general public threatens
to toss them out of office over this issue. It's just a matter of waking up "Joe Average"
and nothing will wake them up like taking away their VCR.

[MikieV]

His legislation would order the FCC to ban digital TV tuners, such as ElGato's EyeTV 500, that let users record over-the-air broadcasts and save them without copy protection.

I was curious whether such devices would fall under "receivers that record broadcasts" - like a standalone DVD-recorder or Tivo/Replay recorder - since they are only receivers. Guess that answers my question.

[InXess]

Don't throw away your good old VCR. Soon it may be the only piece of equipment immune to digital protection schemes.

[Morse2]

>>>...Don't throw away your good old VCR. Soon it may be the only piece of equipment immune to digital protection schemes...<<<

You might want to spend the $$ on a good one then - most of the cheapie consumer grade units use aluminium heads that wear out entirely too quickly. One of the big advantages of the older (pricey) ones is that they used expensive long lasting alloys for the record/play heads.

All the best,
Morse

[rumplestiltskin]

Don't throw away your good old VCR. Soon it may be the only piece of equipment immune to digital protection schemes.

Of course, that assumes that you stll have access to an analog signal. Don't forget that 2009 brings the forced digital changeover. Unless you've got cable, you're not going to be receiving any analog signals!

[Steve Stepoway]

The media corporations can dream their dumb-ass dreams and pay
for lots of well worded legislation, but the law makers who smile and take their money
today will instantly flip to a "consumer advocate" when the general public threatens
to toss them out of office over this issue.

Reminds me of the definition of an honest politician -- one who stays bought.

Steve

[RabidDog]

American Laws but Chinese Mfrs .. look at region coding.. still there..for appearances sake..

[InXess]

Don't throw away your good old VCR. Soon it may be the only piece of equipment immune to digital protection schemes.

Of course, that assumes that you stll have access to an analog signal. Don't forget that 2009 brings the forced digital changeover. Unless you've got cable, you're not going to be receiving any analog signals!

So does you need digital glasses to watch TV in 2009?

[painkiller]

Alright, someone help me out here.

If the changeover to all-digital hdtv is scheduled for Feb 17 2009 (or near there), then the current OTA broadcasts in the UHF band go where?

As I thought I understood it, the current SD OTA broadcasts from Channels 2 through 13 (VHF band) were the 'givebacks' to the gov (for other purposes). (??)

I thought the channels currently broadcasting over the air VHF & UHF had to changeover to digital broadcast HDTV format but they were using the UHF band as new channel numbers. As here in Baltimore, SD Channels 2, 11 and 13 have their HDTV counterparts as some other channel numbers because eventually these frequencies are going away (as tv signals).

Yes? No?

[rumplestiltskin]

Analog is going away...however, once the majority of voters actually understand this and start hammering on their congressional delegation, expect it to be delayed until the $50 A/D converter boxes are made available to all and not just to "low income" families (as is currently the plan).

[painkiller]

Sorry.

That doesn't answer my question.

[rumplestiltskin]

Sorry.

That doesn't answer my question.

Why don't you rephrase your question? There are at least three of them in your post.